→Merger proposal: see also archives |
Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 (talk | contribs) →Merger proposal: close |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
== Merger proposal == |
== Merger proposal == |
||
{{Archive top|reason=There is no consensus to merge to any one article. There are near a half-dozen potential merge targets suggested in this discussion, and it's mostly unclear where participants actually want this information merged. You can consider this a procedural close if you like with no prejudice against a more structured merge proposal that offers clear yes/no options. {{nac}} ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 13:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)}} |
|||
::''Note: The Rfc above with "merger" as one of 3 options was opened on 15 February 2016 (UTC), and see discussion at Archives [[Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 7|7]] and [[Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 8|8]]''. |
::''Note: The Rfc above with "merger" as one of 3 options was opened on 15 February 2016 (UTC), and see discussion at Archives [[Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 7|7]] and [[Talk:Australian head of state dispute/Archive 8|8]]''. |
||
Following on from the discussion above, I propose that this article be merged to [[Monarchy of Australia]].--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC) |
Following on from the discussion above, I propose that this article be merged to [[Monarchy of Australia]].--[[User:Jack Upland|Jack Upland]] ([[User talk:Jack Upland|talk]]) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
Line 121: | Line 122: | ||
::It's best we let a reviewing administrator decide these matters. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC) |
::It's best we let a reviewing administrator decide these matters. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::I voted once for Jack Upland's proposal, using a form of words that specify exactly that. I really admire the fairness and patience that Goodday, Jack, Qex, Wikiain, Ryk, Moxy and several others have shown. Not once, have they resorted to any tricks or non-policy activity. Honest and calm, they are consistently showing good faith, beyond what what is expected. They are always ready with sound arguments. If there was the remotest possibility of them being incorrect in the smallest way over these weeks, every opportunity has been allowed for it to be exposed. But it has not happened. Bravo! Bravo! [[User:Travelmite|Travelmite]] ([[User talk:Travelmite|talk]]) 17:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC) |
:::I voted once for Jack Upland's proposal, using a form of words that specify exactly that. I really admire the fairness and patience that Goodday, Jack, Qex, Wikiain, Ryk, Moxy and several others have shown. Not once, have they resorted to any tricks or non-policy activity. Honest and calm, they are consistently showing good faith, beyond what what is expected. They are always ready with sound arguments. If there was the remotest possibility of them being incorrect in the smallest way over these weeks, every opportunity has been allowed for it to be exposed. But it has not happened. Bravo! Bravo! [[User:Travelmite|Travelmite]] ([[User talk:Travelmite|talk]]) 17:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{Archive bottom}} |
|||
== "an Australian peculiarity" (''per'' Kirby) == |
== "an Australian peculiarity" (''per'' Kirby) == |
Revision as of 13:48, 13 April 2016
Australia: Law / Politics C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Merger proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following on from the discussion above, I propose that this article be merged to Monarchy of Australia.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd recommend merging to Australian republic referendum, 1999, as this so called 'dispute' seems to have been mostly drummed up during that referendum. PS: It should be made clear on Wikipedia, that the Australian monarch is Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would prefer a bit of both. I've amended the tags. Monarchy of Australia should state that the Queen is the head of state, but note that some monarchists dissent from this. (Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy still argue the GG is.) Then the referendum article should note the argument that arose in the 1990s. Pete gave a good summary recently of the events that ensued after Keating's speech...--Jack Upland (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Support "Monarchy" article, as previously discussed, and prepared for. Meantime,there is nothing to stop adding also to referendum article and the Monarchy article, to satisfy the "bit of both". Qexigator (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - But if the present version of the lead is allowed to stand, with the other recent revisions ("Various opinions" c/e, list of Commonwealth realms) as at 23:05, 13 March[1], then let the merge proposal lapse, subject to checking text to sources in the usual process of improving articles, and maybe tweaking here and there, without much more in the way of rewrite, given that, if the topic deserves no more than that, it does deserve as much. Qexigator (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Update: There are now 4, at least, for Retain, including... Qexigator (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Update: The content of the current version is unmergeable, and the proposal should be abandoned as unviable.[2] Qexigator (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Follow policy. This article is not going to be deleted - along with years of work, dozens of excellent sources and comprehensive talk page archives containing much valuable material - without going through a proper WP:AfD.
- Qexigator's attempt above to PROD this, knowing there is previously stated support for retention is disruptive.
- The RfC - of which this discussion is part - remains under way, and any attempt to initiate merging or deletion should be set aside until after closure. There is currently no consensus for any of the three options, which indicates the retention of the status quo. As one editor has agreed to withdraw , and another is currently blocked, there is not even a majority of nose counts for merging.
- Considering the appalling behaviour touched upon below, this entire campaign is headed for higher and broader discussion. In particular, I would be highlighting the incendiary and disruptive behaviour of one particular WP:SPA.
