Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 47

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)

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.

Are the governors of the states of Australia, each a head of state? I've opened this RFC, due to additions made by an editor concerning this topic, at Governor of Tasmania & Governor of New South Wales (for examples). GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey (state governors, heads of state)

  • Yes (qualified). See list of government sources below in discussion. Four state governments declare directly that the state governor is their head of state, one claims the governor is the "local head of state" and one claims that it is the Queen. Wikipedia is not yet at the happy stage where we can tell governments that they are wrong about constitutional matters and have them change at our request, so I think we should be guided by the views of the various governments as to who they feel is their head of state. --Pete (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No as the Australian monarch (Elizabeth II) is Australia's head of state. Unless, the states are breaking away from Australia & claiming independence & a republican form of government. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No: my reasons are in Discussion. Errantius (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No I've never heard the term "head of state" used regarding sub-national entities, and the examples given suggest it is being used in more of a metaphorical sense than a literal sense. The Tasmania reference very much is not metaphorical, but I don't believe the statement that Tasmania possesses all the constitutional elements of an independent and sovereign state is accurate, even if it is on the parliamentary library's website. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes A "head of state" is a multifaceted thing, depending on what a "state" is. As the article (clumsily) says, "In a federal constituent or a dependent territory, the same role is fulfilled by the holder of an office corresponding to that of a head of state." We can't just ignore how the state governments describe their governors. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No per 力power this is not an expected term for sub-national entities. Doing a quick sanity check on google I found nothing about sub-national entities in the first five pages. Various dictionaries explicitly link the term to countries [1][2][3][4], as does Britannica. Even in the primary sources below, the language often seems couched or metaphorical. CMD (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No The term "Head of State" is typically used to refer to heads of sovereign countries, not subnational entities. Number 57 10:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No While some may try to parse the term, the dictionary definition is quite clear. There's also historical usage to consider. Head of state is usually reserved in those discussions for national leaders. A smaller region or division using the term doesn't always equate to common (or correct) use. Intothatdarkness 14:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No They are representatives of their respective entities. Sea Ane (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No, The term is typically used to refer to heads of sovereign countries, not subnational entities as mentioned above. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No, As described below by a proponent, this is a local, novel and politically motivated usage. Likewise, the unsourced paragraph was added to Head of state by an editor arguing discreetly (sneakily?) that Hong Kong has its own head of state. We should continue to use the term only in the normal way and not extend it to subnational entities. NebY (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes (as local representative of the monarch). The states of Australia are each sovereign entities. They have explicitly ceded some of their powers to the federation Commonwealth of Australia. In some senses, this is similar to how various European states have ceded some of their authorities to the European Union, and previously to the German Confederation etc. --Scott Davis Talk 03:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Clarify, no one is disputing that a state governor represents the monarch in his/her state. The RFC question is - are the state governors themselves heads of state. IF they are, then they can't be representing the monarch. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay: I understood the question was about whether the states could have their own "heads of state" more than whether the "Head of State of South Australia" etc was the governor or the queen in right of that state. I think we all agree it is not the governor-general of Australia. --Scott Davis Talk 13:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Scott, that is mistaken. There were no sovereign powers to cede. The Australian States, before Federation, were merely British colonies. That is why the instrument of Federation, containing the Australian Constitution, was an act of the British parliament. Errantius (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Errantius: In my defence, the Balfour Declaration, Statute of Westminster and particularly Australia Act 1986 and its enabling acts have removed the colonial aspects of the states. In some alternate universe that didn't have the Australian federation, by now we would have six separate Commonwealth Realms through those later actions. --Scott Davis Talk 13:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
With all due respect, you are in error. Australia is one commonwealth realm, it hasn't broken up into six independent countries. The governors represent the head of state (Elizabeth II) in each of their respective states, like the governor-general represents the head of state (Elizabeth II) for all of Australia. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"Australia is one commonwealth realm, it hasn't broken up into six independent countries." – Are you sure? It certainly looks that way now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite positive that Australia still exists as a country, that there's still an office called governor-general of Australia & prime minister of Australia. It hasn't broken up & disappeared, like the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Prussia, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@ScottDavis:. The colonies that upon Federation became States lost their colonial identities at that point; any "colonial aspects" of the States are/were historical, not legal. The Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster apply only to the Commonwealth of Australia; the Australia Acts apply to the Commonwealth and through it to the States. What might have happened if there had not been Federation belongs, as you say, to an alternative universe; although it may be intriguing, it is in danger here of turning into a scarlet herring. We need to wrap up this RFC and my impression is that we have got to the point of a No result. (Written on 17 August but omitted to sign) Errantius (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No (Summoned by bot) – The long comments in the discussion section notwithstanding, they are not heads of state as understood or reported by reliable sources in English. WP:COMMONNAME trumps official usage, so whatever the official constitutional descriptions say can be safely ignored. Unless, of course, they represent the terminology used by the majority of reliable sources; however, they do not. All of the state government declarations should be ignored as irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Mathglot WP:COMMONNAME is a policy about article titles not content. Can you explain further why we should ignore official sources, and what you are basing the "majority of reliable sources" on? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. Given official government sources describe these positions as heads of state, it is not Wikipedia's place to reject them unless there are contradictory sources, which I haven't seen provided. In that case it would be appropriate to use the wording "[source X] describes the governor as the head of state" rather than using Wikipedia's voice. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Ivar the Boneful: in the list of states' websites below, Queensland's says the monarch, not the governor, is its head of state. So there do seem to be contradictory sources. Jr8825 • Talk 00:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, but immediately and highly qualified. Considerable state powers remain with the states. A trouble is the multiple meanings of the term “state” —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
    The Australian monarch is 'head of state' over the Australian states, as she's head of state of Australia. The state governors represent the monarch in each state, as the governor-general represents the monarch across Australia. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Have you checked the Governor-General's website? Although he notes that he represents the Queen, he seems to think he is the head of state. Who has the better understanding of the job? The guy doing it, or some random chap on the internet? --Pete (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Are you asking for an RFC concerning whether or not the Governor-General of Australia is Australia's head of state"? GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
        • What the crap gives you that idea? I'm wondering why you, a wikignome, think you have a better grasp of Australia's executive governments than the people, you know, actually doing the job and getting paid for it? You're the one who started this RfC seeking ego-reassurance when the actual real world didn't meet your unresearched and outdated notions. We can have any number of RfCs here in Wikiworld but I don't think that actual Governors and Governors-General are going to change their tune. They aren't going back to the glory days of the British Empire, I reckon. --Pete (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes The state governors exercises the constitutional power of Head of State within that respective state, AUSTRALIA ACT 1986 No. 142 of 1985. Australia Act 1986 Section 7 Powers and functions of Her Majesty and Governors in respect of States it confirm that the State powers conferred on The Queen are to be exercised only by the Governor and not by The Queen. Thus, the Governor is not subject to the direction, supervision or veto of the Monarch. This is just for the states governor of Australian states. this does not applies to Governor-General of Commonwealth of Australia where Queen is the Head of the State. Muzi (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
We shall have to disagree, as US governors are not heads of state. I think I see where the misunderstanding is though. Because Tasmania or Maine (for examples) are called states, that doesn't mean their governors are heads of state. My guess is, there'd be little to no argument here, if the Australian states were called provinces or departments, etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
The Canadian provinces claim they have provincial heads of state. Some say it is the Lieutenant Governor, some say it is the "Crown", some say it is the Queen.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Nevertheless, there seems to be a distinction between the national head of state and the provincial head of state. They do not mention a "head of province". Hope this helps. --Pete (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC but there are arguments in favour - this is a legal question, and it's entirely inappropriate to gauge editor consensus on it. There is a sense in which Governors of the Australian States are head of state, in a constitutional sense (see here for a discussion on the Governor-General but it has equal applicability to state governors). A head of state constitutionally has the power to assent to legislation, dissolve parliament, appoint the head of government for a state (ie. the Premier), dismiss the head of government for a state, and summon parliament. The Queen vests those powers (insofar as the states are concerned) in their state Governors, even though she remains the symbolic head of state. State constitutions are subject to the Commonwealth Constitution but that doesn't take away the state's sovereign powers. Deus et lex (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Deus et lex: I'm going to agree, of course, that to seek consensus on a legal question by all contributing editors is inappropriate. But there is then the leetle problem of whose views ought to be included, since those of us who have an appropriate legal background have no way to prove it without outing ourselves. Even then, scholars don't always agree with each other!
    • An example on what views to include is the APH piece that you link to. IMHO it is very good (which is not to say that I agree with all of it); but, although it appears on an official website, it is in no way an official statement (which you don't claim but others might). It is part of an article originally published academically, "Can Responsible Government Survive In Australia?", by David Hamer, a former member of both houses, and is properly accompanied by a box stating: "Views expressed in this work are those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Department of the Senate". Hhowver, Hamer had an Australian masters degree in constitutional law, so should be counted as an appropriate legal expert—one of them.
    • Let us now note what Hamer says. In the chapter that you link to, the second paragraph begins: "Canada, Australia and New Zealand have two heads of state, the Queen as the symbolic head of state and the Governor-General as the constitutional head of state." In that perspective, which it seems you adopt (and leaving aside whether "symbolic" or "constitutional" are justifiable), it would be wrong to describe the Governor-General (or a Governor) simply as "the head of state". Errantius (talk) 00:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Looking at official sources, if five state Governors and one Governor-General all say that they are the heads of state of their respective polities, then just who the hell are you to tell them otherwise? We have an RfC and they take any notice? Right. They are not going back to the glory days of the British Empire. The best we can say is that their views are firm and onlookers are trying to express their dismay that the world has moved on. --Pete (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
        • @Pete: Those sources, as you know, don't all say simply that X "is the head of state". Nor do we know for sure who actually wrote or approved those statements—especially whether they knew much about constitutional law. I have made an informed argument based on the Australia Act 1986, section 7. That is how I "tell them otherwise" and you are welcome to contest my argument. As I've told you before, your habitual personal abuse will get you nowhere. If you can't behave (WP:CIVIL), you may have to be blocked; you have been warned. Errantius (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
          • The personal opinions of editors are of no value as sources. We need a reliable source to state what we say. Your "informed argument" is merely your own view and The Australia Act does not use the phrase "head of state" any more than does any other piece of Australian legislation - including the Constitution. We rely on sources and you seem to think that the official websites of six vice-regal officers are of no use - simply because you disagree with them. I am sorry if you think that pointing out wikiprocedure - like requiring sources - is an attack upon your personal faculties. It is not. Regardless of your own doubtless awesome skills, experience, knowledge, and self-esteem, you are not somebody we can use as a source. No Wikipedia editor is. You do understand this? --Pete (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Errantius: - I'm merely pointing out that the term used should be based on reliable sources, not on what particular editors do or don't think. That is why this RfC is inappropriate and it should not be based on whether consensus is gained here or not. If reliable sources show the use of the term, then include it; if they don't show it, then don't use it. It's as simple as that. Deus et lex (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
      • The consensus of this RFC will be abide by, whatever it is. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
        • If it involves ignoring the need for reliable sources in favour of personal views, then you have a problem. Overturning fundamental wikilaw needs more than this. It's good to see what the arguments for and against might be but I'm not seeing anything good enough to overturn WP:RS. I think it's a point worth pursuing. Does Wikipedia, by a !vote, get to make decisions as to who is the chief of state of a polity? --Pete (talk) 07:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
          • The RFC is only nine days old & all you've been doing is complaining. We will abide by the consensus of this RFC, when it's completed on September 12, at which I'll head over WP:Closure requests. PS - A no consensus defaults to 'option A', which is the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
      • @Deus et lex: An RFC is a more formal, better-advertised talk page discussion. It can involve bringing sources and assessing them for relevance as well as for reliability. (For example, You offer a source that is a closely argued opinion on the term "head of state" with regards to the sovereign state of Australia. Is it reliable, in Wikipedia's terms as a WP:RS? You say the same arguments apply to Australian states; what weight do we give your opinion?) There can also be questions of Wikipedia's policy or at least style and vocabulary. (If a term is used in a novel way in a particular jurisdiction, does that determine how Wikipedia uses that term or should it continue to use it only in a conventional way? Can a government dictate Wikipedia's terminology, and if so when?) These are questions that might be determined in an ordinary talk page discussion, but an RFC is advertised centrally at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All (and usually more locally) mainly to bring in those who can add most to the discussion and who should not be excluded simply because they don't have some talk page on their watchlists. RFCs don't have to be closed but as we see at WP:DISCARD and in practice, "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments" (one reason we talk so often of a !vote, where ! means "not"). Wikipedia is a collaborative project that famously shouldn't work but does, and these discussions are part of that. . NebY (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Indeed, it's much better then edit-warring over the topic. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
          • I'm not edit warring. Most of the !voters above have simply asserted a position as if it is something supported by some kind of vote or not. This is a factual issue, not an issue decided by whatever "vibe" the Wikipedians who happen to participate in this discussion have. I've tried to put forward some sources that show that the Queen's representative is a head of state in a constitutional sense, and so there is some merit to the argument put forward (but it's not straightforward). I don't want to add anything else. Deus et lex (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No See my comments below under the heading Proposed solution. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • No, the monarch (Elizabeth II) is the head of state of each of these states. - Ryk72 talk 23:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - The Victorian Governer website clearly says that they are the "Head of State". They represent HM the Queen in Australia, they sign off on legislation, they have the power to dissolve parliament.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
If they represent the Queen, then the queen is head of state. Otherwise, the states would be independent republics & Australia would no longer exist (see Head of state article). Thank goodness the website doesn't claim the governor is Victoria's monarch, too. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Seems that the various State governments have declared this.

The Head of State in NSW (and the other Australian states) is the Governor who is appointed by the sovereign on the Premier’s recommendation. The Governor represents the Crown in NSW and performs the sovereign’s constitutional duties on their behalf ensuring stable government and a nonpartisan safeguard against the abuse of power. Her Excellency the Honourable Margaret Beazley AC QC is the 39th Governor of New South Wales. She started her five year term on 2 May 2019. The Governor-General is the Head of State for Australia.

— Parliament of New South Wales
New South Wales:

The Head of State is the person who represents a country or state at the highest level. The Governor-General is the Head of State for all of Australia. In NSW we also have a Head of State and this is the Governor of NSW.

— Parliament of New South Wales

The Governor is appointed by the Sovereign and is her representative in New South Wales. The Governor is the formal head of state in New South Wales.

— Governor of New South Wales
Tasmania:

Tasmania, as a constituent member of the Australian Federation, is both a part of the Commonwealth of Australia and a self-governing State with its own separate identity and as such possesses all the constitutional elements of an independent and sovereign state, including its own head of state who is the Governor.

— Tasmanian Parliamentary Library
Victoria:

The Governor as Head of State Although the Governor is appointed by The Queen as her representative, the Governor exercises the constitutional power of Head of State in Victoria.

— Governor of Victoria

The Governor is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Premier to act as her representative as Head of State in Victoria. Although the Governor is the Queen’s representative, it is the Governor and not the Queen who exercises the powers of Head of State.

— Victorian Public Sector Commission
Western Australia:

The Governor is the Head of State of Western Australia and represents the people of Western Australia in welcoming visiting Heads of State, royalty, ambassadors, spiritual leaders, members of the consular corps of Western Australia, and members of the general public who serve the State.

— Government House, Western Australia
South Australia:

In summary, the Governor's role is as the local ‘head of state' for South Australia, exercising constitutional, ceremonial and community duties.

— Government House, South Australia

The Governor plays an important practical role under the state’s constitution and fulfils a symbolic role as local head of state.

— Government of South Australia
Only Queensland claims that HM is head of state for Queensland. Hope this helps. --Pete (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
From most of what I've been reading, it's basically the governors representing the Australian monarch in their respective states. Performing 'head of state' duties. Much like Canadian lieutenant governors & commissioners do, on behalf of the Canadian monarch. Same for the other Commonwealth realms, etc. Anyways, Skyring/Pete & I have been at logger heads for years about this general topic. So, input from others would be quite helpful. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
The phrase "head of state" is not used in any of the Australian constitutions. However, the Australia Act 1986, s 7 (headed "Powers and functions of Her Majesty and Governors in respect of States") provides that the Governor is the monarch's "representative" in the State and exercises the "powers and functions" of the monarch in respect of the State, except that the monarch is "not precluded" from exercising any of those functions when "personally present" in the State. In addition, as is referred to in s 7, the monarch appoints and can dismiss the Governor (clearer than the constitutions, which do not spell out that the power to appoint includes the power to dismiss). It could hardly be more clearly set out that, if there is a "head" of a State, it is the monarch. Thus some of those websites (which are of no authority) are misleading. Errantius (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Have you done any research on this? It is commonplace to call a Governor a head of state. For example, the US head of state is the President, but we find:
Alabama:

The Governor of Alabama is the head of state, head of government and the chief executive of the U.S. state of Alabama.

— Wikipedia
Alaska

The governor of Alaska is the head of state of Alaska and the head of the executive of the state government.

— Wikipedia
Arizona

The Governor of Arizona is the head of government and head of state of the U.S. state of Arizona.

— Wikipedia
California

The governor of California is the head of state and head of government of the U.S. state of California.

— Governor of California
And so on…
You may not be personally familiar with Wikipedia ways but regular practice here differs from your own view. --Pete (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
And what would happen, if you attempted to place 'head of state' in the articles of those US states? Shall we begin to add all those US states, Australian states, etc to the Head of state article? Shall we completely re-define the title on Wikipedia? GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Um. These quotes are taken directly from Wikipedia. They are clickable links. Here is a blanket description:

In the United States, a governor serves as the chief executive officer and commander-in-chief in each of the fifty states and in the five permanently inhabited territories, functioning as both head of state and head of government therein.

— Governor (United_States)
I had thought that by indicating the source as "Wikipedia" it might serve as a pointer to where the text came from, but alas we do not live in a perfect world. --Pete (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
We don't use Wikipedia as a source. The president of the United States is the USA head of state (or if you will, chief of state). I think you might come across resistance, if you started putting head of state into all those US state & territory articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
They are already in Wikipedia. I list them to indicate that Wikipedia already uses the term head of state to describe the roles of State Governors. It is a long list. --Pete (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
They were erroneously put in, as another editor's mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The various articles like Governor of California are all quite bad. I looked at the article history, and on that specific article "head of state" was added by an IP sock of the blocked Politicsnerd123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I can not find a single attestation to the usage of the term. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
They have all been there for some time, weathering many article edits. I notice that you are now running around removing all these longstanding mentions without gaining consensus! --Pete (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I removed that one, because I verified it was added by a sock with no referencing and not even any attestations. If that is the breadth of your evidence, you are without a decent case. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Pete/Skyring's first examples above are List of governors of Alabama, List of governors of Alaska, List_of_governors_of_Arizona, and Governor of California. The socking IP inserted "head of state" into three of those (the Arizona one was JoeAuH2O). The IP also added "head of state" to Governor of Massachusetts, Governor of Texas, List of governors of Missouri, List of governors of Gujarat, List of governors of Rajasthan and List of governors of West Bengal, 9 of the 187 pages they edited before being blocked. Pete's further example Governor (United States) used to say "ceremonial head of the state" until it was "tweaked". Other instances include an insertion in Governor of New York by an editor since indef-reblocked for persistent addition of unsourced content. And so it goes. NebY (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I do beg your pardon. My first examples are taken directly from the websites of the state governors and parliaments. Go check. Regardless of what Wikipedia says, these are government sources giving examples of a real-world usage. Seems the language is evolving even as we speak, Personally I see no problem with this. if we can use "head of government" for the leader of a sub-national government - in Australia, a premier or chief minister, as opposed to the prime minister - then why not "head of state" for the leader of well, a state? Especially when there are two different offices, the governor ranking ahead of the premier. An example of this is the NSW order of precedence for ceremonial events, which does not include the Queen, I notice. --Pete (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I should have said your first examples from Wikipedia. Now we only have your primary-source examples of certain organisations presenting themselves and telling teachers to present them. We treat those with caution. Yes, it can be sensitive. This unsourced paragraph was added to Head of state by a Hong Kong editor arguing discreetly (sneakily?) that Hong Kong has its own head of state. Likewise, with your "which does not include the Queen, I notice" and the careful mentions of the sovereign and the Crown in your "Go check" source, we see Australian tensions and fudges re the monarchy and constitutional independence. But Wikipedia doesn't need to buy into that; we can carry on using "head of state" in its normal way, in which the heads of state of Eswatini and the United States are nominally on an equal footing and the governor of Tasmania isn't. NebY (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not trying to redefine a common term. My point is pretty significant - the traditional view in Australia has long been that the Queen is the head of state of well, everything - as per the websites of Queensland's governor and government. But now, on checking I find that five other states and one of the two territories are expressing a different view. In Western Australia, the governor is Kim Beazley a noted republican, and a politician of pedigree and experience. It is inconceivable that he would allow his website to describe him as head of state when he didn't hold that view himself or at least have some political purpose in mind. With five State governments pushing the same views with only minor differences in wording, that's not coincidence. That's a big change in official views, and one that must have been coordinated with some aim in mind. That aim wasn't, I venture to suggest, rewriting Wikipedia articles. So how do we approach this? Do we take the position that a sovereign government has the right to make its own decisions on who is their head of state? Do we ignore it? Or do we declare that the governments representing the vast majority of Australians are wrong and we know better? --Pete (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The states are not independent or republics & again, control your passions. The governors represent the Australian monarch (head of state) in their respective states. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Germany:

The Minister President (written Ministerpräsident in German) is the head of government and head of state of 13 out of the 16 States of Germany.

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister-president Wikipedia]
I am surprised that people are surprised about this commonplace usage. It is like weather experts being surprised to discover that water falling from the sky has a common name. --Pete (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
(Note: I have removed "head of state" from the section on Germany in Minister-President; it had been there only since last November and is not mentioned in the corresponding article of WP:de. Every country's position has to be understood according to its own law, practice and language. Errantius (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC))
That may not have been entirely correct, de:Regierungschef says" "In manchen Ländern wird auch die Funktion des Staatsoberhaupts vom parlamentarisch bestimmten Regierungschef ausgeübt. In einem derartigen System der parlamentsgebundenen Exekutive fungiert diese Person ebenfalls als Staatschef. Ein Beispiel hierfür sind die Ministerpräsidenten (beziehungsweise der Regierende, Erste oder Bremer Bürgermeister) der deutschen Bundesländer." [In some states of Germany the head of government functions also as head of state.] -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Key word "functions also as a head of state", not "is a head of state". GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
My friend, for over 20 years in one form or another, off & on, you've been trying again & again to raise doubts about Elizabeth II's position as Australia's head of state. You failed to do it on the federal level & so now you're attempting it on a state level. I truly wish you'd give up this long campaign of yours. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that I'm the author of the various state government websites I've listed? Seriously???? --Pete (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
You know full well, what I'm posting about. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
A figment of your imagination. All I have ever done is point out that there are differing views. You don't like five out of six State governments calling their governors heads of state, don't moan at me. I didn't do it. --Pete (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
You're starting to bore me, now. Let's relax & let the RFC continue. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Boring or not, my point remains. I didn't do this. State governments in Australia are using the term in actual practice. Nothing happening here is going to change what's happening in the real world. --Pete (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
It's your interpretation of them, that's the problem. But, the RFC continues on. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
What's to interpret? The words are there in plain English for anyone to read:

The Governor is appointed by the Sovereign and is her representative in New South Wales. The Governor is the formal head of state in New South Wales.

— Governor of New South Wales
What other interpretation could there possibly be? --Pete (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Here we are, going in circles again. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, can you answer the question? Is there another interpretation of these words that I have somehow missed? You made a claim that I was in error, and yet when pressed you cannot say how. That sounds like a personal attack to me, brother. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I would rather let others respond to you. We both know, neither of us is ever going to convince the other of his argument. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I can be convinced by sources, evidence, and logic. I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. This is a changing world and what was true in my childhood isn't something I need cherish for all my life. You don't have to answer my question. You can duck it, that's fine. I can draw my own conclusions. --Pete (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Best you work on trying to convince the other editors, with your arguments. That's why I set up this RFC, to give you that opportunity. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking further into this question, I find that governments and government agencies across Australia are using the term "head of state" to describe sub-national leaders, or moving away from describing the Queen as the national head of state. In addition to the State government sources listed above, I found:

Electoral Council of Australia and New Zealand - a group within the federal government's Australian Electoral Commission:

Head of State: Governor

Leader of Government: Premier

Electoral Authority: New South Wales Electoral Commission

— ecanz.gov.au
Australian Bureau of Statistics:

Executive government in NSW is based on the British system, known as Cabinet government. The essential condition is that Cabinet is responsible to Parliament. Its main principles are that the Head of State - the Governor - should perform governmental acts on the advice of the ministers.

— New South Wales Year Book, 1998
Museum of Australian Democracy:

Governor-General - The queen’s (or British monarch’s) representative in the Australian Constitution. The Governor- General is the head of state and the symbol of government in Australia

— moadoph.gov.au
Legal Answers - NSW State Library:

Once the Bill has been passed by both houses it becomes an Act of Parliament. It is sent to the executive to be approved by the head of state (the Governor-General if it is an Act of Federal Parliament or the Governor if it is an Act of NSW Parliament). This is called ‘assent’.

— legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au
Parliament of Western Australia:

GOVERNMENT IN AUSTRALIA Head of State FEDERAL: Governor-General STATE: Governor

— www.parliament.wa.gov.au

My point here is not to rewrite the definition of "head of state" but to ask the question, If a state government declares the state governor to be their head of state, then what is Wikipedia's response?

  1. They are wrong. Elected governments must bow to Wikipedia.
  2. We report the facts. If a government says their head of state is someone, then we cannot alter that, short of mounting a coup. We are not yet at that stage, surely?

If five out of six State governments say that their head of state is the state governor, then this represents something significant. One rouge editor could say whatever they want on an official website until somebody notices, but when five diverse polities across a continent all make the same decision, that's not someone sick, that's not a couple of gays, that's not an organisation, that's a movement. And that's what it is, the Australian States Anti-Monarchy Movement. --Pete (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

My goodness. What if the mayor of Sydney declares himself a head of state? or the Tasmanian parliament declares that the moon doesn't exist? GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has to record the correct usage. That is primarily a legal question. I believe I have shown above—referring to the Australia Act 1986, s 7—that, if anybody is the "head" of an Australian State, it is the monarch. Thus websites that say it is the Governor are wrong.
We do not know who has written any site; but we do know that none of them has force of law. It also cannot be assumed that a statement in a government information site is actually the view of the government. Each of these sites may be just copying others—or, even, Wikipedia. Errantius (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The term "head of state" has no legal force in any Australian jurisdiction apart from laws relating to the protection and protocol of visiting heads of state and their immunity from prosecution etc. While, yes, the appearance of similar terminology over various State and Commonwealth websites could be a matter of coincidence, or a bunch of editors declaring whatever they want until the boss notices, I suggest that this is unlikely. Governors tend to be people with long records of service in politics, the law, or the military who pay close attention to language, especially in documents publicly describing their role. Perhaps you could test your opinion by using the "Contact" features of the websites to bring your deep concerns about legality and propriety to official view? My guess is that they would respond by saying something like "Yes, thank you, we changed the wording in 20xx and it is very good of you to notice. The Governor approves all documents released under their name including this website." You haven't done this, I suggest, so your theory of conspiracy likewise has no force. --Pete (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification that the "Australian States Anti-Monarchy Movement" is redefining "head of state" for its own political purposes. Our "response" to that should merely be to continue to use the term in its normal internationally recognised sense. We do not expect that "Elected governments must bow to Wikipedia", nor does Wikipedia bow to elected governments. Thank you too for your revealing disparagement "that's not someone sick, that's not a couple of gays". NebY (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I take it that you are unfamiliar with the lyrics of Alice's Restaurant. In this case I have tidied up Guthrie's terms. --Pete (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, we should not be pushing the "Australian States Anti-Monarchy Movement" 's political goals, onto Wikipedia. That would be a clear breach of WP:ADVOCATE, which the project disallows. Want to change your 'head of state'? have a referendum. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Pish. Go check your Arlo Guthrie. Neither States nor Commonwealth require a referendum. The term is not used in any of their constitutions. As we see, they have made the change without seeking anybody's approval but themselves, which is what sovereignty means. Complain all you want, they have done it, and I doubt they are going back. --Pete (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
As anybody who has an elementary acquaintance with Australian constitutional law would be aware, the Commonwealth Constitution can be changed only by a referendum: s 128. Although the term "referendum" is not used there, it is used in the implementing legislation: Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. That section and that act were used in 1999 for a referendum on the monarchy (head of state). As to the States, for example the term "referendum" is used in the constitution of New South Wales: Constitution Act 1902, ss 5B, 7A and 7B; as well as in legislation providing for an amendment procedure: Constitution Further Amendment (Referendum) Act 1930.
The idea that changes to government information websites are acts of sovereignty is very strange.
You do not know or trouble to find out what you are talking about and habitually abuse those who disagree. It would be of benefit to WP if you were to take yourself out of it. Errantius (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah. I see your mistake. It is the term "head of state" that is not found in the Constitution. Nor in the constitutions of the various states. Therefore a referendum is not required to change the document. "Head of State" is not a term with any legal force or definition here. As I say, if the current usage by the various jurisdictions is causing uncertainty in your mind, feel free to contact them to clear things up. If you could avoid lambasting me for your errors, that would aid civil discussion here. --Pete (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Since 2004. You've been pushing Wikipedia to stop recognising the Australian monarch as head of state. That's one heck of a long running campaign, for a single topic. Steve Bray, eat your heart out. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
That is untrue. My aim is to document the debate over the term, which was a significant factor in the 1999 referendum. The monarchists claimed it was the Governor-General, the republicans said it was the Queen, and it was confusion that reigned.

Who is the Head of State? This is an issue that will be debated during the referendum campaign. The term head of state is not mentioned in the present Constitution. Some people see the Queen as the head of state because formal powers are conferred on her by the Constitution and she appoints the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. Others see the Governor-General as now the head of state because he exercises those powers.

— Australianpolitics.com 1999]
You got to admit that when a nation is divided over the issue of who is the head of state then that's something notable! My own personal opinion is that usage is divided. --Pete (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I truly feel pity for you, honestly. You just can't let it go & never will be able to let it go :( GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

States as semi-nations

It is worth mentioning that the Australian States retain some elements of their pre-Federation stature. I am reminded of the National Gallery of Victoria, which has retained that name since 1875, well before Federation. The various State Governors are not claiming to be the Commonwealth head of state, nor are they rejecting the representation of the Queen. It has been noted earlier - at the time of the republic referendum in 1999 - that a Yes vote there would not have changed the affairs of the States, and they would have had to make their own arrangements or not. Some comments were made at the time of the referendum and after, for example here by Professor Greg Craven, who definitely knows his stuff.

Craven notes that a referendum within Western Australia would be required to change the role of the Governor, who is described as the Queen's representative in s50 and any change would specifically require a referendum under s73(2). However the term "head of state" is not mentioned within the WA Constitution. There does not seem to be any difficulty in giving the State Governor the title of Head of State. I doubt if any of the other State constitutions have radically different arrangements. --Pete (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Australia is a sovereign state & constitutional monarchy, who's head of state is the monarch. The Australian monarch is represented by the governor-general in Australia & by the state governors in Australia's states. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
More space-wasting. The "pre-Federation stature" (status?) of each Australian State was, of course, that of a British colony. If the colony of Victoria thought of itself as a "nation", that could only have been a cultural identity and nothing to do with sovereignty. Errantius (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, I'd prefer you address the constitutional matters, but isn't cultural identity exactly what sovereignty is? Doing things the way you want, calling things by the names you select, having things your own way without a bunch of foreigners telling you otherwise? Victoria called its foremost art gallery the National Gallery of Victoria in 1875, long before there was a nation of Australia. Evidently they considered themselves as having some sort of national status. They had a navy, they had an army, they had customs offices and many of the trappings of a nation. Victoria gained immense wealth from the goldfields and with that came a large measure of self-assurance. They dealt with the visit of a warship of the Confederacy without reference to London. George Higinbotham, the pre-federation Victorian Attorney-General and later Chief Justice of the Victorian Supreme Court declared that Victoria was more than just an outpost of empire:

He asserted that the executive government and the Parliament of Victoria possessed ‘plenary rights of self-government in internal affairs for the people of Victoria’, identical to Westminster’s plenary power over ‘the internal affairs of Great Britain’. Further, he held that the government of Victoria alone had ‘the right to influence, guide, and control (the Governor} in the exercise of his constitutional powers’, and that the Governor enjoyed ‘the same freedom and independence with regard to (the colony) that Her Majesty does in Great Britain’.

— Melbourne University Law Review
It appears that the actual legal authorities of Victoria at the time did not share your rather patronising and unresearched views. --Pete (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
"...your rather patronising and unresearched views". Do be careful with your posts, as they're bordering on breaching WP:CIVIL. The RFC is only nine days old, so calm down. GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Does Australia the country still exist? Or has it broken up into six independent countries

I'm getting the impression that (see survey above) @ScottDavis: & @Michael Bednarek: believe that Australia has broken up into six separate independent countries. If that were true? there'd be 'no' Australian monarch, 'no' governor-general of Australia & no prime minister of Australia, indeed 'no' Australian government. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

We are still working on it. All hail King Mark the 1st. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC) }}
I thought it had already happened? Jr8825 • Talk 00:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The sarcasm in my remark above was obviously too subtle. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Your position is that the Prime Minister is the head of government of the Commonwealth of Australia, I presume? We may easily see who that is by consulting various lists such as the one maintained by the United Nations here. We find that his name and title is:

HEAD OF GOVERNMENT AUSTRALIA: His Excellency Mr. Scott Morrison , MP. Full Title: Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia

There are no listings for the heads of government of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland etc. because these entities are not members of the United Nations.
So, is your position that because the Australian States (and the Canadian Provinces etc.) are not members of the United Nations, they do not have heads of government? You might run into trouble with the governments of these entities there, because their position is that they have a head of government. Or is it that only members of the United Nations can be described as nations? If so, you will run into difficulties with the First Nations brigade, who will assign you all sorts of titles, none of them aimed at encouraging your self-esteem.
So, if entities such as Canadian provinces and Australian states may have heads of government, then why not heads of state? It is commonplace for government and executive to have different heads depending on the system. The United States has the two in one person, other entities have two people.
I imagine that you will agree with me that the Commonwealth of Australia has nine different heads of government in the various premiers, chief ministers, and prime minister. Nobody but you is putting forward the notion that there are nine different nations because there are nine different governments, each with a distinct head of government. Clearly, that is ridiculous. But you will agree with me, I am quite sure, that there are six different states. --Pete (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
No, two editors in the survey appear to be suggesting that Australia as a Commonwealth realm, no longer exists & in its place are six separate Commonwealth realms, which would bring the total up (among all commonwealth realms) from 16 to 21 & overall membership (in the Commonwealth of Nations) from 54 to 59. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I rather imagined that I was pulling your logic apart, but never mind. I think you may have missed the point. You can have the final bluster if you wish. --Pete (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
If your interest in the topic of Head of state, has expanded beyond Australian politics? Let me know, please. I'll happily bring up your views at WP:CANADA, concerning the status of the lieutenant governors & commissioners. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
PS - You're free to go over to the WikiProjects covering Canadian & American politics & try to convince them that Canadian provincial lieutenant governors & territorial commissioners, American state & territorial governors are heads of state. But be prepared to be laughed off those WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
So why didn't you pick a more appropriate forum, such as, oh, I don't know, the Australian Wikipedians Notice Board, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You appear to be getting cranky. Why is that? PS - If you're bothered, that I didn't select a WikiProject of your personal choice? You may (by all means) report me to WP:ANI. Oh btw, this RFC is mentioned via link at said Australian WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
User:GoodDay I don't think the US Politics WikiProject would need to be convinced of that, given both the article Governor (United States) and individual articles (e.g. Governor of New York) describe state governors as heads of state. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"Functioning as", not "are". GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ivar the Boneful:, are you planning on adding all 50 US states to the Head of state article? GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Ivar the Boneful@. after examining those, I don't think they're good examples and more a case of Wikipedia not being a reliable source. NebY (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Of the 50 US governor articles, only 14 were using 'head of state'. I've since corrected them. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, there's inconsistencies across the US state & territorial governors articles. Some say "head of state and government", some say "head of government", some say "chief executive", etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
“Country” is not a term that is rigorously defined, and is avoided when one wants to be precise. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
That's a controversial word, in relation to the United Kingdom & its four parts. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed solution

Note: this section was called "Summary and proposed solution" and placed after the Survey section, giving at least one editor the impression that discussion had ended and an uninvolved editor was summarising. This isn't the case, so I've moved this section into the Discussion section and amended the heading, adding this note for clarity. NebY (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Clearly discussion is ongoing. My intention is to present a solution that acknowledges the substantive concerns of all editors contributing. The major reason for a No !vote is that the term "head of state" is not commonly applied to a sub-national polity. I think that this is a valid opinion, although my personal view is that a wider definition is available.
However, it does not address the reason I first raised this matter elsewhere on an Australian noticeboard, and that is that the viceregal officers within Australia (Governor-General and five of the six State governors) have recently taken to identifying themselves as heads of state. Those advocating a Yes !vote see this as worth noting.
Finding a way to accommodate both views is productive; I don't think the matter is quite so Yes/No clearcut as the proposer of this RfC makes out. Our aim should be to inform our readers rather than pursue some political agenda. WP:NPOV requires that we present reliably sourced positions fairly, rather than simply ignoring those we find inconvenient or uncomfortable to our own personal views as editors and counting noses to find a majority view as to what should be ignored. That is not how Wikipedia works. --Pete (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

________________________________________

User:GoodDay commenced this RfC on 13 August. This was a follow up to a discussion he started on Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board a few hours earlier concerning the status of two Australian State governors, who I pointed out, now claimed on their websites to be heads of state of their States. Why he felt that this was a question for anyone but Australians with a knowledge and an interest in Australian affairs is unknown, then again, he's a Canadian and of course Canadians are special people, dearly loved.

Anyway, here we are. The situation is that the Australian Governor-General and five Governors of the six Australian States (Queensland being the exception) are now claiming on their government websites, to be the head of state of their polity. Australian States are ex-British colonies with local representative democracies on the British model dating from the mid 1800s after some time as penal settlements or regions of the oldest colony (New South Wales, first settled by the British in 1788). In 1901 they all federated to form the Commonwealth of Australia, which took over such functions as defence, customs, foreign affairs, postal service etc., much as the original Thirteen Colonies formed the United States of America.

Each of these officers claim on their websites to be representatives of the Queen, as per the constitutional formula dating from the days of empire where "the Queen" was understood to mean the Queen as advised by the British Government, and local governors represented the British Government. With the passage of the Statute of Westminster the United Kingdom gave up any authority over the former colonies such as Australia, New Zealand, India etc. and the British monarch was now advised on any relevant matters (such as the appointment of governors-general) by the local Prime Minister. The vice-regal officers ceased to represent the British Government, who now appointed High Commissioners (Ambassadors in Imperial terminology) to perform that function, but the governors-general were still constitutionally representatives of the monarch and they flew the flag and handed out medals and received ambassadors and so on as before. They might be representatives of the Queen, but they are not agents or deputies, and they do not take instructions from Buckingham Palace. They occupy the same position with regard to their local governments as the Queen does in relation to the British Government. Here ends the lesson for non-Commonwealth editors.

GoodDay posed his question, avoiding the new status of the Australian Governors, as to whether they were heads of state. No explanation, no links, no nothing. The conventional use of "head of state" is the formal head of a national entity. A King or a President, often the same person (in a system such as the USA) as the head of government, or (such as in France or Ireland) the President and the Prime Minister have differing roles.

Naturally the use of "head of state" to identify the executive head of a sub-national entity is an unconventional usage. Nevertheless, five Australian States are now using this title, and the question is how do we respond.

1. Seven editors responded No because "head of state" is a term traditionally used to identify leaders of nations. A king leads a kingdom, a president a republic etc. • User:力 • User:Chipmunkdavis • User:Number 57 • User:Intothatdarkness • User:BristolTreeHouse • User:NebY • User:Mathglot

2. Three editors disagreed with the governors' claims. They knew better. One said that a representative of someone else could not be a head of state. • User:GoodDay • User:Errantius • User:Sea_Ane

3. Six editors said Yes with varying degrees of qualification. One editor made the comment, "We can't just ignore how the state governments describe their governors." • User:Skyring • User:Michael Bednarek • User:ScottDavis • User:Ivar the Boneful • User:SmokeyJoe • User:Deus et lex (who !voted Bad RfC but there are arguments in favour)

I'm not seeing a consensus of opinion there.

