Talk:Head of state/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Current version, with examples, and "representative"

Pete, for avoidance of doubt or misunderstanding on my part, please quote here the "mutually acceptable version at Australian head of state dispute" you have mentioned above, if you see it as affecting the paragraph as I have last composed it for the article, and which stands in the current version. Qexigator (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the version of the whole article. A pertinent sentence is In practice, the governor-general carries out all the functions usually performed by a head of state, without reference to the Queen; though the governor-general is the Queen's representative, he or she is not the monarch's delegate or agent. --Pete (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As I read the quote and the article as a whole that is consistent with the present version here, where we need no elaboration about the g-g being Queen's representative but not her delegate or agent. It is better to let each g-g himself explain his action in the circumstances himself, as in the current version. Would you say it now understates or overstates the position of each g-g, so far as that can be supported by sources and without needless wrangling? Qexigator (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The position regarding the Canadian Governor General is fine. My beef is with the linking of the Australian Governor-General and "representative":

1. As noted above, it raises the possibility that the Australian Governor-General was using the powers of the Queen on her behalf and possibly on her instructions.
2. It is inconsistent with a widely held view that the Governor-General is the head of state. Not an exclusive view, but NPOV requires that we take notice of it.

Why do we need this event mentioned in this section? The Canadian example is perfectly adequate and the long-standing and non-contentious wording of the Australian example is already included in the article, as is King-Byng. --Pete (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Why can't you just be clear? The constitution of Australia explicitly links the Australian governor-general and "representative". Linking governor-general and "representative" says nothing on the matter of who's head of state. Your beef, therefore, is still two-fold, but, one is actually with the linking of the terms "head of state" and "representative"; the segment "the head of state or their representative" assumes the representative represents the head of state and thus cannot be the head of state, contrary to the opinions of those who think the Governor-General of Australia, the Australian monarch's representative, is Australia's head of state. But, the article as edited by Qexigator, presents the Governor General of Canada as the representative of the head of state ("Canada's governor-general refused the head of government's formal advice requesting a dissolution of parliament and a general election. In a letter informing the head of state..."), which you're okay with, despite knowing not everyone adheres to that belief. (Indeed, what about those who think both the monarch and the governor-general are head of state?) Further, the paragraph farther down in the article, in the "Appointment of senior officials" section, governors-general are presented as heads of state ("The head of state usually appoints most or all the key officials in the government... In 1975, Governor-General of Australia Sir John Kerr appointed Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister after having dismissed his predecessor Gough Whitlam"). Why are you okay with that, calling it "non-contentious" (indeed, it aligns perfectly with the implication of your original edit to the "Parliamentary system" section)?

The other beef is with the possibility some reader might think a representative can only function at the direction of the person he or she represents and thus that Kerr followed the Queen of Australia's orders (though, you seem to think EIIR is still the Queen of the UK over Australia; hence, you have a worry about the appearance of Australian colonialism). It's a concern you should be applying equally to any mention of a governor-general exercising the powers of the monarch they represent. Yet, you've no problem unambiguously portraying the Governor General of Canada as a representative. Now, why can't you be consistent? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mies. I'm not as informed on the Canadian circumstances as you are. On the Australian situation, I keep myself informed and have met many of the constitutional scholars, including some of the participants in the 1975 event. Australian constitutional history is a hobby of mine. Canadian, not so much. What I am comfortable with is the notion that our arrangements are different. There's no consistency. Similarities, to be sure, but to my mind, the two great things about the Australian Constitution are that it was drawn up by the people, not any government, and it may not be altered without a special majority of the people. The Prime Minister can't change it, the Queen can't change it. So all those powers, specifically given to the Governor-General, don't belong to the Queen. She cannot exercise them or change them or withdraw them. Only the people may do that. Canada has none of this. So I guess that I resent you trying to fit the whole British Commonwealth into some tidy little box with squared off ends, everything the same, like the Wikipedia Manual of Style can somehow make the different histories and circumstances all one uniform model. I also resent you implying that I haven't changed, that I still hold the same opinions and views as I did five or ten years back. We all change our minds from time t time, and if you are unsure of something, just ask. --Pete (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"[A]ll those powers, specifically given to the Governor-General, don't belong to the Queen." There's that unfounded POV of yours again. Rather than address your inconsistency and appearances of bias, you offer that. Well, at least you gave an unambiguous clue about your motives. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

