Jump to content

Talk:Head of state/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Proposal to remove some images

Arising from some comments above, this is to propose that the head and shoulder portrait shots be removed. The portraits add nothing informative to the article. If any of those persons is mentioned in the text, a link to that person's article suffices. Qexigator (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If the image of Elizabeth II is included among those to be removed, then I support you proposal. GoodDay (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

These are within this proposal:

  • Carl of Sweden
  • Akihito of Japan
  • Elizabeth II (of UK + 15) (see below Please note)
  • Pranab Mukherjee of India
  • de Gaulle of France (deceased)
  • Francis of Vatican City State.

Qexigator (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Unless they're actually illustrating the text they sit within (eg. the image of a pope is next to text describing the Vatican head of state (which is rather unique)), then, I think that could be an improvement to the article. Certainly, no image should be there for the sake of being there. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
This is one way of setting aside the current dispute, but if we don't include images of well-known heads of state, then we're going to look pretty silly when some well-meaning idiot comes along, thinks, "oho, this article would look really good with a Creative Commons image of the world's best known and longest-serving head of state as per WP:IMAGE", and whacks one in, maybe adding in POTUS for good measure. What do we do, say, "…well no, um, you can't do that, you fool, because it will just lead to some of our best-known and longest serving editors casting bricks at one another, which would lead to WP:NPA and we can't have that, go and think again, moron."
As for improvements to the article, let us look at WP:IMAGE:

Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals.

As a diplomatic gesture and temporary solution, top marks that man, but in the longer term, maybe we can find a solution now, being reasonable folk and so on? --Pete (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
There's currently two other images of Elizabeth II in the article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
In the current version I count 18 images (some still overlarge) of heads of state, and 5 of other things.[1] That should suffice. Qexigator (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Again: Image sizes should not be locked except for a very good reason (WP:IMGSIZE). Each individual editor can set (in "preferences", under the "appearance" tab) the size at which all images (without locked size) appear to them. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I have

  • added an image in g-g section with caption "Elizabeth II, the sovereign who appoints governors-general in the Commonwealth realms" and removed the one in "Standard model"[2]
  • tweaked the captions for other heads of state, so that these identify eah one as such, for any other information to be added to the text.

Qexigator (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I adjusted it to 15 Commonwealth realms, as the United Kingdom doesn't have a governor-general. GoodDay (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Fine with the switch of placement and the caption (with another tweak), but, is that really the best image to use? The one that was in the "Standard model" section seemed to work just fine; it's a better shot, isn't as long, and, oriented at the left of the page, has the subject looking "in", which is what MOS:IMAGES encourages. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II, United Kingdom, the other Commonwealth realms

I'd recommend deleting the Elizabeth II image from the Governor-General section. The Commonwealth realms topic is too much of a continuing 'sore spot' & a magnate for dispute. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The question for npov, bona fide, editing must be: does it serve the purpose of communicating the information of the text for the literate reader better in or out? The image of Elizabeth as appointor of the g-gs really adds nothing: it serves only as another image, together with those of heads of state, dead and alive, which implicitly present a partial dress code or fashion parade. Who will be bold enough to remove it? Qexigator (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the image/caption-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. We now have two mentions of Elizabeth II in the text, one not mentioning any nation, and the other as exclusively British. Neither seem to be controversial. --Pete (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As of 01:48, 2 February 2015

The above propsal has been accomplished, and this section may be treated as closed. As a result of recent discussion (including "if we don't include images of well-known heads of state, then we're going to look pretty silly when some well-meaning idiot comes along..."), and after, collaborative edits by several editors, overlarge images have been reduced, some captions trimmed, some images moved, some removed and a new one brought in. We now have:

  • 5 head and shoulder photo-shots of
Akihito of Japan
Carl of Sweden
Pranab Mukherjee of India
de Gaulle of France (deceased)
Francis of Vatican City State.
  • one or more other images in various sections:
Parliamentary system
Presidential system
Roles of heads of state
Symbolic role
Diplomatic role (3)
Military role (3)
Governors-general (Commonwealth realms) (2)
European writers and revolutions, 16th–20th centuries (3)
Islam
Multiple or collective heads of state
By hereditary succession.

Qexigator (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference notes

Notes #1 & #3 are identical. GoodDay (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

They were, but 3 has gone.[3] Qexigator (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Can we have a source that a "state" must necessarily be sovereign before its "head" is a "head of state"? As in, for example, presidents of constituent republics, etc. -- Director (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Are all constituent countries part of a sovereign state? GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
My point is that the lead appears to be unsourced in that a "state" must be fully sovereign before its constitutional "head" can be called a "head of state". There are varying degrees of federation, both today and throughout history. -- Director (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
We need examples, both current & historic. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Beside the point of this article which is about sovereign states. No source is needed to confirm that the common english language word "state" is also used of non-sovereign polities, such as the constituent states of USA and the constituent entities of the Australian Commonwealth. This article is long and complex enough without extending it by a section on non-sovereign states, whose "heads" are not usually known as "head of state" anyway, such as governors in USA. If there is anything notable enough about such appointments, let an article on that topic be created. Constituent entities of Canada are "provinces". Qexigator (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. The OED defines "head of state" simply as the "chief public representative of a country" [4], without demanding that said "country" be sovereign (as opposed to possibly constituent). Dictionary.com defines the term as referring to "the person who holds the highest position in a national government", again without regard as to the sovereignty of said government. The entry in Oxford's Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law addresses the matter specifically and still refers to heads of state of non-independent states as being such, explaining essentially that their treatment is on a case-to-case basis, with regard to their specific country and where they may be visiting. Most importantly, it states that whether or not someone is a head of state depends primarily on the laws of his/her country. If a constituent country sets up a legal head of state, it is at least debatable whether or not he is such. Not something to be dismissed by us out of hand.
Our article isn't titled "Head of state (sovereign)" or "Heads of sovereign states". I mean its essentially ok to have an article that deals only with heads of state of sovereign countries, but is that the right way to go? I'm not proposing to expand this article, but it could be misleading if we don't define our subject properly. -- Director (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Non-sovereign states are part of a sovereign state, which has a 'head of state'. Anyways, I'll let others deal with this matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't necessarily see any problem with a constituent country having a head of state, who answers to the federal head of state. Its not an inherent conflict: it isn't technically the same "state" they are "heads" of. -- Director (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Not to get off track, but for goodness sake, don't mention constituent country with England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland. I've still got scars from those discussions ;) GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The key word in all this is: necessarily :). I'm not making a specific claim with regard to, e.g., US states or UK countries. In fact I'm mainly thinking of constituent republics, with actual presidents, et al.. -- Director (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, "Director", for that support for the points in my above comment. As can easily be seen, the opening of the article sufficiently covers the point you had helpfully raised. Qexigator (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I still think its kinda misleading... -- Director (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
That may be a little over-anxious. The opening sentence is at least accurate with respect to the lead and the article as a whole. Under the constraints of a "definitional" style customary in Wikipedia (but not necessarily required encyclopedically), it may be less elegant than could otherwise be composed. Can you be more explicit on how it might be "misleading"? The OED as a dictionary (to which you linked above) exemplifies particular usages of the word "head", and, giving "head of state" as one among other instances, mentions that this is used to refer to "the chief public representative of a country" "such as a president or monarch", and that such a person is "sometimes also the head of the government". The purpose of this article is to do what a dictionary does not, that is, to expand more or less succinctly on the mere common usage of words. As it happens, the second sentence includes the very phrase "chief public representative"; the third explains that the position is usually held by a natural person, but sometimes by a body of persons; the second paragraph makes clear that "The office is usually distinct from a head of government"; and so it goes on. I see nothing there to "mislead" any reasonably literate person who chose to read it including any who compared it with the content of Oxford's Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Qexigator (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I have added a citation of Arthur Watts's article (in Max Planck Institute encyc.).[5] --Qexigator (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Image caption RfC

The image was removed from the article on 31 January 2015, so this is now resolved. Feel free to relist this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure if the image is restored. Cunard (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What should caption the image of Queen Elizabeth II in the "Standard model" section of this article? 01:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The options seem to be:

  1. Queen Elizabeth II, one of the world's best-known and longest-serving heads of state; she reigns as queen in 16 countries
  2. Elizabeth II, one of the world's best-known and longest-serving heads of state; she reigns as queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries
  3. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, one of the world's best-known and longest-serving heads of state
  4. Elizabeth II, one of the world's best-known and longest-serving heads of state, reigns as queen of 16 countries, all of which use the parliamentary system standard model
  5. Elizabeth II, one of the world's best-known and longest-serving heads of state, reigns as queen of 16 countries, including the United Kingdom, where the parliamentary system standard model originated
  6. Elizabeth II, one of the best-known and longest-serving heads of state, is queen of 16 countries using the parliamentary system, including its birthplace, the United Kingdom

Option 6 It is neutral, not giving the UK undue and misleading prominence (the Commonwealth realms are all equal to one another and Elizabeth II is queen of each equally). It still, though, gives specific mention to the UK, thereby satisfying the concern raised by an editor that people might not know Elizabeth II is queen of the UK. It explains exactly why the UK is unique in this case (thereby satisfying the want of two editors to have the caption give the UK prominence) and that also ties the caption, and thus the illustration, to the adjacent text it is illustrating, something the caption as always failed so far to do (and so do the first three options above). It does all this in a concise manner; the caption is shorter than many others in the article, thereby satisfying the concern raised by an editor that the caption is too long. (There may be a better word to use than "birthplace", though.) Option 5 is also acceptable. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources show that Elizabeth II is mostly associated with the United Kingdom. It's also verified that the UK is the only commonwealth realm which doesn't have (nor requires) a governor general. It's verified that members of the royal family's primary titles are British. Therefore, Option #2 is my first choice & Option #3 is my second.GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What reliable source? How does the having or not having of a governor-general relate to the subject of the caption or the text the image illustrates? How are other members of the royal family relevant? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The onus is on you to get the consensus for what you want in the caption. You have to convince us. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there's no consensus for anything except the caption that was there until mid January.
Noted you didn't answer any of my questions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I've stated which option should be adopted. Please respect that. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't disrespect it. I questioned your reasoning. That isn't disrespecting, either. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Option 3 - this is the current wording.

