Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-22/List of current heads of state and government

Where is the dispute?
List of current heads of state and government

Who is involved?

 * User:GoodDay
 * User:Miesianiacal
 * User:Skyring

Acceptance of Mediation
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
 * UNIQ481f463c698118fe-nowiki-00000000-QINU
 * Accept, as the editor filing this request. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the dispute?
There is a longstanding division of opinion within the Australian community over the identity of the Australian head of state. This has recently been described and documented in the Australian head of state dispute article which has recently been created and to which all parties in this dispute have been - among others - leading and co-operative contributors. The essence is that in Australia, the title of head of state is nowhere defined in the Constitution, in legislation in regulation, in case law or any definitive nature. It is entirely opinion. There is a division of opinion, extending throughout government, academia, politics, media and the general community as to whether the Queen is the head of state, or the Governor-General, who is described within the Constitution as the Queen's representative, but who is given in that document all the powers of a head of state, and does not act as an agent or delegate of the monarch. The dispute is longstanding and ongoing. Mainstream books have been published, giving various views. The dispute is most often seen in the context of republican debate, where (confusingly) the republicans champion the Queen as the sole head of state and that we should have a head of state who is truly one of us, and the monarchists declare that the Governor-General is the Australian head of state, and there is no need for change because he or she is a distinguished Australian citizen presenting an Australian face to the world. There is no apparent dispute over this article, but it documents two different points of view.

The dispute here is on WP:NPOV grounds, in my view. I think that an article titled List of heads of state and government should be exactly what it says, and reflect reality in an impartial manner. Both Queen and Governor-General should be listed.

My understanding is that both GoodDay and Miesianiacal are of the opinion that all Commonwealth Realms - including Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. - should have the same format, which presents each Governor-General in a uniform subordinate position to the Queen.

What would you like to change about this?
Both Queen and Governor-General should be shown in equal size fonts for the Australian entry, and a link to the article above provided, along with a short but appropriate note. We have reached the stage in discussion where old ground is being re-covered and personal attacks are creeping in - usually in a veiled fashion, but still wounding and unhelpful. The discussion has blown out of proportion for the article, which usually deals with routine matters. An AN/I report was filed when edit-warring broke out but lapsed when things cooled down.

How do you think we can help?
I have tried to move the other parties to the dispute towards exploring the NPOV issues, but each time they refrain from addressing these issues. I do not wish to push too hard on this, but I think that maintaining a neutral point of view is important, especially where a nation's head of state is concerned. It is not up to Wikipedia to define something like this, but instead to describe the situation fairly and accurately. Even if we came to a consensus on the question, Wikipedia is not any competent authority to make a unilateral declaration.

I would like the NPOV and format presentation issues to be explored in a calm and constructive manner. I would like all parties to find some agreeable solution. We all edit on intersecting articles, and maintaining goodwill and cooperation is essential for the future. A mediator is in a position to find common ground and to explore options without being seen as having a PoV barrow to push.

Mediator notes
Please remember to be civil, use reliable sources, and adhere to NPOV. Also, if edit warring occurs, I will have the page Full-protected.

Opening Statements
Statements only, no discussion

Opening Statement by GoodDay
My personal preferences are to either eliminate the governors general & other HoS (Head of State) representatives from the article or merely leave the article as is, without changing font sizes. However, as a show of collaboration, I've accepted Mies' compromise for how to present the entries on this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Opening Statement by Miesianiacal
In Australia, the term "head of state" is not universally applied to any one individual. However, Australia is not unique in that regard; the same situation is known to exist in Canada and may well exist elsewhere. If it's felt that those facts aren't reflected in the list as presently formatted (it giving instead the impression that who is head of state is known for certain where there is actually no consensus on the matter), then the alterations should improve clarity and do so logically and consistently across the list; neutralising one misleading implication should not create others, such as: there are two equal co-heads of state where there are not, or the sovereign doesn't have a representative where he or she in fact does.

I've tried two different possible solutions that could be applied across the list:
 * for countries that have a monarch and an appointed representative thereof, show both names in the same size font with the words "Represented by" preceding the name of the representative;
 * for countries that have a monarch and an appointed representative thereof and it is known which one is head of state, show the head of state's name in full font and the other individual's in small font with the words "Represented by" preceding the name of the representative and, for countries that have a monarch and an appointed representative thereof and it is not known which one is head of state, show both names in the same size font with the words "Represented by" preceding the name of the representative. (This requires that we know where the monarchs of are undoubtedly called the head of state and where they aren't; we're going to have to know exactly what's said and not said in both the law and in non-legal discourse in each of the relevant nations.)

