Talk:List of current heads of state and government/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cook Islands and Niue

Though four editors think otherwse, User:Soffredo seems insistant (9 reverts insistant) that the Cook Islands and Niue belong in the list of member states and observers of the United Nations. He/she keeps referring to a discussion at Talk:List of sovereign states. Of course, other stuff happens, but, even so, looking at List of sovereign states, neither the Cook Islands nor Niue are within the list of UN member states and observer states, they're under 'Other states'. So, perhaps Soffredo could offer some other explanation as to why those two territories should be in the list of UN member and observer states here? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think they should not be on the list at all. These countries have a peculiar status but are not fully sovereign and independent. They do not meet these criteria for the following reasons

-Both countries do not have a head of state. They fall under the jurisdiction of the Queen (in right of) New-Zealand and the Governor-General of New-Zealand representing her.

-Both states have declared that in their execution of their right to self determination they stopped short of declaring independence.

-Some, in a discussion on the other page mentioned, have argued that this has changed. They have done so on the basis of remarks made in several documents, the relevance of which is debatable, and -off the cut- remarks made by some functionaries. It has however not been established that the original take on the matter has changed at any given point where the two countries are concerned. There has been no declaration of independence, just documents in which policy changes have been agreed with New Zealand without any reference to a formal change in status. The status of the countries as being in free association with New Zealand still stands and has not been altered.

-It has been said that some foreign powers have recognised these countries as independent states. These are (as far as I can see) only supported by reports of unknown origin in which the Prime-Minister of one of the countries thanked another country for the recognition of independence (i.c.) Japan. We have no declarations by the countries themselves explicitly stating that they recognise the two countries as fully sovereign and independent. Which is what recognition is ultimately about. It is a discretionary right of the country granting it. The diplomatic relations with other countries that the two countries have, are conducted in the name of the Queen (in right of) New Zealand, who gives letters of credence to diplomats. Not in the name any distinct body in Niue or the Cook Islands. Also therefore the establishment of such relations does not implicitly or explicitly imply full recognition as sovereign independent states. Since foreign powers receive letters of credence from the Queen (in right of) New Zealand.

-Both countries have the capacity to conduct treaties with other powers. They now do so without political interference of New Zealand but still under formal auspices of New Zealand and that country is still ultimately responsible for defence and foreign relations. Treaties are made in the name of the Queen (in right of) New Zealand.

-Regognition by the UN that these countries posses a status equivalent to independence fore some purposses, or membership in UN organisations are not relevant. "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". Furthermore equivalent to independence does not equal independence as such.

-Both countries are in the jurisdiction of the Governor-General of New-Zealand. The Queens representatives formally answer to him.

-I do not believe that the criteria for inclusion in the list have been satisfactorally met. For that we need an unequivolent declaration by both states and New Zealand that the status of the two countries have changed since free association began. Not documents of varying relevance with implicite remarks by whatever authorities choose to make them during meeting or lectures or when discussing financial audits or fishery. In other words a declaration of independence by which of course the free association ends or is radically redefined. I have seen no such documents being put forward in the discussion. I doubt if they will be forthcoming.

We also need unequivical declarations by foreign powers that recognise both countries as sovereign independent states. What we have seen up till now are reported remarks made during lectures and meetings, not by the foreign powers themselves but by a CI functionary.

-The very fact that this has been and is discussed (not only on this page) is also relevant in my opinion. Baring territorial disputes, which are not taking place here, the sovereign and independent status of a country should be a well known fact. Like Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic. That is not the case for these two countries, while it is for all the others. That should tell us enough about how straightforward this situation is (not). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been involved in the discussions on List of sovereign states and the conclusion that we came to was that some sources support the claim that they are sovereign, while others do not. (Ie "The two Governments have agreed to develop friendly relations and cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty" and "the Netherlands had recognised the Cook Islands as a sovereign, independent State.") They are a sui generis case, somewhere between fully independent and fully a dependency, and there is no agreement among sources on whether they have passed the "sovereign" threshold. (Of course the same could be argued about Palestine/Somalia/etc.) I have no objections to listing them under "States recognised by at least one United Nations member", but obviously putting them in the "Member states and observers" section is just wrong. Also, as has been pointed out to Soffredo time and time again, the claim that the "The UN recognizes them" is false. Firstly, as I linked to above, the UN has no authority to recognize states. Secondly, the source that they link to as "evidence" says "The designations employed and the presentation of material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or any area or of its authorities, or concerning the de imitation of its frontiers or boundaries." TDL (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This article states that, "[u]nlike Western Samoa, [the Cook Islands] did not become fully independent, but instead moved to a status of self-government in free association with New Zealand, signified by its continued recognition of the Queen in right of New Zealand as Head of State... Niue followed suit in 1974, emerging as a self-governing state in free association with New Zealand. Just like the Cook Islands had done, it retained the Queen in right of New Zealand as its Head of State." That's pretty clear evidence that Niue and the Cook Islands are not sovereign. Soffredo needs to present at least one reliable source that gives a contrary opinion. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Notwithstanding questions about the criteria for inclusion (self declared status as independent OR recognition by at least one UN member) the status of the Queen in right of New-Zealand as the acknowledged head of the country indeed seems to me to be the crux of the issue. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, as I said above there are certainly some sources that take that position. But there are plenty of others that take the opposite. I've already provided a couple of RS above which claim that the CI is sovereign. The Commonwealth Secretariat has said "Under the 1965 constitution, Cook Islands is a sovereign state". The PM of CI describes the country as a "small island developing sovereign states". "...decision of the government of Japan in March for the recognition of the Cook Islands as an independent state..." Other sources say "Thus, as far as the relationship between New Zealand and the Cook Islands is concerned, the Cook Islands seems to have been recognized as a fully sovereign independent state", "Niue's participation as a full member of UNESCO also suggested that the organization regarded Niue as wholly competent to take part in its affairs as a sovereign member state", "Niue is a sovereign state", Niue is a "sovereign country", etc.

Again, this is far from a settled issue, but there is certainly a significant POV that they are sovereign. TDL (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that there are significant POV's either way. But it's all so terribly..... implicit and interpreted. "seems to", "regarded as" etc. Instead of just "is". It all has to be theorized into existence by experts and authors, while there could have been just an unambivalent clear situation. The lack of which is a factor in this whole business I think. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be nice if we lived in a world where everything was black and white. Unfortunately, real life is much more complicated. All we can do is strive to explain such complexities as neutrally as possible, perhaps as a footnote or something. Keep in mind it is also quite unclear whether several other entities on the list are sovereign or not (aka Northern Cyprus is de facto a dependency of Turkey). This is why I object to attempts to pigeonhole then into one of two oversimplistic categories, since sovereignty is not a binary proposition. We shouldn't say they are sovereign, but we shouldn't say they aren't sovereign. We should say that their status is complicated. TDL (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least Northern-Cyprus thinks it's sovereign while the rest of the world (except Turkey) disagrees (recognises the sov. of the other Cyprus). That at least can be established about that country. But there are and have been a number of situations that are hard to get your head around. Specially where territorial disputes are involved.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

While I don't think we need to pretend Niue and the Cook Islands don't exist, or that the debate about their sovereignty doesn't, either, there is still no evidence that Niue or the Cook Islands is a member state or observer of the United Nations, nor that any UN member-state recognises Niue or the Cook Islands as sovereign. (That cite outlining the meeting between the prime ministers of Japan and the Cook Islands does not say whether the Japanese government actually made a statement on the independence of the Cook Islands or the Prime Minister of the Cook Isladnds interpreted the establishment of diplomatic relations between the CI and Japan as a statement on the independence of the Cook Islands. Also, 'independent' is not necessarily 'fully independent'.) Should they not then simply go under 'States not recognised by any United Nations members'? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that that would be a contradiction because they are recognized by the UN, they're just not recognised as sovereign. I think one way around it would be to have a new section (or article) which deals with the non sovereign states in the same way as we have for the sovereign ones. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Recognised by the UN as what? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Territories. I was going to clarify my original comment to say "the recognised non sovereign states and territories in the same way....." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but the first list here is of member-states and observers of the United Nations. Are the Cook Islands and Niue either? So far, it seems not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a seperate article for territories already? Remember also that this article is basically not a list of states but a list of Heads of State and Government. Territories may or may not have functionaries like that. Also in that light. much of this discussion pertains more to list of sovereign states. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I think this discussion should focus very spcifically on the question of whether Niue and the Cook Islands are member-states or observers of the UN, are recognised by at least one member-state of the UN, are states not recognised by any UN member, or are none of the above. It seems that, if they belong anywhere on this page, it's in the last list: 'States not recognised by any UN member'. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously they are neither members nor observers of the UN. Did you not read the Joint Communique signed by China and Cook Islands that I linked to above: "The two Governments have agreed to develop friendly relations and cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty..."? Here is the analogous one for Niue: "The two Governments have agreed to develop friendly cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty...". TDL (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If "[o]bviously they are neither members nor observers of the UN", then they don't belong under that heading here. Glad that's settled. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup. The outstanding question is do they belong in "States recognised by at least one United Nations member" or "States not recognised by any United Nations members". The sources I provided above demonstrate that it is the former. TDL (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems that recognition by foreign powers of the Cook islands is conditional to the terms pointed out in a document called Joint Centenary Declaration of the principles of the relationship between New Zealand and the Cook Islands. So I have been told by the Belgian Foreign Ministry whom I have asked recently. I have had no time yet to study this document but it might shed some light on the basis of these recognitions and what it is that is recognized in the first place. The document (as far as I've seen it up till now) seems to indicate that the CI are still in a sort of limbo where independence is concerned. It can be found in the link. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur with TDL. The Cook Islands and Niue should be listed in the section for states recognised by at least one UN member. Have a look at the articles on Foreign relations of the Cook Islands and Foreign relations of Niue, which list states they have diplomatic relations with. They are also members of UN specialised agencies and parties to international treaties that are only open to sovereign states. The UN Secretary-General, in his capacity as depository of multilateral treaties, has recognised the full treaty-making capacity of the Cook Islands and Niue, on the basis that the international community has accepted them as states.[1] (para 11) [2] (para 86) Neljack (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article the 'States recognised by at least one United Nations member' section contains states whose independence is contested by another country, and who lack universal international recognition (an obvious sign of which would be UN membership). Neither of these seem to be the case with Cook Islands and Niue, as there appears to have been no open declaration of independence on their part, and consequently no other state contests their status - whatever its precise definition would be (e.g. unlike Abkhazia, which claims to be fully independent and is recognized as such by a small number of countries, but is claimed by Georgia). So the Cook Islands and Niue bring a completely dissimilar situation into a group of secessionist states, whose current situation is typically the result of (civil) war or invasion. Therefore in my opinion they should not appear in this article. ZBukov (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with that. Gertjan R 01:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Zoltan, lots of countries have never made an "open declaration of independence". (When did Japan declare independence?) But the Cook Islands considers themselves sovereign, for example look at this Communique in which they claim sovereignty and are recognized by China. Whether they are secessionist or not is irrelevant. If the Vatican City wasn't an observer state of the UN, they too would be listed as a "States recognised by at least one United Nations member" because that is indisputably what they, like Cook Islands and Niue, are. Not including states which claim to be sovereign and are recognized as such by numerous states simply because they didn't fight a war to gain sovereignty isn't NPOV.

This has been discussed for years at Talk:List of sovereign states/Cook Islands and Niue, and the consensus is that both should be listed as sovereign states, but with the caveat that this status isn't universally accepted. If you'd like to revisit this issue, it should be done there rather than trying to form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS against it here. TDL (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring with regards to North Korea's head of state

My inclusion of Eternal President Kim Il-sung and Eternal WPK General Secretary Kim Jong-il has been undone multiple times. According to North Korea, Eternal President of the Republic, First Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, Constitution of North Korea, and the CIA World Leaders database, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il both hold the two highest positions, both of which are higher than that of Kim Jong-un. As said on the website of the database, "North Korea is also known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The top positions in the government and the Korean Workers' Party continue to be held by deceased leaders Kim Il Sung (died 8 Jul 1994) and Kim Jong Il (died 17 Dec 2012), designating them as "eternal" leaders." I request that this be discussed here, and that my fellow Wikipedians who continually revert my edits cease to do as such until it is resolved here. Thank you. WikiWinters (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You could argue that you're edit waring as well since you continue to revert their reverts of your edits, especially as there are two of them saying you're wrong, and only one of you saying you're right here. While they might be "eternal" leaders, continuing to list them as a current head of state or government is somewhat misleading. They are dead, and therefore while they might still fulfill some very ceremonial role in Korea, to say that they're still the head of state is rather inaccurate. They are still world leaders, sure, they still have some role, sure, but they're no longer heads of state owing to their deaths. Psunshine87 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It may be two people, but one of them has a history of edit warring. As for the inclusion of the two leaders, I don't see how it is misleading. If a state chooses to declare a deceased person as head of state, then so be it. However, I placed the two individuals in the middle of the table to make it slightly less misleading, if at all. We as Wikipedians do not decide who is head of state and who is not. Also, I provided a valid source, the CIA World Leaders database, and the individuals' respective Wikipedia pages state that they are eternal heads of state. This reflects the current political situation in North Korea. Turkey once had listed a deceased man as head of state for its infobox, but political and constitutional change had resulted in the individual's removal. I'm simply asking the one or two individuals to provide a valid source as a rebuttal, but they have not yet provided one. WikiWinters (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I maintain that naming someone as eternal president in a constitution can only be understood as a political declaration, and as the person concerned does not and never will perform any act on behalf of the state whatsoever, he cannot be regarded as someone leading a state.

As for a valid source for rebuttal, you can check out the United Nations' list of heads of state and government (http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf) which does not list either of these long-dead people as state leaders. I hope you will find the list drawn up by the paramount global intergovernmental organization convincing enough, and we can put paid to listing corpses as state leaders. ZBukov (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If that is the list to go by, then we should remove Kim Yong-nam and only have Kim Jong-un and Pak Pong-ju, right? Because I don't see Kim Yong-nam on that list. WikiWinters (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

These are properly treated as ceremonial titles. Dead people can't hold political office, or any job for that matter. Everyking (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Head of state is often a ceremonial role. I'm sorry, but you provided neither a source nor a rebuttal. WikiWinters (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I provided a valid, official source that rebuts your wish to list two corpses as state leaders. What else do you need to stop edit-warring...? ZBukov (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't replying to you. My reply to you is below your original. WikiWinters (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, why are these two individuals listed at the top of the government section in the North Korea infobox if deceased individuals cannot lead government? WikiWinters (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said I agree with corpses being listed as incumbent state leaders anywhere. ZBukov (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I know. But I'm simply saying that you should understand why I decided to add these individuals to this page since they're listed in the North Korean infobox. Perhaps we should look into this. WikiWinters (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have understood your point from the beginning, it's just that I have strongly disagreed. I would support removing the dead in question from the North Korea infobox too (due to the very same reasons I explained above). ZBukov (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

DPRK leaders, again

I believe that the two deceased Kims do warrant inclusion in this list (and the DPRK info box) because of the preeminent offices (or titles, or appellations, or what else they may be described as) that they do hold under the current DPRK constitution. There is no reason why a dead person cannot hold a ceremonial state office (or quasi-religious, for that matter), as each sovereign state makes its own rules. However, they should be placed in their own separate boxes, much like what can be seen in the entries for Bosnia-Herzegovina and Iran.

An alternate solution would be not to include them in the list itself, but to make a separate note that explains the weird situation. That note could be placed either after the country name or after that of the supreme leader. Edit: logged in as user RicJac (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A dead person does not and never will perform any act on behalf of the state whatsoever, therefore they cannot be regarded as someone leading a state. Naming a corpse as 'eternal president' can only be understood as a political declaration (rather than a designation of state power, up to each state's sovereign discretion) because it contradicts basic facts of life (i.e. a corpse's inability for any action). ZBukov (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The South Korean PM isn't head of government

I corrected the table.[3] According to the Constitution of the Republic of Korea (South Korea),

• The President is both the head of state (aritcle 66, paragraph 1) and government (article 66, paragraph 4).
  • Thus, the Prime Minister is NOT the head of government.
• The Prime Minister is the principal executive assistant to the President (article 86, paragraph 2).

The Prime Minister of South Korea is considered as No. 2 in the government but largely ceremonial because the President has actual power to lead the executive. --Wikipean (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree WikiWinters (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Libyan GNC & Yemeni Revolutionary Committee

I can find no evidence either of these "states" have been recognized by a UN member. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Australia

Considering that Australians are in disagreement over who their head of state is - monarch or governor-general. Perhaps we should have a note in the Australia entry. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Australian head of state dispute note

A note has been repeatedly added to the article specifically pointing to Australian head of state dispute. This has been done even after the general note for Elizabeth II was augmented to include a link to Head of state#Governors-general (Commonwealth realms), which covers the "who's head of state?" matter more generally, as Australia is not the only country where this debate (albeit small) exists. The reason given for the last revert to restore this note was "It's not doing any harm", which, of course, is not a reason to include it. The note is redundant and singles Australia out for no apparent reason. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Per fatigue, I'm not going to push for this addition, anymore. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your fatigue only belies the fact you're as much a builder of the mountain as anyone else. There's either a valid reason to include the note or there isn't. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is probably your greatest single act of bastardry, Mies. Your personal interpretation of Australia's constitutional arrangements is at odds with the reality, yet your attachment to the fantasy is so great that you'll go to any lengths to deny it. --Pete (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

So, still no valid reason to include the note. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, seeing as the Australian dispute had its own article, I figured a seperate note wouldn't have been any trouble. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, because there is a seperate article on the topic, it's apparent that Australia's dispute is significantly more prominant then (for example) Canada's or (AFAIK) any other country's. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That's an opinion, not fact. It's entirely possible no editor has bothered to gather up enough information to fill an article on the debate in Canada. Perhaps the debate goes on elsewhere, only the Western cultural bias of the sources available to us make it more difficult to find media and academic sources from, say, Papua New Guinea (where the governor-general is elected by parliament, by the way).

It's better to not make assumptions, be neutral, and avoid redundancy. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm not going to push for its inclusion. That'll be up to others. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea (and all of the later Realms) explicitly declare the Queen to be head of state in their Constitution(s). As does New Zealand. Not sure about Canada, but the situation there is very different to Australia. In Canada the Governor General exercises the Queen's powers, and is given very few of his own. In Australia, the Governor-General is explicitly given the powers of the head of state in his own right and very little remains of the executive power "vested in the Queen". --Pete (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

None of that is particularly relevant. The matter is of debate on which figure is head of state, not the nuances of that debate in different jurisdictions.

