Talk:List of current heads of state and government/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Please, repeat after me: - Taiwan is not a widely recognized country. It does not hold a seat in the UN. It only has formal diplomatic relations in a few nations. In fact, even the current government of Taiwan does not officially consider the country an independent nation. Please, PLEASE, stop moving Taiwan to the recognized countries table. In fact, it´s more likely that Taiwan will make peace with China and will be dropped entirely from this article than attainning the status of independent nation.

The same goes for Palestine. Although I understand and sympathize with the palestinian struggle for sovereignty, it´s a pretty well known fact that the palestinian government and people are subject to the Israeli administration. Therefore, Palestine is not a sovereign nation, and has no business in the recognized countries list. At least, yet.

I was the one who first compiled the Unrecognized Countries table. I did so because I thought any leaders of the world list that ignored the existence of the Palestine or Taiwan would not be an actual portrait of the geopolitics of the real world. Therefore, the unrecognized countries list is not there to deny the right to self-determination of any nation or people. Quite the opposite, it is here to show that there are powers and political forces that operate outside the restraints of the widespread international consensus. Moving countries from the unrecognized countries list to the recognized one is not only POV and unencyclopedic. I feel it actually detracts the very serious, very hard struggle people battle everyday to be the masters of their own land, to have the right to speak their language, have their culture, and enjoy the rights of full citizenship and freedom. So, once again I ask, unless there are significative changes in the geopolitical status of these countries, DO NOT MOVE THEM FROM THIS LIST. Doing this will not help them in anyway. In fact, the only thing you will be fighting is awareness.

Thank you. [Felipe] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.148.117.47 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I used the term representative government because that is what the press secretariat said it was. I asked her whether the O le Ao o le Malo was a monarch and this was her response:

from [email protected]

to [email protected]

date Jul 17, 2007 8:08 PM

subject Re: O le Ao o le Malo

Talofa Benjamin,

Thank you for your enquiry. The Independent State of Samoa is a representative government. Our Head of State is a ceremonial president. Being free from politics, any law will not become law unless assented to by the Head of State.

Regards,

Deborah Mauinatu

Office of the Government Press Secretariat

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Therequiembellishere (talk • contribs) 06:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that a great part of pictures show Heads of State together Bush, which is highly irritating for non-Americans and - I suppose- also for American liberals. I imagine that this English-written site is mainly written from USA peoples, but it is shown worldwide. My personal opinion about Bush is absolutely negative and I'm loosing the good opinion I had about many other Heads of State here represented together him. Well, I know that a Head of State has the duty to meet everyone, but I think it would be more proper to show them with other persons, expecially artists, scientists of people working for Human Rights, not woth the oppositors of them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewRT (talk • contribs) 22:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote to the government of San Marino regarding their Head of Government--

from [email protected]

to [email protected]

date Jul 15, 2007 8:30 AM

subject Head of Government

To whomever may be kind enough to answer this,

I must first and foremost apologise for not being able to compose this letter in Italian, as the time is late and I cannot do it at this moment in time.

Of course, I am not e-mailing you to tell of my insomnia, but to ask a question as someone who is avidly into geopolitics and as a contributor to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia. There is a question among the community as to whether Secretary of State for Foreign and Political Affairs Fiorenzo Stolfi is the true Head of Government of the Most Serene Republic of San Marino, or if the Captains-Regent Alessandro Mancini and Alessandro Rossi are the Heads of State and Heads of Government. I do not mean this as, for example, Suriname, where their President is the Head of State and Head of Government, though their Vice President exercises a role similar to a Prime Minister.

I would greatly appreciate a quick response as I will not have internet access after two weeks and would like to resolve the problem among the Wikipedia Community as quickly as possible.

Many thanks,

Benjamin (last name omitted)

from [email protected]

to [email protected]

date Jul 18, 2007 4:51 AM

subject Fw: Head of Government

Fiorenzo Stolfi is Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Captains Regent Alessandro Mancini and Alessandro Rossi are Heads of State.

The State Congress (Governement) is a "corporate body" composed of 10 Secretary of State and there is no Head of Governement because this specific role is not provided for by our constitution.

Antonella Giardi

Therequiembellishere 22:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey is this list reliable? I think Venezuela is out of date so im unsure about some of the others...

It's usually kept pretty up to date. Hugo Chavez is in fact still the president of Venezuela. You may have heard of him, he's in the news from time to time. --Jfruh (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is. Trust me, I've checked. Therequiembellishere 04:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Vatican City is a sacerdotal state, but it is also an absolute monarchy, not having any rapresentative body. Legislative, executive and judicial power are all in the hands of the pope. More, I don't think that Afghanistan and Iraq can be qualified as democracies: they both are under military occupation of foreign countries and no election can be considered free when it is under foreign control!

They are not under foreign control, but there is a foreign presence. We might as well take away countries such as Germany because America has military unit there. Therequiembellishere 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

But who said a word about democracy on the 'List of current heads of state and government' page anyway? There are many more non-democratic countries included. Just think of Belarus, Brunei, Burma, China, many former Soviet republics, North Korea, and far too many African and Arab countries.

Certainly NOT. USA has military "bases" in Europe, but they have no control over government and over citizens. On the contrary Iraq and Afghanistan were free countries (or, almost, not controlled by foreigners) until they were military occupied by USA, without a reason in the world! Everybody in free world knows their sad situation and I never read such an absurdity! You are probably from USA and brainwashed by your mass-media. Thinking that a gov. could be free under foreign control is very ingenous: Afghanistan and Iraq will be free when all foreigners will go home and peoples could vote without any foreign control. Not a second before. If you have the possibility, talk with peoples from Afghanistan and Iraq and you'll learn what they think about their "freedom", including the fact that Americans disbanded Iraqi army and Iraqi public administration, leaving hundreds of peoples (and their families) unimployed and without income! I think that actual puppet governmenst will not resit one minute after the occupation end. And I don't write about crimes known by everyone in the world..... Val from EU

I've heared it is monarchy in fact.--Dojarca 14:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm glad you brought this up. Yes, Thailand currently went under a military coup, but it is still viewed by and considered a constitutional monarchy. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therequiembellishere (talk • contribs) 18:41, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I fear I don't understand your way of thinking: how it is possible that a country living under a military dictature is considered a "constitutional monarchy"? And by whom? What do you mean when you write " it is still viewed and considered"? No normal person can "view and consider" a military dictature as a constitutional country! Val from EU

should we also include heads of legislative bodies here?--Dojarca 11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No. They do not fit into "heads of state and government" unless they concurrently serve as head of state, as in Libya and the DPRK. —Sesel 18:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

"In the process of adopting new constitution" is not a form of government, and Nepal's monarchy is entirely suspended (the King has no powers whatsoever) under the interim constitution. And it should be obvious that Antarctica is not a country. —Sesel 19:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The prevous version says Myanmar has no representative body which is not true. According the Myanmar's government website[1] there is National Convention which is currently adopting the new constitution (and the basic principles were adopted August, 31). Nepal's monarchy is suspended which means it is still de jure monarchy. Antarctica is really a country, but not a sovereign state just as Palestine which is already included here.--Dojarca 19:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The National Convention is not chosen by the people or by representatives chosen by the people; it is therefore not representative. Nepal is not a de jure monarchy, it is entirely suspended and the country now functions as a republic under an interim mandate. You should be able to tell the difference between Antarctica and Palestine and why one belongs here and the other does not. —Sesel 19:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Myanmar adopted the basic principles of its republican constitution so I suppose it should be called republic or having interim government. According Nepal, can you clarify what do you mean under the word "suspended"? As I understand it, it means the monarchy was not abolished. According the last issue I see no difference between the cases and think if one is counted her, the other should be counted also.--Dojarca 19:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Antarctica is not a country at all, Dojarca. Definitions of a country are:

1. A state or nation (it isn't)
2. The territory of a nation. (legally none apply)
3. The people of a district, state, or nation (Twenty or so non-permanent scientist are not the people)
4. The land of one's birth or citizenship (No one has been born there)
5. Rural districts, including farmland, parkland, and other sparsely populated areas, as opposed to cities or towns (It's nothing but a desert)
6. Any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions, by a distinctive population, etc (It usually needs people to say this)
7. A tract of land considered apart from any geographical or political limits; region; district. (no politics, no population)
8. Of, from, or characteristic of the country (Again, it's just a desert)
9. Of, from, or pertaining to a particular country. (Well, it isn't one is it?)

Palesting on the other hand, has many of these characteristics and is recognised by ninety-six SOVEREIGN NATIONS and get diplomatic status from twelve more.

So stop adding Antarctica and don't dare delete Palestine. Therequiembellishere 19:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not right. First, there was a number of people who born in Antarctica and first to born in the Antarctic mainland was

Palestinian National Authority, which has territory and government but has no recognition as a sovereign state (and still does not consider itself a state).--Dojarca

19:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, those two kids are not "Antarctican" and most certainly aren't "a number of people", by tract of land considered apart from any geographical or political limits it means something like an island or something, Palestine could be argued as territory of Israel, the PNA does have ALL OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE and therefore all of the recognition! In addition to this, it is a UN observer state and gained so on in 1974, got the name palestine in the UN in 1988 as well as right to the circulate communications without intermediary and the right to participate in general debate and additional rights in 1998. I believe YOU are the one counfused, so stop trying to sound high-and-mighty and accept that Antarctica is not a country, state, nation, autonomy or legal territory, protectorate or commonwealth. Therequiembellishere 20:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There are not only two people, but those two were the first to be born in Antarctica. Tract of land considered apart from any geographical or political limits may refer to an island or a separated land mass just as Antarctica. Palestine really can be argued to be territory of Israel now (temporary) and really does not have all the authority of the state, you're right. But it still listed here somewhy.--Dojarca 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Politics

As the only uninhabited continent, Antarctica has no government and belongs to no country. Various countries claim areas of it, although as a rule, no other countries recognize such claims. The area between 90°W and 150°W is the only part of Antarctica, indeed the only solid land on Earth, not claimed by any country.^[1]

Since 1959, claims on Antarctica have been suspended and the continent is considered politically neutral. Its status is regulated by the 1959

.

The Antarctic Treaty prohibits any

The

I think this article uses "country" in the meaning of "sovereign country"--Dojarca 20:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way I suggest to move Palestine to the second table --Dojarca 18:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should separate this list in sections by continent. Or maybe make a totally different list like that. What do you guys think? --Hamsterlopithecus 07:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lists of counties on Wikipedia are generally just big alphabetical lists. I know it seems like a a huge chunk of data, but it's easier to find things, especially for those who aren't sure what continent a country is on. Plus there'd be endless squabbling over (say) whether Cyprus is in Europe or Asia, where to put Russia, whether "Oceania" is a continent, etc. etc.... --Jfruh (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Do really need all the presidents- and prime ministers-elect that have creeped in here in the last few days? I realize that this is one way to avoid all the folks who will jump the gun and put the newly elected individual in the list too soon, but it also clutters things up terribly ... --Jfruh (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

How so? Somebody put up all of them upon their election, and once they got removed, the people who added them would re-add them every so often, and I don't think I cluttered it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It has just happened to me. Couldn't we add an "See also: elected heads of state and government" page? Everton1984 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC).

