Talk:List of current heads of state and government/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reliable sources, original research, neutral point of view

I have asked for a source for our listing of Queen Elizabeth II as Australia's head of state. See discussion above. --Pete (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You must also ask this for the other country entries. Australia isn't a unique case at this article. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking for a source for Australia. I don't have to ask for sources for other nations. --Pete (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes you do, as by asking only for Australia, you're prejudicing the Rfc into your PoV preference. Also, I'm dissapointed in your threat of taking this to ANI & your failure to respect my personal 2RR limit, plus your refusal to wait for further imput from Mies. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it to WP:ANI here, because it is clear that we are not getting anywhere in discussion here. You won't provide a source, you tell me I must do things I am sure are not required, and Mies is opaque in his discussion. I don't want this to get any more personal - you seemed to be showing some distress above - but this is an important matter and I think we need some immediate input from more senior editors to keep things on track. Edit-warring over this is just lame. --Pete (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

And you won't provide a source for the other country entries. Plus, you've already stated that you wouldn't accept any sources backing the Queen as Australia's HoS -via your argument that there's no such sources-. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've said several times now that we have good sources for the Queen. And we have good sources for the Governor-General. That takes it into WP:NPOV territory - we have to be balanced. What we don't have is a truly definitive source for either. If there was one, it would make the whole discussion moot. --Pete (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

But you've already stated that there is no definitive source. Thus ineffect, you've taken the stance, that you'll reject all sources that come your way. GoodDay (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No. That is not my position. The sort of definitive source I am talking about would be like that found in New Zealand's constitution: The Sovereign in right of New Zealand is the head of State of New Zealand, and shall be known by the royal style and titles proclaimed from time to time.[1] Australia has nothing like this. Nor does the UK, but in the case of the UK (or Sweden or Japan etc.) there is no alternative to the monarch. --Pete (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You'r doing it again, moving the goal posts, concerning the UK, Japan, Sweden etc. Also, you've set the condition for what sources you will/won't accept (in effect making youself 'judge/jury' of potential sources). You're not the arbitrator of 'sources'. GoodDay (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well no, but I do think that when a nation declares right there in its constitution who the head of state is, it pretty much trumps everything else. No newspaper columnist, no academic, no CIA webmaster can beat it for authority. My opinion, of course, but I reckon I'm on pretty solid ground here. --Pete (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So, you agree that (for example) Japan should be omitted from this article, aswell as any other country entry, whose constitution doesn't say it's got a Head of State or who that HoS is. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Japan is a nation. It has a head of state. There is no dispute over who occupies that position. In Australia, there are differing opinions. --Pete (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the Japanese Constituion, Japan doesn't have a Head of State. The emperor is the 'Symbol of State'. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added attribution tags to the rest of the commonwealth realm entries 'only', since Elizabeth II's status seems to be the main concern. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for the corrections, AniBot. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Your bringing this to ANI is unfortunate (as far as I'm concerned), as it's really a content dispute. But, it's too late now. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've given my reasons, and one of those reasons is that I'd like some more experienced eyes on this to help avoid personal issues surfacing. I value your contributions, but in this situation I disagree with some of your statements. --Pete (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

But you've placed your concerns in the wrong venue. ANI isn't interested in 'content disputes', but rather editor behaviour/conduct. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the copious discussion above, a lot of it concerned with wikiprocess and very little wikiprogress, I think we have reached that point. I feel more comfortable with other eyes on the situation, rather than we three wrangling away and getting nowhere. --Pete (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, a 2 to 1 majority isn't getting us anywhere. But, you should've chosen another venue for getting others involved. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

When it gets to the stage of edit warring over a citation request, I think that administrator oversight is required sooner rather than later. --Pete (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither of us breached 3RR, though. But anyways, it's irrelevant now. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Chapter II, section 61 of the Australian Constituion [2]. I qoute "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is excersiable by the Governor General as the Queen's Representative...". GoodDay (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. But if we want to say that makes the Queen the head of state, then we are going beyond what the document says, we are engaging in synthesised argument, and it's original research. We need a better source, one that is explicit. --Pete (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like, I can give ya a link to the Canadian Constituion, which doesn't mention Head of State either. Once we've gone through all these Constitiuions? we can then begin deleting each entry from this article. I'm confident you'd consider the latter a bit drastic. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not my position at all. Please don't misrepresent me. I think that we can source each entry, whether each nation's constitutional documents are explicit or not. The UK, for example, doesn't say that the Queen is head of state, but there is no alternative view, is there? Australia is not in such a happy situation. It may be that there are other nations where there is a dispute over the identity of the head of state, but I'll leave those to people who know the area. --Pete (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're trying to use this article as a branch of an article you've created Australian head of state dispute. Mies' compromise is supported by the Australian Constituion -i.e. representative of the monarch-. You asked for the source, I've provided it & 'again' you're rejecting it. According to your Head of State must be in writing argument, the Australian, Canadian & a few other country entries, should be deleted. Stop trying to make Australia out as a unique case, here. Save it for your 'dispute' page. GoodDay (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. This is not my position at all. I shouldn't have to repeat myself on the same points. Why not accept what I say, instead of cramming words into my mouth which I then spit out? --Pete (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're correct. I no longer understand what your problem with Mies' compromise is. We can both agree on that. GoodDay (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I must ask this: If you don't get what you're seeking at the ANI thread, how far will you go? Will we all end up at Arbcom? GoodDay (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty fundamental matter. See the title of this section. We present facts, not opinions.--Pete (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, Mies' compromise doesn't mention HEAD OF STATE. The compromise recommends the fonts be the SAME SIZE. The compromise (which is supported by the Aussie Constitution for example) calls for the usage of REPRESENTATIVE in the entries. Now, what's your problem with the compromise? GoodDay (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a list of heads of state. Remove all those officers who are not seen as heads of state. I'm all for it. That would eliminate Mies's smokescreen. --Pete (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not gonna happen. Recommend you take a break from the Aussie HoS topic. GoodDay (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If Mies chooses to delete all the {Attribution needed} tags? I won't dispute him. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

He may do what he likes. I want to nail down what we are using as a source for the Australian head of state. --Pete (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I get the distinct impression that you're 'bleeping' me around. Perhaps you should step away from the Australina HoS topic, seeing as its has been a part the 1-year block you got, years ago. GoodDay (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The answer seems pretty clear to George Williams (lawyer), Australia's leading constitutional scholar.[3] --Mkativerata (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

His opinion is a good one. You could add it to the Australian head of state dispute article where it may join the variety already there. Other constitutional scholars have differing opinions. I've tweeked the link above to avoid the disambig. --Pete (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep the answers is quite clear, thanks MK. PS: Due to your past troubles on this topic, I recommend you take a break Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Who among them are contemporary Constitutional scholars. The big names of the last 20 years are Williams, George Winterton (who agrees), Peter Hanks (who I understand also agrees but can't locate an online source from home). What contemporary Constitutional scholars hold a different view? Owen Hughes is not a Constitutional scholar.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly he is, going by the textbooks he's published. Following your example, I've added a source for the Governor-General, from Kevin Rudd. I think that the best we can say is that opinions differ. --Pete (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd is not a constitutional scholar either. Indeed, many of his programs as PM were possibly unconstitutional (Pape)! Owen Hughes is a political scientist and is in no way an expert on this subject matter. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Opinons differ. Between the experts and the non-experts. If the preponderance of experts agree on a proposed state of fact, wikipedia must accept it notwithstanding disagreement from persons of significantly lesser expertise. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess we could argue about which professors are the best in their field. It would be a long discussion. The only constitutional scholars able to make a decision on the matter are the seven justices of the High Court, and they have not spoken. Everything else is merely opinion. And opinion is divided. If we are to follow a NPOV, we must acknowledge diverse opinions. --Pete (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree - opinion is not divided for our purposes unless the division is between sources of comparable reliability. Until we get any recognised Constitutional experts that take a view different to Williams, Winterton and Hanks, there's no relevant division of opinion at all. I'm not saying those experts aren't out there -- I don't know -- but I haven't seen any so far. The High Court will never consider the question - it's not justiciable (ie a question that could ever be litigated). --Mkativerata (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that the opinion of government, of politicians, of the general community cannot be counted? Surely the question of whom a nation sees as its head of state is a matter for the nation. Professors may pontificate, but they are only one part of the nation. --Pete (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As below, an encyclopaedia, when reporting facts as opposed to opinions ought to take its queue from recognised experts, not the nation. Minority non-expert views can be recognised but the expert consensus (which so far appears unanimous) should be reported as fact. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Williams' opinion is not fact. It is opinion. But you ducked my question. Is the question of who is the head of state a matter solely for academics? --Pete (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

For our purposes, yes. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I must say it's a pleasure to have an editor discussing this who actually knows some of the constitutional experts. However, opinion amongst the top scholars isn't as one-sided as you suggest. Professor Greg Craven: ...the constitutional governor generalate (the monarchy died, unnoticed, years ago) balances power in a very special way, by separating legitimacy from power. The very existence of the Governor General as symbolic local head of state works to deny to the Prime Minister, as most powerful person in the land, the added characteristic of ultimate legitimacy, so inhibiting any identification of the Prime Minister with the nation state and its values.[4] --Pete (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mk, the GG 'in smaller font' was there, before this Rfc opened. GoodDay (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mk, I recommend 'before' you continue with Skyring/Pete. Check out his past behaviour on this topic, at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

My cynical answer to that is that on occasion I frequent Canberra's taxi services. But in all seriousness, I recall agreeing with Pete in other forums when he seemed to be pushing apparently unpopular viewpoints that I nonetheless thought were well-founded. The Arbcom thing seems a long time ago. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No probs. I wasn't sure if yas met before. GoodDay (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're becoming a problem here, Skyring/Pete. Pull back, please. GoodDay (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm glad that Mkativerata has joined the discussion. His views deserve examination on this important subject. --Pete (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

But not by you. You've got 3 editors opposing you PoV. GoodDay (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

My point of view is that opinion within the Australian community is divided. I have been saying this for years. It is not new. I think everyone accepts that this is a fact. --Pete (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I can accept that. But wikipedia does not reflect the views of the Australian community, it reflects knowledge as researched and communicated by accepted subject matter experts. And we haven't found a single genuine expert who takes the contrary view. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir David Smith takes a contrary view. There is nobody more expert on the Governor-General. --Pete (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

He is certainly an expert in the administration of the G-G's affairs. But he is no Constitutional expert. He is an Arts graduate and career public servant whose views are no doubt influenced by his strong monarchist affiliations and perhaps even a desire to boost the status of the position he once held.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read what he has to say on the historical and legal development of the office of Governor-General? He says very little about administration. Nobody else even comes close to his level of knowledge. As for being partisan, this is generally accepted. Of course academia is immune from partisan views. Personally I'm fascinated by the fact that the monarchist side is promoting the role of the Governor-General and the republican side is pushing the Queen. You'd think it would be the other way around.

