Talk:List of oldest living state leaders

Bias

The entry for Elizabeth II contains a flag of the United Kingdom aside the words "United Kingdom and 15 other states". Not only is this wording clunky, the use of the British flag and naming only of the UK is a breach of WP:NPOV; it gives an undue weight to the UK in a list that is not about a UK-related subject or Elizabeth II's relationship specifically with the UK. Elizabeth II has been queen of three other countries as long as she has been queen of the UK. Whether or not a country has a governor-general is a red herring; this article is not about governors-general or the different constitutional arrangements in the Commonwealth realms. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not bias. I've no problem with using no flags, but the entry should highlight the United Kingdom, per WP:WEIGHT. Verifiably - Elizabeth II is mostly associated with the UK. She actually lives in the UK, thus the UK is the only Commonwealth realm which doesn't have or require a governor general. She was born in the UK & will mostly likely be buried in the UK. Indeed the United Kingdom is unique among the Commonwealth realms & this should be reflected in the article. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

None of that is relevant to the subject of this article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We'll shall have to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The gal lives in and rules the UK first and foremost. When was the last time she made headlines as The Queen of New Zealand ? --Killuminator (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Having checked over Neve-selbert's latest edits. Very concise & compact. I'm impressed & in agreement with his changes. GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Waiting for an explanation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

per WP:BRD, you shall have to wait. Please don't be forcing your PoV into this article, withou consensus. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD says nothing about waiting. I was bold, you reverted, though, you've since offered nothing to discuss. I can't emhasise the "nothing" enough. POV accusations aren't backed up. "No consensus" isn't an argument. You're going to have to provide a reasoned argument of your own addressing the content of my edit--not the action of making an edit. Otherwise, you're being disruptive. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because you're not satisfied with the result of 4 editors opposing your changes to Elizabeth II's entry, doesn't give you an excuse to force your change into the article. Please allow, User:Neve-selbert, User:Killuminator & User:DerbyCountyinNZ to comment further. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Four editors didn't oppose my changes. Two did. One hasn't responded in four days to my last remark in our discussion on the matter, which can be interpreted as meaning s/he no longer objects. And then there's you. Who appears as though he can't formulate a cogent argument to justify his knee-jerk revert. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please be patient & get a consensus for the changes that you wish to make. It's bad form, to seemly ignore or bypass the objections of others. Maybe the others will have changed their positions & will support you or maybe not. Let's see. The last time you attempt this move of yours, it caused quite a commotions. You should've proposed your change here, in the first place. It's a mighty big edit that you wish to make. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You are deliberately ignoring what I write. I just explained to you how I asked for Neve-selbert's explanation or response to certain matters related to this list, waited four days, and nothing came. It's not unreasonable to conclude from that Neve-selbert no longer has objections or wishes to express objection. Additionally, you've offered nothing in the way of a comprehensible argument for why you object. You just keep focusing on the act of making an edit, rather then the content of the edit, repeating made-up rules you insist I'm to follow. So, please, don't lecture me--or anyone--on form.

One editor agreed four days ago with your personal opinion about Elizabeth II and governors-general and burial and other red herrings. Another said something about headlines in New Zealand. None of that contains one single remark on exactly what was wrong with the edit I made.

This, right now, is the result of that still extant battleground mentality and attraction to drama that, in part, led to your "vacation" from Wikipedia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

We can also assume that Neve assumed that the dispute was over & that his edits were accepted. Neve-selbert may not be as aware as I, how determind you can be on this topic. PS: I'll ask you again, not to bring up my past on public talkpages, as it comes across as though you're trying to discredit me. Also, IMHO, you should've waited until the others commented further before jumping to DRN. If Neve-selbert & the others agree with your changes, then those changes will stick & the DRN won't be required. However, If they don't? the DRN commences. BTW: If things go your way, I'll accept such results. But I wonder - Will you accept the results, if things don't go your way. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My position on the matter echoes that of user Good Day. Listing all these countries is overwhelming, an excessive representation. She is primarily associated with and represents her home country. When was the last time she went on a diplomatic trip as the Queen of St Lucia ? Most of her roles are delegated to governor generals of these countries. I don't see this as a bias, be liberal about it. --Killuminator (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Home country" is a vague term in this context. What does it mean, exactly? Why the focus on St Lucia? Does it matter Elizabeth II has represented other countries abroad? If not, why? Of what relevance are governors-general?

But, perhaps more importantly, does your logic apply to Giscard, as well? He is primarily associated with and represented his "home country". When did he go on a diplomatic trip as Co-Prince of Andorra? Most of his role was delegated to a representative in Andorra. So, why are both Andorra and France shown, with their flags, next to Giscard's name? Is it because he was head of only two states and Elizabeth of 16? Are readers really incapable of understanding one as much as the other? If so, where's the line between comprehensible and incomprehensible? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Home country as in the place she lives and carries out these stately duties, her HQ if you will. I would avoid analogies since such logical reasoning is prone to mistakes, we should evaluate each case separately. Since she is indeed head of state for a dozen countries, one question pops to mind. When the Queen visits let's say Australia, does she come come to represent the UK abroad or Australia at home or maybe both ? Being head of state many countries is a tricky thing, so most of these stately duties are delegated to these governor generals. The Queen is first and foremost the head of state of the UK, they ruled the UK before most of these other countries came into existence. Whenever she and her family are in media attention, they are called the British Royal family. Giving same weight and enumerating these other countries is just taking up more space than needed on what is basically a list article. Even the template for the British Royal family doesn't go to such length to list every country she rules. The infobox for her own page states Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms and prompts you to click show to see the rest of them. Are these two other cases also biased ? I don't think so. It's better to have a more navigation friendly page than a gargantuan detailed page. I don't see it as bias, I see it as a practical approach. I also noticed that your edit still puts the UK above Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Does that amount as bias, UK still first eh ? Why not list them the alphabetically ? --Killuminator (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Then, technically, she has 16 "home countries", as, when she's in any of them, she's "home" (not a foreign visitor, which answers your question about representation) and carries out stately duties there. Elizabeth II is not "first and foremost" head of state of the UK. She's head of state of all the realms equally. That is by law and international understanding. That has been recognised, even by the Brits, since the beginning of her reign. Yes, the UK is where she spends most of her time (now more than before simply because of her age). But, that is not relevant to this matter; my edit didn't deny the fact and, more importantly, it is simply one fact arbitrarily chosen out of many that make each realm different from the other and doesn't, by simply existing, justify the ignoring of fact and creation of inconsistency in the list by diminishing the not-UK countries in this list into "and 15 other states". Canada is her largest realm and she may have travelled more distance around it than any of her others. That wouldn't be reason to put Canada first, either.

I listed the realms in the way of established protocol: oldest country first, followed by order in which the country became a Dominion, followed by order in which the country became independent. That was made obvious by the bracketed dates. Any bias, then, wasn't based on personal hunches or over-inflated and rather arbitrary differences in constitutional structure or time spent where.

Unjustified bias elsewhere does not justify bias here.

In the context of the whole list, providing 15 (now 13) more lines is not a "gargantuan" change. If space were really a concern, editors would be arguing for Giscard's lines to be reduced to one by footnoting or otherwise minimising Andorra. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be head of state separately instead of equally ? The very nature of this construction requires the existence of these governor generals. Regarding law and international standing, the UN website refers to her as The head of State of the United Kingdom and 15 other UN Member States Some examples :

United Kingdom’s Queen Elizabeth II plans to address UN General Assembly

Speaking as Head of State of the United Kingdom and 15 other Member States, read the second paragraph

Read the first paragraph, As Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries

--Killuminator (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It's both separately and equally.

• "[The realms are] equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown."p.3
• "Britain had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had elevated status within the Commonwealth and that their queen was now equally, officially, and explicitly queen of separate, autonomous realms."p. 28
• "The royal titles adopted in each of the fifteen realms, of which she was equally Queen, would require the assent of the Parliaments of each."[1]
• "The Acts passed by each of the then members of the Commonwealth after the 1952 conference had to reflect the fact that the other members of the Commonwealth were full and equal members with the United Kingdom, so that the Queen was equally Queen of each of her various realms, acting on the advice of her Ministers in each realm."p.18
• "Elizabeth II embodies in her own person many monarchies: she is Queen of Great Britain, but she is equally Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, and Ceylon... it is now possible for Elizabeth II to be, in practice as well as theory, equally Queen in all her realms."p.52, 369
• "Elizabeth II was equally Queen of Canada and the United Kingdom. The monarch remained shared, but the institution of monarchy had now evolved into independent constitutional entities... Although there was no hesitation among the Queen's realms in showing allegiance to their sovereign by appearing at her Coronation, their lack of official participation in the ceremony itself proclaimed to the world, in a dignified yet visible fashion, their status as equal, independent, and autonomous constitutional monarchies... [T]he Statute of Westminster, passed in 1931, had granted the former colonies full legal independence and had declared that the British and Dominion parliaments were equal in status."[2]
• "We in this country have to abandon any sense of property in the Crown. The Queen, now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms..." [House of Commons, vol. 512, col. 199]
• "In the Commonwealth the path to equality has led to separate but equal facilities. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this process is the way in which the monarchical part of the constitution has been domesticated in the Commonwealth countries overseas."[3]
• "Britain could no longer rest on its imperial laurels and dreams of former glory; it had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had an elevated status within the Commonwealth and its queen was equally queen of separate autonomous realms."p.144
• "The Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930... declared the Dominions to be equal in status with the United Kingdom...

"So what changes in that constitutional relationship had occurred, which the Royal Style and Titles Act reflected? Australia, as a Dominion, was given equal status with the United Kingdom."pp.81, 111

So, whatever a UN press release may say, many sources say something else. And, once again, the equality of the realms and Elizabeth's place as head of state of each is but one issue with the row for Elizabeth II in this list. The only solid argument tabled here against my edit has been "it takes up more space". Well, yes it does. But that's a pretty weak reason to retain an inconsistency that itself is factually sloppy and biased.

I note, too, the France/Andorra matter never gets addressed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed Killuminator, there's many reliable sources that present Elizabeth II as the British monarch. This includes sources from CNN & yes, even CBC news. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Who said she's not the British monarch? Enough red herring, GoodDay. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

We'll have to let the others decide on whether or not your proposed changes should be added to this article. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

And there is why mediation is a necessity. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Miesianiacal, has taken this dispute to DRN. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, all editors who participated in this discussion, are allowed to make themselves involved parties at the DRN case-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II may be monarch of several nations, but that's like saying that Ringo Starr played for several different bands over his career. Technically correct, but precious and misleading. It is ridiculous to imply that Elizabeth II's role as Queen of Saint Kitts is equivalent to her role as Queen of the United Kingdom. --Pete (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the best compromise I could come up with—looks clean, compact and concise. Neve-selbert (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That still suffers from all the problems I've outlined. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It's does the job perfectly. Neve. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks good but there is a tiny mistake. She isn't the incumbent ruler for those former states. --Killuminator (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but unlike the Incumbent above it, there is no bold italics formatting; she is still an incumbent office-holder, and therefore does not need a citation or reference to verify whether or not she is still alive. Neve-selbert (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Latecomer: This was not previously on my watchlist, but, without being alerted by anyone, I have stumbled on it. In my opinion, listing all the realms of which Elizabeth is queen is correct, in the way Mies. proposed. It is not undue. It is true to the uniqueness of her position. If there are others in a similar position in respect of one or more states, they too should have multiple entries. There is no established criteria for selecting one out of the many, and there is no need for Wikipedia to make some up. Its only a list! There is no good reason for leaving out the sublist for naming the other independent realms whose monarch is Elizabeth. Compare with the Timetable at Perth Agreement, which contains a sublist for all six states of Australia. Qexigator (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It was mentioned that there's an inconsistency with including Andorra. I'd have disagree with that, because Andorra has a co-head of state setup. The President of France & the Bishop of Urgell. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Classifying

Why is Elizabeth listed for former states, and how can that be "incumbent" when she is not head of those states now? Qexigator (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

