Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office

Number of page views in the past 30 days

Notes from construction

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

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

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

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

Date groupings

This may have been discussed already, but can't we organize the date groupings a bit more logically? For example, the first grouping goes from 1946-1994. Why?

I would suggest groupings like: 1970 and Prior, 1971-1980, 1981-1990, 1991-2000, and then maybe by year thereafter. Yes, this adds to the number of groupings, but it would make it less random and more logically organized than it is now.

It used to be grouped this way - I don't know why it was changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memworking (talk • contribs) 14:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that the group prior to 1970 up to 1990 will be merged. The number of state leaders who started before 1990 is getting smaller bit by bit. Albertus correctus magnus (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. This would give the first block more of an equal length with the other groupings. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 15:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Yes, the number of pre-1990 leaders is getting smaller. But why shouldn't the size of the groupings reflect that? Who says all the groupings need to be the same size? Doesn't it make sense that the pre-1970s grouping stays smaller, which proves the point that the size of that group is in fact dwindling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memworking (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Going forward, we would recommend combining dates/decades where there are five or fewer names associated with that date/decade. We will make that change assuming no one raises any objections prior to 24 April 2019 at 5 pm GMT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memworking (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Serzh Sargsyan

I could not find the name of Serzh Sargsyan in the list. Why? M.Karelin (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

He went directly from the Prime Minister office to the Presidency, so he is listed at 26 March 2007 when he became Prime Minister for the most recent time. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 21:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

The amount of space devoted to footnotes is almost equal to the rest of the article. Why not add an additional column to the main charts and call it "Previous service"? That would significantly cut down on the number of footnotes. In my opinion, it would make the charts much easier to read (by cutting down on the flipping back and forth between footnotes and the main text). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memworking (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

HoS representatives?

IMHO, we should delete head of state representatives, such as governors-general. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

So like this?

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next step?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other example

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assumption of office date criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heads up

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

Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Shall we....

• A) Keep the status quo?
  
• B) Change the entry criteria to sovereign state assumption of office date & give Elizabeth II & her realms (4 original states, together & the 12 others in required sections) different entries in the article?
  
• C) Maintain current entry criteria that allows assumption of office date pre-sovereign state & change Elizabeth II's entry to United Kingdom and Flag with footnote for her 15 other states?
  
• D) Redirect the article to another article?
  
• E) Maintain current entry criteria that allows the assumption of an office before a state's independence and add allowance of the assumption of an office created upon a state attaining independence. For Elizabeth II: UK, Canada, Australia, NZ stay as now; remaining 12 realms redistributed throughout whole list according to date of independence/creation of office of head of state.
• F) Sorry to add lately an option: with dates added in the list for each new independent state for Elizabeth II instead of footnotes. Wykx (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• I find that Options C, B or D are acceptable options in that preference order. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option E I really don't understand why we can't have the list acknowledge assumption of an office before the independence of the state the office is related to and acknowledge the assumption of an office that was created at the independence of a state. There would be two 'unique' situations: same person, same office before and after independence (Brunei, Kazakhstan) and same person, different offices before and after independence (12 Commonwealth realms that became independent after EIIR's accession). For those 12 realms, a note--either a footnote or somewhere in the list itself--can explain that EIIR reigned over that territory as Queen of the UK or Queen of Australia from 1952 to [year].

Otherwise, support Option A. Oppose B, per Dralwik. Strongly oppose Option C.--₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Option B is unclear. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