Now, you speak with some authority. Could you please contribute to the Australian head of state dispute article? At the very least, Williams's opinion is worth adding. --Pete (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the extent to which someone speaks about a subject is an indication of their expertise. Nor do I think that administering Government House is a position that confers any substantial expertise about matters of Constitutional affairs. I would like to contribute to that article. Regrettrably though my access to offline sources is more limited than it used to be! --Mkativerata (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir David Smith doesn't write about administering Government House. Although he speaks for the monarchists, his scholarship on the history and role of the Governor-General is unparalleled. You really should read what he has to say, even if you don't agree with his monarchist opinions. His research is impeccable and his mind razor-sharp. I particularly like his attendance at a Senate committee, where he answers questions from the committee members rather than delivers a prepared speech. He speaks to many of the points you raise about authority. Well worth reading. --Pete (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, academics are not necessarily the only high quality sources here. We could think about ex-High Court judges too. Former Chief Justice and republican Anthony Mason has a clear view. Michael Kirby, monarchist, agrees. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Upon observation, the authoritative & reliable sources suggest the Queen is Australia's Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir Anthony Mason made a right fool of himself when he talked about the issue. I was in the audience and I felt embarrassed for the guy. Sir David Smith thoroughly debunked Mason's opinion about two thirds of the way through this paper. Of course, Mason's opinion carries weight, even when he is proven wrong. GoodDay, while I appreciate that you are trying to help, you aren't helping on this point. I'm familiar with most of the leading constitutional scholars, by attending their lectures, by interviewing them, by watching them from the Press Gallery at the Constitutional Convention. They are more than just internet names to me. Their views are diverse and their motivations varied. Mark McKenna has a passion for Aboriginal sovereignty which is just plain bizarre. Mason seems to imagine that s2 gives the monarch the power to remove the Governor-General's constitutional powers, quite apart from his invention of a "robust constitutional convention" which turned out to have no existence at all. --Pete (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the one that's not helping, by continuing with your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach. 3 editors here & more editors at the ANI, don't support your reasons for your preffered changes to this article. You continue to reject authoritive & reliable sources 'cuz they go against your opinons. Stop beating a dead horse, already. I don't want to see you getting another long-term block for basically the same tactics you're using here. GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry? What authoritative and reliable sources have I rejected? When MK provided George Williams as a source, I said it was a good one. It is an excellent source. May I suggest that we work through the established wikiprocedures? They have evolved over the ten years that Wikipedia has been operating, and they work well in keeping a bunch of nerds on track and producing an amazing information resource. I don't think I'm in any danger of a long term block, but feel free to take any concerns you have with my behaviour through the appropriate paths. --Pete (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: What's with the "I'm familiar with..., by attending their lectures...., by interviewing them" stuff? None of that makes you an expert here. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course not! Perish the thought. It just means that when you try to get me to change my mind, by telling me that people I know and respect are "authoritative & reliable sources", as if I didn't know that, it strikes me as rather gauche. Not to mention lauding people I know from personal observation are unreliable on certain points, to be polite. MK knows his stuff (better than you do, if I may speak my mind) and you should just sit back and let him make his points. He did exactly the right thing, by providing an excellent source for our inclusion in this list of the Queen as the Australian head of state. That is exactly what I wanted. You could have done the same, but instead you added a bunch of other tags, which wasn't at all helpful. It struck me as trying to game the system. --Pete (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I applaude Mk's actions too. In fact, I've already planned to let him & Mies continue to proove that Mies' compromise is correct for this article. A compromise that has a consensus for its adoption, along with reliable/authoritive sources to back it. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Smith attempts to refute Mason's opinion on grounds of constitutional interpretation. For our purposes, I think he's wading into a battle he can't win: a public servant taking on a Chief Justice of High Court on constitutional grounds? Wikipedia can't accept equivalence there. I appreciate that Smith may have strong views and there may be those that agree with him, but so far no-one credible enough for our purposes does. Again, that's not to say that there are zero authoritative sources that agree with his approach, just that we haven't found any yet. Although there is this interesting one I've just found: Cheryl Saunders, another blue-chip constitutional scholar, says: "There is no doubt that, constitutionally, the Queen is our head of state. If you look at what other countries in a comparable position call her, they call her the head of state. If you look at our Constitution, she plays a very prominent role. But there equally is no doubt that, to all intents and purposes, the Governor-General acts as our head of state." My interpretation of that for our purposes is that the Queen is the Head of State but the G-G acts as her agent. Which in my view supports the compromise: listing the Queen as Australia's head of state but also mentioning the Governor-General. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Smith wipes the floor with Mason. Demonstrated that he was talking through his hat. I must admit that I was somewhat puzzled to hear such an eminent judge talking in such a fashion, but there it was. Smith pointed out each error, gave his references, and noted occasions where the Queen, the Governor-General and Mason himself had attended significant events, in direct contradiction to Mason's claim of a "robust convention" that the Governor-General was precluded by the Constitution from attending functions in Australia when the Queen herself was present. Smith's book "Head of State" is pretty much required reading for anyone with an interest in the subject. One may not agree with him, but there is no denying the depth of research.

You say so far no-one credible enough for our purposes. What are our purposes, precisely? I'm not engaging in some Olympic quest to find the one true Australian head of state and we each trot out our champions and measure them up and whoever has the biggest dick wins. I'm looking at WP:NPOV here, as noted in the section title. As the policy page puts it - Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. It is sufficient that there be a division of opinion and that we accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. This is a core principle of Wikipedia. I say that although a Prime Minister is no constitutional scholar, when he says the Governor-General is the head of state, that indicates a view that has some prominence. A widespread view, as demonstrated and documented at the Australian head of state dispute article, where sources supporting both positions are drawn from all levels and divisions of society. The fact that mainstream newspapers describe the Governor-General as head of state in editorials, opinion pieces and general reporting is telling - we are not talking niche newsletters here. There is a difference of opinion and Wikipedia requires that we report this, rather than attempt to resolve it here - an impossible task, as Wikipedia does not have the authority to anoint a head of state. Yet. --Pete (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding to the Saunders comment now, she says There is no doubt that, constitutionally, the Queen is our head of state.... This is demonstrably incorrect, as there have been many public expressions of doubt, based on constitutional grounds. Perhaps she is talking of her own opinion, where she is personally free from doubt. As to describing the Governor-General as the Queen's agent or delegate, this is patently untrue. The Queen may not issue instructions to the Governor-General. She doesn't tell him how to exercise his powers. She cannot. --Pete (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

But those "public expressions of doubt" have not come from people of comparable credibility to Saunders. Saunders is highly reliable, along with Williams, Winterton, Hanks, Mason and Kirby. Smith and Owen Hughes significantly less so. And me, you and Kruddy minimally so. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is sufficient that there be doubt based on constitutional grounds to demonstrate that Saunders is incorrect, surely? It only takes one person to express doubt to prove her wrong in her claim that there is no doubt. I'm looking at this from a NPOV situation now, and regardless of whether you agree with people expressing an opinion, or believe them credible or authoritative, the fact that they exist, they are prominent, they express their views, that makes for a division of opinion. We describe the dispute, not decide it. --Pete (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Close this RfC & impliment Mies' compromise: We've got the reliable sources we need to impliment Mies' compromise, folks. Now, let's impliment them & move on, please. Right now, continuing this Rfc is just a waste of time & space. If the 1 holdover wants to continue blogging about 'disputes' in Australia? let him take the discussion to the Australian head of state dispute. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

After these few days, it's obvious that Skyring/Pete doesn't have a consensus for the changes he wants at this article. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think consensus is required for insisting on reliable sources, removing original research and ensuring a neutral point of view. These are fundamental principles of Wikipedia, and while there may be a local majority pursuing their own views - how many editors are involved in this discussion, again? - I have no doubt that following Wikipedia's core values will find support at a wider and higher level, regardless of whether one or two editors are strenuously pushing barrows. I trust that you agree with me here? --Pete (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mk has provided authoritative & reliable sources. Also, he's debunked your sources, too. Stop trying to push your PoV on this article. IF you don't soon cease & desist, you'll end up being reported to the administrators for your disruptive conduct. The topic is gradually morphing from being about 'Australia' to being about 'You'. PLEASE (for the last time), take my advice -- Accept that your sources are weak & that you've no consensus for the changes you prefer. Get off the 'dispute' topic, it's making you into an SPA. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Could I just get your feelings on Wikipedia's core principles here? You see reliable sources as important, I trust. Yet when I flagged the entry for Australia here, instead of adding a source that the Queen is the head of state - surely an easy task - you went and added more tags to other entries asking for sources. Entries where there was no dispute. That could be seen as being disruptive. When MK added a good source and I applauded him for it, you said that I had rejected authoritive & reliable sources! Be fair, please. I trust you agree that a Neutral Point of View is important to Wikipedia? For instance, when there is a longstanding and widespread public dispute over the identity of the Australian head of state, our job is not to choose one of the two possibilities, but instead to fairly and accurately reflect the situation. To describe disputes, but not engage in them., as the policy says. Could I have your opinions on these matters, please? --Pete (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you or do you not, support Mie's compromise on the font-size & showing 'representative', for the commonwelath realms. A compromise, which Mk's provided sources 'support. GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Mies's rather perplexing views. This is a list of heads of state and heads of government. I think he is trying to make it into something else. Now, your thoughts on Wikipedia's core principles? --Pete (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

He didn't ask for your opinion on my views. He asked whether or not you support my suggestion. Answer the question, please. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My response hasn't changed. This is a list of heads of state and heads of government. As per the article title. --Pete (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And how does my proposal not fit? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It includes the names of people who are not heads of state. --02:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Such as? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Governor General Michael Ogio for Papua New Guinea. He is not the Papua New Guinea head of state. --Pete (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My proposal doesn't suggest that he is the head of state of Papua New Guinea. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. So what's he doing in the head of state column? --Pete (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

He's the representative of the Queen of Papua New Guinea who carries out many of the Queen's head of state duties and is sometimes referred to as Papua New Guinea's head of state. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think we might find a way to show the information in a more coherent way? I think that if we show in the "Head of State" column for Blueland something like "King Blue II represented by Lord Ford", the average reader is going to see King Blue II as the head of state and Lord Ford as not the head of state. Especially if they look further for information and see in Blueland's constitution a line saying, "The King is the head of state of Blueland". If the situation is unclear, we should do our best to clarify it. --Pete (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Some might see it that way, others might not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As per the title of this section - and quit changing it, GoodDay, please? - we then follow our NPOV policy. Giving various opinions helps the reader understand a situation. We should aim for clarity, not confusion. --Pete (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I didn't known the Rfc stopped 'before' the Reliable sources section (which I also meant to make a sub-section). I didn't realize we were no longer discussing the 'font size' of the Queen & GG's entries [which started these last few days]. Again, my mistake folks. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My proposal conforms to WP:NPOV. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorta lost here. Why again is Skyring opposing your compromise? GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it does not make the situation clear. It implies that the Queen is the head of state and the Governor-General is not, when this is only one side of the long-running dispute. It is an WP:NPOV issue. --Pete (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I want the Queen's font big & the Governors General font small. However, I accepted the 'same font' part of the compromise 'per' collaboration. You should accept the "Representative of..", per collaboration. We're not getting anywhere's on this 'because' you will not budge on your stance. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't support the compromise? then we (so far 4) editors, will be stuck in this Rfc, day-after-day, week-after-week, month-after-month etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It implies that the Queen is the head of state and the Governor-General is not. No, it doesn't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an article listing heads of state. In the head of state column, you want something like this:

State	Head of state	Head of government
Australia	Queen Elizabeth II Represented by: Governor General Quentin Bryce	Prime Minister Julia Gillard
Papua New Guinea	Queen Elizabeth II Represented by Governor General Michael Ogio	Prime Minister Michael Somare

I think that the average reader seeking information would read this as saying that the Queen is the head of state for both Australia and Papua New Guinea, and the two Governors-General are not, being merely the representative of the Queen. I think that is the thrust of your proposal, which is why GoodDay, who believes that the Queen is the head of state - period - supports it. I don't understand how you can say it means anything else. --Pete (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Readers are free to assume whatever they want; not all will assume the same thing as you. All we can do is present verifiable facts in a neutral manner, which is what my proposal does: Elizabeth is the Queen, she's represented by a governor-general. It doesn't in any way say whether one or the other of those figures is the head of state for Commonwealth realms other than Britain. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 08:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your original complaint was 'font size'. The compromise addresses that concern. For some reason, you then changed your complaint. Days, weeks, months - this article will be on my watchlist, Skyring. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mies, I think you are being less than straightforward. GoodDay, at last I understand all your talk about "shifting goalposts". It's not about font size, it's about presenting a neutral point of view. Neither the existing presentation - with the Governor-General in a smaller font than the Queen - nor Mies' "Represented by" suggestion, gives due weight to the fact that opinion is divided. As shown by the article you helped build. I think NPOV is important, as does the Wikipedia community. How do you feel about it? --Pete (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I find Mies' compromise to be NPoV. The compromise certainly doesn't reflect my PoV (I'm a republican), as I'd rather have 'large font, small font'. Therefore, I put aside my position & in collaborative spirit accepted the compromise. When are you gonna do the same? GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Mies' position pushes the Queen view, and I don't think that a reasonable person viewing an entry in either of his preferred styles would come away with a feeling that there was a difference of community opinion over the matter. I think they would be directed down the Queen path. But you feel otherwise? --Pete (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you asked what I feel. IMHO, 15 of the 16 commonwealth realms should be deleted from this article (the UK being the acception). Personally, I don't accept the Queen as Canada's Head of State & would prefer a Canadian President. Can I get what I want? no I can't (too bad for me). GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's something we can agree on - I'd rather the Queen was removed from even her symbolic role in Australian affairs. I am confident that this will happen in due course when an appropriate model is put to the people at referendum, and I'll be out there campaigning for a YES vote. But that's out of the current course of discussion here, and I'm specifically asking you about presenting a neutral point of view in the entry on this list for Australia. --Pete (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Have Queen & Governor General in same size font & have Governor General described as Queen's representative. That looks like NPoV to me. I'm a republican, Mies is a monarchist - we've put aside our differances & collaborated. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain exactly how this gives appropriate weight to the views of those who see the Australian Governor-General as the head of state? It appears to do this by ignoring them entirely! --Pete (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The GG is mentioned in the article, with the Queen. Actually, if the GGs were eliminated, you'd have a reason to gripe. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. I think his opposition stems back to these OR opinions of his about the Governor-General of Australia. "The Queen's representative in Australia is the British High Commissioner" pretty much says it all. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Skyring's proposed change, has no consensus. Therefore, its implimination will be revertd -this article is staying on my watchlist-. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's up to you Skyring. Collaborate or stalemate, I'm confortable either way -as I've got all the time in the world- for a potential endurance test. GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that, at this point, if new input isn't forthcoming in the RfC and Pete/Skyring won't agree to the alternative offered here, won't present any alternative of his own, and will in future revert again to his favoured version, then we'll have no choice but to move up in the dispute resolution process and seek mediation. I'm frankly sick of trying to convince someone their interpretation of my proposal is off base and, in the process, being accused by them of acting in bad faith. As I said at AN/I, the only consensus Pete/Skyring will settle for is the one that backs the edit he wants. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We can agree on this. If we can't thrash this simple point out after lengthy discussion, then we need new eyes. --Pete (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Related stuff

I give up on you Skyring/Pete. I wish you good luck, when you next face disciplinary actions. PS: I still support your compromise, Mies. GoodDay (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Notice: At the related ANI report - I've added a Skyring sub-section, per our concerns of his conduct. PS: He's free to open a sub-section there, of me. GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeking input

For some time, the issue of Australia in this article has been the subject of some mild dispute over the form of presentation. There is a difference of opinion within the Australian community as to whether the Queen or the Governor-General is the head of state, with constitutional scholars, government officers and ministers, political groups and mass media divided in opinion. When the Australian Prime Minister [issues a press release] stating that Quentin Bryce (the Australian Governor-General) is the Australian head of state, clearly this is not a fringe view.

There has been some low-level edit-warring going on over this point, with discussion stretching over several months and different articles. My position is that it is not up to Wikipedia to define a nation's head of state. We do not yet hold that power. All we can do is use the best sources we can. We should therefore present our entry here in a neutral fashion, recognising that opinion is divided and not giving either opinion undue prominence. Others differ, and as there is no definitive, legal source for who precisely is the Australian head of state, proponents must fall back on websites, dictionaries and their own interpretations. In short, the situation here reflects that in Australia, where opinions differ.

The current method of presentation - Queen in a larger font style than Governor-General - gives undue weight to the "Queen is the Australia head of state" view. This should be presented in an NPOV fashion.

I would like to build a consensus here on a course to follow. Before raising an RfC I would like to call for discussion regarding the wording, and whether there may be other options possible within the limited scope of this article, which is a listing of heads of state. --Pete (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Pete, I have welcomed seeing your familiar name re-emerge on my edits watch-list after an absence of some time, but this post relates to a topic previously the subject of *vigrorous* debate and controversy on Wikipedia, as you know. If you really want to resurrect that topic, I suggest you do so on a page relating to the Governance of Australia, rather than this world-wide list. Presentational rules, if then decided, could be applied here as elsewhere. But I would prefer that you just let sleeping dogs lie, and we continue with other improvements to the encyclopedia --Rye1967 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Australian head of state dispute article is a subarticle of Government of Australia and provides an excellent basis for discussion here on the matter of presentation. I'd like to keep discussion on the actual head of state issue to that article rather than here. If you can assist in keeping discussion on-topic, I would be extremely grateful. --Pete (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed Rye1967. This 'Australia HoS dispute' topic, is making Skyring/Pete come across as a SPA. --GoodDay (talk)

The article Australian head of state dispute has nothing to do with your opposition to my proposal; when I was thinking it up, I had the Australian dispute well in mind and thus did my best to avoid calling one figure or the other the head of state while also not giving support to the view that the non-British realms have two co-heads of state. No, what guides your objections are your unique and personal views on the nature and position of the Governor-General of Australia; "The Governor-General is the representative of the Queen... but is this really his or her most important function? SFAIK, this is limited to handing out the odd Imperial medal and a few other ceremonial things. Nothing important. For any practical purpose, the Queen's representative in Australia is the British High Commissioner... The Constitution is a document of the Australian Colonies and rarely updated. It is out of step with reality... We should not be fostering the notion that we are somehow ruled out of Buckingham Palace via a local flunky... The article shouldn't have The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia is the representative in Australia at federal/national level of the Australian monarch as the opening sentence. That gives the impression that that is the most important function of the job, and it isn't. Using the Constitution as a source is problematic... The Governor-General is an integral and important part of the national institution - to a larger extent than he is a representative of a monarch distant in time and space... Etc., etc." It sheds a lot of light on why you're against both the current look of the list and my alternative. It's all original research, though, and, as such, has no place in this debate, even in the background. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, but it's beside the point anyway. Let's stick to established wikiprocedure, and the concern I've raised here is NPOV bias in the presentation. I'd like to deal with that. --Pete (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We are dealing with that: Your POV of the Governor-General of Australia is fuelling this conflict. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Believe what you want. Times change. The British Empire is not what it was in 1900 when the Australian Constitution became law. The Queen is not the superstar she was in the middle of the last century. Crowds no longer line the streets waving flags when she visits. With every passing year the monarchy becomes more remote and less relevant. Wikipedia reflect reality, and the reality is that Australians increasingly see the Governor-General as the head of state. I'm not the Prime Minister, I'm not a newspaper editor, I'm not a university professor. But I list their public statements on the matter. We have to describe the world as it is, not as how you or I wish it were. That's fundamental to Wikipedia's credibility, existence and success.--Pete (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for further illuminating the POV behind your attitudes and actions here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mies' Compromise

A compromise has been presented by Mies, which handles the 'font size' concern, with an amendment of Represented by the Queen (which has been thourghly backed by authoritative & reliable sources). GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

He has attracted one supporter - you - and I have pointed out the problems with it at some length. You and Mies have both sought input from other quarters and so far been unsuccessful. I'd like to see if we can find some way of presenting information that deals with the NPOV problem highlighted, and I trust that this can be done in good faith without making personal attacks on other editors. --Pete (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Mk's sources back that compromise. PS: I wasn't asking for your response, but merely mentioning the compromise for future participants here. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this comment from Pete/Skyring in the discussion above: This is a list of heads of state. Remove all those officers who are not seen as heads of state. I'm all for it. That would eliminate Mies's smokescreen.

Putting aside the passive aggressive accusation of bad faith directed at me, his proposal raises some questions: given that he's constantly pointed to the existence of a debate in Australia over who is head of state, which individual, then - the Queen or the governor-general - should be deleted from Australia's entry in this list? Or, does he mean that the entries for countries whose head of state is clearly defined (including Commonwealth realms; i.e. New Zealand, Papua New Guinea) should show only one figure and those countries whose head of state isn't clearly defined (including Commonwealth realms; i.e. Canada, Australia) should show more than one figure?

If it is the former, I'd be interested to hear his answer. If it is the latter, then we're still stuck with essentially the same question as that which started this whole dispute: how does one render entries for the countries that have a monarch and an appointed representative thereof but no agreement on which should be called head of state? The Pete/Skyring method is unacceptable; this

State	Head of state	Head of government
Australia	Queen Elizabeth II Governor General Quentin Bryce	Prime Minister Julia Gillard
Canada	Queen Elizabeth II Governor General David Johnston	Prime Minister Stephen Harper
New Zealand	Queen Elizabeth II	Prime Minister John Key
Papua New Guinea	Queen Elizabeth II	Prime Minister Michael Somare

makes it appear as though countries wherein the head of state is not clearly defined have, like Andorra, two co-heads of state who are equal in status, which either promotes a view held only by some people, or just a complete fabrication. Further, it seems to say that Commonwealth realms where the head of state is clearly designated don't have a governor-general and those where the head of state isn't clearly designated do.

To avoid that (which we must), it's best to just represent the constitutional realities of each country with some level of consistency but also a nod to the difference between countries where who is head of state is defined and countries where the title isn't given to anyone in particular. This leads back to the alternative I put forward at 13:35, 10 February 2011 and Pete/Skyring said was "couched in POV"; something like this:

State	Head of state	Head of government
Australia	Queen Elizabeth II Represented by: Governor General Quentin Bryce	Prime Minister Julia Gillard
Canada	Queen Elizabeth II Represented by: Governor General David Johnston	Prime Minister Stephen Harper
New Zealand	Queen Elizabeth II Represented by: Governor General Sir Anand Satyanand	Prime Minister John Key
Papua New Guinea	Queen Elizabeth II Represented by: Governor General Michael Ogio	Prime Minister Michael Somare

Or:

State	Head of state	Head of government
Australia	Sovereign: Queen Elizabeth II Vicereine: Governor General Quentin Bryce	Prime Minister Julia Gillard
Canada	Sovereign: Queen Elizabeth II Viceroy: Governor General David Johnston	Prime Minister Stephen Harper
New Zealand	Sovereign: Queen Elizabeth II Viceroy: Governor General Sir Anand Satyanand	Prime Minister John Key
Papua New Guinea	Sovereign: Queen Elizabeth II Viceroy: Governor General Michael Ogio	Prime Minister Michael Somare

A note could be created for each of the two different scenarios: one that explains how the term "head of state" is applied to one individual by law and another that explains how the term isn't applied to one individual by law and there isn't universal agreement on who should hold it.

But, what does one do for countries like Andorra and Liechtenstein? Or Jamaica, Belize, St. Kitts and Nevis, and etc.? Do we know whether the monarchs of those states are undoubtedly called the head of state? Or is it the representatives of the monarchs? Or both? As I said before, if we take this route, we're going to have to know exactly what's said and not said in both the law and in non-legal discourse in each of those nations. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have little interest - or knowledge - of Liechtenstein, Belize etc. In answer to your pondering above, I say that if this is a list of heads of state, then delete those who are not seen as heads of state, which would mean that both Queen and Governor-General would remain in the column titled head of state for Australia's entry. All we need are sources to show the support. As for format, the easy answer is to use the wording in the infobox of each nation. The regular editors in each case have long since agreed on terms. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable, as Australia isn't an unique case. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Each nation is unique in some way. Hence the term "nation" rather than "planet". In the context here, Australia has a dispute over the identity of the head of state, to which you are a leading contributor. Similar Commonwealth realms do not. I once asked a New Zealand Prime Minister about the situation there, and he replied that it wasn't even on the radar. I suggest that in situations where two or more names are listed, we provide a note explaining the situation. A brief one, pointing to a relevant article. --Pete (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The 16 Commonwealth realms entries must be the same. Meanwhile, let's (you & I) cease discussing this & let others have a chance. You & I are only going in circles. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The entry for one realm differs significantly in a very pertinent fashion from the remaining 15, so they are not uniform to begin with. But okay. Let's pause and await input from others. --Pete (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected, the United Kingdom doesn't have a Governor General. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have little interest - or knowledge - of Liechtenstein, Belize etc. Of course you don't. That's been the problem from the outset. You don't care about any of the negative consequences of your proposals that I highlighted above; it's as though you never even saw them. All this discussion and these attempts to find alternatives acceptable to all of us have been a total waste of time. Given that, it's no longer worth my while to continue with this discussion until others engage, and my suspicion is that we won't be seeing that any time soon, unless you seek mediation. In the meantime, there's no consensus for your edit and the article remains as is until one is established. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can't see how you came to the above conclusions (which you have confusingly removed), but they are easily corrected.

• a. I certainly don't want to give the impression that Australia has co-heads of state. This would be inaccurate and unclear, and I have been promoting accuracy and clarity throughout this discussion.
• b. The UK, as GoodDay has pointed out, is a case where the Queen is head of state and no Governor-General is provided. If there is a Governor-General and he or she is clearly not head of state, why list them here? This is a list of heads of state.
• c. Several nations have head of state arrangements that differ from the norm. We show them here. We can't bang down every nail that sticks up into a uniform flatness. We can, however, do our best to describe each situation accurately.
• d. If there is any confusion, we can clear it up. Provide notes. Link to more complete information sources. This is a task at which Wikipedia excels.

All of the above merely restates what I have said several times over. When we find ourselves going over and over the same weary ground, it is time to move on. You've called for mediation earlier and both GoodDay and I have agreed. Let's do it. --Pete (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the "represented by Governor Genera......" in small text underneath Queen Elizabeth II as she is head of state of the commonwealth realms. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-22/List of current heads of state and government

Skyring/Pete has started a Med-Cabal. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Was diverted by news of Christchurch quake, where I have some close friends. --Pete (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Should the head of territories and head of the government of territories be included? This is currently done with a separate sections in the List of legislatures by country 203.198.25.138 (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Not certain whatcha mean by territories. Are these places sovereign states? GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems pretty clear that the intent of this list is to show heads of state and government of sovereign states (and those that claim to be sovereign). Territories aren't sovereign. And, even though there might be a way to work them into the page, regardless, it would likely open up the door to all sorts of other entities: constituent countries (England, Scotland, etc.), states (Alabama, Saxony, New South Wales, etc.), provinces (Manitoba, Lorraine, Chaing Mai, etc.) and other kinds of regions (Basque, Jersey, Bern). Possibly, an additional column or notes could tip readers off to any subnational regions related to particular sovereign states; lists of the subnational leaders could be created, if such haven't been already, and linked. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you bother to take a look at List of legislatures by country, the criteria is rather clear. Only dependent territories that would appear on conventional lists by country within and outside Wikipedia shall be covered. This would include, e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam, Bermuda, Greenland, Hong Kong, Aruba, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Jersey, and so on. Bern, Manitoba, Chiang Mai aren't relevant at all. 218.250.143.111 (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a list that faces the same potential problems I outlined above is going to sway my opinion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to discriminate countries that aren't sovereign in their own right? Many of these territories have their own currencies, immigration control, laws, etc. The distinction is rather clear cut. Manitoba and New South Wales wouldn't qualify in any sense. 218.250.143.111 (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We discriminate because we must have established parameters and, if we start to shift those that bound the contents of this page, the question will always remain: where do we stop? You see, you've already begun the debate about inclusion that would likely never end: You say territories that don't have their own laws, currency, or immigration control shouldn't be included; Quebec controls its immigration, all Canadian provinces have their own laws, Puerto Rico doesn't have its own currency. Make a list of heads of territories, if you wish. There are also other alternatives I already suggested. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's probably going to be helpful if you can take a look at List of countries by population. That is a very good example to reflect which dependent territories shall appear on conventional lists by country within and beyond Wikipedia. 218.250.143.79 (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My reaction to that is the same as the one I had to List of legislatures by country. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• • As far as I observe lists on Wikipedia are usually organised by country. Is there any case that there are separate lists on the same topic, one for independent sovereign states, and one for dependent territories? (And possibly a third one for under-recognised sovereign states?) Peter Geatings (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Non-sovereign states should be excluded. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support As per List of legislatures by country. If we list the legislature of states such as Guernsey, why not the heads of state and government? Mies, you've got a thing for the Duke of Normandy - this should press all your buttons. As for federal states or territories like Alabama or Exeter or the Northern Territory, definitely not! --Pete (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Miesianiacal. If someone cares enough to make a new page, I'd be completely okay with that. But this page's intention is clear and shouldn't be muddled with x additions. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Please refer to my comments above. 218.250.143.111 (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm aware. And un-swayed. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. per Miesianiacal. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support. It's indeed a convention that all dependent territories appear side by side with independent sovereign states on lists of/by country. There's no valid reason to restrict this particular list to independent sovereign states. Peter Geatings (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: A dependent territory doesn't have a separate "head of state", since that is an office attributed to the sovereign state. As Mies says, it would bring more complications than improvements. Nightw 07:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What about places like Guernsey, where the head of state is the Duke of Normandy? And for such places, they certainly have a head of government that differs from that of the imperial assembly. This is a list of heads of government as much as heads of state. --Pete (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And even for dependent territories such as Gibraltar the governors is serving as the de facto heads of the territories, whereas in Guam and the Virgin Islands the governors are the de jure heads of the territories. In the Turks and Caicos Islands the governor is at this moment the head of government too. Peter Geatings (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Partial support: Territories (and by that I mean external territories and dependencies of sovereign states, not parts of sovereign states) should be included, but only where the heads of state and/or government are different from their "parent" country. Uninhabited territories wouldn't be included. Most others probably would be included as they often have their own legislature; whilst their head of state would normally be the same, the head of government would not. Bazonka (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Some of these inhabited non-state countries are having their own head of territory. Peter Geatings (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose We shouldn't mix the list of heads and state and government with places that are not states, and thus it is debatable as to whether they have a head of state. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Sovereign states is only a subset of countries. Sovereign states and countries are not an identical set. Many inhabited countries that aren't sovereign states are also having their own heads of government, and many are having their own heads of territory. Peter Geatings (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - Territories do not belong in this list. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Where should they belong then? Peter Geatings (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Niue and Cook Islands

Why aren't they included? The UN considers them to be sovereign states with no UN membership. And the process they are now undergoing is just like Canada, New Zealand and Australia between 1931 and the 1980s, when the parliament of the UK was theoretically having the final say. 218.250.143.111 (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think they should be included. Bazonka (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The UN has said no such thing, they have no official position on this ambiguous case. At any rate, the head of state of both is the Queen in Right of New Zealand, so they'd create a duplication on the list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to include Nuie and the Cook Islands then why not also have in there Norfolk Island or Gibraltar? You see if you create the precidence that every territory be included so you could have all of HM's 16 Commonwealth Realms with the 16 UK territories, the 3 NZ Territories, the 3 Australian territories etc. included, the list would go on and on. I know, I've done it before. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Niue and the Cook Islands are different from Norfolk Island, Gibraltar and all other dependencies/territories. They are, for many purposes, independent of New Zealand, e.g. they have their own foreign policy, etc. There are still ties to NZ, but they are often referred to as "independent and sovereign". It's a bit of a grey area, but they are certainly not the same as normal dependencies. So there is certainly a stronger case for including them in this article than the likes of Gibraltar. Bazonka (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Then what should be done is change the New Zealand entry to Realm of New Zealand. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The Cook Islands and Niue have separate governor-generals that report to the governor-general of New Zealand. Should they be noted or will the primary governor-general be enough? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

They did so in one of the maps on their website. Peter Geatings (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Before 1947 there wasn't any Queen of New Zealand. New Zealand joined the UN.., and possibly took part in the League of Nations too, with the monarch of the UK as its head of state. Was New Zealand a sovereign state before 1947? And even after 1947 the parliament of the UK retained the right to unilaterally amend the constitution of NZ.., until the Constitution Act was passed in 1986. Was NZ a sovereign state before 1986? Peter Geatings (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that just about every single UN map out there comes with a giant disclaimer saying "The depiction and use of boundaries, geographic names and related data shown on maps and included in lists, tables, documents, and databases on this web site are not warranted to be error free nor do they necessarily imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations."

I have no clue when New Zealand became a sovereign state, that's one for the historians. Anyway, it is definitely one now, especially since they dropped the Privy Council in 2004. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

New Zealand has been on this list before 2004. And there are a few countries on this list that are still having the Privy Council as their supreme court, like New Zealand did before 2004. Peter Geatings (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And what's your point? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam: Communist party heads, again

I brought this up a while ago, and only got one negative response, but I thought I'd bring it up again: it's absurd not to list the Communist Party General Secretary in Vietnam in this article. He is the most important political figure in this country, and not listing him is very misleading. If Wikipedia had been around in 1986, should this article's listing for the Soviet Union have included only Andrei Gromyko and Nikolai Ryzhkov and ignored Mikhail Gorbachev, the actual leader of the country? Because that's exactly what we're doing now with Vietnam. john k (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you give an example of how his office could be incorporated into the list? Nightw 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How about the way Muammar Gaddafi and Kim Jong-Il are incorporated? john k (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply, sounds fine to me. Nightw 02:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam should be included in this list. The article on this site about the Communist Party and the Country Profile on BBC of Vietnam both say that the position is the most powerful position in the Vietnamese government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.175.77 (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

My change was reverted, with the edit summary "short form name". This is not a case of short form vs. official (i.e. "United Kingdom vs. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"). In this case, "Nagorno-Karabakh" and "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" are distinctly different, as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic consists of slightly more than the Nagorno-Karabakh area. The previous listing of Nagorno-Karabakh was less than ideal. I don't understand the reasoning for using the short form name with a piped link to the official name. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Nagorno-Karabakh" Republic is also called simply "Nagorno-Karabakh". It's not unique to have a name refer to multiple things. The addition of Republic is just a disambiguator for wikipedia, similar to the current Republic of Ireland and Republic of Macedonia articles. In a list which specifically refers to states, the short form is used unless it shares the name with another state (the Koreas and Congos). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with that line of reasoning, but I've self-reverted for the moment. I'd like to hear from others, if they have time to comment. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as "this article uses short form names", it's definately inconsistent. It uses "Federated States of Micronesia", rather than "Micronesia", and "Republic of China", rather than simply "Taiwan". I don't believe piped links should be used when the link we're piping is distinctly different from from the name we're using. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Federated States of Micronesia has no official short form name, and consensus is against using Micronesia as an unofficial short form (despite my attempts to change that). As for Taiwan, I would be happy to change that, but the bracketed form is the result of the current mess of China articles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I await others' input, as I'm curious as to what consensus has to say about this. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chipmunkdavis. To be repetitive, I've also been in favour of using "Micronesia" in lieu of spelling out the FSM and how republic is used for disambigution purposes, as seen with Ireland and Macedonia, and that Nagorno-Karabakh should follow this principle. The Republic of China/Taiwan, however, is a special case in light of the significant cultural, political, et al debate in regard to the two states of China. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I also agree. You could use the same argument for many items on this list (Somalia, Syria, Sudan, Macedonia, Ireland...) where the state and region of the same name are not coterminous. But since this is a list of states, there's no confusion. Nightw 02:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As it seems consensus is clearly against me, I'll just walk away shaking my head in disbelief. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

While the general theme of that post remains true, I didn't mean to sound so curt, and I wish to thank those who took the time to respond to my request for input. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Aw, no problem! Nightw 13:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also for the short versions (Ireland, Macedonia, Nagorno-Karabakh and even Taiwan and Micronesia) and subscribe to the reasoning that since it's a list of states the assumption should be that people will understand the names as references to states. ZBukov (talk) 08:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Female power"

is there somewhere in wikipedia with a list of the current females head of state? can we do it?--Feroang (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You want this and this. Nightw 02:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Female leaders

Hi fellow editors,

What do you think of listing the female leaders in bold font? It makes them stand out a bit more. I've applied this to the List of current foreign ministers article.

ZBukov (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is that necessary? We have separate articles (named above) that list every female head of state/government ever. It elevates the women in a page that's supposed to give everyone an equal standing. I'm also firmly opposed to this being applied anywhere else. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could put the girls in pink font, the boys in blue? --Pete (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, why is that necessary? We have two nice list articles that have all appointed/elected women leaders. There's no reason that this page should replicate that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A trivial matter of consistency

I've begun a discussion at the country infobox template talk page on the matter of consistency between list and country entries. --Pete (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is inconsistent about the country infoboxes and this? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion, where examples are given. It would be best to keep discussion in one place, rather than multiple lists and a great number of countries. --Pete (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Kim Il-Sung

An anon removed Kim Il-Sung from "North Korea", with a summary stating that it makes no sense to include dead people on this list. I have to disagree there. What makes no sense is the fact the North Koreans have a dead man as head of state. But it does seem to make sense to include it here, because as an encyclopedia we are supposed to simply report the facts. I figured I'd seek feedback here rather than return it myself. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

While I very much agree with the editing principe you mention (simply reporting facts), nevertheless a dead person cannot lead a state or government, therefore including Kim Il Sung would run contrary to the selection criteria of the list itself. So while it's a fact that the state recognizes Kim Il Sung as eternal president, this recognition does not match the facts of life (that Kim is leading nothing). And official recognition (or the lack thereof) cannot overwrite the facts of real life. ZBukov (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I would actually agree with keeping Kim Il-Sung on the list. Although he's dead and he clearly can't do anything, frankly, the amount of power he has is comparable to that of a lot of figureheads who we readily include on this list, so if he is their official head of state, then we should keep him on here. Yes, North Korea is kind of a screwed up place, but we're simply here to report, not to judge them. So if they say that their head of state is Kim Il-Sung, then it is our duty to keep him on.Alex 18:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbbard (talk • contribs)

President-elects & Prime Minister-designates, etc.

We shouldn't be adding President-elects & Prime Minister-designates. This article list is for the current heads, not their designated successors. Besides, the additions are clogging the list's appearance. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that it is pertinent and the current style in which we have it is very clear in showing that they are not yet the leader. I don't think it leads to any confusion, and I don't think that it clutters the appearance, but I do think that it provides important information. It also has the country's flag, for example, even though it is a list of current leaders. So I would say that leader-elects are even more pertinent than that. Alex 00:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbbard (talk • contribs)

Those are future leaders, though. Not current leaders. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I still feel as though it is significant enough to merit a mention. The format makes it very clear that they are differentiated, and furthermore when I see that on the list, it shows me that a change is soon to occur, which, to me, says a lot. Alex (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Alex that while presidents-elect aren't 'current' leaders strictly speaking, they are very relevant because after having been elected they are bound to become the next president very soon (discounting death, resignation or coup d'état). So despite not exercising the presidential functions yet, their election has serious legal and constitutional significance. ZBukov (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Why is the High Representative listed? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

France

In France both the president and the prime minister are heads of government. I made that change. 187.191.13.76 (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Prime minister of Peru

The primer minister of Peru is not the head of government, it is only a post appointed by the president with certain functions. I will remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.191.13.76 (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 187.191.13.76 (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

States recognised by at least one United Nations member

I would suggest keeping this table focused on its original purpose: listing the heads of independent territorial units, which (the units) for some reason have not been granted internationally accepted state status. IMHO, the list should not refer to the alternative leadership of the fully-recognized states already listed in the previous table, as the table is dedicated to the "states recognized by..." and not the "leaders recognized by...". Of course, if such alternative leadership is successful in its pursuit to obtain effective control of the state or any of its parts and manages to separate and to put under its control a specified geographical territory inside the general territorial unit (such as Taiwan), then such leaders should be mentioned, but again, not as the alternative leadership, but as the heads of the semi-sovereign territorial unit.

Following this principle, Syrian Republic leadership may be recognized by several states, but it has not obtained any permanent territorial control over a specified territorial unit. These leaders do not claim to be a different "state" by themselves, nor the claim that Syrian Republic is an entity separate from Syria, rather they see themselves as the legitimate leaders of the same UN-recognized state. Any material remarks on the legitimacy of the current Syrian leadership should be placed in the articles dealing with these leaders and the general topics of the Syrian regime. If the threat to the existing regime would become imminent, a hidden entry or even a reference should be added. Otherwise, adding every alternative leader of every civil war-ridden state, who has ever received recognition from any other state, would turn this table into a mess. If such alternative leadership overview belongs in this article, a separate table might be added to reflect such information. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

1.) The Libyan precedent. The entry for "Libyan Republic" in the "States recognised by at least one United Nations member" section lasted from the end of March 2011 'till the fall of Tripoli in late August. 2.) The Free Syrian Army, which recognises the authority of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces over the FSA, controls the vast majority (~80%) of Deir ez-Zor Governorate and the majority of Aleppo Governorate – therefore the Syrian National Coalition indirectly controls Syrian territory. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Attention: Not only here but in many articles of WP (for example Istanbul Government-Ankara Government vs Ottoman Turkey-Republic of Turkey) users get confused between some concepts of International Law, such as "Recognition of States, recognition of Governments, recognition of the status of rebel or warrior, recognition of a capital (Israel's case)" etc. Not the same thing... --E4024 (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Jalal Talabani incapacitated?

Because Jalal Talabani is lying comatose in a Baghdad hospital, does this mean the position of President of Iraq is vacant? Or does the other current member of the Presidency Council, Khodair al-Khozaei, assume the office?

Thoughts from other users are requested please. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Uncalled for discussion. Wait and see. --E4024 (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

He's still President of Iraq. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestine

Where is the State of Palestine in this list? Our readers will look for that name. Why not put it as the State and the PNA as its "executive" representative (Government) or look for other creative ideas... --E4024 (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
you are right. I can not see any diffidence between Palestine and Vatican. both are UN observers so ether we put them both on the main list or we put them under the title of "UN observers" 3bdulelah (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

China's head of state/government

The CPC General Secretary, Xi Jinping, is the current paramount leader in China, so there should be a row above the current one to reflect this status, similar to the one for Bosnia's High Representative. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Palestine note

Are there any sources noting that the Palestinian Authority created a new State of Palestine? Palestine's UN mission notes 1988 as the year the UN acknowledged a State of Palestine. CMD (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, the Palestine situation is a bit complex. The PLO declared the State of Palestine in 1988. Whilst many countries recognized this state immediately, it did not hold any effective control over Palestinian lands. With the Oslo Accords, the Palestian Authority (later renamed National Authority) was set up as a provisional organ for local self-rule. The PLO and State of Palestine became more dormant structures at the time. Several states (notably many that had been hostile or reluctant to recognize the State of Palestine) began treating PNA as a state or sort-of-a-state. However, the Palestinians always maintained that PLO (and thus the State of Palestine as well) was the organ representing Palestine internationally.

During the initial years the semantic difference between PLO, SoP and PNA didn't matter that much, since Fatah controlled all of those structures. However, after the Hamas election victory the situation became more complex as a non-PLO force came to hold power in the PNA.

What happened 2011-2012 is not the creation of a new state (and certainly not created in 1988), but that PLO revived the SoP and brought the issues raised in 1988 again to the international agenda. --Soman (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The PLO was never dormant, it remained a political organisation, as it was before the Palestinian Authority was created. Neither did the SoP disappear, being as it is intermingled with the PLO's international presence. Even if we take the recent developments as a revival, the current footnote is still wrong. CMD (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Putting names in small font

I notice that some listings are in a smaller font than others, yet the reason for this is not supplied. Is there a reason? If so, why aren't we telling the readers? --Pete (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

From Talk:List of current heads of state and government/Archive 2#Australian head of state onwards; from Talk:List of current heads of state and government/Archive 3#Reliable sources, original research, neutral point of view to Talk:List of current heads of state and government/Archive 3#Mies' Compromise. You know you've brought this up before. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And you know why I'm bringing it up now. We can't just have some names in large font and some names in small font without giving the readers an explanation. Otherwise they will be forced to guess, and that's not what an encyclopaedia is about. We provide information, not hint at it. If you know the reason for the differences in font, could you put it concisely for inclusion as a note to readers? Thanks. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As nobody seems to be able to articulate any reason we can present to our readers for this inexplicable exception to the normal format as per MoS, I shall change the text to reflect the same format found in the listing of heads of state and government in each nation's infobox. That is - all in the same size. Readers clicking the link to the national article will then find consistency of presentation. --Pete (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps nobody wants to bother responding, since it's pretty clear how the article's structured: representatives and temporary leaders are rendered in smaller font. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to make it explicit in the list so that readers aren't forced to guess? You've been editing this thing for years, you know what you mean, but we can't expect people looking for information to immediately know what you think is "pretty clear". Clarity and communication is the objective. --Pete (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it's pretty clear how the article's structured; self-evident, really. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said, you've been editing the article for years. For a reader looking on it for the first time, they have a different perspective. This is an encyclopaedia for everyone, not just long-term editors who know how everything works. --Pete (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As an outsider, it makes sense to me. Most small text either says "Transitional" or "Acting" or a footnote explaining the situation. CMD (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's get everything crystal-clear, in accordance with the Manual of Style, no secrets or surprises. We can all work together. It's like having a row of books in the library, and each as a sticker on the spine with the Dewey number and the first three letters of the author's name. But one book has the sticker at the top rather than the bottom and the author's name is given in full, because the person who made up the sticker has a personal reason for wanting to go outside the pattern. Maybe the book was a childhood favorite, maybe the author is a relation, maybe this, maybe that. But still, the sticker is non-uniform and the readers come in, look along the row and wonder why there's an exception. I like to think if the reason is important, we can spell it out in full, and everybody wins. --Pete (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So, we have four classes of leaders whose names are in small font:

• Acting
• Transitional
• Temporary
• Representatives

Anything else? I also repeat the point that if we look at the national articles, their info boxes make no distinction in font size. Liechtenstein is a good example, where Prince and Regent are in the same size, each clearly labelled. Why does this article differ in format? It is contrary to the relevant section of the Manual of Style, and as a practical matter it makes reading more difficult for those whose eyesight isn't the best, who are reading this on mobile devices, or both. This includes myself, and it is irritating to have to enlarge the screen size on a tiny piece of text that some eagle-eyed teenage editor can read perfectly well from across the room on a large screen monitor. If the distinction between roles is clearly apparent, then why make reading more difficult? --Pete (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth reference ?

I propose to remove the following link as reference, since it's about the Commonwealth of Nations, which is an organization, not a state, and does not include any relevant information which the UN Protocol list (linked at the bottom of the article) does not contain.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchAndCommonwealth/Commonwealthmembers/MembersoftheCommonwealth.aspx

Please have your say! ZBukov (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The reference is used to source which states are commonwealth realms, which is information found in the reference. It provides a source for some context as to why a single person pops up on this list 16 separate times, which is likely useful for the reader who isn't familiar with the situation. CMD (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's unneeded. Link what the reference link is explicit and clear in what Elizabeth II is and why she is there 16 times, and provides a link to what a Commonwealth realm is for the reader. The only way to be a bit more clear would be to link governor general but the additional external link to the monarchy's website is just clutter. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not an external link, it's a reference. CMD (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You are not simply removing the link as a reference, you are deleting the entire footnote. As has already been pointed out above, the note explains why the same individual shows up sixteen times in this list and (I apologise; I misunderstood what exactly you were deleting.) The link is a valid reference for the note. The web page is not simply about the Commonwealth of Nations; it explains what a Commonwealth realm is--"'Realm' indicates a Commonwealth country which has The Queen as Sovereign"--and which countries they are. Another source could probably be found; but, why find one when the one already there suffices?

It doesn't need to follow every listing of Elizabeth II, but it should be in the footnote as a reference for it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Titles

The UN list direct transliterations in political reservation to the state's language but doesn't abide by journalistic or encyclopedic rules on common vernacular, which Wikipedia strives for, as seen in the majority of the article titles. The simplicity of common language allows the reader to easily identify and process what he/she is reading, which is influenced by how they are referred to in their daily lives. This is in the same vain as what we call the countries themselves. We certainly don't say "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or "President of the Government of the Republic of Italy". It's harder for someone to wrap his/her head around these clunky titles. So instead of "President of the Executive Yuan of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" we say "Premier of Taiwan" because that is something understandable. This is why WP:COMMON exists as a policy. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

However the heading of each column ('head of state' or 'head of government') makes it perfectly clear what sort of position it is. Therefore if all the boxes are completed as Prime Minister XY than the title is completely superfluous, especially if it isn't even the correct one in those few cases where it's actually something other than 'Prime Minister'. Just like in the 'List of state leaders in 2013' article where the caption makes it clear whether it's head of state or head of government, and the correct title is given after the person's name. I believe reverting this to a standardized 'prime minister' in each and every case results in a loss of valuable and valid encyclopedic content, while the correct titles would cause no confusion whatsoever. ZBukov (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Good and uncomplicated to you, superfluous and overly complex to me. The "List of state leaders" pages were given that overcomplicated washing over relatively recently and but the ridiculousness there is mitigated not because it says "head of state/government" prior to the name and title, but "President/Prime Minister" making it explicitly clear what they are. It's not a loss of "encyclopedic content" nor any less "correct" to call them what they are in understandable, unpretentious language. You're mistaking the two. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And WP:COMMONNAME is more applicable here, sorry. I hadn't known they'd differentiated the two now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Overly complex? Do you really think it confuses anyone? I'm sorry if you find it ridiculous, but Spain decided not to call its head of government 'prime minister' but 'president of the government'. You can see that the corresponding Spanish Wikipedia article is titled 'Presidente del Gobierno de España' [[5]] while they have a different expression for prime minister (Primer ministro) [[6]]. What do you think there is to be gained by calling everyone 'prime minister'? As I said then it makes no sense whatsoever to include the title if we call everyone the same. Furthermore the heading of the column leaves no doubt as to what position a 'chairman of the council of ministers' fills, and a click on the link directs the reader to the relevant article. And even some of the article titles in question note these differences: List of heads of government of Andorra, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, List of heads of government of Liechtenstein, etc. So will you go and change those article titles too because of being 'overly complex', 'superfluous' and 'ridiculous'?

And as for the mitigating factor of the so-called 'ridiculousness' of the List of state leaders in 2013 article, 'head of state' and 'head of government' are the generic terms, while 'president' and 'prime minister' are merely one example each of a head of state or head of government title (albeit the most wide-spread ones), so those terms are not synonymous. A king or a sultan is also a head of state, while a chancellor or a chairman of the council of ministers is also a head of government. ZBukov (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And the WP:COMMONNAME policy you referred mainly just deals with article titles. But as noted before even some of those make these distinctions. And as you can see I did not change those article titles. ZBukov (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I also contend that calling someone by some other title than the one granted to them in their country's laws for reasons of simplicity would be no less correct. To give a popular example, Prince Charles's first wife was routinely referred to as 'Princess Diana' by the world press ever since her marriage. However that was incorrect throughout. Her title was The Princess of Wales, and her given name was Diana, but she was never 'Princess Diana', as that would have indicated that she had been born into the Royal Family, which she was not, or that she had been created a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right, which again she was not. Even the article notes: "she is most popularly referred to as "Princess Diana", a title not formally correct and a title she never held". So changing someone's official title for the sake of convenience is indeed incorrect, however popular and widespread it might be. ZBukov (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with ZBukov here; the proper title for each individual should be used. Translating everything into Westminster language is rather POV, I think. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancies

I notice a discrepancy in the entry for Andorra. We give Antoni Martí's title as Head of Government, but the Andorra article says Prime Minister. When we look at his biographical article, we find that he is shown as the "6th Prime Minister". Interestingly, that article gives further details on the co-heads of state, listing Joan Enric Vives Sicília as the Episcopal Co-prince and Nicholas Sarkozy as the French Co-prince, whereas we call them merely "co-princes" and list François Hollande instead.

Perhaps we could get all this information sorted out so that there are no discrepancies and readers are not confused? --Pete (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

'Prime Minister' is often (incorrectly) used as a generic term for any head of government, regardless of their precise title. (See the previous discussion on the talk page here.) However the correct title of Andorra's head of government is 'Head of Government' (Cap de Govern) as can be seen on the government's website (http://www.govern.ad/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2895&Itemid=4) and the UN's protocol list (http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf). So I corrected it in the articles you mentioned. In the Antoni Martí article Sarkozy is listed as the French Co-Prince to 2012, and Hollande as Co-Prince from 2012. I added their respective adjectives to the Co-Princes' title in the current article. Thank you for pointing them out! ZBukov (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! I think it's important to get the details right, but who knows all the intricacies for such things? --Pete (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking further, at the UN Protocol list, I see that "Head of Government" is a more accurate English rendering than "Prime Minister". I think "Prime Minister" implies a certain role in government which may not accurately reflect the constitutional position. Further on, I see:

COUNTRY	HEAD OF STATE	HEAD OF GOVERNMENT
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA	(Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II) Her Excellency Dame Louise Lake-Tack, GCMG	His Excellency Mr. Winston Baldwin Spencer
Full Title	Governor-General of Antigua and Barbuda	Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Antigua and Barbuda

If the title of the A&B head of state is "Governor-General", according to the UN, then why do we not follow suit? Do we have a wiki-opinion that lets us over-ride the UN? --Pete (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It's called consensus. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a page where people fight to have their particular worldview prevail. The ongoing issues over Palestine, for example. Do we really over-ride the United Nations anywhere in Wikipedia because a few fellows have got their heads together to do so? I'm interested to see if we can find an example. A non-trivial example - I'll give you the odd spelling variance - but statehood and regime heads aren't things that we can kick the UN's bum on. Yet. --Pete (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Good to see Pete/Skyring countering what could otherwise be mistaken for casually lazy arrogance in the guise of consensus overclaim. Cheers! Qexigator (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunate to see you don't realise WP:CONSENSUS is a Wikipedia policy. External links don't override it. That answers his question about "wiki-opinion that lets us over-ride [sic] the UN". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The terms 'head of government' and 'prime minister' are not in a relation of one being more accurate than the other. The former is the generic term, the category outlining what sort of function a person fills; while the latter is one example of a number of a possible titles countries grant to their head of government. Examples of other head of government titles are: chancellor, chairman of the government, premier, chief minister, president of the council of ministers, etc.

The reason Queen Elizabeth is listed under Antigua and Barbuda (and fifteen other countries, see Commonwealth realm) in the UN list is that she is the Queen of Antigua and Barbuda (of Grenada, of Canada, etc), while the Governor-General is her resident representative in that particular country. So while in theory the Queen is their head of state, most head of state functions are carried out by the Governor-General. ZBukov (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that explanation about E II as Head of State is in accordance with widely acknowledged usage and practice, irrespective of any Wikipedia consensus, and is in the footnote.[7] Qexigator (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could put the Queen in brackets, as the UN does. Obviously there is going to be some confusion if we use some internal protocol source. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Such a presentation of the given information would not improve the article. How to reason this out? Each sovereign state determines the distribution of functions between its head of state and head of government, according to its own constitution (Westminster system or ruthless dictatorship or whatever), and declares the style and title of each and the person(s) in office from time to time etc. 2_These are recognized (de facto or de jure) by other states according to international law and diplomatic practice. 3_In principle the UN, not having authority of its own in this respect, follows its member states (but in disputed cases member states in the Security Council/Assembly may have to resolve upon a question such as which government represents mainland China in the Security Council, Assembly etc.). 4_The UN secretariat has published an administrative document which directs its own functionaries about who is to be addressed and received as head of state or head of government of any member state, in connection with UN affairs. 5_It is not the function of UN to impose upon a member state a distribution of functions or style or title. 6_The status and distribution of functions between the Queen, as head of state of any one of the several Commonwealth realms, and others, whether her representative (governor(-)general), or a head of governnent of that realm, is determined by the realm not by the UN. 7_The manner in which the UN happens to present the information in its document may be sufficient and appropriate for its purposes, but for our article, the information is, to my mind, more clearly shown as it is, especially with the explanatory footnote which an editor has diligently constucted for the purpose. Qexigator (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't support brackets either, but I'm interested in this area. My preferred presentation is to draw on the style and titles found in each nation's infobox. There's usually a regular group of informed editors who know their subject and get the facts right. It's up to each nation, rather than the UN or Wikipedia, to say who their head of state is, and in Australia, official opinion is divided. "In recent years, particularly after the debate and referendum on a republic in 1999, the local convention has been to recognise that the Governor-General is Australia's head of state and that Elizabeth II is our sovereign," according to The Australian. My preference is to show both Queen and Governor-General in the same size type with the Queen above the Governor-General. As per the presentation at Australia. Nobody is going to mistake the two, and the existing footnotes make the situation clear. --Pete (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We seem to have a problem with North Korea, where confusion reigns. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