Maybe Papua New Guinea wasn't the best example. But, maybe there are people there who say the governor-general is really head of state, the Queen only "nominally" so; who knows? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Point taken, but in most nations, the position is noted in some fundamental document, and without rewriting that document or some sort of regime change, it is quite clear. To Wikipedia, at least, because we depend on sources, and have restricted ability to put forward the "word on the street". In Australia, it is abundantly clear that there is a division of opinion, and if even Prime Ministers describe the Governor-General as the head of state, that particular view can hardly be described as fringe. I think we should take NPOV into account. --Pete (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue in favour of. Is it another note, for only one of the countries in which we know there's some debate about who's head of state, that duplicates a link to found if one follows through the link already provided in the extant note relating to Elizabeth II? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you know very well. Let's start with a note, but I think we should make it clear in the presentation of information. I think the example of the UN Protocol office on their formatted list is a good one to follow. --Pete (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

There already is a note. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the Canadian Constitution doesn't explicitly declare Canada's monarch to be head of state. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I find it difficult to interpret the Canadian situation, with its focus on provincial affairs. Australia's federal documents pretty much treat the States as equal entities, which makes it a lot more elegant. But yes, in my studies I could discern no explicit statement for Canada. --Pete (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau

Let's wait until Trudeau actually becomes Canadian Prime Minister, before replacing Harper. This won't be for roughly 2 weeks. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Vatican GovernATorate

The correct name of Executive Vatican office is GovernATorate, not Governorate. See President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State. --Jerus82 (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You (and President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State) are mistaken. See http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en/stato-e-governo/struttura-del-governatorato/presidenza.html. General Ization ^Talk 05:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Then we have to correct "Governatorate" in all the articles in which it appears. --Jerus82 (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-Territorial Entities

Is there any consideration as to how sui generis non-territorial entities that are considered sovereign by many states might be included? This would be the Holy See and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. I've always pretty much discounted them myself, but considering their state-acting actions (such as exchanging diplomatic recognition, passports and embassies), I wonder if it might be worth finding a way to include them for the sake of completion. Obviously their statuses are very complicated and succinctly explaining their inclusion in a note would take a bit of work. Just a thought, take it or leave it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Palestine

Palestine is an United Nations non-member State and maintains a permanent observer mission [4]. --Jerus82 (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The actual section heading reads, as follows → Member and observer states of the United Nations. Neve-selbert (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Basic grammar

Why is "head of state" capitalised when it's not part of an official title?

Why are terms like "president" and "prime minister" capitalised when they are not referring to a specific person, contrary to WP:JOBTITLES? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not contrary to the WP:MOS; Prime Minister is, for example, consistently capitalised on the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom article, and among others using British English, rather than American English (where grammar is markedly, notably quite different). When Head of State is usually capitalised, it generally refers to their enshrined constitutional description in accordance with the state (see Head of State of Fiji), rather than their international designation. You will find, in most constitutions, that these titles are within capital letters. When these terms remain uncapitalised, it is usually in a general sense, pertaining not to any specific office in particular. As I previously stated, this style may differ in American or Canadian English. Neve-selbert (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Style isn't determined by what's in some other article; see WP:OTHERSTUFF. I directed you to WP:JOBTITLES, which clearly says "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically." In the case of the note in this article--"In this state, the president is both head of state and the government. The offices of prime minister, chief of the cabinet of ministers, or chief executive officer, may exist in these states, but it does not wield executive power"--the nouns are being used generically, not to refer to specific people (President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson), and certainly not as full titles for specific offices (the King of Norway, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea).

The term "head of state" is not a title except for Head of State of the Transition for the Central African Republic, which I left capitalised. In each use where I changed your capital letters on "head of state" to lower case, the use was not in a title: general notes pertaining to many countries (so, no specific constitution can be pointed to): "the president is both head of state and the government", "opinion differs as to whether the Queen or governor-general should be designated as head of state". For other notes pertaining to specific countries--"The three-member Bosnian presidency is the head of state collectively", "The seven-member Swiss Federal Council is the collective head of state and the government", "Erdoğan is barred from wielding executive power and is legislatively bound as head of state ceremonially"--can you prove the constitutions for those nations use "head of state" as a title for the relevant bodies or figures?

The article isn't even internally consistent. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Back in 2004, there was a very similar discussion going on here.

Heads of State is intentionally limiting. A Head of State is distinct from a head of government; the head of state is the titular ruler while the head of government is the functional one. Often, constitutional monarchs will be Head of State, while a Prime Minister will be the head of government. This is the case in Britain, for example. Other times (Germany, for instance), there will be a President who is the elected Head of State; that person appoints a Prime Minister as head of government. Non-state organizations, such as the UN and EU among others, do not have Heads of State but rather only heads of government. Popes are Head of State in the Holy See in their role as Bishops of Rome

— Jonel on 23 April 2004 (2004-04-23)

I would further note that head of government is very rarely capitalised, due to the fact that Head of State usually refers to the highest-ranking position in a sovereign state, and therefore must have some officiality somehow within the state and hence their constitution—in whatever language they may be in. I must reiterate that there are notable, multinational differences in capitalisation, grammar, titles between either American or Canadian English versus British, Australian, Indian, Pakistani English, etc. (with the latter being mainly in accordance with Template:EngvarB: designated, at the top of the page, for notification). This is not a matter of consistency, but a matter of variation. Neve-selbert (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You have not explained how "head of state" is a title when used generically. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Within the footnotes, they are not used generically. Above, at the top of the page, yes, they are indeed; hence the warranted uncapitalisation—in the lead section—of "head of state". But, per the annotations below, we are referring to specific political, constitutional classifications in accordance with a state(s), making it sensible to unambiguously capitalise Head of State, Prime Minister, etc. Neve-selbert (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they most certainly are being used generically, as I already explained. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Phrases like "heads of state", "a head of state", and "Obama is the head of state of the US" should not capitalize "head of state". It's a common noun referring to any titular ruler under various vastly different systems of government, and is often an externally applied designation. It would be capitalized in the context of an exact constitutional title, e.g. "Head of State of the Transition for the Central African Republic". Likewise, one could write that "the UN is attended by representatives sent from the member governments, who most often are not the presidents, prime ministers, and other heads of state of those nations", but would refer to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States. WP:MOS and MOS:CAPS have been consistently interpreted this way for around a decade now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Prime Minister or not?

Zoltan Bukovszky and Therequiembellishere, could you discuss here, instead of edit warring in the edit summaries?? Thank you! --Jerus82 (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Prime minister of South Korea

According to our own article, the prime minister of South Korea is not HoG. We should only include the president on this list. Pburka (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In compliance with this UN document, the South Korean PM is listed as a HoG. Neve-selbert 02:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps we need to correct the Prime minister of South Korea article, in that case. Pburka (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

However, the article about the PM says otherwise, supported by a source. I would recommend caution regarding this. Prime Minister in South Korea seems to be equivalent, somewhat, to a vice-president in many presidential systems. --B.Lameira (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source was a broken link last time I tried to follow it. I've raised this issue on Talk:Prime Minister of South Korea but have not yet received any replies. Pburka (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 14:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina

This list states that the High Representative is head of state and government. However, this is not the case, as their only role is to make sure that the Dayton agreement is enforced, and has no active role in the executive branch, like a judiciary power. For reference: Constitutional history of Bosnia and Herzegovina --B.Lameira (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a legend:

- Yellow highlighted cells indicate state leaders whose constitutionally interpreted positions (e.g. de jure) individually administer the governmental executive, legislature

- Blue highlighted cells distinguish heads of state chiefly regarded as exercising (e.g. de facto) further systemic influence, authority within their governance

The High Representative – Valentin Inzko is in yellow while Chairman of the Presidency – Dragan Čović is in blue. Wykx (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So, what's your point, exactly? I do not get it. Are you telling me to edit? --B.Lameira (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

That was for informative purpose. I don't know if there no real executive action or judiciary as per High Representative: "The OHR was requested to: adopt binding decisions when local parties seem unable or unwilling to act; remove from office public officials who violate legal commitments or, in general, the DPA". As per Bosnia and Herzegovina, the High Representative has many governmental and legislative powers. Wykx (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The country's article seems to be in contradiction, because in the infobox's footnote it is written: "Not a government member; the High Representative is an international civilian overseer of the Dayton peace agreement with authority to dismiss elected and non-elected officials and enact legislation." --B.Lameira (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Combine lists

The UN members and other states should be combined, as there is no reason to separate them. People looking for heads of states may not know whether a country is a UN member and separating them just makes searching a particular country harder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szqecs (talk • contribs) 02:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reason to separate is that other states are most of the times included in the UN members states. So we avoid many controversies by separating the lists. Wykx (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

HoS representatives?

Howdy folks. Would ya'll consider excluding the governors-general & any other HoS representatives, from this article? I note that the article's title is List of current heads of state and government, and not List of current heads of state, their representatives and heads of government. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

According to this particular UN document, the representatives of Elizabeth II are included, with the Queen being in parentheses above their names. Neve-selbert 02:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Governors-general are not considered heads of state by themselves or by their countries' prime ministers, or by other states. The UN document is to guide the UN secretariat in protocal matters, and not determinative of the constitutional position of the monarch or any other person of a Commonwealth realm. Qexigator (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not the situation in Australia, where the Prime Minister sometimes refers to the Governor-General as Head of State. --Pete (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources stating that the Australian GG is HoS? Pburka (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I refer you to Australian head of state dispute. Opinions differ throughout the community and at all levels. There is no definitive answer. --Pete (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm confident that the footnotes will be kept. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

My proposal doesn't seem to be getting much support :( GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would deprive the article of very relevant pieces of information, because for almost all practical purposes the Governors-General are running their countries (on the Queen's behalf). So excluding them could only be justified on a very purely theoretical level. It is for similar pragmatic and realistic considerations that the secretaries general of Communist parties are and should be included for Communist countries (plus the Supreme leader of Iran), even when they are not concurrently occupying the post of head of state. ZBukov (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: actually, I do (partially) agree with you, especially on the respect of the general secretaries of the Communist parties, the Supreme Leader of Iran and the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina; as at least they should not be in yellow. They should be indicated, at the most, with a footnote. --B.Lameira (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Zoltan, there must be very few thinking people who think of governors-general as "running their country", and the comparison with the likes of comrade Stalin is way off the mark. Qexigator (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Qexigator, what I meant by "running their country" is that they are performing the head of state functions which are legally indispensable (as legislation could not work if bills would not receive royal assent and thus acquired the force of law). I didn't mean to imply that the Governors-General are exercising the executive functions on a day-to-day basis. Sorry if I was ambiguous. ZBukov (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I think Gov-Gens and Communist party leaders needs to be included is to indicate who is the highest ranking or ultimate power in the country. In the case of the Gov-Gens it's the case of being the highest ranking state leader in the country, since the Queen is half a world away, and it's the Gov-Gen who performs her functions on a day-to-day basis (therefore on a practical level - in most cases - he or she is the head of state). With Communist party leaders it's the case of being the top political leader of a dictatorship, even if the title of head of state rests with someone else. ZBukov (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You may like to think that, but it is a false comparison. The Queen is ultimate power today, as was the monarch when distant communication was no better than sailing ship. This is practically universally acknowledged in all Commonwelth realms. Have a look at the numerous relevant articles, and avoid pov. Qexigator (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that Her Majesty is the head of state (that's why I offered the caveats above that the Gov-Gen is the head of state "on a practical level - in most cases"). However the person who exercises almost all of the head of state functions is the Gov-Gen. That's why I said that he/she is the highest ranking leader "in the country" (NOT "of the state"). So within the boundaries of The Bahamas the highest ranking person, who is customarily present, is the Gov-Gen, as the Queen gets to visit the country about once in a decade. Of course nothing in this changes or challenges the fact that the Queen is the head of state and the highest ranking person of state. ZBukov (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Given the purport of the list, and the status of others in it, "the highest ranking leader in the country" is, in this context, a distinction without a difference, when speaking of an office-holder appointed to represent the substantive HoS, in this case the sovereign monarch, a position which does not exist in republics or states where the person designated as party secretary, like comrade Stalin, operates to control the president, presidium, politburo or similar. Qexigator (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

President of Iran should be in yellow and Supreme Leader should be in blue. Additionally, UN does not list the Supreme Leader as head of state. --B.Lameira (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Update on Head of State issue

An RfC has concluded [5] the Australian head of state is currently Queen Elizabeth II...the identity of the titular head of state... is, unambiguously, the Queen". Time to update the footnote to explain that the GG carries out most of the functions of Head of State in countries like Australia. Travelmite (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

My first choice would be to disregard the footnote entirely. But, if it's going to be kept? then the proposed re-wording is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Iran

The Supreme Leader and President are both listed as being both head of state and head of government, despite it saying in their own articles that they are head of state and head of government respectively. I have tried to fix this error, but it was reverted. I undid the reversion, but this too was undone. I have now come to seek clarification on this issue. 78.148.67.136 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bogdan Uleia, Jwkozak91, and 91.239.113.65: Perhaps you would like to clarify. 78.148.67.136 (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Gambia, The

I have attempted to change "Gambia, The" to "Gambia", but my edit was reverted. I undid the reversion, but it was again reverted. I have come to seek clarification on this issue. 78.148.67.136 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bogdan Uleia, Jwkozak91, and 91.239.113.65: Perhaps you would like to clarify. 78.148.67.136 (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

They've reverted you, because the country is called The Gambia. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Other countries don't have their "The" preceding them. 78.148.67.136 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to take that up with The Gambia. Wikipedia merely reflects what is, not what should be. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Brazil

With the probability that President Dilma Rousseff will be impeached & thus Vice President Michel Temer will assume her powers & duties as acting president, during the impeachment trial. Will we really need to list Temer, in this article? Afterall, Rousseff is still President until/if she's convicted & removed from office. GoodDay (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

While Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was twice being medically treated, I listed Amado Boudou as the Acting President of Argentina on this page, and kept President Fernández de Kirchner listed as President. While Traian Băsescu was being impeachment for the second time, Crin Antonescu was listed as the Acting President of Romania on this page, and President Băsescu was still listed as President.– Jwkozak91 (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

We should start the practice of going with only footnotes, in such situations. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Since these people are the legal (and continued) possessor of the office on the one hand, and the effective (albeit temporary) exerciser of the presidential duties on the other, they should both be listed. ZBukov (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, now this debate is no longer theoretical; we need to apply a decision within the next 24 hours IMHO.– Jwkozak91 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It's no longer a concern for me. If you want to list Temer? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Portugal

Why is Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa of Portugal largely seen as "exercising further systemic influence, authority within their governance". Are you sure, that is right? He is president for such a short time and never heard, he was considered that way.--89.177.235.222 (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Good question. @Jwkozak91 and GoodDay: I think we're going to have to review the highlighting. Some leaders like the Portuguese president shouldn't be highlighted as if they're the more powerful leader, when the opposite is really the case.--Nevé–selbert 22:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Howdy IP. As I understood this article, the head of state gets higher ranking then the head of government. The President of Portugal, is that country's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: The purpose of the highlighting was meant to discern the non-ceremonial leaders (i.e. those that hold actual executive power). This is why say Justin Trudeau is highlighted instead of the Queen and governor-general.--Nevé–selbert 22:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ok. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The President of Portugal is highlighted in yellow because it is part of a semi-presidential system. While the Council of Ministers and the Prime Minister, who heads the former, exercise executive power, they are held accountable to the President (must keep him/her informed) as well to the Assembly of the Republic (legislature). I hope this can be clarifying of the way a dual executive system functions. --B.Lameira (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@B.Lameira: According to The Guardian, Reuters, Euronews, he's considered somewhat "ceremonial". Maybe a footnote could be added about this.--Nevé–selbert 00:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: other people might have a different view on this, namely political scientists, here's one example: Portugal’s semi-presidentialism (re)considered: An assessment of the President's Role in the Policy Process, 1976-2006, (2009) co-authored with Octavio Amorim Neto, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 48: 234–255.. Quoting abstract:

“ This article analyzes the policy-making role of Portugal's heads of state in 1976-2006. Not only is Portugal rarely studied in the English language comparative literature but as well there is no consensus concerning the proper definition of the country’s system of government, whether it is semi-presidential or parliamentary. We present new data on the Portuguese president’s role in the following areas: cabinet appointment and dismissal; parliamentary dissolution; ministerial appointments; referral of legislative bills to judicial review; veto powers; and agenda-setting through going-public tactics. We conclude that the president's role in the policy process has never been irrelevant. While the 1982 constitutional reform did eliminate the possibility of undisguised presidential government, presidents have continued to be important in policymaking, particularly due to use of their veto and dissolution powers. Therefore, we argue that Portugal has remained solidly semi-presidential. ”

--B.Lameira (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Greek

Why are Greek letters used for footnotes?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

This article may need semi-protection, due to annoying Mobile editor's continued determination to disrupt. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

South Korea

Upon the President of South Korea's death, resignation or removal from office (via impeachment), the prime minister assumes the presidential powers & duties as Acting President. In the case of impeachment conviction, the PM continues as acting president. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Integration List Prime Ministers

As both lists deal with at least one overlapping subject - Head of Government - it should be logical to merge them in order to easier access. It should also be noted that "Prime Minister" can easily be taken as excluding "Chief Minister" - but they share the same function, i. e. head of their respective (autonomous) governments. 91.96.54.103 (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC) jopuz

In my opinion List of current prime ministers does not bring new information to the List of current heads of state and government so the two lists can be merged without any problems. The only thing that should be checked is the official name for the post of prime minister in different states which should be drawn into the list of current heads of state and government. I also think that the List of current presidents is in the same situation... In conclusion I strongly support the proposed merge. Bogdan Uleia (talk)

Proposed merge with List of current prime ministers

duplicate info in both articles Mattlore (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Strong Support on merge. We don't need duplicate lists of world leaders... Veryproicelandic (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Support per it's the same info. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Support on merge. It might even help keep these lists up to date. Classicwiki (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Strong merge support Obviously. What a totally useless duplication. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have been bold and redirected it to this page. Mattlore (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

State officials' titles

Every country chooses the titles of their top officials, therefore some name their head of government something other than Prime Minister (e.g. in Spain it's "President of the Government", in Bosnia and Herzegovina it's "Chairman of the Council of Ministers", and in a few countries it's simply "Head of Government"). One editor (Therequiembellishere) insists on changing them uniformly to "Prime Minister" in this article, arguing that it's the commonly used way to refer to them (he is citing the WP:COMMONNAME policy, which deals with article titles, so it doesn't even apply to this question). I argue that this is a factual matter so we should simply use whatever title the given country chose for their official; and that arbitrarily using generic titles would even be senseless because there is a generic term at the top of the column of names anyway. Please give your opinion whether we should use the official title for state officials in this article, or change their titles to "Prime Minister" even when it's actually something else.

See the United Nations' official list of head of state and heads of government here: https://www.un.int/protocol/sites/www.un.int/files/Protocol%20and%20Liaison%20Service/hspmfm.pdf

See the relevant government's websites, e.g.

http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/presidente/biografia/Paginas/index.aspx

http://www.vijeceministara.gov.ba/ured_predsjedavajuceg/default.aspx?id=7634&langTag=en-US

https://www.govern.ad/el-cap-de-govern

http://www.pm.gov.ma/fr/index.aspx

ZBukov (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The generic term can be used in other articles, but this article is here to detail each head of state and government so this article should use the proper official name choosen by each state. Wykx (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A real “wikipedian” must inform as accurate and complete as possible. This article is conceived even in this sense. In the heads of the tables the functions are defined in the widest possible sense “heads of state” and “head of government”. It is the best example of WP:COMMONNAME policy. As for the states taken individually, a “wikieopedian” must indicate the exact names used by them. It is no problem for a well-intentioned person to understand in San Marino the heads of state are named “captains regents” and, in China, the head of government is named “premier of the State Council” This is to give an accurate and complete information. On the other hand, this method is used also by Protocol and Liaison Service of United Nation in the list of Heads of state, heads of government and ministers of foreign affairs and by CIA In the list of World Leaders. In conclusion, any action to unify the names of heads of government, even under the pretext of WP:COMMONNAME policy is, in the best case, a counterproductive action. I am absolutely for keeping the current structure and completely against the changes without any real reason, probably only for personal vanity.Bogdan Uleia (talk)

Portugal

Should the president really be the one in yellow here? I thought Portugal was closer to something like Poland, where the president has some real power, but the prime minister is the real head of government, than it is to a semi-presidential system like France. Every source I've seen which counts Portugal as semi-presidential also counts a whole bunch of countries we're counting as parliamentary. john k (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-presidential system doesn't mean "presidentialism". Common practice in France is that of the president acting as if it was also the head of government. Some hybrid systems can be even stronger, where there are some countries that account the president as being both the head of state and government, like Sri Lanka and Mozambique, among other cases. --B.Lameira (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia

Now the question about Catalonia: to add at present list or no (among the states/governments, that control their territory, but are not recognised by any UN member states)? Or not clear yet, that they will have a force to control it, and better to wait?--Noel baran (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Best to wait. AFAIK, Catalonia is still a part of Spain. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. ZBukov (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Liechtenstein and Monaco

Should Hans Adam II be described as Sovereign Prince (like Albert II of Monaco) or Reigning Prince? IMHO, we should have both simply called Prince. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

According to the Liechtenstein Constitution - their ruler is called Prince Regnant, which supports us using just Prince. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The official UN list of heads of state and government [[6]] gives Hans-Adam's title as 'Reigning Prince'. It is a huge family, so there are literally over a hundred Princes of Liechtenstein, hence the need to differentiate the sovereign from the other princes. Furthermore if the constitution mentions the head of state's official title than that, to my mind, is hardly a reason for us to call it something else.

And similarly being called 'Sovereign Prince' - as in the UN list - is what sets the Monegasque monarch apart from other members of the dynasty. ZBukov (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

According to the Liechtenstein Constitution, the title is Prince Regnant. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yet the English version of the monarchy's official website uses the 'reigning Prince' version to refer to the head of state [[7]]. But the words 'regnant' and 'reigning' are synonyms anyway. ZBukov (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me what we use. Prince Regnant or Reigning Prince. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Should Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland be added individually to the list as they have devolved national governments responsible for most but not all of national policy. In general they are each responsible for all areas apart from defence, taxation and foreign policy. Buliglasgow (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This list is comprised of independent states which the above entities are not, therefore they should not be included. Furthermore if they were inserted, then the 16 constituent states of Germany and the 50 US states should also be added for consistency and many more. And anyway England does not even have a devolved government within the United Kingdom. ZBukov (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

E/S/W/NI are not independent, therefore shouldn't have their own entries. GoodDay (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Period being moved back & forth.

This article may need semi-protection, as a unregistered mobile editor keeps shifting a period back-and-forth, in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

North Korea or Korea, North? South Korea, or Korea, South?

While looking at the list today, I noticed that the two Congos are listed as "Congo, Republic of the" and "Congo, Democratic Republic of the".

To be consistent, I think that North/South Korea should be listed in the same way: "Korea, North" and "Korea, South"

This would put the two Koreas in the same section of the list, alphabetically.

Thoughts? Zonker.in.geneva (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Best to stick with North Korea & South Korea, per common usage. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, NK and SK aren't even the official names of the countries. If we wanted to follow the Congo precedent it would be "Korea, Democratic People's Republic of" and "Korea, Republic of". Pburka (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth II's status as head of state, beyond the UK.

Discussions related to this article are occurring at Monarchy of Australia, Commonwealth realm and United Kingdom. Input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Head of Government in Namibia

Article 27 of the Namibian constitution indicates that their president is both head of state and head of government (i.e. the prime minister is neither). Credit to Reddit user sokkies_en_plakkies for noticing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.238.165.124 (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I believe that list of current presidents should be merged into list of current heads of state and government, as, the former is a content fork and has no unique content. And of course, merging the current presidents's list with the list of current heads of state government wouldn't cause any issues to the latter, as there's not a lot of content that'd be merged into this article.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, as per the existence of things like "List of current monarchs", etc. I think it's helpful to keep, but that's just my two cents. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, I think it is more beneficial to the readers if we have the big list here for the overall view and then smaller sublists for those just interested in a certain type of head of government (ie. Presidents, Monarchs). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is just an issue of terminology; presidents in different countries have different roles and there is no reason to group them together because they share an English title. The heads article covers this perfectly well and there is no reason to duplicate. Reywas92^Talk 06:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support agree with the previous opinion. Also duplicated lists can easier get out of sync or miss an update. Darwwin (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
•  Done Needforspeed888 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2019

Please change Chairman of the National Security Council to Chairman of the Security Council. Cwilson97 (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 15:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Just want to point out. Northern Ireland has no official flag. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Haiti

Would somebody PLEASE fix up the situation concerning the prime minister. What being put into this article, is contradicting what's in the bios articles of said topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Jean Michel Lapin & Fritz-William Michel articles, aren't lining up with this article. Those articles have Michel succeeding Lapin as acting prime ministers on July 22, 2019. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles are not sources as per WP:CIRCULAR. According to Rulers Lapin is the acting prime minister. This is confirmed by recent articles like Haitian Times of 20 February. Actually both Lapin and Michel have been designated but only Lapin is acting. Wykx (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

What about the article Haiti, which has FW Michel as acting pm? GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I corrected Jean Michel Lapin & Fritz-William Michel articles with recent sources. And again Haiti is not a source. Wykx (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Never said it was. Just was pointing out that in the article Haiti's infobox, it had FW Michel as acting prime minister. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Just fixed up the mistakes at List of prime ministers of Haiti as well. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

..and at Jovenel Moise article. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Protection of the page

I think it is the case that the page must be protected again because more and more stubborn anonymous "contributors" are vandalizing the content. Bogdan Uleia (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately I agree... Wykx (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's usually the same idiot from India, who vandalises the page. Protection is required. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

List of heads of dependencies

This was added in January 2020 with no consensus. Per WP:ONUS, this controversial addition needs to be discussed first. What is the criteria for which dependencies to list? If we list U.S. territories, then you may as well list their U.S state counterpart (all are Governors). Scotland and Wales are listed, yet the United Kingdom is a unitary state... these are not dependences. This article should reflect the strict criteria set over at List of sovereign states. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@82.112.133.211, The C of E, 2001:1c03:707:d400:8caa:a490:58d3:ad8, Wykx, GoodDay, Hemant Dabral, TdanTce, 2a02:2f0a:76ff:ffff::bc1a:d3e, Jwkozak91, and AusLondonder: Pinging everyone who has edited this subsection since its addition. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 21:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I've always said. Limit this article to sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I do agree. Wykx (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep limited to sovereign states. Reywas92^Talk 22:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree as well. TdanTce (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the person who added the section of dependencies meant to add the constituents "countries" within the sovereign states like Aruba (Netherlands), Curaçao (Netherlands) England (United Kingdom), Faroe Islands (Denmark), Greenland (Denmark), Northern Ireland (United Kingdom), Scotland (United Kingdom), Sint Maarten (Netherlands) and Wales (United Kingdom). – Hemant Dabral^Talk 09:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Just because they are called "countries" doesn't make them so, that's just the name of the administrative unit. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020

Can you remove Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republic? They are rebel groups, not sovereign states. 2601:407:4100:87A0:E120:1416:52DD:B137 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: the current section of the article Donetsk and Luhansk are in recognsies that they are unrecognised states: the section says: The following states control their territory, but are not recognised by any UN member states. Seagull123 Φ 16:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Guyana