- I suggest that disruption cease right now, and we discuss ways to improve the article with an eye to working together to produce a better encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Qexigator, based on my limited experience, I think it is advisable to avoid editing on this issue until this merger proposal is resolved. As Skyring has said, people have put a lot of work in, and it would be better to incorporate their work in some shape or form in other articles. In any case, as I have said, given my experience of the AfD process, it is highly unlikely that a deletion proposal would succeed.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- If that is the case, merging sounds like a sneaky way of getting rid of the article by other means. The PROD idea was an appalling one, and I can only assume its advocates do not understand how the PROD process works. (I would, of course, have deprodded it as soon as I saw it.) My suggestion regarding for merging was for those who wanted a merge, and as an alternative to merging being part of an RfC discussion. It sounds like the merger discussion should be postponed - it can be withdrawn and closed now, without prejudice to a future proposal, especially after the RfC is closed. StAnselm (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Qexigator, based on my limited experience, I think it is advisable to avoid editing on this issue until this merger proposal is resolved. As Skyring has said, people have put a lot of work in, and it would be better to incorporate their work in some shape or form in other articles. In any case, as I have said, given my experience of the AfD process, it is highly unlikely that a deletion proposal would succeed.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sensing that emotions are starting to get high, here. I know from personal experience, what can happen if discussions on this article spill over into places like AN, ANI or worst? Trust me folks, nobody wants to go to the worst. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I was being "sneaky" in proposing the merger, as I have discussed the issues openly. The problem is that there is overwhelming consensus that the Queen is the head of state. This article, however, is premised on the notion that this is an undecided question. The counterclaim that the GG is HoS is a fringe theory, that is dismissed by leading constitutional scholars, and was overwhelmingly rejected by the RfC recently initiated by GoodDay. What I would suggest is a section in Monarchy of Australia that describes the Queen as head of state, and notes the Smith/Flint dissenting view. Also I would suggest an addition to the referendum article which describes how the issue played out in that debate. That would give the issue due weight. I suggest we let this merger proposal take its course.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- So why do you think it would be kept at AfD? Anyway, the point you raise is the essential one: This article, however, is premised on the notion that this is an undecided question. That's probably true, but there is no reason why it needs to be thus; if the consensus is that the Queen really is the Head of State, then the obvious thing to do would be to rewrite this article to reflect that. (Actually, I think it needs to be rewritten along these lines anyway, to reflect the fact that this is the majority opinion, even if we don't commit ourselves in wiki voice.) But this is not a reason for merging (or, for that matter, deletion). In fact, if this really is a fringe view, as you claim, the section you suggest would possibly be undue weight in the Monarchy of Australia article. StAnselm (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- In regards to my reference to sneakiness, I know you did this in good faith, but proposing a merger because you think an article would survive AfD does run rather close to gaming the system. StAnselm (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've never pushed strongly for deletion. In fact, I have added a fair amount material to the article, mainly in the scholarly sources. I do think the Monarchy article should say the monarch is head of state. That isn't undue weight. And this isn't about gaming the system; it's about operating by consensus. I don't think we'll get a consensus for deletion, but we are possibly approaching a consensus on a merger. I think you are misunderstanding this discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- It would (possibly) be undue weight if the dispute was explained - but only if the minority view is deemed to be fringe. But if all the Monarchy article says is that the Queen is the Head of State, that's not a merge at all; it's a redirect. Anyway, once again I ask: why don't you think we'd get a consensus for deletion? StAnselm (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've never pushed strongly for deletion. In fact, I have added a fair amount material to the article, mainly in the scholarly sources. I do think the Monarchy article should say the monarch is head of state. That isn't undue weight. And this isn't about gaming the system; it's about operating by consensus. I don't think we'll get a consensus for deletion, but we are possibly approaching a consensus on a merger. I think you are misunderstanding this discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I was being "sneaky" in proposing the merger, as I have discussed the issues openly. The problem is that there is overwhelming consensus that the Queen is the head of state. This article, however, is premised on the notion that this is an undecided question. The counterclaim that the GG is HoS is a fringe theory, that is dismissed by leading constitutional scholars, and was overwhelmingly rejected by the RfC recently initiated by GoodDay. What I would suggest is a section in Monarchy of Australia that describes the Queen as head of state, and notes the Smith/Flint dissenting view. Also I would suggest an addition to the referendum article which describes how the issue played out in that debate. That would give the issue due weight. I suggest we let this merger proposal take its course.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reply: I don't think we'd get a consensus for deletion simply based on my limited experience. I think a likely outcome would be that uninvolved editors propose a merger instead. Hence, let's not waste time discussing deletion. In any case, thinking about it, I am less inclined to support deletion. The claim that the GG is the head of state is likely to raised again, so it would be worthwhile stating that the Queen is the head of state in the Monarchy article, with some of the key sources that we have assembled, rather than having this debate revisited in a few years time, and editors having to start from scratch. I would envisage a section called "Head of state" which featured most of the information from this article in a condensed form, and noted the opposing view. I would also envisage an expansion of the referendum article to describe how the republicans used slogans such as "Make a mate the head of state", and how the monarchists countered this by saying we already had an Australian head of state in the form of the governor-general... I think that could fairly be called a merger, not a deletion.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- If this article ceases to exist, it's a deletion. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this article. It's about a dispute, and there are many articles about disputes here. For example:
- Macedonia naming dispute
- Sea of Japan naming dispute
- Investiture Controversy
- South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute
- Derry/Londonderry name dispute
- Getting rid of one of these articles does not eliminate the dispute. Rewriting an article so it favours one side or the other goes against NPOV. --Pete (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- All of the disputes above have significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources; describing them as genuine disputes. The subject of this article would not appear to have the same. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reply: I don't think we'd get a consensus for deletion simply based on my limited experience. I think a likely outcome would be that uninvolved editors propose a merger instead. Hence, let's not waste time discussing deletion. In any case, thinking about it, I am less inclined to support deletion. The claim that the GG is the head of state is likely to raised again, so it would be worthwhile stating that the Queen is the head of state in the Monarchy article, with some of the key sources that we have assembled, rather than having this debate revisited in a few years time, and editors having to start from scratch. I would envisage a section called "Head of state" which featured most of the information from this article in a condensed form, and noted the opposing view. I would also envisage an expansion of the referendum article to describe how the republicans used slogans such as "Make a mate the head of state", and how the monarchists countered this by saying we already had an Australian head of state in the form of the governor-general... I think that could fairly be called a merger, not a deletion.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Noting the above, all can form opinions for themselves about whether or not P/S's attempt to deflect adverse comment or proposals, defend a position and gain sympathy, by charging others with disruption, is a further effort to retain the indefensible. But either way a participant may feel saddened that an editor would, at this stage, feel moved to do that. Also noted: the distaste for PROD expressed and various propoals on the way to proceed from here. I concur with JU's remark: this isn't about gaming the system. Qexigator (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- + P/S's protest above that the whole content being merged would result in the loss of "years of work, dozens of excellent sources and comprehensive talk page archives containing much valuable material" is simple nonsense if, as I have understood it, talk page archives are retained and remain accessible (although not in fact part of Wikipedia's articles as such), and no "excellent sources" will be lost inasmuch as all encyclopedic content and sources will be moved to one or more places more suited to them. Qexigator (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose merge. The article clearly passes WP:GNG - there is significant coverage in reliable sources, both books[3][4][5][6] and other publications.[7] [8] For purposes of notability, it is irrelevant whether it is a fringe theory or not. As well as the two proposed merge targets, this topic is also relevant to the Governor-General of Australia and David Smith (public servant) articles. It is therefore better to consolidate the information in one article, to avoid undue weight in other articles. Also, this issue is no mere subset of any of the other articles - it is not, for example, merely an issue that was discussed in 1999. Finally, it is not clear under which of the reasons to merge this is proposed; it doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria. Rather, from what I can tell from the above discussion, the main reason driving the merge is "I don't like it." StAnselm (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I see that as proposing that the current version of the article is remediable only if it is both renamed (as previously conceded by P/S) and at the same time rewritten as a whole, on the assumption that the topic is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article and by way of conveniently consolidating information now elsewhere. The effect would be a new article, and redirect from the current title. I do not see that "the main reason driving the merge is I don't like it ", and consider that remark implies some lack of good faith on the part of others, who may have shown that they prefer articles to be suitably encyclopedic, before and after SA joined the discussion. Qexigator (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- This sounds a lot like a "keep" argument. Articles are changed and moved all the time; this is usually quite sharply distinguished from redirecting to an existing article. (Of course, a formal move proposal would also need to be made; do you have a particular title in mind?) Finally, it's no good just saying that one wants articles to be "suitably encyclopedic"; no doubt we all want that. (And "unencyclopedic" is another argument to avoid.) StAnselm (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- SA: sounds like a "keep" argument: is my understanding of your proposal (stated above) what you are proposing? suitably encyclopedic: Perhaps if you review the discussions you will see that some participants consider the present version more a personal opinion essay, fine on a blog or magazine, but not encyclopedically suited to Wikipedia, but they too have been proceeding in a collaborative manner so far as has been permitted by others. Experience can tell us that it is usually better not to judge others too hastily on such points, especially when coming into an already advanced stage of a discussion. Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- But "personal opinion essay" is not in itself a reason to delete; rather, we rewrite it to comply with NPOV, etc. In fact, I don't think anyone has actually produced a reason for merging. This may be due in part to the wording of the RfC, which encouraged those who thought the article was "rubbish" to vote "merge"; "it's rubbish, but keep it anyway" was not an option. Anyway, it would be helpful in this thread for the merge !voters to repeat / summarise their arguments rather than just saying "as above". StAnselm (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- It was P/S who introduced the word "rubbish", so are we to infer that s/he was leading us to vote "merge"; "it's rubbish, but keep it anyway". I note that you have not yet answered the question in my last previous comment: is my understanding of your proposal (as I rephrased it above) what you are proposing? And are you able to let me have a straight answer to the Question below: that could help clarify what you are actually proposing. Mere argumentation is not so helpful. Qexigator (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- How could the question below be for me? I'm not proposing the merger! I saw it, of course, and I was looking forward to reading the answer myself. Anyway, are you saying that when you said "I see that as proposing that the current version of the article is remediable only if it is both renamed... and at the same time rewritten as a whole" - you were checking to see whether we had the same goal in mind? We do, I think, although I can't off-hand think of a better title: Theory of Australian Governor-General being Head of State sounds a bit clunky. I'm not convinced the current title is particularly POV. StAnselm (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- It was P/S who introduced the word "rubbish", so are we to infer that s/he was leading us to vote "merge"; "it's rubbish, but keep it anyway". I note that you have not yet answered the question in my last previous comment: is my understanding of your proposal (as I rephrased it above) what you are proposing? And are you able to let me have a straight answer to the Question below: that could help clarify what you are actually proposing. Mere argumentation is not so helpful. Qexigator (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- But "personal opinion essay" is not in itself a reason to delete; rather, we rewrite it to comply with NPOV, etc. In fact, I don't think anyone has actually produced a reason for merging. This may be due in part to the wording of the RfC, which encouraged those who thought the article was "rubbish" to vote "merge"; "it's rubbish, but keep it anyway" was not an option. Anyway, it would be helpful in this thread for the merge !voters to repeat / summarise their arguments rather than just saying "as above". StAnselm (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- SA: sounds like a "keep" argument: is my understanding of your proposal (stated above) what you are proposing? suitably encyclopedic: Perhaps if you review the discussions you will see that some participants consider the present version more a personal opinion essay, fine on a blog or magazine, but not encyclopedically suited to Wikipedia, but they too have been proceeding in a collaborative manner so far as has been permitted by others. Experience can tell us that it is usually better not to judge others too hastily on such points, especially when coming into an already advanced stage of a discussion. Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- This sounds a lot like a "keep" argument. Articles are changed and moved all the time; this is usually quite sharply distinguished from redirecting to an existing article. (Of course, a formal move proposal would also need to be made; do you have a particular title in mind?) Finally, it's no good just saying that one wants articles to be "suitably encyclopedic"; no doubt we all want that. (And "unencyclopedic" is another argument to avoid.) StAnselm (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Question - If the content of the article is merged as proposed, will the result be that all that will remain will be its title and redirect? Qexigator (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Retain and Improve. Qexigator, when you refer to me as "s/he" above, it made me wonder if you come from a culture where "Peter" is not a masculine name? And I've also noticed that when you ascribe some opinion to me, it is invariably wrong, inviting me to respond to set you straight, thereby FingTT. I don't think the article is rubbish; as I've said many times now it is well-sourced, notable, and long-standing. The article is not some view of David Smith. He is barely mentioned. It is an examination of the range of views expressed over many years by prominent Australians. Obviously some insist the Queen is the head of state, but there are enough who view the Governor-General as such to lift this beyond a fringe view. What it is not is an attempt to answer the question, or to sway readers one way or another. Miesianiacal and I have worked together to ensure that it is scrupulously NPOV. It should be kept, not sneakily merged or redirected to something of marginal relevance. --Pete (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reply to Qexigator: I would envisage 1 or 2 paragraphs in the Monarchy and the 1999 referendum articles based on the material assembled here. Note also that Australian head of state redirects here.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge to the articles-in-question. This article reads like personal essay, based on sources that are interpreted to lend strong support David Smith's proposition that the GG is Head of State, and suggests an inconsistency in the regular understanding of Australian government, that is unsupportable by any aspect of Wikipedia policy or (as we have seen from many sources from legal scholars) the law itself. It has core problems with undue weight, original research and taking David Smith's work without acknowledgement. It fits the definition of a POV content fork WP:CFORK which is not permitted under Wikipedia's policy, as follows: "All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies". Regarding the sources, there's no documentation of actual public disputation, except we are told by some sources it came up from time-to-time during the republican debate. So it can fit inside the relevant article of the republican debate. The issue has been shown to be not notable, in that it's rarely mentioned, given the vast number of books on the topic of the constitution and Australia's government. Those rare mentions always talk about it in context of the republican debate, which is why editors are responsibly including that in the merge proposal. There is no concern that information will be lost as even the least important source has been found an place, in according with Wikipedia policy and in the spirit of accommodating all editors views. Over the past 10 years, there are more words about this within Wikipedia that is recorded in all other media combined, which means Wikipedia is now feeding off itself in creating new original content, like a chain-reaction. With a merge, I hope that the structural bias created by this article can ensure any further content disputes within Wikipedia can be easily resolved based on reliable sources. Travelmite (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- These are reasons for improving the article, not for merging. The normal procedure for essays to to tag them for improvement (Template:Essay-like) and remove the personal opinions and feelings. Any POV or OR problems can be dealt with through normal editing (though it may need a lot of work). Hence, it does not have to be a POVFORK - it could be a legitimate content fork. If all the reliably sourced information from this article was placed into Monarchy of Australia, the latter article would become a lot longer - so much so, that the information on this subject could be legitimately removed to its own article. That is content forking, but not POV forking; it is completely acceptable. Really, it all comes down to notability, and there is definitely significant coverage of this topic in reliable independent sources; that is all that is needed to pass WP:GNG. (Even if there is no documentation in the article of "actual public disputation", it is present in the sources I have cited.) StAnselm (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- This article merely makes a mountain out of a molehill. It's time to let it go. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- The structure of SA's argument is to break the many issues into isolated issues, as though a broken tricycle just needs a new wheels, new seat, new brakes, new chain and straightened frame. So, I stand by looking at the article as a whole, as it is written, and as it is linked throughout Wikipedia. I am commenting on the actual article, not a hypothetical article, with hypothetical sources and hypothetical tags. The "Essay-like" template is not applicable. If it's agreed that the article has POV, and its a content fork, then it's a POV content fork and that's against policy. The procedure to follow is to delete. Note these points have already been refuted repeatedly many times over. I think it's going to be sufficient now to just comment that these points have been refuted many times over. Travelmite (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the most important argument - that the subject passes WP:GNG - has not been refuted, or even addressed. Now, regarding POV forks, I am certainly not conceding that this is one, and I note that WP:POVFORK says, "it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." In any case, if the article is re-written to comply with WP:NPOV then it is obviously no longer a POV fork. So your argument does not hold up - in saying "The procedure to follow is to delete," you have basically gone back to asserting that it should be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- StAnselm raises an important question here, and I concur that it is appropriate to address it. Which of the sources used in this article are reliable, independent, secondary sources? Which provide significant coverage? In faith, while we have 84 sources, I am not seeing many which meet these criteria. I am also not seeing many sources which indicate that this whateveritis rises to the level of a genuine dispute. If any other editor agrees that this should be discussed, I will open a new section, below. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the most important argument - that the subject passes WP:GNG - has not been refuted, or even addressed. Now, regarding POV forks, I am certainly not conceding that this is one, and I note that WP:POVFORK says, "it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." In any case, if the article is re-written to comply with WP:NPOV then it is obviously no longer a POV fork. So your argument does not hold up - in saying "The procedure to follow is to delete," you have basically gone back to asserting that it should be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- The structure of SA's argument is to break the many issues into isolated issues, as though a broken tricycle just needs a new wheels, new seat, new brakes, new chain and straightened frame. So, I stand by looking at the article as a whole, as it is written, and as it is linked throughout Wikipedia. I am commenting on the actual article, not a hypothetical article, with hypothetical sources and hypothetical tags. The "Essay-like" template is not applicable. If it's agreed that the article has POV, and its a content fork, then it's a POV content fork and that's against policy. The procedure to follow is to delete. Note these points have already been refuted repeatedly many times over. I think it's going to be sufficient now to just comment that these points have been refuted many times over. Travelmite (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- This article merely makes a mountain out of a molehill. It's time to let it go. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- These are reasons for improving the article, not for merging. The normal procedure for essays to to tag them for improvement (Template:Essay-like) and remove the personal opinions and feelings. Any POV or OR problems can be dealt with through normal editing (though it may need a lot of work). Hence, it does not have to be a POVFORK - it could be a legitimate content fork. If all the reliably sourced information from this article was placed into Monarchy of Australia, the latter article would become a lot longer - so much so, that the information on this subject could be legitimately removed to its own article. That is content forking, but not POV forking; it is completely acceptable. Really, it all comes down to notability, and there is definitely significant coverage of this topic in reliable independent sources; that is all that is needed to pass WP:GNG. (Even if there is no documentation in the article of "actual public disputation", it is present in the sources I have cited.) StAnselm (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- But to be fair, it's not just the ones in the article, but also the six I cited above. In any case, we only need two to pass GNG. As for "dispute", that is not essential to the notability of the topic, which is probably more the GG=HoS theory, anyway. (And even if it isn't quite the topic that is being discussed, "keep as Theory of Australian Governor-General being Head of State" is an acceptable outcome.) StAnselm (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- It was actually reviewing the six sources cited above that raised the question in my mind as to whether the topic is notable as a dispute or as a theory; so I agree that we should absolutely consider those sources (and any others which might be proposed). It will take some time to go through the 90-odd sources, but I will try to have a rough draft in the next day or so - probably as a table inside a collapsed section. I also concur that, assuming demonstrable notability, "keep as Theory of Australian Governor-General being Head of State or similar" is not an unacceptable outcome from my perspective, provided that it also involves a removal of the current proliferation of footnotes & caveats in other articles. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- StAnselm says only two are needed to pass GNG, but this is not the case as Wikipedia couldn't include an article for every theory (source 1) that was refuted once or twice (source 2 or 3). The article is not even achieved this level of neutrality. Regardless, there is not a fixed number of sources required, since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not constitute multiple works, as in this case the authors are relying on the same source (Smith), and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by one author (Smith) is normally counted as one source. The lack of sufficient sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in wider topics. I have no issue preserving the idea, but do it according to policy. Travelmite (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- The use of footnotes and caveats is the issue that I have attempted (with limited success) to address at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Refining the question. StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- It was actually reviewing the six sources cited above that raised the question in my mind as to whether the topic is notable as a dispute or as a theory; so I agree that we should absolutely consider those sources (and any others which might be proposed). It will take some time to go through the 90-odd sources, but I will try to have a rough draft in the next day or so - probably as a table inside a collapsed section. I also concur that, assuming demonstrable notability, "keep as Theory of Australian Governor-General being Head of State or similar" is not an unacceptable outcome from my perspective, provided that it also involves a removal of the current proliferation of footnotes & caveats in other articles. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- But to be fair, it's not just the ones in the article, but also the six I cited above. In any case, we only need two to pass GNG. As for "dispute", that is not essential to the notability of the topic, which is probably more the GG=HoS theory, anyway. (And even if it isn't quite the topic that is being discussed, "keep as Theory of Australian Governor-General being Head of State" is an acceptable outcome.) StAnselm (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
So, what's the current situation here? GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion needs to be closed by an uninvolved admin. I would like to see more responses to the proposal. Unfortunately, there has been a huge amount of verbiage generated by a small group of editors (including me). So what do others think? Ask for closure or wait for more editors to give their input?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- The verbiage is an embarassment to any newcomer summoned by the merger tag at the tops of the articles. It is also unfair to burden a closing admin with it, now that the other RfC has closed with unarguable that the Australian head of state is currently Queen Elizabeth II...the identity of the titular head of state... is, unambiguously, the Queen, as the discussion clearly shows. The proposed merger should be suspended while participants are resolving any outstanding points about text and sources, or policy wrangles about notability, and maybe allowed to lapse altogether. At this stage my position is as above: If the present version of the lead is allowed to stand, with the other recent revisions ("Various opinions" c/e, list of Commonwealth realms) as at 23:05, 13 March[9], then let the merge proposal lapse, subject to checking text to sources in the usual process of improving articles, and maybe tweaking here and there, without much more in the way of rewrite. If the tags remain, let there be a Note at the top of the section that the proposal is currently suspended and may lapse in 14 days. Qexigator (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- You have only confirmed to me that we need outside input.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- The verbiage is an embarassment to any newcomer summoned by the merger tag at the tops of the articles. It is also unfair to burden a closing admin with it, now that the other RfC has closed with unarguable that the Australian head of state is currently Queen Elizabeth II...the identity of the titular head of state... is, unambiguously, the Queen, as the discussion clearly shows. The proposed merger should be suspended while participants are resolving any outstanding points about text and sources, or policy wrangles about notability, and maybe allowed to lapse altogether. At this stage my position is as above: If the present version of the lead is allowed to stand, with the other recent revisions ("Various opinions" c/e, list of Commonwealth realms) as at 23:05, 13 March[9], then let the merge proposal lapse, subject to checking text to sources in the usual process of improving articles, and maybe tweaking here and there, without much more in the way of rewrite. If the tags remain, let there be a Note at the top of the section that the proposal is currently suspended and may lapse in 14 days. Qexigator (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merge This article is nothing more than an WP:ESSAY and a WP:FRINGETHEORY. Absolutely no credible sources state that anyone other than the Queen is the Australian head of state. The fringe theory of a couple of monarchists seeking to increase public acceptance of an institution does not equate to a "dispute". This "dispute" can easily be covered in other articles. It is an embarrassment that an article of this length promoting such conspiracies has existed for so long. AusLondonder (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- What absolute tosh. This is a perfectly good article, in existence for many years, well-sourced, and notable. Have you actually read it? Or is it that you just don't agree with the views of others? Prime Ministers, Governors-General, ministers, the media and many more have all described the Governor-General as head of state. There is a demonstrable division of opinion, but *shrug* you just don't like it. --Pete (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose merge - The RfC at WP:POLITICS is a good example of ongoing debate and this article seems well sourced and generally well written. The contents don't belong in any other article, so the article is best left here, as is. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment on Merger
- Bizarre. I'm seeing various editors in this section and the RfC above propose merges with various different articles:
- The fact that there is a diversity of opinion indicates two things:
- Merging one article into several is not following the intent of WP:MERGE which envisions the reverse procedure, of merging two or more articles into one.
- If only one merge target is selected, then which one? The dispute predates the republic referendum and continues to this day - seventeen years on. Clearly this topic extends beyond the 1999 referendum. Other articles: Queen, Governor-General, Government, etc. all have merit for being the best merger target, because this issue touches upon them all. So which one?
