This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Law / Politics Mid‑importance Australian head of state dispute is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

I count myself as a moderately politically aware Australian. When I first saw the title of this article, my thought was "Huh? What dispute?" Never heard of it. Then I found that it is written in the present tense. Is there an ongoing dispute? It would be news to me.

Nothing in this article suggests to me that there is a community level discussion, debate, argument or difference of opinion nor community-level awareness of such a dispute. The article has several references trotted out to suggest which side is correct, but they are entirely begging the question. The article fails to identify the parties in the alleged "dispute", neither does it describe any famous or vaguely notable instances of the dispute breaking out amongst factions in the wider public, other than mentioning the 1999 republic referendum. Is the dispute confined to academia? Political tea parties in Canberra? Sore losers at pub trivia nights?

This article seems to me to be a straw man, an attempt to say that a thing exists because there is a WP article about it.

NB: I will not be engaging in any discussion about who is the head of state. That is not the subject of this article, nor this topic under that article. Dinkenfunkle 11:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the word "ongoing" as unsourced and unnecessary. StAnselm (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article shouldn't exist, but due to the sources amassed it would be hard to delete it.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that you say won't be engaging in any discussion about who is the head of state, says that such a discussion would be possible. There is no (rational) discussion possible about who is the President of the USA, or how many wives Henry VIII had, or who painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Yet vast amounts of material have been devoted to arguing both sides of the Australian head of state dispute, each camp equally convinced of the rightness of their position. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, StAnselm, but that edit to remove one word doesn't quite address the non-existence of the subject matter.

Jack Upland- There is quite a lot of refs, isn't there. And almost none of them discuss or support the existence of the alleged "dispute".

Now, Jack of Oz I'm confident that you could conceive of a situation where somebody, perhaps me, might have a sensible conversation about who is the Australian HoS ... say, with a high-school student in Africa, or a rice farmer in Laos. But, to my refusal, with a WP editor trying to defend why this red-herring of an article exists at all, agreed, not so much

So ... still hoping for a justification of why this article exists, and therefore why I shouldn't cull the irrelevancies and then initiate an AfD or similar. Dinkenfunkle 11:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a reference from an academic book summarizing the dispute and establishing that it exists (or used to exist). StAnselm (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Republicanism in Australia seems a little confused about who Australia's head of state is. Some parts of it are written as if it's definitely the monarch. Others seem to hint at it being the Governor-General. And yet others talk a lot about the role, but avoid the issue as to which position it currently is. This is not an deal state of affairs.

A common sequence of statements in debates about a republic for Australia involves a republican declaring that Australia needs its head of state to be an Australian, followed by a royalist saying that the head of state already IS an Australian, because the Governor-General is an Australian. (Although that's only a modern day convention, not a rule. A crazy, royalist PM could still theoretically and quite legally choose Prince Andrew, for example, as G-G.)

So, while there may not be a current, vigorous dispute about who the head of state is, there IS confusion, and doubt. Maybe a name change for this article would be appropriate, to something like Who the bloody hell IS Australia's head of state?. That's obviously tongue in cheek. Helpful suggestions are welcomed. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ref StAnselm. Unfortunately Google Books wont show me pg209 in the preview, so I'll have to wait until I can get to a suitable library. Perhaps ad interim you could advise which it supports, 'exists' or 'used to exist'.

(User talk:HiLo48) You've touched on some salient points. There seems to be some differences of opinion on the definition of HoS. In the article and its refs we also canvass 'effective' HoS, HoS 'for practical purposes', u.s.w. And indeed the "GG is HoS so we don't need to have a referendum" is a time-tested response. That there might exist a deal of confusion, real or confected, about the issue does not ipso facto warrant a WP article. There are a great many issues in life that are not settled, without the not-being-settled-ness having dedicated articles in WP. (I look forward to the WP article: "Existence of God Dispute") Dinkenfunkle 04:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can launch an AfD. I would support it, but I don't think it's likely to succeed.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may come to that, but I'm still at the 'let's talk about this' stage of thinking so far. And I agree an AfD would be unlikely to get up, if for no better reason than somebody/ies has wasted invested a deal of time of effort into it. Still weighing that up. Dinkenfunkle 04:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book says in part, "Nonetheless, there has been controversy in Australia and Canada about whether the Governor-General is the head of state. In Australia, one monarchist group argued at the time of the 1999 republic referendum that the Governor-General was the 'head of state' in order to rebut the republican argument that an Australian should be head of state. ... She is also regarded as Australia's head of state by the British Government, the Australian Government, the United Nations, and most legal and constitutional experts, even though some of her most fervent supporters, for political reasons, still profess that she is not." The last bit is in the present tense, and cites Smith and Flint. It was written in 2018 (before Smith's death) but Flint is still alive. StAnselm (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind we had a RfC which found the then queen was the head of state:[1]--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I conclude in the light of the above, that no significant, notable "head of state dispute" in Australia exists or has ever done so. There have been discussions, certainly, and people have pretended that there is an important point to be made, largely in furtherance of some political agenda. But a dispute worthy of a Wikipedia article? Yeah, nah. Out. Dinkenfunkle 07:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Various opinions" section is broken out into sections for "Official", "Scholarly" & "Political" sources. There are a few pieces which aren't necessarily aligned to the section that they are in. e.g. David Hamer's work was originally published by the Centre for Research in Public Sector Management at the University of Canberra, but is included under "Official sources", not "Scholarly". Will do some shuffling.

There are also some inclusions which, while describing someone as "head of state" (either the monarch or the GG), do not do so in the context of a debate or argument; nor in the context of answering the question "who is Australia's head of state?". The compilation of these, from sources which do not document a debate, disagreement or argument, along with the implication that they were engaging in debate on the question, appears to interact poorly with WP:SYNTH. Thoughts? Rotary Engine ^talk 05:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it's SYNTH.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the court cases & tribunal decisions should go. They're all referencing only primary sources. And it's not a justiciable question. It would be preferable to have a summary statement referencing a secondary source; assuming one can be found. Rotary Engine ^talk 06:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the article text The issue has been occasionally raised in the High Court of Australia but never directly ruled on by that court. seems dubious. Certainly some judgements have used the term "head of state", but that doesn't imply that the question "Who is Australia's head of state?" was considered by the courts. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources refer to the late Queen, for example. Some are no longer visible. Many date from 2011 or so on. We have moved on. --Pete (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]