Position 1 holds some merit in that the term "head of state" is not one usually associated with leaders of sub-national entitites and perhaps Wikipedia should not identify such officers as "heads of state" in Wikivoice. I was amused to see that when I pointed out that Wikipedia did in fact do this in many articles, some editors immediately scurried around to change this to their point of view, sources and wikiprocesss be damned. They didn't erase all such references, not by a long chalk, but nevertheless their view is clear: heads of state are heads of countries, not states. We say:

A head of state (or chief of state) is the public persona who officially embodies a state in its unity and legitimacy.

— Head of state

Position 2 is a precarious one. As Wikipedia editors, who are we to disagree with those who are actually describing themselves as a head of state and actually holding a position where they are the head of the executive, as opposed to the head of the government? If the source is reliable, then it is hardly the position of Wikipedia to say that they are wrong. After all, in the six cases of the Australian Governor-General and the five State Governors, nobody else is claiming that they are the head of state. The Queen certainly is not. Is Wikipedia in the business of determining who is a head of state and who is not? Not yet, I say.

Position 3 is that the officers may be described as heads of state with various qualifications. For example, if the Governor of Queensland is not claiming to be the head of state of Queensland, and that the head of state is the Queen, then we can hardly slap him in the face and say that he is wrong.

His Excellency the Honourable Paul de Jersey AC CVO is the 26th Governor of Queensland and representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queensland’s Head of State.

— Government House, Queensland
If they say that they are the representative of the monarch but also head of state, then we might note both claims. several made the point that we should not ignore the sources.

Perhaps Wikiwide usage of the term head of state might be clarified. To my mind it seems odd that a State cannot have a head of state. After all, it has a government and a head of government. Why not a head of state? That might be a better RfC than what we have here, focussed on Australian matters.

My suggestion for a consensus position is that we do not call a sub-national leader a "head of state" in Wikivoice but honour the source by using phrasing such as

The Governor describes their role as being the formal head of state for New South Wales.

This is a direct quote from her website and nobody can reasonably take exception to this. --Pete (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
BTW - I chose No because "Head of state" is associated with sovereign states (i.e. independent countries). Skyring, has mis-categorised me. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
My suggestion for a consensus position is that we do not call a sub-national leader a "head of state" in Wikivoice but honour the source by using phrasing such as

The Governor describes their role as being the formal head of state for New South Wales.

This is a direct quote from her website and nobody can reasonably take exception to this. --Pete (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Which amounts to No to the question asked. Then I have no objection to noting in the body of an article that so-and-so thinks they are in some sense a HoS; that is indeed significant, whether they are right or not. Errantius (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
No offence, Errantius, but you might like to tidy up your late-night comments above. As to my response amounting to No you are in error, and my answer remains unchanged as Yes. My position is that a sovereign state is at perfect liberty to name as head of state whomsoever they choose, and we should respect that and report it accurately, albeit perhaps not in Wikivoice. --Pete (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Nothing has changed concerning the status of the state governors. IF there's no consensus on anything? The result is to maintain status quo, which is governors are not heads of state. The governors represent the Australian head of state (the monarch) in their respective states. Last time I checked, the six states hadn't become independent republics. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Well put, GoodDay. Pete appears to be proposing that this RfC be ended by agreement (see WP:RFCEND) and both GoodDay and I support that in principle.
All editors might agree on No, since there is a majority of No votes and some of the Yes votes are qualified; somehow I doubt that we will agree on that. Or we might agree that that there is no consensus; in that case, the status quo remains.
The status quo, I believe, is:
  1. A Governor should not be described as "head of state".
  2. This does not prevent also reporting, with quotation, that a Governor thinks that they are in some sense "head of (the) state". Such a significant statement on a Governor's website can be presumed to have the Governor's approval; but no comparable presumption can be made about other official websites.
Can we agree that this is the status quo and that it remains? Errantius (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
If I had been aware of this discussion any earlier, I would have voted No. I agree with Deus et lex that the question is a legal question, and I agree with Errantius's statement of the status quo. The answer to the question, in my view, is to be found in the preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), which makes clear that the people (ie not the parliaments or executive governments) of the various Australian colonies had agreed to unite "under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". At the request of the "people', the UK Parliament also enacted a Constitution to which, by section 106, the constitutions of the various Australian States were expressly made subordinate. Since 1952, the Crown has meant the Queen, of whom the Governor-General and the various State governors are merely representatives. No amount of political and/or legal propaganda by people involved in the republic debate, or by State parliaments or executive governments, or by State Governors wishing to big note themselves, or by anyone else, can change that basic legal position. Not surprisingly, the legal position is reflected in the Perth Agreement, made as recently as 2011, according to which all of the Commonwealth realms, including Australia, agreed to change the rules concerning the succession to the British throne. The Parliaments of all of the States, and the federal Parliament, subsequently ratified that agreement by enacting legislation. Why would they have needed or bothered to do that if their head of state is not the Queen? Bahnfrend (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
You may still express a !vote above; discussion has not ended. See the points made by NebY and myself above. The term "head of state" is not found in the Constitution, nor the covering clauses, nor in the Perth Agreement, nor any Australian legislation. Defining the term in such a narrow sense that it equates to an individual royal person as well as "The Crown" is misleading and outside any reality of law. The Governor-General and every State Governor clearly, prominently, and firmly declare that they are the representative of the Queen - as per the links provided, go check - but six of them also say that they are the head of state of their local polity, be it State or Commonwealth. They are not covertly declaring a republic nor rejecting the monarchy so much as saying that as local head of state they represent the West Australians, or Victorians, or whatever on the world stage in a genuine authentic way that an Englishwoman clearly cannot. Three cheers for Her Majesty, four cheers for Australia, as Thomas Kenneally put it. --Pete (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I have now voted as suggested. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but I can't agree with your view. In my view, it makes no sense to say that you're the "head" of anything, when you're also admitting that you hold the position you hold only as the representative of another human being. Such an admission also amounts to an admission that you're only "a person chosen or appointed to act or speak for another or others", and therefore not the "head". Bahnfrend (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Your views are fine and I'm glad you have a chance to express them. That's what an RfC is all about. My proposed solution above is not to say this in Wikivoice as a flat statement, but to report the claim. After all, we are talking BLP articles here, and if the subject makes a controversial statement as part of their official duties, and our source is super-reliable, then that's notable. Agree or disagree, that's not important; we note the claim. After all, Wikipedia is full of weird things people say. Look at Joshua Abraham Norton, notable for one astonishing claim that wasn't even true! --Pete (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Pete/Skyring, proposing using phrasing such as "The Governor describes their role as being the formal head of state for New South Wales.", wrote This is a direct quote from her website and nobody can reasonably take exception to this.. The first part isn't true; it's a not a direct quote. The governor's website says "The Governor is the formal head of state in New South Wales." (We have, of course, no evidence that's the governor weirdly speaking about themself in the third person, any more than we have that About Her Majesty The Queen was written by or even vetted by her, and we certainly have no evidence sufficient for a Wikipedia article.) The second part isn't true either. NebY (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
True or not, there it is on the official website. A notable claim about a notable person with their own BLP. If we were to take your proposition that things said on official websites aren't sufficient evidence to quote in Wikipedia, well, you start at one end, I'll start at the other and we can trim this whole Wikipedia thing down to a fraction of its current size. --Pete (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
If you say something's a direct quote and it isn't a direct quote, you're not being truthful. If you say the governor describes their role in some way and it's not the governor writing, it's somebody writing about the governor in the third person, you're not being truthful. If you say no-one can reasonably take exception to those untruths, you're not being truthful. NebY (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I accept your points; your argument is what a lawyer would call "precious". Let us be scrupulously truthful by adjusting the wording slightly so as to address your concerns. My suggestion for a consensus position is that we do not call a sub-national leader a "head of state" in Wikivoice but honour the source by using phrasing such as
The Government House website states that the Governor is the formal head of state in New South Wales.
This is a direct quote from the Government House website and nobody can reasonably take exception to this.
I imagine your response is that you see yourself as a reasonable person and you take exception to this. Well, tough. The statement now being made in Wikivoice is perfectly accurate in its wording, it is from a reliable source, and we write in a neutral point of view. NPOV requires that we give due consideration to diverse and often contradictory opinions. Opinions which no reasonable person could be expected to hold simultaneously. RS requires that we use good sources, and again I suggest that if we do not view official government websites as reliable sources, then we have a much larger problem in our encyclopaedia than a one-line description of the role of the Governor of New South Wales. You will note that at no point does my wording above state that the NSW Governor is the NSW head of state, merely that the website makes the claim. I thank you for your thoroughness in pointing out my inadvertent mendacity. I make no claims to being perfect in every detail and I welcome correction on the tiniest of moot points. --Pete (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