With every respect, Mies, can you understand that I have just told you the basis of my view? It is not something I dreamt up myself. It is the truth, first noted by Quick and Garran in 1901 and sustained ever since. Your Canadian system is different. Accept it. We differ. --Pete (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You think your original research and synthesis equals truth. Yes, we differ, alright. (I can see that RfC at Talk:Governor-General of Australia is going to go on for a looooonnng goddamn time.) --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Mies. I know my subject and I know my sources. When your only source is your personal interpretation of a primary document, you aren't going to convince me that you know better than the local experts. Fall still, open your mind, listen to what others say. You've been wrong before, as we all have. You'll be wrong again, likewise. Any man who sees his own conviction as the source of all truth and wisdom is bound to be disappointed. And any man who uses personal abuse as a substitute for reason is deluding nobody but himself. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Mies., while waiting for Pete's reply to your last, may I say that, given that there is another article explaining that there is some notable opinion contending that the monarch in or of Canada cannot now or ever have been head of state, I do not see the present wording as being other than non-committal. What did the g-g consider his position at the time, in the Canadian and in the Australian example? Why not present that information to the reader? There comes a point when excess of anxiety about what a reader is being allowed to think becomes editorially self-defeating. Would any editor allow Wikipedia (which is a collection of world-wide contributors of varying degrees of skill and knowledge) to pose as thought controller? Qexigator (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"There comes a point when excess of anxiety about what a reader is being allowed to think becomes editorially self-defeating"

I agree. Does Pete/Skyring? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't control thoughts. We present information. We do, however, observe NPOV, and if there are different views on a subject, we present them all rather than choose one. --Pete (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The "Standard model"

OK, I have no claim that my latest effort to compose some text cannot be improved upon. Whatever opinions others may have had then or since, we surely must accept that Byng did not believe himself to be head of state at the time of the event reported, and the only other person who could be that was the King to whom he addressed the quoted letter: it is more a question of metaphysics than anything else, whether all the world must see Byng as having acted as "representative": the nomenclature and theory make no practical difference to the event, but the event was something that led to the ceding of full government independence under the Statute of Westminster provisions. Now, as to Kerr, the text is not committed to saying that when he dismissed the head of government, Kerr was acting as head of state or as representing the head of state, but only that he wished it to be known that he acted according to the letter and spirit of the constitution and his oath of office. Again, it makes no practical difference to the event described whether some are of the opinion that he must be considered to have been acting as the Queen of Australia's representative, while some are of another opinion. The information is that Kerr took positive steps to outmanoeuvre Whitlam, in a way that is not usual when a head of government is dismissed by the head of state or their representative. Both Byng and Kerr are examples of how conscientious office-holders in a parliamentary system seek to perform their public duty in a crisis, according to the letter and the spirit of the constitution. Both events can be seen as deviations from the normal principle that "powers of head of state ((or of a g-g under the Australian constitution, as the case may be)) are usually only exercised by direction of a cabinet, presided over by a head of government who is answerable to the legislature". Qexigator (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, whether any, and if so which, intangibles such as constitutional powers to appoint or dismiss the head of government, or veto proposed legislation, can be said to "belong" to any person or body of persons may be pertinent to an academy or school of metaphysics or rhetoric or political ideology, but has next to nothing to do with the content of this article. From time to time, legal title to land (such as government buildings or royal palaces), or ownership of moveable property (such as crown jewels or motorcars) is attributed to the monarch or some other person or body of persons, and administered, managed and disposed of accordingly. Powers of state and government are of another category. Thus, in Commonwealth realms, the Queen's title is proclaimed as "By the grace of God...", and the status of any person who is the Queen's representative is acting for her as so proclaimed. But if a written constitution gives a specific power directly to some other person, say a governor-general, what then? S/He is duty bound to act according to allegiance and oath of office, but does s/he act as representing the person whose title is "By the grace of God..."? We are not likely to find this much discussed in the modern literature or popular press. Qexigator (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Some consistency has to be applied throughout the article; right now it's self-contradictory (governors-general are heads of state in one section, the representatives of heads of state in another) and a bit repetitious. Then there's the matter of one governor-general being portrayed one way when it's deemed by one editor here to be unacceptable to portray another particular governor-general the same way, when there aren't as many differences between the governors-general as that editor tries to make it appaer (not differences that matter to this subject, anyway).

