Talk:Australian head of state dispute: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 123:

::''the role of head of state of Australia is divided between two people, the Queen of Australia and the Governor-General of Australia, who is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia. Though in many respects the Governor-General is the Queen's representative, and exercises various constitutional powers in her name, they are also independently vested with many important powers by the Constitution''

:--is other than an acceptable way of describing the factual position for readers. If you have more uptodate information or better sources, please discuss here. One thing is certain: "It is not a matter with a simple answer", as Pete remarks. [[User:Qexigator|Qexigator]] ([[User talk:Qexigator|talk]]) 21:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

::The Wikipedia system is allowing pet beliefs to get through. None of the sources support this notion of a dispute except for some minor monarchist-republican debate in the late 1990's. If it was just that, no problem. But the government position is clear. The Queen's position is clear. The academic position is clear, in that they reasonably distinguish between ''de jure'' and ''de facto'' roles. But the summaries makes a mountain out of few loosely worded statements. "Erratic" Kevin Rudd never made a definitive statement that the GG was Head of State, as his spokesperson made clear later. But our PM's are written up as "erratic", because they disagree with Skyring. The history shows past editors argued until Skyring was banned from Wikipedia. After the bad was lifted, he started this article. So I'm saying, that it does not matter. In putting this article together, there is defiance of the Wikipedia community. Readers should not have faith that this article can be corrected. What I can do is call the ECANZ to fix their factsheet. [[User:Travelmite|Travelmite]] ([[User talk:Travelmite|talk]]) 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)