The situation in Belgium is a bit more complex than Leterme being a simple PM-designate. Leterme was given the go-ahead to form a government after the elections this past summer and failed. After the collapse of those negotiations, Verhofstadt (the outgoing prime minister) was given a three-month mandate to run the government in a more than caretaker capacity -- he actually assembeled a coalition different from the one that ran the country previously -- to give Leterme breathing room to put together a government that would agree on the constitutional issues that stymied the first formation process. However, there's no guarantee that he will succeed in this task -- after all, if this was a done deal, there would have been no need for the interim government at all, and Leterme would have just formed his cabinet already.

I know I'm on the record as saying I don't like including the -elects and -designates in this list, but nobody seemed to agree with me when I spoke up about it, and I don't really really feel that strongly about it; plus, I admit that it does have the benefit of stopping ignorant editors from changing the names on this list before the recent electee has formally assumed office. However, I do think that it should be reserved for situations where only extraordinary circumstances could prevent the person so noted from assuming office -- after the next US presidential election but before their inauguration, for instance, or in a Westminster system where a political party has won a clear majority in Parliament but the party leader hasn't been formally installed as PM. Because of the admittedly convoluted circumstances around Leterme's designation, I don't think he meets the criteria.

) 21:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Three columns suggested

I suggest to use three columns for each sdtate: Sovereign, Head of State, Head of Government.--Dojarca (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer that, especially since there are countries who say they are A and are clearly not, but defining B is impossible; countries who are C, D and E, etc. Therequiembellishere (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. In states that have "sovereigns," the sovereign is head of state by definition. Which states are your referring to where they fall into different categories? --Jfruh (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see that. They should be Country, HoS and HoG. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would definitely agree to eliminating the "government" column. Parsing the government types down to a sensible few inevitably inolves interpretation and original research on the part of editors. --Jfruh (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

In Australia head of state is General-Governor, but sovereign is the queen. In Vatican the sovereign is the Pope, but head of state is president (there is also a head of government, which is not indicated in the table). In other countries such as Iran and North Korea there is a national leader which is not head of state or head of government.--Dojarca (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara is not widely recognized. There is no country called Palestine yet either (there are proposals) and is not recognized by Israel, the United States, or the United Nations (the UN should be used for what is considered a country and what isn't). So is there any objection to moving them to the unrecognized countries section? TJ Spyke 04:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara was there before me, and Palestine has flitted between the two before and since my arrival. I;m for keeping them as they do have a substantial amount of recognition as compared to the others in the unrecognised box which have none (albeit, Northern Cyprus who has Turkey). Also, the UN should be the only marker if this your rule is to pass, not the US or Israel; though I do see Israel's rational, the United States I don't. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

FFC, for the second time in a row I wrote a lengthy reply and it didn't get posted (Internet problems). In summary: I agree that only the UN marker should be counted, only 45 of the 193 UN-recognized countries (23.3%) recognize Western Sahara as a country, 26 recognize Morocco's claim to the area, the rest don't have their posititions documented. TJ Spyke 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I'm sorry. Palestine certainly has a much more significant recognition. In any case, it's an observer an therefore stay by your policy anyway. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Being a observers doesn't mean they are a recognized county, dozens of entities/organizations have observer status (see United Nations General Assembly observers). According to the UN's website, the only non-UN country with observer status is Holy See (Vatican City) [2]. UN lists Palestine as an "Entity" [3]. TJ Spyke 21:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look through the United Nations General Assembly observers, you'll see that their statue is far above the rest of the entities and in the this shows it has high status as well. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the only "Entity" that is an observer, the rest are organizations. My point was that Palestine is not recognized as a country by the UN. TJ Spyke 23:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but it's status is above the only country who is an observer, the Vatican. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see that? The article on UN observers says the Vatican has all the rights of full membership except voting (which Palestine can't do either). Sounds like they basically have the same rights in the UN (except for Vatican City being recognized as a country). TJ Spyke 23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Palestine can vote on issues concerning itself and possibly major affairs in its region and major international affairs. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not according to either WP articles we've discussed or the UN's website. Only member nations have the right to vote. TJ Spyke 00:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I still feel that even though it isn't recognised by the UN as a country, the significant amount of other countries who do merit it's addition and it's status as an observer entity is still colossal compared with those others at the bottom. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Western Sahara? You have any problem moving that down to the unrecognized countries section? TJ Spyke 00:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess not, but it has had the fluctuations of up to 89 . . . Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

An anon editor removed

) 16:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should. Maybe something similar to what I did with Kim Jong-il in North Korea? --Managerpants (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

why is kosovo not on the first list? It has declared independence from serbia and has been accepted by many EU countries and the USA.217.171.129.75 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ten out of one-hundred ninety-three. It stays off pending further recognition. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, but please put it on when the majority of countries recognize kosovo.217.171.129.75 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, we will. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he should be listed under North Korea in some fashion, probably similar to the

) 16:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody replied, so I made the change myself. Hope it's okay! --Managerpants (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

palestine isn't a country recognized by the usa, or the un. it shouldn't be on the list. Kosovo isn't so why is palestine?217.171.129.70 (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed! Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, but, with all due respect, it wasn't resolved. Palestine isn't recognized and you said they can vote, but so can Kosovo. It's double standards. Either lift Kosovo up to the first list(preferabley) OR move Palestine to the bottom list.217.171.129.72 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they can't. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Taiwan should be moved to the bottom list, since only 23 countries recognize it. Thoughts? --Managerpants (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many and we've decide to keep it where it is. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see where that discussion took place. I see where others suggested moving Taiwan to the bottom list, but their comments were not responded to. In fact, I think it might be a good idea to put these things to a vote, because I don't see that as having ever happened on this page, whether it was regarding Taiwan, Kosovo, Palestine, or whomever. --Managerpants (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you look at the archives? Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I did, yes. And if anything, I see more people that were in favor of keeping those states as "unrecognized." But nowhere did I see any voting. Someone did cite List of sovereign states, and I think it might be a good idea to use that as a crosswalking tool for what is and isn't considered "recognized." What do you think? --Managerpants (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think with our current rules for Palestine and Taiwan, Kosovo should be allowed. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But again, I don't see where those "rules" were agreed upon. Personally, I don't think any of them belong on the top list, since they are not recognized by the UN. --Managerpants (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara has more recognition than Kosovo and Taiwan. If you move Kosovo you have to move Western Sahara too. --Spoon! (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That was what had happened. Managerpants, not everything comes down to a vote. RfA's, deletions, deletion reviews, current event nominations. None of them are votes. They are discussions. Through discussion, this is what was decided. I'm going to move them now per the archives and if we decide to make new rules, then and only then should we reverse them. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't ask for a vote, I'm asking for a discussion. Show me where in the archives any of this was agreed upon, because after scouring the whole thing, I didn't see it. I have made numerous valid points on here, all of which you have ignored. I'm not trying to cause a problem or anything, but I'd just like to know what logic is being used here. As it stands, this list is not consistent with either the United Nations, or with our very own List of sovereign states. I think the rationale used on that list is sound, and I believe that we should crosswalk this list with that one. --Managerpants (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

someone should change it so it doesn't overlap, eg andorra. please respond. Georgereev118118 (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Except, you shouldn't have done that. I'll try and fix it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have done what? Georgereev118118 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing the Andorran representatives. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

if Robert Mugabe declares himself winner of the elections when Morgan Tsvangirai won the popular vote, who would we say the president is? Georgereev118118 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Mugabe. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What's our criteria on these states? Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This page should follow, without a doubt, the criteria upon which

United Nations member states, plus the Holy See/Vatican should be featured in a first list noting they have nearly universal international recognition. The Republic of China, Western Sahara, Kosovo, Palestine, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Somaliland, and South Ossetia should be featured on a second list which notes these states might (using Montevideo Convention criteria) arguably be considered to be sovereign, but still lack nearly universal international recognition (which is true even if several dozen governments recognize the first four I mentioned). --Ace ETP (talk

) 16:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But why Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Somaliland, and South Ossetia at all? How do we choose who has more control over their territory than the others? Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, checking the criteria for inclusion over at

unrecognized states with little or no control over their claimed territory out there. --Ace ETP (talk

) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, then. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I understand the Presidency Council of Iraq is the collective head of state of Iraq under the Constitution of Iraq, rather than the President of Iraq. I've amended the article. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the President heads the council. Isn't he in more that a Swiss President (first among equals). Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz as Mauritania's new leader but I fully expect within the week to truly have it all sorted out. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I placed Kosovo into the list of the entities that lack majority recognition because the case of Kosovo does not differ from the case of N.Cyprus. Probably Taiwan also should be moved.--Dojarca (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We have been over this, it has quite a lot of countries recognising it, as does Taiwan and we've kept it where it is. N. Cyprus has one brown-nosing state recognising it and is in no way the same. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How many recognizing countries needed to place it in the first section? In both cases of Kosovo and Taiwan it's definitely minority and also no UN recognition. So no difference from the Cyprus case. Also I should note that calling Kosovo "state" is nothing more than political propaganda. There is no place in Wikipedia for this kind of one-sided POV-pushing. This can be considered political diversion or provocation and may danmage Wikipediia's image. So moving back.--Dojarca (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

N. Cyprus has a single, lone state recognising it; Kosovo has a fourth of the world. Yes, it's a minority, but they have a much larger amount of control over their own territory and a much larger standing in the world compared to those others down their. Several people see them as nations, so how about a middle section for them. Partially recognised countries. Sound fair? Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(PS: Since when has Wikpedia cared about its image? Haha ;-) ) Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I agree. This would suffice.--Dojarca (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this list can't be consistent with the List of sovereign states. In my opinion, there is no room for a "partially recognized states" section. Israel is a partially recognized state, but I'm sure we're not going to move it. Instead of making exceptions and arguing about what belongs where, why don't we just make this list consistent with the aforementioned list, and with the United Nations? --Managerpants (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would better to follow something like list:

List of unrecognized countries. I'll try make some clarifications--Dojarca (talk

) 09:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Palestine

The case of Palestine is somewhat more complex. Abbas is the head of Palestinian Authority, not of the state of Palestine. Palestinian Authority is not recognized (or even proclaimed) souvereign state.--Dojarca (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It links to the Authority, it's just shortened. And the PNA is intertwined with the PLO, which has declared independence. Therequiembellishere (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

PNA is governed by Hamas, not PLO. The Authority did not declare independence.--Dojarca (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's complicated but it is the highest authority we have. Maybe you could add a note explaining the complications, I don't know enough to. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Having been the person who initially put in the family names of the monarchs in parentheses quite some time ago, I now see it as superfluous and would like them removed and the names to reflect the monarchs' page. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If no one responds by Monday, I'm taking them out. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Chairman of the National Defence Commission is not a head of state so I suggest to remove it.--Dojarca (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this list doesn't seem to indicate in each case who is the de facto leader - the head of government or the head of state. Perhaps some kind of a marker next to their names? Palefire (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I realize it is traditional to call him the "President-Elect" right after the first Tuesday in November, but he won't OFFICIALLY be the "President-Elect" until the electoral college meets on December 15. Does it matter or does anyone care? I don't really--and perhaps this discussion page entry is sufficient. Grumpy otter (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Barack Obama and the several discussions there. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

So, should we keep on removing "elected" people? Everton1984 (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't remove elected people. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Our current list appears to list the government of the Palestinian National Authority, which is not recognized as a sovereign government by anybody, including itself. The organization which is recognized as the Palestinian de jure government is the Palestine Liberation Organization. Abbas is the head of that, but as Chairman, not as President, and there is no prime minister. Shouldn't this be changed?

