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

All discussion related to the case will take place here, with the exception of Opening Statements and Rebuttals.

Discussion
Australia isn't unique among the 15 commonwealth realms that have a governor general. Personally, I'd prefer the Queen in a larger font & Governors General in a smaller font for all 15 concerned. However, out of the spirit of collaboration, I accepted Mies' compromise. I wish Skyring/Pete could've done the same. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How about having both with "de jure" for the Queen and "de facto" for the viceroys. -Rrius (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal preference is to leave the entries as they are. Deleting the 15 governors general is an option, though. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Queen isn't the de jure Australian head of state. What law says she is? It's a matter of opinion, and Wikipedia should not promote one view over another without good reason. I'm happy to remove any people from the list of heads of state if they they are not recognised as heads of state. --Pete (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring hasn't painted a fully accurate picture of my position. I fully acknowledge that, 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. One of my concerns with Pete/Skyring's edit is thus with the way it makes Australia appear unique amongst countries with a monarch and a representative thereof, when, in fact, it is not. The other issue is with the way he wishes to render the field for Australia: having the Queen's name and the governor-general's name shown in the same sized font, with no additional clarifications, makes it appear as though Australia has two, equal co-heads of state; this puts forward either only one point of view or a complete fabrication.

Exasperbating these problems is Pete/Skyring's expressed disinterest in what's done to any entry in the list other than Australia's; when, as said, Australia isn't a unique case, this becomes an impediment to finding a solution that takes into account the whole list and the way it imparts information. Further hindrance may stem from the distinct personal views he holds on the relationship between the Queen of Australia and the Governor-General of Australia. I say these things only so that the mediator is aware of all possible factors in this dispute; it is somewhat more complex than made out above. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In agreement with Mies. GoodDay (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a fully accurate picture of my position. In fact, it is quite misleading. This is why we have come to this stage. --Pete (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mkativerata has provided reliable/authritative sources & posts, which seem to support Mies' compromise - yet Skyring/Pete seems to prush them off as just opinons. Also, User:Rye1967, has expressed concern that Skyring/Pete, might be becoming obsessive with the Australian dispute topic, recommending he (S/P) concentrate his concerns on articles like Government of Australia, instead of international based articles. Skyring/Pete's initial complaint was the font-size of the Queen & GG of Australia (he wants them the same size). Mies' compromise handles that concern, but S/P has chosen to oppose the compromise anyways. S/P wants the Australian entry (and only that entry) 'his way', period. Such a my way or no way stance by him, makes it impossible to reach a resolution. It also puts a strain on collaboration. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And from my point of view, you are likewise adamant in refusing to address the NPOV issues which I see as crucial. It may be that we need a hand to address each other's concerns. If we cannot communicate to each other, then how can we communicate to readers coming to Wikipedia for information? --Pete (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-mediation
This is the first time I have engaged in this sort of process, and I have been studying other cases to see how they are conducted and what sort of activities lead to conclusions agreeable to all parties. I recommend this to the other editors involved - we can avoid wasting our time and that of the eventual mediator. One point seems to be extremely useful, and I have boorowed the mediator's advice from that case: "Please, as much as possible, try to keep the discussion away from what other editors might do, think, believe, hope for, like, dislike, or etc. The more you talk about other editors, the more the discussion gets tangled in personal issues, and the more difficult it becomes to sort through content issues." If we stick to the facts, if we stick to established wikipolicies, if we avoid aiming blows, whether sly or overt, at each other, then we will progress. Let us make the process as easy and painless as possible. --Pete (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like this is going nowhere. To be honest, it would be a brave mediator stepping up to the plate, looking back on the discussion on the article talk page which goes on and on, covering some fairly arcane ground. We have all agreed to mediation, clearly there are some problems in understanding each others' views, and facilitating communication would be a mediator's main task, given that I've flagged that pushing the two other parties to address the NPOV issues they have evaded is a task I find uncomfortable.

Perhaps we can address this another way, before I move this case forward to WP:MedCom. I'm not commenting on the validity of the views of other editors, and in fact one of the things I like about Australian democracy is that everyone gets a vote and generally uses it since they are required by law to attend a polling place. Once there, they generally choose to make a decision on who to vote for, even if they haven't followed the debate, and they make a choice based on how old the candidates are, or how long their hair is, or what their opponents say about them. Anything. It doesn't matter. Everyone's vote is equal, and it all seems to work out.

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but still everyone has a voice, and I'm not going to comment on opinions beyond whether I agree with them or not.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but Mies and GoodDay, I think that although you are on different ends of the monarchist/republican table, you share a view that goes something like this:
 * 1) Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of the United Kingdom. This is beyond dispute. (I indicate such unopposed positions in bold.)
 * 2) Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the British Commonwealth of Nations, of which Canada, New Zealand, andthe Commonwealth of Australia are member nations.
 * 3) Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of sixteen Commonwealth Realms. For example, she is Queen of Australia, as much as she is Queen of the United Kingdom.
 * 4) A monarch (King, Queen, Emperor, Prince, whatever) is the head of state of a kingdom, empire, principality.
 * 5) Therefore the Queen of Australia is the Australian head of state, just as the Queen of New Zealand is the New Zealand head of state.
 * 6) New Zealand and some other realms state that the Queen is the head of state explicitly in constitutional documents, Australia and Canada do not.
 * 7)  Constitutional recognition is immaterial; whether stated or not, the Queen is the head of state.
 * 8) The Queen is represented in each of her non-UK realms by a Governor-General, who holds his or her position as the Queen's representative.
 * 9) He or she performs all acts and exercises powers in the name of the Queen.
 * 10) Therefore the Australian Governor-General is not the Australian head of state, merely the representative of the head of state.
 * 11) Any views to the contrary, whether expressed by the Canadian Governor General or the Australian Prime Minister must therefore be incorrect or mistaken.