In B, the 12 other realms are spread out into sections via their independence dates, with the criteria being changed to sovereign state assumption dates only. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Further clarificaton: Jamaica & Barbados would (for example) be in the same section (pre-1970) as UK/Can/Aus/NZ. But in each their own rowspan. See? :) GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option B or C Not really a fan of other proposals. --Killuminator (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option B or D. I think these are the only ones which can be easily explained to readers. Pburka (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Option E (mildly). Strongly oppose B, which would be practically the same as D, since B would make this page identical to List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence except with heads of government included. Struck since I do not like splitting up Elizabeth's reign and scattering her throughout the first few tables. I would rather have her remain contiguous, as her reign is uninterrupted since 1952, just changes in title. However my opposition to E is weaker than to B. 'Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Changed to Option F. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• I prefer Options E, B, C, then A in that order. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I prefer Options F, E, B, C, then A in that order. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option C now that I look at the samples presented below. (Many thanks, Dralwik!) The presentation for Elizabeth II matches those of other leaders, it is clear and elegant. This article is just a list of leaders, not the compendium of every fact in the world on one page. --Pete (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It is, of course, a list of leaders, the offices they hold, and the dates they assumed those offices. The list of leaders is at List of current heads of state and government. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mies! Perhaps the problem lies in the title of the srticle, then? If we changed the title to your version, then there would be a closer concurrence. At the moment, the title is "List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office", which is somewhat different. --Pete (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed Skyring, this is why option C is my first choice. Also, it adheres to WP:WEIGHT, as a vast majority of sources back United Kingdom as the realm most associated with Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I think that the big questions in all of this is When does one assume an office? Independence day or before independence day? Indeed, can an office exist before the respective country's independence? IMHO, if we can get a consensus on this item, the rest will fall in line. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeing how the article lists heads of state, we should use the statehood criteria and count the rule from independence but also add some remarks that these certain individuals held power in some capacity before their state achieved statehood. --Killuminator (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option F which I just added (else A) as it doesn't duplicate Elizabeth II and list recognized positions taken previously to independence. Strongly oppose C which doesn't contents all sovereign states. If you want to support this option, don't hesitate to revise your support. Wykx (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment, in the multiple country options of the Commonwealt realms, the United Kingdom should be listed first, regardless of alphabetical order. The UK is unique among the realms, as it has no governor general, Elizabeth II was born there, lives there & will likely be buried there. Anyways just a tweak suggestion for those options. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Not before Australia, because this list is in alphabetical order of countries regardless of the importance of state leading position (see for example 9 January 2015 with a Prime Minister of Mali before a President of Sri Lanka). Wykx (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The list can be alphabetical or it can be according to Commonwealth protocol, which orders the realms first with the UK, then the date each originally became a Dominion, and then by date of independence. I tend to favour the latter as it addresses the concerns of the "the UK must be given special treatment" crowd (even if not for the reason they want it to have special treatment). They don't seem to ever appreciate it, though. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Options

To try and visualize what each proposal is, here is each option, formatted. Let me know if I've misunderstood something Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 03:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A

Assumed Office	Leader	State	Office
9 June 1946	Bhumibol Adulyadej	Thailand	King
6 February 1952	Elizabeth II	Antigua and Barbuda	Queen
		Australia	Queen
		Bahamas	Queen
		Barbados	Queen
		Belize	Queen
		Canada	Queen
		Grenada	Queen
		Jamaica	Queen
		New Zealand	Queen
		Papua New Guinea	Queen
		Saint Kitts and Nevis	Queen
		Saint Lucia	Queen
		Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	Queen
		Solomon Islands	Queen
		Tuvalu	Queen
		United Kingdom	Queen
4 October 1967	Hassanal Bolkiah	Brunei	Sultan: 4 October 1967 – present Prime Minister: 1 January 1984 – present

References

B

(Note that several other rulers, like the Sultan of Brunei, are re-dated.)

Prior to 1970

Assumed Office	Leader	State	Office
9 June 1946	Bhumibol Adulyadej	Thailand	King
6 February 1952	Elizabeth II	Australia	Queen
		Canada	Queen
		New Zealand	Queen
		United Kingdom	Queen
6 August 1962		Jamaica	Queen
30 November 1966		Barbados	Queen

1970s

Assumed Office	Leader	State	Office
2 December 1971	Qaboos	Oman	Sultan: 2 December 1971 – present Prime Minister: 2 January 1972 – present
16 December 1971	Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa	Bahrain	Prime Minister
14 January 1972	Margrethe II	Denmark	Queen
10 July 1973	Elizabeth II	Bahamas	Queen
15 September 1973	Carl XVI Gustaf	Sweden	King
7 February 1974	Elizabeth II	Grenada	Queen
30 June 1975	Paul Biya	Cameroon	Prime Minister: 30 June 1975 – 6 November 1982 President: 6 November 1982 – present
16 September 1975	Elizabeth II	Papua New Guinea	Queen
30 August 1976	Mohamed Abdelaziz	Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic	President
7 July 1978	Elizabeth II	Solomon Islands	Queen
1 October 1978		Tuvalu	Queen
22 February 1979		Saint Lucia	Queen
3 August 1979	Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo	Equatorial Guinea	Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council: 3 August 1979 – 25 August 1979 Chairman of the Supreme Military Council: 25 August 1979 – 12 October 1982 President: 12 October 1982 – present
10 September 1979	José Eduardo dos Santos	Angola	Acting President: 10 September 1979 – 21 September 1979 President: 21 September 1979 – present
27 October 1979	Elizabeth II	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	Queen

1980s

Assumed Office	Leader	State	Office
18 April 1980	Robert Mugabe	Zimbabwe	Prime Minister: 18 April 1980 – 31 December 1987 President: 31 December 1987 – present
21 September 1981	Elizabeth II	Belize	Queen
13 October 1981	Ali Khamenei	Iran	President: 13 October 1981 – 2 August 1989 Supreme Leader: 4 June 1989 – present
1 November 1981	Elizabeth II	Antigua and Barbuda	Queen
19 September 1983	Elizabeth II	Saint Kitts and Nevis	Queen
1 January 1984	Hassanal Bolkiah	Brunei	Sultan and Prime Minister

