Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office/Archive 1

Notes from construction

Here are some of the principles I used in putting this page together. Hope they help in maintaining it.

1. Only included CURRENT heads of state.
2. Included the same heads of state as listed on the List of state leaders page. Many republics have two leaders - a formal head-of-state, such as a President, and an excecutive leader, such as a Prime Minister. Both are included. Some states have more than two leaders eg Monarch, Governor General and Prime Minister. All are included.
3. Each person should be listed only once, they can have only one current continuous period as leader. Title may change, and this is noted. They may hold more than one postion, such as Queen Elizabeth II, that is also noted.
4. The position given for the head of state is their current position, if they have held a number of positions since the date they assumed the office, the former positions are given as notes.
5. The date used is the start date of their current continuous period as a state leader, eg if a PM lost an election and won a subsequent election to commence a second term, the date is the start of the second term.
6. The date used is the date they assumed office, eg by inaguration, not the date of an election win, unless the inaguration date is not known
7. If they were considered the state leader, but were not officially holders of the office, the earlier date is used. Eg acting Prime Ministers who subsequently became PM, are listed with the date they became acting PM, eg Ehud Olmert of Israel is considered to have started on Jan 5th 2006
8. The dates come from other WP pages - individual bio pages, or the related list-of-officeholders page, but should also be verified against Rulers.org, I have not done this
9. Short interruptions, eg as the 3-day Venzeulan Coup of 2002 are not taken into account in deciding the start-date
10. For Royals, periods of regency are not counted, since there is another person, the outgoing Royal, still in the role.
11. Where there is a complication about the date given, I have used reference notes to explain the background.
12. Reference notes are used so that the list remains simple to read without too much confusing information. The list can just be date, name, country, position, with the details elsewhere. Allows for easy comparison.

Enjoy, and help keep it up to date.--Rye1967 06:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that rules nine and ten should be used. The interruptions may be short, but they were still not in the position until the interruption was over. As for rule ten, we cannot have seven apply either then, which is also ridiculous. The actor/regent is not official until they truly take office, but if they do take office directly after the acting/regency, the date that began the acting/regency should be used. Therequiembellishere 20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions and Remarks

Hi, Rye. I see you have finished the work, and that's indeed a very good work. I have few suggestions to improve it, but I know from my experience how painful it can be to make a work, and then someone else comes and changes all what you've made because he has views on things he feels are far better... So, I don't want to change anything without your consent.

Thx. I do have some opinions so I do like discussing changes first. I dont own the article of course, so once its bedded in, Im not going to stay involved.--Rye1967 16:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I think the general presentation can be improved, using cells with fixed widths. For example, in List of popes, you can find such a board. If you agree, I can do it myself.

Agree. In my wide-screen browser, the date col wraps around in places. Do whatever you think--Rye1967 16:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, the "1996 to 2000" section is too long. It could be replaced by shorter one-year-sections.

Agree. I considered making 1999 its own section, but either way is fine. I also think that the 2nd half of the current year, ie 2006 at the moment, should be its own section to keep the list to a reasonable size--Rye1967 16:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly, you tried to expose as simple as possible some very complicated facts. I think, it's not really possible and a happy medium must be found between the complicated reallity of facts and a simple presentation. If I take your Notes for construction one by one, here is what I think:

I need more time to read these so I will come back to it later.--Rye1967 16:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree.
2. I agree.
3. I agree in theory, but in practice it's more difficult. When a leader changes posts, his power changes too. A prime minister isn't a president and a president isn't a prime minister. Furthermore, even if one leader changes posts, there is nearly always a few days gap between the first one's end and the second one's begin. I propose (as I have already done with Sam Hinds and Artur Rasizadə) to show them twice: once with the date of their first continuous post in office, and the detail of their different continuous posts, and the other one with only their current post. Of course, we can play on presentation or typography to find a good way to show they are in continuous power from an older date. For exemple we can write this second mention with smaller letters, or in a coloured line, and so on.

This is the one that I have issue with. Either the person is a state leader or not. If they change post, they either remain a state leader (but with a new post) - so the original date stays eg Fidel Castro, they are no longer a state leader - in which case they are dropped from the list, or they become a state leader, in which case they are added to the list. If someone changes from PM to Pres, they probably were a state leader before the change and remain so. If there is a gap, then we either decide to ignore it, or take it into account for start-date. If we take it into account, it means that that there was a break in the period of state leadership when we consider that the person was not a a state leader, so only the new date is used. In all cases, we should justify what we do in the refs/notes.

I think that having a person more than once in the list is confusing for the reader. By definition, they are looking for the start-date for a particular person assuming office. We should advise a start-date, and give them the info in notes in case they wish to consider an alternative date. No-reader is going to like scrolling up and down through the list to find a 2nd piece of info on a person. Also, when I look at the sections on Sam Hinds and Artur Rasizade there is a multitude of dates and periods to think about. As a reader, I want to be lazy and not have to analyse anything to draw conculsions if not necessary. So we should simplify it to say '<date became state leader> <name...etc> Notes:<pos1> then <pos2> from <start date>, <pos3> from date and leave everything else to the notes. The list should answer the question, what date did Sam Hinds become a state leader, in his current 'term'. More info should be in notes, saying 'We have chosen x, but here is more info ....'. Ref notes are the system for jumping fwd/back in the list for more info rather than saying 'Scroll up to 1.June.96 etc'.

If a person is in the list twice, we are giving two dates for when they became a state leader. If we are are talking about a continuous period, by definition, there cannot be two start-dates. We could explain more in the into notes, but readers like me will ignore those and decide to understand the list construction just by reading the list contents.

I agree that I am trying to generalise a very varied system, and trying to simplify things that are not simple.

I've mucked up the numbering by posting this response here, but I know which is which anyhow --Rye1967 00:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree.
2. I agree. But small gaps are possible, not only because of a lost election or, as Hugo Chávez, because a failed coup, but for institutional reasons. King Baudouin I of Belgium, for example, abdicated one day to avoid to sign a law allowing abortion and he let his governement, acting as regent for the empty throne, to sign it. The day after the Parliament voted to put back the king on the throne (of course King Baudouin is dead and no more in this list, but it is just an example). Another example: In Guyana, when the Office of president is vacant, the prime minister becomes president. When president Janet Jagan decided to retire for health reason, prime minister Sam Hinds steped down to allow the parliament to chose an other prime minister, who became president two days after and Sam Hinds was renamed prime minister. So I agree with Principle #5, but the "current term in office" must be understood without taking "technical gaps" in account, but thoses gaps must be explained in a note.
3. I agree.
4. I agree, but the date of their inauguration as rightful leader must be showed two. I think it's simpler too show with the same means when an "acting prime minister" becames a "prime minister" as we do when a "prime minister" becames a "president" for example.
5. I agree and I can verify all the dates on Rulers.org myself.
6. I agree. Same remarks as #5.
7. I agree: it must not be counted, but it can be indicated in a note. In some cases (for example now in Liechtenstein) the regent acts as the sovereign himself and for him. So the regent's role is very near the role of governor-general you can find in Canada or Australia. If we include governors-generals in the list, why not the regents?
8. I agree, excpet for the definitition of "note". See next point:
9. I don't agree at all. If the board is well presented, as List of popes is, for example, there is no "confusion" problem. If every note is a footnote, there will be two many footnotes, it will be hard to find the good one and nobody will read it. I find it far better to place the notes in the board itself. If you want, we can add another column to seperate the office and the remarks. For exemple for Kim Yong Nam, we can write "Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly" in one column and "Performing ceremonial head of state functions only. The "highest post of the state" has been declared on September 5, 1998 to be the post of Chairman of the National Defence Commission hold by Kim Jong Il since April 9, 1993." in another. Or for Sam Hinds, we can write "Prime minister" or even "Various offices" in one column and the details in the next column. I think the list can be clear enough without any footnotes and all the information in front of every proper name.

Ok, I see your point. I like the layout of list of popes, so I don't have any objections to that. Although the list is not as 'tidy', it is easier for readers to get the info they need. -- Rye1967 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of my remarks? As I have already said, I won't change anything in the presentation without your consent. Once again, thank you for your work.

Švitrigaila 11:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Discssion on start-date from talk-page

Hi, Good suggestion on the seperate col for state and office. It means slightly less work for me in converting the data into the page. I've taken the dates of office from the individual WP bio pages/List of leader pages, so if you are sure of the date changes that you have made, could you update the relevant bio pages also? Also, take a look at the entry in the list for Denis_Sassou-Nguesso Republic of the Congo, there seems to be a conflict in your chanages between 1996 and 1997.--Rye1967 21:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi too. I know an excellent site about the subjetct. It's Rulers.org. About Sassou-Nguesso, it's difficult to say the real beginning of his rule because he returned to power after a coup d'état and a short civil war.

There can be a presentation problem about rulers who changed offices or who stepped down only for a short time. I think it's better to show the date of the first appointement when there is a small interruption between two terms... but what can we call small ?... A good exemple is Guyana Prime Minister Sam Hind. The constitution says in case of vacancy of the presidency, the Prime Minister becomes President. So Sam Hind stepped down twice as Prime Minister only to let the ruling party to appoint a new Prime Minister who became immediately President, and Sam Hind became president again. The same applies to Artur Rasizadə in Azerbaijan. But how to decide if an interruption is short enough?

Švitrigaila 23:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure. I just think we should pick a date and see if anyone else wants to change it. I think there should be only one entry per person though.--Rye1967 06:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Should Ali Abdullah Saleh be under 1978 instead of 1990? I tend to think the earlier date is better because it more accurately represents how long he's been in power; however, a technicality issue (N. Yemen and unified Yemen) obviously exists about it.

Also, the question raised above about leaders who spend periods out of office before returning is quite significant. Quite a few people would appear further up the list if we applied a different standard to this. A case could be made for putting people at the date they first held the office without consideration for intervening periods; it might be worthwhile to have different lists with different rules. Everyking 03:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Governor-Generals

Should we include them? I mean, they are not the official head of state. Therequiembellishere 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

When I was creating this page, I included all the offices who are included on the List of state leaders page. If GGs were to be removed, they would need to be removed from both lists. I don't have any preference myself--Rye1967 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-independence rule

If Michael Somare's period as chief minister before independence is not included (John Compton is another example), then Hassanal Bolkiah's should not be either, and he should be listed under 1984, not 1967. Also, Abdullah did not become acting ruler "c. January 1 1995". I don't have an exact date, but it seems Fahd suffered his stroke in early December 1995. If you don't know a date, you just don't include one; you don't add a wrong date as a placeholder. Everyking 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As for Bolkiah, you're absolutely correct and that should be changed to Brunei's date of independence. As for Compton, you are correct there also, and you will notice that his terms as Chief Minister and Premier of Saint Lucia are not included in the article. Therequiembellishere 23:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Head of Government of San Marino

I wrote to the government of San Marino regarding their Head of Government--

from therequiembellishere@gmail.com

to info.segristituzionale@pa.sm

date Jul 15, 2007 8:30 AM

subject Head of Government

To whomever may be kind enough to answer this,

I must first and foremost apologise for not being able to compose this letter in Italian, as the time is late and I cannot do it at this moment in time.

Of course, I am not e-mailing you to tell of my insomnia, but to ask a question as someone who is avidly into geopolitics and as a contributor to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia. There is a question among the community as to whether Secretary of State for Foreign and Political Affairs Fiorenzo Stolfi is the true Head of Government of the Most Serene Republic of San Marino, or if the Captains-Regent Alessandro Mancini and Alessandro Rossi are the Heads of State and Heads of Government. I do not mean this as, for example, Suriname, where their President is the Head of State and Head of Government, though their Vice President exercises a role similar to a Prime Minister.

I would greatly appreciate a quick response as I will not have internet access after two weeks and would like to resolve the problem among the Wikipedia Community as quickly as possible.

Many thanks,

Benjamin (last name omitted)

from antonella.giardi.segristituzionale@pa.sm

to therequiembellishere@gmail.com

date Jul 18, 2007 4:51 AM

subject Fw: Head of Government

Fiorenzo Stolfi is Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Captains Regent Alessandro Mancini and Alessandro Rossi are Heads of State.

The State Congress (Governement) is a "corporate body" composed of 10 Secretary of State and there is no Head of Governement because this specific role is not provided for by our constitution.

Antonella Giardi

Therequiembellishere 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The O le Ao o le Malo is a ceremonial president

I wrote to the Samoan government's website at and the response was that it was a ceremonial presidency.

from therequiembellishere@gmail.com

to contact@govt.ws

date Jul 15, 2007 2:12 AM

subject O le Ao o le Malo

mailed-by gmail.com

To whomever this letter concerns,

I write to you as someone who is avidly into geopolitics and as an amateur contributor to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Within the community, there is a question as to whether your Head of State should be seen as an elective monarch or as a ceremonial president, which would simultaneously answer as to whether the Independent State of Samoa should be considered a parliamentary monarchy or a parliamentary democracy.

I would graciously appreciate if this could be answered quickly, as I will by cut off from internet access in two weeks and would like to resolve the conflict within the Wikipedia Community as soon as possible.

Many Thanks,

Benjamin (last name omitted)

Response:

from presssecretariat@samoa.ws

to therequiembellishere@gmail.com

date Jul 17, 2007 8:08 PM

subject Re: O le Ao o le Malo

Talofa Benjamin,

Thank you for your enquiry. The Independent State of Samoa is a representative government. Our Head of State is a ceremonial president. Being free from politics, any law will not become law unless assented to by the Head of State.

Regards,

Deborah Mauinatu

Office of the Government Press Secretariat

Therequiembellishere 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Chrisantemum Throne

Chrysanthemum Throne is the name given to the Japanese Imperial Throne. That is, by extension of its meaning, the name of the post. "To be on the throne" means to "fill the office of sovereign". It's neither a familly name nor a dynastic name. Švitrigaila 19:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Acting and Regent

Should we have them on the main table with a note saying who they're acting for, or how it is now? (I prefer the former). Therequiembellishere 00:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's okay the way it is now, but if you want to add info, go ahead. —Nightstallion 16:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean, we currently have something, like, Fidel Castro on the list and a reference note saying that Raul is the Acting President, and Hans-Adam II is on the list with Alois in a reference note saying when he became Prince-Regent. I think we should have the Actor on the list with a reference note saying that they are acting for [person] with that person's dates as well. Therequiembellishere 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mswati

After his father died, there were three people (one after the other) who assumed the regency. Should they be considered Mswati's regents or his father's regents? Therequiembellishere 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Botswana and San Marino

This Countries should be updated!84.134.67.149 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bangladesh

This Country should be updated, too!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.175.52.11 (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Haiti

Please add Michèle Pierre-Louis.84.134.86.236 (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Iraq

Strictly speaking, I understand the Presidency Council of Iraq is the collective head of state of Iraq under the Constitution of Iraq, rather than the President of Iraq. I've amended the article. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere, Andrew is absolutely right. We should include information similar to what we say about the Swiss Federate Council about the Iraqi Presidency Council. —Nightstallion 13:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

But the president is the head of that council. More so than the Swiss President, isn't he? Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically yes, but that's not relevant here -- what's relevant is that the President is *not* the head of state, the whole Presidency Council is... —Nightstallion 15:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

But is it a first among equals? Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye. —Nightstallion 13:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

How strange! It's never reported on officials meeting the council, only the president. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So? People never meet the whole Swiss council, either. —Nightstallion 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

They are always met by the whole council, though. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Mh? What do you mean? People who visit Iraq often also meet all three Presidency Council members at some point. —Nightstallion 07:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But I mean that they are all received by the Swiss Council and meet with them all collectively as a head of state. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, AFAIK the situation is entirely the same in Iraq legally speaking, and we should only be considering the legal side here. —Nightstallion 22:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing, sorry if it came out like that, just learning. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't want to seem that unfriendly -- I just meant that legally speaking, it's a collective head of state just like in Switzerland, so we should probably keep to that line, no? —Nightstallion 11:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to make the changes, I hope I got the format right. —Nightstallion 20:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, per President of Iraq and the constitution, this collective head of state will cease to exist after the next election, so come 2009, Iraq'll have just one president as head of state like every normal country. —Nightstallion 20:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I like how Swiss=Abnormal. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, aren't they? ;) —Nightstallion 21:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, haha. (No one Swiss here, right? Lol) Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please no racism.84.134.67.60 (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz

I'm adding Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz as Mauritania's new leader but I fully expect within the week to truly have it all sorted out. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the article all about

Intro says this

This is a list of state leaders by date, showing current Heads of State and Heads of Government where different, >>>ordered by the date they assumed the office<<<.

Until you change that do not attempt to change the page content by listing some leaders under the date of the first recognition of their country if they assumed office before. This is a list by the date they assumed office and it is a very simple issue.--Avala (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They assumed office, but not as a state leaders. They weren't even a declared state at the time, which means they weren't on par with the others, by anyone's standards, at all. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, see the above discussion on pre-independence rule. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We can all have our views on this. I don't consider them President and PM at all. However it's not about views here and if we don't want to resort to the OR we have to adhere to the rule which says that all of the content must be sourced through the verifiable third party source. CIA lists them under the date they assumed office (as the table says anyway) and not the date they declared independence. See here [1] chief of state: President Fatmir SEJDIU (since 10 February 2006) head of government: Prime Minister Hashim THACI (since 9 January 2008). So unless there is a different source, not thought, on when did they assume office I think we absolutely must mirror what the current external sources say.--Avala (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Inadequate lead

Can anyone helps make a more adequate intro? Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Prior to 1970

There are not that many state leaders who took office beginning before 1970 anymore. In addition, the designation "1946-1969" is a bit awkward and would have to be changed every time the earliest leader left office (e.g., first when there is a new Thai king, then a new British monarch, assuming it changes in that order, etc.). Do you think it might be better to rename "1946-1969" something like "Prior to 1970" to avoid these issues and make the heading more consistent with the headings for later periods? Just a thought. Memworking (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Memworking

Yes.--Rye1967 (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Since there are now only three state leaders left from the "Prior to 1970" era, perhaps they can be combined with the 1970's leaders under the heading "Prior to 1980". Mtminchi08 (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Good to see that my suggestion has been acted upon. Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Saad Hariri

Why is he on this list as a future Prime Minister of Lebanon? Is there any evidence that he will be appointed to that post?

Are being Prime Minister-designate, Cabinet formation talks and being the leader of the winning coalition good enough reasons? Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Being the leader of the winning coalition doesn't necessarily mean he will replace the incumbent prime minister Fouad Siniora, because he too is a member of that coalition.

The ruling coalition plans him to be the next PM, just read the news. —Nightstallion 09:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Moldova

Mihai Ghimpu may have replaced Voronin as acting president already, or that may happen in the next few days, I'm not quite sure -- see http://www.forextv.com/Forex/News/ShowStory.jsp?seq=1056245&category=Political+News . —Nightstallion 09:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll add him as acting-designate, but reportedly Voronin DID resign. http://en.rian.ru/exsoviet/20090902/156000578.html —Nightstallion 10:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Voronin will formally resign by 14 September. http://www.rferl.org/content/Moldovan_High_Court_Upholds_Parliament_Speakers_Election/1818536.html —Nightstallion 09:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j7HVa6ocLFGKx01BnsuvU3mBQ_Hw is the official resignation or not, but "registered in the secretariat of parliament" seems to indicate it is... —Nightstallion 08:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he resigned today. http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1054715&lang=eng_news http://news.am/eng/news/4191.html Don't know whether Ghimpu already is acting president now or whether he has to be sworn in, though. —Nightstallion 10:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Listing non-UN members

For consistency, entries included in this page should correspond with the list of sovereign states. At present, included in this list are the leaders of 4 states that are not members of the UN (Kosovo, SADR, the ROC and the SOP). I agree with their inclusion, but there are 3 other states (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus) that fall into the same category. Their exclusion is a violation of WP:NPOV, which dictates that all perspectives be represented. Night w (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added them back into the list. If not everyone agrees with this, perhaps italicising to make a distinction... or making a separate section for them would satisfy that. However, if you include one, you must include all. Night w (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My additions were reverted again, without contribution here. I'll reiterate: including some states, but not others shows a selective bias supported by poor logic. Non-UN member states should be treated the same across the board, as shown on other lists. Sovereignty is disputed in all of those cases; control over the country is effective in all cases. All pass the criteria for statehood that has been layed out elsewhere. So, at present, the page doesn't draw its list from the aforementioned page. At present, there are six names on that list that have been excluded on this one. Options:

1. Include all non-UN members in the list
2. Remove all non-UN members from the list

I've changed it back once again. I don't care enough to get into an edit war, though, so next time—if nobody is willing to discuss it here before reverting—I'll get somebody from WP:NPOVN to clear it up. Night w (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for reverting the alterations without reading the talk page. Now I have read what you wrote and the page on the list of sovereign states. I do not agree that the only alternatives are to include all or exclude all. You can define a proportion of acceptance. For instance we list here all the states that are accepted as such by at least 50% of the states in the UN or all other states. It doesn't seem reasonable to list states that are accepted as such by only 4 other states. GMMarques 15:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It's cool. But you're getting into the thick of politics now, and this isn't really the place to be determining the criteria for statehood. A state is a state as long as it fulfills the relevant convention applied in international law. All entries included in the list of sovereign states have fulfilled the criteria, and that's why they're included. Being a list of "state leaders" means this list should draw its entries from that page for consistency.

As for recognition: Kosovo, SADR and the ROC don't have anywhere near 50%. In the UN, there are only two non-members that are recognised by >50% of UN members. One is the State of Palestine; the other is the Knights of Malta, which isn't included in a list of states because it's not a state according to the aforementioned convention. Recognition is a diplomatic thing and doesn't confer actual sovereignty. That's determined by reality of control. And even if it did, it's not exactly logical to pick an arbitrary cut-off number between 0 and 23 (the number of states recognising the ROC). Night w (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Creating a separate section (like done on this list) is also an option. Night w (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that nobody else seems to want to discuss things here, I've made a thread on the List of sovereign states talk page that could potentially open the issue up for comment from editors who might be interested. Night w (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Back in the day, I started a discussion here about what states should be included. I spammed it to every talk page for lists of countries that I could find, so everyone knew about it. The conclusion of that discussion seemed to me to be threefold:

• Where a list is based on a single source, use the states listed in that source.
• Where a list is based on multiple sources, use states listed ISO 3166-1, and explicitly mention the partially-recognised states. There are a number of ways of doing this, but the point is that they should not be explicitly treated either as sovereign or non-sovereign.
• Where specific circumstances make some other method clearly preferable, use that method.

I bring this up because I think in general it's a good rule to follow. This list, it seems to me, should use the second point. Partially recognised states should not be treated as fully sovereign, but should be included - possibly in a separate section at the bottom. Pfainuk talk 20:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Pfainuk, I didn't realise I was bringing up old news. Cheers! How does everyone feel about splitting them? In this case, because the purpose of the list is to order entries by date, I'm not sure how that would work. However, italics are currently used to distinguish leaders-in-waiting, and smallscript is used to distinguish acting leaders, so I'm not sure what other options there are. Perhaps creating a separate section for leaders-in-waiting, therefore freeing up italics to use for unrecognised states... Night w (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If it seems there are no objections to this proposal, I'll go ahead and implement it. Night w (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Vanuatu PM

I found no source to prove that Serge Vohor is the new PM of Vanuatu, but I couldn't undo the change.

I agree, could a source be provided please? Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.84.107.252, 23 June 2010

On the notes, on Queen Elizabeth II (who was queen of Guyana from 26 May 1966 to 23 February 1970 and not 23 February 1972 as the notes state), make a correction, replacing the year 1972 by the year 1970. 81.84.107.252 (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. Please provide a reliable source for these facts. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, source here. Thanks for the heads up. Night w (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See Commonwealth realm#Former Commonwealth realms to correct wrong years in Queen Elizabeth II's notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.107.252 (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office—a rather wordy title, but no better alternative has been proposed. Discussion on a possible merge seems to have stalled. Ucucha 09:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

---

List of state leaders by date → List of current heads of state and government by assumption of office List of current state leaders by assumption of office List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office — Or something alternatively worded. The current article title is extremely ambiguous, and could denote a variety of possible meanings. Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC) | Relisting billinghurst sDrewth 07:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC) | City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: A certain amount of ambiguity is fine, in my opinion. There's no need to be so explicit. The proposal is extremely long-winded. How about: List of current state leaders by assumption of office?Night w (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment That sounds reasonable, I support that suggestion and I will amend the move request. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 17:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Support, as above. Night w (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm, assumption is the act, as they all assumed office, all you can list by is the respective office itself. The date is what you are sorting by, so it needs to be explicit, which would make for List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office if it is by date alone. billinghurst sDrewth 03:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Modified my proposal to your suggestion, per your reasoning. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 17:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support move to either of the above suggested titles. Current title is awful. Propaniac (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The suggested titles are terribly wordy. Sorting by date is a logical and immediately obvious method of presentation. There is no similar article with any other manner of sorting, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Therefore suggest List of current state leaders.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean List of current heads of state and government? Which is sorted by country. You see the dilemma that presents. Although, I do agree that sorting by date would be taken for granted, which is why I suggested List of current state leaders by assumption of office. I think the longer title is overlty explicit. Night w (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, I didn't mean that, or I would have said it... but I should have investigated better first. I still think that "by assumption of office" is unnecessarily wordy. Given the option of either the current name or those suggested above, I would keep the current name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the current wording is two-fold: firstly, that it doesn't specify that only current heads of state and government are included, and secondly, equally importantly, what precisely the date is that's being used to sort the entries, which isn't obvious from the title. "List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office" may seem a bit wordy, but it is the most succinct way I can think of to convey what this article is about. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 14:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I would fully support a move, once there is some decent wording for it. No clue what sounds best though. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There is another list called List of current heads of state and government, this be might the title sought after. Perhaps "List of state leaders by date'" should be merged into "List of current heads of state and government", by adding a column "Assumed Office" with the dates added? That is valuable information that should be preserved. ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Support merge. I thought about suggesting the same thing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merge. I fail to see how the two would properly merge. The layouts are entirely incongruous. Could you give us a sample of what one entry would look like? Night w (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

State	Head of government	Assumed office	Head of state	Assumed office
Afghanistan	President Hamid Karzai Chairman of the Transitional Administration: 22 December 2001 – 19 June 2002 Acting President: 19 June 2002 – 7 December 2004 President: 7 December 2004 – present	22 December 2001	President Hamid Karzai	22 December 2001
Albania	Prime Minister Sali Berisha	3 September 2005	President Bamir Topi	24 July 2007
Algeria	Prime Minister Ahmed Ouyahia	23 June 2008	President Abdelaziz Bouteflika	27 April 1999

--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merge: It separates Heads of State from Heads of Government when sorting by date - it is therefore not as good as the current article. Rimush (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The effort involved combined with the lack of interest in merging has caused me to lose interest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not keen on the idea of mergining, but can we at least go ahead with renaming this article? I think having two seperate lists is more useful than having one; List of current heads of state and government has one purpose (i.e. listing by country), this has another. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 17:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Against merge also. My preference remains with either List of current state leaders by assumption of office or List of current state leaders by date. Night w (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Might the following work? ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

List of current heads of state and government

This List of current heads of state and government lists hedz of gov'ment and states in two tables in different sections and more sections for other stuff.

List of heads of government

State	Office	Head of government	Assumed office	Whatnot
Afghanistan	President of Afghanistan (Chairman of the Transitional Administration)	Hamid Karzai	22 December 2001	Pick me!
Albania	Prime Minister	Sali Berisha	3 September 2005	I like dogs.
Algeria	Prime Minister	Ahmed Ouyahia	23 June 2008	I'll be you friend forever....

List of heads of states

State	Office	Head of government	Assumed office
Afghanistan	President of Afghanistan (Acting President)	Hamid Karzai	19 June 2002
Albania	President	Bamir Topi	24 July 2007
Algeria	President	Abdelaziz Bouteflika	27 April 1999

Other stuff

Bla bla bla.

Moar stuff

Yaddi yadda.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Truong Tan Sang

Should Truong Tan Sang be listed as President-designate of Vietnam? Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not until it actually happens. WP:CRYSTAL. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically, the list of upcoming leaders is also a crystal-thing. --Bone1234 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that they've been elected or designated. Truong hasn't. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office" does not even imply, that those should be included. --Bone1234 (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Then the title of this article should be "List of current and incoming state leaders by date of assumption of office" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bone1234 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hun Sen

"From 1993 until 1998 he was Co-Prime Minister with Prince Norodom Ranariddh." (from article Hun Sen) That information should be added, otherwise it is inaccurate. --Bone1234 (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hun was playing deputy to Norodom from that time period, as seen in his title "Second Prime Minister". The two only overlapped their terms in a co-premiership for a short period of time in 1993. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Harald V of Norway

Do we have a source for Harald's being prince-regent from June 1990 to January 1991? GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Source. :) Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Strange that it wasn't mentioned at Harald V of Norway. Afterall, 7 months is quite a bit of time. GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Abkhazia

Now Abkhazia have a new President, please add to page. PouriaNoi (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I did; he also appointed a new PM, which I also tried to change wherever necessary. —Nightstallion 00:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Muammar al-Gaddafi's status

I have noticed that Muammar al-Gaddafi's page shows that his tenure as Brotherly Guide and Leader of the Revolution ended on August 23, 2011. Gaddafi's government no longer has majority control of Libya, so should he be removed as a current state leader? (TheCodeman4 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC))

I think so, since the UN has recognized the National Transitional Council as the legimate government of Libya. Searcher_1990

He's there in italics, which is the same status given to leaders with limited recognition like Mohamed Abdelaziz and Igor Smirnov. His article appears to show him as incumbent now, which would be correct as (regardless of whether the office holds any power) he still technically holds the office. Nightw 07:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically, he hasn't held political office since 1979, except as leader of the Libyan military.Searcher_1990

I'm not sure what you mean. Nightw 11:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's get a consensus on this. It has been established in this article that offices that don't enjoy wide recognition of their legitimacy are displayed in italics, in order to represent all viewpoints fairly. The president of South Ossetia is displayed because the state is recognised by at least one other state. Likewise, the viewpoint that the Libyan Jamahiriya is the legitimate government of Libya still exists. For example, Robert Mugabe reportedly said days ago that his country would not recognise the NTC until negotiations take place. Removing him from the list is contrary to WP:NPOV, which requires fair representation of all prominent viewpoints. Nightw 13:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the discussion of considering Muammar al-Gaddafi as a recognized leader of Libya should be held in Libya's page. Here we should only compile what is the page of the respective states. In the same way that this page uses the List of sovereign states page and any discussion of what is a state should be made in that page. GMMarques 18:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Changes

Apparently (according to rulers.org), the Kyrgyzstani PM Atambayev on 23 Sep transferred his powers to his deputy while he's running for president, so we probably should change that – haven't got the time for it right now, though, I'm afraid.

Related: Montserrat's Chief Minister is known as Premier since 27 Sep (same source). Should also be reflected in a number of articles. —Nightstallion 00:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)