So far 21 total in survey: It's 13 in favour of No, 7 in favour of Yes & 1 in favour of not clear. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've contacted WP:COMMONWEALTH, about this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I fear that this RFC topic has trickled into the bio of the current governor-general of Australia. The 2016 RFC on this (WP:POLITICS) page was quite clear "the Australian monarch 'is' head of state". GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Quite: the Hurley article has to link to the G-G article and not itself explain what a G-G is. Errantius (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skyring: has started a discussion, at the Australian notice board. -- GoodDay (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2021 (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.

Discussion about the inclusion criteria for the list of Italian political parties

I invite anyone interested to participate in the discussion for the determination of the criteria for the list of Italian political parties (Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 3#Revision of criteria (2). Since most of the current criteria were not decided through a consensual community discussion, your participation is welcome!--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Italian Fasces of Combat#Requested move 30 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Italian Fasces of Combat#Requested move 30 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Move Civil Response to Civic Response

The name of the Hungarian political party Polgári Válasz was mistranslated as Civil Response. I have corrected the article, but as a new user I cannot move the page. Please move it to Civic Response. Thank you. --FridayDayAndNight (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grin: Helló, would you be able to confirm the right translation, or refer this to someone who can help? Peaceray (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Peaceray: @FridayDayAndNight: According to grammarist civic means something to do about a a city, town, or something originating from a city, while civil means a person related to citizenship or community. There is also citizen's which means also something related to be a membership status in a city or town.
In this particular case I believe the current translation (civil) is fitting best, since the organisation describes intents to cover the whole nation or the nationwide community of similarly thinking people. It is not for or about urbanised people only. --grin ✎ 10:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I have contacted the party and they say that the official English translation of their name is "Civic Response" and that's what they intend to use in English.--FridayDayAndNight (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"Civil" is more "non-military" than "citizenship" if the meaning is related more to citizenship than not being military, I would recommend civic. Newystats (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Compare Fidesz, Fidesz - Hungarian Civic Alliance. Errantius (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Peaceray: @FridayDayAndNight: I was thinking about this, and literally "polgár" means "a citizen of a city"; also Newystats is right that there is a meaning of "civil" as "opposed to military or religious", which is not the case here I guess (especially since they define themselves as a Christianity-based right-wing party). I change my mind and actually agree that Civic is a better translation, especially that the Party uses that as well. --grin ✎ 19:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there any objection to moving it from Civil Response to Civic Response, then? If not, then we should just move it. Peaceray (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Pandora Paper

On the talks page of Pandora Papers I had a suggestion/question regarding the national reactions section. Though I think the current state is a legitimate comment, it's just out of place when contrasted with the rest for the reactions section. No editors are really using the talks, so could somebody give it a read to check me? Thanks! Willthehelpfuleditor (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about templates for youth wings of political parties

FYI
 – There is a discussion about categorising templates related to youth wings of political parties at WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 184#Youth Wings of political parties templates.

Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Obama FAR

I have nominated Barack Obama for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC discussion Template talk:Socialism in the UK

Hi all, would appreciate any input into this template around the scope of socialism/ what parties to include. There is debate around whether to work on a broad church approach to socialism vs. narrowly defined. Please do put your thoughts on the talk page if you feel like contributing. Jamzze (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

America's Health Insurance Plans COI edit requests

Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:America's Health Insurance Plans. These have been pending in the queue for a few months, so sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

US Presidents shown in bio infoboxes of US House speakers.

Why is the president of the United States listed in the infoboxes of the bios of speakers of the House of Representatives? The US president doesn't nominate or appoint the speaker. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't be. Reywas92Talk 21:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
They've been removed. Most of them were added in April 2021 by @Age20035:. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR for constitution of Belarus

I have nominated Constitution of Belarus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 23:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

FLR notice

I have nominated List of vice presidents of the Philippines for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 15:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Croatian Spring at FAC

Hello all! There is a FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Croatian Spring/archive1 I have recently nominated. Since the article is within the scope of this WikiProject, I thought to post here to attract more interest from editors who might post comments at the review page. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Rohit Thakur (politician) § Requested move 2 November 2021

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rohit Thakur (politician) § Requested move 2 November 2021. Venkat TL (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Category:Citizens of X through descent

When should this category be used (e.g. Category:Citizens of Lebanon through descent)? Only in case someone became a citizen (through descent) later on in their life, or even if they were born citizens of that country, but abroad? Nehme1499 18:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician)#Requested move 7 October 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kevin McCarthy (California politician)#Requested move 7 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about the new League of Matteo Salvini

Hi everyone. I report a discussion on the talk page of Lega Nord (Talk:Lega Nord/Archive 6#Is Salvini the Secretary?) regarding the transfer of information (from 2020 onwards) to the Lega per Salvini Premier page. From 2020 the only active party in the whole Italian territory is the Lega per Salvini Premier, however currently this page is just a stub. On the other hand, the Northern League is de facto no longer active, so continuing to update the page under that name is wrong. There are two possible options: historicize the Lega Nord page and implement the new Lega per Salvini Premier page (as done in it.wikipedia: it:Lega Nord and it:Lega per Salvini Premier) or merge the two pages under a new name, like "League (Italy)". At the moment there is a slight propensity for the former, but a broader debate would be welcome. Anyone interested is invited to participate.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics/Archive_43&oldid=1134377621"