+ Speechmaking is one thing, compiling a list such as this is another, and the recital of titles in the florid style of a document such as a proclamation is yet another. In connection with the UN speeches linked above, we can surmise that everyone present would have been aware of Elizabeth's position, none better than representatives of the realms and republics of the Commonwealth, and that none on that occasion would have expected her to recite the names of all the realms for them to listen to, or to read in the transcript, so that is no useful example for the content of this list. When compiling a list, such as Member states of the United Nations, it will be as long as the items to be listed. If the purpose of this list is to excite attention, it would be more interesting, and equally true, to name her as "Queen of Tuvalu and 15 other realms". Qexigator (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone with anything useful to contribute is welcome to reply to my above questions, or to comment, pro or con, on my above remarks. Qexigator (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know there's anything more I can say that I haven't already above. As you're aware, I hold that anywhere Elizabeth II is being referred to in a context that isn't related specifically to one of her realms, the way her realms are mentioned shouldn't be governed by personally invented and rather shifty rules based on randomly chosen differences between one country and another or the others. But here, there's the added matter of suffering inconsistency and double standard: The "15 other states" are the only ones that don't get named individually, unless, that is, one of their former governors-general is in this list. The former President of France, Giscard, has next to his name both France and Andorra, not "President of France and head of another state". In other words, this list is as long as the items to be listed except when it comes to 15 particular countries. "Saving space" or highlighting the UK to paint an aura of foreignness around the Queen to advance the republican cause in Canada are not valid reasons to keep things as they are. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that response. Maybe we agree that for newcomers, or reasonably well-linformed persons with hazy notions, getting to understand the Commonwealth in its various ramifications, like any new and intricate topic such as jurisprudence or diplomacy, needs either unusual acumen (quickness on uptake) or patience in moving up a learning curve, including a readiness to understand that in the real world there is a continuing process of adapting to circumstances, and a real (not merely theoretical or textbook) process of external and internal checks and balances. The evolution of the Commonwealth is an especially good example, not always well enough understood by well-intentioned persons with hazy notions. Qexigator (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Who's correct & who has "hazy notions", is in the eye of the beholder. If one wishs to educate or re-educate the international community (because one feels the international community misunderstands) on how to recognize Elizabeth II? then one should do so in the real world. Wikipedia isn't suppose to be used to 'right perceived wrongs'. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, majority sources have proven that Elizabeth II is recongized first & for most as Queen of the United Kingdom. Attempts to hide or downplay this recognition & replace it with another recognition? is pushing a minority point of vew. A practice which is also discouraged by Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, GoodDay, for letting us know what you have to say about "hazy notions" and what you seem to suppose (mistakenly) to be attempts to downplay Elizabeth's recognition as Queen of the United Kingdom. Please note: Anyone with anything useful to contribute is welcome to reply to my above questions about former states and "incumbent", or to comment, pro or con, on my above remarks about UN speeches and items to be listed. Qexigator (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Qexigator for letting us know what you have to say about "hazy notions" and what you seem to suppose (mistakenly) to be a mistaken supposition. Also, "Anybody with anything useful to contribute is welcome to reply to my above questions"..., appears insulting & an indirect backhanded swipe at myself. Please tone down the snarky comments. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears we're falling into a back and forth personal argument. Let's end this little dispute within a dispute. If we were to continue? it could possibly get nasty & we'd both be risking getting into hot water :) GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

A commenter who is unwilling to participate civilly and assuming good faith is well-advised to stay away. Have you anything useful to contribute in reply to my above questions about former states and "incumbent", or on my above remarks about UN speeches and items to be listed. Qexigator (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth is head of yet more states

Given that Elizabeth is also incumbent head of state of the three Crown dependencies, and of the British Overseas Territories, each with its own flag, they should also be mentioned by their (linked) legally assigned collective names, but it is acceptable not to list them all here separately by name and flag.[4] Qexigator (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Topicality: Sometimes editors differ about whether referring to Elizabeth as queen of the UK is sufficient, without naming the other independent realms or dependencies or territories outwith the UK. Today's newspapers are reporting that a judge in the London High Court has ruled in contested proceedings that in a will "United Kingdom" can be interpreted to mean including the Crown Dependencies if the court is satisfied on the evidence that such was the testator's intention. "In a will he signed in 2009, Mr Crowley-Milling bought a home for his carer and left a £400,000 gift to his relatives, with the rest of his estate going to The Royal Society. But his family laid claim to his offshore £1m when the mistake in the will was discovered. They argued that such a brilliant man must have known what he was doing when he had the will drafted and had clearly wanted the cash to go to them. Mr Justice Nugee said there was evidence that Mr Crowley-Milling had become disgruntled with The Royal Society - but went on to uphold the charity's claim to the disputed £1 million."[5] Qexigator (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Is listing the British Overseas Territories necessary? Afterall, we don't list Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, etc etc? in Bush & Carter's entries. The B.O.T's aren't independent states. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, according to Territories of the United States there are currently 16, of which 5 are inhabited, but they are "part of the United States", and the 5 participate in Congress, while the Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories are not part of UK. Qexigator (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I would opt to exclude the BOTs, since they have the British head of state, as their head of state. Best to wait for others to weigh in on this. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that the BOT have no "head of state" or that it is not Elizabeth? Qexigator (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The head of state of the BOT, is the British head of state. Thus United Kingdom's entry in the article, removes any requirement to include the BOT. We must remember, this article is primarily about the individual, not the places. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That seems to reopen the question about the "15 other" Commonwealth realms, where past and present monarchs and heir apparent are the same as UK.[6] Qexigator (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the exclusion from this list, the former states. The entry of "United Kingdom and 15 other states" is sufficent, IMHO. To add furhter, if we did include/present all past/present areas which had/have the British monarch as head of state & chose to present them seperately? we'd end up with a total 46 places & thus an overly elongated entry column of Elizabeth II. Concise & compact, is the best option. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

But the head of state of the "15 other" realms is the same as the head of state of UK, so, by your reasoning above, why mention them if not also the Crown dependencies and the British Overseas Territories? Qexigator (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The "15 other" realms don't have the British monarch as their head of state. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

So Canada's federal government, parliament and governor general were mistaken about that, and other assenting realms, not including Australia or New Zealand? Qexigator (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I sense this is leading back to the 2 previous 'related' discussions on 'how' to present Elizabeth II's political entries. My reasons for prefering we go with "United Kingdom and the 15 other states"? is because to do otherwise, would be undoweight. Also, unagruably, the United Kingdom is unique among the Commonwealth realms. If I were to be guided by my political PoV (I'm a Canadian republican), I would be favouring displaying Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc, along with the United Kingdom. However, I can't allow myself to be guided by my heart. I must be guided by my head & that means respecting how the international community views & describes Elizabeth II. Again, I will not allow my political PoV, to prevail in this article. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 4 To Qexigator's post at top: This list clearly only encompasses leaders of fully sovereign states. The territories and/or dependencies of no other country are included, so why would those that are associated with the British or NZ crowns be? Unless you see fit to extend your logic to the overseas departments and territories of France, the former self-governing colonies of the Netherlands (pre-1971), Greenland and the Faroe Islands next to Anker Jørgensen, and so on. (And that may draw more names of individuals into this list; if there are very aged people who are or used to be heads of dependencies or territories.) I don't think there's any benefit to widening the scope of this list in that way, though. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay and Mies. Fair comment. But if we do not have Elizabeth's territories as in the version linked at the top of this section, then it would seem UK alone prevails, with no mention of other realms. Of those two, the mention of all those others seems to me editorially more acceptable for communicating the topic to readers, but not former realms and not the other flags. I do not see the Freanch oversesas departments and others mentioned as equivalent to Crown dependencies or BOTs, but to avoid doubts and queries, the logic would be to mention UK alone. Another possibility would be opening a further section specifically for all those others, to avoid cluttering the present listing. Qexigator (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

For example: Australia's head of state is not the British monarch. Australia's head of state is Elizabeth II, who just happens to also be the United Kingdom's head of state, aswell as Canada, Jamaica's etc etc. The "15 other states" are each sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the UK appears to prevail so long as there is wording anything like "United Kingdom and 15 other states"; whether the OTs and CDs are there or not makes no difference in that regard. Adding the CDs and OTs just creates another inconsistency--those associated with the UK and NZ (sorry for all the acronyms) are in but those associated with other countries aren't (and I don't see any or enough difference between a British OT and a French department to include the former and exclude the latter). Perhaps this is all only demonstrating that the idea of adding overseas territories and dependencies, whether in the current list or as a separate list, is a can of worms we just shouldn't be opening right now. We can focus on it later. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

By "prevail", seniority or status above others or primus inter pares was not intended, only that it looks like the simplest way of identifying the person, not discriminating against the others, or lifting a can-opener even by mentioning "15 other". As before mentioned: it's only a list! But I stand with the initial objection to letting the UK union flag appear to be the flag of the "15 other". Qexigator (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a line being placed between the "United Kingdom" entry & the "15 other states" entry, to avoid the Union Jack presentation problem. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Better yet, I'd delete all flags from the article, entirely. Which is how it used to be, 'til this month. Decorations aren't needed, if they're going to cause such comotion. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I see "änd 15 other [[Commonwealth realm#Current Commonwealth realms|Commonwealth realms]]" as a suitable compromise and accurate use of piping, reflecting the current number and status of the Commonwealth realms. Readers are then able to click on the link for further information on status and past members none of which needs to be repeated in any form here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

How do you justify the inconsistency and inaccuracy? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This could be seen as an improvement. Neve-selbert (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It certaintly is a improvement. But if we keep making changes while the DRN case is in progress, the moderator will shut the DRN case down. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

An editor has now added two hidden sub-lists for Elizabeth II. It seems a pity to propose removing the product of that work of construction, but I see no point in naming the 16 former states, whether flagged or not. The words and links in the second column of the previous version suffice : United Kingdom and 15 other independent states, each with its own national flag. Qexigator (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

In what way is that an improvement? The inaccuracy and inconsistency are still there. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Flags

Neve-selbert: While admiring the skill and diligence which must have been used to construct the hidden flag lists, [7], this well illustrates the point that the flags as such have no informative value whatever for the article. They appear to have been adopted in the first place as a means to make an otherwise dull list have some eye appeal for those who like colourful flags for their own sake. As another says above, it would be better to have no flags, hidden or not. Qexigator (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The flags look great and should stay.--Dangermouse600 (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend removing the flags. They're decorative, but we should be using them on international sports articles list, like the Olympics. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the flags, they make the list more visually appealing especially since some of them are historical flags. Similar articles use the flags as well (List of current heads of state and government,List of current heads of state and government of Ibero-America etc.). After all, both heads of state and the flag are symbols of countries. --Killuminator (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If we do keep the flags, then I'd suggest a dividing line be added between the United Kingdom and the 15 other countries entries. So that it doesn't appear as though the Union Jack is the flag of all the realms. GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing list

The latest proposal by Neve-selbert, seems the best solution yet. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Best of what for what? Qexigator (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Its presentation is - "United Kingdom and 15 other independent states", which (IMHO) satisfies 'undo-weight'. Seeing the other 15 states, when you open the collapse box, should satisfy Mies' concerns of pro-UK biasness, aswell. At this point (if Mies excepts the collapsable proposal), we'd only have the former 16 left, to discuss. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"The former" is unnecessary and should not have been added. No flags are informative, and all should be removed. It is doubtful whether the drop down list for the "15 other" is needed. In ascending order (best last),

• 1_starting from 17:45, 7 November (no flags, no "former")[8],
• 2_better is 07:01, 18 November (no flags, no "former", "15 other states linked to Commonwealth realm)[9],
• 3_then 17:49 23 November (open list of the realms with own flags and dates)[10]
• 4_then 23:44, 27 November ("United Kingdom and 15 other independent states, each with its own national flag")[11]. Qexigator (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• 5_ditto last, but no flags for any person. The flags are the national flags of the countries not of the persons listed; as flags they are a random selection, and of no informative value for the list.

Qexigator (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Option #1 (first preference), Options #5 (second preference, ps-without flags for any person), Option #4 (third preference) and Option #2 (fourth preference, with dividing line between the UK & 15 other..., so it doesn't appear as though all the realms use the Union Jack), are acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not just leave the drop-down down permanently? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

An uncollapsable display of all Commonwealth realms, would go against Due and undue weight. The international community identifies Elizabeth II, mostly with the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How does it go against WP:UNDUE? There's no viewpoint being expressed; it's simply a list.

Even if, for the sake of argument, it is giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint, why is a not-collapsed list of France and Andorra okay for Giscard? By your logic, showing Andorra is a breach of the policy you keep referring to (as you misread it). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's likely that Andorra is being displayed openly, because it has 2 concurrent heads of state. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 4 That answer makes no sense and implies you do not comprehend the content of this list. Andorra is being displayed because it is one of the two countries Giscard headed simultaneously. For the sake of argument, why is a not-collapsed list of countries okay for Giscard but not for Elizabeth II? By your logic, showing Andorra next to Giscard is a breach of WP:UNDUE (as you misread it).

I also ask again: How does a non-collapsed list go against WP:UNDUE? There's no viewpoint being expressed; it's simply a list. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The international community associates Elizabeth II first & foremost with the United Kingdom. When was the last time your read a headline or heard on the news that the "Queen of Antigua and Barbados" was visiting the United States? She's mostly written & reported as being the British monarch. Until these off-Wikipedia conditions change? I will continue to support "United Kingdom and the 15 other..." GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth II being Queen of Antigua and Barbuda is not a viewpoint. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not well covered in the international community. PS- I appreciate your determination to adopt the changes into this article, that you propose. However, you need a consensus to do so & so far, I'm not seeing that consensus. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

"International community coverage" is a(n unverified) red herring. WP:UNDUE deals with the amount of space given to viewpoints. Elizabeth II being Queen of Antigua and Barbuda is not a viewpoint. It is a fact. How, then, does WP:UNDUE apply here? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have different interpretations of Due and Undo-weight and/or if it applies to this dispute. Perhaps, it's best to allow others to weigh in on this. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That is a failure to defend your own argument. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you've dismissed my arguments? you're free to convince the others of your proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Measuring the strength of arguments is part of that process. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

We shall have to allow the others to do the measuring, then. In the meantime, the onus is on you (as the proposer for change) to gain a consensus. You're free to try to convince the other editors in this dispute, of why you believe those changes should be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't disallow the others from measuring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

It's likely best that you concentrate on convincing them of your position, rather then focus on me. As the editor wishing to make such changes to the article. You're free (of course) to take any other dispute resolution route (if DRN fails), should you continue to fail to achieve a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I have got you to reveal the failure of your argument. Others may consider that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't change what your beliefs are. You're determined to promote 16 are equal, here (and across Wikipedia) to its fullest degree. Whether or not you continue with this attempt, is something that only you can decide. GoodDay (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to change my beliefs. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Well then. We shall have to allow the other editors in this dispute to go over our (yours & mine) arguments (if they so choose) & decide for themselves. Meanwhile, if the DRN case fails? you're free to seek another route to get what you want at this article. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No one has disallowed them from doing so. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

As most sources identify Giscard as a former President of France, but don't mention his being a former Co-Prince of Andorra? I wouldn't object to putting Andorra into a collapsable box. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Well, at least you're consistent, in opinion. But, not action. You shouldn't just not object to Andorra in a collapsable box; you should be actively championing it. WP:UNDUE and all that.