Would this be broadly correct? I think it is a reasonable summary of your joint position, and it is certainly one that compels many people whom I hold in high regard. I must admit that it is the conventional view, and a literal reading of even the Australian Constitution would support this. Anyone holding this view is in excellent company, along with distinguished constitutional scholars and general opinion. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it
Where about's am I suppose to give my views of the dispute? GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a new experience for me, but I think we have to wait for an editor to pick up the case. We'll all get to be heard. --Pete (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You may have to inform Mies of the Cabal, at his talkpage. If he isn't gonna participate in it, then you'll have to scrap it & wait for further imput at List of current heads of state and government article. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll do that now. It was his idea. Look, why don't you go ahead and set out your case in your own words in the discussion section - I've been feeling that since I kicked this thing off, the opening argument is my point of view, calm and objective though I've tried to be. If you go do the same in your words, out of your eyes, we'll be halfway there. --Pete (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll wait to see if Mies' accepts this Med Cab. A Med-Cab won't be effective with just 2 editors. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I shall await Mies' response to Pete's Self-Mediation post. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We may be waiting some time. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Points arising from rebuttal
GoodDay, in the What would you like to change section of my opening statement, I said: "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." I specifically do not wish the Australian situation to be seen as one of co-heads of state, in the "Williamandmary" or other model. Whatever note we include must make this clear to the reader. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mies' compromise handles the same font-size concerns & distinguishes the governor general's role as the queen's representative (in otherwords, killing 2 birds with 1 stone). If you can't accept that compromise? that's your dilema, not mine. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's keep to the specific point you raised, please. You said, 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. and I think we are in agreement here. I specifically don't want the entry for Australia to give this appearance, and I think we can present this with a note and a link, as I noted. Readers will be directed to the Australian head of state dispute article, which sets out both views, with reliable sources for each. It is made quite clear in that article that Australia does not have a Co-Head of State arrangement and that there is a dispute, with both Queen and Governor-General seen as the Australian head of state. --Pete (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can accept notes for all entries, if you can accept Mies' proposal of 'same font size' & 'representated by....' addition to the governors general entries. I won't accept notes for only Australia, though. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We can have different notes for each different nation where the situation is not clear. I see that Switzerland and North Korea have explanatory notes. --Pete (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you accept Represented by..., in the governors general entries? GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of Australia, it gives the impression that the Queen is the head of state and the Governor-General is not. This is a list of heads of state and we should strive for accuracy. --Pete (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Governor-General of Australia 'represents' the Queen of Australia, which is backed by reliable sources. We're merely rehashing old arguments here & thus wasteing time. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the crux of the problem. Presenting one point of view - that the Queen is the Australian head of state and the Governor-General merely her representative - is at odds with the true situation, which is that there are two well-supported points of view, reliably sourced here, that the Queen and the Governor-General are both regarded as the sole Australian head of state. Insisting that Wikipedia unduly favour one point of view over another is unreasonable. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Same arguments, pointless to rehash them. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Presenting a Neutral Point of View is seen as fundamentally important by the Wikipedia community. It applies to every situation where there are divided opinions, which is what we have here. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept Represented by... & then I'll accept notes for all the entries, where required. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like you to address the NPOV point made. I see this as important, and while you avoid this, we make no progress. --Pete (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It is your PoV, that Australia alone, doesn't clarify who's its Head of State. PS: Ya didn't vote on #3, btw. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not my view. Your #3 does not present the situation in an NPOV fashion. --Pete (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then you can vote oppose to it. Meanwhile, the conventional view regards the Queen as the Head of State. Other views don't warrant equal coverage on this article, as this would breach WP:UNDUE. Your pushing the Aussie dispute, is giving that dispute 'undue' weight. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You are well advised. Do you have a source for your statement above about the conventional view? This was certainly the case once upon a time, but when the Prime Minister last year described the Governor-General as the head of state in a widely-read media statement and it raised barely a murmur, I suggest that conventional views have changed. There was far more comment about Kevin Rudd despatching Quentin Bryce on a political mission to drum up support for his bid to gain a UN Security Council seat than there was about whether she was or was not the head of state.
 * Another illustration of the way that conventional views change over time, drawn from the Constitution, lies in Sue v Hill, a case decided by the High Court in 1999. Section 44(i) of the Constitution of Australia prevents any person who is the citizen of a "foreign power" from being elected to the Parliament of Australia. The High Court found that, at least for the purposes of section 44(i), the United Kingdom is a foreign power to Australia. This was certainly not the case at Federation. The conventional view was that any British subjects were eligible to be elected. A notable case was the Canadian King O'Malley. Without a word of the Constitution being changed, the High Court found that the situation had changed, and the conventional view is now - as backed up by the High Court - that British, New Zealand, Canadian and other non-Australian British Commonwealth citizens are as ineligible as citizens of the USA or Russia.
 * This "conventional view" aspect is certainly worth exploring, but I suggest that it should properly be raised and discussed at the Australian head of state dispute article. In the meantime, we have two bodies of opinion, reliably sourced in that article, and it is on this basis that I resist showing either Queen or Governor-General as the undisputed Australian head of state. --Pete (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a proper article for promoting the existance of the Aussie HoS dispute. You've not convinced me of your position. We're merely repeatingt the same arguments. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The dispute exists and is well documented with reliable sources. You contributed to its development and your efforts there were and are welcome. However, it is not for a Wikipedia editor to say who is or isn't a nation's head of state, and while I respect your view on this, I cannot accept that you - or I, or any other editor - is competent to decide the matter. We must follow wikiprocedure. --Pete (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've not convinced me. We're merely having the same arguments. Let's wait until Mies re-joins the discussions. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We should certainly pause for Mies's input. In the meantime, I urge you to read WP:NPOV. It is a good policy, it works, and I wholeheartedly support it. It is the basis of my argument here. --Pete (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I urge you to read WP:UNDUE (a sub-section of NPOV). GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have read it very carefully, bearing its application to this matter in my mind, and I endorse it. It might help us if you could put aside your own opinion on who is or is not the Australian head of state, and look at the situation in Australia. There are good sources for both views. You may have your own belief, and I am certainly not going to attack that, but it is much like arguing who is the One True God. We can agree that there is a general disagreement, based on strongly held views. We do not need to prove it one way or the other. --Pete (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not discussing the Australian head of state dispute article, but rather the List of current heads of state and government article. We're merely having the same arguments 'again'. Let's wait until Mies' rejoins the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting: At Skyring/Pete's above post of 22:31 on February 27, 2011, he appears to admit that the conventional view is -Queen of Australia is the Australian HoS. Yet now, he says it's not. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Conventional in the sense of simplistic or uninformed. It is the sort of thing an uninformed reading of the Constitution dated 1900 would give. To be perfectly frank, I think the conventional or majority view, if we were to ask the average joe to choose between Elizabeth Windsor, Quentin Bryce or Julia Gillard, would be that the Prime Minister is the one. Some might choose Bob Brown. I don't think we should give uninformed views much weight. Nevertheless, my own opinion is unimportant, and I do not think that the views of individual editors should be used as the basis for discussion, except insofar as we can find ways to co-operate in presenting unbiased well-sourced information. I refer again to these comments of an experienced mediator: Please, as much as possible, try to keep the discussion away from what other editors might do, think, believe, hope for, like, dislike, or etc. The more you talk about other editors, the more the discussion gets tangled in personal issues, and the more difficult it becomes to sort through content issues. --Pete (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that participants use proper names when referring to monarchs, as the Queen has no surname (Windsor is often cited as the name that would be used should Britain even become a republic) Ronk01   talk  02:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. I was attempting to portray a notional and office-independent poll. Unlabelled images of the four women would serve just as well in such a thought experiment. --Pete (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete/Skyring, nobody has tried to express what you might think, believe, or hope for. Only what you've actually said has been raised, and I believe it's all pertinent to this dispute. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? I have been watching the discussion here with some bemusement. It is all speculation about my motives, opinions and beliefs, and most of it is quite wrong. This diff is a good example of what happens when we assume what others believe. Let us aim for more open and straightforward communication, please. --Pete (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion (which has lasted weeks), began with your wanting the 'font-size' the same for the Queen of Australia & the Governor-General of Australia, period. Now, you seem to object that, as you support option #1 & oppose option #2. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see "Queen" and "Head of State" as having equivalent meanings. We are concerned with a listing of heads of state, rather than queens. If representatives of heads of state are to be listed, then why should they be in the same font as heads of state? Or be listed at all? --Pete (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * PS: My talkpage isn't facing a MedCab. The List of current heads of state and government article, is. GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would remind the participants to focus on the content, not the contributor. (Also, please vote on #6.) Ronk01   talk  03:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ronk01, this dispute can get a little frustrating for us 3, at times. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase, then: nobody has tried to express, within the scope of this mediation effort, what you might think, believe, or hope for. Only what you've actually said has been raised, and I believe it's all pertinent to the dispute. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See the diff I linked to above. You know what they say about "assume". --Pete (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a Canadian republican, who abides by the conventional view, that the Queen of Australia is the Aussie HoS. But, for the sake of collaboration, I've accepted Mies proposed compromise. Of the the 3 of us here, I'm the one who's been the most flexiable, as I'm allowing the governors-general to be listed & shown in same font-size as the Queen & listed as the Queen's representative. Yet, I'm being asked to be even more flexiable, by on of the other editors who refuses to budge on his own stance. So you can understand my frustrations & difficulty in AGF, towards that editor-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with any presentation we can work out which addresses the NPOV issue raised and is not misleading. I've given my reasons as to why I feel that the presentations suggested do not accurately reflect reality. I repeat my suggestion for presentation below - use the terminology already in place in each nation's infobox, where each article's team of editors presumably know the local situation and terminology. If I wanted to describe what Colonel Gaddaffi's role and title is, I would turn to the Libya article, for instance. --Pete (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There you go again, claiming yourself the NPOV champion. Please stop it, as doing so only aggravates things. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
From what I have read, using a footnote along with differing fonts or representations my be a viable method of compromise. Ronk01  talk  14:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anyone's objected to the use of footnotes. However, that, to me, is a separate, or at least associated but secondary, matter to how the fields in the list are shown; footnotes should not be an excuse to allow the list to mislead or confuse readers. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We have to either have the font sizes different (smaller for Governors-General entries) or have the pretext "Represented by.." infront of the Governors-General entries. Australia isn't a unique case. I've little interest in the footnotes, other then them being used for all country entries (where required) & not just Australia. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. While footnotes could well be a good idea, I think the first thing that must be established is that Australia does not stand alone in the world or even amongst its fellow Commonwealth realms. It has quite a few basic characteristics in common with other countries - a shared sovereign in whom executive and legislative authority is vested; a local, appointed representative of the monarch; even no consensus on which of the two figures should be considered head of state. Constitutional minutiae regarding what duties are prescribed specifically to the Governor-General of Australia and the way in which the role is outlined (codified in acts of parliament, in letters patent, or set by convention) have no effect on the aforementioned fact and certainly have no place in a basic list of heads of state, especially after having been uniquely interpreted and combined with personal observations of contemporary Australian society to form some original research theory on the status of the governor-general in relation to the monarch. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we are all agreed on notes as helping to present information where it differs from the norm. We can wrangle over wording, but that's the way Wikipedia works.
 * I'll repeat myself and say that our own personal opinions have no place here. We can't use ourselves as sources, we can't vote on who a nation's head of state may be, we can't shout each other into submission and we can't edit war. We must rely on outside sources. GoodDay, if Australian head of state dispute uses reliable sources to show that there are two points of view, then that is the way it is. You may not like one of the views, you may think it is "arrant nonsense", to quote one scholar describing the opinion of another, but NPOV requires that both be given fair representation. Neither is a fringe view, both are well-sourced and contemporary. It is confusing, but that is the way it is. Some things are confusing, and if we simplify our explanations too much, we lose the truth. Wikipedia will support NPOV over the opinions of any one editor or group of editors all the way home. It is a policy that works, even when opinions are strongly held. Especially so.
 * Mies, you seem to think that all Commonwealth Governors-General do the same job. Let us examine the substance of this observation and see what points we can agree upon and where we differ. Perhaps we will find enlightenment and a path forward. And let us use outside authorities as sources, please. --Pete (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish to stick to reliable sources (a sentiment with which I agree), then you'll have to accept that the Australian constitution gives the only legal definition of who executive power in Australia belongs to and the role of the governor-general: "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative." That's not to imply that said clause defines for us who is Australia's head of state; it just puts to rest your theories about the Governor-General of Australia being more than the representative of the Queen of Australia, which lie behind your claims that Australia is unique amongst the Commonwealth realms in terms of the relationship between the Queen and her representatives. Perhaps the way in which the role is outlined and what duties are prescribed specifically to the Governor-General of Australia are different to other realms, but, as I said, such constitutional minutiae have no effect on the aforementioned fact and don't have a place in deciding how to render a basic list of heads of state, so please don't waste our time by raising them again. We also don't need any more red herring irrelevancies like the former role of the British government in Australian affairs or your perceptions of the Queen's popularity in Australia. Not only should we stick to what's sourced, we should also stick only to what's relevant. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have to accept your opinion, Mies, especially after you seemed to agree with me on this point about reliable sources. Instead of giving your own interpretation of the Constitution, why not find a scholar who agrees with you? Let us use outside sources, not ourselves. This is another crucial plank in Wikipedia's platform, and I commend it to you. --Pete (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not give an interpretation of the constitution, I quoted it verbatim. You cannot dismiss it as a reliable source. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You quoted a section and then gave your own personal interpretation and then denied you did so! Well done. You have astonished me. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you being purposely obtuse, or are you just thick? I quoted the constitution directly; I didn't offer any interpretation of the words; I don't need to. All by themselves, they put down your bizarre interpretations of the law that lie behind your belief that the governor-general is more than the representative of the Queen and therefore Australia is a unique case amongst the Commonwealth realms in terms of that relationship between sovereign and viceroy. If you can provide some reliable sources that say the Governor-General of Australia is more than what the constitution says he is, then please provide them and we can consider how to factor that into the way List of current heads of state and government can be edited; you've not yet done so, ever. Otherwise, we can continue knowing that Australia has a shared sovereign vested with all executive authority and a governor-general who exercises certain executive and legislative duties as her representative, just like all other Commonwealth realms (except the UK). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  23:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What else could we politely call your statements after the direct quote from the constitution ended? You didn't offer any outside source. My "bizarre belief" that the Governor-General is more than the representative of the Queen is also bizarrely held by the Governor-General herself: In addition to being The Queen’s representative in Australia, the Governor-General also has specific constitutional and statutory powers. In fact, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, the only action performed by The Queen under the Constitution is the appointment of the Governor-General, on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister.. Is the Governor-General merely the Queen's representative, however defined, or something more? --Pete (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil. "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth." is indeed a verbatim quote of section 61. I would now ask what the implications of this are for this mediation. As regards statements made by the current Governor-General, we shall consider them secondary to the constitution of Australia, regardless of what either may mean. I would also remind all editors that this is not the proper forum for Republican or Monarchist sentiment. Ronk01   talk  00:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a verbatim quote. It is a crucial section of the Australian constitution, and much discussed. We shall have no trouble finding sources on how it should be interpreted. --Pete (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Section 61 demonstrates that the the powers vested in the Queen of Australia and the relationship between she and the Governor-General of Australia are the same as in the other Commonwealth realms besides the UK (which, obviously, doesn't have a governor-general). We can thus dispense with the argument that Australia is unique in that regard and needs any special treatment in the List of current heads of state and government. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mies, please. This is a crucial point. Rather than repeating your own interpretation, could you find a reliable source? Otherwise we are just shouting at each other. --Pete (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A reliable source for what? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the question would be: "What could we define as a reliable source?" I would suggest looking at other government documents, scholarly sources, and perhaps the situations in other Commonwealth Realms. The situation of Australia would seem to be quite like that of Canada. Ronk01  talk  00:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are the sort of reliable sources I contemplate. Mies, I would like you to provide a reliable source for your interpretation of s61. I think that you are quite wrong in claiming that this makes Australia the same as any other Commonwealth Realm, and I would like you to find a source that backs you up. Please. --Pete (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sir David Smith quotes Andrew Inglis Clark on this point. I have bolded a pertinent phrase.
 * "Two distinguished Australian constitutional scholars, A. Inglis Clark, who had worked with Sir Samuel Griffith on his drafts of the Constitution, and who later became Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, and W. Harrison (later Sir Harrison) Moore, who had worked on the first draft of the Constitution that went to the 1897 Adelaide Convention, and who was Professor of Law at the University of Melbourne, expressed the view that the Letters Patent and the Royal Instructions were superfluous, or even of doubtful legality, on the grounds that the Governor-General’s position and authority stemmed from the Australian Constitution and that not even the Sovereign could purport to re-create the Office or direct the incumbent in the performance of his duties under that Constitution. Inglis Clark pointed out that sections 2 and 61 of the Australian Constitution relating to the powers and functions of our Governor-General were unique within the British Empire. They conferred upon our Governor-General a statutory position which the Imperial Parliament had not conferred upon the Governor-General or Governor of any other part of the British Empire. Clarke noted that the powers and functions of every other Governor or Governor-General were conferred upon him by the Letters Patent which created the Office which he held, and by the Commission by which he was appointed to that Office, whereas the Office of Governor-General of Australia was created by, and the incumbent derived his powers and functions from, the Constitution itself."