- It is simple common sense to keep this significant article and wikilink to it from all others, rather than have the same material forked to several different articles --Pete (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merging an article into multiple articles, isn't a new concept. PS - As you're the creator of this article? we understand & appreciate your wanting to keep it. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- You astonish me. If it is commonplace, then perhaps you could provide an appropriate example which may inform our discussion? --Pete (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:MERGE. I have proposed Australian republic referendum, 1999 and Monarchy of Australia, others favour the Monarchy article. This has been appropriately signposted on both the articles concerned. And Ryk72, I agree you have raised an important point above regarding sources. This is something I have been trying to elucidate for the past year.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- My reading of WP:MERGE is that merging one article into several is not policy, and in any case, this article easily meets the General Notability Guideline to remain as a standalone article, as it has for many years. --Pete (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's interesting, isn't it? There's absolutely no provision for (and/or thought that anyone would want) this sort of merge. And the reason is simple: a merge always finishes up with a redirect. What article would this one redirect to when everything is done? I fear the merge advocates have not properly thought this part through. StAnselm (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- My reading of WP:MERGE is that merging one article into several is not policy, and in any case, this article easily meets the General Notability Guideline to remain as a standalone article, as it has for many years. --Pete (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- See WP:MERGE. I have proposed Australian republic referendum, 1999 and Monarchy of Australia, others favour the Monarchy article. This has been appropriately signposted on both the articles concerned. And Ryk72, I agree you have raised an important point above regarding sources. This is something I have been trying to elucidate for the past year.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- You astonish me. If it is commonplace, then perhaps you could provide an appropriate example which may inform our discussion? --Pete (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Merging an article into multiple articles, isn't a new concept. PS - As you're the creator of this article? we understand & appreciate your wanting to keep it. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's true that WP:MERGE discusses the merging of two articles into a third article, but not the merging of one article into two other articles. But there seems no reason what I have suggested couldn't happen. The consensus seems to be to redirect to Monarchy of Australia, not that the phrase "Australian head of state dispute" is commonly used. It doesn't seem to matter whether you split this article's content (in a merger) between the Monarchy article and the referendum article, or if you merge this to the Monarchy article, and improve the referendum article.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- If the plan is to redirect to Monarchy in the end, then that should be the move request. StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not seeing any consensus of opinion, even in that minority favouring a merge in the RfC above. It's like the man in a hurry who mounted his horse and galloped off in all directions. Merge here, merge there, merge everywhere. How on earth is that policy? --Pete (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- If the plan is to redirect to Monarchy in the end, then that should be the move request. StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's true that WP:MERGE discusses the merging of two articles into a third article, but not the merging of one article into two other articles. But there seems no reason what I have suggested couldn't happen. The consensus seems to be to redirect to Monarchy of Australia, not that the phrase "Australian head of state dispute" is commonly used. It doesn't seem to matter whether you split this article's content (in a merger) between the Monarchy article and the referendum article, or if you merge this to the Monarchy article, and improve the referendum article.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, no - two editors (including yourself) explicitly !voted to merge to both articles. StAnselm (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's best we let a reviewing administrator decide these matters. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I voted once for Jack Upland's proposal, using a form of words that specify exactly that. I really admire the fairness and patience that Goodday, Jack, Qex, Wikiain, Ryk, Moxy and several others have shown. Not once, have they resorted to any tricks or non-policy activity. Honest and calm, they are consistently showing good faith, beyond what what is expected. They are always ready with sound arguments. If there was the remotest possibility of them being incorrect in the smallest way over these weeks, every opportunity has been allowed for it to be exposed. But it has not happened. Bravo! Bravo! Travelmite (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's best we let a reviewing administrator decide these matters. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
"an Australian peculiarity" (per Kirby)
All things reconsidered, which of the following is more suited to the article as a non-contentious and npov title , given that (as above said) "dispute" is not in the article, and the differences of opinion or practice in Australia about calling the governor-general "head of state" in a way that deviates from usage in other Commonwealth realms?
- Australian head of state difference of opinion
- Australian head of state discussion.
Qexigator (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing either as a better title than the one which has worked well for years. "Dispute" covers both a difference of opinion and the discussion around that. Every year, there's some public discussion, usually via press releases and comment on editorial pages, but nothing to match the level of interest during the republic referendum, including the Constitutional Convention. A "debate" implies some level of formality rarely reached. --Pete (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Some comments about article's neutrality
- While I have been busy this week, I overlooked some comments, to understand your reasoning why you are proposing this solution. Clearly, some editors have arrived thinking that where there's smoke (>80 sources), there must be fire (an actual debate) and have opposed merging it, even though most of those sources already exist in the other articles. The right thing to do is to be flexible. I genuinely have been unable to see how this article could be made neutral, including the title. In my opinion, reason ACM supported it, was to create a bit of confusion in the republican debate. That being said, the crux of Smith's argumment is that he skips over the basic definition of Head of State, and assumes a Head of State must do certain things and/or be formally assigned that role in its written constitution. Once Head of State is defined (Winterton put it as the "apex" in the constitution), any republican vs monarchist debate where this is raised, moved past it very quickly to substantive issues. Still yet to see any evidence of actual debate about HoS in it's own right and I think we agree there is misleading content, given the Queen is Head of State. So in the spirt of being practical (ending our suffering), I will propose some ideas for a name change that may be supportable. Travelmite (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unlike Travelmite, in my view the present version is npov, and what remains to be done is to remove "dispute" from the title of the article, which to judge from the latest comment, Travelmite may not have read.[10] Qexigator (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- You have certainly made the article less objectionable. If we can find some common ground, then perhaps we can get a consensus. At the moment, the article is mostly about the unorthodox view. It does not explain much about the official / orthodox view. So I propose using the word "conjecture", "alternative view", "alternate explanation" in place of dispute for the article title. There are three issues bouncing around in the article that are combined in a way to promote Smith's view point. These are:
- That the function of the governor-general is legitimately explained by saying "de facto"/"constitutional"/"virtual"/"practical" head of state, and these qualifiers have significance as Winterton (Quadrant, 2004) points out. In the Constitutional Law textbooks, this is perfectly clear.
- Other writers (such as newspapers, biographies) are simply taking short cuts. They mean to say the official exercising the Head of State power, or just the highest Australian officeholder. They are not intending to make any pronouncements about the constitution.
- Then there are the statements by Smith and some in Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy (ACM), who are deliberately trying to convince the public that the Governor-General is Head of State. This article falls into this category.
- You have made some improvements, but look at how the Monarchist League are treated. Surely that is POV. What about Rudd being erratic? That's heavily partisan. Who are the inconsistent Prime Ministers, scholars and governors-general? Who are the inconsistent Canadians? These are all POV terms. Who added the original research - a list of constitutions without Head of State, only provided here to prove a point that it's not relevant? It's also original research to link 4 newspaper articles using Queen as HoS, and 4 using GG as HoS. That's not a valid survey. It could be 4 to 400 in a proper survey. What about the problematic "Dusevic" article: that says the Queen and GG are in a "title-fight", why overlook the main topic and sensationalist nature of the source? It's just a headline grab. I presume that the Queen did go ahead and make her speech at the UN as Head of State of 16 countries. These are just some areas of concern.
- What then would you propose this article be about? I am interested in finding common ground. Is it about Smith's theory? Is it about Pete's theory (re Jack's comment)? Is it about how Australian politicians, scholars and writers cannot understand their own system of government? Is it about disagreement between the ACM vs Monarchist League vs republicans? Is it about how the average person thinks the GG is just a servant of the Queen? I believe that you do understand my concerns. Travelmite (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- You have certainly made the article less objectionable. If we can find some common ground, then perhaps we can get a consensus. At the moment, the article is mostly about the unorthodox view. It does not explain much about the official / orthodox view. So I propose using the word "conjecture", "alternative view", "alternate explanation" in place of dispute for the article title. There are three issues bouncing around in the article that are combined in a way to promote Smith's view point. These are:
- Unlike Travelmite, in my view the present version is npov, and what remains to be done is to remove "dispute" from the title of the article, which to judge from the latest comment, Travelmite may not have read.[10] Qexigator (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no need for Travelmite to clutter the page with this sort of argumentation. Is he currently blocked from making bona fide, constructive, non-disruptive edits? I repeat, the article reads pretty well to me, is informative, but like any other is not closed to further improvement. Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Who knows what a person can be blocked for, or reverted for. GoodDay was reverted for saying the Queen was Head of State. Should I waste hours of effort to be reverted? Having looked at the history, anyone who alters the David Smith line of this article is reverted, either immediately or a few days later. The Queen's website is described as vacillating. I'll make basic changes at least be truthful about the sources, and we will see how that goes. Travelmite (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- So, all edits got a blanket revert by an anonymous editor. This included identifying dead links, and specifying who the sources are. Travelmite (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Now two blanket reverts of all my edits, first from 87.103.14.40, second from user 120.21.147.122. Travelmite (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
IP unexplained reverts such this[11] and this[12] are needlessly disruptive. I see no reason to doubt that the reverted edits were made in good faith on the editor's part, and if a bona fide contibutor considers any of them should be removed or tweaked, let the edsum explain in the usual way. If there is further IP activity of this kind, it may be necessary to apply semi-protection.[13] Qexigator (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've peaked in earlier today & thus requested semi-protection for this article. GoodDay (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for saving this work. What happens now? Travelmite (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, Travelmite, consider Kerry's remarks below. Secondly, if you feel an irresistible desire to make more changes it may help to propose them on the Talk page first, so that others may give reasons for not finding them acceptable, or adapting them to be acceptable. My own view is that the text is now about right for the topic, and we should let it rest there. Qexigator (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have taken Kerry's remarks into consideration. Whether seen by 10 people or 10000, the article made and continues to make unjustified criticisms against reputable people, and reputable organisations, for example (sources 49-51), on what basis is Wikipedia criticising the Queen's writers for "vacillating"? Why should Wikipedia describe a living person as erratic? These issues of policy have been raised previously. You earlier said, I could make reasonable edits, which absolutely should be the case. My first attempt to edit was 28 Jan. All reverted. This is my second attempt, which I even predicted would be reverted. I found 3 deadlinks and a misquote. I added key details and one source (the Supreme Court). All discussed, here or at the WP:POLITICS page. For that I was reverted by 3 different IP addresses and called a "nuisance". At least it was undone, but surely "move on" is a counterproductive response to online name-calling? Travelmite (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, Travelmite, consider Kerry's remarks below. Secondly, if you feel an irresistible desire to make more changes it may help to propose them on the Talk page first, so that others may give reasons for not finding them acceptable, or adapting them to be acceptable. My own view is that the text is now about right for the topic, and we should let it rest there. Qexigator (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is intended to report information and communicate succinctly. If RS show vacillation, let that be reported. It is not a criticism. A ship's compass vacillates with the ship's direction. "erratic": moving or behaving in a way that is not regular, certain, or expected: He drove in an erratic course down the road. She can be very erratic; one day she is friendly and the next she'll hardly speak to you.[14] I repeat: "There is no need for Travelmite to clutter the page with this sort of argumentation." If he feels an irresistible desire to make more change it may help to propose them on the Talk page first, so that others may give reasons for not finding them acceptable, or adapting them to be acceptable. My own view is that the text is now about right for the topic, and we should let it rest there." Qexigator (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- A new example comes to light. The article says: "Yet another calls the governor-general the "constitutional Head of State" and the Queen the "Head of State", based on this source [15] implying some sort of inconsistency. The actual quote is straightforward: "In carrying out all of these acts of state ceremonial, whether at Government House or in public, the Governor-General is fulfilling his/her duties as Australia's constitutional Head of State, in the absence of The Queen who is the Head of State." I propose altering the article to simply quote what is actually written. Travelmite (talk) 12:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Is Travelmite's proposal dsingenuous, or does it only seem so? Let us look at the context: "The most authoritative sources published by the government of Australia have used the term "head of state" to refer to the monarch, with some providing explanatory statements. This includes Government House, Parliament House, Public Service Commission, and the Departments of the Attorney General, Immigration and Citizenship and Foreign Affairs.....Yet another calls the governor-general the "constitutional Head of State" and the Queen the "Head of State". And let us look at this diff. [16] Qexigator (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I had marked the URLs as deadlinks, as per Wikipedia:Link_rot. As described below, some sort of automatic process "rescued" 3 dead links, by finding a copy of them on an archive site. So this is the first chance to review them. Travelmite (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I cannot find any reference comparing Australia and Canada which says there is a similar or equal, except for the presumed triviality of it. I don't propose to write "equally trivial", but do propose to exclude any original research about it being "equal", whatever that means. Travelmite (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sources would, I think support this rewording: "In Canada, some difference of opinion exists over whether the Queen of Canada or the Governor General of Canada should be considered the country's head of state; and there is some inconsistency among politicians, scholars, and the media in the application of the description to either individual." Qexigator (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- A significant improvement. Thanks! Travelmite (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- That wording may be ok for Canada, but to apply it to Australia would face the notability issue. And maybe we are not (yet???) in a position to compare the head of state question in Australia and Canada. Could that be done without OR? And then why only Australia and Canada, not any other of the Commonwealth realms? Methinks 'twd probably be wise to stay away from such comparisons. Wikiain (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. It's been improved, but it fails the notability test. All three sources for a Canadian "dispute" come from one journalist - Randy Boswell. So, it's just another beatup, like the ridiculous "title-fight" article from Tom Dusevic. How absurd that a GG would be politically challenging the Queen. Go ahead and make responsible changes, if needed. Travelmite (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- That wording may be ok for Canada, but to apply it to Australia would face the notability issue. And maybe we are not (yet???) in a position to compare the head of state question in Australia and Canada. Could that be done without OR? And then why only Australia and Canada, not any other of the Commonwealth realms? Methinks 'twd probably be wise to stay away from such comparisons. Wikiain (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- A significant improvement. Thanks! Travelmite (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sources would, I think support this rewording: "In Canada, some difference of opinion exists over whether the Queen of Canada or the Governor General of Canada should be considered the country's head of state; and there is some inconsistency among politicians, scholars, and the media in the application of the description to either individual." Qexigator (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I cannot find any reference comparing Australia and Canada which says there is a similar or equal, except for the presumed triviality of it. I don't propose to write "equally trivial", but do propose to exclude any original research about it being "equal", whatever that means. Travelmite (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Article title
In the spirit of compromise, I earlier suggested a number of article titles. There is very scant evidence of a dispute - parties arguing. These were Australian Head of State Alternative Views, Australian Head of State Conjecture. I can add Australian Head of State Use of Term, Australian Head of State Explanations and Other Definitions of Australian Head of State. Travelmite (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- A dispute is defined as "a disagreement or argument". The current title reflects the former, though the latter is evident occasionally in media editorial pages. Some examples were given earlier. You'll need to gain consensus for a replacement for the title which has stood without any disagreement since 2011. --Pete (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- The title should not be too awkward. The problem with "dispute" is that there is really no dispute on either side of the argument or discussion, which is based on the fact that the Queen is officially regarded as "head of state" with the governor-general as her representative, while occasionally official sources have made a slip which has been later corrected, and some specialist opinion proposes that the role in practise is in some way shared between them. Here are a few common synonyms:[17] conflict, controversy, debate, discussion; others listed include: bickering, friction, misunderstanding, wrangle, fuss, difference of opinion. Wiktionary [18] offers: "1.An argument or disagreement, a failure to agree. 2.Verbal controversy; contest by opposing argument or expression of opposing views or claims; controversial discussion; altercation; debate. 3.Contest; struggle; quarrel." Of those, the nearest to the article's content looks like "expression of opposing views or claims" - that is, views opposing the official position - but that would be too much of a mouthful for the title. In plainer language, and in some circumstances, that might be called a "wrangle" or "fuss" or "bickering", but an npov article ought not to characterise, say, David Smith or other eminent opinion-holders as merely wrangling or fussing or bickering. And, in everyday parlance, as remarked in another's comment above (05:31, 23 March), "Dispute" covers both a difference of opinion and the discussion around that. Qexigator (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- "…occasionally official sources have made a slip which has been later corrected…" I wouldn't put it that way, unless there is some sort of official retraction or acknowledgement. If we take that attitude, then who is to say that a given official source is not a slip which will later be corrected? I think it is the case that politicians and officials use different language at different times according to party policy. Often the government will put something a certain way, while the Opposition will characterise it in different terms. One person's misunderstanding is another's scandal. Expecting government sources to be always consistent and unchanging is asking a little much, I think. --Pete (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Qex, I agree except if you find synonyms for dispute, you'll get other words for dispute. A dispute and difference of opinion are not the same thing. I agree not to use "wrangle", "fuss" ect, but then again I proposed neutral language. Travelmite (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- "…occasionally official sources have made a slip which has been later corrected…" I wouldn't put it that way, unless there is some sort of official retraction or acknowledgement. If we take that attitude, then who is to say that a given official source is not a slip which will later be corrected? I think it is the case that politicians and officials use different language at different times according to party policy. Often the government will put something a certain way, while the Opposition will characterise it in different terms. One person's misunderstanding is another's scandal. Expecting government sources to be always consistent and unchanging is asking a little much, I think. --Pete (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Try Australian head of state discussion. BTW, if this article is kept? a Canadian version should be created, aswell. Something to think about, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- PS - I won't mind this article's existence, as long as it is not used as a vehicle to promote the "We don't know" argument across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of all proportion ...
I note that we are discussing an article with about 42K bytes, which has a talk page of 260K bytes plus 6 archives. And to put the importance of the article into some perspective, it is worth considering the number of pageviews the article gets. In Dec-Jan (when nobody was editing the article), it received 0-3 pageviews a day. Since end of January, when edits to the page and its talk page soared, it reached as high as 450 pageviews a day, presumably due to the edit activities, the arguments on talk and the various people being drawn into the dispute by the various Requests for This and That. So it seems we have an article that the readership of Wikipedia isn't very interested in (0-3 pageviews a day), which is currently consuming a massive amount of time of the contributors to Wikipedia. Frankly, that effort could be put to a lot better use elsewhere. Maybe we should all just take it off our watchlists and move on ... Kerry (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Kerry, I hope you will continue to keep an eye on this, in case another storm blows up, when a calming influence would be welcome. Qexigator (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, good to get some eyes looking at the thing from a bit further away. I mentioned something similar earlier.
- The source of the problem is easy to find. With this edit, an account which had previously done nothing for a year but shuffle some text around in random articles, suddenly became a WP:SPA dedicated to disruption in this article and related. --Pete (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The reason the talk page and its archives are so massive is that this page has functioned as a debating forum about a theoretical spinoff from the republican debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- In agreement. BTW, I've put this article back on my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've been super busy, but the risk to a student, or time-wasting in a classroom has been mostly removed, thanks to your efforts over the last few months. Travelmite (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- In agreement. BTW, I've put this article back on my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- The reason the talk page and its archives are so massive is that this page has functioned as a debating forum about a theoretical spinoff from the republican debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)