These, however, were both repeatedly and incomprehensibly rejected by Pete/Skyring as vehicles for a POV my repetitive statements would indicate I don't actually hold. That persistent obliviousness to my actual position, plus a failure to respond to my oft raised concerns about the consequences of his edit, would indicate a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the part of Pete/Skyring that keeps the debate continually falling back to square one to be framed, yet again, within his own narrow parameters. Hence, the intervention of another party is required if the dispute is to be resolved. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Opening Statement by Skyring
I'd like to thank Ronk01 for taking up this case.

I shall waive my opening statement, as I had my turn when opening the request, and anything I had to say would only duplicate that text. If the other parties wish to lodge rebuttals, then they may address my statements above. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttals to Opening Statements
Rebuttals only, no discussion

Rebuttals to the Opening Statement by GoodDay

 * GoodDay wishes to to either eliminate the governors general & other HoS (Head of State) representatives from the article or leave the font sizes as they are (Queen in normal size, Governor-General in small size). Apart from an expression to collaborate, which is entirely laudable, he makes no other substantial points.
 * He has expressed the view that Elizabeth II is Australia's Head of State 'period'.[ Period, full stop, end of discussion. This certainty is an obstacle in reaching agreement, as it exhibits an unwillingness to accept any other point of view.
 * As demonstrated and documented with reliable sources at Australian head of state dispute, there are two views:
 * The Queen is the Australian head of state and the Governor-General merely her representative - and therefore not the head of state.
 * The Queen is the sovereign, performing a ceremonial role, and the Governor-General is the Australian head of state.
 * Both are valid opinions, and I will not address the merits of each view here. They are both frequently expressed in the media, in the context of political debate, in official documents. Sometimes the one source will express different views at different times. There is no unity of opinion in the major parties - successive leaders of both major parties have expressed different opinions. Neither is a fringe view. It is therefore a serious breach of our Neutral Point of View policy to insist that Wikipedia pushes one view and disregards the other, which is the essence of GoodDay's opening statement. Listing the Queen alone, or the Queen in full size and the Governor-General in smaller font, or stating that the Queen is represented by the Governor-General - all are different versions of view #1 above, the same view strongly held by GoodDay.
 * The NPOV issue is the major thrust of my opening statements made in filing this case, yet GoodDay does not address NPOV in his rebuttal. Instead he raises a strawman, by saying that I want to show Queen and Governor-General as having a Co-Head of State arrangement. I have repeatedly and explicitly ruled this out as inaccurate and misleading. --Pete (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)



Rebuttals to the Opening Statement by Miesianiacal

 * I have to admit that I struggle at times to follow Miesianiacal's arguments. I find him often opaque or cryptic or contradictory. This may be my shortcoming, but whatever it is, communication has been well short of mind-meld, as I think he acknowledges in his final paragraph. We can work on this.
 * Mies's suggested presentations here revolve around the concept of "a monarch and an appointed representative thereof", as if this is all there is to say of the relationship, and it is uniform in every situation. Every nation is unique, and even amongst Commonwealth Realms, there are many differences. Australia is a federation - New Zealand is not. Papua New Guinea explicitly lists the Queen as head of state - Australia does not. In the United Kingdom, Parliament is the source of sovereignty - in Australia it is the people via the s128 referendum mechanism. We cannot insist that different arrangements be treated in such a way as to ignore important differences.
 * The Australian Constitution states that the Governor-General shall be the representative of the Queen (meaning Queen Victoria in this 1900 document). Two adjuncts to the Constitution explain this:
 * Clause 2 of the covering act states: 2. The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
 * The Schedule (showing the oath or affirmation text) states: The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.
 * The role of the Queen in 1901 was quite different than it is now, eighty years on since the Statute of Westminster. The monarch acted on the advice of the British Government. The Ministers elected by the Australian people could not advise the Queen on the exercise of the few powers given to her, one of which was the appointment of the Governor-General. This advice was given by the British Colonial Secretary. (Quoting from the Report of the Republic Advisory Committee, 1993, p29-30)
 * "So, as at 1901, references to 'the Queen' in the Constitution meant 'Her Majesty's United Kingdom Government'. The symbolism matched the substance, To Australians in 1901, the Queen represented the real political power of the British Empire ruled from London. As Queen-Empress, she symbolised the British Empire of which all Australians were subjects. Australians however had no right to vote in British general elections and therefore no say in choosing those Ministers who would advise the Queen on Australian matters. ... Nowadays, all of the powers vested in the queen under the Commonwealth Constitution are exercised by the Queen on the advice of Her Australian Commonwealth Ministers. So if, in 1901, 'the Queen' in the Constitution meant 'the British Government', today in 1993, it means 'the Australian Government'."
 * I note this because it underscores the fact that the Australian Constitution must be read in context, and the actual way in which the Governor-General represents the Queen needs to be understood. She is not the Queen's agent or delegate. The Queen may not issue instructions to the Governor-General, nor may she alter or withdraw the powers given to the Governor-General in the Constitution - only the Australian people via the s128 referendum mechanism may alter these powers.
 * Mies's description of the Australian Governor-General as "the appointed representative" of the monarch is well shy of the truth. The Australian Governor-General uses executive powers specifically given to that office without reference to or approval or direction from the Queen. This was made clear in 1975. Furthermore, the Governor-General is selected by the Australian Prime Minister, who advises the Queen on the appointment, and the Queen has no discretion in the matter - she follows the advice or there is the most appalling constitutional crisis.
 * I do not know if Mies is aware of much in the way of Australian constitutional practice. I get the feeling that he is applying his own excellent knowledge of British and Canadian practice to the Australian situation and pushing a position that is at odds with the reality. If the Australian Governor-General were merely the agent or delegate of the British Queen, then I would have no problem with this "appointed representative thereof" terminology. But this is not the situation. The Australian Governor-General is his own man (or woman, as is currently the case), and is thus distinctly different from other Governors-General within the British Commonwealth, where the relationship is more along the Head of State - local agent of Head of State line.
 * This is why I reject Mies's alternatives for presentation. Not only do they imply that the Queen is the head of state and the Governor-General is not (whether or not this is Mies' intention is beside the point - a reasonable person would infer this) which is contrary to NPOV, they imply by the words "Represented by" a principal-agent relationship which does not exist.
 * I am firmly in favour of a note which accurately summarises the Australian situation in an accurate and neutral manner. Specifically, the notion that the Queen and Governor-General are Co-Heads of State should be ruled out.
 * Briefly looking at Mies' rebuttal to my opening statement, I find he believes that I recognise that the Queen is the governor-general's constitutional superior (she is vested with executive and legislative authority and appoints the viceroy to represent her, not the other way around). The "constitutional superior" line is bunkum, to be polite. The Queen has no power over the Governor-General. The Queen is one place ahead of the Governor-General on the Australian Order of Precedence, and that is as far as any notion of official superiority goes. --Pete (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To Pete/Skyring the Order of Precedence places Queen Elizabeth II at the top. The "one who proceeds first" is the Head of State.  Therefore, Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State, and her Governor-General is her representative (i.e., second in the Order of Precedence).  The Order of Precedence structure is crystal clear.  You are trying to defeat the Australian Constitution by re-interpreting it in an ad hoc fashion. (by Magna Carta).

Rebuttals to the Opening Statement by Skyring

 * Australia isn't unique in not having clarified who its Head of State is. Canada doesn't clarify who its Head of State is (for example). Head of State is a term not used in some other countries Constitutions aswell. To impliment the changes that Skyring/Pete proposes, would single out Australia by giving it the appearance of having a Co-Head of State arangement. Australia doesn't have a Co-Head of State setup. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete/Skyring has not outlined this dispute either completely or accurately. I have continually given full acknowledgement to the fact that, in Australia, the term "head of state" is not universally applied to any one individual. This, however, seems to have done nothing to divert Pete/Skyring from the belief that I insist on rendering the Queen as Australia's head of state. Exasperating this is his habit of conflating the matter of who is head of state with the relationship between the Queen and the governor-general; somehow, because I recognise that the Queen is the governor-general's constitutional superior (she is vested with executive and legislative authority and appoints the viceroy to represent her, not the other way around), he is led to believe that I therefore think everyone calls the Queen head of state. This, I'm convinced, stems from Pete/Skyring's own distinctly original personal views on the role of the Governor-General of Australia and how that defines his standing vis-à-vis the Queen. If there is any issue of POV in this dispute, it's there.


 * That aside, I have concerns with the change he proposes on purely editorial grounds: It makes it appear as though Australia is unique amongst countries that have an appointed representative of a monarch, when it is not. It also implies Australia has two equal, co-heads of state, when it does not. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)