 * Smith explains the effect of this:
 * "So, to summarise the position: under section 2 of the Constitution the Governor-General is the Queen’s representative and exercises certain royal prerogative powers and functions; under section 61 of the Constitution the Governor-General is the holder of a quite separate and independent office created, not by the Crown, but by the Constitution, and empowered to exercise, in his own right as Governor-General and not as a representative or delegate of the Queen, all the powers and functions of Australia’s head of state."


 * I recommend Smith's scholarly papers. I do not support all of his conclusions, but the depth of his research is impressive, all carefully noted. He specifically refers to the Canadian situation in comparison with Australia, for example. --Pete (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Section 61 states that the governor-general is the represntative of the Queen. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  01:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um. No. Please refrain from injecting your own personal interpretation. We are bound by the constraints of WP:NOR and your personal translation of Australia's fundamental document is no practical use here. Take as much time as you wish to find a reliable source. In the meantime, could you comment on Inglis Clark's opinion above? I think the fact that the Australian Governor-General's powers stem from the Constitution, beyond the reach of the Queen, rather than from Letters-Patent issued by the Queen, is an important point that directly distinguishes the Australian situation from that of Canada and other Commonwealth Realms. --Pete (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, yes. Please refrain from injecting fringe theories. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would remind editors that we cannot draw conclusions from a single source, no matter how credible. However, I find Smith's position to be rather at odds with the word of law. That is, the Constitution states that the Governor General is the representative of the Queen. Whether the de facto situation is different is beyond my level of knowledge. Ronk01   talk  01:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be accurate, the Australian Constitution does not state this in those exact words. However, we must be careful of a literal reading of the Constitution. It must be read in context. For example, s101 states There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder. Subsequent sections describe how this body operates, how its members are appointed. This is all in plain English and the meaning is crystal clear. In fact the wording of s101 - There shall be an Inter-State Commission - echoes that of s2 A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative. I invite all interested persons to contemplate the current situation of the Inter-State Commission, along with powers, appointed members and so on, as defined in the black-letter law of Australia's fundamental document. It does not exist. --Pete (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's understanble to assume that the Australian Constitution is a more authoritive source then David Smith. Unless Smith has become Dictator & now his word is law. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir David was quoting Andrew Inglis Clark whose word on the Tasmanian Supreme Court was indeed law. Clark was and is very well respected. His legacy endures to this day. --Pete (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Australian Constitution is the law of the land. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may tell that to the Inter-State Commission. If you can find it. --Pete (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you serious, Pete? GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was being flippant. The point made is that the Inter-State Commission does not exist, despite being defined and described within the Constitution, which you rightly describe as the law of the land. We have to read the document in context, with knowledge of the circumstances and the history since it was proclaimed in 1900. It is full of antiquated and spent provisions. It specifies appeals to the Privy Council, for example, and yet appeals to the Privy Council are no longer possible. I suggest that you find a good textbook on the Australian Constitution. --Pete (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Section #61 of the Constituion, clearly states that the Governor General represents the Queen. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Does it? I have read the document, and it uses other words. May I suggest that we turn to other, authoritative sources instead of insisting that our own personal translations are paramount? GoodDay - how may I convince you that we must use reliable sources instead of making our own pronouncements? This is an important concept, one highly valued within the Wikipedia community. --Pete (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Section 61, clearly states that the Governor-General represents the Queen. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I must be reading Pete's posts incorrectly. He appears to be questioning the Australian Constitution's status as a reliable/authoritive source. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If we used the Constitution as a reliable source, Wikipedia would be able to describe a body - the Inter-State Commission - which does not exist! My point is that it must be read in context. There is quite an industry devoted to this. It is called Constitutional Law, and the labourers in that industry are paid very well indeed. If the Constitution was a straightforward document, a good deal of money could be saved by using Wikipedia editors instead. --Pete (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Section 61 of the Constitution, clearly states that the Governor-General represents the Queen. GoodDay (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We now have three people who can see that and one who can't. How do you think that could possibly be? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that some people are making their own interpretations. GoodDay says that the Constitution clearly states that the Governor-General represents the Queen. I invite you to search the text of the Constitution for that exact phrase. Rather than being "clearly stated", it does not appear. It is therefore an interpretation. Now, I know what you are attempting to say, and I respect that. I am also being overly picayune on a trifle of wording. But I make the point that is over trifles of wording that barristers and judges are paid very well indeed, and we are not such people. We are trying to find a way forward, and if I suggest that we use the very good wikipolicies in place, rather than arguing around in circles, I am doing so with a clear objective. In other words, you are not going to convince me of the rightness of your cause, no matter how fervently you believe in it, if you cannot find reliable sources and instead insist on simplistic personal interpretations of a complex and important document. If it is an obvious conclusion, then surely there must be many good authorities you can use? --Pete (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Read what I've presented below, please. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the whole section #61 - under Chapter II, Executive Government. - "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is excercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and the laws of the Commonwealth". GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This section hasn't been repealed since it's inception in 1900. PS: Though IMHO, they should've said Monarch, since there've been Kings of Australia since then. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No person has ever held the title of "King of Australia", if I may correct you there. But that is unimportant, and "Queen" is read as applying to the British monarch, in much the same way that describing the Governor-General as "he" also covers the current situation, where the Governor-General is a woman. We need not trouble ourselves too much on these points. Thank you, GoodDay, now may I invite your comment on s101: There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder. It is right there in the Constitution, but where is it now? What is your personal interpretation of this, and can you see my point about context? --Pete (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Section 61, clearly states that the Governor-General represents the Queen. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no other comment? You don't wish to address the point made? You don't wish to move forward in the mediation process? --Pete (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm responding to your continued refusal to accept the Australian Constituion as a reliable/authoritive source. I'm not giving in to your personal preference at the List of current heads of state and government, no matter how long you keep this MedCab going. I've got all the time in the world. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I noted some time ago that the Governor-General is the Queen's representative and that the Constitution is an excellent source for this. This is not in dispute. I can hunt up the diff if you wish. We have moved on to discussing the nature of this representation and how it differs from the situation in other realms. Can you help find sources to support your view? As an adjunct, I'll be incorporating the sources into the Australian head of state dispute article - no sense in wasting good wikitime! --Pete (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but you're not getting your own way. Until you give up your ageneda & start collaborating, no solution will be found. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the interests of co-operation, may I ask why you are reluctant to address the point I raised above about the Inter-State Commission? My view is that you ignore it, because to acknowledge the obvious difference between the clearly stated text of the Constitution and the reality of the Commission's non-existence would erode your whole position, and you do not feel secure enough to do this. You would rather embrace a fiction, and so long as you do not acknowledge the gap between actual fact and Constitutional fantasy, it does not exist for you. Is this accurate, or will you again decline to answer, inviting all to draw the obvious conclusion? --Pete (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Section 61 of the Australian Constitution, clearly states that the Governor-General represents the Queen. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mies, you stated earlier that Section 61 demonstrates that the the powers vested in the Queen of Australia and the relationship between she and the Governor-General of Australia are the same as in the other Commonwealth realms besides the UK... I disagreed with your interpretation and supplied a source in rebuttal - Andrew Inglis Clark, who helped frame the Constitution and served as Senior Judge of the Tasmanian High Court. Have you found any source to support your statement, or are you still looking, or have you given up on this? It is an important point, because you have consistently said that Australia was not unique in this respect, and you wish to treat Australia on this basis. --Pete (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Section 61, clearly states that the Governor-General represents the Queen. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would ask that editors do not repeat their positions. Also, according to Wikipedia policy, we will need a reliable secondary source as well. I am sure that those can be found for both sides. Ronk01   talk  04:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we'd all rather not repeat ourselves except that it seems to be the only way to cut through Pete/Skyring's evasive and pedantic lawyering; note how he's gone from claiming the constitution of Australia doesn't say the governor-general is the representative of the Queen to agreeing the constitution says the governor-general is the Queen's representative.
 * Regardless, with that admission, we can now compare what the constitution of Australia says in that regard with what other Commonwealth realms' constitutions say (plus some secondary sources):
 * Australia: "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative".
 * "Under the Australian Constitution, the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercised by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative".
 * "The Governor-General is The Queen's representative in Australia".
 * "The Governor-General is the representative of the sovereign".
 * "The Constitution states that the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative".
 * New Zealand: "The Governor-General appointed by the Sovereign is the Sovereign's representative in New Zealand".
 * "The Governor-General, Rt Hon Sir Anand Satyanand, is the personal representative of New Zealand's Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II of New Zealand".
 * "there shall be, in and over Our Realm of New Zealand... a Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief who shall be Our representative in Our Realm of New Zealand".
 * Canada: "The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General... carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen".
 * "The Governor General is the Queen's personal representative in Canada".
 * "The Speech is given by Canada's Head of State, the Queen, or more usually by her representative, the Governor General".
 * Jamaica: "There shall be a Governor-General of Jamaica who shall be appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure and who shall be Her Majesty's representative in Jamaica."
 * "The Queen is represented on the island by a Governor-General".
 * "The Governor General - who is the representative of Her Majesty the Queen."
 * Tuvalu: "The Governor-General is the representative of the Sovereign"
 * "Luka was appointed as Governor-General on 9 September 2003, as the representative of HM Queen Elizabeth II".
 * "The Governor-General as representative of the Head of State".
 * St. Kitts and Nevis: "There shall be for Saint Christopher and Nevis a Governor-General who shall be a citizen appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure and who shall be Her Majesty's representative in Saint Christopher and Nevis".
 * "The Governor-General is the personal representative of the Queen in St. Kitts & Nevis".
 * "Queen Elizabeth II, is represented in St Kitts and Nevis by a Governor-General".
 * Antigua and Barbuda: "There shall be a Governor-General of Antigua and Barbuda who shall be a citizen appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure and who shall be Her Majesty's representative in Antigua and Barbuda".
 * "Her Majesty is represented in Antigua and Barbuda on a day-to-day basis by a Governor-General".
 * "The governor general — the representative of Queen Elizabeth II in the country".
 * The Bahamas: "There shall be a Governor-General of The Bahamas who shall be appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure and who shall be Her Majesty's representative in The Bahamas".
 * "The Governor-General is Her Majesty's representative in The Bahamas".
 * "The installation and swearing-in of the representative of Her Majesty the Queen is of particular moment".
 * Barbados: "There shall be a Governor General of Barbados who shall be appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure and who shall be Her Majesty's representative in Barbados".
 * "Her Majesty is represented in Barbados on a day-to-day basis by a Governor-General".
 * "Her Majesty's representative in Barbados is the Governor-General".
 * Belize: "There shall be a Governor-General of Belize who shall be a citizen of Belize appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure and who shall be Her Majesty's representative in Belize".
 * "Queen Elizabeth II (head of state), represented by a governor general".
 * "Her Majesty is represented in Belize on a day-to-day basis by a Governor-General".
 * Grenada: "There shall be a Governor-General of Grenada who shall be appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure and who shall be Her Majesty's representative in Grenada".
 * "The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen as her representative in Grenada".
 * "Grenada recognizes Queen Elizabeth as its head of state and herr epresentative, the governor general".
 * Papua New Guinea: "Her Majesty the Queen... is the Queen and Head of State of Papua New Guinea... [T]he privileges, powers, functions, duties and responsibilities of the Head of State may be had, exercised and performed through a Governor-General appointed in accordance with Division 3".
 * "The Queen is Head of State in Papua New Guinea, and is represented by a Governor-General, who carries out the duties of Head of State".
 * "Queen Elizabeth II (since 6 February 1952); represented by Governor General Michael Ogio (since 14 January 2011)".
 * St. Lucia: "There shall be a Governor-General of Saint Lucia who shall be a citizen appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure and who shall be Her Majesty's representative in Saint Lucia".
 * "Her Majesty is represented in St Lucia on a day-to-day basis by a Governor-General".
 * "The head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, represented by a governor general".
 * St. Vincent and the Grenadines: "There shall be a Governor-General of Saint Vincent who shall be appointed by Her Majesty and shall hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure and who shall be Her Majesty's representative in Saint Vincent."
 * "The Governor General, though the Queen’s representative".
 * "Queen Elizabeth II, represented by Governor-General Sir Frederick N. Ballantyne".
 * Solomon Islands: "Her Majesty shall be the Head of State of Solomon Islands... There shall be a Governor-General of Solomon Islands who shall be appointed by the Head of State in accordance with an address from Parliament and who shall be the representative of the Head of State in Solomon Islands".
 * "Queen Elizabeth II (since 6 February 1952); represented by Governor General Frank Kabui (since 7 July 2009)".
 * "Her Majesty is represented in the Solomon Islands on a day-to-day basis by a Governor-General".
 * Australia's governor-general is evidently as much a representative of the Queen as any other governor-general is. But, now Pete/Skyring will try to argue that the Governor-General of Australia is more than a representative of the Queen, quoting a variety of sources collected together to back up his theory. Not only will it be total synthesis, but it will focus on the very constitutional minutiae I said is irrelevant to the basic point of the Governor-General of Australia being the Queen's representative and is overly focused and complex for a basic list of heads of state, anyway. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mies! You know, I'm quite unsure how to respond to this. Communicating with you is difficult, let's leave it at that.
 * Your first paragraph above. I'll take it that you didn't understand what I was saying, as, in amongst the personal attacks, you misrepresent my position. The need for both accuracy in quoting sources, and avoidance of personal interpretation is what I was pointing out.
 * Your long list of excerpts from various constitutions. Nobody doubts that the Australian Governor-General is the Queen's representative. It is the nature of that representation that is the issue here, and whether the Australian position is identical to the other realms. I look at this long list and something jumps out at me - only two of them mention the powers of the Governor-General: Australia and Papua New Guinea. I ask that you look again at that quote from Andrew Inglis Clark. In Australia, the powers of the Governor-General are given to him alone in the Constitution, not through Letters-Patent. The Queen may not alter or withdraw them, nor instruct on how they should be used. There is a difference. You must address this point, rather than evade it. It is the thing which distinguishes Australia from other realms, and while you may not wish to admit it, there it is, elephant in the room, trumpeting into your deaf ears.
 * Finally, you give me a lecture, full of good advice which does not apparently apply to yourself.
 * This is not some half-baked theory I've cooked up. The dispute over the Australian head of state is documented with reliable sources. The distinct nature of the Australian Governor-General is noted above, I've linked to articles that are absolutely crammed full of excellent sources, and yet you somehow seem to believe without any basis whatsoever that the Australian Governor-General is merely the Queen's colonial agent, carrying out her instructions with powers that are borrowed from the Queen. This was proven wrong in 1975, when Sir John Kerr dismissed Gough Whitlam and when Gough complained to the Queen she admitted there was nothing she could do - she didn't have any power to intervene. You also seem to believe that despite the wonderfully varied nature of the diverse Commonwealth Realms, each with different histories and paths to nationhood, they somehow magically all ended up in exactly the same constitutional position.
 * And when I ask you to provide sources for your interpretations, nothing emerges. No senior judges, no law professors, no historians. Nothing but your own opinion. You may quote a selected part of a constitution, or choose some simple statement from a website - assembled by whom, one may ask: a clerk, a programmer, some identifiable person? - and then instead of turning to an authority on the subject you explain how it all wonderfully conforms to your own opinion!
 * But this isn't what we are here for, ridiculously entertaining though it may appear to us, and rigidly boring to Ronk01. We are here to see if we can find some acceptable method of presenting the names of heads of state in a list. My proposal is below, and I suggest that instead of arguing in circles, we apply ourselves to the task at hand. My proposal is one I will accept, it uses the work of Wikipedia editors who know their subject, we draw upon at least thirteen featured articles, and we avoid further conflict. Gentlemen - please read and comment. --Pete (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The moderator is waiting for you to present secondary sources. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see Pete/Skyring has responded precisely as I predicted. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He's also switched back to rejecting Section #61 of the Australian Constitution's wording. As far as the MedCab is concerned? it's apparently back to square one. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, Mies, it is clear that you are reluctant to address the very pertinent points raised, or to enlist any constitutional authorities in support. I invite all to draw their own conclusion. --Pete (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here ar 2 sources. From the Queen's official website & the Australian government's official website  (not sure if it counts as a secondary source), saying she's Head of State of 15 Commonwealth realms in additon to the United Kingdom & as reigining British monarch, she's also the Australian monarch & thus the Australian Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GoodDay. We have any number of good sources for both Queen and Governor-General. --Pete (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're suppose to provide secondary sources here (at the mediators request). Why are you thanking me? I've presented at his request, not yours. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you to both Miesianiacal and GoodDay for providing sources. Pete, do you have any other sources? Ronk01   talk  15:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course! For what, specifically? --Pete (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources that support your position, specifically, sources that state that the Governor-General's role is any different that that assigned in the constitution. Ronk01   talk  16:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? I'm not arguing that the Governor-General's role differs from that laid down in the Constitution. Could you be more specific? --Pete (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, could you please clarify what your position is. Ronk01   talk  17:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Voluble as I may be, I find this extraordinarily difficult to articulate; not from any uncertainty in my views or the clarity of my sources, but rather from the knowledge that those of my audience who rely on a literalist view will find the constitutional reality at odds with their own interpretation and will favour the latter. It is the nature of humanity to view one's own perception as equivalent to factual reality, and we therefore find ourselves discussing different concepts as if they are identical, with the resulting disbelief and confusion noted by Plato. A confusion all too evident in this current discussion.