I'll make this straightforward. The President of Guyana is both Head of State and Head of Government. Despite fully explaining and backing up my edit with sources, it is reverted with no evidence or sources to the contrary. If I was a betting person then I would have been in for quite the winnings as I was convinced that an unjustified warning of me potentially being blocked would ensue from edits made WITH SOURCES (imagine that). No need to worry, I was under the impression with all the fuss that is usually made that accuracy is one of the stronger points of articles, it appears that the stronger point is indeed users who refuse to acknowledge the research and threatening others with being blocked. It is not my desire to spend my time arguing with anyone who does not care for the research, so I will take no part in assisting with the accuracy of certain entries on this page. BaronJaguar (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll second this, the article for the Prime minister of Guyana states that "[t]he prime minister, who also holds the office of First Vice President, is not the head of government in Guyana." The office of Prime Minister is synonymous with the office of the First Vice President. The article for the Guyanese president also states that they are "the head of state and the head of government of Guyana, as well as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Republic, according to the Constitution of Guyana." Khronicle I (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Khronicle I (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that the user in question preferred to threaten to block me and then asked someone else the question, rather than taking the evidence, and sources of someone from Guyana and who is familiar with the government structure. I guess they hold lordship over the page, so what they say goes. Case in point- Being told to seek consensus on the talk page by the same user that separately asks someone else the same question, while this has languished here for a month. BaronJaguar (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Minor mistakes

There are a few mistakes in the article that I would appreciate if someone could correct. First of all, Luis Arce is listed as the president-elect of Bolivia, but the election has not been held yet. He is "just" leading in the polls and is not expected to become president-elect until, well, the election. Arce should be removed from the list, and only be re-added if and when he is actually elected. Secondly, there are several heads of government (Italy, Lebanon, North Macedonia, Peru, Poland, Spain) who are listed with official titles such as "president of the council of ministers", but where the common name and the article titles are "prime minister". These aren't a mistake per se, but it seems odd to be that the official titles are used, and I would suggest changing that. Thank you in advance. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, also Andorra. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the addition of the Bolivian president-elect, or describing offices as they're actually described. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

But my whole point is he isn't president-elect, at least not yet. There hasn't been an election yet. Bolivia doesn't have a president-elect because the election is in the future. It would be like listing Joe Biden as president-elect of the US: Biden is ahead in the polls, but he hasn't been elected (yet), and no election equals no president-elect. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bolivian presidential election was held on October 18 & Arce won. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wait, it was? Sorry, I thought it was still a few days away. Forget what I said. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Why the Radical Left-wing Agenda?

Why put countries like Palestine, which is not recognised by the majority of UN member states in the main list while leaving out Taiwan and Kosovo who are recognised by the overwhelming majority? Either include all 196 countries (the main list but with Kosovo and Taiwan instead of Palestine) in the same list or put Palestine where it belongs in the list of partially unrecognised countries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:1484:5500:8044:9b01:5144:d620 (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Palestine is an observer at the UN – same as the Vatican – while Kosovo and Taiwan are not. Simple as that. Extended Cut (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Portraits

Might I suggest that we slightly reformat the page and add portraits for each person? I think it would really make the list easier for perception and the page more presentable. Oddly, there's no page on Wikipedia where all current world leaders are listed with portraits. Extended Cut (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Head of State of Belarus

Whilst this article claims that Lukashenko is President of Belarus, the rest of Wikipedia uses Disputed instead. Can this article better represent the stance of the rest of Wikipedia? Penumbra01 (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding persons who are NOT current head of state or government

I remove Joe Biden under the United States because he is not a head of state or government yet. It should be changed after he is officially sworn-in at 12:00pm (U.S. Eastern Time) on 20 January 2021. Please note that the article s called List of current heads of state and government and should only include those who are sitting heads of state and government. Thank you for your cooperation. YborCityJohn (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

For years, it's been the practice on this article to add the incoming heads of state & government. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@User:GoodDay Just so you know I am not trying to pick a fight NOR am I trying to be political ok, I just want the article to be accurate and not abused by someone (which I am NOT accusing you of, of being politically petty), Can you please provide some sort of concrete reference that explicitly states this is an acceptable practice within Wikipedia otherwise it needs to be reverted back again. Thank you. YborCityJohn (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Look through the article now & it's contribs history. We've always listed presidents-elect, prime ministers-designate, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

Change the Kyrgyzstan table entry from the small text "Acting President – Talant Mamytov" to the large text "President – Sadyr Japarov". My source for this edit is " https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210128-once-jailed-populist-japarov-sworn-in-as-kyrgyz-president ". Thank you. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 Myanmar coup d'état

With the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état, should the leaders of Myanmar be changed? Or would this fall under the "Other governments" section? TdanTce (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

IMHO, Win Myint and Aung San Suu Kyi would be the internationally recognized "Other government" in this situation; and, similar to the Islamic Republic of Iran, Min Aung Hlaing is the Supreme Leader with Myint Swe as Acting President under Min Aung Hlaing. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Poland

Morawiecki administers the executive in Poland not Duda. I would change it but I cant edit this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:fab2:b100:449:77b4:ce00:de4d (talk • contribs) 08:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sui Generis Entities

How are Sui Generis entities being defined and should others be added i.e. United Nations, African Union, Central Tibetan Administration or Crown Dependencies? Khronicle I (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure there's a formal definitions, but both current entities possess some form of sovereignty. Both are unique entities, and so there aren't similar entities which would fit to expand that list further. CMD (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Captains Regent of San Marino

This page lists the Captains Regent of San Marino as joint heads of state and government, and suggests that one of them (I think the one whose party is in the majority) holds 'executive power' and the other does not.

However, the true Head of Government (even if de facto) is Luca Beccari the Secretary of State for Foreign and Political Affairs and leader of the Congress of State, which is the executive body. The Captains Regent only have symbolic power, like a monarch or ceremonial President, and so neither holds executive power and it is irrelevant which one is from the majority party. I hope that this can be changed.124.169.131.243 (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Eternal Leaders of North Korea

I know that the Eternal leaders of North Korea were listed once. They've been removed but I don't see any record of a discussion about removing them. Obviously their status is weird, but it's also constitutionally mandated. Should they be placed on the list? Fishal (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, they're both dead, so should they be listed? More perplexing, why is Charles I of England being excluded from List of assassinated and executed heads of state and government? GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Tasmania & New South Australia

An editor has added to the articles governor of Tasmania & governor of New South Wales, that those positions are heads of state. Does this mean that Tasmania & New South Wales (those offices & the individuals who currently hold them) have to be added to this article? GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Belarus

I thnk we should have the Coordination Council as an alternative government of Belarus recognized by other UN members, as they’ve been recognized by several countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2020_Belarusian_presidential_election_and_protests#Countries_not_accepting_election_result

They haven't recognized the Coordination Council, they've only refused to recognize the 2020 election, calling for a do-over. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Almost goes without saying that this page should be updated to reflect the current situation in Afghanistan.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.92.239 (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Was thinking that too. But wasn't exactly sure who was fully in charge of the country. GoodDay (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is Amrullah Saleh listed on top of the list despite receiving no diplomatic recognition? Even if the de facto government (IEA) didn't yet receive formal recognition but they already deal and have relations with many countries. We usually list new de facto leaders after coups before receiving formal recognition. Amrullah is not even the most important man in Panjshir. he Is working under Ahmed Masood who's in talks with the Taliban for a peaceful solution. 3bdulelah (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Now Amrullah Saleh fled the country to Tajikstan. There is no reason he is still listed as president when he himself declared that he is now president because the president fled. If no one is willing to discuss it here I'm going to make the change. 3bdulelah (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No objections. Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The names of states used in the lists of political holders

As one can see in these lists, the short form is used for the names of the states, when it does not generate confusions, e.g. France not French Republic, United Kingdom not United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States not United States of America. The only exception is the Dominican Republic, for which there is no short form. That is why I think that, for the sake of uniformity, the short name Czechia, approved by the Czech government as well, is much more suitable to be used in all these lists.

Bogdan Uleia (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it best to use the linked-article's name? In this case Czech Republic? -- GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Aziz Akhannouch

On 10 September 2021 Aziz Akhannouch was only appointed to form the new government. In a constitutional monarchy, such as Morocco, he will become Prime Minister only after the formation of the new government and its approval in parliament. So I think he can listed only as a designated Prime Minister.

Bogdan Uleia (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Emir of Afghanistan

@Tartan357: has disputed the usage of Emir at Afghanistan & the individual-in-question's bio article. What's the choice, at this article? GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, are you really this averse to providing sources for your edits? Lack of sources was my only concern. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Then I suppose you should change Emir to Leader, in this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay,  Done ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Formal name vs Common name

For those interested, there's a discussion here that GoodDay started to seek clarity after rving my edit starting the conversation here for consistency. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

San Marino

I had an edit, and added the head of government of San Marino, with sources. Why was that reverted? The sources say that the captain regents are heads of state, with largely ceremonial roles, and the secretary of state for foreign and political affairs is head of the government. Also other sources, like United Nations several times mentions the secretasy of state for foreign affairs for "prime minister". Does anybody have meanings about that?Karriuss (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I might've done it. I thought the captains-regent were both co-heads of state & co-heads of government. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The sources say something other. It's always a good idea to do some research before just reverting. Karriuss (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

New Zealand's "extra parts"

The footnote attached to Queen Elizabeth's name wherever it appears in the table currently reads as follows:

Constitutionally, Elizabeth II is separately and equally monarch of 15 sovereign states known collectively as the Commonwealth realms. In each of these states (with the exception of the United Kingdom, where she permanently resides), she is duly represented at the national level by a governor-general.

I added a sentence to this footnote about the Cook Islands and Niue:

As Queen in Right of New Zealand, she is also the head of state of the freely associated states of the Cook Islands and Niue, and is represented in each by a Queen's Representative.

