[WikiEN-l] 3RR applied to both parties?

Fri Mar 4 05:37:35 UTC 2005

Peter, this probably isn't the place to discuss the factual details,
but in brief you are doing original research. Here is the Governor
General's page http://www.gg.gov.au/html/fset_role.html There's
nothing republican about this description.

We had a similar situation a few weeks ago when an editor kept
deleting that Israel is a parliamentary democracy, because that editor
believes that Israel is not democratic enough, and was able to quote
other sources making the same point. But that's beside the point:
Israel is recognized by reputable sources as a parliamentary
democracy, so that's the term Wikipedia uses; similarly, the Queen is
recognized as the Australian head of state by most reputable sources,
so that's what Wikipedia goes with. That doesn't mean the debate
shouldn't be characterized in the Wikipedia article, so long as it is
a real debate in that country, which I'm sure it is in Australia. But
it has to be done in a careful, scholarly way with reference to good
sources, sticking closely to what they say, and not what you feel they
imply. And the dispute has to be described, not engaged in. Check
[[Wikipedia:No original research]].

Sarah

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:09:45 +1100, Skyring <skyring at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:58:23 -0700, slimvirgin at gmail.com
> <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you mean by saying you waited overnight, because you
> > made your four edits, in my view four reverts, within about four
> > hours, so far as I can see.
> 
> That's true. I then gave Adam another twelve hours and more before
> taking action.
> 
> >The important point here is that you're
> > trying to introduce POV into the article by claiming, I believe, that
> > Australia is a republic and that the Queen is not the head of state,
> > which is factually incorrect. You may be right (I don't know) that
> > Australia is in some sense a thinly veiled republic, but the veil is
> > everything, no matter how thin.
> 
> But that's only your opinion. There is NO definitive answer as to who
> is Australia's head of state. It's not defined in the constitution,
> and the High Court has not answered the question.
> >
> > This is an interesting example of content-quality over procedure. Adam
> > Carr was trying to preserve accuracy and now he's blocked. The person
> > who has been trying to insert an inaccuracy for days, and who also
> > (arguably) reverted four times, is not blocked.
> 
> Please read the discussion. If you feel you have something to
> contribute and can provide checkable sources, then I urge you to do
> so.
> 
> > Peter, you may be right about there being an argument in favor of
> > saying that Australia is, in effect, a republic. But if you want to
> > introduce an issue like that into an article, you have to be very
> > careful not to violate the no-original-research rule, which says that
> > editors shouldn't come up any new analysis or synthesis of facts. In
> > other words, if you want to say Australia is a republic, you have to
> > find reputable sources who have actually said that precise thing, and
> > not just sources who have said things which, put together in a certain
> > way in a certain light, could be interpreted as implying that. The
> > former is okay; the latter is original research. I don't know, but I
> > suspect, that Adam perceived you to be doing the latter.
> 
> I've provided sources going back to Federation. I've quoted the
> Wikipedia definition of republic, I've quoted the Macquarie, I've
> pointed out that even the Oxford English Dictionary makes us a
> republic. People are starting to complain about the "reams of text'.
> 
> Adam's position seems to be that a republic is a non-monarchy and
> because we have a powerless monarch in a symbolic role, we cannot be a
> republic, despite the overwhelmingly republican nature of our
> constitutional arrangements, whereby sovereignty resides in the people
> and power is exercised by elected or appointed officials, rather than
> hereditary positions.
> 
> --
> Peter in Canberra
>