References

C

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

References

E

(No one else is re-dated)

Prior to 1970

Assumed Office	Leader	State	Office
9 June 1946	Bhumibol Adulyadej	Thailand	King
6 February 1952	Elizabeth II	Australia	Queen
		Canada	Queen
		New Zealand	Queen
		United Kingdom	Queen
6 August 1962		Jamaica	Queen
30 November 1966		Barbados	Queen
4 October 1967	Hassanal Bolkiah	Brunei	Sultan: 4 October 1967 – present Prime Minister: 1 January 1984 – present

1970s

Assumed Office	Leader	State	Office
19 January 1970	Prince Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa	Bahrain	Prime Minister
23 July 1970	Qaboos bin Said al Said	Oman	Sultan: 23 July 1970 – present Prime Minister: 2 January 1972 – present
14 January 1972	Margrethe II	Denmark	Queen
10 July 1973	Elizabeth II	Bahamas	Queen
15 September 1973	Carl XVI Gustaf	Sweden	King
7 February 1974	Elizabeth II	Grenada	Queen
30 June 1975	Paul Biya	Cameroon	Prime Minister: 30 June 1975 – 6 November 1982 President: 6 November 1982 – present
16 September 1975	Elizabeth II	Papua New Guinea	Queen
30 August 1976	Mohamed Abdelaziz	Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic	President
7 July 1978	Elizabeth II	Solomon Islands	Queen
1 October 1978		Tuvalu	Queen
22 February 1979		Saint Lucia	Queen
3 August 1979	Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo	Equatorial Guinea	Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council: 3 August 1979 – 25 August 1979 Chairman of the Supreme Military Council: 25 August 1979 – 12 October 1982 President: 12 October 1982 – present
10 September 1979	José Eduardo dos Santos	Angola	Acting President: 10 September 1979 – 21 September 1979 President: 21 September 1979 – present
27 October 1979	Elizabeth II	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	Queen

1980s

Assumed Office	Leader	State	Office
18 April 1980	Robert Mugabe	Zimbabwe	Prime Minister: 18 April 1980 – 31 December 1987 President: 31 December 1987 – present
21 September 1981	Elizabeth II	Belize	Queen
13 October 1981	Ali Khamenei	Iran	President: 13 October 1981 – 2 August 1989 Supreme Leader: 4 June 1989 – present
1 November 1981	Elizabeth II	Antigua and Barbuda	Queen
19 September 1983	Elizabeth II	Saint Kitts and Nevis	Queen

References

Unfortunately, that doesn't reflect Option E. The 12 realms that became independent after 1952 should go throughout the list in chronological order of independence. E is basically the same as B, except no change to the list's present criteria for inclusion. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, how is this? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's got it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The way you had it could be an option F. Though, that may just make matters more complicated. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

We've got enough choices as it is, so I'll leave it for now. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 19:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

F

(Dates added in the descriptive text for Elizabeth II)

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

References

Discussion

From what I've seen so far, Options B,C & F (in no particular order) appear to be the top 3 preferences. Does this seem right to you all? If so, then we can concentrate on those 3 options. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

OK for me to concentrate on those ones. Wykx (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes let's do a vote with those three. --Killuminator (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Btw, are we all in agreement that the article will maintain the pre/post independence date criteria? GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Option F since that preserves the continuity of Elizabeth's reign while making explicit her changes in title. Strong opposition to B which turns this list into a copy of List of heads of state by diplomatic precedence with heads of government included. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Option F for same reasons. Wykx (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Option C is still my first choice. However, I'll go along with what the majority here prefers, among options C, B & F. Just waiting for the rest to chime in 'here', as it doesn't appear as though anymore folks are gonna chime in at the 'survey' :) GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Option C with F as an alternative vote if it comes to a tie. --Killuminator (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option E, then F, then A. Strongly oppose C; oppose B. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option F, strongly oppose C, oppose B and E. I firmly support continuous tenure taking precedence over date of independence (as it better reflects reality), but I feel this isn't really applicable to the relationship between the Queen and pre-independence Commonwealth realms, because she was the leader of the "possessor", not the "possession". To offer an analogy, if upon the breakup of the Soviet Union Gorbachev had become President of Kyrgyzstan, I don't think it would have been reasonable to treat his two tenures as continuous (because as Soviet leader he had no more special connection with Kyrgyzstan than with the other republics). On the other hand, Nazarbayev has clearly been the leader of Kazakhstan whether inside the Soviet Union, or outside it (the same stands - mutatis mutandis - for Brunei, Eritrea, Oman, South Sudan, Montenegro, Bahrain and Uzbekistan). As far as display of country name and flag is concerned, in line with sovereign equality the UK's and Tuvalu's choice of head of state should be respected equally (Tuvalu could just as well have opted for some other head of state upon independence, as neighbouring Kiribati did). But as an indication of being one person, I'd rather see one box for Elizabeth II (with all her realms listed with their respective dates), than ten-something different entries for the same person, as the latter might lead to confusion (as you might recall, recently there were two Albert II's reigning in Europe concurrently, and two King Abdullahs in the Middle East). ZBukov (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Is there anyone else going to chime in with their preferences? GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears as though F is the favoured. Shall we close this Rfc & adopt F for this article? or continue on with the Rfc? GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

For me it's ok but wait maybe MIESIANIACAL's answer as he was slightly favoring E. Wykx (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I do favour E. But, if the consensus is behind F and it was my second choice, I couldn`t raise much objection if F were implemented. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment - If it's alright with everyone, I'll give it another 24-hrs & then if there's no strong objections? I'll ask for closure of the Rfc, based on a consensus reached for option F. PS- as this article is partially about the offices/positions (see article title) & not primarily the individuals? The F option is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment - PS - A tweak request. In option F, may we have the order as UK, Can, Aus, NZ & the rest in order of their becoming commonwealth realms? This would go along better, with the other leaders/state entries, which also are in chronological order. GoodDay (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Strongly support the above suggestion of ordering Commonwealth realms chonologically. That fits the logic of the article perfectly. ZBukov (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say AUS, CAN, NZ, UK (like for François Hollande where Andorra is before France by alphabetical order for the same date) and then the rest chronologically. Wykx (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I would rather put the UK at the top of the list, as it's still the Canadian (Australian, etc) state "using" the British monarch for head of state, not the other way round. And Canada, Australia and New Zealand became dominions in this order (and then the rest gained independence after the Queen acceeded to the throne). ZBukov (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetical order applies unless there is a clear reason (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Order_of_names_in_title). I wouldn't say "using the British monarch" is a clear reason. The British Monarch was the HoS of Australia since 6 February 1952. Wykx (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

And the fact that it's not the Australian monarch who is the HoS of the UK, but the other way round, is a clear enough reason for me. So probably our opinions differ on that point. ZBukov (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It's the same with France and Andorra: it's the French president who is co-prince of Andorra. It doesn't change that from a technical point of view, both happen at the same second. Wykx (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A possible tie-breaker, is that the United Kingdom has been oldest sovereign state. Followed by Canada, then Australia, then New Zealand, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The whole list is alphabetical like many geographical lists. Why do you want to complicate? Wykx (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The entire article isn't by alphabetical order, but by chronological order. For the moment, it appears strange in option F, having the Jamaica, Bermuda etc etc, with their commonweal realm dates not being longest to shortest. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I mean by alphabetical order for two states with the same date of office taking. For example: Kosovo before Niger on 7 April 2011, germany before Tonga on 18 March 2012, Andorra before France on 15 May 2012, Montenegro before Namibia on 4 December 2012, Djibouti before North Korea on 1 April 2013, Chile before Libya on 11 March 2014, Iraq before Israel on 24 July 2014, etc. Here, alphabetical order should apply only for AUS, CAN, NZ, UK. and then chronological orders for later additions (as for Brunei). Wykx (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

But UK, CAN, AUS & NZ are under the same individual (Elizabeth II) & therefore it's alright for us to put them in order of oldest to youngest independent state, while the other 12 are put in order of their commonwealth realm' reign lengths. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is not ranking states by dates of independence. This article is about current state leaders by date of assumption of offices. The date of independences past to office taking are irrelevant. Wykx (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you, but it's a minor dispute. Anyways, it appears that we've got a consensus for Option F. I'll request closure of this Rfc on that basis. Whoever knows how to implement the change? go for it :) GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the incorrect assertions about the British monarch reigning in Australia, Canada, etc., the order of the realms can either be alphabetical or it can follow Commonwealth protocol which puts the UK (oldest country) first, followed by the chronological order of the dates the countries became Dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand), followed by order of date of independence (Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made the closure request. Any other tweaks can be haggled over, after implementation of option F. :) GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Use a minimalized display, with a footnote, per my more detailed comments at nearly-the-same previous RfC at Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Line for Elizabeth II.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In conclusion