@GoodDay: deleted this addition saying that "we don't need to mention NZ's extra parts". The problem with that response is that we do, in fact, already mention New Zealand's extra parts: they have their own entries in this list, albeit in a separate section at the end, and Queen Elizabeth is listed as their Queen and the same footnote is attached to her name. It seems like an omission to me to list these two states on this page and have this footnote attached to the name of their head of state but then include a description in that footnote that specifically excludes them. I know this does make the footnote kind of long and unweildy so maybe the best course of action would be to write a separate footnote for Cook Island and Niue? But it doesn't make sense to have a footnote that says "Elizabeth is the queen of these 15 states" and then have that footnote on the entries for 17 states. --Jfruh (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not required, just like we don't include Canada's ten provinces & three territories or Australia's six states. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would exclude Cook Island & Niue from this article. PS - But if they are kept? then a separate -footnote- would be required, as suggested. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean the whole point is that Cook Island and Niue are not directly analagous to the Canadian provinces and Australian states. I don't know enough to say whether they belong on this page and I'm sure there was a great deal of drama here when they were added, but if they're going to be here, they should get an explanatory footnote, which I have added. --Jfruh (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay is wrong to equate them to the same kind of subnational entity as a province or state, but associated states do exist in a weird middle ground in which they're greater than a territorial dependency or autonomous region but not quite seen as sovereign country the same way. I lean toward them meriting inclusion on the basis that they freely choose to delegate security issues to NZ but can just as easily choose to retain them. However, this is sticky and could also see holding on adding them until if/when they fully separate their government from NZ (likely including UN membership). Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

We've already settled, with the new footnote. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Didn't realize no on else was allowed to weigh in, thanks. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

They're not? I wasn't aware of this. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Official Titles vs COMMONNAME

Speaking from the principle point of view, in my opinion, an encyclopedia should convey as much information as possible and raise the level of culture and knowledge of the reader. not to go down to a lower level to satisfy a low level reader. In the written article, in tabular form, any reader with a minimum of knowledge understands immediately when it comes to a head of state or a head of government and immediately identifies the function related to an official title. In addition, there are links to most of these features that allow him to obtain additional information if he deems it necessary. The indication of the full official names, in addition to avoiding confusion, falls within the line promoted by official documents (https://www.un.org/dgacm/sites/www.un.org.dgacm/files/Documents_Protocol/hspmfmlist.pdfand ) and sites dedicated to archontology (http://rulers.org/, https://www.worldstatesmen.org/ ). Over the years since this article existed, there has been tacit agreement among all contributors on the above issues and no one has raised the issue that these official names should be changed. So, although the truth is not established by vote, we could say "Vox populi, vox Dei". That is why I express my firm conviction that the use of "common name" in this article is totally inappropriate, does not bring any additional value to the article, is confusing and removes information. Such a radical change requires a broad discussion, with several participants and no untimely action by a single contributor, on his own initiative, without a well-argued justification. A true encyclopedist does not have the ambition to impose a unilateral point of view just to prove that he is more "wise" than everyone else and the contributions must be constructive, not destructive. Bogdan Uleia (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

UN Member States (Proper Alignment)

Bolivia - Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

Brunei - Brunei Darussalam

Cape Verde - Cabo Verde

Congo, Democratic Republic of the - Democratic Republic of the Congo

Ivory Coast - Côte D'Ivoire

North Korea - Democratic People's Republic of Korea

East Timor - Timor-Leste

Iran - Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Laos - Lao People's Democratic Republic

Federated States of Micronesia - Micronesia (Federated States of)

Moldova - Republic of Moldova

South Korea - Republic of Korea

Russia - Russian Federation

São Tomé and Príncipe - Sao Tome and Principe

Syria - Syrian Arab Republic

Tanzania - United Republic of Tanzania

United Kingdom - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United States - United States of America

Venezuela - Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of

Vietnam - Viet Nam

Regardless of if the individual sites are changed, the official list should respect the names as recognised by the United Nations.

Thanks, --122.148.182.187 (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Michael Alexander Schlesinger 9/12/2021 (3:57 PM) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mick6891 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:Commonname is best. GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

BTW - @Mick6891: & @122.148.182.187:, you wouldn't happen to be the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yep, your password wouldn't happen to be nice day would it? Also, haha nice try. Canada will never become a republic, YOUR QUEEN IS TOO STRONG. Unlike Australia which has an "independent government" (*Joke).

Whatever. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Myanmar

Gentlemen settle it here, before one of you drag the other to WP:ER. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, you trying to insert yourself as some sort of referee into disputes you have not been involved in is getting tiresome, and I know I'm not the first to take issue with your conduct at WP:ANI in this regard. It is not helping. This issue was settled some time ago as you can see on all the Myanmar-related pages; the SAC was not dissolved as initially reported. It still very much exists. I have little patience for someone trying to force in a deprecated blog that appears to mirror Wikipedia as a citation, while denying the reliability of a high-quality source such as Bloomberg. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

President ofthe government Of Donetsk People's Republic

Personally, I consider that, within Wikipedia, the main value is the accuracy of the information. In connection with the so-called "Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics", a basic feature is the lack of transparency, which is characteristic of totalitarian Bolshevik regimes. That is why the information that can be obtained and that can be trusted is extremely few and is often obtained based on other published information. As for the Donetsk regime's head of government, a note on the president's meeting with acting Prime Minister Vladimir Pashkov appeared on the government's website in February 2020, without providing any information on the withdrawal, resignation or dismissal of incumbent Prime Minister Alexander Ananchenko. As Paskov is a Russian citizen in the free press, the information immediately appeared, probably in order to prove that these secessionists are only the servants of the state led by Putin. In my opinion, this is undoubted for any person who is somewhat informed and who thinks with his own mind. Following the government's website, a few days after this announcement, I found government documents signed by Ananchenko as head of government, and in the section on the composition of the government, Ananchenko appears as head of government. There was no statement or information about Ananchenko's resumption of duties, nor about Pashkov's situation. In these conditions, no article appeared in the free press regarding the resumption of attributions by Ananchenko. Moreover, following some reshuffles, Pashkov is no longer even the deputy prime minister. If Wikipedia in Russian, however more informed and in closer relationship with this entity made the update in English Wikipedia, the error persists and is summed up by some contributors of this article. I have corrected the error several times, using the Donetsk government website as the only available source, because the websites www.ruler.org and www.worldstatesmen.org, personally verified by me as impeccable from the point of view of the information presented is considered unreliable. When I last corrected the error by presenting the only available source of information on the government's website, a contributor who has no connection with this article replied that the source was unreliable and threatened to ban me if I made the correction. I don't understand, what could be more reliable for the composition of a government than the website of this government? Until these pseudo-state features disappear and the territory returns to its place in Ukraine, please help me to keep the correct information. Because I no longer want to get into a dispute with a limited and obtuse individual, please have someone correct the information. Thank you! Слава непереможній Україні! Glory to invincible Ukraina! Bogdan Uleia (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bogdan Uleia: As apparently the limited and obtuse individual you refer to (please see WP:NPA, and be aware that that behavior can also result in a block), as I have explained to you on your Talk page and mine, all that is required is that that you include a citation, inline with the content, to indicate the reliable source that makes it verifiable. This matter is not as complex as you would like to make it out to be, but Wikipedia policies concerning verifiability and your responsibility to provide citations are not negotiable. General Ization ^Talk 15:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bogdan Uleia: Also, you may want to reconsider the statement what could be more reliable for the composition of a government than the website of this government? See WP:PRIMARY, which explains why we prefer published secondary and tertiary sources to primary sources such as this. In the present situation (i.e., in the midst of a war), I don't think there's any reason to assume that the government web site of the DPR, or anything with a .ru TLD, is a reliable source for anything related to this conflict, or related to any of the personages involved in it. There is, after all, something called disinformation. Since Pashkov has now been personally sanctioned by the United States government, apparently they are not buying the claim that he is merely a private citizen either. General Ization ^Talk 15:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Haiti

There is currently no President in Haiti. Only and Interim Prime Minister 71.174.229.112 (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sst

Write the name of 10 country president name 2409:4043:4D17:CEE9:6753:2F38:1CFF:1CE (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2022

Country Sri Lanka Change "Acting President - Ranil Wickremesinghe" to "President - Ranil Wickremesinghe"

Reference : https://www.dailymirror.lk/top_story/RANIL-WICKREMESINGHE-WINS-PRESIDENTIAL-VOTE/155-241442 Citizen Vir Smith (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Aaron Liu (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Should Afghanistan be moved to "Other states"? Since the UN does not recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and its leaders.[8]. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting thought. It should be moved there, if that's what the page's criteria calls for. GoodDay (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I also found similar problems in List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence, List of current defence ministers, List of current finance ministers, List of current foreign ministers, List of current interior ministers, List of supreme courts by country and List of current presidents of legislatures.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the state of Afghanistan is universally recognized. The division is not based on recognition of governments. CMD (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

That section is called "Member and observer states of the United Nations". In Member states of the United Nations#Current members, the tricolor flag is used.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Donbas states

In light of the Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine, the entries on Donetsk and Luhansk should be removed from the "Other states" section, yes? At this point nobody recognizes them as independent (everyone either considers them part of Russia or part of Ukraine) and the governments of those entities themselves consider themselves part of Russia. --Jfruh (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Social

President of different countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.149.16.186 (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2022

Please link any country leaders name to it's rightful wiki page, especially major ones such as Xi Jinping https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping Yellowgods (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The first occurrence of any given name in the article (including Xi Jinping) is linked to the Wikipedia article on the subject. Subsequent appearances are not linked. See WP:OVERLINK. General Ization ^Talk 03:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022