  • It identifies the person, it identifies the nation of which she is head of state. This is in line with all the other captions on the page.
  • We cannot assume that everybody coming to an encyclopaedia is as well-informed as the editors. That's why we provide information, rather than making them guess.
  • Queen Elizabeth is overwhelmingly identified in the real world with the United Kingdom in her role as monarch. We explain the significance of the Commonwealth Realms in the text and elsewhere.
  • It's just a caption - we don't need to give her full list of titles. Again, this may be found elsewhere by clicking on the links.
  • We don't need to talk about the parliamentary system in the caption; it's not as if the Queen as the subject of the image had anything to do with its development. --Pete (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It identifies a nation of which she is head of state. A caption listing all her titles isn't proposed. The image is in the "Parliamentary system" section and should thus bear some relation to the text therein, as all the other images do where they are placed. Agreed, though, we cannot assume everyone reading this page is as well-informed as some editors; hence, the caption shouldn't mislead anyone into believing Elizabeth II is monarch only of the UK, or that the UK is somehow primary over the other Commonwealth realms, or Elizabeth II is Queen of the UK in all the Commonwealth realms, or any other similar falsehood. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
the UK is somehow primary over the other Commonwealth realms, That's my point exactly. The Queen lives in the UK. She is directly involved in its government. She is not acting through a representative. It is her "home ground" in a way that no other place is. More importantly, it is seen as pre-eminent out in the real world. In fact, out of all the people I've ever met, in real life or on the net, you are the only person who pursues this passion for the monarchy in such a fashion. An article such as Monarchy of Australia or Monarchy of Belize is a joke. How you can possibly pretend that Belize or Bermuda equates to the United Kingdom in any meaningful way is beyond me, and no I'm not using hyperbole there. I honestly don't understand how you can possibly hold such a view. With every respect for your work here, your scholarship, your many admirable qualities, I just don't understand your dogma on this point. --Pete (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As you know already from the prior times we've been round this track, there are many reliable sources that affirm the realms are all equal to one another and the one person is monarch of all separately and equally. Obviously, then, this isn't a fantastical idea I dreamed up in my head. Other editors recognise the sources, too; you also know that. I (and they) don't rely on unsourced, personal opinions based on the false belief that "different to" automatically equates with "better than", "primary", or "above", or unsourced, personal opinions of what popular opinion is and the false idea that popular opinion trumps facts when writing an encyclopædia.
You were very insistent elsewhere that there be no way any reader could possibly think the Governor-General of Australia is a puppet of the Queen of Australia; it was all okay by you to use as many words as needed to make sure that couldn't ever happen. Yet, now you've no concern about misleading readers to think Elizabeth II is Queen of the UK only, Queen of the UK in all the realms, or the UK is one country apart from and above all the other realms (with a grin I can say many Australians and Canadians would take you to task for suggesting the UK is "seen as pre-eminent [sic] out in the real world"). Then again, you have demonstrated a poor grasp of the division of the Crown. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 08:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
In a theoretical sense, the crown is divisible, and the Queen is Queen of Belize as well as Queen of the UK. That's understood and accepted. In real terms, there is no equality. Those three factors of residency, involvement and directness, distinguish her role as Queen of the United Kingdom from any other of her Realms. She is not represented by a Governor-General, with all the constitutional interface. She can, if the circumstances admit, call on a political leader to form a new government in Westminster (say, if there is a vote of no confidence). She cannot do that in Australia. Even if she flies to Canberra and pounds on the door of Parliament House, she cannot appoint a Prime Minister or issue writs for an election or prorogue Parliament or command the Defence Force. She can do all that in the UK, but not in Australia. So there is another distinction.
I'm not misleading the readers into thinking she is Queen of one nation only. The wording does not say that. It does not rule out other titles. She is Duke of Normandy, Lord of Mann and so on and on. We don't need to mention every domain where she wears the top hat. This is a favorite tactic of yours, Mies, to claim that your preferred wording does not exclude others. If it is good for you, why is it not good for others?
This is only a caption. It is not the text, which indeed states that she is Queen over sixteen Commonwealth Realms. If I wanted to exclude all mention of this important fact in the body of the article, you would be right to complain. But I'm not. This is only a caption, Mies. We don't have to include every bit of the article text in a caption.
Out in the real world, when people talk about the Queen, they don't say "Queen Elizabeth Ii of sixteen different realms." They say "the British Queen". More likely, they say "Queen of England", even though that is not one of her titles. That just underscores the widely held view that she is inextricably linked to Buckingham Palace, London, England, the UK. As opposed to Queen of Bermuda or New Zealand or wherever. It's a matter of weight and NPOV. --Pete (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You've simply repeated yourself (with a few deflections and red herrings thrown in). Ergo, I refer you back to my previous reply. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I intended my response to be seen by more editors than yourself, Mies. I'd hoped you'd grasp this and realise your lack of apparel might be evident to more than just you and I. I was wrong on that last point. --Pete (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
You're certainly making your attitude known to all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not making any bones about it. The role of the Queen in the United Kingdom is more direct and substantially different to what it is in any other Realm. I think any reasonable person would acknowledge this. Do you? --Pete (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Please refer to my comment at 08:37, 30 January 2015. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! You said there, "…there are many reliable sources that affirm the realms are all equal to one another and the one person is monarch of all separately and equally. Obviously, then, this isn't a fantastical idea I dreamed up in my head." It would help if you presented one of these sources for examination. I think the fact that in the UK, the Queen is not represented by a Governor-General is a significant inequality in her divided roles as monarch. She has the full Royal Prerogative at her command there, whereas in other Realms this is not the case. --Pete (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