) 15:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue of Palestine is a very confusing one, to be honest i would rather it not appear on the list or simply link to the articles on a state of palestine. According to Abbas article it says he was elected President of Palestine by the PLO on November 23, 2008.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7745122.stm

Internationally abbas is seen as the president of Palestine or a future Palestinian state anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...yes, then Abbas is fine, I suppose. Fayyad seems dubious, though.

talk

) 03:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Helo everyone. We should find a way to indicate when someone is both head of state and head of government but by virtue of holding two different offices. The examples that occured to me so far are Raúl Castro and Hassanal Bolkiah. Castro is head of state because of being the President of the Council of State (Presidente del Consejo de Estado) and head of government by being Chairman of the Council of Ministers (Presidente del Consejo de Ministros). Similarly Hassanal Bolkiah is both Sultan of Brunei (head of state) and at the same time prime minister (see the government website: http://www.brunei.gov.bn/government/system.htm). Another fact that underlines the need for differentiation between his two titles is that he entered those offices at different times (sultan since 1967 and prime minister since 1984). So I believe we should indicate that there are two positions but one person. ZBukov (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In the list several heads of government were listed under the proper title of their office (e.g. Head of Government for Andorra and Liechtenstein, Chancellor for Austria and Germany, Taoiseach for Ireland, Minister of State for Monaco, etc). However the vast majority are only designated as Prime Minister despite the fact that there are a few more with slightly different titles (President of the Government of Spain, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Chairman of the Government of Russia, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Poland, Italy, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Laos, President of the Council of Ministers of Peru). I see no reason to stop here and leave the list partially imperfect in this respect. What do you think? ZBukov (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Because these are how they're generally known in the English world. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The list is also wrong in that it lists Burma, a country that hasn't existed in more than 20 years. It is now Myanmar. Just because some governments refuse to recognize the them doesn't mean we should use an incorrect name. TJ Spyke 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That is an entirely different discussion that we have no power over. If you'd like to contribute to that very long running argument, I suggest you take it there. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean we have no power over it? Personally, I think it's fine to have the article on the country at

talk

) 15:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone helps make a more adequate intro? Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

While I understand that according to constitutional theory the Governors-General are not the head of state only her personal representatives, still they are the ones who practically perform the role on a daily basis, only receiving a visit from the Queen every once in a few years or decades. Therefore it seems unjustified (and impractical) to display their names in illegibly small font.

Yes, but we go by their role as defined by their constitutions. And the font shouldn't be illegible -- even if you need glasses, you should be able to see them when they're on. What's your monitor size and what browser are you using? Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I can read their names all right, it's not the problem. My suggestion was that since practically they are the heads of state, their names should be written in the same font.

But then it makes them seem like the GG and the Queen are co-operative heads of state, which they aren't. If you think of GGs are Acting Presidents, you may see what I mean. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does Therequiembellishere insist on "Guinea-Conakry" a term which is not frequently used, for the Republic of Guinea? This isn't a case like Democratic Republic of Congo and Republic of Congo where we have two countries which otherwise have the same short name. The short name for the Republic of Guinea is "Guinea." The short name for the Republic of Guinea-Bissau is "Guinea-Bissau." Note, for instance, the World Factbook, which says "Guinea" is the conventional short form. The term "Guinea-Conakry" is occasionally used, but it is not the most common term in English, and there's absolutely no reason to use it here.

) 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The line of Honduras currently contains the name of both Manuel Zelaya and Roberto Micheletti with the remark that the presidency is 'disputed'. I don't think Zelaya should be included in any other form than a remark at the bottom of the page as currently he is not in control of Honduras. The person exercising the functions of president is clearly only Micheletti. With the above I have no intention of taking sides in the debate about the legality or acceptability of the change of president. But I do think that such a Wikipedia list should only reflect the facts. Because if we would 'recognize' (with inclusion on the list) only legal transfers of power than lots of actual leaders wouldn't appear. For example only the de facto leaders of Mauritania have been included since the coup d'état and there hasn't even been a note about the constitutional president who never resigned his office. Any opinion on the above? ZBukov (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we, by any chance, respect the fact that the above country calls itself Côte d'Ivoire and stopped using the translation Ivory Coast in 1985? ZBukov (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not complete this list with a column containing the date of election? It would make it easier to find out "what's new". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beraldosuperfigo (talk • contribs) 09:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Would Micronations go under the list title of not recognised by any UN member? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No. They have zero control over their land. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Should the Principality of Sealand be recognized here? I realize it may seem a bit silly, but other non-recognized nations are included here. Sealand does, in fact, control it's "land", as the U.K. basically wants nothing to do with it and won't infringe upon its "sovereignty". It also claims de facto recognition by Germany. And whilst ostensibly worthless, it has its own currency. Just a thought.

) 07:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've tried adding that before and they don't like it in there.

talk

) 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I tried adding it before but as you can see here it gives a reason to why it's not a popular support for addition. If you can pursudae the other editors to have it included, good luck to you.

talk

) 17:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well basicly what you would have to do would be insert it into alphabetical order in the list in this format (look at it from edit view):

|- | Sealand

|colspan=2|

(don't copy the br above) Then if you like copy it into the page in the correct position and I'd give you the good advice to explain why you're adding it by typing it into the description box so the other editors can mull over it and then you can go from there. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I've done it for you, now let's prepare for the backlash!

talk

) 19:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sealand is, indeed, soverign. It once belonged to England. England sold it. An English court has ruled that it has no jurisdiction over it.

talk

) 20:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have explained why Sealand belongs here. They do have soverignty; certainly more so that Somaliland. If the other unrecognised countries are removed, then I will have no problem removing Sealand. But until then, it belongs here. It has now been removed twice. If anyone removes it again, I would ask that they post a comment here, explaining why they are doing so. Thank you.

talk

) 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me on what grounds do you consider Sealand as a State? I'd rather believe this is some kind of juvenile joke. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You are of course aware that it is placed under the States NOT recognized by any United Nations members list? A court in England has said that the UK has no juristiction over Sealand and it is claimed as an independant state, i'ts just that no UN member recognises it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A State without law enforcement? Without permanent population? What kind of State is that? A virtual State? This certainly does not correspond to the same category as any of the other States listed in this article, including those that are not recognised. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Somaliland doesn't correspond as a recognised state and yet it in included in the sublist of states not recognized by any United Nations members. If you want to remove Sealand, you have to remove the rest of that sublist as they are all much the same thing, which I can tell you might not go down well The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What has to do Somaliland with this? Somaliland is a relatively estable State, counting on real institutions, an army, tax collection, law enforcement, domestic production, and foreign trade... not to mention some 3,500,000 subjects. The fact that it is a non-recognised State has nothing to do with the status of Sealand as a real State! Please, give up with this absurdity. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I brought up Somaliland because it's the same as Sealand, a state with no or little international recognition. It attempts foreign relations along with passports and own economy. there is a source that covers it here. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not challenging Sealand may be a sovereign entity. The obvious thing I'm pointing out is that Sealand is not a State, by any definition. You just cannot call anything you want a State. Salut, --

talk

) 08:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Mk5384, look better at Page History. I didn't state that, nor I made more than one reversal (the others beign made by

) 17:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sealand has no natural landmass whatsoever, one of the basic attributes of a state. If it would be acceptable, spaceships could also declare their statehood and sovereignty, which is clear nonsense. ZBukov (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that spaceships have not declared their sovereignty, so I really don't feel that that argument is germane. The original argument against Sealand was that they have no sovereignty. I made the case that they, in fact, do. After that, the inclusion of Sealand went unchallenged for quite some time. Now there is a new requirement of landmass? I have firmly agreed that all other micronations do not merit inclusion here, as they largely exist solely in the minds of their creators. Great Britian owned what would become Sealand, and the sovereignty of Sealand was upheld by a British court. The German government has sent diplomats to Sealand to negotiate a hostage crisis, and Sealand, as such, claims de facto recognation by Germany. Whilst IANVS may disagree with me, I do feel that this is a solid argument. As it has been included for some time, and plausible reasons for its inclusion have been given, I feel that it should remain whilst it is under discussion.

talk

) 09:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sovereignty is a defining attribute of statehood, but it does not equal statehood. Whilst this is the only attribute counting fot the statehood of Sealand (and it certainly is a disputed one), I still don't see why we should consider a State an entity without a permanent population, bureaucracy, army, domestic production, law enforcement, et al. I mean, Sealand does not have any of these. How can we call it a State? Salut, --IANVS (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky subject, and the arguments made against it certainly merit notice. But I'd like to attempt to respectfully rebut some of them. Sealand does have sovereignty. And a perment population. And a military that has quite successfully defended it against an attempted overthrow. They have bureaucracy, albeit to a much lesser extent. And whilst it is extremely limited, (and trivial), they do have domestic production. They do not, of course have any landmass, but it's hard to think that that alone, would merit exclusion. In addition, Sealand has been represented in international athletic competitions, although admittedly lesser known ones. Another thing that was mentioned was Sealand not meeting the requirements of the Montevideo Convention. In the first place, Somililand, Transnistria, and Nagorno-Karabakh are not recognized as states by any of the 19 signatories of the Montevideo Convention. As such, it would be tough to make a case for using it to exclude Sealand. But if we were going to go by it, Sealand does, in fact, meet all four points of criteria. (Check the article in this encyclopedia.) Even if, in the end it is decided that Sealand dosen't merit inclusion, it certainly rates serious discussion.

talk

) 18:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What I find hard to accept is that a man-made artificial structure, that was once constructed and towed to its present location and could just as well be disassembled one day, could be the basis of a state. That a family living on a pontoon would be recognized as sovereign. Is there any substantive difference between Sealand and a ship on international waters or a spaceship? ZBukov (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. I'm not going to put it back. We'll see if anyone else agrees with me. So far, it dosen't seem like it.

talk

) 02:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are all considered to be countries, would it be reasonable to include them seperately in this list?

