Talk:Head of state/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"Governors-General" section

Here is a raw cut'n'paste, with some added inserts, for a new section, merged as discussed above (See Talk:Head of state/Archive 2[1], Talk:Head of state/Archive 3[2]) and Talk:Head of state/Archive 4[3]) , which may need adding, trimming and tweaking. Please do that and/or comment.

Governors-General

In the Commonwealth realms, other than the United Kingdom, a governor-general is appointed by the sovereign, on the advice of the relevant prime minister, as a representative and to exercise almost all the royal prerogative according to established constitutional authority, even when the sovereign is present in the country concerned (though this does not necessarily mean an abdication of the sovereign's powers and privileges as prescribed by the local constitution. At the United Nations, governors-general are accorded the status of head of state. There is an ongoing debate in Australia and, to a lesser extent, in Canada as to which officeholder—the monarch, the governor(-)general, or both—can be considered the head of state.

Some Commonwealth parliamentary systems combine a body of written constitutional law and unwritten constitutional precedent that may give the monarch or their representative additional powers in unexpected circumstances An example of a governor-general departing from constitutional convention by acting unilaterally (that is, without direction from ministers, parliament, or the monarch) occurred in 1926 (the "King-Byng affair") when Canada's governor-general refused the head of government's formal advice requesting a dissolution of parliament and a general election. In a letter informing the monarch after the event the governor-general said: "I have to await the verdict of history to prove my having adopted a wrong course, and this I do with an easy conscience that, right or wrong, I have acted in the interests of Canada and implicated no one else in my decision."

<insert 1A>Another example occurred when, in the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, the governor-general unexpectedly dismissed the head of government, in order to break a stalemate between the House of Representatives and Senate over money bills, and issued a public statement saying that it was the only solution consistent with the constitution and with his oath of office and his responsibilities, authority and duty as governor-general.</insert> <insert 1B>When appointing or dismissing a head of government, an Australian governor-general is considered to be acting in the execution and maintenance of the Constitution, and thus exercising executive power vested in the monarch, but A letter from the monarch'sPrivate Secretary at the time (Martin Charteris) confirmed that the only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister was the Governor-General, and that it would not be proper for the monarch to intervene in person in matters which the Constitution Act had so clearly placed within the Governor-General's jurisdiction.</insert>

<insert 2>While the Australian Constitution provides that the Command-in-Chief of the Defence Forces be vested in the Governor-General, the corresponding Canadian provision vests the Command-in-Chief of the Canadian naval and military forces in the monarch.</insert> <insert 3> But in Canada, it is the pracitse to include in the Governor-General's proclamation of appointment the commission also as Commander-in-Chief.</insert>

<insert 4>When appointed, a Governor-General of Australia issues a proclamation in his own name, countersigned by the head of government and under the Great Seal of Australia, formally announcing that he has been appointed by the monarch's commission, previously issued also under the Great Seal of Australia.</insert>

</insert 5>When an Australian Governor-General, by virtue of that office, is acting as Commander-in-Chief, the power to act is constitutionally vested in the monarch.</insert>

Qexigator (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Noted: strike in first paragraph "even when....local constitution". Qexigator (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A hangover from the jtdirl days. Unsourced, as usual. --Pete (talk) 08:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

In my view, this would be incomplete without mentioning the Queen's position as communicated by her private secretary at the time, and I have added <inset 1B>. The fact that the whole affair was highly controversial in Australia is fully reported in the linked article, but that was due to the party politics and the G-G's exercise of his power of dismissal in the particular circumstances. The fact that the power was his, not the Queen's, to exercise was not seriously contested. Reporting the letter from the Queen complements reporting Byng's letter to her grandfather, the King. Note in passing, Charteris was the Queen's amanuensis, not representative. Qexigator (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The source doesn't use the phrase "head of state". In fact, none of the sources used to support inserts 1B through 5 do so. In all cases, I would prefer using the words of the source, or to say something like "it would not be proper for the monarch to intervene in person". This removes the difficulty of a source using the word "King" or "Queen" depending on the reign, when we want a more general wording. It also goes against NPOV to ignore the effect of the Australian head of state dispute where both views are widely held. We really can't take a non-neutral point of view, so in practice we use a word such as monarch or sovereign which is both truthful and neutral.

Given that the proposed section is about G-Gs in Commonwealth realms, where the "head of state" is the monarch, it may be better to use "monarch" instead, after the first paragraph. Qexigator (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It is incorrect to cast the "executive power" mentioned in s61 as incorporating all other powers, whether assigned by Letters-Patent or within the Constitution or elsewhere. The executive power is merely the authority to execute such actions as may be necessary to allow the Commonwealth to operate as intended. The actual power to dismiss a Prime Minister is found in s64 (as Quick and Garran put it in the source quoted, "assigned to him", meaning the Governor-General rather than the Queen), other powers may be found elsewhere and if there is no specific power described - such as to spend money to celebrate the Bicentenary - this power can be used as authority. The executive power may be "vested in the Queen", but the power to dismiss a Prime Minister is not. If the executive power were so broad as to assign every power to the Queen, then there would have been no need for the Royal Powers Act 1953, and in any case its operation would have over-ridden the Constitution, which of course is not possible. This parliamentary research paper may be of some assistance. --Pete (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. I would like to think about it. Agreed careful wording is the thing. Qexigator (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