If an outside party asks for them, I will go to the effort of collecting them from the various locations around Wikipedia where they're used. You, however, have already seen them in arguments we've had over the same matter in the past. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Let that pass. You see the Queen as equal in all her Realms. But she is not, because in the UK she is not represented by a Governor-General. --Pete (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Already addressed in my comment at 08:37, 30 January 2015. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
So you agree that the fact that not having a Governor-General to represent the Queen in the United Kingdom makes the role of monarch in that Realm different to the role in other Realms. Thank you. It is indeed a difference, and a significant one. --Pete (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I urge you to read what I wrote at 08:37, 30 January 2015 in its entirety. Also note: the differences between her roles in the realms is not the subject of either the image, the text around it, or the article as a whole. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Mies. I did and my position is the one repeated above. I feel you are holding back on giving a straight response, but that's okay. If you feel uncomfortable addressing this point, then don't do it, pray. Matters of personal faith do not settle well with reasoned discourse. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Your passive-aggressive silliness and thinly veiled condescension aside, if you truly read all of what I wrote then you didn't miss a key point, you're evading it (along with others, such as the one I just raised above). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, you've got me now. I don't have a clue what you mean. My honest opinion is that the monarch of the UK is in a different position to the monarch of (say) Australia. A Governor-General may be dismissed on advice from the Prime Minister in a crisis. The Sovereign cannot be removed by a British Prime Minister. That is a huge difference. Persuaded, yes, as in the case of Edward VIII, but certainly not dismissed. --Pete (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, that is your opinion (with its false comparison and all). The fact is, her position is exactly the same in both: she is queen. How the powers of each crown she holds gets exercised is different, but, in that way, all the realms are different to one another; no two constitutions are identical. And "different to" does not automatically equate with "better than", "primary", or "above" (ah, there's that key point you blatantly ignored, and there's me repeating myself). Hence, the differences between the way the monarch operates in each realm never prevented nor undid the Balfour Declaration nor got in the way of politicians' and scholars' statements on the equality of the realms and the monarchical offices the sovereign holds. And nothing has ever said Elizabeth II is only monarch of the UK, as your preferred caption insinuates. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
We seem to be in agreement on all of that. I'm not implying that one Realm is superior to another. The current caption does not rule out that HM holds other titles. My points are:
  • Queen Elizabeth II is far better known as the British Queen (or Queen of England) than she is of any other Realm.
  • Her role as monarch is fundamentally different in the UK because she is not represented by a Governor(-)General.
I'm surprised that anyone could find those facts controversial. Why do you? --Pete (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You keep shifting the goalposts. At varying points, it's the UK is primary over the other Commonwealth realms ("That's my point exactly"), then it's Elizabeth is "better known" as the British queen, now with the new-ish addition of "her role is different". Well, I've dealt with all three of those "arguments", anyway. But, just for finality, one more time:
  • There's no reliable source that says the UK is primary over the other Commonwealth realms; that's a personal opinion (that, in fact, goes contrary to what the reliable sources say).
  • There's no reliable source supporting the statement "Elizabeth is better known as the British queen". Even if there were, it's irrelevant, since no one has proposed a caption (including yours there now) making that claim. And (ill-informed) popular opinion about what Elizabeth II is or the Commonwealth or any related subject doesn't justify Wikipedia pretending there's a tiered, two-class system within the grouping known as the Commonwealth realms: the UK and "the others" (or, in the case of your caption, "the not even theres"). Ignorant popular opinion being used to support a personal opinion doesn't fly as a justification for an edit to Wikipedia.
  • And her role is the same in all the realms: she is queen. The way in which she carries out her roles is different in all the realms; thus, the UK isn't even special in that regard. The differences between the UK and the other realms being deemed more "important" than the differences between any other realm and the remaining realms is purely a personal opinion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Gentlemen, seeing as the image/caption-in-question was deleted hours ago, perhaps this Rfc is no longer relevent? GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Option 5 3 (change, per DrKiernan 08:57 below) So far, I find I had found the reasons being presented here by Mies. above more persuasive than the others on the sole question of the caption. Option 6 is acceptable, but 4 is next best with "reigns" in it, and for me that makes 2 also acceptable. I do not propose to engage in contentions about equality, in theory or practice, save to remark that it is notable that in the real world she is queen of 16 sovereign states, each one of which is an independent member of the UN, and from her accession has been and continues to be an active influence in the advancement of colonies to sovereign status, and is recognised world-wide and among all nations as fostering Commonwealth relations as well with the former Dominions and the present republics. Qexigator (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not seeing any wider input on this yet. It might need to go to NPOV to get more eyes on it. Once this RfC is conclude, of course. --Pete (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Option 3 out of those presented. (1) It is the only one to avoid the word "countries", which should be replaced with "sovereign states" or "independent countries" to avoid confusion with constituent countries and self-governing countries, most of which have their own parliaments. (2) It's the shortest: per MOS:CAPTION captions should be succinct. DrKiernan (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But actually neither this image nor any of the images of other heads of state add anything informative to the article, which would be improved if removed. Qexigator (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree there's no reason to include the head and shoulder portrait shots. DrKiernan (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Any option can use "sovereign states". "Succinct" is relative. A caption shouldn't use confusing, misleading, and/or incorrect wording simply because doing so uses less words than needed for a clear, direct, and/or accurate caption.
Should deleting the image be option 7? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Option 2 for all the reasons cited for "3" by Pete, except that mention of the fact that she is HOS for 17 countries should be salient because it is significant in terms of the topic. FactStraight (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Option 3 It avoids the dispute about the number of countries and it would highlight the main prospect of the subject. Delibzr (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Option 3 is neutral because it is the role for which she is best known. TFD (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Image at the top