It took us just 7 days (15 days, including pre-Rfc discussion), but we got it done. As the fellow who started this Rfc, I just wanna thank ya all for participating :) GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ;) We'll have to open a new one for the order inside or we can also continue the talk first in a new thread? Wykx (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A new thread would be best. I doubt another Rfc would be required. But if one is so required? someone else will have to open it. Another editor wants a moratorium placed on me, preventing me from opening up anymore Rfc on anything to do with how Elizabeth II should be displayed in any articles, in relation to the UK and the other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate discussion

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

This is essentially a "re-legislation" of the exact same issue that was previously settled at Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Line for Elizabeth II, and the same discussion could easily break out at various other lists of this sort. The matter should be centralized, and just had once, with consistent presentation across such lists (except one where a different jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction line item is needed, as at Current reigning monarchs by length of reign).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Though Charles will automatically be in this article, upon his accession to the British throne. It's comforting to know, he won't be on some of the other list articles ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brazil

With the possibility that President Dilma Rousseff will be impeached & thus (according to Brazil's Constitution) have her powers & duties suspended during the impeachment trial. Will we really need to list Vice President Michel Temer, while he performs those powers & duties as acting president? Afterall, Rousseff will still be President until/if she's convicted & removed from office. GoodDay (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

While Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was twice being medically treated, I listed Amado Boudou as the Acting President of Argentina on this page, and kept President Fernández de Kirchner listed as President. While Traian Băsescu was being impeachment for the second time, Crin Antonescu was listed as the Acting President of Romania on this page, and President Băsescu was still listed as President.– Jwkozak91 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

We should start the practice of going with only footnotes, in these situations. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Since these people are the legal (and continued) possessor of the office on the one hand, and the effective (albeit temporary) exerciser of the presidential duties on the other, they should both be listed. ZBukov (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Since this is Wikipedia, surely the solution should be to follow whatever reliable sources do, rather than engaging in original research. Which reliable sources do we usually base this list on? Pburka (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, now this debate is no longer theoretical; we need to apply a decision within the next 24 hours IMHO.– Jwkozak91 (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It's no longer a concern for me. If you want to list Temer, go for it. GoodDay (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

We should clarify though, that Rousseff is still President of Brazil. Suspension of her powers & duties, would be a more accurate description. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Michel Temer, Albert II of Monaco, etc.

Recommend we List Temer at August 31, when he actually took office as President of Brazil. Not May 12, when he merely assumed presidential powers & duties while Vice President. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Since May 12, the person discharging the duties of the Presidency -- meeting with diplomats, signing laws, even opening the Olympics -- has been Temer. On August 31 his title changed, but he has held office de facto since May 12. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 23:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as we've got Albert II of Monaco's reign corrected as beginning April 6, 2005. Again, we should have Temer's tenure as President of Brazil beginning August 31, 2016. In fact, we should also remove the officials who aren't & never were state leaders, but only acting state leaders. That's the acting presidents, acting prime ministers & regents. GoodDay (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the date for Albert II de Monaco to March because there was no reason given for that change. The prince-regent was also head of state. Acting heads of states are heads of state. Wykx (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The article should be reduced to just 'heads of state & government', IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

How would you manage the title of the article then?? Wykx (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The acting presidents & regents have not assumed the office, but merely assumed the powers & duties of the office. We should remove them.

Adamantly oppose this. Temer is the person who has exercised the duties of the office since he became Acting President, and this article should reflect the person who has been signing laws, meeting diplomats, making public appearances, etc. IMO the change from acting to full President is a wording technicality that should give way to Temer's de facto leadership. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 17:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Vajiralongkorn, King of Thailand

There's sources that he's been proclaimed king, retroactive back to his father's death. Therefore, I placed his accession as being October 13, 2016. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

We should still have a footnote pointing out Prem Tinsulanonda's regency until December 1. I'd put it in, but I'm on mobile right now. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 00:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is for those who are currently in office. Therefore, Prem should be excluded. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No, we note regencies for current rulers in footnotes on the current ruler. See Bhumibol's old entry where we had a footnote on his regency back in the 1940s (or the current King of Norway for another example). Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 02:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yemen

Should this 'salvation government' in Yemen be included in this list? Yemen's Houthi rebels unveil 'salvation' government Wykx (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Akihito

Just a note: Plans are in the works to amend the Japanese Constitution, to allow Emperor Akihito to abdicate on January 1, 2019. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

South Korea

With the removal from office (via impeachment conviction) of President Park on 10 March 2017, a dispute has broken out as to which date should be used for the beginning of Prime Minister Hwang's tenure as Acting President. Should we go with 9 December 2016, when Hwan became Acting President upon the suspension of President Park's powers & duties? or should we go with 10 March 2017. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

He was already Acting President during the suspension, hence 9 December 2016 seems the right date. Wykx (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Cook Islands and Niue

Since Niue and Cook Islands are actually Sovereign States in free association, and having diplomatic relations with several countries. Shouldn't they be represented here? Even though they don't have UN Membership? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.221.36.121 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic In office 22 June 1989 – 14 December 1991 а не с 1990 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.112.23.213 (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Nursultan Nazarbayev

First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic In office 22 June 1989 – 14 December 1991 потом 1st President of Kazakhstan Incumbent Assumed office 16 December 1991 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.112.23.213 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Nazarbayev is the leader of the ruling party in a managed democracy and the permanent chairman of an empowered National Security Council. Furthermore, both of the people in the offices of the President and Prime Minister owe their positions to him.– Jwkozak91 (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Artur Rasizade

20 July 1996 – 4 August 2003 (1st time) потом Acting Prime Minister: 6 August 2003 – 4 November 2003 Prime Minister: 4 November 2003 – present — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.112.23.213 (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

To a less familiar reader, Elizabeth II's entry in this article, is a tad confusing. We have her column 'Assumed office', showing February 6, 1952 (for all the realms) & yet in the column 'Office', we've got different dates in each country, with the exceptions of: UK, Canada, Australia & NZ. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. But the alternative is creating thirteen separate entries for the same person (as per the various dates on which her realms became independent). So this unique circumstance of her being a head of multiple states only offers two options both of which will be a bit confusing to a less familiar reader. ZBukov (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I know Elizabeth's reign was discussed extensively above, but might it be clearer if we changed the 'Assumed office' date to read "February 6, 1952, or upon independence", or something similar? Pburka (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Suppose, it's a temporary situation, as her successors reigns will all begin on the exact same date. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Except if the likes of Anguilla, Bermuda or Cook Islands become independent realms during a future reign. :) ZBukov (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Titles

A handful of leaders have titles in the list (Prince, Sir, Sheikh, Archbishop). I started removing them, then realized how many there were. I don't think we should include titles. Every state leader has at least one title, and often more than one (Elizabeth II has a whole list of titles!) Adding all the titles would be messy, and it could be complicated to decide which title to use. I propose that all titles be removed. Pburka (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Nazarbayev start date

To avoid further edit warring, I am arguing here that Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan should be listed at the 1984 date, including his tenure as the Prime Minister-equivalent of the Kazakh SSR. This is using a combination of two precedents we already follow for this page: 1) That a leader is dated at the start of their earliest leadership position that forms a continuous period to the present day. For example, Paul Biya of Cameroon is listed under 1975 (Prime Minister from 1975 to 1982, then directly to the Presidency since 1982). 2) A leader of a subdivision/protectorate, etc. that becomes independent has the pre-independence time counted for dating. For instance, Salva Kiir Mayardit of South Sudan is under 2005, although his country was part of Sudan until 2011. Combine these two rules, and Nazarbayev is dated at 1984, since he has been a head of state or government of Kazakhstan continuously since 1984. Indeed, this combination already applies to the footnotes on Filip Vujanović, the current President of Montenegro, which lists his service as Prime Minister of what was then a province of Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro. (His service being noncontinuous relegates that to a footnote though.) Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Recently removed from list

Could we get a section at the bottom called 'Recently removed from list'?

It would be interesting to see what rulers had been voted out, deposed, term-limited, died, etc... in the recent past (last 1-2 years).

Naruhito's accession date

I suspect there 'may be' a dispute over this, when Naruhito becomes emperor of Japan. Many sources are using the date May 1, 2019 as the accession date, but they're also using May 1, 2019 as when the new era begins. Here's the problem. In Japan an emperor's accession date is different from his era-beginning date. Why? the era-beginning date is always the first full day of the emperor's reign. This would mean that Naruhito's accession date would be April 30, when his father abdicates. Unless Akihito is abdicating at 'mid-night'. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019

2409:4052:90F:CBEF:0:0:2709:18A1 (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

2409:4052:90F:CBEF:0:0:2709:18A1 (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• No evident request. Tiderolls 12:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019

2409:4052:90F:CBEF:0:0:2709:18A1 (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)2409:4052:90F:CBEF:0:0:2709:18A1 (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

2409:4052:90F:CBEF:0:0:2709:18A1 (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• No evident request. Tiderolls 12:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Merging pre-1990 groups

This was suggested to be brought up here, so here it is. Is there any thoughts towards merging everything pre-1990 (or even pre-1970 or -1980) into one group? As it stands the pre-1970 has two people (Elizabeth II and Hassanal Bolkiah), while the 1970s has 6 names and 1980s has 7. Seems logical to merge a couple of them, no? Kaiser matias (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Merging was the best move, as the number of heads of state pre-1990 are decreasing, due to death, abdication/resignation & expiration of term(s) of office. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I support this, to streamline the tables. This is an edit that will only become more fitting with time. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) Now that yet another 1980s name has been removed (Omar al-Bashir), I think it may be appropriate to move forward here. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done partially. Boldly did the first part (merged "Prior to 1970" and "1970s" --> into one "Prior to 1980" section since the first of the two only had two individuals), but didn't do anything with the 1980s section, as that would need to have further discussion. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see discussion above about groupings. We should discuss grouping changes first here before making any changes. Believe it or not, there ire s a lot of strong opinio on both sides here, so unilateral changes should not be made until there is consensus.rns — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memworking (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Memworking: First, there was one discussion about the dates back in 2014, and at the time you were the only one to express any opposition. That seems to be the case here again, with several others seemingly showing support to condense the tables a bit. It really just seems like you are the only one against it for some reason. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: Fair enough. I am not opposed to the change per se. I just think (i) we should discuss it first and (ii) apply consistent standards. So, maybe something like: "Going forward, we would recommend combining dates/decades where there are five or fewer names associated with that date/decade. We will make that change assuming no one raises any objections prior to 24 April 2019 at 5 pm GMT." Kaiser matias - if that works for you I will edit this Talk page accordingly.

Thanks. In a similar topic, Nursultan Nazarbayev should be removed from the list, and I see he has been but keeps being restored. The sole post he retains, Chairman of the Security Council, is not a state leader position, and while Nazarbayev arguably does still hold influence over the Kazakhstani government, to argue he holds a legitimate leadership position is incorrect. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, there'd need to be a separate discussion on that one. Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2019

2405:205:1300:164B:0:0:76C:98A0 (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Paul Kagame 1994-2000

Hello,

Paul Kagame is widely recognized as de facto leader of Rwanda between 1994 and his accession to the office of President on 22 April 2000. During this time, he was Vice-President (office taken on 19 July 1994) and leader of the RPF, the dominant party (having assumed control in exile in 1990). This period is also described as a triumvirate between Kagame, nominal President Pasteur Bizimungu and until 1995 nominal Prime Minister Faustin Twagiramungu. This leadership role is mentioned and sourced several times in the article, including lede, § Vice President and Minister of Defence and § Accession.

This type of leaders from behind without an actual title of head of state or government are usually included in this list, such as communist system first/general secretaries, Iranian or North Korean Supreme Leader, Myanmar State Counsellor etc.

For these reasons, I suggest for the purpose of this list to consider Kagame's tenure from 19 July 1994, when he starts to be Vice-President. One could consider that his role as leader of dominant party RPF in fact started in 1990, but that would be overreach and I could not find a reliable source stating any actual date when he takes this position, besides the death of his predecessor on 2 October 1990, a date where he was abroad and did not immediately succeed. Place Clichy (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jwkozak91: Despite not answering in this discussion, you have several times reverted this mention about Kagame being de facto leader of the country since 1994 [1] and introduced wording which I find incorrect: Kagame was not "Acting Head of State" between 1994 and 24 March 2000 ([2]) nor "Acting President" ([3]) as there was a President in office during this period, namely Pasteur Bizimungu.

He was however the real leader of the country, as attested by the sources, and held a number of offices which I summed up in this edit: Vice-President, Minister of Defence, head of the Army and of the single party. Neither was he head of government. His role during this period is therefore similar to other 'leadership from behind' positions which we consider for the purpose of this list, such as communist system first/general secretaries, Iranian or North Korean Supreme Leader, Myanmar State Counsellor etc. and should be presented as such. Place Clichy (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Having received no answer, I'm reinstating a wording mentioning his actual titles during the 1994-2000 period, using footnotes, replacing "Acting Head of State" which is actually untrue. Place Clichy (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Why was the President of Panama removed?

The President of Panama was removed from the list without explanation. What happened? Did he die? Was there a coup?

206.205.117.10 (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Small font

What does it mean when an entry is written in small font? Does it mean that the person is the de facto state leader instead of the de jure one? If so then it should be explained in the article. JIP | Talk 11:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It is used for acting leaders and for the Governors-General of the Commonwealth Realms. Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Mozambique?

