-------------- Original message --------------
> In this case, I'm amazed saying "Australia is a republic" isn't
> being counted as simple vandalism. Repeatedly putting in misleading
> and plainly factually incorrect information certainly counted as
> vandalism when User:Michael was going hogwild at it.
Well, perhaps because you need to do more than point out
the ceremonial role of the monarch to make your case, that
appears to be all those with some aversion to a straight forward
application of the word "republic" have done.
I suspect there is something we are missing to this controversy,
perhaps the words "republic" and "constitutional monarchy",
have been hijacked as labels for political constituencies in those
countries, much like "life" and "choice" in the USA. If, the
controversy is real, then it should be noted, although not
necessarily in the introduction. But the other side should
get their say.
This ususually works out, although sometimes some weasal
words are also needed in the intro. This is what makes wikipedia
more useful than "respected" encyclopedias, even the intro might
give you a clue that the establishment status quo is being questioned.
-- Silverback