The image at the top says it contains "16 heads of state" - this is wrong. Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India is included. He is a Head of government not Head of state. AusLondonder (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you must choose another lead image, because of the erroneous caption. Then please, choose anything but Elizabeth II. The British monarch's inclusion, will only create a potential 3-way dispute over its caption write-up. Indeed, even without a caption, it may still be protested per Australian head of state dispute. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
We could say she is regarded by some as the head of sixteen states. Perhaps we could list them in order. --Pete (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
"United Kingdom and 15 other states" would be my choice. But do you see? barring a total surprise, Mies will prefer "16" without the regarded by some tag. Elizabeth II the topic, is a powered keg. Best we avoid it entirely. Put up an image of the pope. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 1 That's a touch weasel-wordy. Why not just amend the caption of the present image to "15 heads of state (and one head of government)..."? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The closing note of the RfC above should also be taken into consideration: "The image was removed from the article on 31 January 2015, so this is now resolved. Feel free to relist this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure if the image is restored." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I've clarified the caption. PS- There just had to be a prime minister in that darn image, eh? GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Elizabeth II is the head of state of sixteen countries, like it or not. I cannot see what was wrong with that. AusLondonder (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Check the history of this article's talkpage. I don't believe that myself, Mies or Skyring, are anxious to go through another looooooooong drawn out dispute, which would be split 3 ways. It's just isn't worth the hassle. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Under the Constitution, the reigning British monarch is also the Australian monarch, and therefore Australia's head of state AusLondonder (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, can it be confirmed that each of the individuals in the picture other than Modi is a head of state? AusLondonder (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Just trust me, about Elizabeth II's entry. If you're in favour of one individual, try an image of Pope Francis. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)I don't think so. Your user page has one sentence. "Canada May we one day become a republic" - don't try and pretend you are approaching this from a WP:NPOV AusLondonder (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
AusLondoner, I think you'll find that Wikipedia frowns on confected arguments, such as that above. There is no doubt that HM is Queen of Australia, but if the head of government says that the head of state is someone other than Her Majesty, then we can't really say that he's wrong and Wikipedia is right. Especially not in an image caption. Perhaps Jimbo could put out a definitive statement? --Pete (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, User:Skyring, as I am simply presenting the official position from the Australian government. AusLondonder (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
As you can see AusLondoner, her image hasn't been restored & already, a dispute is developing. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Where does the Australian government say that the Queen is head of state? What are the exact words? --Pete (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if we can use Jimbo Wales' image, as Wikipedia's head of state? Perhaps not ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Skyring - I linked it just above. They say "Under the Constitution, the reigning British monarch is also the Australian monarch, and therefore Australia's head of state" AusLondonder (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
In addition, the Constitutions of Papua New Guinea and New Zealand both define the Monarch as "head of state". The arrogance and absolute disregard shown for facts, however uncomfortable, by some editors is worrying. AusLondonder (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
And that's your confected argument right there. There are several views as to who is Australia's head of state, and government sources are by no means consistent. The Australian constitution does not define the position, and you are incorrect if you think that whoever is the British monarch is automatically the Australian monarch. Canada made a similar error recently and is busy untangling itself. --Pete (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to read the government source AusLondonder (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, per WP:WEIGHT we should have "United Kingdom and 15 other states". You see how messy this would be come, with Elizabeth II as the top image? GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
AusLondonder, no offence, but you can't take the position that your private opinion prevails over that of others, when there is no consensus. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Skyring - I'm not the Australian Government. I'm also not the Constitution of New Zealand or Papua New Guinea. How on earth could you define that as a "private opinion"? AusLondonder (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
As noted, government views are far from uniform, and New Zealand and Papua New Guinea have different constitutions - there is no question in either of those realms that HM is the head of state. In Australia, opinion is divided, has been for decades, and no definitive source exists. You're welcome to your opinion, but it doesn't alter contrary opinions. For example, when Governor-General Quentin Bryce travelled to Africa in 2009, the ABC, Julie Bishop, and Kevin Rudd all described her as Australia's head of state. This is not a novel or fringe view. --Pete (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
User:GoodDay - I have no idea how or why you believe WP:WEIGHT mandates we list the United Kingdom only rather than simply saying 16 countries AusLondonder (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather avoid a long-drawn out dispute. An avoidance by us all, that (IMHO) would be best for this article. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Noting the top of this section and later comments, the top image in the present version and its caption is the best so far for this article, and the other images are enough (perhaps more than enough) to illustrate the successive sections of the article. These include George V as Emperor of India, Queen Elizabeth's coronation portrait, as well as two governors - general, which is a good selection for UK, the former Empire, and the Commonwealth. This implies no disrespect or neglect of the numerous other countries not named in any of the captions of the images used to illustrate the text, which is not presenting a comprehensive list of heads of state of all countries. Qexigator (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The image featuring several heads of government has been restored, with an incorrect caption, by User:GoodDay. Could you clarify why? AusLondonder (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
If I may. What is the incorrection that you've noticed? GoodDay (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The image contains some heads of government and is therefore confusing and irrelevant to a page about heads of state. The caption is incorrect. AusLondonder (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Then I recommend an image of the current King of Thailand. Currently, the longest serving head of state. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
What is wrong with having the most common head of state in the world with the caption "Elizabeth II is unique in being head of state of 16 countries, known as Commonwealth realms". What can be in dispute about that? I know you don't like it, but it is true. AusLondonder (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You've already had it explained to you, what problems will occur if Elizabeth II (and the caption your prefer) is used. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't accept your "explanations" - they are wrong. It is disappointing that individuals with outside agendas can spend time denying inconvenient facts. The current image is misleading and the caption is, again, factually wrong. AusLondonder (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF, as I don't have an agenda. By all means, recommend a different top image, other then Elizabeth II :) GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I won't. You are the only one opposing the image rather than the caption. I ask you to please explain what you dispute about the caption. In what way is the caption incorrect? AusLondonder (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to restore Elizabeth II, then please leave the caption 'blank'. GoodDay (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 2 It's not wrong. It's problematic. That's because there are people in Australia and Canada who consider the governor-general of their respective countries to be head of state, not the Queen. Please see the 'Governors-general (Commonwealth realms)' section of this article.
I personally would leave your proposed caption in place. I know for a fact, though, someone else will not. Consensus formed earlier around having no image with a caption defining Elizabeth II as head of state of every realm; see the above RfC. I think we should stick to it in this case. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Miesianiacal, thanks for your reply. A group of people in Australia and Canada may regard that as so, but should we give WP:WEIGHT to statements that are factually wrong, and often motivated by opposition to the monarchy in principal? We are about facts, not opinions. By the way, The Australian Government, for example has stated the monarch is indeed the head of state. AusLondonder (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with any political motives. I still object to the caption. Anyways, it's less problematic then it was (and I'm not in the mood for an edit-war), but I'll allow others to comment on it. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 3 Well, it's a fact those people hold that opinion and I'm sure they think it's factually right (really, "head of state" is a fairly ambiguous term). But, my main point is: We should avoid disruption to the article. Any image of Elizabeth II with a caption that says or hints she is head of state of Australia will be reverted or changed by a particular editor, thus either starting another dispute or prolonging this one. Consensus does require taking everyone's concerns into consideration.
The article already has an image of Elizabeth II. A second one isn't worth the trouble. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
See, your last edit has created something another particular editor won't tolerate and will change to "Elizabeth II is unique in being monarch of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries, known as Commonwealth realms" (it's a fixation of his), which itself contains a pro-UK bias that's contrary to NPOV and will be reverted/changed again by me. It really is best just to leave the image out. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
As you can see, words like "NPoV", "fixation of his", "pro-UK bias", are just the tip of the iceburg of how nasty the discussion could become. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Insisting on saying UK and 15 other countries is wrong and in violation of WP:NPOV - regarding the Australian matter, here are sources defining the Queen as head of state:

How can all these sources be wrong? Who is right then? AusLondonder (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The article Australian head of state dispute exists. I ain't making it up. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Dispute about whether the Earth is flat exists. Dispute about whether the US Govt was responsible for the September 11 attacks exists. Does not mean we should say the Earth is allegedly round or dispute exists about who is responsible for the attacks AusLondonder (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll let others continue this discussion with you. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I see you have inserted the King of Thailand in place. I dispute he is the head of state. AusLondonder (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Flat Earth and September 11 conspiracy theories are fringe, and we accord them due weight. If there were only a few lonely voices proclaiming patent nonsense, then of course we would marginalise their views here. But that is not the case. You appear to be arguing your own personal belief and producing sources to support one side only. Two can play at that game, but Wikipedia works on a neutral point of view basis, where we don't pick sides, if there is a division of opinion. --Pete (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Skyring I didn't realise it was my personal view as I have no objection to a republic in Australia or the UK. Nor do I object strongly to the present situation. Could you please produce some sources indicating that the Queen is not head of state. AusLondonder (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
If you read those I have already provided as links, you will see that there is a division of opinion. For myself, I cannot say, given that no definitive source exists, as there is for NZ and PNG. You seem to have chosen one point of view and are arguing that your sources validate it. There are sources for multiple views. --Pete (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Given that there is no suitable group image available, the version here[6] is the most acceptable so far. Qexigator (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Queen, GG, and Australia

I find this sentence difficult to understand: "There has been some uncertainty expressed among Australians, on whether the monarch or the governor-general is the country's head of state, but current official sources invariably use the description of the Queen, not a governor-general." What description of the Queen is it the "official sources" (which are missing from the article) "invariably" (which seems difficult to prove) use? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In a Christian state, do religious matters count as "political"?

Serious question: I am referring to Christian states, not to a religiously neutral state like the USA. Despite having either no or almost no secular political power, the Monarchs of England/UK and Spain both have massive religious influence.

In the former case, Queen Elizabeth II appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury, who in turn has authority over all other Anglican Bishops. (He is more or less the Anglican Pope, and is appointed by the Monarch.) Unlike the ceremonial appointment of the Prime Minister, the appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury involves actual decision-making on the part of the Monarch.

In the latter case, King Philip VI nominates candidates to Pope Francis in the event that any Roman Catholic Bishop in Spain either dies or resigns. Ultimately, the Pope makes the final decision of whom the new Bishop will be, but he makes that decision from among the top 5 or so candidates that the Monarch of Spain recommends to him.

Based on these considerations, let's add the word "secular" to the relevant sentence in the Lead. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Head of state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Head of state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Case of Sweden

In the paragraph on Sweden it is not clarified whether or not the head of state at all is a part of the Swedish Government. It would be great if someone knowlegeable could find a reliable source on that question and factor it, well cited, into our text. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Collage

Replaced the previous single person image with a collage, using template:collage, which seems to just need a boundary and some whitespace. -Inowen (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Regarding my changes as of this revision. I have merely simplified the existing information, and introduced new details, such as the common titles of heads of state. I can't see that the changes are particularly objectionable, though I appreciate that certain wording can be changed. --Hazhk (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You removed this sourced wording:
In countries with parliamentary systems, the head of state is typically a ceremonial figurehead that does not actually guide day-to-day government activities or is not empowered to exercise any kind of secular political authority.[citation needed] In countries where the head of state is also the head of government, the head of state serves as both a public figurehead and the actual highest-ranking political leader who oversees the executive branch (e.g., the President of Brazil).[1]
…and inserted what looks like unsourced opinion. --Pete (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
No, I didn't remove any references, and I moved one footnote. The lead as it currently stands is not satisfactory. I propose the following wording:
A head of state (or chief of state) is the public persona that officially represents the national unity and legitimacy of a sovereign state.[1] Depending on the country's form of government and separation of powers, the head of state may be a ceremonial figurehead or concurrently as the highest-ranking political leader who oversees the executive branch.[1] In the parliamentary system the head of state is the de jure leader of the nation, because the leader de facto is the prime minister. In contrast, the semi-presidential system has both heads of state and government as the leaders de facto of the nation (in practice they divide the leadership of the nation among themselves). The head of state in a monarchy is usually a king or queen, while in a republic this role is typically filled by a president.
This conveys the same information. It just simply less verbose. Please propose any changes.--Hazhk (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy with the existing wording. I can't see how removing a paragraph full of pertinent information helps. Here's what you removed: In countries with parliamentary systems, the head of state is typically a ceremonial figurehead that does not actually guide day-to-day government activities or is not empowered to exercise any kind of secular political authority.[citation needed] In countries where the head of state is also the head of government, the head of state serves as both a public figurehead and the actual highest-ranking political leader who oversees the executive branch (e.g., the President of Brazil).[1]
…and replaced with a single unsourced sentence with loses a lot of pertinent information. The reader is essentially asked to guess what function a monarch or a president might perform, and the various positions filled by people holding these titles are wonderfully diverse. The presidents of India and Brazil, for example, have quite different roles. --Pete (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Since you haven't proposed anything, I take it that you are satisfied with the lead as it currently stands?--Hazhk (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
See above. Radical changes are unlikely to be supported by the small but keen band of watchers here, but as ever typo corrections and commonsense changes are always welcome. --Pete (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d Foakes, Joanne (2014). The Position of Heads of State and Senior Officials in International Law. Oxford International Law Library. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 110–11. ISBN 978-0-19-964028-7.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Head_of_state/Archive_6&oldid=1136789259"