) 05:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so, because they all share a head of state and government, even if there are second-tier local government levels. (Their "country" status is pretty weird really, and in this context, I'd say they are really one single state) -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that only the national level of the government is included in this list, even for federative countries (which the UK is not). So in this case the major argument for me is that Scotish, Welsh and Northern Ireland chief ministers have a national government above them (and England doesn't even have its own government). By the way, this is the very reason why I would think it consistent to include the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba, plus the Faroe Islands and Greenland in the list, because they do not have a government above them, as they are legally equal with The Netherlands and Denmark. So the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Denmark (which are separate legal entities from The Netherlands and Denmark) each have one monarch and three prime ministers, while the UK has one monarch and one prime minister. So according to my understanding the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland chief ministers are just the next level of government, like the German minister-presidents and the US governors. ZBukov (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I do think that they should be included as well. I have not added any of them myself, as I am not completely familiar with the criteria for inclusion.

talk

) 17:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand why the name 'country' would give you that thought, but remember that the constituent entities of the US and also of Germany are called 'states' and that word has quite similar connotations to 'country'. Another good example was Serbia and Montenegro (the state union). That was a loose federation with a relatively weak central government headed by a president, while both the Republic of Montenegro and the Republic of Serbia had their own governments with president and prime minister. Yet for the outside world the sovereign entity was the state union. ZBukov (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I wasn't necessarily making a case for inclusion. I was looking more for clarificaton.

talk

) 00:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have clarified the United Kingdom, I am still interested in the other countries mentioned. ZBukov seems to be in favor of including Greenland, the Faroe Islands, ect. (Unless I have misunderstood, which is quite possible.) Should these countries, perhaps, be included seperately?

) 05:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, as they are dependancies of

Special Administrative Regions so if you did include Greenland and the Faroe Islands you'd have to include all those as well but since they are not independant countries, I wouldn't. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk

) 17:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear

Talk:Rigsfællesskabet in the meantime. But I maintain that according to the structure of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba should also be included alongside the Netherlands, as those three countries together constitute the Kingdom. ZBukov (talk

) 20:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Then by those standards, it would seem fit to include

talk

) 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mk5384, I understand your concern, but there is a fundamental difference between the structures of the UK and the Kingdom of the Netherlands - as much as I presently understand it. Aruba, the Netherlands Antilles and the Netherlands all have their prime ministers and there is no central Kingdom government "above" them (the Netherlands just happens to be the largest one of the three). However while Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their chief ministers (and England doesn't), there is a central UK government above them. So I perceive Scotland, N Ireland and Wales and second tier of government, while Aruba, N Antilles and the Netherlands are three separate entities that unite in the Kingdom and take care of their common competencies but without a "federal" level government. To put it in other words, the Kingdom was one queen and three prime ministers, while the UK has one queen and one prime minister. Though I'm no authority on this subject, so if somebody knows better, please correct me! ZBukov (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I think it should be listed as

talk

) 23:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of days ago there was a table added to the article which contained the non-self governing countries (such as the

) 19:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a need for the non-self governing countries to be added to the heads of state and government list. Their leaders are listed in both the

List of current local leaders articles and they are also included in the list of state leaders articles (e.g. List of state leaders in 2010). ZBukov (talk

) 20:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to concur with ZBukov.

talk

) 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Add Pictures Directly Next to Name!!

Annoying to click on every picture to see the face. It would be nice to scroll down and be able to see face with the name like the "United States Cabinet" page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.50.31 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I know it would be nice but it would clutter the page no end as well as all those pictures would take up a heck of a lot of MBs and people with slower computers would never get it loaded in a reasonable time. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to try a section in their soapbox it might aid discussion.Lihaas (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

he failed a vote of no confidence, which in the parliamentary system his government fell and an election has already been called (a wikipedia pages duly updated). The removal i originally had may have been wrong, but this caveat/compromise is more true and sourcedLihaas (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As noted earlier, there is no consensus in Australia as to who is regarded as the head of state. Queen Elizabeth II holds the title of Queen of Australia, but given the nature of the Australian Constitution, she holds no head of state powers, such as the issuing and receiving of diplomatic credentials, appointment of ministers, ceremonial head of the armed services etc. Nowhere in Australian law is the title of head of state defined, and it is commonplace for the Governor-General to be called head of state.[4][5][6] However, there is much official confusion on the matter. Ex-Prime Minister Rudd has swayed in the breeze, calling both the Queen and Governor-General the head of state. While the Governor-General is described in the Constitution as the Queen's representative, this was a polite way of noting that the early Governors-General were the representatives of Her Majesty's British Government, a role that was reassigned following the Statute of Westminster, when British High Commissioners were appointed as representatives to the Imperial realms.

Until such time as some Australian instrument of law, such as a Constitutional amendment, an Act of Parliament, or a High Court ruling defines who is the Australian head of state, we should not list either the Governor-General or the Queen as the exclusive Australian head of state. --Pete (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If the Govornor-General is Head of State then the higher power who appointed him to that position surely is in a better position than he is to be the head of state which is The Queen. The Gov-General is only there to wield the Queen's powers when she is not in the country but he can be dismissed by her at any time, you can't do that with the Queen. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The Governor-General's powers are her own, given directly by the Australian Constitution. The Queen's powers are few and minor. Appointment of the Governor-General is a rubber-stamp process. King George V did not want to appoint Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor-General, for example, but in this matter he had to act on advice and the only person to advise him was the Australian Prime Minister, Scullin. The Queen is in no sense a "higher power" in Australia - she has no power to tell anybody what to do, especially not the Governor-General, as was made clear in 1975. --Pete (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Her Majesty

Queen Elizabeth II is head of state of Australia. This list should reflect that. The current method of listing the Queen and the Governor General underneath seems reasonable to me. perhaps a note at the bottom of the list explaining the situation with what a governor general does would be useful as its listed for the Queens other realms too. BritishWatcher (talk

) 08:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for your opinion? Some definitive statement in Australian law, perhaps? No. You do not. Because there isn't one. The Queen is listed first because she ranks ahead of the Governor-General in the Order of Precedence. --Pete (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pete, a few arguments for Queen Elizabeth's position as head of state of Australia:

The 1999 referendum on whether Australia should become a republic evidently implied that Australia is currently a monarchy. By definition a monarchy's head of state is a monarch. And the person legally acknowledged as the Queen of Australia is Elizabeth II (see the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973).

Further see the UN's protocol list (http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf) made up by the member states' heads of state, heads of government and foreign ministers (for which I suppose the information is provided by the member states). It lists Elizabeth II above the Governor-General.

The Governor-General is appointed (and can be dismissed) by the Queen which logically implies that the Queen is above the Governor-General. And the head of state is the highest ranking state official (proven by the fact that the Queen of Australia precedes the Governor-General in the table of precedence). And I believe the Constitution quite unambiguously describes the Governor-General as the Queen's local representative or deputy: "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him." So the Governor-General is clearly the Queen's subordinate and your above statement that "The Governor-General's powers are her own" is clearly refuted by the Constitution.

Assent to legislation. As per the Constitution, legislation passed by the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General "for the Queen's assent" (not the GG's) who can sign it or "reserve the law for the Queen's pleasure". Furthermore "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent", so the Queen can legally override and annul the Governor-General's decision, which is yet another clear indication that she is at top of the Australian state hierarchy (no matter how often she actually exercises her rights).

Further clarification of the Queen's role in the Constitution: "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative" (Chapter II, Article 61) ZBukov (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you've evidently put some work into your response. However, you will agree that you have not found a definitive statement - all of the above rests on interpretation, and as shown above, opinions differ.

• By definition a monarchy's head of state is a monarch. This is not a definition found in international or Australian law. It is something one might find in a pocket dictionary, and cannot (for example) be regarded as over-riding the Australian Constitution.
• The Queen is the Head of the British Commonwealth of Nations, of which Australia is a member. There is no dispute that the Queen ranks ahead of the Governor-General in any order of precedence.
• See notes on appointment above. All heads of state are appointed or sworn in by some other person or body. The involvement of the Queen is procedural and she has no say in the matter. The Australian Prime Minister advises the Queen and she appoints the person nominated. At Federation, and until 1930, this advice was given by the British Colonial Secretary. In both cases, the Queen was merely the ceremonial agent of the relevant government.
• The constitution states that the Governor-General is the Queen's representative. However, it does not state that the Governor-General is her deputy or agent or in any way subordinate. The situation was made quite clear in the 1980s when Prime Minister Bob Hawke required the Queen to withdraw the "Instructions to the Governor-General" issued by Queen Victoria. The original role of the Governor-General was to represent, not the Queen as such, but the British Government, and the wording of the Constitution is a polite way of saying this.
• While the Constitution allows the Queen to assign powers and functions to the Governor-General, and presumably withdraw them "at her pleasure", this is for minor functions, such as the power to appoint deputies, as listed in the Letters-Patent. The Governor-General's constitutional powers are laid down in the constitution, and these may only be changed through the referendum mechanism described in Section 128, in which the Government, one House of Parliament, a majority of States, and a majority of the voting population must all agree. The Queen has no say in this process at all. she cannot assign, modify or remove the constitutional powers of the Governor-General. She cannot direct how these powers are used, nor may she influence the Governor-General's powers in any way. This was made quite clear during the 1975 crisis, when the Queen noted that the executive powers are firmly in the hands of the Governor-General.
• Legislation is only reserved for the Queen's pleasure when it directly affects the Queen or the relationship between the UK and Australia. Examples include the Royal Powers Act and the Australia Act. This is a courtesy. The disallowance power is moribund. It has never been used and it never will, as no Australian Prime Minister is going to advise the Queen to disallow Australian legislation.
• Relying on the words of the Constitution itself is simplistic. For example, the Constitution makes no mention of the office of Prime Minister. It also states that there shall be an Inter-State Commission. The Prime Minister exists, the Inter-State Commission does not. There are other documents and legislation, not to mention conventions, which affect the operations of Australian executive government. Another consideration is the passage of time and change of circumstances. For example, the United Kingdom is now seen by the High Court as a foreign power, when at Federation it was not. The High Court was unable to state precisely when this change had occurred, merely that it had.