(later) I regard as axiomatic that "Executive" in s.61 is to be interpreted according to Australian authorities prevailing today, whatever those involved originally had in mind. In particular, these quotes from the linked "Research Paper", 1996, on the Parliament of Australia website: "One of the reasons for the uncertain scope of the executive power is the desire of the Constitution's framers to retain a deal of flexibility. Another is the 'uncertain scope and status of the prerogative' which forms part of the executive power and includes the Crown's common law powers such as the right to declare war and to enter into treaty agreements.....The executive power is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative. By convention, the Governor-General, when exercising the executive power does so on ministerial advice. Section 126 of the Constitution provides for the Queen to authorise the Governor-General to appoint any person to carry out such powers and functions of the Governor-General as the Governor-General thinks fit. Research Paper 28 1995-96, The Executive Power of the Commonwealth: its scope and limits. [4]

The "executive power" has puzzled authorities since Federation. Quick and Garran in 1901 weren't much help, and it was pretty much ignored by the High Court. My own interpretation is far from definitive. It is impossible to get an authoritative yet understandable definition. So far as I can make out, it is whatever necessary powers are needed to keep the executive operating, along with the remnant of the royal prerogative. Mostly it seems to be concerned with miscellanea, such as honours and salvage and treaties. The major powers of the Governor-General are already assigned - appointing ministers, issuing writs for elections, assenting to legislation etc. - and the executive power is what remains of the ancient prerogative. The Queen doesn't have her British powers spelled out - she appoints a Prime Minister according to right and custom. The Australian Constitution defines some of these prerogative powers and assigns them to the Governor-General. The executive power - and I stand to be corrected here - is what is left over. The Governor-General has the power to issue writs for elections, but he also has the executive power to take any ancillary action necessary to make that happen as intended. Calling out the troops to guard polling places, perhaps. Under government advice, of course, though a government in caretaker mode is limited in the scope of its actions, or there may be some other emergency restricting normal process. The Governor-General has no such limit beyond "the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth."

Some remarks by Anne Twomey in 2010 are useful here:

In Pape, French CJ noted that it was unnecessary to consider the full extent of the powers and capacities of the executive, but he nonetheless identified four classes of executive power that fall within s 61 of the Constitution. The first three classes were: 1 The powers conferred upon the executive by statutes enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament pursuant to powers conferred by the Constitution. This power is clearly incorporated within the express reference in s 61 to the ‘execution … of the laws of the Commonwealth.’ 2 The prerogative, being the residue of the monarch’s unique powers, privileges and immunities that belong to the Commonwealth. 3 The power derived from the legal capacities of the Commonwealth, such as the power to enter into contracts or agreements, employ staff, own and convey property, make ex gratia payments and spend.[5]

Twomey goes on to talk of a "fourth class" of excutive power which is sufficiently abstract as not to concern us here. The important point here is the second class of power, which is the residue of the monarch's prerogative. It is not the totality.

Other recent authorities seem to follow much the same general pattern. The executive power isn't every single skerrick of power belonging to the Commonwealth, it is limited in several ways. Again, i am no lawyer, and if anybody can find a clear explanation, it would make understanding easier. --Pete (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The proposed section mentions an ongoing debate in Australia as to whether the monarch, the governor-general, or both, can be considered the head of state. It is therefore relevant and informative to add the manner of the G-G's appointment, which I have now done, citing the latest appointment, March 2014. Qexigator (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC) +The distinctive manner in which the G-G takes office as commander-in-chief. Qexigator (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Insert 5: Given that s.51 prescribes that the Parliament has power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to "the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth", do we need any other source to confirm the inference that "executive power" in s.61 includes the G-G's duties as c-in-c., such that when acting as c-in-c and executing the laws made by the Parliament he is exercising a power constitutionally vested in the monarch, and thus "representing" the monarch? Qexigator (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Got it here: "The command-in-chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is, in accordance with constitutional usage, vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's Representative. This is one of the oldest and most honoured prerogatives of the Crown, but it is now exercised in a constitutional manner. The Governor-General could not wield more authority in the naval and military business of the country than he could in the routine work of any other local department. Of what use would be the command without the grant of the supplies necessary for its execution? All matters, therefore, relating to the disposition and management of the federal forces will be regulated by the Governor-General with the advice of his Ministry having the confidence of Parliament." Todd's Parl. Gov., 2nd ed. p. 377.) Qexigator (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The situation in colonial Australia was a little different to what it is today. The Constitution contains any number of polite fictions casting the situation in a more monarchical light than is actually the case. I think it's worth quoting Malcolm Turnbull here. His views on this point have not changed since the days of the Republic Advisory Committee.