So, we need to formulate a wording that avoids calling or implying either the monarch or the governor-general is head of state (except for any governor-general of a realm in which the monarch is named in the constitution as the head of state). Additionally, it needs to avoid implying any governor-general acts at the direction of the monarch.

I don't think there's any issue with calling a governor-general (Australian or otherwise) the representative of the sovereign (should using such terminology help us). It's exactly what a governor-general is and "representative" isn't a synonym for "quisling" or "puppet". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a whole separate section just on governors-general. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"... a whole separate section just on governors-general". Yes, that may be the way to avoid inconsistencies. The "Appointment of senior officials" section includes: In Canada, a similar situation took place in 1925 wherein Governor General Lord Byng of Vimy appointed Arthur Meighen after William Lyon Mackenzie King refused to resign the premiership (known as the King-Byng Affair). In 1975, Governor-General of Australia Sir John Kerr appointed Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister after having dismissed his predecessor Gough Whitlam. That could well be merged with the more extended paragraph now sitting uneasily in "Standard model", between Italy and the Kings of the Belgians. The given starting point is, of course, in the opening:

• The head of state is the highest-ranking constitutional position [note 1] in a sovereign state. The head of state is vested with powers to act as the chief public representative of that state. Heads of state in most countries are natural persons holding an office. In a monarchy the reigning monarch is the head of state.... [note 1]"highest-ranking constitutional position" is Meant primarily in the strict protocol sense (i.e. order of precedence, seating arrangements, etc.); not necessarily in terms of actual power or influence. As I understand it, that means that in every one of the Commonwealth realms Elizabeth, as the reigning monarch, is unarguably the "head of state" within the meaning of this article.

Next, the section "Representation" states:

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

Is that not better merged with the extended paragraph about the dismissals of King and Whitlam, to form a single coherent section? If so, what would the section title be and where would it be placed? Qexigator (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that might be a better, more coherent solution. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't really address the inconsistencies in the article. Also, the note is problematic: a constitution and precedence list are not the same thing. The sentence "'highest-ranking constitutional position' is Meant primarily in the strict protocol sense" is thus false; highest constitutional position means highest constitutional position. It's maybe worthwhile to mention that having the highest constitutional position doesn't necessarily mean being the most powerful or influential in the actual practice of governance. But, that expands beyond the matter of governors-general to include ministers and supreme courts and such, who often exercise power more and have more influence than the person who possesses the power they use.

I don't think its best to move the paragraph from "Representation" to the "Standard model" section. The Whitlam-Kerr and King-Byng episodes will have to be sorted out otherwise; to address the inconsistencies. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Consistency

"In protocolary terms": 1

Our present attempts to make better sense of the parts of this article about governors-general are, in my view, vexed by failing adequately to acknowledge that the article's topic, according to the lead, is determined by diplomatic usage, relying on citations such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (see "In protocolary terms": 2 below), and making comparison with "head of government". That is plain enough, but the article awkwardly conflates comtemporary practice, as found from, say, 1920's (post-WW I treaties), with a smattering of earlier history.