The current situation is that there are bodies of opinion, often strongly held, that the Governor-General is the head of state, or that the Queen is the head of state. (Or that Australia has two heads of state.) The view that the Australian Governor-General is the head of state is widely held and increasingly so with every year that separates us from the days of the British Empire. At the moment, there is no definitive answer - it is a matter of opinion and interpretation. Lacking any definitive statement, you must surely agree that the identity of a nation's head of state is a matter for the citizens of that nation, and with opinions divided on that matter, it is not for Wikipedia to do anything more than reflect the situation. --Pete (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Queen of Australia is the head of state recognised by all worldwide but a few. If the Gov-General was head of state he would be top of the Australian constitution but since he is appointed and fired by a higher ranking person it means he is not top of the Australian country and therefore is not the head of state. As for whether or not the Queen's powers are used by her, they're still there and the Gov-General only uses them as her representative. Another thing, The "British Commonwealth" (no such organisation, you mean the Commonwealth of Nations) has the Queen as it's head, but that doesn't stop her being able to reign over 16 Commonwealth realms including Australia, The UK, New Zealand etc as head of state. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

While I am pleased that so many people are willing to share their opinions, I note that this only underscores the fact that there is a diversity of opinion on this subject. The identity of the Australian head of state is up to Australia, and there is no definitive statement in Australian law. Or international law, for that matter. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pete!

The reason why I put Governor-General Bryce's name in small font in the List of current heads of state and government is that all the other governors-general are displayed so. I don't necessarily agree with this arrangement, but I think that as the relationship between the Queen and her representatives in her Commonwealth realms is more or less the same, the fashion of displaying their names should be consistent.

As for the moot topic, do you know what answers would those give to the below questions, who regard the Governor-General as head of state?

If the GG is the head of state then what is the Queen of Australia's position in the constitutional system?

As the head of state is the highest ranking state official, how come that (s)he can be removed by the Queen, while the Queen cannot be removed by the Governor-General? (The fact that in doing so the Queen would be acting on the Prime Minister's advice is irrelevant here, I believe, because the PM's will alone would not remove the GG, therefore the Queen's action is indispensable and sufficient per se.)

As I gather from your posts the statement that Australia is a monarchy is not questioned. So how could a monarchy's head of state be anyone else that a monarch (especially as there is a hereditary King/Queen in the constitutional system, while the Governor-General's position is not hereditary)?

Getting back to your above replies to my suggestions.

In my opinion your above explanation dismissing my order of precedence argument doesn't hold water. I suggested that as the Queen tops the Australian order of precedence, she must outrank the Governor-General. You argued that this is due to the Queen being the head of the Commonwealth. However the Commonwealth is an international (intergovernmental) organization therefore whoever is its head should have no bearing on a national order of precendence - just like the Secretary General of the UN doesn't feature on the list either.

You wrote: "All heads of state are appointed or sworn in by some other person or body." I think there is a significant difference between appointing and swearing in. Swearing in means administering an oath to someone taking up an office, so the person performing this doesn't have to outrank the one being sworn in. However if you appoint someone you must be above him/her in the hierarchy.

The Queen's involvement in the appointment of Governors-General might be ceremonial and procedural, but it's indispensable. No matter whom the Prime Minister selects for GG, the person will never take office without being appointed by the Queen, and the Queen alone can dismiss him or her.

If the Governor-General is acknowledged as the Queen's representative the how could (s)he possibly rank equal to or above the person whom (s)he represents?

You concluded that there is no definite, explicit answer to the question (therefore it's undecided). In such a case shouldn't one take into account the implied answers (order of precedence, relationship between monarchy and monarch, GG being Queen's representative, etc)? It might only be logical inference but where do you find fault in the following chain: Australia is a monarchy. A monarchy in headed by a monarch. There is a legally acknowledged Queen of Australia. The Governor-General is the Queen's representative. Therefore the Queen outranks the GG, who thus cannot be equal to or above the Queen. -- ZBukov (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but no amount of arguing here changes the reality - in Australia there is no legally defined head of state and both the Governor-General and the Queen are widely regarded as such. The Queen comes first on the order of precedence. In other Commonwealth Realms, such as New Zealand, the Queen is explicitly defined as the head of state. This is not the situation in Australia, and it is not Wikipedia's position to do anything more than reflect the facts. We are not yet at the stage where we can choose a nation's head of state. --Pete (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Pete! I see your point, but nevertheless I would be grateful if you could elaborate the position of those who regard the Governor-General as head of state! Do you know the answer the my above questions please? ZBukov (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why some Australians describe the Governor-General as head of state and some describe the Queen so. It is enough that opinion in the community be divided and that the divide be significant. Major newspapers, government ministers, government directories list the Governor-General as head of state. And other, similar sources, put the Queen there.

As for the answers to your questions, read the discussion above. Please. --Pete (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

ZBukov is correct in that the Commonwealth realms' entries should at least be consistent. The governors-general being listed in small font has been the norm for a long time; so, by

, it should remain until a new consensus is found, if one is.

The present arrangement reflects the constitutional order: the Queen is supreme and the governors-general her subordinates. However, that hierarchy doesn't necessarily mean the Queen is universally considered to be the head of state. Externally to the realms, it appears to always be the Queen. But, within the realms, it can change from government to government and scholars can have differing opinions.

Perhaps, then, the answer is to simply list the governors-general using normal sized font, so as to avoid the implication that the Queen is most absolutely the head of state (even if she is most certainly the governor-general's superior). I don't know if "represented by" needs to be added before the governor-general or not, for clarity. --

19:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

By doing so, you'd be suggesting (intentionally or not) that the Queen is a lesser 'Head of state' in 15 of the commonwealth realms compared to the United Kingdom. That would seem to go against your long held argument of '16 are equal'. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It would do no such thing. There's no question of who is the monarch in each realm. --

MIESIANIACAL

20:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

But you've argued in the past, that she was 'Head of State' of all 16 realms. If this isn't so in Australia? then the current intro at Elizabeth II is innacurate. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If my memory serves me well, I've tended to say she's equally monarch of all 16 realms. If I've said she's head of state of all 16, it's because I personally believe that, if a country has a monarch, that person is the head of state. Not everyone agrees with my interpretation, though (for whatever reason; republicans in Canada tend to argue the governor general is head of state and monarchists say it's the Queen, while in Australia it's the exact opposite!). It's for that reason I think it's best to have this list avoid taking one position or another, while not denying the fact that the Queen is superior to the governors-general. --

MIESIANIACAL

21:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The intro at Elizabeth II says she's 'Head of State' of all 16 commonwealth realms. We shouldn't have confliction here. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it does. Maybe it shouldn't. That's probably a discussion to be taken up at

MIESIANIACAL

21:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And so I shall. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

We should present our encyclopaedia so as to present the facts, rather than strive for consistency that distorts them. The constitutional arrangements within the sixteen realms are not consistent. Sometimes there are radical difference. Arguing for consistency in presentation so as to imply a consistency that does not exist is not helpful to readers. In (say) New Zealand, the Queen is explicitly defined as the Head of State, and I see no problem with presenting the Governor-General's title in small font, becuase it logically follows that he or she is not the head of state, although the role is significant. However in Australia, there is no such explicit distinction and opinion within the Australian community is divided, even amongst the highest levels of government. Nor is the Queen the Governor-General's "superior" - she comes first in the Order of Precedence, but she cannot give instructions to the Governor-General. Thanks for the heads-up on Elizabeth II, BTW! --Pete (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is quite confusing. Somebody's gotta be Australia's Head of State, so who is it? GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's got to be The Queen, it only makes sense considering it was her who wrote out the Letters Patent creating the whole Gov-General position in 1984 as well mentioning that she is within her rights to remove the office as her representation which common sense would say that she's the head of state as there is no other higher power in that state above her. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The position of Governor-General was created in the Australian Constitution,

Lord Hopetoun being the first occupant of that office in 1901. But may I again make the point that it is not up to Wikipedia to decide? This is the province of the people of Australia to determine who they regard as their head of state, and the fact of the matter is that opinion is divided. We should report the facts as accurately as we can for the benefit of our readers, who come seeking information rather than opinion. --Pete (talk

) 23:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

For years, Mies has argued (in defence of his edits) that the 16 commonwealth realms are equal. This apparently isn't so. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have argued (and affirmed) that the realms are equal in status under the Crown; the Queen is queen of all her realms equally. I never said the realms are identical; that would be patently false. Please stop confusing matters, especially by trying to carry out the same conversation in multiple places. --

MIESIANIACAL

00:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, she's not Queen of all her realms equally. In 1 of her 16 realms, she's not 'Head of State'. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, it's not a foregone conclusion that the governor-general should be called head of state of Australia. The matter is debated. And, even so, that has no bearing whatsoever on Elizabeth's position as queen or her place at the top of the constitutional order in all her realms. The "head of state" debate is merely academic; it has no effect on law. Even those who argue the governor-general is head of state don't deny that the Queen is still that figure's superior. --

MIESIANIACAL

01:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's debated that Elizabeth II status in the United Kingdom is different from the 15 other realms, too. What's happened here, happened at the other realm articles. Sheer number of editors decide interpretations. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're talking about. --

MIESIANIACAL

01:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Forget it, these Commonwealth realm discussions are driving me nuts. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Australian Constitution hasn't been amended to say the Governor General is Head of State. Therefore, until it does, Elizabeth II is the Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nor does the Constitution say that the Queen is the head of state - a stark contrast to other Commonwealth Realms where the position is explicitly described. While I appreciate the desire to tie up loose ends, I suggest that decisions of this nature are not the province of Wikipedia editors. Yet. --Pete (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. The British constitution nowhere uses the term "head of state" in any context. The British constitution, of course, is unwritten, but there are many statutes affecting the Crown and constitution, and they never use that term. I have argued elsewhere that the term "head of state", which was invented long after the Brtish constitution evolved, is therefore inappropriate. In effect, Britain has no "head of state", the equivalent role instead being discharged by the Crown. ðarkuncoll 12:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In other-words, Australia's Constitution isn't unique, as far as not designating a HoS. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. The key element in the current discussion is whether any other person is seen as the head of state. Barring nations in revolution and transition, there would be very few where opinion is divided. The UK is not one of them. But Australia is, and insisting that only one of the two people commonly called head of state here is the true head of state is definitely POV. The way that Nepal's current Panchen Lama is treated here is instructive. We don't pick sides in such a dispute. We just supply the facts and make a note. --Pete (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to say that the Queen is HoS, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is implicit in the presentation here. Let's get a mediator in and see what he or she thinks. --Pete (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So far, you're the only one that thinks so (about the presentation). GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I use the "reasonable person" test. I ask, what answer to the question "who is the Australian head of state?" would a reasonable person give, when shown the list here. What makes Australia unique amongst the non-UK Commonwealth realms is that there is a robust dispute. We don't reflect it here. --Pete (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's for Australian head of state dispute, not here. As before, I got all the time in the world & this article is re-maining on my watchlist. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that, if Pete/Skyring is not going to accept any proposed edit other than his own and will continue to disruptively edit to get his prefered version into the list, then we'll have to seek mediation. --