But the world that Australia was part of was thoroughly different. Australia’s constitution was not, as some people have described it, the birth certificate of an independent nation. Indeed, when you read our constitution today, and I know there are many law students here, but it is important to recognise that the Queen, referred to throughout our constitution and of course it is referring to Queen Victoria, and is defined as being Queen Victoria her heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. The Queen was not so much and individual, the Queen meant her Majesty’s Government in right of the United Kingdom. It meant Whitehall. It meant London. It meant the imperial power. That is why we still have provisions in the Constitution which are absolutely relics – although not doubt perfectly enforceable – relics of that colonial past. Section 58, for example, allows the Governor General, who in 1901 and right up until the 1930s was appointed by the British Government as a British, in effect, a British viceroy and ambassador. The Governor General was, right up until 1933, the representative of the imperial government in Australia. But the Governor General is empowered under section 58 to withhold assent from a bill passed by both houses of parliament and refer it to the Queen for her assent, for her consideration. And all that meant was that if he had doubts about some legislation he could send it back to London to be looked at by the bureaucrats and Whitehall who could see if they could decided whether it was a good law, whether it offended some imperial interest or other. And that’s still there. Now of course the Queen, the British monarch and our head of state, acts on the advice of the Australian government but that wasn’t so when our constitution was enacted.[6]

A lot of this "representing the Queen" stuff in the Constitution is a polite way of saying, "The British Government has a man in Canberra and it's the Governor-General", and of course that all came to an end with the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster, when the Governor-General ceased to be the British representative and a High Commissioner was appointed. But for the Australian founding fathers - Barton and Reid and Deakin and so on - there was no difficulty in being a part of Great Britain and under the distant supervision of the British Colonial Office in the guise of "the Queen". If the British War Office wanted the Australian navy used in the greater strategies of the British Empire, that was fine, and underscoring that point by mentioning the Queen was the way of doing it.

So I'm not comfortable with the bald words of the Constitution being used to imply a greater representation than is actually the situation. One might get the impression, even with a careful reading, that the Queen sits in Buckingham Palace telling the Governor-General to do this and do that. The Queen is prominent in the Constitution, the Governor-General is given great powers, the Prime Minister not even mentioned, but in practice, it is the Prime Minister who makes the decisions. Most of the time.

Presenting the Australian Governor-General (or indeed any Governor(-)General) as being nothing more than the Queen's representative is to misrepresent the situation. It was a polite fiction in 1901; it is even more fictional now. --Pete (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the above proposed article section as derogating from the robust independence of the Australian way of life and aspirations, which are much admired in other parts of the Commonwealth, such as Britain. Most who have a reasonably intimate knowledge of the evolution of the English/British/UK constitution from 10c. to today, and its offspring in Commonwealth realms, can see that it is in large part composed of polite and political fiction, connected with fantasy and rhetoric. Why mention "the situation in colonial Australia" when the article is about the Commonwealth of Australia under the present Queen of Australia. Have you anything to support the opinion that in today's world, or in the 1970s, "representing the Queen" stuff in the Constitution is a polite way of saying, "The British Government has a man in Canberra and it's the Governor-General". A work published in 1901 is, not surprisingly, at least partly out of date, but your comment looks "old hat", to use an equally dated phrase. The content of the Turnbull quote (though delivered in 2013) is not news to students of these matters, wherever they may be, but I notice he spoke of the Queen as Australians' head of state. Now, what amendment shall we make, if needed, given that the Queen makes her appearance here as "head of state", and the opening sentence of the article, with its note 1, openly acknowledges what, as I understand it, you are calling "fiction" in saying that while called "sovereign" the role amounts to little more than taking ceremonial and ballroom precedence, having the tact not to pull rank "in terms of actual power or influence", and smiling affably as in the pic.? Qexigator (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The situation in colonial Australia is mentioned because the Constitution was drawn up in the 1890s and it is jarringly out of place to pretend that the colonial situation prevails today. Turnbull's comments outline the early role of the Governor-General as the representative of the British Government. Turnbull views the Queen as head of state, but Tony Abbott takes the opposing view; both are senior ministers in the current government. It is an odd situation, but there it is and we cannot take Turnbull's view as superior to Abbott's or vice versa. As for a definitive source as to the identity of Australia's head of state, if you can find one, it would be a miracle. It is a phrase not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is it a question the High Court has ever answered. It is a matter of personal or corporate opinion, as we see described in the vert well sourced Australian head of state dispute article. Thanks for bringing the first sentence of the article to my attention. It is unsourced. Heads of state are often little more than ceremonial figureheads. Josef Stalin, for example, was never the Soviet head of state. Modern constitutional monarchs have little or no actual power. They do what they are told to do and if there is a conflict, Parliament prevails. The example of Edward VIII is before us. --Pete (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

No contest. Qexigator (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A useful parliamentary research paper may be found here. It is instructive to note the "dollar each way" tone, and introduces the "two heads of state" notion of the Queen as "ceremonial head of state" and the Governor-General as "constitutional head of state". It is a vexing situation. --Pete (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting but not much help to us here. Qexigator (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Version 2

Fair copy of above amended version 1, for further revision or comment:

Governors-General

In the Commonwealth realms, other than the United Kingdom, a governor-general is appointed by the sovereign, on the advice of the relevant prime minister, as a representative and to exercise almost all the royal prerogative according to established constitutional authority. At the United Nations, governors-general are accorded the status of head of state. There is an ongoing debate in Australia and, to a lesser extent, in Canada as to which officeholder—the monarch, the governor(-)general, or both—can be considered the head of state.