 * To say, for instance, that the Governor-General is the representative of the Queen - a wording which in fact appears nowhere in the Constitution, though some here claim not only to have found it, but that it is "clearly stated" - is broadly in conformance with the text of the Constitution, but the reality is rather different. As I noted here the 1993 Republic Advisory Committee, of which Professor George Winterton was the most prominent constitutional authority, held that the Governor-General was the representative, not of the Queen personally, but of the Queen's Government. Given the nature of constitutional monarchy, where the monarch acts under advice, it is a nonsense to suggest that the Queen is some sort of free agent who may direct the Governor-General in the performance of his (or currently her) duties. Australia is not ruled out of Buckingham Palace, yet that is the assumption one might make from a literal reading of the Constitution. So when I say that the Governor-General's role does not differ from that expressed in the Constitution, I mean the Constitution in context, as interpreted by appropriate scholars. I am not a lawyer and I make no claims that my own interpretation is correct or definitive. This is not a consideration that troubles other participants here.


 * Having said that, my position is that the nature of the representation of the Queen by the Australian Governor-General is more complex than that implied by a literal reading of the Constitution. I think it would be more correct to say that the Governor-General represents the Crown rather than the actual person of the monarch, but that is not how official documents were phrased in those days when Queen Victoria was alive and revered. It is worth noting that at the time of Federation in 1901, the Constitution itself was a slim document, but the best-selling book, The annotated constitution of the Australian Commonwealth by John Quick and Robert Randolph Garran ran to over a thousand pages! The document itself was not seen as fully explaining itself.


 * Let me quote Robert Garran on the matter of representation:
 * The Governor-General, as the official head of the Executive, does not in the smallest degree represent any federal element; if he represents anything he is the image and embodiment of national unity and the outward and visible representation of the Imperial relationship of the Commonwealth.p700


 * I suggest that any well-regarded constitutional scholar would define the nature of the Governor-General's representation of the Queen in such terms, rather than the literalist interpretations we see here, conjuring up images best described as the loyal servant pining for his absent employer. --Pete (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a pertinent quote from Malcolm Turnbull's 1993 book The Reluctant Republic."In 1901, the Commonwealth of Australia consisted of a federation of six colonies, the federation itself being a colony. The sovereign power was, for all practical purposes, the British Government. The sovereign's viceroy, the Govemor-General, acted partly as head of state and partly as the local representative of the British Government. Australian cabinet ministers communicated with London via the Governor-General who in turn dealt with the Colonial Office. p33"
 * A slightly different form of the above quote is available online here, where Turnbull goes on: "...it is plain enough that at the time of the enactment of our Constitution, the Queen was not intended to be our Head of State in the sense that she was the Head of State of the United Kingdom acting solely on the advice of her elected Government. ... So for all practical purposes when the word 'Queen' was used in the Constitution it means, not the monarch of the United Kingdom for the time being, but rather the Government of the United Kingdom. (pp3-4)"
 * Turnbull, I hardly need to add, headed the 1993 Republic Advisory Committee, led the majority republican faction at the 1998 Constitutional Convention, was for many years the leader of the Australian Republican Movement and is now a senior shadow minister in Federal Parliament, his Prime Ministerial ambitions currently on hold. --Pete (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All that synthesised original research (based as it is on misinterpretations and contradictions) is meant to be a clarification of your position? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another quote from a prominent constitutional scholar. Colin Howard, in Australian Federal Constitutional Law says, "As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, for working purposes the operative head of state in Australia is not the Queen but the Governor-General. He is described in s2 as the 'Queen's representative in the Commonwealth'. ... The practical questions turn on the extent to which, behind the facade of formal ceremony and courtesies, the Governor-General is as a matter of law the head of state of Australia in the sense that he has powers which are not exercisable by the Queen but only by him. Third Edition, The Law Book Company, Sydney 1985, p111"
 * Mies, you may regard these reliably sourced quotes from respected authorities as synthesis and original research. I reject this assessment. --Pete (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is hopeless. Not only can you not read the information you quote either in context or properly and understand what it's actually saying, you don't understand that synthesis is a form of original research in which "multiple sources [are used] to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", namely that the Governor-General of Australia is unique amongst other governors-general because he does not represent the Queen of Australia or is somehow more than a representative of the Queen of Australia (you tend to vacillate). From this point on, I think I'll have to use our moderator as a buffer between you and I. My apologies to him (I can only imagine he's regretted getting himself involved in this disaster in the first place). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the frustration stems from the fact that I know the subject well, I have shelves full of relevant texts, I know how the local politics works - and you two don't. Perhaps the fact that you and Mies cannot find any constitutional authorities to support the simplistic statements being used in an attempt to tell me I'm talking rubbish is frustrating you. Perhaps this is why, when I press for your views on important points, you evade the issue or make a personal attack. Perhaps Mies knows that if he puts up a source and it's some lightweight or a phoney, I will spot it in an instant. But that's just my opinion. The bottom line is that far from convincing me of the rightness of your cause, the more I read what you have to offer the more I am convinced that you are out of your depth. This is not a comment on your depth or breadth of knowledge in other areas, just the matter of Australian constitutional practice. It would be helpful if you could address the points I raise, just as I respond to yours. --Pete (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Section 61 of the Australian Constitution, clearly states that the Governor-General represents the Queen (i.e Monarch). GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Pete/Skyring should spare us the posturing. He's demonstrated that he doesn't understand the subject matter half as well as he thinks he does. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Poll

 * Please indicate your support or opposition to the below options. This should help us narrow debate. Ronk01   talk  22:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added a new category. I assume all will oppose, but it's there for the sake of a complete representation. Ronk01   talk  00:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - this is indeed helpful in clarifying the situation. --Pete (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposals so far as I understand them
Please indicate your support or opposition to the below options (If there are any others, please feel free to add them.)

1. Use differing fonts to distinguish between Head of State and Representative

 * Support. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Pete (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support where it's known the monarch is considered head of state. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per Miesianiacal.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Represent both on even terms

 * Oppose. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Pete (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

3. Note that the Governor-General is indeed a representative of the Head of State

 * Support. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support where it's known the monarch is considered head of state. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

4. Represent the Governor-General as the sole Head of State of Australia

 * Oppose. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Pete (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

5. Represent the Queen as the sole Head of State of Australia

 * Oppose. Pete (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

6. Can we call the Queen the Head of State of Australia based on policy?

 * Support per WP:V, as many reliable sources have have either stated or conventionally suggested, the Queen of Australia is the Aussie HoS. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unsure as the existence of a debate over who is head of state of Australia is reliably sourced, but the view that the governor-general is head of state may be a fringe one and thus is being given undue weight. Also, I wonder how this applies to the other countries that have a monarch and an appointed representative of that figure. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we can also call the Governor-General the head of state using exactly the same criteria. Mies, this isn't a fringe view here in Australia. It is well supported at all levels. --Pete (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The Queen appoints the governor-general so she must be running the show.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Section 61 of the Constitution States that the Governor General is the Representative of the Queen

 * Support. GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Quibble. This is not the wording used in Section 61, nor anywhere in the Constitution. It is an interpretation. See my comments above. (Is this Pete?)
 * Support--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Section 61 of the Constitution States that the Governor General is the Representative of the Queen, and this position has not changed since the writing of the Constitution

 * Support, as it hasn't been Constitutionally repealed. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per GoodDay's reasoning.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we represent the situation in a tabular form as below?

 * Support; illustrations help. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, per Mies. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The table format already used in the article is fine. --Pete (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttals
I shall address the opening statements by both GoodDay and Mies in due course. I now have a thirteen hour night shift ahead of me, followed by a sleep period. Please do not take my consequent lack of input over that time as meaning dimunition of interest! It would be helpful if the other editors could discuss the issues raised, rather than what they imagine I believe. Ronk01, I don't believe there is any great hurry to reach any conclusion? We don't have to do it in a day? --Pete (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we have as long as it takes to reach consensus. Ronk01   talk  02:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I fear it's going to take quite sometime, unfortunately. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would 'also' be helpful in future, if one editor would stop proclaiming himself the NPoV champion. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We should all adopt that role. It is an excellent policy, and one of the factors which has made Wikipedia such an amazing success, allowing editors holding different opinions to work together to produce useful material. I commend it to you. --Pete (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But you refuse to collaborate with myself & Mies. Until you do? nothing will be accomplished here. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing isn't helpful, GoodDay. Please, if you have something to say about my personality, why not go and make a cup of tea instead? --Pete (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the impression you create. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We're veering off the track here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That tends to happen here, whenever we're close to a solution. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested presentation
I suggest that instead of nutting out some formal and specific compromise here (which will doubtless be nibbled away at by fresh editors whenever our backs are turned, such is the nature of Wikipedia) we adopt a useful and robust rule, which is to accept the wording used in the infobox for each nation. The various editors for each nation article are generally well-organised and aware of local practice and terminology. We can draft notes to explain specific situations, such as Switzerland or North Korea. --Pete (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please be more specific? Ronk01   talk  14:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying this is perfect in every detail, but rather than fuss on the List of current heads of state and government page over who is or who is not the head of state and how the relationship works, let us use the many different nation articles, such as Australia, Libya, Switzerland and so on as our authorities. Each article is watched over by editors who know their subject, who are familiar with the relevant terminology, who work together. Anything which is incorrect or biased is spotted and fixed. Any disputes are participated in by good numbers of experienced editors. The more eyes on a topic, the better. On List of current heads, it seems to be Mies, GoodDay and myself throwing rocks at each other, and that's not the way things should work. We don't determine who is a head of state based on who can stay awake longest until the others throw up their hands and go off to find real life and sunshine.
 * To be more specific, let us look at Australia. This is actually a featured article, so every fact has been checked by auditors, it conforms to Wikipedia's highest standards and so on. Looking at the infobox, we don't have bigger and smaller fonts or "represented by" notations or even footnotes. We have (allowing for the fact that I cannot easily mimic the infobox formatting):
 * Monarch - Elizabeth II
 * Governor-General - Quentin Bryce
 * The Prime Minister is also listed, but there is no dispute over which box she should be slipped into. She is the head of government,
 * Other nations have other titles and presentations, but the hard work has already been done by teams of knowledgeable editors - we may reap their harvest. If readers desire further information, they click upon the wikilinks, and they have all the facts they want, all presented through Wikipedia's marvellous mechanisms of verifiability, neutral point of view and so on. --Pete (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But how adaptable to list format would this be? Ronk01   talk  23:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Australian entry for the "Head of State" column is two lines. Simply slot in the two lines from the Australia infobox. Some entries, such as that for Andorra, are multiple lines, but in each case we may simply use what is already provided in the nation's infobox. Perhaps we could divide each column into two, one for title, one for name of officeholder. --Pete (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Show us an example, please. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As an outsider to this it seems a rather good solution. It is factually correct and there is an article on the dispute which could be referenced in the footnote.  There is always (and has always) been some ambiguity between those monarchs and governer generals.  Should it be put as an option above? -- Snowded  TALK  04:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you tell what the solution is? I think Pete/Skyring should show us an illustration of what he proposes. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We need an illustration, big time. GoodDay (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't take me long with a bit of cut and paste and experimentation to do the below GoodDay, maybe you should have put some effort in to do the same? -- Snowded  TALK  04:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just not as smart as you, professor. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I can visualise it