MIESIANIACAL

16:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

A mediation cabal seems inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, the format of the list is a topic for this article. I'm puzzled as to how you view the Australian head of state dispute article. Do you see it as demonstrating a dispute and a division of views, or do you see it as something else? If so, what? And no, we're certainly not going to edit war over this - it's a matter of following through the established wikiprocedures. --Pete (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've little interest in the Aussie dispute article. As for this article, a Med Cabal is inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The RfC should at least be allowed to run its course, first. --

MIESIANIACAL

17:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No probs. Meanwhile, I'd recommend that the sections added after the Rfc was started, be changed to sub-sections of the Rfc (as that's what they are). GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

little interest"? GoodDay, you have 71 edits to article and discussion. You are the most prolific contributor to the discussion page, well ahead of me. You must have some opinion on the thing! I ask how you see it because your opinion is pertinent to the discussion here. I started a new section after Mies's RfC precisely because I wasn't addressing the RfC, where I had already commented. I made a clear break. --Pete (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been around the 'dispute' page for roughly a month & have little intention of returning there. I commented there briefly 'yesterday', but then changed my mind. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You are a leading contributor. The article is exactly a month old today. I'm asking for your opinion of something you have devoted many recent wikihours to. I'm puzzled as to how you view the Australian head of state dispute article. Do you see it as demonstrating a dispute and a division of views, or do you see it as something else? If so, what? You may be as candid as you wish - I will not be offended by honest opinion. --Pete (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have created a new article, based on text found in the

) 18:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

After a couple of weeks of contributions from a diverse group of editors, Australian head of state dispute has reached a stable version. Using good sources, it demonstrates that there is a division of views within the Australian community as to whether the Queen or the Governor-General is regarded as the head of state. Accordingly, I have restored Quentin Bryce to an equal size font with Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen, of course, enjoys precedence, and is listed first. --Pete (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If any editor thinks that they have the power to determine a national head of state, in the face of a clear division of opinion in the national community, then pull your head in. Your opinions aren't that important. --Pete (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that change you made, Skyring. But, I've not the energy to argue over it. GoodDay (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's not argue. I get sick of arguing on talk pages about why and how there is a division of opinion. That's why I started off the article - to demonstrate and document that there is a division. We can't say that someone is or isn't a head of state based on the gut feelings of a single Wikipedia editor. Or a consensus within the whole community of editors. --Pete (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What you did was make Australia inconsistent with the rest of the Commonwealth realms with governors-general, which is just going to confuse readers. All the realms, other than the UK, should be shown in the same manner and there doesn't seem to be a consensus to change the way they're shown. --

MIESIANIACAL

04:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's consensus you are after, kindly get it before changing the existing order. For Australia, the Queen and Governor-General have been the same size for some time. The constitutional arrangements for Australia are different to other realms. Perhaps we could place a note to the article? I don't see the "confusion" you indicate, and I don't see it as a valid reason to unilaterally declare the Queen as the Australian head of state when opinion differs. --Pete (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Your changing of the font has been constantly reverted since you first did so in July of last year. The objection has also come from not one, but a more than a half dozen editors ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]); only you support the edit. Consistency has been regularly mentioned by those reverting you in their edit summaries and at this talk page; if you break it, as you have been doing, readers will be confused because they won't see any rationale for why Australia is shown differently to all the other countries with a governor-general. Yes, you just recently added some brief explanation to the associated footnote, but, like your edit to the list itself, it was Australia-specific, when you know the same debate and inconsistent use of the term "head of state" takes place in other countries; so, again, why only Australia? Besides, your rendering of the Queen's and governor-general's names in the same size font could be seen as communicating to readers that the Governor-General of Australia should be considered a head of state.

If changes are made, they should be neutral and made to all the Commonwealth realms, other than the UK. --

MIESIANIACAL

14:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The usual state of the entry for Australia is that the font size for both Queen and Governor-General be the same size. I refrained from restoring the status quo until Australian head of state dispute reached stability, which it has. Putting both Queen and Governor-General in the same size communicates the view that either may be considered head of state. Not the Queen alone, nor the Governor-General alone. I suppose that we could put both in a small font. The situation is unclear, that is all there is to it. The notion of uniformity throughout the non-UK realms is spurious. In New Zealand, for example, the Queen is explicitly defined as the head of state. In Australia, as demonstrated, there is a division of opinion. I don't know why you want Wikipedia to imply that the Queen is the recognised head of state, and the Governor-General is not, when clearly there is a division of opinion within the Australian community, extending to the highest levels. Where is Wikipedia's authority for making such a statement? The opinion of an editor? A consensus of editors? We haven't reached the stage where we can determine a nation's head of state, have we? Rather than edit-war over this, if you persist in your view, then we are going to have to move through the dispute resolution procedure. --Pete (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Queen and governor-general being entered with the same size font is your preference that you've been trying to push since July 2010, not the "usual state"; I've already highlighted the fact that you, alone, have since then been reverted again and again by a number of editors. You are, in other words, engaging in a long term edit war.

As has also already been mentioned, those reverting you don't see a reason why Australia should be treated differently from the other countries that have a governor-general. As one of those who've reverted your change, I obviously don't, either. There may be disagreement in Australia as to whom should be given the moniker "head of state", but that doesn't mean Australia is the only country where there is debate over and/or an inconsistent use of the term, nor does it mean Australia's governor-general is any less an appointed representative of the Queen than those in the other realms are. If you look at the list, all appointed representatives are listed in smaller font. As Australia isn't unique either way, any change you want for its entry should thus be applied rationally and consistently across the list, whether that be having all countries with appointed representatives shown the same way (normal font or small font), or all those where there is debate and/or inconsistent use of the term shown one way and the rest another (with all appropriate reliable sources). Changing Australia alone is clearly not acceptable to regular editors of this page. --

MIESIANIACAL

20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that - apart from yourself, driven by passions I can well understand - those who keep putting the Governor-General in a smaller font than the Queen are impelled by the consistency amongst Commonwealth Realms which you champion, presumably imagining that they have found a formatting error and it needs correction. At every instance, I restore the formatting and it remains for another few months. We're dealing with more than Commonwealth realms here. This is a list of every national head of state. Nations have widely divergent constitutional and practical foundations, and it is not uncommon for unusual arrangements, including multiple heads of state, to feature. Could you please address the points I have raised above? Now, when I find myself repeating the same material, it's a sign that the other party is not listening and that I need to seek further opinion. I trust that you are convinced enough of the rightness of your cause that you have no opposition to resorting to the mediation process? --Pete (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I addressed what you said. It seems you haven't paid much attention to the content of my response, evidenced mostly by the fact that there's been no explanation from you as to why Australia should be unique, when it's patently not. Personally, I've no problem at all with further dispute resolution, if you believe it to be necessary. I don't know how others feel, however. --

MIESIANIACAL

00:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you addressed the points I made, I'm still in the dark about it, but that's okay. It's clear that we disagree and rehashing the same ground isn't going to help. Nor is edit-warring. I'll look at moving further along the procedure. May I suggest that instead of you or I putting up a request which the other will likely see as being couched in loaded terms, we work together on this? Or if you don't want to participate at first, I'll at least run things by you here in the interests of fairness. --Pete (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think every nation is unique in their constitutional arrangements. There are similarities, but once you get down to the fine print, differences emerge, often crucial differences. As noted, New Zealand and Australia are very similar in many ways, but Australia is a federation, and New Zealand is not. New Zealand explicitly defines the head of state in its constitutional documents, Australia does not. I don't think that a Wikipedia consistency in styling should over-rule the actual state of affairs to present a misconception to our readers. That's my position, and it seems that you disagree. Fair enough? --Pete (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where your confusion is stemming from; my argument is quite simple: You assert Australia is unique in matters relating to its head of state and are thus justified in treating it that way in this list; I've shown how it is not unique:

• Australia is not the only country where there has been an inconsistent use of the term "head of state".
• Australia is not the only country with an appointed representative of the Queen.

Therefore, Australia shouldn't stand apart from whatever logic orders the rest of the list; any changes made to Australia's entry will have to be made to those countries that are just like Australia. There are at least a few options:

• Leave the list as is; the names of all appointed representatives of someone else are rendered in a smaller font to the name of the person they represent.
• Render both the represented and the representative's names in the same size font for all countries and perhaps add "represented by" before the name of the representative.
• Render both the represented and the representative's names in the same size font only for those countries where the term "head of state" is not given to anyone by law and the use of the term is inconsistent or it is otherwise unclear; countries where the head of state is clearly defined have the represented's name in larger font than the name of the representative. Note: this requires reliable sources to support how we categorise each of the 20 or so countries that have representatives; it's an all or nothing job.

I'm perfectly fine with option one and, to a lesser extent, two. I think we should avoid three altogether. If, though, you still believe Australia's slot in this list should be governed by its own, different logic, then I see no other option for you but to seek formal dispute resolution.

I'd still like input from the other editors who've weighed in before, though. Where have they gone? --

13:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to be able to address the points I have raised. Could you please take a swing at it?

• This article is a list of heads of state. I don't particularly care about other nations, but by showing the Australian Governor-General in a smaller font, we are, in effect, saying that she is not head of state.
• This is not a matter for Wikipedia to determine. It is not a matter for any external body. It is entirely the province of the Australian people, as for any other nation.
• Neither the Queen nor the Governor-General is defined as the Australian head of state in any Australian law or regulation or judgement, including the Constitution.
• There is a difference of opinion within the Australian community as to who the Australian head of state is. This extends to the highest levels. The Australian head of state dispute article describes the situation and gives sources.