An example of a governor-general departing from constitutional convention by acting unilaterally (that is, without direction from ministers, parliament, or the monarch) occurred in 1926 (the "King-Byng affair") when Canada's governor-general refused the head of government's formal advice requesting a dissolution of parliament and a general election. In a letter informing the monarch after the event the governor-general said: "I have to await the verdict of history to prove my having adopted a wrong course, and this I do with an easy conscience that, right or wrong, I have acted in the interests of Canada and implicated no one else in my decision."

Another example occurred when, in the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, the governor-general unexpectedly dismissed the head of government, in order to break a stalemate between the House of Representatives and Senate over money bills, and issued a public statement saying that it was the only solution consistent with the constitution and with his oath of office and his responsibilities, authority and duty as governor-general. A letter from the monarch's Private Secretary at the time (Martin Charteris) confirmed that the only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister was the Governor-General, and that it would not be proper for the monarch to intervene in person in matters which the Constitution Act had so clearly placed within the Governor-General's jurisdiction.

While the Australian Constitution provides that the Command-in-Chief of the Defence Forces be vested in the Governor-General, the corresponding Canadian provision vests the Command-in-Chief of the Canadian naval and military forces in the monarch.

The pracitse in Canada is to include in the Governor-General's proclamation of appointment their commission also as Commander-in-Chief.

When appointed, a Governor-General of Australia issues a proclamation in his own name, countersigned by the head of government and under the Great Seal of Australia, formally announcing that he has been appointed by the monarch's commission, previously issued also under the Great Seal of Australia..

When an Australian Governor-General, by virtue of that office, is acting as Commander-in-Chief, the power to act is constitutionally vested in the monarch..

Qexigator (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This is just a collection of random factoids without connection or context.

When I said there could maybe be a section for governors-general, I meant it to be a place where the "who's head of state" matter could be addressed. Now I see the "Representation" section mentions it. But, it could be expanded to outline that some realms' constitutions explicitly name the monarch as head of state, others don't, and in some, where written law doesn't say who the head of state is, there's differing opinion on who is. It could explain the different ways governors-general are permitted to exercise the Crown's powers: by constitutional statute, letters patent, etc. The paragraph already there would also need a reworking, since its opening indirectly identifies the monarch of the Commonwealth realms (and the Co-Princes of Andorra) as head of state. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Not random: G-Gs are not readily adapted to the scheme of the article's divisions and arrangement, which caters for types of head of state, and is not primarily about this type of functionary which is near enough to being a head of state as sometimes to be said to be one, yet is also more usually seen as not one, but as having some of the attributes some of the time in a variety of ways for which there is no single undisputed description or analysis. That is good and sufficient reason to collect what there is to say about them into a separate section. The concept of "representation" is not simple enough in spite of superficial appearances. We have already discussed that. Evidently you do not fault the information as such. The presentation undoubtedly helps a reader see how a "governor-general" is partly like a regular "head of state", or monarch or president, while, like those, being different from country to country. It is better to avoid the awkwardness which results from presenting the differences in respect of the special case of governors-general unseparated from the description of heads of state as such. If you have more to say about this particular sub-type of the genre, you are welcome to bring it. Recall that the starting point for anything in the article is the opening pronouncement: The head of state is the highest-ranking constitutional position [note 1] in a sovereign state. The head of state is vested with powers to act as the chief public representative of that state. Heads of state in most countries are natural persons holding an office. In a monarchy the reigning monarch is the head of state.... [note 1] "highest-ranking constitutional position" is meant primarily in the strict protocol sense (i.e. order of precedence, seating arrangements, etc.); not necessarily in terms of actual power or influence. The article itself is designed not to align with any particular opinion or ideology which the topic may excite. Qexigator (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right that governors-general don't sit well in this article. But, I see it as being only because of the existence of opinion that a governor-general is a head of state (which is part of a political debate, not a constitutional one (though, people will use (some abuse) the constitution to support their side)).

However, the proposed section above is a collection of random information that's only commonality is its relation to governors-general. Parts of it really look like they belong in other sections of the article (the sections where they are now). It would take me some time to write out a draft of my proposal for such a section. (Not to say that I won't attempt it.)

The word "protocol" remains out of place in the note. Just remove it. "'Highest ranking constitutional position' does not necessarily mean the governmental position that regularly exercises the most power or holds the most influence on governance." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sure, through wikiprocess, we can arrive at a version which is informative and accurate. We are making good progress. Coming at it from different positions helps, so long as we can retain our humours. This is a good place to mention governors-general, who are increasingly seen as heads of state in their own right. Sometimes by themselves.

Where did "The head of state is the highest-ranking constitutional position in a sovereign state" come from? The first two pages of a google search only show results that have obviously come from Wikipedia itself, and I doubt that we'd be viewing some of these sites as reliable sources. Some of them I'm afraid to click on. --Pete (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both Mies. and Pete for those comments. I broadly agree with both, and in particular "protocol" seems to have enjoyed an underserved place at the top, and "sovereign" seems to need some explaining if it is to stay and the article is to be consistent with itself. The extent to which poor Wikipedia writing on topics such as this is disseminated on the internet is bad news. Qexigator (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm reasonably happy with the above draft. If there is consensus, then let us put it into the article in a new "Governors-General" section as discussed. Thoughts? --Pete (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Which main section?

The article's main sections are:

• 1 Constitutional models
• 2 Roles of heads of state
• 3 Selection and various types...
• 4 Legitimacy.

Would the place for the proposed subsection be at the end of section 1 ? Qexigator (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ready now to go ahead with version 2

As I read the comments above and below, there is enough assent to Version 2 to let it be inserted as a new section between "Roles of heads of state" and "Selection and various...". This version includes some portions of text which will be removed from where they are now, namely, "Representation" and "Standard model". The text of the new section is open to further editing as usual, but may it be with intent to go foward not backward. Qexigator (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Only if it's going to be open to some hefty further editing. And that includes deletion of one or more paragraphs. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Understood: further corrective constructive editing always welcome, as usual, but this revision is to let editing go forward uncomplicated by, and not complicating, the other parts of the article, always assuming npov, of course. Qexigator (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, with panicked preparations for Christmas taking priority right now, I can't dedicate much attention to it just yet. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, attention to this bound to be intermittent at this period. But you found time to unpick my attempt to improve the format of the images. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and tweaked etc. as shown here[7] and here[8]. --Qexigator (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Pete/Skyring doesn't quite grasp the meaning of "further corrective constructive editing always welcome." The words aren't synonymous with "each proposed change must be presented for Pete/Skyring's yea or nay and receive his yea before implementation." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, by now it should be clear enough to all here, Pete not excepted. Qexigator (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't the insertion of material discussed and accepted that bothers me. Nor is it trivia that I am concerned with. It is the use of these things as cover for more controversial insertions. I would be more comfortable that the article reflected discussion if Qex were to implement changes. This has proven to be uncontroversial so far. Other editors, less so. --Pete (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Taking things step by step

Let us be very clear about what is going on here. It is not trivia like capitalisations I am concerned with. It is unsourced, POV edits without consensus being inserted, seemingly under the cover of other copy-edit and stylistic edits. Let us take our edits one step at a time, and discuss anything which is bound to cause difficulty. Not lump many changes in at once and then complain that it is he trivia which is being reverted, when the inevitable reversions occur. We may not all agree on some things, but we can use wikiprocess to work through disagreements. --Pete (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

To be yet more clear. For my part, the revision of 21:01, 2 January[9] is broadly acceptable. Has Pete any specific objection? One editor's general mistrust of what may yet come from another editor is the opposite of sufficient reason to impede improving coyedits, such as caps./uncaps., links and formatting. Qexigator (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please point to a specific edit or part of an edit you find problematic and identify the problem. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Why Canada?

Given the content of the article Role of the Crown and the Governor General on the website of the House of Commons, Canada, I see nothing to support the mention of a live or notable HoS dispute: Revision as of 17:07, 22 December.[10] Qexigator (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I provided in that edit a link to the section of Monarchy of Canada that deals with the debate. Or, the disagreement, if it's not really a debate. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, noted. Qexigator (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Image caption of Elizabeth II

Please, let's show the caption-in-question as Elizabeth II is queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries, per common usage. [11], [12], [13] GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm with GoodDay on this. The Queen's British. Nobody believes this "Monarchy of Canada, Belize etc." rubbish. --Pete (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Moderation in all things: in many contexts, Q of UK + 15 is npov for presenting the information to readers looking at it from any place of the globe; but this is an instance where the image is among others that are illustrating state headship, irrespective of nationality: here is a person who is head of as many as 16 states all at once, each with sovereign membership of UN, while, for another example, a president of USA is (wait for it!) head of only ONE. But UK, like the mighty USA, is a permanent member of the Security Council, so perhaps this could be one of the cases where we should see Q of UK + 15. How times change! Qexigator (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This reversion by Mies, should suffice. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please? I don't think pleading is supposed to factor into the process of deciding whether an edit is allowable or not. Your edit lacks neutrality, by definition, and there's no contextual justification for it (Security Council membership or otherwise). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I thank you, for removing the disputed wording. I should've made the deletion myself, days ago. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

lacks neutrality, by definition doesn't make sense. no contextual justification for Security Council membership the UN is part of the article, there is no need to be comtemptuously dismissive of having regard to the status of heads of state in the context of international affairs. Qexigator (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

BRD?