• Its top image is "a photomontage made in 1889 featuring the heads of state of several countries at that time", and the caption then lists them all by name.
• Its infobox is headed "Part of the Politics series on Executive government". Is that no better than an afterthought or aspiration, or are we now to take it as the "consensus" guiding principle for the article structure and content? "Politics is the process and conduct of decision-making for groups...usually applied to governments...", per Category: Politics[1]: "The executive is the part of the government that has sole authority and responsibility for the daily administration of the state. The executive branch executes, or enforces the law.", per Executive (government). This suggests that the article's dominant concept is: Politics, as a process of decision-making on the part of any specific government having sole authority and responsibility for the daily administration of a state, and, in particular, for executing or enforcing the law of that state.
• Its first section is headed "Constitutional models", and takes as a main division of the topic the distinction between a monarchy and a republic "in protocolary terms", but then states that "as such this is not defining for the actual political system" and proceeds to blather "which often evolves significantly, or can remain unaltered in other respects despite a transition from monarchy to republic (or, rarer, vice versa)."
• It continues with what amounts to an inadequately sourced essay.
• The images are too large for the text: 1_A pleasant image of the Queen (one of the world's best-known and longest-serving heads of state) at the top of "Parliamentary system, Standard model". 2_In the same part, the President of India. 3_In a single panel, the Emperor of Japan and the King of Sweden (Two contemporary figurehead monarchs who do not even in theory possess any discretionary governance powers). 4_"Semi-presidential systems" has de Gaulle (established the semi-presidential system in France). 5_"Presidential system" has Washington (set the precedent for an executive head of state in republican systems of government);
• and so on through sections and subsections to "Selection and various types and styles of heads of state" which has for its opening image none other than The frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan, depicting the Sovereign as a massive body wielding a sword and crozier and composed of many individual people, to illustrate one of the historic theories of sovereignty from the time of Thomas Cromwell's ascendancy in England, and the restoration of the Stuart monarchy.
• Next, to illustrate "Representation", comes a panel of John Buchan (article so named against my protest!)[2] in full fig (The Lord Tweedsmuir was Governor General of Canada from 1935 to 1940; the uniform worn was the customary ceremonial dress uniform for governors general), and next to that, an image of the Governor-General of Papua New Guinea from 2004 to 2010. (More oversize images appear in the later sections).
• Under "Legitimacy" there is an indiscriminate, unclassified , or may be eclectic, mingling of examples, ranging from the ancient world to a selection from the 20c., and including stubbies such as: "By social contract: The notion of a social contract holds that the nation—either the whole people or the electorate—gives a mandate, through acclamation or election." / "By constitution: Individual heads of state may acquire their position by virtue of a constitution." / "By appointment: A head of state can be empowered to designate his successor, such as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth Oliver Cromwell, who was succeeded by his son Richard."

All that tends in favour of putting in a section of its own what there is to be said about governors-general, past and present. Qexigator (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Overdue for a rethink and reorganisation.. "Head of state" is a fairly recent term. I suspect that we are not going to find an adequate definition. My own definition is "A head of state is whoever the people of that state recognise as such." We can't really, as an encyclopaedia, enforce a head of state on a nation that doesn't see it that way. One day we'll have that power, maybe, but not yet.

Where did these various headings come from? Is there truly a "standard model"? And if so, how do we determine what it is?

Looking through the article, there's some pretty bizarre stuff in there: "the Canadian monarch is described by the government as being the personification of the Canadian state." Really?

There must be a way to get rid of the guff and make the article more useful. --Pete (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those remarks, but I feel disinclined to be overambitious at this stage. I see the job now to hand being to form the proposed new section for Governors-General. Qexigator (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a friend, whose parents were divorced. Her father remarried, as did her mother, though choosing a female partner. My friend says, "I pity anyone who marries me; they'll have three mother-in-laws!" I think we are losing the "correct" way of forming a plural with these sort of hyphenated creatures. Well, let us look at the class of officials called Governor(-)General. I'd put them, I think, in the "Selection and various styles of HoS" section. Towards the end, with the various special classes. The UN listing is sufficient authority to include them as head-of-states, and of course we have the Australian example, where views are divided, which Mies informs us is likewise the case in Canada. However, it is important to choose the NPOV language carefully, and the protocol that works best is to be diplomatic rather than dogmatic. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

By putting all information on governors-general in a section titled "Selection and various styles of heads of state", you're implying they're heads of state. If there's going to be a sub-section, it should be a sub of "Representatives" (since that's what they are). Or, it's its own section alone. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

That boat has sailed and isn't returning to harbo(u)r, Mies. Head of State is a diplomatic term and the UN's listing of heads of state shows the Queen in brackets, but the officer named and their title is that of the Governor-General. Opinion is officially divided and we cannot say that they are merely representatives of the real head of state, but neither can we say they are undisputed heads of state. The boat has sailed and the wind is blowing it ever further away from your preferred shore. Facing reality is going to be easier and less painful than trying to beckon the barky back. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say they're representatives of a head of state. I said they're representatives. Maybe you need to stop thinking about boats and focus. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Mies. separate section: interpolated between "Roles of heads of state" and "Selection and various..."? Qexigator (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, a governor-general, as such, constitutionally invariably represents the realm, in some sense. In some cases the realm may be represented by the head of government or by a foreign minister or anyone appointed ad hoc for a specific occasion; and the governor-general, or anyone else, such as a member of the royal family or plain commoner (as is said in UK), may be appointed by the Queen to attend an event, such as a wedding or memorial service, as her reprsentative there as well as attending in an official or private capacity. Any text in an article should avoid implying otherwise. Qexigator (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"In protocolary terms": 2

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969[3] includes

"2. In virtue of their functions ...the following are considered as representing their State: (a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty; (b) heads of diplomatic missions, for the purpose of adopting the text of a treaty between the accrediting State and the State to which they are accredited;..."

Can anyone here elucidate whether, and if so how, this applies to a governor-general (regardless of dress code or table placings or theories or practices active in 19c. or earlier)? Qexigator (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't define who a head of state is. Or head of government, for that matter. However, it does mention functions. So if we work out who does the job of head of state, then we can use WP:DUCK to say who is the head of state and if someone complains that it might be another person, we can ask why aren't they doing the job, then? This would cover (say) North Korea, where the President is a dead person.

Another clue lies in "accrediting". By convention, diplomatic credentials are addressed to the head of state of one nation and sent by the head of state of another.

There is a tremendous difficulty in obtaining useful sources. It seems like Wikipedia itself is the top hit on searches, and a lot of our articles on these subjects are stubs or unsourced or both. --Pete (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel at this stage we should be sorting out G-G questions. Qexigator (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Australia's Governor-General signs treaties and issues and receives diplomatic credentials in his own name without any mention of the Queen. This has been the case for some years, though the only source i ever saw was a newspaper article at the time. It was mentioned in one of these discussions but I feel disinclined to go hunt it up. An official source would be handy, but I cannot lay my hands on one. We see photos of ambassadors presenting their credentials to the G-G, but the resolution is never good enough to descry the actual text of the documents they are holding. --Pete (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A head of state is...

Our definition has undergone some changes over the years:

• 30 January 2002: The nominal leader of a country or state.
• 26 February 2002: The person who represents a country or state in diplomatic protocol.
• 24 February 2003: A head of state is the chief public representative of a nation-state, federation or commonwealth, whose role is to personify the continuity and legitimacy of the state. (As an aside, this one-man effort by jtdirl, completely unsourced, forms the basis of our current article nearly twelve years later. Bits have been bolted on and modified, but at heart it is recognisably the same thing, reflecting the particular views of that particular editor.)
• 11 August 2003: A Head of State is the chief public representative of a nation-state, federation or commonwealth, whose role generally includes personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state.
• 17 November 2003: A head of state is the chief public representative of a nation-state, federation or commonwealth, whose role generally includes personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state and exercising powers, functions and duties granted to the head of state in the country's constitution.
• 8 September 2004: A head of state or chief of state is the chief public representative of a nation-state, federation or commonwealth, whose role generally includes personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state and exercising powers, functions and duties granted to the head of state in the country's constitution.
• 30 January 2005: A head of state or chief of state is the chief public representative of a nation-state, federation or commonwealth, whose role generally includes personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state and exercising the political powers, functions and duties granted to the head of state in the country's constitution.
• 10 June 2005: Though a term originally coined for republican presidents, a head of state or chief of state is now universally known as the chief public representative of a nation-state, federation or commonwealth, whose role generally includes personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state and exercising the political powers, functions and duties granted to the head of state in the country's constitution. (The immediately following version gives an initial capital to the word "republican". This may or may not have been a joke.)
• 8 September 2005: A head of state or chief of state is an individual who serves as the chief public representative of a nation-state, federation or commonwealth.
• 30 November 2005: Head of state or chief of state is the generic term for the individual or collective office which serves as the chief public representative of monarchic or republican nation-state, federation, commonwealth or any other political state.
• 12 October 2008: Head of state is the generic term for the individual or collective office that serves as the chief public representative of a monarchic or republican nation-state, federation, commonwealth or any other political state.
• 28 March 2009: Head of state is the generic term for the individual or collective office that serves as the chief public representative of a monarchy, republic, federation, commonwealth or other kind of state.
• 2 November 2010: Head of state is the common word used to refer to the individual or collective office that serves as the chief public representative of a monarchy, republic, federation, commonwealth or other kind of state.
• 30 January 2011: A head of state is the individual or collective office that serves as the chief public representative of a monarchy, republic, federation, commonwealth or other kind of state.
• 15 February 2011: A head of state is the individual that serves as the chief public representative of a monarchy, republic, federation, commonwealth or other kind of state.
• 3 August 2012: A head of state is an official who holds the highest position in a governance system of the state and has the vested powers to act as the chief public representative of a country.
• 11 October 2012: Head of State is term used in constitutional law, international law, and political science to designate an official who holds the highest ranked position in a state and has the vested or implied powers to act as the chief public representative of a sovereign state.
• 15 October 2012: Head of State (German: Staatsoberhaupt), or Chief of State (French: Chef d'État), is term used in constitutional law, international law, political science, and diplomatic protocol to designate an official who holds the highest ranked position in a state and has the vested or implied powers to act as the chief public representative of a sovereign state.
• 24 October 2012: Head of State (German: Staatsoberhaupt), or Chief of State (French: Chef d'État), is term used in constitutional law, international law, political science, and diplomatic protocol when referring to the official who holds the highest ranked position in a sovereign state and has the vested or implied powers to act as the chief public representative of a state.
• 13 December 2013: Head of state (German: Staatsoberhaupt), (French: chef d'état); is a term used in constitutional law, international law, political science, and diplomatic protocol when referring to the official who holds the highest ranked position in a sovereign state and has the de-jure powers of state.
• 9 January 2014: Head of state (German: Staatsoberhaupt), or chief of state (French: chef d'état); is a generic term used in constitutional law, international law, political science, and diplomatic protocol when referring to the highest ranked official position in a sovereign state, which is thus vested with powers to act as the chief public representative of that state.
• 3 March 2014: The head of state (German: Staatsoberhaupt), or chief of state (French: chef d'état) is the highest-ranked official position in a sovereign state. (Useful sources appear in the into, notably this one.)
• 23 April 2014: The head of state is the highest-ranked constitutional position in a sovereign state.
• 3 May 2014: The head of state is a high-ranked constitutional position in a sovereign state.
• 25 August 2014: The head of state is the highest-ranking constitutional position[note 1] in a sovereign state.

None of these definitions appear to be sourced, by the way.

As an aside, the UN, in its list of heads of state, gives the official title of the Australian head of state as "Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia"[4] The same document lists the head of state of New Zealand as "Governor-General of New Zealand", while the New Zealand Constitution Act 1986 says, "The Sovereign in right of New Zealand is the head of State of New Zealand.[5]. Views are divided everywhere, it seems. --Pete (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that survey of the article's development, which goes a long way to explaining the fundamental weakness of the article as a whole and in almost every part. So, anyone with a particular interest in the integrity of articles about the constitutions of Commonwealth realms (all and several), necessarily including their governors-general, may see that as a reason for a properly edited section on those constitutionally significant persons, uncomplicated by, and not complicating, the other parts of the article. As we both already know, the UN document, which serves its own particular "protocolary" purpose, lists the Queen above Boyce in the "Head of State" column, likewise for Canada and New Zealand, and, of course only the Queen appears in that column for UK. Essentially the document is guidance to UN officers and staff on questions about addressing formal communications and diplomatic precedence and seating arrangements. It has no effect on determining the internal constitution of any UN member state. Time for me to repeat the refrain: let us attend to the proposed section for Governors-General as the immediate task to hand. Qexigator (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course. Nevertheless, the title given is that of HE, not HM. --Pete (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. Everyone can see Queen Elizabeth II is there, too, above the governor-general, though, in brackets. The document writer has craftily dodged this whole question of who's the head of state. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Queen is there, but the title given, and the unbracketed name, is that of the Governor-General. Granted, the UN is having a dollar each way, and I think that this is a diplomatic way of doing it. My point is that the Governor-General is listed at all. Twenty years ago, I'm not sure that this would have been the case, and I am confident that in 1945, the King would have been shown as Australia's head of state. My point is that Australia, the British Commonwealth, and the world as a whole are seeing the remnant role of the British monarch growing smaller from the glory days of the British Empire, when your country and mine were formed. Wikipedia cannot be a crystal ball, but neither can it be the reverse, and cling onto a past that has vanished. One of the few parts of the lede that has survived ten years is the quote from de Gaulle, about the head of state representing the nation. The Queen cannot do this for any nation but the UK, but recent Australian Governors-General have definitely been seen as representing the Australian people. Because they are Australian. That role of the personal embodiment of the nation can only be filled by a local. It is a big part of the role of head of state, and you may talk about representing the Queen all you like, but representing the nation is something additional to what the 1901 Constitution might imply. When the Australian Governor-General travels to London for some memorial or other, is he representing the Queen by being in the UK, or is he representing Australia? Times change, and the world moves on. --Pete (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

...and the world as a whole are seeing the remnant role of the British monarch growing smaller from the glory days of the British Empire... That really isn't news. In UK: "The Queen is Head of State in the United Kingdom. As a constitutional monarch, Her Majesty does not 'rule' the country, but fulfils important ceremonial and formal roles with respect to Government. She is also Fount of Justice, Head of the Armed Forces and has important relationships with the established Churches of England and Scotland." -from The official website of the British Monarchy. "The British Sovereign can be seen as having two roles: Head of State, and 'Head of the Nation'".-from ditto. Nor is it news that the colonisation of the Australian continent and the establishment the Commonwealth of Australia has resulted in a different relationship with the monarch in that country. Once more: let us attend to the proposed section for Governors-General as the immediate task to hand. Qexigator (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Andorra, Cook Islands, UN

The "Representation" section hardly knows what it is trying to say. It must have become garbled while the article was building way back. Andorra is in the UN list, Cook Islands is not, it is in "free association" with New Zealand, and does not belong in this article, while New Zealand is mentioned in the "Governors-General (Commonwealth realms)" section. This leaves only Andorra as having the degree of state sovereignty to bring it within the scope of the article, but the section has a practically incoherent paragraph on dependencies, with Cook Islands as the only specimen. Given that these paragraphs are comprised in the main section "Shared and substitute heads of state", its seems that the sub-heading should be "Shared", and New Zealand and Cook Islnds trimmed away. Qexigator (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with this, but please discuss if not acceptable as revised. Qexigator (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

For sovereign states only?

The article has a section for Governors-General (Commonwealth realms), who are the highest ranking office-holder short of the monarch. The realms are independent sovereign states, and two major ones happen to be federally constituted. The article topic is essentially about heads of sovereign states only, whether monarchy or republic. But somehow a paragraph has been intruded about heads of Canadian provinces, governors of British Overseas Territories and the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, with the opening words "The same role in a federal constituent and a dependent territory is fulfilled by the corresponding office equivalent to that of a head of state." There is no citation for this of any kind, and it is not self-evident or commonly understood that such a functionary's role can usefully be said to be equivalent to that of a head of a sovereign state. What about the states of the USA "model", or any other federal state? The paragraph should be removed entirely or, "Plan B", relegated to a section of its own at the end of the article, as a kind of appendix, with a heading such as "Constituent or dependent territory", and with a properly cited explanation. Qexigator (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to risk going right ahead with this, but subject to anyone adopting "Plan B" above who feels the article needs to have something about non-sovereign entities. Qexigator (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Images

Mies: OK, your turn, sorry you feel the need to put the images all back as was, but I do not understand the reason for re-enlarging them, [6] which makes them occupy an unwelcome amount of space on screen, and is even more unsuitable when articles are included in books through the book creator facility. Is this size now a fixed irremediable Wikirequirement, with no editorial discretion or what? I had thought (still hope) that it would be the least contentious of edits. Qexigator (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

+ And have you any idea what is the rationale for including the Images of the signature blocks with seals of the 2011 Croatia EU Accession Treaty? Qexigator (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)