Your talk of "representatives" is no more than a smokescreen. The Australian Governor-General is in no sense an agent or a deputy of the Queen, as the Republic Advisory Committee concluded --Pete (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You've confirmed what I suspected: your OR conclusion that the governor-general is not a representative of the Queen (despite the Australian constituton's explicit statement of the opposite) is getting in the way here. Clearly, then, you need to open an RfC on this matter. --

MIESIANIACAL

18:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course the Australian Governor-General is the representative of the Queen. Nobody is saying otherwise, and we have an excellent source for the statement. But that is immaterial. Could you please address the points I have raised above, which concerns this particular article and how it misleads the reader? If you don't understand the situation, then it looks like you prefer to edit-war over your own POV. This is precisely why I created the Australian head of state dispute article, to which you contributed in both article and discussion at some length: to demonstrate and document that opinion within Australia over who is the Australian head of state is divided. You might say that one side of the debate is wrong, but that is your own POV. You can argue all you want here, but out in the real world the divided view has existed for many years, and nothing you say here can alter that history and that very real fact. It looks to me that you want Wikipedia to reflect one-sided opinion, rather than the facts, and while I understand and applaud your deep faith in your beliefs, this is counter to Wikipedia's ethos, as I understand it. --Pete (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't helpful to turn this into something it's not: a matter between you and I (seven editors have opposed your change) and a matter of POV (it's been clear from the outset that opposition to your change is based on it's lack of consistency). Obviously I've given my attention to your points; I just offered options on how your concerns might be addressed. One of them is even essentially what you've been doing, only with added, clarifying detail. Would you like to comment on them? --

MIESIANIACAL

01:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Let's move on. Shall we open this up and try for consensus, or aim for an RfC, as you suggested? --Pete (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Again: would you like to comment on the different proposals I gave above? --

MIESIANIACAL

03:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your options are couched in terms which make it difficult to respond without appearing to support your POV, with which I do not agree. Perhaps you could recast them in more neutral language? As for presentation, you know my thoughts: lacking any definitive statement as to who is the Australian head of state, and having evidence of a divergence of opinion within the Australian community, I think we should display both sovereign and governor-general in the same size font, sovereign ahead of governor-general to reflect their relative positions on the Australian Order of Precedence. A note to inform the reader as to the situation. --Pete (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with the POV you've imagined I have, I assume from your words there that you support the second option I gave. I'll wait for a couple of days to see if anyone else supports, objects, or has any input before moving to implement the change in the list. --

MIESIANIACAL

23:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I emphatically disagree with your second option, Mies. Clearly we have a difference of opinion. Is this why you haven't responded to my points above about the Australian head of state? You just don't understand the situation? Can I make it any simpler? --Pete (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Odd. But, okay. We'll leave it as is, then. --

MIESIANIACAL

18:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Nice try. It's okay. I'm not going to press you where you clearly don't want to go. Looking back, I think we can try for consensus-building here. Stay tuned. --Pete (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a new section below, outlining the two options. Basically one summarises your position and the other mine. I'd like you to feel comfortable with the wording before asking for comments. --Pete (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if summarising my position was your intent below, you've failed completely. But, I'm not going to repeat myself again; I've made my points repeatedly and clearly already. --

MIESIANIACAL

22:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That's okay. I thought that might be the case. Feel free to put up your own wording for the option you prefer. I do ask, however, that you refrain from "improving" mine to reflect your POV. --Pete (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

For some time, the issue of Australia in this article has been the subject of some mild dispute over the size of the font used. There are two positions:

1. Australia is a
   Commonwealth Realm
   along with New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, where the sovereign (currently Queen Elizabeth II) is the true head of state, and is represented locally by a governor-general. To reflect this here, the Governor-General's name is shown in small font below that of the Queen, along with a note explaining the situation.
2. Australia is a sovereign nation. Unlike New Zealand or Papua New Guinea, where the sovereign is explicitly defined as the head of state in the constitution, no Australian law or regulation defines the head of state. As described and documented in the Australian head of state dispute article, there are two widely held opinions with followers at all levels of government, academia, society and politics: both the Queen and the Governor-General are recognised as the head of state. To reflect this here, the Governor-General's name is shown in the same font size as the Queen, along with a note explaining the situation.

There has been some low-level edit-warring going on over this point, with discussion stretching over several months and different articles. My position is that it is not up to Wikipedia to define a nation's head of state. We do not yet hold that power. All we can do is use the best sources we can. Others differ, and as there is no definitive, legal source for who precisely is the Australian head of state, proponents must fall back on websites, dictionaries and their own interpretations. In short, the situation here reflects that in Australia, where opinions differ.

I would like to build a consensus here on which path to follow. Before asking for expressions of support for either position listed above, I would like to call for discussion regarding the wording, and whether there may be other options possible within the limited scope of this article, which is a listing of heads of state. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that there's been no suggestions on alternatives in two days, could I get expressions on the above options, with a view towards building consensus? Thanks!--Pete (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Another two days pass without comment. This doesn't seem to be a particularly passionate topic. Given the lack of interest, especially of Mies, I'll go ahead with changing (for Australia) Queen and Governor-General back to equal size (Queen listed first) along with a note specific to Australia pointing to the Australian head of state dispute article. --Pete (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You know already that isn't acceptable. --

MIESIANIACAL

03:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't undertand your comment. I find it perfectly acceptable. All we need is a note to explain why Australia isn't like New Zealand. We've been over this before. Let's move forward. --Pete (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we've been over this before, which is why you should be able to fully understand my comment. Seven editors disagreed with your making Australia different to the other countries whose monarch appoints a representative. --

MIESIANIACAL

03:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assessment, for reasons given above, but that's by the by. Seven editors, you say, but they haven't shown up in this discussion. So, what are you going to do when I perform the action flagged here? Revert me three times and cop a suspension? Or work with me through the wikiprocess? --Pete (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear you don't agree with others' assessment of your edit. I can't say for sure, but I imagine the others have stopped participating in this discussion for the same reason I did until just a moment ago: attempts at working with you have proven themselves to be consistently fruitless; and, so long as you refuse to accept that Australia is not unique amongst the Commonwealth realms, this will continue to go nowhere. --

MIESIANIACAL

04:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So as to make this quite clear. I support Mies' idea on how to show Governors General in this article (which includes the Australian GG). GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, good. Mies is unhappy with my wording for the options above, but won't say why or suggest any changes. Are you able to participate? --Pete (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II is Australia's Head of State 'period'. If this were not so, there'd be no dispute in the land of Oz. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your logic is very runny. Clearly there is a difference of opinion - that's why there is a dispute. If the Queen were definitively Australia's head of state, then there would be no dispute, as the Queen's supporters could floor any opposing views by pointing at the Act of Parliament, Constitution or whatever. Nowhere in Australian law is there such a definitive statement - one must either present

Original Research in the form of opinion or synthesis, or rely on sources which are contradicted by other equally valid sources. Incidentally, what is your source for saying that the Queen is Australia's head of state, and what makes that source any better than other sources saying exactly the opposite? I might point out that the Queen's website and the Australian government have presented different opinions over time. --Pete (talk

) 17:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, this SPA approach on this issue, is becoming tiresome. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Bear with me, please. It's a matter of logic. I'll accept that your personal opinion is your own but I'm interested as to why you want Wikipedia to reflect this, given that we have procedures established to root out original research. --Pete (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's end this here, please. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to distress you, but I see this as crucial to Wikipedia's function. We present facts, not opinion. --Pete (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I made three suggestions earlier. I know you know that already as you rejected them outright. --

MIESIANIACAL

04:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, your suggestions were a smokescreen, in that they did not address the issue of Australia's head of state, which is the topic of discussion which has consumed considerable space on this page already. --Pete (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said: so long as you refuse to accept that Australia is not unique amongst the Commonwealth realms, collaboration between you and I will continue to go nowhere. --

MIESIANIACAL

17:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot follow your mind here. If Australia is not unique, then which Commonwealth Realm is it exactly equal to? If you admit to differences between Realms, then you also admit that each is unique. Australia is a federation, for example. Papua New Guinea is not. New Zealand defines the Queen as head of state within its constitution. Australia does not. --Pete (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See my comments at 4:57 and 20:20, 9 February and 13:35, 10 February 2011. --

MIESIANIACAL

17:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've responded to both already. Are you saying that all Governors-General perform exactly identical functions within their respective Realms? Seriously? --Pete (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, you're not changing the font at Australia's entry to the same size. Get over it & move on. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a way that it maybe could use the same size font; I've outlined how above and below. Has anybody noticed that? --

MIESIANIACAL

18:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But Skyring wants to change only Australia's entry. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, true. But that isn't what you said he couldn't do; he could change Australia's entry to use the same size font... If there was agreement that all the other countries with appointed representatives of a monarch could be done the same way. --

MIESIANIACAL

18:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. If I can budge a little from my stance. Then certainly, so can he. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work. In New Zealand, for instance, the Queen is explicitly defined as the head of state, and the Governor-General is not. Listing the New Zealand Governor-General in the same size font would imply that the New Zealand Governor-General is also a head of state, when there does not seem to be any widespread view that this is the case. We don't want to mislead our readers. --Pete (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The key word here is collaboration. Currently, you seem un-willing to collaborate over this topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Go back to the start of this section and read my contributions asking for input from other editors, please. I'm all for collaboration. But not to the extent that we forget what we are here for, and that is to write and improve the Wikipedia. I will not be a party to misleading or misinforming our readers for the sake of keeping a few editors sweet. If we disagree, that's fine - we have procedures for resolving differences. --Pete (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept your compromise, of course. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That's good. Could you say so in your comment in the RfC below, then? --

MIESIANIACAL

18:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Should all countries whose monarch appoints a representative be shown in the list in the same way? If no, what organising rationale should be used to subdivide the group of countries whose monarch appoints a representative? If yes, should all countries whose monarch appoints a representative be shown differently to the way they currently are?

04:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Show all the same They're the representative of their country's monarch. They were appointed by their country's monarch. Therefore they should be shown in smaller font to reflect these facts. To show'em in equal font, would suggest some sorta 'Co-Head of State' setup. GoodDay (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Show all the same While I understand that, in some Commonwealth realms that have a governor-general, the term "head of state" is neither consistently nor officially applied to either the monarch or the viceroy (leading to debate), the governors-general in all realms outside of the UK are representatives of the monarch in right of those countries, just like the representatives of the Co-Princes of Andorra and the Prince Regent of Liechtenstein. Given that these individuals are appointed by a higher figure, I am content with the present arrangements in the list (appointer in normal font, appointee in small font); on those grounds, it takes no sides in any head of state dispute. However, I could also accept both being rendered in the same size font if the names and titles of the appointees are preceeded by the words "Represented by". Otherwise, as GoodDay points out, it will misleadingly appear as though there is an equal co-head of state arrangement for these countries. --
  MIESIANIACAL
  05:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Irrelevant This is a list of heads of state, and the point of difference, as seen by lengthy discussion above, is the specific matter of the Australian head of state. As demonstrated in the Australian head of state dispute article, opinion within Australia is divided. When the Australian Prime Minister specifically calls the Governor-General Australia's head of state, and government directories do the same, it is apparent that the matter is not as clear as GoodDay and Miesianical pretend. It is a pity that, instead of working together with me to find acceptable wording, Miesianical has produced an "off-the-cuff" RfC which does not address the issue directly. His insistence that the Queen is Australia's head of state and the Governor-General is merely her representative is contradicted by excellent sources, and until Australia itself resolves the question through a referendum, legislation, or some other definitive action, Wikipedia should not push one side of a public debate, without giving the opposing view fair play. --Pete (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: I never said once in the discussions here that the Queen is Australia's head of state. In fact, I explicity outlined just above that I'm fully aware of the disagreement in some countries over who should be called "head of state"; that would include Australia. This is not the first time you've misrepresented my position and my argument; it is entirely unhelpful. --

MIESIANIACAL

17:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So why, in a list of heads of state, are you so adamant that the name of the Australian Governor-General be in a smaller font than that of the Queen? --Pete (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so adamant for them to be the same font? Australia is no special case. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's more than clear that you aren't reading a word that I write. Hence, it's obviously impossible for me to work with you and I was right to turn to the community for help in working out what should happen here, if anything at all. --

MIESIANIACAL

17:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more precise? I'm happy to work out any problems in communication, if you could identify specifics. Throwing up your hands and saying it's all too hard is not moving us forward. --Pete (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept Mies' compromise. It addresses my 'consistancy' concerns & Skyring's 'font' concerns. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that this resolves the fundamental issue. I see this list as a list of heads of state. As per the title. If Wikipedia is promoting the idea that the Australian Governor-General is merely the agent of the head of state, when official and community opinion is divided, then we are not presenting the facts. We are presenting opinion, and we are only presenting one side of the story. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've budged from my stance, now it's your turn. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll stick with presenting the facts as accurately as we can. Anything less is a disservice to our readers. Any attempt to put the New Zealand Governor-General in the same size font as the Queen would imply a situation which does not exist, and I cannot support this. Not unless we include notes outlining the situation. --Pete (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned with consistancy of these entries. If ya wanna use notes, fine. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Consistency is helpful to the reader. If we can settle this by using notes, then let's do it. My solution, for Australia at least, is to include a note outlining the relationship between Queen and Governor-General, linking to Australian head of state dispute. --Pete (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I need to see an example first. An assurance it wont disrupte Mies' compromise. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

My proposed alternative would factually present the representatives of monarchs as representatives of monarchs. If you feel that Australia should be exempt, it's up to you to prove how its governor-general is not the representative of the Austrlian monarch and is, instead, a co-head of state along with the Queen, as your edit suggested. --

MIESIANIACAL

18:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Australian Governor-General is the representative of the Queen, but the nature of that representation is not to the extent that she is a deputy or agent, as per a common misconception. The Queen may not issue instructions to the Australian Governor-General, for example. The role of the Australian Governor-General is that of head of state, and she is increasingly recognised as such. Trying to equate the modern role with that of 1900, when the Governor-General was the representative of the British Government, is wrong and misleading. I think that in a list of heads of state, we should stick to that function, not get bogged down in the history of British colonial politics. --Pete (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The past and the British government are red herrings; neither the present arrangement in the list nor my proposed alternative makes reference to, or even hints at, either. --

MIESIANIACAL

19:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In Canada, the Governor General (not the Queen) appoints the Prime Minister. So again, Australia isn't unique among the Commonwealth realms with governors general. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, if the way the list is presently arranged is found to be unacceptable, what I propose as an alternative for all countries whose monarch appoints a representative is this:

State	Head of state	Head of government
Andorra	Co-Prince Nicolas Sarkozy Represented by: Christian Frémont	Prime Minister Jaume Bartumeu
Australia	Queen Elizabeth II Represented by: Governor General Quentin Bryce	Prime Minister Julia Gillard
Liechtenstein	Hans-Adam II Represented by: Prince-Regent Alois	Prime Minister Klaus Tschütscher
Papua New Guinea	Queen Elizabeth II Represented by Governor General Michael Ogio	Prime Minister Michael Somare

--

19:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If we list the Queen as head of state, then we need a reliable source. Something that isn't a children's dictionary. Something that can't be countered by another source equally reliable saying something different. No opinion, no original research, no synthesis. A reliable source. This is really basic stuff, guys! --Pete (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not all the commonwealth realms directly say the Queen is HoS. Australia is not a special case. HoS isn't particular mentioned in non-commonwealth realms either. In the USA, the President isn't HoS, but rather Chief of State. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, if you were to check the Constitutions of many of these countries (in this article), many of them don't mention 'Head of State'. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

For example: the Emperor isn't the Head of State of Japan. He's the Symbol of State of Japan. Shall we delete the Japanese entry? GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A

pillar, you'll see my point. --Pete (talk

) 00:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please show me reliable sources for the other countries having Heads of State & who they are. You yet to proove that Australia is a special case, no matter how often you've tried to promote it as such. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about Japan and so on. Yet. I care about Australia. Now. Please show me the reliable source that we use to support our inclusion of the Queen in this list of heads of state for Australia. This is basic Wikipedia policy. We source our statements. We don't present opinions as fact. We keep a neutral point of view. --Pete (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please show me reliable sources for the all these countries, that state they've got a Head of State & who it is. Please proove that Australia is unique in this article list. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See above. Does this mean that if I flag the Australia entry as unsourced, you'll go out and do the same for all the rest, which I'll then ignore? I don't have to prove anything about Japan.

You aren't stupid. You must know where this is heading. Work with me on this, please. --Pete (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What you want here, is amply covered at Australian head of state dispute article. Australia isn't the only country that doesn't definitivly say who its head of state is. I believe that Sweden dosen't call its King Head of State. You've demanded a reliable source calling Elizabeth II Australia's Head of State. Well, according to this article's entries, no such source is required. In fact, you've already stated that there's no such source for the Australian Queen being Australia's Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy demands sources. We'll work on Japan and Sweden later, if you wish. As neither of us can come up with a

reliable source, it seems, I might throw this open for wider comment. Do you want to help out with the wording for a RfC? --Pete (talk

) 01:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

With 1 of 3 editors not accepting Mies' compromise, it appears opening this to a wider audience is required. I'd rather you & Mies collaborate on the wording of this 'new' Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This goes beyond Mies's "representatives" smokescreen. This is fundamental Wikipedia policy we're talking. I've put in an inline template, and we can work through the

WP:NPOV issues that will flow from that. I'd expect a few editors saying "Well, of course the Queen is the head of state!" and then failing to come up with a good source. --Pete (talk

) 02:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If my memory serves me correctly, at the Australian head of state dispute article, you rejected any sources backing the Australian Queen as 'Head of State', as being definitive. If that's your continued stance, then why bother providing sources, that back the Queen as Australia's Head of State? Will you accept sources backing the other countries entries? GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's because there is no definitive source. We have good sources for the Queen, but we also have equally good sources for the Governor-General. We have nothing for either that absolutely blows away the other. If we did, there would be no Australian head of state dispute. And once we get into synthesis with talk about representatives, we lose the reliable source. It's original research. --Pete (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're asking for a reliable source concerning Australia's HoS. Yet 'again' you're saying there's none. Why ask for something, if you're certain it doesn't exist. PS: I've reverted you 'twice' on your adding a tage to 'only' the Australian entry. I request that you not re-add it again, unless you plan to add such tages to all country entries. I request this good faith from you, as I've reached my personal 2RR limit. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So you've adopted an aggressive approach now, very helpful indeed. Have your ANI, then. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you add an attribution tag to the Australian entry, then you should add them to all the country entries. Again, you appear to be pushing a PoV, that Australia is a unique case. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

PS - I had to revert you. 1) Such changes of the current Rfc's topic, should not occur while the Rfc is in progress. 2) By highlighting only Australia, it appeared as pushing a PoV. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just asking for a source. If you can't provide it, let someone else do it.

Do so for all the entries. Also, we should wait until Mies re-appears. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If we list the Queen as head of state, then we need a reliable source. We're not listing the Queen as the head of state. --

17:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. This article is called List of current heads of state and government and in the column headed Head of State, the Queen is listed several times, once for each Commonwealth Realm. Call me literal-minded if you will, but I'm pretty confident that yes, we are listing the Queen as the head of state. Could you explain your opinion in more detail, please? --Pete (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hang on another minute. Your intitial complaint at this article was the font size of the GG of Australia being smaller then the font size of the Australian Queen. After Mies offered a compromise to make the fonts the same (with representative added to GGs), you changed your complaint (i.e moved the goalposts) & demanded reliable sources for the Queen as Australia's Head of State. After being presented with multiple reliable/authoritative sources to back the Queen as Australia's Head of State & the GG as the Queen representative? you moved the goal posts again & gradually turned this Rfc into a blog about basically the content at Australian head of state dispute. The goal-post changing 'each' time your arguments are shot down, is disruptive. Dragging things out 'until' you get what you prefer, is disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Skyring, you really, really must start paying attention to what I write. I said we're not listing the Queen as the head of state. Surely you're aware, given the number of times you've edited the page, that for Commonwealth realms with a governor-general, both the Queen's and the governor-general's names are shown. --

MIESIANIACAL

23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you please be more specific here? In the column marked Head of State, in this article listing heads of state, the Queen's name appears sixteen times. I suggest that the average reader would see this as a statement that the Queen is the head of state for each of these sixteen nations. --Pete (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they might come to that conclusion if the Queen's name was the only one shown for each of the non-British realms. It's obviously not now and nobody is proposing that it should be. --

MIESIANIACAL

02:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If the Queen's name is listed in the column marked head of state and you say We're not listing the Queen as the head of state, then I really think you are going have to explain your view, which doesn't seem at all obvious. If she isn't the head of state, despite being listed in the head of state column, then what is she? --Pete (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You are capable of seeing that the Queen's name is not the only one included in the "Head of state" column at entries for Commonwealth realms that have a governor-general, are you not? --

MIESIANIACAL

02:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious Mies. At first, S-P didn't mind the Queen's entry, only that she was of a bigger font. What changed? GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Just answer the question, please, Mies. --Pete (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume you can see the governors-general's names are there. When both names are included, no one in particular is said to be the head of state. --

MIESIANIACAL

02:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

no one in particular. That's a little loose for an encyclopaedia. Do you think that could be tightened up a bit? --Pete (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

MIESIANIACAL

03:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we should do our duty to our readers. If a situation is unclear, we should explain it as best we can. They shouldn't have to guess. A note, giving some immediate information and a link to a better explanation. These things are generally fairly dense and detailed. --Pete (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Put a note, then. --

MIESIANIACAL

03:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I did. GoodDay helpfully and repeatedly reverted it. --Pete (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mies, I reverted, 'cuz there was no consensus for it & the Rfc was in progress. GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A reminder though, Mies. The article about the Aussie dispute, can't be used as a source, as Wikipedia can't be its own source. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Australian head of state dispute article has a good number of diverse reliable sources. --Pete (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources can be used directly, only. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe Mies, your compromise easily handled the font complaint. But S-P then moved the goal posts, by changing his acceptance of the Queen's entries to non-acceptance & thus attemping to turn the Rfc into a discussion that belongs on another article (that he created). GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting the sense that Mies' compromise is gonna be accepted. Same font size, 'Representative' mentioned & note applied for such countries that don't directly say who their HoS is. Am I correct on this? GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

-what planet is 'Pete' on if he thinks there is any dispute that the Queen of the UK, in her SEPARATE role as 'Queen of Australia' is in any way 'not Head of State of Australia' -Like, what? What does he think she is then? Quite obviously, the function of a Governor-General is to represent the largely absentee monarch of Australia. The governor-general is a viceroy, not a chief executive. He represents the head of state, he/she is NOT the head of state themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.155.182 (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)