On that note: How does a non-collapsed list go against WP:UNDUE? There's no viewpoint being expressed; it's simply a list. Responded above. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to handle one dispute at a time. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Option #1. Ditch the flags. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Significance (or lack thereof)

Is there any real significance to such a list? Given the big endian little endian arguments going on above, one wonders where Dean Swift is to write a good parody? Juan Riley (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

DRN moderator's request being ignored

It was requested by the DRN moderator, that we not edit the article concerning the dispute-in-question, while the DRN case was active. May ask some of you here, why this request is being ignored? GoodDay (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Elizabeth II

I only wish to note that almost for an entire month now, there seems to be some sort of focus on only one thing on the list: What exactly is Elizabeth II state leader of? I count 17 edits on the article in November alone concerning only that, and the discussion about whether it's a bias or not currently takes up almost 90% of this talk page.

Not to sound macabre or anything, but once Elizabeth II is no longer living, all this will have gone away from this article. JIP | Talk 15:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. If Elizabeth II lives long enough & Charles survives her? Charles himself will be added to the list & the whole dispute continues ;) GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the problem starts with having an article that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Who combines heads of state and prime ministers and why include former leaders? Maybe someone should create another wiki for trivia no one cares about. The only remotely encyclopedic lists I could imagine would be one each for heads of state and one for first ministers that lists all states, their incumbents and their ages. With a pivot table, the few readers to visit could order them alphabetically, by age, by country. Maybe add in hair color, first language, height, weight, highest level of education, smoker/non-smoker. TFD (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a guess on my part, but I doubt an AfD would pass. GoodDay (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

JIP: The first paragraph of your comment is well-observed, but I note you may have a bias, as a flag waver![12] It was the addition of flags that set this off. Qexigator (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

TFD: Broadly agree, except "trivia no one cares about": pedantically speaking, given a choice some are happy to opt for trivia. Qexigator (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Rank

The AfD has been closed, and consensus is that the list is notable. However, as discussed, assigning ranks (oldest, 2nd oldest, ...) is original research. There is no reliable source to lean on for the rank and it is impossible to verify, for example, that Yasuhiro Nakasone is the 5th oldest living state leader. The rankings imply that this list is complete, and there's no way to verify that. Therefore, I propose that we remove the rank column to comply with WP:NOR and WP:V. Pburka (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The heading "Rank" is misleading, but the list numbers are helpful simply as such. The first column has been incorrectly headed "Rank" from the start version of September 2011[13], when the list was constructed in imitation of the "Oldest senators currently living" section in List of longest-living United States Senators. Given that:

• in USA, senators are regarded as being ranked by senatorial seniority (based on length of continuous service), in a way that does not apply to "state leaders",
• Rank refers to the relative position, value, worth, complexity, power, importance, authority, level, etc. of a person or object within a ranking,
• From the sense of orderly arrangement 'rank' is applied to grades or classes in a social or other organization, and particularly to a high grade, as in such expressions as a 'person of rank', per 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Rank,[14] and
• in the present article, the ordinal numbers in the first column denote nothing more than the position in the list itself, unverified by an external source,

the heading "Rank" should be changed to "Listed position" or something equally descriptive and neutral. Qexigator (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

+ The first column has a useful sort inverter/reverter which should be retained.

+ Noted also:

• an ordinal number column is absent from other lists of people (office-holders), such as Lists of Senators of Canada, List of current Senators of Canada by age, List of current members of the British Privy Council
• in the table "Combined House and Senate time" of List of members of the United States Congress by longevity of service, column 1 is headed "Total tenure rank", and column 2 "Uninterruprted rank".

Qexigator (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

EIIR

I'm sure GoodDay will give an elaborate explanation of his objections toward this edit. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A consensus was reached to show only the United Kingdom. Why are you 'again' trying to change that? GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There was no such consensus. Fantasy does not justify your revert. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, you refuse to except the consensus. Shall we have to go through all this again? GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you invent consensus.

We can "go through it again" if you're going to explain all your objections to the entirety of the edit I just made. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

We'll have to let others weigh in. Us 2 will never agree on the UK & the Commonwealth realms topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're not going to explain the reason for your own revert, then, instead of looking to others to explain it for you, leave the edit alone and see if others revert it and then they can speak for themselves. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, my reverts stands until you get support for your changes. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

BRD doesn't work if you won't discuss. You can't revert and then stonewall by saying we must wait for others to talk on your behalf. Your revert is your responsibility. Justify it or it gets undone. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Even at the DRN, you were a minority of one. We know you want Canada shown, but that wasn't what the others wanted. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

More fantasy. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can get a consensus for your changes? then no problem. But, get that consensus first. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can't explain why you object to the edit, undo your revert and let anyone else who reverts explain themselves. Right now you are being disruptive by reverting but refusing to explain why other than "you need a consensus", which isn't a justification for a revert. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The consensus here & at the DRN was to show only the United Kingdom. You know this. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently on the phone & will return shortly. When I do, I'll contact the others, who were involved here & at the DRN. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 7 Fantasy. The line never, ever showed only the UK. Going in circles is still stonewalling.

It's sad you can't fight the battles you start; you have to hope someone else will do it for you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

What's sad, is that you just can't let this go. Per WP:WEIGHT, we should show only the UK & it's flag. This is what was decided at the DRN. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

False. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's true. You filed for the DRN case & it didn't go the way you wished. Again, have confidence in yourself & open up a Wikipedia-wide Rfc on how to show Elizabeth II's realms. Wouldn't that be better then all this bickering? GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Red herring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinon & you're entitled to it. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Mies.'s comments above are correct, there was no consensus, and the version[15] is acceptable and should be allowed to stand. Qexigator (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I trust it can be seen my edit at least addresses the matter of inaccuracy in the dates and incorporates the idea of a note that was brought up in previous discussions. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that you continue to oppose showing only the United Kingdom. Anyways, User:DerbyCountyinNZ, User:Killuminator & User:Neve-selbert, will likely wish to give their input aswell. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You're still on about "only UK" red herrings; you still can't justify your repeated reverts. It's the textbook definition of disruptive editing. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you open up a Wikipedia-wide Rfc, so we can settle this once & for all? This idea was suggested at the DRN. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you quit dodging responsibility for your reverts? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Howabout you stop disrupting an article to make a point? Honestly, let's stop with the personal attacks, ok? Let others weigh in. You just might get a consensus for the changes you want or maybe not. Be patient. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no use cowering behind dreamed up personal attacks. You have reverted multiple times and adamantly refuse to give proper explanation as to why; you dodge and deflect with made-up stories about consensus that don't justify a revert, anyway, as well as red herrings, and demands that I wait, which are neither part of nor supported by any Wikipedia rule or guideline. In fact, you are operating against guidelines: WP:BRD, WP:SQS, and WP:DRNC. You, therefore, are the disruptive editor and the permanent record shows it to be so. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Please open up a Wikipedia-wide Rfc on this topic. You & I will never agree on how to show the realms, therefore input for the community would be best. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a justification for your reverts. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The consensus was to show UK + 15 + former 16. You may not like it, but that was the result. You were Bold in changing that. I Reverted you. Now we're in the Discussion phase. Like it or not, it's you who must get a consensus for your proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

First you insist consensus was for "UK only". Now consensus was for "UK + 15 blah blah". If you're going to flip-flop, how is anyone supposed to deal with you productively?

The fact remains: there was no consensus. Even if there was a consensus, that wouldn't prevent me from being bold and trying something different now. This will be the fourth time it's pointed out to you: "no consensus" for my new edit is not a valid reason to revert it.

This isn't a discussion about my recent edit. This is endless waiting for you to give proper explanation as to why you keep reverting my edit. Since we simply can't partake in the D part of BRD until you explain your objections to my Bold edit that you Reverted, the more you fail to do so, the more it appears you're exercising ownership of the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted you, because I disagreed with the changes you made, per WP:WEIGHT. Now, please let the others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Then please (for the ninth time) explain what it is about the changes I made that you disagree with. Saying "WP:WEIGHT" does not provide any clarification as to why you want incorrect dates, why you don't want a note, anything to do with the edit, really. You must say more to allow people to understand you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You highlighted Canada, Australia & New Zealand, along with the United Kingdom, which goes against WP:WEIGHT. You want UK, CA, AU, NZ + 12 and former 16, instead of UK+15 and forme 16. The international community associates Elizabeth II first & foremost with the United Kingdom. You have all my arguments & reasons from the last time. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:WEIGHT is about viewpoints, not countries. Secondly, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are named next to the box with the dates "1952-present" because they're the four Elizabeth became queen of in 1952, not because of any arbitrary special status for which they deserve "highlight". That corrects the false claim Elizabeth has been queen of all her realms since 1952 while still satisfying your insistence that the UK be given special status by placing it at the very top.

I see nothing to explain why you want incorrect dates or why you object to the note or any of the other changes. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It was agreed weeks ago, to highlight the United Kingdom (and its flag) only, per WP:WEIGHT. You've already made it clear many times over, that you disagree with this result. Indeed, you supported deleting this article, just days ago. If it turns out that I'm the only editor objecting to your proposals? then I'll walk away from this. I would recommend that you give this discussion 1-week & 'once again' let others weigh in. Just the 2 of us, is only going to be a continued stalemate. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur with the opinions and reasoning as expressed by GoodDay. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There was no agreement to use the UK flag only. None; not by your misapplication of WP:WEIGHT or otherwise. So, here we remain with your revert warring justified only by a misrepresented guideline, false stories about consensus, a total breach of WP:DRNC, bullying, and deliberate ignorance of all the other so-far un-discussed elements of my edit you reverted (that have now been drawn to your attention three times). If DerbyCounty wishes to agree with that, so be it.

Taking the misapplication of your butchered version of WP:WEIGHT to mean you want the UK to be given special prominence vis-a-vis the other realms, answer this: Is the top of a list a place of prominence? It's a yes or no answer. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So your attempt to add Canada, Australia & New Zealand (and their flags), was because you feel that the United Kingdom (and its flag) is getting special prominance. GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the top of a list a place of prominence? It's a yes or no answer. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I realize you hate seeing the UK (flag) having (shall we say) the spotlight to itself. If you can get a consensus to add Canada, Australia & New Zealand (flags), then so be it. Otherwise, you're merely disrupting the article to make a point. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the top of a list a place of prominence? It's a yes or no answer. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to allow others to decide whether it is or not. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom (and flag) should remain alone. Adding Canada, Australia, New Zealand (and flags) appears to be an attempt to push a point. GoodDay (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The reverts were yours; you have to explain them. Your argument defending the reverts has so far focused on prominence. The question, therefore, is yours to answer: Is the top of a list a place of prominence? It's a yes or no answer. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I realize you hate showing only the UK & its flag. You've made it quite clear 2 months ago & right now. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If you continue to revert but don't explain why, you are engaging in ownership.

The reverts were yours; you have to explain them. Your argument defending the reverts has so far focused on prominence. The question, therefore, is yours to answer: Is the top of a list a place of prominence? It's a yes or no answer. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but until you get a consensus for adding Canada, Australia & New Zealand (flags)? you're only disrupting this article to make a point. It's best you start convincing others of what you want. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You have been given ample opportunity to explain the reasoning for your reverts and have failed; your argument has focused on prominence, but you refuse to answer the question of whether or not the top of a list is a place of prominence. If my edit is returned and you revert again, you will most definitely be engaging in ownership. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I've already explained my reverts. It's your choice, if you ignore my explanations. This is the second time in this discussion, that you've suggested that I'm exhibiting ownership of this article & yet you're the one who's being quite demanding. Why don't you calm down & allow more input from others. PS: If somebody else reverts you, will that suffice? GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Your "explanation" for your reverts has failed because you failed to answer the simple question of whether or not the top of a list is a place of prominence. Ergo, your reverts remain without proper justification. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If nobody else reverts you, then you'll be able to make your pointy additions (Canada, Australia & New Zeland, with flags) stick. However, if anybody else does revert you? you'll have to convince them to accept your changes. PS: You'll never convince me to support your pointy edits. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No 78 (Elizabeth II), lead footnote (flags)

The explanatory note[16] at least should be put back, with the addition of the information that each of the States headed by Elizabeth II has its own flag. Qexigator (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've no objection to restoring the note. But, we should wait until others weigh in. Let's give this atleast week. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you clarify what gives you the right to create and impose these rules? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any final say in what goes in this article or stays out. If you can get a consensus to add Canada, Australia & New Zealand (with their flags) to Elizabeth II's entry? then so be it. Likewise, if you can get a consensus to add the footenote? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You get a say on when I can and can't edit, over and above WP:BRD. You can revert me without stated reason and tell me to wait for others. Who gave you that power? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If you must know, 2 editors thanked me for reverting your bold changes. Atleast one of them, would defintely have reverted your changes, himself. No doubt, in a few hours, you'll again attempt to insert your changes. Would you prefer I allow somebody else to revert you? GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Proof positive you don't pay attention. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We'll have to allow others to decide if this is so. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I just proved it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You're entitled to your own opinon. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You can have a red herring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that the footnote has been restored, albeit differently. If it's left in the article, then I recommend the content of it be changed from "16 sovereign states" to "United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign states", in order to better reflect the real world's view. GoodDay (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe that the footnote is simply unnecessary and should only be implemented if broad consensus is reached. There is absolutely nothing in the article suggesting that the other three original realms do not have a national flag; it is practically a given that every single country in the world has one. What exactly can be so fundamentally wrong with "15 other states" and "16 former states"? This is ridiculous; this debate has already naturally died. We need to move on. Both Miesianiacal and Qexigator (opposing editors) even supported deleting the article in question—with the former stating that the list's veracity is uncertain and, even if it weren't, the list provides no new information, nor displays information in a way that reveals anything new. How would adding a redundant footnote fix these problems (if any)? This—relatively trivial—page should be kept neutral per WP:WEIGHT.

• If we must disregard common sense, evaluate the following data from Google Books:
  • Queen of the United Kingdom gains 87,600 results
  • Queen of Canada gains 46,600 results
  • Queen of Australia gains 20,000 results
  • Queen of New Zealand gains 17,300 results

Moreover, the point about Giscard is irrelevant. The French president is not President of Andorra but the Co-prince of Andorra. Had Elizabeth II once been Sultan of Pakistan instead of Queen of Pakistan, this point would carry weight—otherwise, it is a moot point. This edit should be reverted. Neve-selbert 08:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I've no objections to its removal. The footnote isn't overly important, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't overly important—although this does not deem it necessary either. It equals too much information, in my opinion. This page should be about the oldest living (sovereign) state leaders, not the amount of states headed by each leader. States headed by Elizabeth II and Commonwealth realm are both linked for those seeking further information. Neve-selbert 08:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In agreement, it should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The above comments reveal pov and fail to see that UK and 15 other... stands in column 3 with only the UK's flag, and that, given that the list has had flags added, the footnote explaining the unflagged, with an in line link to them and their flags, should be retained, if the article and its flags are retained. This is a neutral way for letting the information be presented, and the article would be deficient without such a note. Qexigator (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• The above comments reveal pov
  • They absolutely do not and I refer above to the Google Books references.
• This is a neutral way for letting the information be presented, and the article would be deficient without such a note.
  • This whole flags issue is utterly irrelevant and is simply a distraction from any real issues at stake here; "United Kingdom" is in a different column above the aforementioned two. We cannot fit all of the other and former flags (31) into each column, the article would look messy and clogged.

The note is redundant and unnecessarily congests the article. Neve-selbert 09:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Once more, the tone and content of that and previous comments shows a pov too passionately held to be able to accept reasoned discussion. Perhaps some trimming of the footnote would be in order, but the information and link is certainly not redundant given the article content and its flags. Qexigator (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The links that are indeed linked in the footnote have already been linked within the table; this is not an issue of WP:POV but rather that of WP:WEIGHT. The footnote is pointless no matter how long or short it is. Secondly, the flag issue is non-existent: we are not referring to one nation but 15 and 16 different ones collectively—most readers will realise that different nations hoist different flags without us having to clog the table up with each and every single one of them. The note is wholly redundant and disposable. Neve-selbert 11:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In agreement with Neve-selbert, again. The footnote should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if comments addressed neutral points of editing, instead of clinging on to personal pov. Given that the article, in respect of the longevity of state leaders, is being retained, it is more informative to explain to readers at the top, above the list, the exceptional and unique position of one of those named in column 2 who is sole head of multiple states, than to decorate the list with flags (introduced 9 November 2015)[17] for any of the countries named in column 3. The motivation for starting the article in September 2011 was because the longevity of heads of state was considered much more important than, for example, longevity of United States Senators.[18] That list is not decorated with state flags, nor is Earliest serving United States Senator. If the second link (at 78) offends as overlinking, it could be restored to Commonwealth realm as at 18 May 2014[19]. Qexigator (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 8 The matter of dates continues to be forgotten; it is starting to appear as though it is deliberately so. Elizabeth II has not been Queen of 16 states since 1952. She has been queen of four states since 1952.

There is a real problem here with the misuse of WP:WEIGHT as a hammer to squash any change to the EIIR line in the list. Even though it works well enough at List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office, listing the Commonwealth realms is contrary to WP:WEIGHT. Even though the UK gets the place of prominence at the top of any list (full or truncated), it's contrary to WP:WEIGHT. Now a footnote is against WP:WEIGHT. WP:WEIGHT isn't even related to any of those matters; it is about viewpoints, which this list doesn't contain. There are so many holes in these arguments, but, their exposure only leads to cyclical repetition of the same tattered argument fringed with a bullying tone and held up with revert warring. This is stonewalling in the extreme.

I'd ask again how the top of a list is not a place of prominence, but, having asked seven times already, I know an answer is not forthcoming. Qexigator is quite correct that passions (some personal) and POV have choked cooperation to death here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, we are aware (since last November) of your determination to stop the United Kingdom and its flag, from being shown alone. We wish you'd just drop the stick on this. As for accusations of bullying? You're the one who's being demanding. Just because you haven't gotten a consensus for the changes you want, doesn't mean anyone's stonewalling. One thing is for certain. It's likely that you won't get that consensus, if you continue the way you're currently going on in this entire discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, it's painfully obvious you can't explain how the UK is not getting place of prominence at the top of a list, thereby meeting your bastardised and irrelevant interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. All you can do is try to deflect with made-up rules about me having to wait for others and pushing your pro-UK, Canadian anti-monarchist bias (and personal contempt for me) by way of reverts without justification. There's your bullying; disruptive editing, ownership, whatever you want to call it. There's no sense in helping you hide that. As I said, the permanent record will show forevermore how you've behaved. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Prominance is irrelevant. The United Kingdom & its flag should be shown alone, as it's the sovereign state that is most associated with Elizabeth II (i.e WP:WEIGHT) & it's unique among the Commonwealth realms. If everyone else involved with these discussions, were to support your preferred changes? then so be it. Instead of throwing your frustrations at me. You should be concentrating on selling your proposals to the others. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The UK must be named alone to express its prominence among the other realms; but prominence is irrelevant. That's self-contradictory.

You made the reverts and you still can't soundly justify them. You continue to oppose any change, but you continue to fail to mount a strong argument. You keep trying to get me to forget about both those points. That says much. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Concentrate on getting support for your proposals. If all the others come around to your side? then good for you. Remember, it's best to 'persuade others. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Translation: I can't defend my own actions. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinon. Meanwhile, if you can't get everyone else on board with you? then I recommend WP:MEDCOM as your next step. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Who else's would it be? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(to Qex) I'll let Neve-selbert respond. He's more knowledgeable about this footnote usage/non-usage, then I. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Footnote trim

How about trimming the footnote thus:

The list includes Elizabeth II who currently reigns as monarch of 16 sovereign states, each with its own national flag. She acceded to the thrones of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and Pakistan seven countries on 6 February 1952. ; she remains today queen of only the first four. Ghana in 1957 was the first From 1957 to 1992, some of her British colonies attained independence and joined the other Commonwealth realms , followed by 24 others on different dates, and through the same period, 16 some countries ceased to be Commonwealth realms upon becoming republics. , replacing Elizabeth II with a president, the last being Mauritius in 1992. Aside from the four remaining of her original realms, Elizabeth is today queen also of Jamaica (since 1962), Barbados (1966), the Bahamas (1973), Grenada (1974), Papua New Guinea (1975), Solomon Islands (1978), Tuvalu (1978), Saint Lucia (1979), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1979), Antigua and Barbuda (1981), and Belize (1981) .

Qexigator (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Line for Elizabeth II

What is the optimum (and most accurate) way to format the line in the list for Elizabeth II? 20:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The three options are:

Status quo

№	Name	State	Position	Birth	Age	Living as of
78	Elizabeth II	United Kingdom	Queen (1952–present)	21 April 1926	98 years, 77 days	Incumbent
		15 other states
		16 former states	Queen (1952–1992)

Option 1

№	Name	State	Position	Birth	Age	Living as of
78	Elizabeth II	United Kingdom	Queen (1952–present)	21 April 1926	98 years, 77 days	Incumbent
		Canada	Queen (1952-present)
		Australia	Queen (1952-present)
		New Zealand	Queen (1952-present)
		Jamaica	Queen (1962-present)
		Barbados	Queen (1966-present)
		The Bahamas	Queen (1973-present)
		Grenada	Queen (1974-present)
		Papua New Guinea	Queen (1975-present)
		Solomon Islands	Queen (1978-present)
		Tuvalu	Queen (1978-present)
		Saint Lucia	Queen (1979-present)
		Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	Queen (1979-present)
		Antigua and Barbuda	Queen (1981-present)
		Belize	Queen (1981-present)
		Saint Kitts and Nevis	Queen (1983-present)
		16 former Commonwealth realms	Queen (various years between 1952 and 1992)

.......

Option 2

№	Name	State	Position		Birth	Age	Living as of
78	Elizabeth II	United Kingdom	Queen (1952–present)		21 April 1926	98 years, 77 days	Incumbent
		Canada
		Australia
		New Zealand
		12 other Commonwealth realms	Queen (various years between 1962 and 1983-present)
		16 former Commonwealth realms	Queen (various years between 1952 and 1992)

.......

Opinions

• Option 1 is my main preference. It may take up more space, but I think that's a fair trade-off as it is the option that is most consistent with the rest of the list, both overall and more specifically (note how the entry for Valéry Giscard d'Estaing—line 76—is treated), lacking in any bias (either by way of inconsistent treatment in the list or implication of low-to-non-status for non-UK realms), links to each article on each country's monarchy, and most accurate in terms of dates. It is a format that has served well enough at List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office, space not being of more importance there than accuracy and neutrality. For those who misread and misapply WP:WEIGHT to justify giving the UK prominence over the other realms, Option 1 satisfies their concerns by placing the UK at the top of the list (which is ordered by original realm, followed by date of attaining Dominion status, followed by date of independence; that is the protocol used by the Commonwealth of Nations). Option 2 is my second choice as a compromise between Option 1 and the status quo. I do not like the division between the four realms Elizabeth became queen of in 1952 and those she became queen of in and after 1962 and it does not link to any monarchy article. But, unlike the status quo, its dates are accurate and the note explains the missing information, while the UK remains in place of prominence. The note could possibly do with some trimming.

The satus quo is totally unacceptable. It is incorrect (this list deals with sovereign states, not colonies, and Elizabeth II has not been queen of the UK and 15 other sovereign states since 1952) and biased, both by showing only the UK and its flag, as well as linking only to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. The lumping of the non-UK realms into the words "15 other states" gives the false impression those countries form some kind of bloc, apart from the UK, and lack heraldic identification. "16 former states" is also inaccurate, as the Commonwealth countries once headed by Elizabeth II are still states; they did not become former states when they became republics. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Status quo - per WP:WEIGHT, we should reflect the real world's view of Elizabeth II, which associates her the most (many times exclusively) with the United Kingdom. Also, the United Kingdom is unique among the Commonwealth realms. Elizabeth II (and her family) live in the United Kingdom. Her coronation was held in the United Kingdom. When she passes on, she'll most likely be buried in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom doesn't have a governor-general. Also the Commonwealth realms that didn't exist when Elizabeth II ascended the throne, were already under her reign (since 1952) before becoming Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Status quo - concurring with GoodDay. Neve-selbert 22:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Option 2: "status quo" is a poor attempt to dodge the problem resulting from the introduction of flags and "16 former states". Agree, "status quo" is incorrect (this list deals with sovereign states, not colonies, and Elizabeth II has not been queen of the UK and 15 other sovereign states since 1952), but there is also a link to States headed by Elizabeth II. Comparison with List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office is helpful, but it seems clumsy to repeat here the information (with flags) given for Elizabth II there (at "Prior to 1970"). Of the two options proposed, I see the format and content of option 2, together with the footnote, as the better one for presenting the information for this article. The two comments above supporting "status quo" fail to address the points in question and look more like beating and following a drum for some discussion which could have some relevance elsewhere. Qexigator (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

+ But, given the links to States headed by Elizabeth II and 16 former Commonwealth realms, the footnote could be trimmed to read: In 1952, Elizabeth II also acceded to the thrones of three other countries. From 1957 to 1992, some of her British colonies attained independence and joined the other Commonwealth realms on different dates, and some countries ceased to be Commonwealth realms upon becoming republics. Qexigator (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I felt it was more important with Option 2 specifically to make reference in the footnote to all the dates given in the EIIR line in the list. This would give readers a better understanding of the chronology. However, if we were to go with a truncated version of the proposal, it would be better as "In 1952, Elizabeth II also acceded to the thrones of three other countries. On different dates between 1957 and 1983, some of her British colonies attained independence and joined the other Commonwealth realms. On different dates between 1956 and 1992, some of the Commonwealth realms became republics." I'd prefer to keep the note as proposed, though. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Given Option 1 's shorter footnote (needed only for the "16 former Commonwealth realms") and its consistency with the structure of the table's other entries, I see it as practically a tie with Option 2, but its format could be tweaked by using a single box for the first four: UK, Canada, Australia, NZ - Queen (!952-present). Qexigator (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that, but it raises the problem of what article to link what would be the single mention of 'Queen' to.

Unless the dates were put in their own column (for the entire list) and a single box containing '1952-present' could span the four countries.

That suggestion may make this the point to present another: have the list show how long the individual occupied the office they did or do, using the same template that tracks the person's age. (For example, for EIIR as Queen of Barbados: {{age in years and days|1966|11|30}}, which would show as: 57 years, 220 days). This would allow an easier understanding of how much of the individual's life was or has been spent as leader (since length of life and being a state leader are together the core of this list, apparently). It would show as:

№	Name	State	Position	Length of term	Birth	Age	Living as of
78	Elizabeth II	United Kingdom	Queen	1952–present (72 years, 152 days)	21 April 1926	98 years, 77 days	Incumbent
		Canada	Queen
		Australia	Queen
		New Zealand	Queen
		Jamaica	Queen	1962-present (61 years, 336 days)
		Barbados	Queen	1966-present (57 years, 220 days)

I'm not sure what would be done with those who've occupied the same office for non-consecutive terms, though. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Is two or more terms a problem? Why not give each successively as in present column 4, such as "27 | Michael I |... (1927–1930 (...years, ...days); 1940–1947) (...years, ...days)"? That would be the surest way so far to let the information be presented according to the general purpose, content and format of the article. Qexigator (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

+ and see Slade Gorton's Senate term in the table at Oldest senators currently living. Qexigator (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that would work. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Per MIESIANIACAL. It takes up more space, but it does provide the essential and fitting information upon her majesty's current and former ruling nations. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Though I'd rather you opted for the status quo. I will respect your choice & not try to make you to change your mind :) GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Status quo. This list is primarily about age. Readers of this page want to know how old she is. We shouldn't devote a huge amount of space to details tangential to the topic. Readers who want to understand the details of Elizabeth's reign can find that information on the article about her, which we link to. Pburka (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Inquiring readers looking for information have a variety of interests, not necessarily those upon which any commenter is focussed. Given that the article, in respect of the longevity of state leaders, is being retained, it is more informative to explain the exceptional and unique position of one of those named in column 2 who is sole head of multiple states. Qexigator (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment If the list is primarily about age, then you should suggest that we remove all the extraneous detail about countries and time that offices were held. That's another way to solve the incorrect dates problem with the status quo; a matter you didn't address at all. However, Quexigator is correct: this list provides more information than individuals' ages. There is also material conveying what state or states these people headed and how much of their long lives were dedicated to heading those countries. Elizabeth II is a very unique case in that regard, in that she has headed multiple sovereign states and given different amounts of her lifetime to each. That should be made evident, not hidden or regarded as a meaningless afterthought. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Primarily" doesn't mean "exclusively." We can summarize EIIR's position without going into excessive detail. In the context of this list, she is not unique at all. Like everyone else on the list, she is a state leader who's relatively long-lived. Pburka (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have another way of presenting this information about Elizabeth as monarch and head of multiple states, feel free to make a positive proposal here for comment. She is unique precisely in the context of this list, the sole purpose of which is to communicate information to readers with an indeterminate range of interest in anything related to the topic according to its content. For the reasons given above, the present version is deficient and internally inconsistent. Qexigator (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You're quite correct, Pburka. This article is about 'how old' these individuals are & that's what we all should remember & focus on. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I, too, would be interested to see a proposal for presenting EIIR's position in a way that goes into less "detail" than the two above and rectifies the matter of inaccurate dates (which, curiously, you still evade) and recognizes the fact this list does partly focus on the length of time each individual in it has acted as a head of a particular nation. If you wish to maintain that EIIR's line shouldn't give attention to the states she's headed and for how long, we can explore removing all that information from the whole list. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

IMHO Pburka, removing the countries/years of service, would come across as merely 'another' attempt to avoid having (for lack of better word) the United Kingdom/UK flag soley in the spotlight. It's not quite as drastic as seeking deletion of the entire article, but nearly as bad. Indeed, like the 2 above proposals, it would be pointy in nature. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's kind of you to admit your sole motivation here is to ensure the UK flag alone gets the "spotlight". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinon. Unfortunately, the real world's view, sides with the status quo. You certaintly would have 'zero' chance of showing 'only' Canada or Australia or Jamaica, etc etc. To suggest replacing the UK in the slot, with any of the other Commonwealth realms, would get little to no support. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What a lovely red herring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, that's just your opinon. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment You're quite correct Pburka, in your reasoning. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Status quo Concurring with User:GoodDay Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

And the inaccurate dates? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Crown also has a shared character. Also she has been Queen in them regardless of statehood. We could also remove the dates for the other states entirely. Which would seem like a good solution to me. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Hebel. We can delete the tenure dates from all the entries, if enough editors are concerned about date accuracy. Afterall, this article's primary goal is 'how old' the individuals are :) GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I think so too. I wouldn't be in favour of making an extensive list for the dates of all the present and former Commonwealth Realms, or another list that depicts the ones in which she has reigned continuously from 1952 until now. If that's a problem we could simply add the other states as "other commonwealth realms" and add the texts "various dates". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

And of course, like you & I have both pointed out, the dates are easily already correct, in that the areas which were British colonies when Elizabeth II ascended the throne, but are now commonwealth realms, were still under her reign :) GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of the shared nature of the Crown. Elizabeth II didn't become queen of 16 countries in 1952; most of the 16 of which she's today queen were colonies when she acceded to her thrones and this list covers sovereign states, not colonies or territories.

Yes, removing the dates is a possibility. But, it's my feeling that doing so would make this list even more meaningless than it already is. As I've mentioned already, having the dates at least lets readers know how much of a person's life was given to leading a country or countries (which could be augmented as per my suggestion above). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

When they were British colonies, they were still under Elizabeth II's reign & so the dates are less of an issue. PS: Let's remember, this article's primary content is the age of the individuals. Should Elizabeth II pass on before Charles reaches his mid-80's, it's likely Charles III won't be an entry in this article for sometime. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you need me to repeat myself: the article deals with sovereign states, not colonies. I don't think that simple fact should be hard to understand. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth II, still reigned over these areas which were colonies of a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 9 Then you agree; she hasn`t been queen of 16 states since 1952. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Since 1952, she's been Queen of the areas that are today, the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms. But, again let's not forget the primary purpose of this article. What's significant to this article's entry of Elizabeth II, is her age. GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you were clear the first time: you agree that she hasn't been queen of 16 states since 1952. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The entries are linked to States headed by Elizabeth II, which shows the UK & the 15 other states, all going back to 1952 as being under the Queen's reign, which include their time before Commonwealth realm status. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't do that at all. And it's irrelevant. The pertinent issue is the content of this list and it does not include colonies, Dominions, or territories. It includes only sovereign states. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but adding other countries along with the UK, would be disrupting the article to make a point & as patriotic a Canadian as I am? I won't agree to such a change. The dates of service isn't your primary reason for wanting to change the info of Elizabeth II entry. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Another red herring. It's incorrect to assert Elizabeth II has been queen of 16 countries since 1952 and your admitted stubborn resistance to correcting that error only shows even further what your motivations are. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth II is an entry to this article, due to her age. Let's stay focused on that, please. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That's understandably what you want, but ignoring problems is not what's best for the encyclopedia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, but as patrioitic a Canadian as I am, I shall not agree to disrupting this article, merely so you may make a point. BTW, not to be morbid, but upon Elizabeth II's passing, this entire Rfc would become moot. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you already said that and I already said it's a red herring you're plopping out here to avoid the fact there's presently an inaccuracy in the line for Elizabeth II and you want to pretend it doesn't matter so you can stand by the status quo that puts the UK flag in the "spotlight", the ensuring of which is what you admitted is your primary motivation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious (since November) that you & I aren't ever going to agree on how Elizabeth II's entry should be shown. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your stubbornness is very evident. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That's is just your opinon, of course. We'll have to allow others to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was certainly held by a lot of those who also held the opinion you needed an involuntary vacation from Wikipedia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I realize you're frustrated right now. But, bringing up another editor's past, with the hope of discrediting him in a Rfc, is un-necessary. I've huge shoulders, so you're forgiven. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

When the behaviour that got you into trouble previously is presenting itself yet again in this RfC, it's fair game. You have the option to not be stubborn and seek a solution, rather than a victory. But, you've chosen the old, battleground way. While others make compromise suggestions, you stick to the same inflexible demand, despite flip-flopping and otherwise struggling to form and maintain a supporting argument. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What goes in or stays out of this article, isn't up to me. Furthermore, I'm not interested in gaining a victory. I've no motivation or personal stake in the outcome of this Rfc. WP:WEIGHT must be upheld & that translates to United Kingdom, in this article. PS- I don't know what the Rfc's result will be, but I will respect that result. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

How you behave is up to you. You choose to reject all compromise. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As this is an Rfc, others will have the opportunity to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

As you have free will, you have the opportunity to open yourself to compromise. As a participant in this RfC, that could make a difference in the pursuit of a solution. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The international community almost exclusively views her as Queen of the United Kingdom. Therefore, WP:WEIGHT must be respected in this matter. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You've made your stubborn refusal to accept any compromise clear. There is no need to repeat yourself. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

We'll let others have their say. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to repeat yourself. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. To qualify for this list she must be (a) old, and (b) at least briefly head of at least one state. Clearly, the state she's most closely associated with is the UK, as that's where she's resident, etc. We could reduce her entry to only mention the UK, which would be sufficient to justify her inclusion in the list. That she's the head of more than one state by dint of her position (much like, for example, the French president) is an interesting piece of trivia which isn't particularly relevant to this list. (Disclosure: I'm a Canadian subject of Her Majesty.) Pburka (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In view of the discussion on this page, I am not sure that every one of the realms after New Zealand need be named in column 3. A generic term , with suitable footnote and links, may suffice. For the reasons already explained above, given the information for which the present version is constructed, and that it purports to give the information in a consistent, undistorted, npov manner, it is not acceptable to let the information about Queen Elizabeth's position as head of more than one state, as from and to various dates, be dismissed as trivia. We are looking for a way of presenting the article, and the list it contains, in a way which accomodates that information. The version proposed above at 21 January[20] is an improvement on Options 1 and 2 above, but perhaps could be trimmed as mentioned in this comment. The information is particularly relevant for those readers who are not familiar with the position of Elizabeth in relation to countries, such as Canada, other than the United Kingdom. If there is anything ridiculous in this discussion, it would be objections which appear to have something to do with dislike for letting the national flag of Canada appear in column 3. Qexigator (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So, you, too (and Killuminator below), are under the impression either that Elizabeth II has headed 16 countries since 1952 or that this list includes colonies. I am utterly baffled by how this blatant inaccuracy can be so easily ignored by so many editors of an encyclopedia. One editor, I understand why. But, the others... --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mies: If "you too" is addressed to Qexigator, the surmise is denied. Qexigator (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No, my indent was intended to indicate I was responding to Pburka. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If it were entirely up to me? I'd delete the "15 other states" & "16 former states" & merely add Qex's footnote, next to the United Kingdom/flag. However, it's not entirely up to me. Again, we must keep in mind, what this article's primary goal is. Elizabeth II is entered in this article among the state leaders, because of her age. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Then you support removing the dates indicating how long each person was a state leader, since it is not relevant to their ages. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If it were up to me? I'd have United Kingdom 'footnote' | (1952-present). GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 10 Then, contrary to what you just said at 16:05, the list's primary goal isn't simply to show people's ages. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The article's primary goal is the age of the state leaders. The states are secondary. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If they're secondary, then the list can exist without them, and their associated dates, according to you. To list the oldest living state leaders, all that's needed is their names and their ages. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In such a scenerio, the United Kingdom United Kingdom, would continue to remain 'alone'. The international community recognizes Elizabeth II, first & foremost (most often exclusively) as Queen of the United Kingdom. Per WP:WEIGHT, we can't deny this. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The scenario was a list without states... Once more, you indicate you're in over your head. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Elizabeth II is recognized foremost as Queen of the United Kingdom. It's not by my choice, that this is so. But, I must accept the international community's view & put aside my personal wants. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If anyone would like to give a relevant remark about GoodDay's observation that the states are secondary to the point of the list (and thus not necessary), please feel free to speak up. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever "the international community's view" (per GD) is thought to be, it cannot affect the information which relates to Elizabeth for the purpose of this list. At the least, column 3 should name UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, column 4 link to the Monarchy article for each one, and column 5 state "1952–present", with a footnote, either against her name in column 2, or against United Kingdom in column 3, based on the versions already proposed. Qexigator (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with GoodDay's opinion about the secondary need for the states; this is a list that purports to be about state leaders. As such, I think they should stay. If that's to happen, then we're back to the question that still has never been answered (despite being asked five or more times): how does the UK at the top of a list not reflect what GoodDay claims "the international community [whatever that means] view" is? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Response to both Qex & Mies: Forgive me, but I respectfully disagree with both of you. WP:WEIGHT (i.e. the international community's views) does matter. Therefore I shall continue to oppose options #1 & 2. Again, this being an Rfc, others can certainly weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Mies: GD is simply in error, misleading h--self and possibly others. From the start in 2011, when column 3 was headed "Country",[21] the article has been about state leaders. The column has been headed "State" from 9 November 2015 .[22] Qexigator (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The international community quite clearly views Elizabeth II first & foremost (indeed, quite often exclusively) with the United Kingdom. Though I wish this were not the case. It is indeed the case. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So you keep saying. And saying and saying and saying. In fact, it really looks now like you keep saying the same thing because you think it allows you to evade a fact raised many times: two of the options above put the UK first and foremost next to Elizabeth's name. So simple and yet so very difficult for you to deal with because you can't--just can't--let the British flag be seen with any other, even it it's above them all. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not up to me, as to which country/flag gets shown. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's up to you to defend your claims and arguments. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If you don't like or agree with my reasons for supporting the status-quo, then that's your problem. I suggest that you concentrate on getting support from the other participants. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If you can't defend your claims and arguments, that's your problem. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, there are 5 other editors who are in agreement with me. You're free to try to persuade them that options 1 or 2 are better. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not a defense of your claims and arguments. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've already done so, several times. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That's your (deluded) opinion. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Others will have to decide that. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If they're intelligent and rational people who observe all the evidence available here, yes, that is the decision they'd have to reach. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a Rfc & so everyone has a say here. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No one said otherwise. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I've just noticed your "If they're intelligent and rational people.." comment, above. You seem to be suggesting that anyone who supports the status quo, is somehow unintelligent & irrational. Now, it doesn't phase me one bit, how many times you bash me. But, IMHO you shouldn't be bashing others, so perhaps you should 'retract' that comment of yours. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 11 You lost the thread of discussion again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Status quo - this discussion was done to death so I wouldn't add anything new. My views are very similar to user GoodDay. --Killuminator (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• UK only – this is a "leaderboard" list, not an article. We don't need to complicate matters beyond showing her length of reign, and for that, all we need is the UK details. All the other nations will have exactly the same length, and possibly a bit shorter, depending on the times of gazettal etc. Why complicate and confuse things? --Pete (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Then you wish to dump Andorra, too. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Andorra is a different situation, wouldn't you say? You would surely agree that it is rare that the UK has two monarchs at the same time. --Pete (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You conveniently neglected to note that whomever is one of those monarchs is also head of state of another country and an individual who occupied both those offices is in this list. If you look, you'll see he has France and Andorra (and their flags) shown next to his name, not just France. If we extend your logic to that individual's line, it should show France only. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Extend all you want, Mies. It's a different situation and I don't think this list needs nit-picking detail. The Queen gets her place on this list because she is Queen of the UK. 'Nuff said. --Pete (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for showing the limits of your concern for making good articles. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Status quo + elements of option 2 (i.e. the third one). Option 1 (i.e., the actual second option listed) is ridiculous. The number of entries in the status quo version is appropriate and adequate; option 2/third has the useful feature of distinguishing between Commonwealth nations and former members of the Commonwealth, without falsely identifying former Commonwealth states and former states, as if the countries don't exist any longer. The problem with option 2/third is that it improperly gives special place to CA, AU and NZ among other Commonwealth nations, for no reason. Elizabeth II has no more effect on their actual governance than she does on the other Commonwealth nations (which is quite minimal, at least as an actual ruler, even if there are issues like crown copyright that affect them negatively without that effect being tied directly to the "office" of the monarch, per se). Naming them is pointless in this list, whether we name them all or give three undue favoritism because of ... ? It can't because of population, or India would be in there. European-descended population? I dunno WTF the idea was. Meanwhile, the queen does have a direct, and multifacted set of influences and controls over the governance of the UK. So, it is the only one that should be listed by name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Those remarks helpfully contribute to the discussion. But if it is acceptable to let UK alone be named and flagged in column 3, what other "elements" of Option 2/third would then also be acceptable? Would it suffice to have a footnote, based on the versions already proposed, either against Elizabeth Elizabeth II's name in column 2, or against United Kingdom in column 3? Could we leave out any mention of "16 former Commonwealth realms" in column 3 or footnote? Qexigator (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, didn't mean to gloss over stuff. I support the footnote; it's helpful to move that information there if it's going to be retained, and we should move more of it there. It's much better to quadruple the size of the footnote than of the table cell, since for this context it's all trivia except the UK. "Queen (various years between 1962 and 1983-present)" is redundant and pedantically hair-splitting.

Actually, the cleanest solution is to put every country but UK under "28 other current and former Commonwealth realms", with "Queen (various years, 1952–present)", change "Incumbent" to "Incumbent (but n/a in former Commonwealth realms)", and tweak the footnote as needed. This will present a neat, concise table cell that has all the information needed for the entry in a list like this. The only relevant information to this article's purpose is ranking, name, length of longest reign, where that applied in a non-extraneous/non-figurehead way, birthdate, age, incumbency status. All the other data is technically extraneous, and could really be deleted; it's simply politic to include it for other Commonwealth people who feel proprietary about QEII. The fact that she's nominally the queen of Canada and Tuvalu is irrelevant because she is, by conventional not tortured style, the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories. I.e., the others are even formally an afterthought. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: I'm not certain I understand what you're asking with regard to columns 2 and 3. I wasn't aware of a dispute about her being named Elizabeth II for these purposes. If she's technically called Elizabeth I in some places (I know Scotland asked her to use that), that's more trivia since it doesn't relate to the principal claim for being in this list; she's not really a state leader anywhere but in the UK (and some would even challenge that, citing the Prime Minister as that person). And yes, UK should remain in column 3, preferably as the only named entry aside from the mention of the Commonwealth.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I would see your solution as acceptable, (but not necessarily for all the same reasons): put every country but UK under "28 other current and former Commonwealth realms", with "Queen (various years, 1952–present)", change "Incumbent" to "Incumbent (but n/a in former Commonwealth realms)", and tweak the footnote as needed. let this be called "Option 01" . PS: "Elizabeth" = "Elizabeth II". Qexigator (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, "it's ridiculous" isn't an argument. While I get there's WP:OTHERSTUFF, the full list of realms works just fine in other lists, so, until someone can articulate something to the contrary, it should work just fine here.

Secondly, Option 2 is, as has been stated many times, a compromise between the status quo and Option 1. So, it won't be perfect, but it tries to make everyone happy. It also isn't hard to tell the four countries named are those EIIR now heads and became queen of in 1952, which rectifies the incorrect claim she became queen of all 16 of her countries that year. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Howdy SMcCandlish. I find what you're proposing, interesting. May we have a optical example? GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Status quo with UK listed only and other countries mentioned as a footnote. This entire debate is unbelievably pedantic. This isn't an article on the constitutional arrangements of Commonwealth realms, it just a list of oldest living state leaders. Alexander's Hood (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If we want to really be pedantic we can argue about whether or not the fact that Presidents of France are also co-princes of Andorra - so why don't the entries on French Presidents mention that, eh? Alexander's Hood (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Status quo is my choice per Alexander's Hood and Good Day. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Status quo with the inclusion of an expandable list/box presenting material from option 1 if this is technically feasible. Called by bot. -Darouet (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

We've added a footnote, to show the other realms :) GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Option 01

In view of all above discussion, please use this subsection for opinion/comment on going ahead with:

"...put every country but UK under 28 other current and former Commonwealth realms, with Queen (various years, 1952–present), change "Incumbent" to Incumbent (but n/a in former Commonwealth realms), and tweak the footnote as needed."

Qexigator (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

+ Historical note: Commenters will already know that all the Commonwealth realms advanced from colonies under the UK monarchy to independent statehood, some before and others after the present monarch's accession in 1952. Qexigator (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

+ Looking at version of 02:40, 9 November[23], we can see in col 1 "80", col 2 " Elizabeth II ", col 3 "(UK flag) United Kingdom and 15 other states", col 4 "Queen (1952–present)", col 5 "21 April 1926", col 6 "89 years, 281 days", col 7 "Incumbent". Option 01 proposes changing cols 3, 4 and 7 to read

• col 3 "(UK flag) United Kingdom and other current and former Commonwealth realms, each with its own national flag
• col 4 Queen (various years from 1952–present) +a footnote, see below
• col 7 Incumbent (but n/a in former Commonwealth realms).

Qexigator (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

col 3, should remain as United Kingdom, but add footnote (either long or short version) here or in col 4.

col 4, should remain as Queen (1952-present), but we could place footnote here or in col 3

col 7, Incumbent, should remain as is.

GoodDay (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The version now proposed by GD, with an explanatory footnote adapted from the one at [24], appears to be suffciently informative, and at least no worse than either the current version or the pre-flag version.[25]. For internal consistency, Andorra could similarly be mentioned in a footnote to the line for Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, France, President. Qexigator (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

+ I have gone ahead with adding shorter version of footnote in column 4, as 1 of 3 changes. The next two changes would be removing "16 former states", and "15 other states", but may I leave that to others, as well as Andorra? Qexigator (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The footnote isn't functioning correctly. I don't know how to fix it. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A footnote for Andorra, is also acceptable. I'd say go for it. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Adding the 'Andorra' note & deleting "16 former states" & "15 other states", should get a show of more hands. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As I see it, enough has been said to let those go ahead without rancour or distress, so please do. Qexigator (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Andorra in a footnote - Seeing as one is/was a French Co-Prince of Andorra, because one is/was a French President (rather then the other way around), it's quite possible that others will agree to having Andorra in a footnote. Due to Andorra's having a co-head of state set up, I'll let others decide. Maybe, Andorra deserves a seperate discussion. Also, per WP:WEIGHT, Gascard has been mostly described during his time in office, as President of France, rarely as Co-Prince of Andorra. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been quite 'bold' & removed "15 other states" & "16 former states", as (IMHO) they're now redundant due to the addition of the footnote. PS - This change makes Elizabeth II's entry, quite compact & more in line with the other entries. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Score a big flop for compromise and a win for stubborn resistance. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

footnote (proposed for use with Option 01)

May we also consider whether to have a longer footnote based on that of edit 07:12, 20 January [26], or shorter as above at 10:39, 21 January[27], with addition of link to 'States headed by Elizabeth II'.

• longer

The list includes Elizabeth II who currently reigns as monarch of 16 sovereign states, each with its own national flag. She acceded to the thrones of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and Pakistan on 6 February 1952; she remains today queen of only the first four. Ghana in 1957 was the first of her British colonies to attain independence and join the other Commonwealth realms, followed by 24 others on different dates. Through the same period, 16 countries ceased to be Commonwealth realms upon becoming republics, replacing Elizabeth II with a president, the last being Mauritius in 1992. Aside from the four remaining of her original realms, Elizabeth is today queen also of Jamaica (since 1962), Barbados (1966), the Bahamas (1973), Grenada (1974), Papua New Guinea (1975), Solomon Islands (1978), Tuvalu (1978), Saint Lucia (1979), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1979), Antigua and Barbuda (1981), and Belize (1981).

• shorter

In 1952, Elizabeth II also acceded to the thrones of three other countries. She currently reigns as monarch of 16 sovereign states, each with its own national flag. From 1957 to 1992, some of her British colonies attained independence and joined the other Commonwealth realms on different dates, and some countries ceased to be Commonwealth realms upon becoming republics.

Qexigator (talk) 10:51 27 January 2016 (UTC) edited, added 2nd sentence to "shorter" 14:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections to adding a footnote (either version), as long as the United Kingdom/flag is left standing alone in Elizabeth II's entry, which is the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing is a horrible suggestion. It's the most confusing to uninformed readers presented so far. In relation to Elizabeth II, Commonwealth realms are the same as former Commonwealth realms, except the UK is different, even though it is a Commonwealth realm. But is it? It sits alone and the words "other current and former Commonwealth realms" don't clarify whether it's the current or the former realms that are "others" relative to the UK. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Mies: please see above, 15:17, 28 January. Qexigator (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have noted that. It's even worse. Now the idea is for EIIR to presented as Queen of the UK only and every other country she is or ever has been queen of are all dumped into a footnote. The uninformed reader is misled to believe she's Queen of the UK and because of that has been somehow, but unimportantly, associated with some colonies of hers.

It's an odd about-face for you, given you seemed to feel before that EIIR's uniqueness as head of multiple states shouldn't be hidden. Now it appears you're behind making her essentially no different to any other individual in this list; the footnote will really have no impact in that regard. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing will be the unique one because he headed a total of two countries at the same time. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Mies: Up to now, your contributions have been intelligible and within reason. If you follow carefully my comments and edits, you will see that to call that "about-face" is as inaccurate as another editor's remark on another topic, who supposed that I had changed sides, from one team or gang to another. I see the proposed change (not yet completed) as the opposite of misleading the ordinary reader. The purpose of discussion on contested points is to seek resolution in a manner that is, editorially and encyclopedically speaking, at least acceptable, from the point of view of readers, so far as we are able to do that, while allowing for differences of opinion. If the listed Frenchman is unique in one way, EIIR is in another, but I do not see this as a competition, and why not let Andorra go into a footnote? By the way it is hyperbolically comical to write about this as if the effect were to "dump" Canada and the other realms. Too big to dump! Cheers. Qexigator (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's irrational to see support for only the UK next to EIIR's name and the rest of the realms, past and present, relegated (is that un-hyperbolic enough?) to a footnote as being contrary to "it is not acceptable to let the information about Queen Elizabeth's position as head of more than one state, as from and to various dates, be dismissed as trivia". Putting the information in a footnote makes it trivial; the definition of trivial being "of little substance or significance". And it's patently obvious a footnote tag isn't going to make EIIR's "exceptional and unique position" (your words) discernable in a list of 100 people.

I maintain that this new idea will be misleading to readers for the reasons I stated. You didn't state how I'm wrong in believing that; you simply said you believe the opposite.

Ironically, calling my use of "dumped" comically hyperbolic is itself hyperbolic. There's less passion behind my words than you seem to think. I don't have the energy for it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Cue for "His servants he with new acquist/ Of true experience from this great event/ With peace and consolation hath dismissed,/ And calm of mind, all passion spent." Samson Agonistes. Qexigator (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

+ In the current version,[28] I do not see the information in Note 2, about Elizabeth, as trivia: if it were, there would be no need for the Note at all in this article. Note 1 gives Andorra similar treatment, which some may see as trivia, comparatively with Note 2, but editorially it deserves to be given parity of treatment. It has been mainly thanks to your diligent proposals for removing the deficiencies in earlier versions that has let us have so reasonable and intelligible an outcome. Qexigator (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course the information in the footnote isn't trivia, which is exactly why much of it shouldn't be imprecisely alluded to in a footnote. Yes, the problem of incorrect dates has been remedied, as has the matter of inconsistent treatment of two people who were/are heads of state of more than one country. But, at what cost? The article's nose has been cut off to spite its face, to butcher an expression.

Regardless, your smugness makes it clear you don't see it that way. Your patronising condescension makes it clear you couldn't care less what I think. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Mies: Once again, if you follow carefully my comments and edits, you will see that the ill-feeling you express about my attention to yours is far from the mark. The deficiencies in the list which you mentioned have been removed, and further information added. More than one way for that was proposed. In my view, the current version, which resulted from and was stimulated by a discussion to which you have been a major contributor, before and after opening this section "LIne for Elizabeth", is (as said above) "at least no worse than " either the previous version or the pre-flag version. Now, in my view, it remains open to you or anyone else to propose going further: tweak/expand footnote 2? more links? ...? There may be others who would support that as acceptable. Qexigator (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me, with preference for the shorter note. I also note it's odd that we describe some leaders as 'incumbent' in the rightmost column, and for others we use the column to report when they were last reported living. Why not remove 'incumbent' altogether and use the column consistently? Pburka (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, Incumbent is put in the last column for those who are still in office. In the case of Elizabeth II (for example), it would be replaced 'if' she abdicated or was deposed. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The column is intended to demonstrate that the subject was living as of a particular date. Being incumbent is not quite the same as being alive (see, for example, Kim Il-sung). Besides, incumbency is already mentioned in the 'Position' column. Why not use the 'Living as of' column consistently? Pburka (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
      • All the entries are still living. But yeah, changing Incumbent to links, like all the others, shouldn't be a problem for folks. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
        • I've gone ahead and added 'proof of life' links to the various incumbents in the article, including those commented out at the end of the table. Pburka (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Column 6, Age in years and days

The article purports to list only living persons. Column 6 purports to give Age by years and days. The top states that those in bold italics are currently in office. AFIK, sampling these, comparing the current version with 6 December 2015 [29] they are unchanged at number 45/46 ( 91 years, 343 days) , 78/79 (89 years, 284 days), and 90/91 (89 years, 62 days). Is it not more important to getting these periods correct day by day than to show national flags? Qexigator (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

We need a mechanism, that will update the age of the entries, on a daily basis. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

We currently use a template which updates every time you view the page. Note that viewing an old version of the page via history will still show you the person's current age as of today. Pburka (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was too hasty and should have noted the changes occurring day by day instead of comparing earlier and later versions simultaneously. Qexigator (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

column 1

Should this column have an autofill for maintaining number sequence? Qexigator (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look at here and the sister article, there is enough question about the completeness of the lists and if people are still alive that showing rank is really misleading. For this one, it is only living people so unless some really old person becomes head of state and enters the list, it is really just adding people on the bottom and deleting when they die. Legacypac (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac: No, it is changing all the numbers when persons come and go, including removal of ineligibles: get it? Look at 22-24, 40-42, and the total is less than 100. Qexigator (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've manually fixed up the numberings. PS: I'm assuming that nobody will dispute my exclusion of Cardinal Sodano from Italy :) GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be great. When we delete a deceased entry, those below move up in numbering. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

False Information

The #1 name on this list is a lie. Telmo Vargas was never head of state or President of Ecuador. (List of heads of state of Ecuador confirms this) He was just a military official that helped overthrow the government and install a new one the next day. I thought this list was OR and subject to error - and finding the top of the list is a fabrication pretty much confirms this. Legacypac (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll allow others to decide as to whether Telmo Vargas belong in the article. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Statistically he is most likely dead too at 103, last confirmed alive 3 years ago. Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Why did you attempt to cut the list down from top 100 to top 49? GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

My edit summary stated that this would resolve the ERII big debate. Additionally, since the very first name is not even a world leader, and never was, it is quite fair to now require RS that state each person is the nth oldest current or former world leader. The overall list is actually quite a bit longer, all I did was hide more names then before. Why did you revert me? Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Cutting down a list to resolve a debate is not a valid reason. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, the ER II big debate/Rfc is very much settled. After a few weeks of ironing out a solution, it was sorta annoying to suddenly see it all get zapped. Anyways, that's over & done with. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not see the name of Telmo Vargas in the List of heads of state of Ecuador linked in column 4, and, now that the anomaly has been noticed, it is eligible for speedy removal. Commenters are aware that it is not helpful to let personal taste for or against an article's topic or a part of it or its format determine editorial judgment of the article or enter too strongly into discussions for improving it. We are currently proceeding on the basis that, as stated at the top of this Talk page, the article was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2016 and the result of the discussion was keep. Taking that as a given, the question about Telmo Vargas certainly deserves attention on the part of those supporting retention of the article. The name first appeared in the list in August 2014[30]. That editor's last edit was in June 2015[31]. Qexigator (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• One of the problems with this list is that the term "state leader" is ambiguous, and it becomes even more ambiguous the further back one goes historically. It's not any sort of official position, so we end up relying on editors debating on this page whether or not someone qualifies. I believe this is original research. Pburka (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That said, I think that Vargas really was acting president of Ecuador for one or two days in 1966. Whether or not he ever officially claimed that title, or whether that qualifies him for this arbitrary list is unclear. Pburka (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Also note that a handful of news articles have described Vargas as the oldest living head of state, e.g. NL Times, but it seems most likely that they copied this information from Wikipedia. This is a good reminder of why our articles should be based on reliable sources, and why we shouldn't tolerate original research and WP:SYNTHESIS. Pburka (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

+ Given that there is no source whatever (apart from this article) for Vargas as Head of state, his name should be removed. The question about "state leaders" is resolved by treating this as a generic term for "current or former heads of state, representatives of a head of state, or heads of government (usually a president, prime minister, or monarch) and whose ages can be proven beyond reasonable doubt." Qexigator (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• What's a "representative of a head of state"? Pburka (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I found some good sources about who is the oldest head of state now [32], but that is not this topic. Does anyone have a RS for this topic? Legacypac (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The topic has passed Afd. Every entry has an RS. Nothing more is needed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Pburka: Yes, at the least, consistency with Head of government should be maintained, and persons who are not should be treated as ineligible here. But it has been there from the start.[33] Qexigator (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Passing AfD does not remove the need for RSs, including sources that support the inclusion of a name on this list. Where are these sources? I don't see a single reference and when I start checking the linked articles I find the first one is wrong. #8 looks fishy too as Hyun Soong-jong is a two sentence bio with a source only supporting his appointment and nothing beyond that. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

More importantly, it appears that the prime minister of South Korea is not head of government. So is he a so called "state leader"? Obviously, this would be easier to answer if this list were based on reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Is the Governer of Washington State a state leader? Canada has a Prime Minister, a Governor General and a Queen. So who is the leader for this list? Maybe we should move this to include 'Head of State' as that is easier to define. Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the prime ministers & governors-general, be deleted from this article? GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking for opinions. Clearly POTUS is the only position that fits for the USA but I see Presidents and Prime Ministers from Countries that have both, and for Commomwealth countries the Queen+GG+Prime Ministers all listed which seems like too many 'state leaders'. What about acting leaders cause the #1 guy was at best an acting leader.

I've not been adding people to the list, so I'm what is the criteria exactly that editors putting this list together are following? Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The article criteria says heads of state (examples: monarchs & presidents), heads of state representatives (example: governors-general) & heads of government (example: prime ministers). GoodDay (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Arguments could be made for the inclusion of those such as Ronald Webster (born 1926), the former Chief Minister of Anguilla, as this country is an Overseas Territory and not an integral part of the UK—unlike Washington State, which is an integral part of the US. Furthermore, leaders of dependent territories are considered heads of government and as state leaders. Neve-selbert 08:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I reckon ya'll will have to decide for yourselves, as to who belongs in this article & who doesn't. PS- IMHO, Cardinal Angelo Sodano from Italy, shouldn't be in the wings, however. GoodDay (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for "representatives of a head of state"?

The inclusion of some of the persons in the current list is at least doubtful without some credible external source confirming a status equal to those whose position is head of state or head of government ("usually a president, prime minister, or monarch"). The description "representative of a head of state" will, in most if not all contexts, be correct for a governor general who is the monarch's representative in one of the Commonwealth realms, but if they are to be considered eligible, the reason should be made explicit at the top. Others, whose inclusion in the current list is at least doubtful on this reckoning, are:

• 1 Telmo Vargas
• 31 Miloš Jakeš
• 36 Rezső Nyers
• 41 Seán Treacy
• 42 Octavio Lepage
• 67 Ali Bozer
• 75 Abdul-Karim Mousavi Ardebili
• 94 Stanisław Kania.

Included in the results of a search for any sovereign state office-holders (other than governors general) who might normally be considered as eligible for the description "representative of a head of state"[34] was List of longest-living state leaders, started 01:52, 22 June 2008 as "page moved from List of state leaders", now renamed List of current heads of state and government, but started 23:01, 26 November 2003[35]. I see nothing in that list which supports using "representatives of a head of state" in the list here. In this respect, the list needs to be rectified one way or another. Qexigator (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections to excluding HoS representatives. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW - I have (for quite some time) considered excluding HoS representatives from the List of current heads of state and government article, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Also:

• 8 Hyun Soong-jong
• 29 Kang Young-hoon
• 74 Kim Jong-pil

The South Korean prime minister is not head of government, so their inclusion can only be justified if they are considered representatives of the president (the HoS and HoG). Pburka (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Also:

• 11 Hau Pei-tsun - unclear if Premier is HoG
• 23 Abdelmalek Benhabyles - need a reliable source that he was acting president for 3 days
• 68 Yang Hyong-sop - unclear if he was ever HoG

Pburka (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

So long as a person is listed by Rulers or Worldstatesmen as being HOS, HOG or (maybe) RHOS of a recognized independent state, I would consider them eligible. So long as there is a state, there is at least a HOS, and the research behind those sites is by a country mile the closest to complete and accurate chronology of the procession available, far more so than pages this site hosts. While I can't speak to experience with Schemmel at Rulers, in my interactions with Worldstatesmen's Cahoon, I am almost annoyed at the level of verification he requires.

As far as the South Korean PMs are concerned, my input would be to delete, assuming that that lack of status was official at the time of the PMs' service. While non-presidents/PMs/monarchs/party secretaries require a level of skepticism if they are to be included, holders of positions that are assumed to hold roles by default require skepticism to be excluded. Star Garnet (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know much about http://www.rulers.org/ or http://www.worldstatesmen.org/ but they both look pretty amateur. Are these really reliable sources? They may be dedicated researchers, but I'd be much happier with sources from reputable academic publishers. Pburka (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

As for general Vargas, this is a list of Ecuadorian leaders from Center for Latin AMerican Studies of Georgetown University, which lists Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Relations as a source: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Executive/Ecuador/pres.html . Gen. Vargas is listed. HeadlessMaster (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I could not see him there, but maybe I missed it. What exact dates do you think he was President? Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

He is listed as "Gen. Telmo O. Vargas B.", as a "head of state" ("Jefe de Estado"), not "president, sometime in 1966, as this particular list uses only years. Other sources claim either 29 March 1966 - 30 March 1966: http://web.archive.org/web/20130612000721/http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/noticias/sociedad/item/el-general-mas-antiguo-de-las-ffaa-cumple-100-anos.html HeadlessMaster (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. That fits with him being involved with a coup that resulted in a new President 36 hours later and is at best one interpretation of what was likely a couple confusing days. Surely we are not going to count someone who never held an office but together with others exercised some control for a few hours. He was not even Acting_president (another title which should also be excluded along with the cardinals that fill in between Popes and do as little as possible). Legacypac (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Cross Reference this discussion as these two pages should have the same criteria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_longest-living_state_leaders Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A mostly cleaned up version to double check [36]. It still includes acting presidents (see comment two posts up) Legacypac (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac - I see no such "consensus" you speak of in the text here to suggest your removals have been agreed. Can you point me to this, incase I've missed it? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I see you don't have any answers to back up your edits, LP. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac trying to hide his vandalism now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove governors general

Nothing has been done to explain at the top of the article why governors general are included. It seems likely they are to make up numbers for the arbitrary "100". If no acceptable revision is made, g-gs should be removed. Qexigator (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The governors general waiting removal are

• 25 Cuthbert Sebastian
• 33 Reginald Palmer
• 37 Ninian Stephen
• 81 Clifford Husbands

Qexigator (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. 'Representatives of heads of state' is too vague and subject to interpretation. Pburka (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and removed (along with South Korean PMs). Thank you (Q, GoodDay and Pburka) for you helpful input on these pages. Legacypac, please stop acting unilaterally on issues where nobody has agreed with you, especially where most others have expressed opposition. Star Garnet (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sodano also? Lancelot (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I gave Sodano the boot, before he had a chance to be added. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Limit is necessary to marks end of list. 100 is disputable but must consensus. Maybe 50 persons, 75 persons or 90 years old ?Lancelot (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: I've also opened up a discussion at List of current heads of state and government, concerning governors-general. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Oldest phrasing

I believe that "oldest known" is the best phrasing. It does not contend that they are the oldest, which seems to be Pburka's dispute. The dynamic list tag takes care of this as well. The same logic applies to the other page. Star Garnet (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm content with "oldest known". Meanwhile, does anyone want to figure out who the next 5 individuals are to be added to this article. If we don't keep it at 100 entries? it'll bounce back & forth. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Dangermouse will do that soon-ish. Star Garnet (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Oldest known" directly implies that there are no older known state leaders. What reliable source supports that claim? Without an RS, this is simply a collection of some long-lived state leaders. We cannot reasonably claim that the list is complete, so cannot claim that these are the oldest. Pburka (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Pburka's comment. Qexigator (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In no way does "oldest known" imply that the list is complete; rather, if anything it implies the opposite is likely true. If there ever are any older leaders that become known, they will be added. But we do not know of any older living leaders, and unless an obituary or news article turns up for some random guy who disappeared into the woodwork fifty years ago shows up, it is unlikely that they will become known. Just because somebody may be known to be living to his fellow villagers does not mean that that he qualifies by normal conventions as being 'known.' Furthermore, as this list in particular only includes leaders from the 1940s to present, the proportion of leaders not covered in this is probably around 2%. Star Garnet (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What you're describing is original research. A typical reader will interpret "known" as "generally known amongst experts", not "known to the Wikipedia editors who compiled this list". Unless you have a source saying that these are the oldest leaders, we can't make that claim. Pburka (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that is routine calculation supported by news reports. Star Garnet (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Calculating age is a routine calculation. Claiming that the first person on the list is the oldest known state leader is original research. Perhaps we ought to bring this discussion to WP:NORN. Pburka (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you both can decide on, go for it. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

While I disagree (and I will not have further available time to devote to these pages for some time), 'oldest leaders confirmed living' would seem to satisfy your complaint. This would then introduce a confirmation requirement (five years?) which should already be spelled out, kicking off a few people on the list. Star Garnet (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We could say "confirmed living by Wikipedia researchers", but that's just an admission that we're involved in WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

As per Q below, listing those 90+ by age would remove the necessity of the word oldest. Verifying data is also not OR. Star Garnet (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Given that all eligible for inclusion in the list can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be nearly or at least 90 years of age, and if a person's age today can be so proven then it must be on the basis that it is sufficiently certain that the person is still actually living, let us settle for "long-lived, still-living, ...whose ages can be proven beyond reasonable doubt", and delist any whose ages (and with it whether now living) cannot be so proven. Qexigator (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine with me. This is easier to manage than a list which is arbitrarily limited to 100 entries. Pburka (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Not yet confirmed as eligible

From above, still doubtfully eligible in current version[37]

• 1 Telmo Vargas
• 10 Hau Pei-tsun - unclear if Premier is HoG
• 22 Abdelmalek Benhabyles - need a reliable source that he was acting president for 3 days
• 28 Miloš Jakeš
• 32 Rezső Nyers
• 37 Octavio Lepage
• 62 Ali Bozer
• 63 Yang Hyong-sop - unclear if he was ever HoG
• 69 Abdul-Karim Mousavi Ardebili
• 87 Stanisław Kania.

Qexigator (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Hau Pei-tsun - Taiwan is a semi-presidential country, so I see no problem with his inclusion, more with the eligibility of Taiwan as a sovereign state, but that is another matter
• Abdelmalek Benhabyles - I don't know if this [38] is enough
• Miloš Jakeš - former first secretary of the Communist Party, thus "de facto chief executive" (actually, all other position in the former ČSSR were more doubtful wheater eligible than this one), there is more on the posititon here: http://www.totalita.cz/vysvetlivky/s_ksc_org_02_01.php
• Rezső Nyers - more doubtful, would look into it
• Octavio Lepage - pretty clear, there was no vice president back then in Venezuela and the president of the parliament took over when the president of state was suspended
• Ali Bozer - same as Nyers
• Yang Hyong-sop - not head of government, but head of state instead, current head of state of Korea is Kim Yong-nam, who holds the same position; although between 1994 and 1998, he was acting head of state insead of an official one
• Abdul-Karim Mousavi Ardebili - apparently, he was a member of presidential council as a chief justice, as was in the constitution at the time
• Stanisław Kania - same as Jakeš, only in Poland HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with HM. I lean towards changing Mousavi's title to "Member of the Temporary Council of the Presidency," which isn't in dispute, and sources don't point to an obvious chairman. I've added a source for Benhabyles that should satisfy any qualms. Star Garnet (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Still Living

Is Seán Treacy an appropriate inclusion on the list? Odds are pretty good that a 90+ year old has died since last verified being alive in 2011. Legacypac (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Treacy should be excluded, as the commission he was a member of, merely perforemd the powers/duties of head of state, while the Irish presidency was vacant. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that we wouldn't include a Camerlengo, Dean of the College or the entire College of Cardinals, who was serving during a papal vacancy. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

And thus members were co-heads of state. There can be periods where there is no head of government, but there is always a head of state, so long as that state is organized. To Legacypac's question, there is very, very little chance that somebody from as well-covered a country as Ireland would die without a peep from the media. [39] would bump the date up to 2013-09-19. As mentioned above, I would advocate for a five-year verification band. Few state leaders (or first world parliamentarians, as in Treacy's case), even obscure ones, die without being noticed by some news source or other (particularly true since 2005). Star Garnet (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

They were performing the powers/duties of head of state. Thus collectively, they were acting head of state. Anyways, I don't have the final word on who's included or excluded, so it's up to all those involved. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So is your objection to co-heads of __? If so, Abdel Halim Muhammad and Aníbal Portillo from the other page would be on the chopping block? Star Garnet (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, those two fellows should also be excluded from this article. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

When you get into people that were not really heads of state (like someone that acted for a few days) how much noticed will vary. And no Cardinals between Popes - that is a placeholder position like whatever happens when a king/queen dies and the new monarch is not sworn in yet. Legacypac (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Most monarchies have automatic succession. But then there's Belgium :) GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Seán Treacy (politician)

Seán Treacy does not qualify and should not be retained. Unlike the co-princes of Andorra, members of the Commission were not coheads of state, as shown by this extract from Constitution of Ireland (original text)[40]

Article 14 1.In the event of the absence of the President, or his temporary incapacity, or his permanent incapacity established as provided by section 3 of Article 12 hereof, or in the event of his death, resignation, removal from office, or failure to exercise and perform the powers and functions of his office or any of them, or at any time at which the office of President may be vacant, the powers and functions conferred on the President by this Constitution shall be exercised and performed by a Commission constituted as provided in section 2 of this Article. 2. 1.The Commission shall consist of the following persons, namely, the Chief Justice, the Chairman of Dáil Éireann (An Ceann Comhairle), and the Chairman of Seanad Éireann. 2.The President of the High Court shall act as a member of the Commission in the place of the Chief Justice on any occasion on which the office of Chief Justice is vacant or on which the Chief Justice is unable to act. 3.The Deputy Chairman of Dáil Éireann shall act as a member of the Commission in the place of the Chairman of Dáil Éireann on any occasion on which the office of Chairman of Dáil Éireann is vacant or on which the said Chairman is unable to act. 4.The Deputy Chairman of Seanad Éireann shall act as a member of the Commission in the place of the Chairman of Seanad Éireann on any occasion on which the office of Chairman of Seanad Éireann is vacant or on which the said Chairman is unable to act. 3.The Commission may act by any two of their number and may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their membership. 4.The Council of State may by a majority of its members make such provision as to them may seem meet for the exercise and performance of the powers and functions conferred on the President by this Constitution in any contingency which is not provided for by the foregoing provisions of this Article.

Qexigator (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"The powers and functions conferred on the President by this Constitution shall be exercised and performed by a Commission" means precisely that the members of said commission act collectively as a three-pronged head of state. Star Garnet (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above. IMHO, Treacy should be excluded as the commission was merely a collective of individuals performing powers/duties of a head of state. In otherwords, an acting head of state situation. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel like the like the distinction between official and acting is too blurry (as in the Muhammad and Portillo cases) to allow for this. Star Garnet (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd exclude those 2 fellows, aswell. Anyways, it's not entirely up to me, so I reckon we'll have to be patient & allow others to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

SG: No, it does not mean "that the members of said commission act collectively as a three-pronged head of state". Merely because you see it that way is not sufficient to treat any of them as if a co-president with the others. Qexigator (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So long as being head of state is among the president's "powers and functions" there is very little room for interpretation. Star Garnet (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source which describes the individual members of the commission as heads of state? If not, I don't think it's our place to interpret. Pburka (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

SG, the plain fact is, like it or not, Treacy is not qualified for this list. I see nothing to support the proposition that at any time, when the constitution was passed or later, the commissioners were regarded as co-presidents. It is time to let this faulty inclusion be rectified. Qexigator (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Members of this particular collective head of state are still heads of state, like it or not. Constitution only confirms it. I agree with Star Garnet word for word.HeadlessMaster (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous opinion or preference on such a point on the part of any two or more commenters/editors, devoid of any external source, is not sufficient to treat any of the commissioners as if he were a co-president with the others. Properly understood, the constitution demonstrates the contrary. Are you aware, for example, that in the parliament of England/ Great Britain/ UK it had long been the practice to let royal assent be given by Lords Commissioners, none of whom was ever considered head of state. See also Royal Assent by Commission Act 1541 and Royal Assent (Ireland). Qexigator (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Look, the Irish Presidential Commission has history of dissolving the parliament and signing laws after the parliament has passed them (i.e. serving as a president). I must admit I don't care about "royal assents" and all that procedure, but I doubt that those Lord Commissioners could dissolve the parliament, confirm/reject government members or sign/refuse to sign laws passed by the pariament. As for the commission having more than one member, well, there is no rule in the article which prevents members of "collective" heads of state from being eligible. As for the cardinals in Vatican acting between Popoes, yes, I think they should also be included as acting leaders, as well as presidents of parliament acting between presidents and military leaders who held office for few days after the coup. If there is a problem with this, then keep one list with "full-time, individual leaders" and one with "acting, pro-tempre leaders and/or members of commissions/juntas/etc". I don't have any trouble with that. HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Look? Actually, I have seen no trace anywhere of support for that proposition or reasoning. Qexigator (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I reiterate my position: facts presented on Wikipedia should be supported by reliable sources. See WP:TRUTH. Pburka (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Once launched, this or any other Wikipedia article is expected to satisfy encyclopedic criteria, and, on exposure to critical scrutiny, is liable to be rectified, whether or not that gratifies the personal opinions, desires, sentiments or misunderstandings of launching editors. Qexigator (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we gonna have to go to DRN, over this? GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be the best solution :) HeadlessMaster (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Heads up.

FWIW, I've opened up a discussion at List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office, concerning Elizabeth II's entry there. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I've also opened up a discussion at List of longest reigning monarchs, concerning Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: A similar situation is also at Time Person of the Year, pertaining to the 1952 Elizabeth II entry. Neve-selbert 11:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Elizabeth II's entry there, also needs a review. GoodDay (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made changes to the articles Current reigning monarchs by length of reign and List of longest reigning monarchs, concerning Elizabeth II. Would appreciate if folks here, would review my changes & give their input. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)