Mies is refusing to respect WP:BRD. He's exhibiting the very same behaviour, he (and I) admonished Skyring for, weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not again, surely? I feel less of that is more constructive. Qexigator (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the Jan 23 version ...in the United Kingdom and a further 15 countries. Right now, I'm at my wits end & discouraged, to say the least. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes to your edit, and yes, it is getting beyond a joke. Qexigator (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, I messed up with my restoration edit at 23:59 Jan 23. However, Mies should have rvt'd to the version that was in place before his change at 21:34 Jan 23, not to his change at 23:34. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that makes it more difficult to know which side of the fence to come down on fairly. Qexigator (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the change that sparked the brief fire. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to know when the version you changed was first inserted, it was 23 December. Not sure how that 23 Dec edit having been there for 23 days before it was first reverted (by an anon) makes my restoration of it on 23 Jan the bold edit. It was altogether there longer than your version. But, really, the BRD thing here is a distraction from the neutrality problem you present. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Removing the disputed wording from the caption, is likely the best choice. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sad that you had to make it so. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Verdi, King of Italy

Looking at the other images in the article, they bear captions such as "Akihito, Emperor of Japan (left), and Carl XVI Gustaf, King of Sweden (right.)", where the HoS's name and nation are identified. I can't see why we should leave this out for HM, she might be well-known, especially amongst Wikipedia editors, but Wikipedia is used around the world by people of all levels of knowledge, especially schoolchildren. Besides, why is the Queen singled out in such a fashion? I'd say that more people know which nation Barack Obama heads - he gets more news mentions. --Pete (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not showing any country for Elizabeth II, is likely our best option, if we wish to avoid any more argument on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Pete/Skyring got bored of the other arguments he's involved in.

It's evident from the above and editing earlier today why EIIR was "singled out". The question is: why should the UK be singled out in this instance, in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy? (Before you answer, pay very close attention to the final words there; note, the text the image is illustrating is about standard model parliamentary systems, which includes all the Commonwealth realms, not just the UK.) You don't want to mislead the children. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. Consistency is generally regarded as useful, and we show the nations for other heads of state. We also cannot presume that a reader knows which heads of state belong to which nations unless we say so, particularly if the reader is young or from a non-Commonwealth nation. I see that Mies has labelled the wording Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" as POV, a phrase which few reasonable person would regard as controversial. --Pete (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We should use ...United Kingdom and 15 other countries.... However, seeing as that's going to be a powdered keg (which it shouldn't be), then listing no countries would be best. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to support your wording, but I'm also happy to keep discussion going until we get it just right. What is a reader going to think when she sees that "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" is a controversial statement? That's just weird. It is the Queen's most well-known and least controversial title! --Pete (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "We should... because we should." Now, there's a tautological argument.

What's useful is one thing. What's policy is another. And article stability is yet one more. The caption used to be consistent with the others, naming the group of countries she is monarch of. It did so in a neutral manner, adhering to WP:NPOV. GoodDay felt it better to go against that policy, to the point of edit warring. Taking mention of any countries out ended the edit warring and avoided a long, repetitive argument, which seemed more important than the image caption being slightly different than some others. It's now showing worse than what GoodDay inserted; as though EIIR is Queen of the UK only, a statement that jars with information within this very article and information given at many other locations in Wikipedia.

The image caption can read

• "Elizabeth II, one of the world's best-known and longest-serving heads of state, reigns as queen of 16 countries, all of which use the parliamentary system standard model"

Or

• "Elizabeth II, one of the world's best-known and longest-serving heads of state, reigns as queen of 16 countries, including the United Kingdom, where the parliamentary system standard model originated"

Or

• "Elizabeth II, one of the world's best-known and longest-serving heads of state, reigns as queen of 16 countries that all use the parliamentary system standard model, including where the system originated: the United Kingdom"

Or delete the image altogether. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I reject the first 3 options. Option 4 is acceptable if a solution isn't reached, though it would seem rather odd to exclude the image of the second longest serving current head of state. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Her title as Queen of the United Kingdom is also her best-known, seeing as we are calling her one of the best-known. By omitting her other titles, Duke of Normandy, Warden of the Sally Port, Master of Corgis etc., we aren't ruling them out. It's just a picture of the Queen, and just a short caption. --Pete (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your opinions are noted. They don't, though, decide content. There's a neutrality issue you're both evading (and saying much about your positions by doing so).

The record now shows I've made effort to be accommodating, to find a compromise. It also shows who's not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we all know this is getting silly. The image should be retained: it brings some sunshine to the eye compared with the other mugshots. Any of the proposed captions are acceptable, and of those three, the second is the best. Let that be used, and we can move on. Qexigator (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Best we go with United Kingdom and 15 other.... Wether anyone likes it or not, the UK is generally viewed as Eliezabeth II's primary home. It's the only commonwealth realm, where she's not represented by a Governor General. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think all of the captions are unacceptably long for a caption. We give the whole story in the body of the article, why pad out a caption? "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, one of the world's best-known and longest-serving heads of state." Short and to the point. --Pete (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The best solution (though not perfect) is to keep the image & list no countries in the caption. Will it be inconsistent with the others? yes. But, it'll put an end to this dispute. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As we have seen, no. Let's look for consensus. We're all reasonable people, I trust. --Pete (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the point validly made by Pete earlier about the wider readership, for whom the insistence on Q of 16 for its own sake in the name of npov or policy guidance is worthless, and I do not accept that Wikipedia is so hidebound that we are rigidly obliged to force its application eveywhere, including this article on Head of State, which seems to excite an amazing degree of empty pedantry. I for one do not accept the way the caption has been recklessly tagged as if its neutrality were at fault: from a reader's point of view that is virtually meaningless or bordering on the absurd, implying that the neutrality of the Queen or of the UK is disputed. There is a rationale for either Q of 16 or Q of UK + 15 in this instance, as I have stated above. Qexigator (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Worthless". "Reckless". Stop misrepresenting me; it's disingenuous. It's precisely because the present caption is misleading to the wider readership that it's being contested. The affront to neutrality is the elimination of the 15 countries that aren't the UK, or the collective granting to them of second place status behind Britain; there's no factual basis for making that two tier structure. Do you seriously hold that it is a service to readers to lead them to believe the woman pictured is "of" only one country? To have them think shes queen of the "other countries" because she's Queen of the UK, or that she's Queen of the UK in those "other countries"?

This is an encyclopaedia (with its own internal policies and guidelines with the aim to keep it as best a crowd-edited encyclopaedia as it can be). It's not a mass-production media outlet with chronically sloppy research and lazy, as-fast-as-possible writing.

Again, I've made two attempts now to find an end to this; I've tried to incorporate specific mention of the UK. Here's one more:

• "Elizabeth II, one of the best-known and longest-serving heads of state, is queen of 16 countries using the parliamentary system, including its birthplace, the United Kingdom"

That not only is shorter than the previous options I presented, it also still works in mention of the UK--thereby ensuring people know she's Queen of the UK--and ties the image to the adjacent text it's supposed to be illustrating, something the caption, so far, has always failed to do and still does. (There's something that sets it apart from the other images.)

It looks like this:

Elizabeth II, one of the longest-serving and best-known heads of state, is queen of 16 countries using the parliamentary system, including its birthplace, the United Kingdom

For a little perspective (which some people seem to be lacking greatly):

George Washington, the first President of the United States, set the precedent for an executive head of state in republican systems of government

Mount Rushmore in South Dakota has sculptures of presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln (left to right) representing the first 130 years of the history of the United States of America

Several heads of state and their consorts, as the foremost representatives of their nations, gather at the funeral for the late Pope John Paul II in 2005; among those in the picture are King Albert II of the Belgians, US President George W. Bush, French President Jacques Chirac, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Estonian President Arnold Rüütel, and Portuguese President Jorge Sampaio

The appointments and dismissals of members of the German cabinet is approved by President Richard von Weizsäcker (right), on the advice of Chancellor Helmut Kohl (left) in 1991.

Lieutenant General Arvydas Pocius, Lithunanian Army is invested as Chief of Defense by President Dalia Grybauskaite in 2009.

Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France and General Jean-Louis Georgelin, Chief of the Defence Staff, reviewing troops during the 2008 Bastille Day military parade on the Champs-Élysées in Paris

The 2015 Swiss Federal Council, the seven-member collective Head of State of the Swiss Confederation (the Federal Chancellor is also depicted, at the right)

Picture from 2010, celebrating the end of Japanese occupation of Korea in 1945, featuring North Korea's founding father the late Kim Il-sung, Eternal President of the Republic, (left) and his son the then-leader Kim Jong-il (right).

Puyi, the last emperor of China, abdicated from the throne in 1912, briefly restored in 1917, but allowed to keep his titles and palace until 1924. In later life woked as a gardener as an ordinary Chinese citizen in Communist China.

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Mies, with the greatest respect for your efforts here, it's just a caption. We tell the whole story in the body of the text. We can't cram everything into a caption. My own feeling is that although in theory the sixteen realms are equal, monarch-wise, it's a nonsense to pretend that this translates to the real world. She's the British Queen, she lives in the UK, and her overseas realms are very much secondary concerns. If we try to pretend that they are all equal, we look precious. She's Queen of Barbados, but is that really such a big deal that it needs to be understood in a caption? --Pete (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reiterating your personal opinions.

It can be taken from your silence on the matter that your concern with the length of the caption has been satisfied.

The caption I proposed mentions she's the British queen. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Mies, don't assume anything about my silence or whatever. I have other things to do in my life. Cooking dinner, volunteering for a non-profit, studying and you know, having a life. Thanks. You say above, "The affront to neutrality is the elimination of the 15 countries that aren't the UK, or the collective granting to them of second place status behind Britain; there's no factual basis for making that two tier structure." NPOV goes along with due weight, and my point is that although in theory the monarchy is equal everywhere, in practice it is not. HM lives in the UK and is involved with affairs of state on an intimate and regular basis, having weekly meetings with the Prime Minister, for example. As you are so very fond of pointing out, in her other realms she is represented by a governor-general. That's three big differences right there. Residency, participation, and representation.Do you see them as insubstantial qualities, unworthy of mention? --Pete (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Mies: "reckless" for rhe reason given above and in the edit summary, "worthless" from the point of view of readers making use of Wikipedia as stated above. Like others here, I am fully mindful that This is an encyclopaedia (with its own internal policies and guidelines with the aim to keep it as best a crowd-edited encyclopaedia as it can be). It's not a mass-production media outlet with chronically sloppy research and lazy, as-fast-as-possible writing. Unlike others, I have supported one of your proposed captions. Qexigator (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well, aside from its strong hint of an accusation of bad faith on my part (whether you meant that or not), I'm still certain your opinion is wrong. There's a reason maintenance tags exist. If for no other reason (though, there are other reasons), they alert people to an ongoing dispute. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I remain a supporter of "Elizabeth II, one of the world's best-known and longest-serving heads of state, reigns as queen of 16 countries, including the United Kingdom, where the parliamentary system standard model originated". From the reader's pov, this is factual and concisely informative, and well suited to the content of the article. I feel the discussion has gone on long enough, and is fraying into trivial bickering. Qexigator (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I remain a supporter of "Elizabeth II, one of the world's best-known and longest-serving heads of state, reigns as queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries". GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I remain a supporter of the current wording, but otherwise, I'm with GoodDay on this. It's misleading to pretend that the UK isn't pre-eminent. --Pete (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Either the current wording or GoodDay's above is acceptable. Qexigator (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I obviously support any of the proposals I put forward; my preference being either the one supported by Qexigator or the last one I presented. Illustrations should illustrate the adjacent text; the caption should connect the image to the text. Any edit based on someone's personal opinion on the preeminence of the UK over the other Commonwealth realms is a violation of WP:NPOV (as well as being misleading, if not downright inaccurate). Any edit based on the tautological argument "it should be because it should be" is... Well, that doesn't need further explanation.

