Category talk:Heads of state of Australia

message: It is a matter of some debate as to whether the sovereign or the Governor-General (or both) is Australia's head of state. There is no doubt, however, that the Queen is the monarch of Australia. Accordingly I have created a new category and moved the monarchs since 1901 into it. --Pete (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt the monarch of Australia is the de jure head of state of Australia. No doubt the Governor-General is the de facto head of state. That's the way it works in every other country with the Queen as the monarch and a governor general. In any case, the category was created to include in :Category:Heads of state by country, where each country should have an entry; additionally, a link was included the the G-G category to resolve the problem for those still conflicted about who really is the "true" head of state. Snocrates 01:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please leave your own opinions out of our encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol--right back at you. I have found numerous sources which site the monarch as the head of state of Australia. It seems that you are the one with the "doubt" about it. Snocrates 02:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go and research the subject. There is a good recent discussion at Talk:Monarchy of Australia. --Pete (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I examined the discussion and it's composed mostly of personal opinion and WP:OR. I'd like to see some decent references that discuss the debate; the ones presented are iffy. Snocrates 02:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fine if there are some who view it as a debatable issue — but there's no good reason to omit this category from the overall classification scheme at :Category:Heads of state by country. Australia has a head of state — there just may be doubt over who exactly it is. If G-Gs should be made a subcategory, as well as the monarchs, then that seems like the best solution, rather than including the monarchs as the head of state category and thereby suggest that it is unquestionably the monarch. Snocrates 02:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see what you are trying to do, but you haven't grasped the problem. It's not that some see the Governor-General as the head of state and some see the Queen as the HoS. It isn't that one is the HoS and some disagree. The simple fact is that the question of who is Australia's head of state is not and cannot be definitively answered, and trying to force one view or the other, or both, into a categorisation scheme is plain wrong. Leave the cetegory empty, please. --Pete (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's one or the other, so the debate should be presented in the category: that's my position. There is no other reasonable candidate, and by definition every sovereign state has a head of state. Since we disagree on this point, you should not just empty the category--nominate it for deletion to get consensus rather than doing this unilaterally. If the CFD agrees that Australia should not be included in the :Category:Heads of state by country, then that will happen. If they agree with my position, then my suggestion will happen. That's how consensus works. If you prefer, I could nominate it for you so you don't have to. On second thought, you'd better nominate it. I don't think I can nominate it for deletion if my vote would be to keep the category. Snocrates 02:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's one or the other. Well, no. It's a bit like Schrodinger's Category. It's undefined. Does Australia have a head of state? Well, the Queen fills part of the role and the Governor-General other parts. --Pete (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said my position was that it's either one or the other because (1) there are no other reasonable candidates and (2) every sovereign state by definition has a head of state. That's my opinion; it doesn't mean it's "true" or that consensus would necessarily back it up. On the other hand, maybe the duties are shared, in which case both maybe could also be included in an appropriate category. This is all my opinion. We need a CFD. It sounds to me like you have a good argument to debate in a CFD. (I would like to see some good sources on the debate, however; it seems like it's mostly composed of WP:OR and that neutral sources tend to say the monarch is the HoS.) Snocrates 02:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a link to a High Court judgement, which gives the Governor-General as the constitutional head of state, though that dates from the days before the term became common usage. Sure, there are sources one way or the other, but when you ask what are they based on, it comes down to opinion. Not definitively stated in the constitution, nor any Australian (or British) legislation. Trying to force Wikipedia to make a decision by saying that every country has a head of state and Australia is like every other country is not my idea of a solution. I'd rather leave the question unanswered until there is an answer. --Pete (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, WP works by consensus, unfortunately. Since my opinion is to include the category and yours is to not include it, it seems reasonable to open it up to a consensus decision where both views can be presented. It's can't be viewed as fair to either side for any editor to make a decision based on their own interpretation/opinion. The CFD may not say "every country has a head of state and thus we must choose one". It may agree with your position. Snocrates 03:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty category