Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Elizabeth II

Howdy folks. Per WP:WEIGHT & to make consistent with the other entries. We should show only the United Kingdom & flag with Elizabeth II's entry, with a footnote explaining the other 15 Commonwealth realms & the 16 former Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What an excellent idea! The current entry looks a trifle overblown with all the flags and names in battle array. --Pete (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Either leave it as is or break it up and insert the dates of assumption of office in their proper chronological place.

(WP:WEIGHT is irrelevant; there's no viewpoint or opinion being expressed here. "Trifle overblown" is a whimsical personal opinion, not a reasoned argument.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Though I disagree with you. I won't badger you to change your stance. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In a similar discussion at Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders I argued that we need not list every country EIIR leads, as the focus of that list is the leaders' ages. However, in this list the focus is the date of assumption of office. Since there are 15 or so offices, I think it is appropriate to have 15 entries and 15 flags for EIIR. (She assumed all offices simultaneously, but it's quite easy to imagine a situation where she could have assumed some offices on different dates. For example, if Quebec were to have voted for independence in 1995, and chosen (against odds) to retain the monarchy, she may have become head of an independent Quebec in 1996. In that case, I would argue she should have entries on two different dates.) I support entries for EIIR on each date she became a leader of a state which she still leads today. Pburka (talk)

Though this article is chronologically based, Elizabeth II was head of state of all those realms, even when they were British colonies, her entire reign. Anyways, I'll sit back & allow ya'll to work this out. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Pburka, HM did not become Queen of Papua New Guinea until 1975. It is incorrect to say here that she has held that title since 1952. Other places have different dates. Mies, the way we present correct information when there are many different ways of doing so indeed comes down to personal opinion. We are here to present information to our readers, and I think having a jumble of incorrect information - such as that the Queen has held the title of Queen of Papua New Guinea since 1952 - in a single entry with a fierce battle array of flags is not the best way. The criterion for this list is the date of assumption of office, not number of titles. GoodDay, do you have a source that says that QEII was head of state of Papua or New Guinea in 1952? --Pete (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a source for that. I'm going on editorial presentation, as those areas were reigned over by Elizabeth II the moment she ascended in 1952. Also, I'm keeping in mind how this article will look when Charles III ascends. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That looks a lot like a leap of faith to me. Did the inhabitants have the status of British subjects, for example? --Pete (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, the area was Australian territory at the time of Elizabeth II's succession in 1952. Since Australia has been under her reign since 1952? that would mean those areas were under her reign aswell, since 1952. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Once again, people are either forgetting or deliberately dismissing as an inconvenience the fact that this article deals with dates of assumption of office for leaders of sovereign states. Only four of the present Commonwealth realms were sovereign in 1952. When the rest became sovereign upon their independence, at which time Elizabeth II assumed the office of queen in each country. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

My argument is that independence is irrelevant here. Those areas were all under Elizabeth II's rule, the momment she became a Queen in 1952. The independence bit will become even more irrelevant when Charles becomes King. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You can base your argument on whatever fantasies you want. If you prefer to pretend the list doesn't only deal with leaders of sovereign states, go right ahead. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

We shall agree to disagree on that matter. Now, let's allow others to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I never disallowed them the ability to do so. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Cool :) GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Queen was not the Queen of Papua New Guinea in 1952. Yet we are listing her as if she was, along with the flag of a nation that did not even exist until 1975! If we are following GoodDay's interpretation that she was queen over the land and inhabitants, regardless of what they were called, then this was only so by virtue of her being the British monarch. --Pete (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea was an Australian, not British, territory when Elizabeth acceded. It is irrelevant, as this list deals only with sovereign states, which Papua New Guinea did not become until 1975. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm certain that we collectively, will decide as to what is & isn't relevant here. Certaintly, you & I won't be making that choice on our own. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mies here. EIIR may have been Queen of PNG in 1952, but she wasn't head of state of PNG until it gained its independence and became a state in 1975. It seems self evident that the office of state leader couldn't exist until the territory became a state. Pburka (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In 1952 HM was Queen of Papua New Guinea in exactly the same sense that she was Queen of England. In other words, not at all. She gained the title in 1975 when Papua New Guinea became a nation. Listing her as Queen of Papua New Guinea dating from 1952 is incorrect. --Pete (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Holy smokers. Don't say England ;) GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How is this for a compromise? (Keep in mind she is not the only leader listed by date of office, not date of independence. See the Sultans of Brunei or Oman, and Presidents of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and South Sudan for other examples.) I dislike the idea of having multiple entries for Elizabeth II on those dates, as she didn't have any new areas to lead but rather a change of title.

Another benefit of this format is that we get to trim ten footnotes off the article. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Assumed Office	Leader	State	Office
9 June 1946	Bhumibol Adulyadej	Thailand	King
6 February 1952	Elizabeth II	Antigua and Barbuda	Queen: 1 November 1981 - present
		Australia	Queen
		Bahamas	Queen: 10 July 1973 - present
		Barbados	Queen: 30 November 1966 - present
		Belize	Queen: 21 September 1981 - present
		Canada	Queen
		Grenada	Queen: 7 February 1974 - present
		Jamaica	Queen: 6 August 1962 - present
		New Zealand	Queen
		Papua New Guinea	Queen: 16 September 1975 - present
		Saint Kitts and Nevis	Queen: 19 September 1983 - present
		Saint Lucia	Queen: 22 February 1979 - present
		Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	Queen: 27 October 1979 - present
		Solomon Islands	Queen: 7 July 1978 - present
		Tuvalu	Queen: 1 October 1978 - present
		United Kingdom	Queen
4 October 1967	Hassanal Bolkiah	Brunei	Sultan: 4 October 1967 – present Prime Minister: 1 January 1984 – present

References

Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable. I 'again' recommend we have her entry under the United Kingdom/flag, with a footenote for the other places. We will be doing this anyways, when Charles becomes king. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

So like this?

Assumed Office	Leader	State	Office
9 June 1946	Bhumibol Adulyadej	Thailand	King
6 February 1952	Elizabeth II	United Kingdom	Queen
4 October 1967	Hassanal Bolkiah	Brunei	Sultan: 4 October 1967 – present Prime Minister: 1 January 1984 – present

References

Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly how I'd have it :) GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

That's the way I like it, too. Shows the date of accession, and in this list, that is all that counts. --Pete (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no apparent reason why the dates EIIR assumed her offices are all, except for one, cloistered into a footnote. This is a list of leaders ordered by the date they assumed their office(s). The dates EIIR assumed her offices should therefore be visible in the list, whether together as now or in proper chronological order. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

In the article presentation, it is stated, "For leaders who held the same office prior to their state's independence, the start of their tenure is used, not independence." so the date of 6 February 1952 makes sense with footnotes attached. Also, each state should be listed. So I'm fine with the current page! Wykx (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarify - exactly which are you supporting. GoodDay (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The current one is listing all the new offices with footnotes to explain that the charge has been transferred from non-independent to independent state. Wykx (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I wish to point out, that my proposal goes in line with the article's preamble concerning dates of assumption. In the preamble it says "For Leaders who held the same office prior to their state's independence, the start of their tenure is used, not independence". GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wykx, you are, it appears, correct; the lede does say that. However, it doesn't make sense. As has already been stated using Elizabeth II as example, she cannot have assumed an office before it existed. When she acceded, there were only seven offices: Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada, Queen of Ceylon, Queen of New Zealand, Queen of Pakistan, Queen of South Africa, and Queen of the United Kingdom. Only four of those are in the list. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

And therefore we should only list the four offices she still holds dating from 1952. All the rest are misleading and superfluous. I guess we could create a dozen new entries further down the list in the correct chronological order, but I can't quite see the point of that. --Pete (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

If change we change the logic, you're right, one entry should be created at the time of each independence. I think also the current logic was done to simplify because she was already on those territories previous to independences. The territories have changed, but not her. Wykx (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to resurrect the British Empire here in Wikipedia. The issue is WP:WEIGHT, and each leader should have one entry only, and should sort them by date to give us the list promised in the article title. --Pete (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Wykx (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"[O]ne entry should be created at the time of each independence." That is an option; I suggested it above.

(WP:WEIGHT is entirely irrelevant. There are no opinions or viewpoints being expressed in this list.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly, List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence lists the actual dates EIIR became head of each state, and that list describes a recognized and notable concept in diplomacy. This list, on the other hand, arbitrarily combines heads of state with heads of government, and uses an arbitrary definition for date of assumption of office. Why not simply redirect this page to List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence where we don't need to argue over definitions? Pburka (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting thought. However, though I'm not absolutely clear on the parameters defining who gets included in this list, it seems from a quick scan that they allow people who first took office many years ago, but are now not currently in the office they originally assumed. For example, Putin is entered here by the date he first became Acting Chairman of the Government (9 August 1999), whereas, in the other list, he's entered by the date he last became president (7 May 2012).

(None of that is to say I have a strong opinion favouring the retention of this list.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)..

This list is by continuous service as a national leader, be it head of state or head of government. Since Putin has held either of those positions continuously since 1999, that is why he's at that date here. The other list is purely counting heads of state, so Putin's tenure as PM breaks his consecutive streak at that list, putting him in the 2012 list. Personally, I prefer this mixed list, as this list includes cases like the European monarchies, where the real power is with the head of government and not a figurehead head of state. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorta embarrassed to ask, as I've sorta fell behind the discussion due to my roughly 10-hr absence. Which proposal are folks leaning towards? GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's okay. A bottle of good Scotch deserves time. We're leaning towards the clean, elegant option you flagged to begin this discussion. Just the UK. --Pete (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not, just the UK is impossible. We cannot bypass 15 states. Wykx (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

We're not bypassing 15 states. We're placing them in a footnote :) GoodDay (talk) 08:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Which is not fair. Someone looking at one state like Canada or Tuvalu should at list find it in the main list. Wykx (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, fairness takes a backseat to verification. The real world, views Elizabeth II first & foremost (mostly exclusive) as Queen of the United Kingdom. This should be reflected here per WP:WEIGHT. PS - For example: How often have we read or heard about the Queen of Tuvalu making international trips. GoodDay (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If I may. Ask yourself this question: How much support would there be for showing only Canada with footnote for 15 other states or Tuvalu with footnote for 15 other state? If the choice came down to only 1 country & flag? which among the commonwealth realms would that be? GoodDay (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a list of leaders not nations. The current presentation for QEII is quite wrong, as it shows her being Queen of places that had no national identity in 1952. A wikilink to Queen Elizabeth II gives all the details if anybody wants them. We need only show one nation to show that she has been a monarch since 1952 and thus her place in the ordered list. --Pete (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Quite right, Wykx. Not only is this a list that's prime purpose is to show leaders by date they took office and therefore should show all offices and the dates they were assumed by the leader occupying them, but, also, someone looking for the leader of Canada or Tuvalu shouldn't need to hope they'll chance upon a footnote next to Elizabeth II in order to discover Elizabeth II is leader of both Canada and Tuvalu and when she became queen of each. Showing she's queen of Canada and Tuvalu is providing real world facts to readers, which is the very purpose of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not exist for avowed republicans to promote their cause behind the shabby guise of WP:WEIGHT and WP:V or of saving the public from being "misled" to believe something other than the unverified personal opinion that certain headships of state are "superfluous". If someone wishes the list to express something about Elizabeth II being more often personally involved with UK affairs, they can put that in a footnote, with a reliable source to verify it, of course. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Showing she's queen of Canada and Tuvalu is providing real world facts to readers, which is the very purpose of an encyclopedia." Bit of a stretch, there. I suggest that this information is best found in other places, rather than a list, which merely shows leaders by date of assumption. Trying to cram as much information as you can get into a simple list brings in WP:WEIGHT; republicanism or monarchism or wankerism should hold no currency here. --Pete (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

We've all read your opinions and I've rebutted them. Elizabeth II is one person, but she holds a number of different, separate offices (a verifiable, real world fact). For a list of leaders by date they assumed office, the matters of office, incumbent, and date are inseparable. For such a list to be complete, it must show all the offices, the incumbents, and when those individuals assumed the offices, whether or not you personally think the office is "superfluous" or misinterpret WP:EWIGHT. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This article calls on us to ignore independence of countries as assumption dates, as I mentioned above. She became Queen of all these areas in 1952, not just when they became Commonwealth realms. Of course, we shall allow more folks to weigh in on this dispute :) GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that by restoring the British Empire here in a glorious array of flags and titles, we're giving too much WEIGHT to one person. --Pete (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sticking with my proposal: United Kingdom and footnote. The current version, is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if that is the case and remains so, it doesn't make your proposal anything remotely close to an improvement. Elizabeth II still assumed the offices of Queen of Canada, Queen of New Zealand, and Queen of Australia on 6 February 1952. That's a real world fact. And the list could still include the dates Elizabeth assumed the offices of queen of each of the remaining realms with an explanation that she reigned over those territories previously either as Queen of the UK or as Queen of Australia.

Before you respond again with the usual misapplication of WP:WEIGHT and irrelevant hypotheticals, I'll refer you now back to what I wrote about this list's reason for being, its content, and what makes it complete. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

As you're concentrating on the dates, the article clearly points out that independence of an area is irrelevant to assumption of office. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I literally just addressed that point. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your argument. My proposal is best for this article, particularly when we consider Charles III's accession. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense; particularly the Charles part. If there;s going to be any change (and it hasn't yet been determined one needs to be made), the present mini-list next to Elizabeth II should be broken up; the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand remain as they are and the rest are shifted to their proper place in chronological order according to the date Elizabeth assumed the newly created offices of queen of each of those nations. The fact she reigned over those territories prior to their independence as either Queen of the UK or Queen of Australia can be addressed in a note. That keeps the list complete by showing all offices, the occupants, and the dates they assumed their offces, rather than hiding an arbitrary selection of offices in a note. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The article's intro states that we do not go by independence dates. This means that we must use February 6, 1952. Furthermore, WP:WEIGHT must be reflected in this article, which means adopting my proposal. PS - I fully appreciate that you & I will 'never' agree on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Then change the intro. (The wording makes no sense, anyway; a leader can't have occupied an office before that office existed.) Or, keep the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as they are and devise a way to show in the list the remaining 12 offices.

Is there any leader in this list other than Elizabeth II who was head of a territory both before and after its independence? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't do that. The areas that became Commonwealth realms during Elizabeth II's reign, were under her reign before they became Commonwealth realms. She became Queen in all aforementioned places, on 6 February 1952. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I literally just commented on how to deal with that fact. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestions are unacceptable, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of certainty, can you show you understand what my suggestions are? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with changing this article's intro to having independence as an assumption of office date. I don't agree with breaking up proposal. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

So, you didn't grasp the suggestion to leave the lede and the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as they are and devise a way to show in the list the remaining 12 offices occupied by Elizabeth II. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT must be abide by & therefore United Kingdom with a footnote for the 15 other states, is best. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The WP:WEIGHT "argument" has been defeated two times over. 1) There are no viewpoints or opinions being expressed in this list. 2) Your misuse of WP:WEIGHT would render the list incomplete, which is, as Wykx said, unfair to readers. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It appears we're heading towards an Rfc. FWIW, I will respect the result of that Rfc, concerning this article. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why you disagree hiding offices in a footnote will make the list incomplete? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Our readers can check out the footnotes, see the 15 other states & their various independence dates. My proposal will not make the list incomplete. It will make Elizabeth II's entry in the article, reflective of the international community's view of her role. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

How is a reader looking for Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and/or Saint Kitts and Nevis supposed to know to click on a footnote? If the offices of queen of each of those countries is not in the list, the list is incomplete. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I would agree to having 15 other states shown below United Kingdom, with the footnote next to it. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 12 That still doesn't show the offices of queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the list, meaning the list is incomplete. How is a reader looking for any of those countries to know they've been lumped in as "15 other"? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm confident our readers will follow through, on checking up these wiki-links. PS - The article itself, doesn't go with independence as an assumption of office date. The list will be complete, under my proposal. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

SIo, your reasoning for making the list incomplete (which is what it will be if it's missing offices) comes down to an unfounded belief that every English-speaking person--children and adults--in the world knows Elizabeth II is head of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. I can tell you with absolute certainty based on my own personal experience that there are otherwise decently educated Canadians who think Elizabeth II stopped being Queen of Canada in 1982. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It's great that you're agreeing that the international community views Elizabeth II as first/foremost & many times exclusively, as Queen of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

A straw man used as a red herring. Well done.

If you can't find fault in my remark at 22:17, we shall let it stand. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You're not in charge of how Elizabeth II will be shown on this article, or any other article. We the Wiki-community (including yourself & I) will collectively decide on such matters. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Good, we agree: my remarks stand. Now your full "reasoning" has been set out for others to review and consider. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

We shall allow others to decide whether or not your 'remarks' stand. We shall also allow others the opportunity to review & consider my proposals :) GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This has been very illuminating. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You're entitled to your own opinon. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Next step?

So far, it appears that we all are generally in favour of making a change to Elizabeth II's entry. However, there appears to be disagreement as to 'what' kinda change. I'll give this discussion a week, to see if a local consensus can be reached. Afterwards, if none is achieved? I'll open up a Rfc on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I prefer just one entry for Elizabeth II, giving the date of her accession to the throne of the United Kingdom. She had no previous nation leader position, and all other positions flow from her office as British Queen, including those decades afterwards. We could theoretically include Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, as notionally occurring simultaneously, but this is a list of people, not nations. --Pete (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"All other positions flow from her office as British Queen". False. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

In agreement with Skyring. This is an article about people & not nations. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The list is about ordering current state leaders by the dates they assumed their offices. It's right there in the title: List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office [emphasis mine]. The three are inseparable in this context. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The list is also done as to ignore independence dates. All aforementioned areas were under Elizabeth II reign, even before they became Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the preceding comment? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

She became Queen of all those areas on 6 February 1952, regardless as to whether or not they were commonwealth realms. Anyways, if there's no local consensus on this entire matter after a week? I'll open up a Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Still not clear on the relevance to my comment at 21:05. That was a reply to your remark about this being a list "about people & not nations." Now you're on about realms and colonies. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It's becoming more obvious, that an Rfc is going to be required. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if anyone could make sense of GoodDay's remarks above. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Per Skyring's comment below, we'll allow others to weigh in. You & I just aren't seeing things the same way. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Rather than rehash arguments already presented, perhaps we could let others participating in discussion provide their opinions on how to proceed from here? --Pete (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has revealed that this list is highly arbitrary, and is not accurately described by its title. It's actually a list of current state leaders by date of assumption to an office, but not necessarily their current office, nor even an office of state leadership. The fact that we list some leaders at dates from before their nations even became states will be very surprising to a casual reader. I now believe that this list is close to an indiscriminate collection of information. We should simplify the list to list the actual date the leader assumed the actual office, and if the same person happens to hold multiple offices (e.g. EIIR), they should be listed separately. Alternatively, we should simply redirect to List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence, where we have some hope of being able to resolve disputes via research and citing reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I would not object to redirecting this article to the article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Other example

If we consider another example, which is Brunei (just after ;) the assumed office is listed on 4 October 1967. The state was not independent at this time but the office of Sultan was existing. For Elizabeth II: for Tuvalu she assumed the office of the non-independent territory 6 February 1952. She is also Queen for the independent state of Tuvalu since 1 October 1978 (which is a new state). That's why I think we have nothing to change. WP:WEIGHT should be rejected because all independent states should be listed at equality. UK and Tuvalu are not same states. We owe clarity for the readers: footnotes are not straight-forward; even disputed territories are listed here. We have also another example of head of several independent states: François Hollande for France and Andorra. In that case too, both states are listed. Wykx (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with you. The international community views Elizabeth II first/foremost & many times exclusively as Queen of the United Kingdom. It appears there'll be no local consensus for this matter. An Rfc is looking more likely :) GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

We're here to put facts so that people can check data. So if some people believe she is only Queen of the United Kingdom, they can look at this page and see the full extent of states where she reigns. (and by the way she is still Duke of Normandy but it is not independent yet ;) Could you agree that we're here to put facts on WP and not beliefs?Wykx (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to include 15 other states placed under United Kingdom, in my proposal.

Despite my Canadian pride, I will not put aside WP:WEIGHT in this matter. Elizabeth II is viewed by the international community as first/foremost & many times exclusively as Queen of the United Kingdom. Wikipedia frowns on us trying to use it to 'right perceived wrongs'. We must reflect the real world's view here. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 13 You are correct in pretty well all senses, except I think it should be pointed out that there was no office of Queen of Tuvalu before Tuvalu's independence. Elizabeth previously reigned in Tuvalu as Queen of the United Kingdom, Tuvalu being until 1977 a British colony. Hence, it seems the way the information about EIIR is presently shown is somewhat misleading; it appears to say Elizabeth became Queen of Tuvalu in 1952. She couldn't have, as the office didn't exist.This is why I say the 12 countries that became realms after EIIR's accession should be placed in the list according to their dates of independence because those are the dates the offices Elizabeth currently occupies in those countries came into existence. It would be explained in a note that she previously reigned over those territories or colonies as Queen of the UK or Queen of Australia (though worded better than that). Sort of the reverse of the way its set up now. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

My favored option on this is my first proposal in the section above, where we still have all sixteen countries listed but have the dates of independence explicitly listed. My main reason for supporting that is for the footnote trimming it affords us. My second choice would be the current setup. I oppose simply redirecting this page to the diplomatic precedence list, as that list doesn't take into account time served as national leader before independence, like for the Sultan of Brunei. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Your reasoning convinces me as there was a national leader in Brunei as such before independence, contrary to Tuvalu. Then I support your statement. Wykx (talk) 07:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to Pburka's proposal of making this article a re-direct, seeing as there's general agreement that the article has problems. So far, we haven't been able to agree on how to fix it. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Assumption of office date criteria

The stumbling block in all of this dispute, is the date(s). Shall we change the article's criteria, go with independence dates & ignore the pre-independence tenure, for all entries? If we do this? it would mean we can impliment Miesianiacal's breakup proposal. Keep in mind though, when Charles III ascends the throne(s), we'll be right back here again. What do you all think? GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• It is nonsense to pretend that a leader assumed an office decades before it existed, as in the case of Papua New Guinea. If we say that she was Queen of the same land and people in 1952, then it was by virtue of her office as Queen of the United Kingdom. Which nobody doubts we should include.
• We could "breakup" the massive slab of British Empire right at the start of the list, by having separate entries for PNG, Barbados, St Kitts etc.
• But is this a list of current state leaders as per the article title, or is it a list of sovereign states, sorted by leader tenure?

I think the leader is what counts, all that matters is the oldest date, we should go with that, ignore any subsequent offices. Each person is wkilinked to more complete articles listing all their offices. Footnotes not required. This is just a list. --Pete (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's consider a completely hypothetical situation: imagine that this year Vladimir Putin runs for president of Moldova, wins the election, and resigns as president of Russia as soon as he is sworn in. Would we list him as having assumed office in 1999 (when he became Prime Minister of Russia), with a Moldovan flag, indicating his (hypothetical) current office? Pburka (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Again gentlemen. If we can agree to using sovereign state as a beginning for an office? Then we would be able to adopt Miesianiacal's proposal of giving Elizabeth II extra entries to this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe that this definition is the obvious one and support it. Pburka (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, due to cases like Nursultan Nazarbayev. He has been the President of Kazakhstan continuously since 24 April 1990; having Moscow above him for the first year and a half before the Soviet Union fell does not negate him having held the same office continuously. In addition, what then would distinguish this list from List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence aside from merely adding heads of government? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, I really don't understand why we can't have the list acknowledge assumption of an office before the independence of the state the office is related to and acknowledge the assumption of an office that was created at the independence of a state. The offices of Sultan of Brunei and President of Kazakhstan existed before and after Brunei's and Kazakhstan's independence. The office of Queen of Papua New Guinea, on the other hand, has existed only since Papua New Guinea's independence; before, as has been noted, Elizabeth II reigned over the territory in her capacity as Queen of Australia. Brunei and Papua New Guinea, therefore, are not equivalent in that regard. That's why I say keep the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as they are now and move the rest of the realms to their place according to the dates Elizabeth became queen of those states (which happens to also be the dates of their independence). For those 12 realms, a note--either a footnote or somewhere in the list itself--can explain that EIIR reigned over that territory as Queen of the UK or Queen of Australia from 1952 to [year]. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The 4 originals & 12 others in footnote, is unacceptable to me. If the UK & 15 others in footnote, isn't adopted? Then the next best choice is to have the 4 originals in one place & the 12 others divided into groups where required - under the sovereign state assumption date criteria. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I really don't have a clue what that has to do with my prior comments. Are you agreeing or disagreeing? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You're confused? From what I'm seeing below, options B & E are identical. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

E is moving only Elizabeth, to those spots when she gains new countries to reign over. B is taking independence into account and moving her, the Sultans of Brunei and Oman, the Prime Minister of Bahrain, and the presidents of at least three countries. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Dralwik :) GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I've opened up an Rfc on this matter. I've concluded that we few, can't seem to agree on anything :( GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 14 You concluded, did you? Well, thank you very much. It was my sense we were all already having a discussion on this. Now we're going to repeat it all over again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

We 6 editors just ain't coming to a consensus on anything. It was time to get more input. I'm confident that each of us will accept the results. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

'Ain't' and 'won't' are two entirely different things. You, of course, mean 'won't', as indicated by your opening an RfC, which is a step in the dispute resolution process taken when a dispute has reached loggerheads. I don't know how you determined we're at loggerheads. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any responses yet to my observations and suggestion at 02:05, 10 February 2016.

I think you've only just opened the door for the dispute to go on longer than it would have otherwise. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Have faith in the wiki-community. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

But not the lot of us here already. Nice. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The Rfc has been started. Please participate & add any options if you wish. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Many birds fly south in the winter. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Rfc note - If anybody has any more options to add to the Rfc, no matter how similiar they might be to the 4 options I've posted? By all means add them. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Heads up

I've made related changes to the articles
Current reigning monarchs by length of reign and
List of longest reigning monarchs.
I would appreciate it if you folks could review them & give your input. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)