Comment returning to the original wording is acceptable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"…someone's personal opinion on the preeminence of the UK over the other Commonwealth realms…" Well, just my own personal opinion here, but looking at Google searches on British Queen, Australian Queen, or Queen of the United Kingdom vs Queen of Canada and so on, my quick finding is that references to her as the British Queen come out well on top. Sadly, a search on "Queen of England" adds another order of magnitude to the results. It's hard to support a position that Elizabeth II is seen as the Queen of her various realms equally. Mostly, she's seen as being English first and British by a very distant second. The rest are in the also-ran category. --Pete (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Google isn't allowable as a reliable source. Nor is your interpretation of its search results. Nor is Wikipedia a mass-media outlet churning out poorly researched material or a blog written by people without education on the subject of the Commonwealth realms. Nor is Wikipedia's content based on what's popular; popularity does not equal accuracy.

Thank you, though, for admitting you favour Wikipedia synthesising a division of the Commonwealth realms into two classes because it mirrors your personal opinion. You are consistent, I'll give you that.

I'm also through discussing this with you. We're only repeating ourselves at this point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, though, for admitting you favour Wikipedia synthesising a division of the Commonwealth realms into two classes because it mirrors your personal opinion. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the popular perception is that the Queen's role as British Queen is more significant than her role as Queen of Belize. That's not just my own personal opinion, but one shared by millions of others. My personal opinion is that because the Queen is not represented by a Governor-General in the United Kingdom, her role in that Realm is different to those where she is represented. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Images, are they overlarge?

There has lately been a series of corrections to the captions. Viewing the article on screen, the images appear to me to be overlarge in proportion to the text. The main purpose of the images is to break the text, not add to the topic's information, which would be no less informative with no images at all, unlike articles where the topic is about an object, such as Magna Carta or the layout of the Palace of Westminster or portraits of the Queen. In my view, the article would be improved if most or nearly all the images were reduced. Please look at the version of [14] to see what I mean, which was soon undone. An alternative would be to present all or some of the images in a series of Galleries section by section. This is about artwork, for which there is likely to be a range of opinion on a scale from "Follow-the-rules-without-question philistine" to "I'm-an-artist-and-I-know-best". For npov, editors here, including this one, are expected to be somewhere in the middle, concerned about presenting the information in this particular article in a way most suited to the topic from the point of view mainly of readers sufficiently literate to want to read it for its information. There is, of course, likely to be some difference of opnion in seeking the point of balance, or. as we say "consensus". Considered comments from others would be welcome. Qexigator (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've no objections to image size reduction. GoodDay (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Image sizes should not be locked except for a very good reason (WP:IMGSIZE). Each individual editor can set (in "preferences", under the "appearance" tab) the size at which all images (without locked size) appear to them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

2 were overlarge: now OK

After reducing 6, in the now current version[15] I see 2 overlarge images:

• Tweedsmuir
• Matane.

These two are in a single frame that I do not know how to reduce. Qexigator (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reduced them to half their original size. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The down-sizing to 150px[16] has somehow come undone. Can anybody re-fix it? Qexigator (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Mies undid it. I've restored it, as 90px & 110px is required to make the images 'height' measurements the same. This is necessary becaue the 2 images aren't the same width. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If you agree, can you fix Akhito/Carl by moving to left, and making same size as Tweedsmuir/Matane? Qexigator (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember how to move 'multiple images' from right to left. But, I've read somewhere, that an article's first image(s) must be on the right. Therefore, I've made the compensating adjustments. Downside? De Gaulle & Washington will have to face away from the content ;) GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

As to position of Akhito/Carl, que sera, sera, but I don't see the need to switch the others from side to side. May I put them back? Qexigator (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The two paired images are now, combined, the same width as the other non-upright-locked images. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, noted. Qexigator (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Coronations & Inaugurations

I'm not sure how to word it into the article. But, coronations tend to occur after one become Head of state, sometimes about a year (Elizabeth II) or years (Bahumabol) later. Where's inaugurations occur at the moment one becomes Head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Timing difference: good point. Needs a tweak. Qexigator (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)