--Circumstances and politics give rise to anomalies and discrepancies, which may persist or be soon resolved, hence long recognised practice for de facto and de jure recognition. The Australian head of state dispute is a curiosity, but neither that, nor peculiarities such as Andorra or N.Korea (to name but two), can be decisive about presenting the generality of this information for Commonwealth realms or other countries. Where there is genuine uncertainty or a disputed claim, that should be covered in an article for the country concerned. Qexigator (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Australian situation is distinct from other Commonwealth nations. We don't define the Head of State in any constitutional or legal documents. Consequently there is a dispute, and both Queen and Governor-General are officially described as head of state. I don't think it is the province of any external body to make a definitive pronouncement when Australia cannot. It is commonplace and unremarkable in reliable mainstream sources to refer to Quentin Bryce as "Australia's first female head of state".[8][9][10] --Pete (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

--Pete (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A number of Commonwealth realms do not define who the head of state s in any constitutional or legal documents. Australia is not unique in that regard and since there is either less of or no debate in those other countries about who the head of state is, the debate in Australia is not a consequence of the lack of definition of the head of state in Austrlaian law. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite so (00:07, 19 June, Skyring, not 00:36). I see no reason for not including a link to the said article namely Australian head of state dispute, where the Australian peculiarity has been exhaustively explained, but others may do. Qexigator (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

--LOL! Seriously though, the external links added at 00.36 are questionable outside the context described in Australian head of state dispute, and smack of spin and/or journalistic inaccuracy or swooning gush, and certainly are not paying attention to the question at issue here, namely constitutional and diplomatic usage. Compare the first female governor general of the Canadian realm. Qexigator (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

They are from reliable sources. I urge you to investigate the subject further as to the actual perception within Australia. When even the Government vacillates on the matter, one cannot come up with a definitive view. The title provided by the UN is not that of the Queen, for example. Australian diplomatic instruments are no longer issued in the name of the Queen. It is not a matter with a clear answer. --Pete (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That is well understood and needs no further urging - in fact could well be given a rest.[11]. It is undue here. --Qexigator (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I knew Pete/Skyring was going to shift this to Australia. Regardless, what's his issue? Both the Queen of Australia and the Governor-General of Australia are included in the head of state column here. I have a suspicion what it is (we've been through it before); but, it'd be best if he just came out and said so, instead of being so circuitous. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no mystery about it! The discrepancies and inconsistencies are legion and would be better ironed out. As an Australian I feel a natural inclination to point out problems with the Australian entry, as no doubt editors of other nationalities feel inclined to draw attention to other entries. It is odd to see Wikipedia present a view which is at odds with the actual situation. Perhaps some editors feel that the Queen has more power and a larger role in Australian affairs than is actually the case. --Pete (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Suspicion of other's ignorance can be exaggerated. I see nothing in the relevant articles which misrepresents the position of the Queen in the various realms. A need for tweaking for clarification may sometimes become apparent to editors, most of whom will be aware that the legislative processes connected with the Perth Agreement offer a current case study testing some aspects of points which have been at issue. Qexigator (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the Queen. There is no doubt that the Queen is regarded as head of state in Australia. The problem is that the Governor-General is also seen as the head of state - by a different group of people. Hence the dispute. I feel that the situation in Australia should be reflected here. --Pete (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Again: The Queen and the Governor-General are both included in the head of state column. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but the Governor-General is in small font, indicating she is merely a representative of the head of state. I'm making no claims as to who is the head of state - it's a question I don't believe can be fully answered - but there are definitely two identifiable schools of thought, and when the Government calls the Governor-General the head of state it goes beyond a fringe theory. I think Australia is the most forward in this regard, but the other realms are all moving away from the days of empire. The Queen is well loved everywhere, but not necessarily seen as the source of power and national identification she may once have been. --Pete (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

So this was, all along, just an indirect way to lead us back to this. To repeat myself from that discussion: representatives (to avoid making it appear as though they are, with those they represent, equal, co-heads of state, like Andorra, I imagine) and temporary leaders are rendered in smaller font. Governors-general are representatives of the Queen. Both the Queen and governors-general are included in the head of state column. Nothing makes claims as to which one is the head of state. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

--...nor, given the purpose of this article and that there is the previously mentioned article on the question to which Pet/Sky refers, do I see anything which misrepresents the position of the Governor-general. There seems to be nothing further that can usefully be discussed about it here by editors bona fide intent on improving the article. Qexigator (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Names in people's own language

Dear fellow editors,

I noticed an inconsistency in the treatment of people's names in languages written in Latin script. In the case of European languages special characters are used (like ă, ã, ć, ç, đ, ė, ğ, î, ł, etc) even in article titles (see Dalia Grybauskaitė or Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir). However the national version of the name is not used for the Azeri, Somali and Uzbek names - neither in the article titles, but not even within this article (I have manually added the Vietnamese names' diacritics some time ago). I realize that there are several policies/guidelines about article titles, but not much mention about the use of foreign names. And the one relevant reference I found (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28proper_names%29#Diacritics) appears to indicate that the national spelling is okay to be used in case of languages written in Latin script. This particular change would affect the following names in this article: Ilham Aliyev - İllham Əliyev, Artur Rasizade - Artur Rəsizade, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud - Xasan Sheekh Maxamuud, Abdi Farah Shirdon - Cabdi Faarax Shirdoon, Islam Karimov - Islom Karimov, Ahmed Mahamoud Silanyo - Axmed Maxamuud Siilaanyo. If the French, Lithuanian, Icelandic, Slavic and Portuguese names are written properly with special characters than it seems arbitrary not to do the same with Azeri, Uzbek and Somali names. What do you think? ZBukov (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually there are quite a number of Wikipedians who are opposed to diacritics when the name as used in English sources does not contain the diacritics. For example, if the BBC News doesn't use diacritics for a certain name, it is quite possible that editors will feel that placing the title at the name without diacritics is quite proper. Regardless of which name is used in the title, the other one should properly redirect there, so that searching is unimpaired either way. The native name is not the preferred, but is the default. Be leery (cautious) of moving article titles just for the sake of diacritics. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. Do not expect consistency. --Bejnar (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! I'm only suggesting the use of diacritics within this article, not in the article titles. I agree that article titles should be kept simple and use the most popular version of a name, but I think we could go the extra mile within this article for the sake of accuracy and consistency. ZBukov (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In a list the best practice is to give the commonly recognizable name, the article that is linked will provide the full panoply of name options. --Bejnar (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka: Head of government

It's disappointing that my attempts to correct an erroneous piece of information on this article has been reverted three times. If these three owners of this article want to continue to present incorrect facts on this article, let them do so, I am not going to correct it again. But for any reader who wants to know the correct head of government of Sri Lanka I give the following:

• Constitution of Sri Lanka - (Article 43) "There shall be a Cabinet of Ministers charged with the direction and control of the Government of the Republic...The President shall be a member of the Cabinet of Ministers, and shall be the Head of the Cabinet of Ministers".
• Government of Sri Lanka - "The President is the head of state and the head of government and is elected by the people for a term of six years".
• CIA Fact Book - "head of government: President Mahinda Percy RAJAPAKSA (since 19 November 2005)".
• Commonwealth Year Book - "Sri Lanka - Head of Government HE Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa, President".
• UN - (p.6) "the president is considered both the chief of state and head of government".
• Australian Foreign Affairs Department - "The President is considered both the Head of State and Head of Government".
• Sri Lankan Red Cross Society - "The President of Sri Lanka is the head of state, the commander in chief of the armed forces, as well as head of government, and is popularly elected for a six-year term".
• Political Science by Ada W. Finifter - (p.72) "The President is the Head of the State, the Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and the Head of the Government".
• State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror by Robert I. Rotberg - (p.243) "Since 1978, Sri Lanka's president has been the head of state, the head of government, the head of the cabinet, and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces".

--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Egypt's De Facto Leader

is Now General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi he deposed the president and appointed one, dissolved the parliament and suspended the constitution
in fact he is more powerful than Ali Khamenei in Iran.

see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/world/middleeast/egypt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e4a0420-d967-11e0-b52f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2bAlRYO6B

we should add him to the list like Ali Khamenei but as chairman of Supreme Council of the Armed Forces 3bdulelah (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Palestine

Palestine is now in the main list and also appears twice in the "limited recognition" list, for a total of three entries on the page. Before, it was on the "limited recognition" list as "disputed", listing both claimants. How is this new way better? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is fiction created online. In reality there is only one entity (State of Palestine, embodied through PLO, with observer status in the UN). The Hamas-led Gaza-based government never claimed to the government of the State of Palestine, only the legitimate cabinet of the PNA (which, essentially, is a provisional body for local governance). The Gaza-based government never sought diplomatic recognition of its own. The fact that the Ramallah-based PNA now uses the name of State of Palestine does not mean that its a 'new State of Palestine', they maintain that the state proclaimed in 1988 is legitimate and they act in the name of that state. --Soman (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

States recognised by the United Nations

Shouldn't this be states that are members or associated members of the UN? I wonder if the UN, which is not a sovereign body in itself, is in the business of recognising states. That is something for other states to do. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No they are not: "The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government". TDL (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)