Ardezta221 (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add current Indonesian Vice President (Ma'ruf Amin) in the list. Thank you

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Brazil

What's the situation in Brazil? I've got at least one or two editors suggesting the president has left the country & therefore his term automatically ended, roughly 24 hrs before it's to expire? GoodDay (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Constitutionally, the Vice President has presidential powers when the president is out of the country, but the president remains the permanent officeholder, just like every other time he makes a trip out of the country. No change should be made. 25stargeneral (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Changes were made on the bios of the outgoing president & vice president, the country page & other related pages. I had to revert them, but I think we might have a bit of a mess on our hands. GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Haiti

Well, what's going on in Haiti? The presidency is vacant, the prime ministership is vacant. Who's temporarily in charge? GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Acting Prime Minister Ariel Henry is in charge. Since Tuesday, there are no elected officials and the constitutional order has essentially broken down, with criminal gangs controlling large parts of the capital. Henry was appointed PM by President Moise before his assassination but was never confirmed by Parliament. Henry is considered a suspect in the assassination. Here's an article: [9]. 25stargeneral (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The presidency itself, shouldn't be deleted from this page. Why? because the presidency of Haiti hasn't been abolished. The office is merely 'vacant'. GoodDay (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the office of the president has been abolished. But this is a list of people currently holding office. "Vacant" is not a person. There is a separate list article for the offices called List of national governments, and I have not changed that one. The cell highlighted in green is supposed to indicate the person currently in charge of the country. 25stargeneral (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting an office from this page, when that office is vacant. Such a deletion, suggests the office no longer exists. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Why? This is a list of officeholders, not a list of offices. As I've pointed out, we have a different list for the offices. The list needs to be clear about who is in charge of the country, and listing "vacant" as being in charge for close to 2 years strikes me as obviously nonsensical. 25stargeneral (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

May as well wait for others to chime in. This won't be settled between just the two of us, as we're in disagreement on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Responding as a neutral 3rd Opinion

Listing presidency as "vacant" seems to be the most descriptive and informative compared to outright deleting it currently. In my opinion, maybe it should even be considered to say something like "ousted [insert the name of the president that was ousted]" to give the most context. These series of events in Haiti seem to currently and unpredictably be unfolding and it's safest to leave it at that until it is crystal clear what has happened or is happening.

I, as an outsider, would personally learn more and know more from that kind of description rather than the outright deletion of it. And that is the purpose of Wikipedia, to be as informative as possible. Without that, I'd just assume Haiti was in order with their current head of state.

That's just my two cents from an outside opinion. @25stargeneral@GoodDay LeenchaOromia (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur that the office of the president should be listed, with the notation "vacant" or similar. Saying that "Vacant is not a person" in my opinion is stretching it hard. I think it is misleading and misinforming the reader just to list the prime minister if Haiti also is supposed to have a president according to its laws. Thinker78 (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that 25stargeneral has been making several changes across related pages, concerning this topic. I think it would've been best, if he'd sought feedback first, before making such changes. Anyways, @Therequiembellishere: & @Jwkozak91:, you both frequent this & related list pages, way more then myself. How do you both think the Haiti situation should be handled? GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I am free to make edits in accordance with reliable sources on my own. I don't have to seek your permission before I edit. I read the constitution of Haiti, and I consulted the existing sources cited and new sources covering the current situation. None of them support the idea of an acting presidency. All say Henry is PM and per the constitution, the PM and Cabinet exercise executive authority when the presidency is vacant. "Acting President" appears to be original research, and I am free to remove it. I think it would've been best, if he'd sought feedback first, before making such changes. What Wikipedia guideline do you believe requires me to seek your permission before removing original research, GoodDay? And what exactly are you disagreeing with? You haven't disputed the substance of the change, but rather seem to simply be taking issue with the fact that I edited without your permission. 25stargeneral (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not up to either of us. That's why I've pinged two others to give input. GoodDay (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You are an experienced editor and you should know better than to ping two editors of your choice to a dispute. That has the appearance of canvassing. 25stargeneral (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the pinged editors? They & I have not always been in agreement with each other concerning this page & related pages. Indeed, more often then not, myself & one of them have rarely agreed. So the canvassing concerns are unwarranted. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That may be true, it may not. I really have no way of knowing that. Which is why it was an inappropriate way of seeking input. Appropriate ways include asking a WikiProject, going through Wikipedia:Third opinion, or an RfC. We have those procedures for a reason. 25stargeneral (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the lead of the page and the situation in the country, "prime minister-designate" seems to be a good wording. Thinker78 (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think how it is now ("acting") is preferable to this. "Prime minister designate" indicates an officeholder who has been appointed but whose term in power hasn't begun yet. Henry's situation is irregular, but he is exercising power de facto even if he hasn't been confirmed de jure, which i think is better captured by "acting". Jfruh (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

South Korea

Hello,

In South Korea entry, there's only the post of President of South Korea, who is both HoS and HoG. Or, There's also a post of Prime Minister of South Korea, who is vice-head of government.

Must we add it?

Thanks. Anas1712 (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Swiss chancellor

I think the Swiss chancellor also could be in the list. Even though "The Chancellor is not a member of the government and the office is not at all comparable to that of the Chancellor of Germany or the Chancellor of Austria", he is the head of the government's staff, and including him in the list, also could be useful. It's a position not found in other countries, but Switzerland is special in many cases. There are listed many prime ministers that not are heads of governments at all, and also the Bosnian High representative, so why not the Swizz chancellor? Karriuss (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Bosnia formatting

Can someone edit the formatting of the three Members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina so that it matches the rest of the entries? For example, all other entries have "Position – Name" except for B&H where is it "Name (as Position)". Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

1.) I think the way it is now is the only way to describe collective leadership in a grammatically correct way in English. 2.) The table entry for the Swiss Federal Council denotes the President and Vice President in the same manner.– Jwkozak91 (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

That's true. It would be too cluttered to apply "Member – Name" to everyone in the Swiss Federal Council so I guess leaving B&H's formatting makes sense as well. Thanks. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Equalizing the widths of the Other States columns

Can someone equalize the column widths for the entries under the "Other States", "Other Governments", and "Sui generis entities" sections? I believe it would be as simple as taking the header lines like:

! [[Associated state|State]]

and changing it to become:

!width=200pt|[[Associated state|State]]

I think that just adjusting the first column would help the readability of those sections by alot. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried to make the widths of the columns equal but I can't get it so that they all remain responsive when looking at it from mobile. So I reverted it and give up for now. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

De facto leaders of Laos and Vietnam

From my understanding, both the de facto and de jure leaders of Laos and Vietnam are the leaders of each country's Communist party, just like the other one-party nations of China and North Korea. So why do the presidents of Laos and Vietnam keep being highlighted as de facto leaders then? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. Not sure why that was changed. 25stargeneral (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an edit war with anyone, but I'm not sure what to do next. Should I revert it back or do we need some kind of agreement before? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2023

change X to Y WhoRulez1! (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

PMs in full presidential systems

If we have this note that states some PMs are not the head of government because the president is both head of state and government, why do we still have those PMs in the head of government column? That would seem to be inaccurate. I think it might be better to have the president span both columns like South Korea, but keep the explanatory note in place. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle it. Usually, when it's a full presidential system. There's no prime ministers. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Sultan and Prime Minister of Oman

I read that the Sultan of Oman is the most powerful position in that country and there are no separation of powers there. Is it necessary to point out that the current sultan is the prime minister as well? Shouldn't it only be sultan? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a list of heads of state and government. The PM is the head of government, and he chairs the council of ministers as PM. I think it makes sense to put both. 25stargeneral (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

India: President or Prime Minister?

Today (19 May 2023) at 06:48 another user changed the green cell for India from the prime minister (Narendra Modi) to the president (Droupadi Murmu). Do we want to keep this change, reverse it, or make the prime minister’s cell blue? Twbar9910 (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This is plain wrong and I have undone it. Thanks for calling attention to it. 25stargeneral (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Haiti's presidential vacancy is highlighted

Shouldn't the acting vice president of Haiti be highlighted (either in blue or green, not sure which applies) rather than the vacant president's spot? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Haiti doesn't have a vice presidency. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh really? What do they have? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh I see, the prime minister. I'll repeat it again so there's zero confusion:

Shouldn't the acting prime minister of Haiti be highlighted (either in blue or green, not sure which applies) rather than the vacant president's spot? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the Ariel Henry and President of Haiti pages, Henry is both the acting president and prime minister. Twbar9910 (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The constitution of Haiti does not provide for an acting president. There is a presidency of the council of ministers, similar to Lebanon. 25stargeneral (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Should this be changed on the other pages then? Twbar9910 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. There are also sources such as NPR and the Washington Post that clearly say things like "Haiti has no president", that can also be used. I'm not sure some editors realize the extent to which the constitutional order has broken down in Haiti. It's a lawless situation. Henry was never even sworn in as PM, let alone president, so Haiti has been called a "de facto dictatorship". Gangs control large parts of Port-au-Prince and Henry has not done much to restore the constitutional order. 25stargeneral (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Please allow sorting of the columns!

Could someone enable the feature that allows you to sort the columns, so that, eg, you can have all the presidents, kings, etc together? Thanks! 2601:5C2:101:4340:A8BC:F1B5:E303:7276 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes 2601:C8:300:1AC0:D876:FCBD:4A63:67EF (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)