Spacing would adjust and needs to be tab centred on the colon and closed up (beyond my skill) but its a nice solution -- Snowded TALK  04:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what I guessed Pete/Skyring was after, but I can't fully object to it, given that it's almost precisely what I proposed here (third example). My only concern is: will people realise that a governor-general is a representative of the monarch and not a differently titled co-head of state? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also get rid of the references on Queen and add a link to the Dispute article (which should handle your issue). See that Pete/Skyring thinks I may have it wrong.  Anything is better than provocative statements like "not budging" -- Snowded  TALK  05:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain if this is what Skyring/Pete means. With the exception of a missing 'line', it's basically what he's been attempting to edit on the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowded is on the right track here. --Pete (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also wonder about the rest of the list; Australia and the other Commownealth realms don't stand alone. Will all the other fields have to be rendered thusly?:


 * -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They should all be done like the Andorra entry, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That rather misses the point of the compromise solution. It also raises and interesting question as to who the representative is of the Governer General. -- Snowded  TALK  05:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The first illustration would be more acceptable, if the governors-general were in a smaller font. Both officials Queen/Governor-General are in each box (thus appeasing Skyring's concerns). The GGs in smaller font, isn't saying the Queen's the undisputed HoS. GoodDay (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great so far. Nice to see some compromise so early. Ronk01   talk  06:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither is quite what I proposed. The essence of my proposal is that we use the existing table structure and pull in the information from each national infobox, which has presumably gone through its own particular discussion to arrive at an agreed format. We use exactly the same titles and links and font sizes used in each nation's infobox, avoiding this whole dispute:


 * The matter of uniformity is already addressed through the discussion for the infobox template page. --Pete (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you present the queen as Monarch & the governors-general, representatives, regents etc in a smaller font in all 15 comonwealth realms, then it would be acceptable. Different font-size won't effect their status as -for example- both Queen & Governor-General are in the same box & thus allowing for the HoS dispute. GoodDay (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My solution cuts all that away - we use the exact same font sizes, terms and links as those used in each nation's infobox. If there is any dispute, the regular editors at each nation, who presumably know their topic, will sort it out. If you personally want the font sizes any different for (say) Canada, then you may change it at that article and it will dutifully be reproduced at the List of current heads article. My solution ends the dispute here, it ties the list into the wider Wikipedia community, and it is ultimately more accurate and uniform. And why should there be any difference at all between the way the same information is presented in a list of heads of state and a collection of infoboxes? Any reason to have different presentations of exactly the same information? I cannot see any. It seems a fair and natural solution to me. It is a way of satisfying everybody. --Pete (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the Queen is HofS and therefore should be in regular font size, while GG should be smaller size as her representative and should have a note referring readers to the debate. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete/Skyring's proposal isn't acceptable. It doesn't use titles consistently; prime ministers, presidents, and co-princes are properly called "Prime Minister [X]", "President [X]", and "Co-Prince [X]", but Elizabeth II is given the neologisms "Monarch Elizabeth II" and "Head of State Elizabeth II". (And why is Elizabeth II titled "Head of State" in Antigua and Barbuda? The country's constitution makes no such distinction). I also note he hasn't shown what's to happen with other monarchs; would it be "Monarch Abdullah II" and "Monarch Juan Carlos", or "Head of State Abdullah II", etc.? Further, it isn't clear which representative represents who in Andorra and it appears as though Australia, like Andorra, has two equal co-heads of state, just with different titles. This is essentially the exact same change to the Australian entry that he's been pushing for since day one with the same lack of regard for the rest of the list. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We can, as flagged above, add a sub-column for the title. I might wrestle with the wikisyntax for tables and present a version which shows this. I think you've missed the key point of my solution - the data and format is sourced from the nation articles. Why should each nation's presentation in a list of heads of state differ in any respect at all from the individual presentations in each national article? --Pete (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete/Skyring misses the fact that the national articles don't lump the monarch and governor-general under the heading "Head of state"; each entry stands on it's own within a non-titled field that generally relates to government. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We could ask that the template people clarify their template. It doesn't seem to be a problem with presenting the information in the infobox. I would assume this question has been raised there already and the result we see. I think you've missed the key point of my solution - the data and format is sourced from the nation articles. Why should each nation's presentation in a list of heads of state differ in any respect at all from the individual presentations in each national article? --Pete (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your 'slightly modified' proposal of the edit you've been plugging all along, is unacceptable. You are continuing to oppose either the different font size (which contradicts your support of the moderator's Option #1) & Mies' proposal of the pretext "Represented by..." in front of the Governors General entries. Also, you're continuing to single out the Australia entry. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not copied across the entire list. Although not shown, you may imagine as a thought experiment several more nations between "Australia" and "Zimbabwe". And may I ask why you support any difference at all between the information shown at Australia and List of current heads of state and government? It is the same information, the same people holding the same titles. Yet you seem to want it shown differently in different places. Why? --Pete (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are you asking? GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. --Pete (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The infobox at Australia doesn't interest me. The List of current heads of state and government article, does. I object to showing the Queen & Governors-General in the same font, without the pretex "Represented by..." before the Governors-General entries. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've spent a good chunk of your recent life arguing over font size and a word or two on one article, but exactly the same information on a different article doesn't interest you? Australia is a featured article - why should we present exactly the information any differently on List of current heads of state and government? Perhaps we could improve it until it gains FA status. --Pete (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I reject your proposal for this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to go with Kitty's variation (or say same size text but government general in grey not black), gives everyone something, is accurate and this particular storm in a tea cup could come to an end. -- Snowded  TALK  18:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would take us right back to square one. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the same information with sub-columns as appropriate:


 * The table presentation could be tweaked by someone more adept at these things than I. Again, the key point is uniform presentation of information between articles. --Pete (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable for all my aforementioned reasons. The graphic change improves nothing. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Unacceptable for all my aforementioned reasons, too. The 'font size' must be different for Queen/Prince/President etc & Governor-General/Regent etc. Unless of course, the pretex Represented by.. is placed before the Governors-General. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see any issue with using something like the following:

All the Commonwealth realms could either be rendered the same:

the list avoiding the matter of which figure is known to be or thought of as head of state.

Or, there could be differentiation between Commonwealth realms where the monarch is specified as head of state and those where the head of state isn't named:

Notes could be used to explain the difference.

Beyond the realms, the pattern would carry:

This seems to address the fact that there are countries (like Australia) where the term "head of state" isn't universally applied to one individual, thus meeting Pete/Skyring's original concern. I believe he only opposes the above because he is under the misguided impression that the word "representative" means "colonial flunky", "delegate of the British monarch", "agent of the British government", or some such thing, and thus doesn't apply to the Australian governor-general except as residue from the country's days as a Dominion of the Empire ruled from London (see here); he dismisses the constitution's multiple references to the governor-general as the Queen's representative because, in his opinion, the constitution is outdated and out of synch with reality. These words explain why he stands against the use of the term "representative": "Is representation of the monarch - a fact which nobody disputes - the primary function of the Governor-General? While some editors think that this is his or her sole duty, I disagree strongly. Representation of the Queen constitutes a very minor part of the job." Of course, these are just his opinions, supported only by synthesis, and they're pretty much wrong on all counts, anyway. So his objections don't really stand. Why, then, don't we go with what I propose above? With room for improvement, of course. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you number your proposals? GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've only really made one. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Mies, please don't do my thinking for me. I reject your assumptions above. My solution cuts through all the crap, avoiding dispute at the list article. Why, exactly, do you want to see the exact same information presented differently in two different places? --Pete (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's either 'different fonts' or we use 'representated by..'. These are the things I'm concerned with. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the places are themselves different; how the information is presented is tailored to suit each location. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you be more precise, please? An example would be helpful, along with an explanation for each point of difference and why it would be important. --Pete (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A monarch is a head of state. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay: An infobox on a national article looks like this and a list of heads of state and government looks like this. Obviously different in many ways, but the one key distinction between the two is the former does not have fields designated "Head of state" or "Head of government" and the latter does. The former thus does not tell us how to order the latter. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted, perhaps the template people could adjust their template to make this clear - it doesn't seem to be a problem, however. What about the actual information. Could you show why each point of difference in your examples above is so important that we need maintain two different sets of data? --Pete (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to tackle the appearance of the country infobox, be my guest. But the infobox, as it is, has no bearing on this dispute. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the actual information, then. Could you show why each point of difference in your examples above is so important that Wikipedia need to maintain two different sets of data? --Pete (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't need to explain why two different sets of data need be maintained. If you think there's needless duplication, nominate one or the other for deletion. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You evade the direct question. I draw the obvious conclusion. You have no good answer. My position is that we use one set of data - that found in the infoboxes of each of the nations we list - and we use it to populate the table here, as per my latest example above. The Australia article is a Featured Article, its presentation and data have been scrutinised and found to comply with the highest standards of Wikipedia and there should be no problem at all with using exactly the same data, with titles, names, fonts and wikilinks intact in our list here. We do the same for each of the nations we list. Many other nation articles also have FA status. The information is good and we should use it as is without disputing at enormous length over trivia like font sizes. Any disputes are handled elsewhere - by the teams of editors who regularly work on each nation's article and presumably know their subject well - and we merely copy their work. --Pete (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't evade it; I answered it and the answer was no. The request is irrelevant to our task here. List of current heads of state and government is already populated with some of the information found in the infoboxes of national articles. You're trying to argue that the list of heads of state and government should show that information in the same fashion as the infoboxes on national articles and think your proposal does so. It doesn't. And it can't be done. The list has fields marked "head of state" and "head of government" that the infobox doesn't have; and because the infobox doesn't have a head of state field, there's no need to care about how the monarch and governor-general are shown in it, meaning it's no example for us to follow in this dispute. In other words, the infoboxes won't serve as a retroactive justification for the edit you tried repeatedly to make at List of current heads of state and government. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In agreement with Mies. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my absence, I had to deliver a lecture today. Clearly the tabular form is preferred, the question is again how we represent the Governor-General within the table on the article. Ronk01   talk  22:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No apology required - we all have lives beyond Wikipedia, and Wikipedia doesn't pay well enough to keep food on the table anyway. I think we have made excellent progress: the problem is solved in my eyes. --Pete (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed Ronk01, how to show the Governors-General entries, continues to be un-resolved. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but I think the only way to resolve this is to put the two or three options we have to a vote. I don't see any other way. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, there doesn't seem to be any other way. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are only two ways out of this one. Agreement or not. There does not seem to be much chance of agreement at the moment. I am confident that should I put my solution to a wider or higher audience, it will be accepted as an excellent way of presenting the information and forestalling any further wrangling. --Pete (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you'll have to move this up the next level in the Wiki-Dispute ladder. The MedCab has run its course. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is resolved here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here in alphabetical order. Two have FA status. In every case, the monarch and governor-general are listed with their titles in the same size font, with no "represented by" notation. This presentation has been stable for at least four years. Editors do not spend great amounts of time wrangling over trivial details. It works. --Pete (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We're just going in circles here. Take this argument to the next Wiki-Dispute level. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  00:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you thought about clearly formulating two options, showing the precedents on other commonwealth countries and then opening up an RfC? It seems to me that this needs more eyes rather than mode discussions between two entrenched positions-- Snowded TALK  04:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's pretty much my way of thinking. I'm going to take a bit of time first to get the sources uncovered here into Australian head of state dispute. The material on representation is good. --Pete (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If Pete can get a consensus for his proposed change at List of current heads of state and government, I won't revert. In the meantime, I'll continue to keep that article on my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

 * Let's work on the current dispute, first. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not. I don't like disputes. I like outcomes. I like everybody happy with a smile on their face, ready to go on to do more good work. --Pete (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not budging. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment
Since the Queen appoints the GG, the Queen is clearly HofS. But a note referring to the fringe POV is appropriate. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Pete, preffers to promote the Aussie HoS dispute on that article. Thus his resistance to having the Represented by.. pretext in the Governor-General entry as a compromise in allowing the same font-size for the Queen of Australia & Governor-General of Australia entries. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * prefers ... Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the moderator, but I'm still waiting for Skyring/Pete to provide his secondary sources. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am indeed. Ronk01   talk  06:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume he'll be presenting 'secondary sources' that'll show both the Queen & the Governor-General as Australia's HoS. GoodDay (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be great if Snowded stopped personal attacks on GoodDay and if GoodDay stopped personal attacks on Pete. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's understandabe & fair. Sorry Pete. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Off the street
Ronk01, I see people who are not parties in this mediation process participating in discussion and supporting or opposing various proposals. There is a comment from an IP on the main page. Is this a private party, or may anyone wander in and cheer on their favorites? --Pete (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Other parties are welcome to comment, though voting on proposals may be more of an issue. Ronk01   talk  16:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an issue. --Pete (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise Wikipedia held private parties on talk pages? I thought all editors could bring their comments to the joint.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wishes to comment or discuss productively may do so, as this is not a formal mediation. Ronk01   talk  19:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, GoodDay. I am glad you agree that we should make productive comments. I commend this position, and I hope that we may find some way to be productive ogether, now and in future efforts. I would hate to think that Ronk01 is wasting his time, because I am conscious of the service and devotion he has given to our encyclopaedia. We all do, but I would especially like to acknowledge Ronk's volunteering for this mission. --Pete (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't suck up to the moderator. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. The moderator is here to help us reach agreement. He is not a judge or umpire, but rather a facilitator. My comments are aimed at ensuring that his service here is appreciated, and I hope that you will help ensure that he, as every other participant, may come away with a sense that we have done our best. You will note that I often thank you for your efforts, and I am constantly mindful of the remarks of the Duke of Wellington, as quoted in A History of Warfare (1968) by Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: "Sir Winston Churchill once told me of a reply made by the Duke of Wellington, in his last years, when a friend asked him: "If you had your life over again, is there any way in which you could have done better?" The old Duke replied: "Yes, I should have given more praise."--Pete (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the 'edit summary' of my 00:41, 4 March 2011 post. GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed it at the time. Nevrtheless, my feelings are genuine, and extend to all who give so much of their time and effort to Wikipedia. Including you, GoodDay. We might have some friction, but I take off my hat to you for all the work you have put in. You are helping to make a better world, and I respect that. --Pete (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Committee
IMHO, this MedCab has been un-successful. We should now move on to the next despute-resolution level: MEDCOM. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will endorse an RFM. However, MEDCOM is the last step for a content dispute. Ronk01   talk  02:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I consent to an RFM. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any observations, Ronk? Suggestions? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Much of the discussion here is highly circular, so I'm not sure if any form of mediation would be helpful. However, it is important that you present the options discussed here in a formal mediation. Ronk01   talk  02:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like this MedCab is going nowhere - and for that I am heartily sorry - but I do not think we need trouble MedCom just yet. I will float my proposal to a wider audience and see how we go. If we simply move on to MedCom with the three of us, we are likely to have the same result. GoodDay will not consent to anything that doesn't show Queen Elizabeth as the undisputed Australian head of state, I will not go along with anything that ignores the NPOV issue, and Mies, well I don't know what Mies wants, but he hasn't proposed anything I can accept and from my point of view refuses to be led down any paths that might involve presenting information in a way already heartily endorsed by the wider Wikicommunity. So I will try the wider community first. That is my course of action. This has not been a total bust, however. I have found several excellent sources for the Australian head of state dispute article - the views of republican superstar Malcolm Turnbull are particularly useful. Ronk01, I thank you for your time and commend you on your spirit of adventure in volunteering to mediate us. GoodDay and Mies, it would be a dull old world if everybody had the same opinions, and one of the beauties of Wikipedia is that people of widely differing views can work together to do good work. Thank you for making Wikipedia a brighter place and I commend you for your commitment to your views. You made up your minds what to do and you did not waver. --Pete (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're incorrect Pete. The fact that I've accepted having the Governors General listed in the article's 'Head of State' colunm (at all), prooves that I'm not seeking to have the Queen shown as the undisputed HoS. GoodDay (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't agree to removing all Governors-General except for the Australian, having the Queen above the Governor-General, same font size? That would handle the NPOV issue. --Pete (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're not gonna remove all the governors-general (and the other representatives)? then leave the article as is -different font sizes-. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We've had this discussion before. I stand by my original assessment. Just puzzled why you won't accept the formula used in the non-UK Commonwealth Realm infoboxes for several years: Queen and Governor-General, both labelled as such, Queen above Governor-General, equal font sizes. If the wider community accepts this presentation, and regards it as best Wikipedia practice for inclusion in FAs, then I'm confident I can gain consensus to use the same format for the List article. You haven't been trying to reduce the existing font size for Governors-General in 15 realms, when you have edited some of those articles, but you staunchly defend it in one article. --Pete (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good-luck in your quest for seeking a consensus for your change. Be careful not to breach WP:CANVASS while doing so. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A good idea, well-presented, sells itself. --Pete (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing down
I'd recommen that the moderator close this MedCab. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)