The table currently has Carlos Agostinho do Rosário listed under 17 January 2020, when he was reconfirmed as Prime Minister following the re-inauguration of President Nyusi. However, our source, rulers.org, does not have this cabinet shuffle listed as interrupting Rosário's tenure. Should Rosário be listed under his initial date of 17 January 2015 to match pages like List of prime ministers of Mozambique? Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The source Rulers January 2020 says on January 9 'Mozambique: President Filipe Nyusi dismisses Prime Minister Carlos Agostinho do Rosário and Interior Minister Basílio Monteiro so that they can take up seats in parliament. After being sworn in for his second term on January 15, however, Nyusi on January 17 confirms do Rosário as prime minister.' Another source Reuters says 'Mozambique's President Filipe Nyusi kept Carlos Agostinho do Rosário as prime minister'. Wykx (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

True, but rulers.org also does not list him as leaving the prime ministry. On the Mozambique page, there is no listing of an absent office for that time gap, and do Rosário has an uninterrupted tenure listed. It seems that the dismissal was a formality and that do Rosário remained the prime minister through that gap. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 04:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put do Rosário back to January of 2015, to match the Mozambique page on rulers.org. It seems to be a distinct case from say, Greece where a caretaker PM was appointed to replace the outgoing PM between administrations. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 20:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Should we include de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman

By this reference Mohammed bin Salman is called de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. Wykx (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

No. His father hasn't designated him regent. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed but isn't he de facto? Wykx (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I would support listing him as the de facto ruler of the country, using his appointment as Crown Prince and Deputy Prime Minister on 21 June 2017 as his starting point. We can cite news sources like the BBC article as explanations for his unique listing, similar to how we still have Nursultan Nazarbayev on the list for still being the de facto power in Kazakhstan. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 01:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I would argue against including him at this point, and anyone who is "de facto" the leader. I think it should be restricted to those who actually hold a title that makes them a state leader (so head of state or government), as it establishes firm guidelines on who to include and who not to. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ndlovukati of eSwatini

The Ndlovukati article notes that "The title is given preferentially to the mother of the reigning King (styled the Ngwenyama, "Lion of Swaziland"), or to another female royal of high status if the King's mother has died. Indlovukati rules alongside the Ngwenyama".

I do not believe Ntfombi of Eswatini has ever been included in this list in the years I've been watching it. Granted, she only has ceremonial powers but we include other such leaders. Should she be added to this list? Mtminchi08 (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Which other such leader? Wykx (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Niue and Cook Islands

Many countries recognize Niue and Cook Islands as independent countries, I believe it is necessary to add them to the list. Renan Rabbit (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see them in List of states with limited recognition or List of sovereign states. There were some long discussions about them being added on these pages and for now the entries have not been added. Wykx (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth II (order of first four entries)

Why are the Commonwealth Realms, as of 1952, of which Elizabeth II is currently Monarch listed in the order UK, Australia, Canada, New Zeland? As Elizabeth II's Coronation Oath (https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953) mentioned them by name in their order of seniority, I think that Canada should precede Australia rather than vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.82.8 (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

UK gets top billing, because it's the realm she's most associated with & lives in. As for the other 3? they're listed in alphabetical order. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

But, following those three, the remaining 12 are sorted are by length of tenure of reign, not alphbetically. Jamaica is next even though, alphabetically, it comes after Barbados. That is what seems inconsistent.213.78.82.8 (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, well I'll let somebody else handle that. Being as I'm Canadian, it might be viewed as though I were showing favouritism. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see how long we have to wait for modest Australian to apply an edit! 213.78.82.8 (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I would stick to alphabetical order and put Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK. For Macron, Andorra is already listed before France, by alphabetical order.Wykx (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

TBH, the UK should be at the top, as it's the realm she lives in & is most associated with. GoodDay (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

So France should be before Andorra for Macron? The ranking shouldn't depend of the head of state. How countries are ranked at UN for example? By alphabetic order. Wykx (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

If Macron was Andorra's sole head of state, then yes. However, Andorra has two heads of state who are not both heads of state of France, so we can't do that. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why it would make a difference?? Wykx (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

To me, it is not obvious that it makes a difference, either. I had not noticed that Andorra was listed before France, but it does not seem compelling one way or the other for the order of Canada and Autralia, because Andorra comes before France according to both historical seniority (the Head of State of France was joint Head of State of Andorra before the founding of even the first French Republic) and alphabetical order. Applying those two arguments (either of which may be in force for Andorra and France) to Elizabeth II, either the UK should be first and Canada should precede Australia or the UK should be fourth and the remaining realms remain sorted by the tenure of the currrent Monarch while France should go before Andorra. The argument for the current arrangement is that the UK is special and should go first (exempt for alphabetic ordering), but, in that case France is special, and should be exempt from alphbetic order and from ordering by seniority. 213.78.82.8 (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with putting France before Andorra, if the Macron was Andorra's sole head of state. GoodDay (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Recommend we go with United Kingdom, Canada, Australia then New Zealand on the basis of the current ages of the realms, as tiebreakers. The UK was founded in 1801, then 1930/40's - Canada founded in 1867 - Australia in 1901, then New Zealand in 1907. The entire list of the Commonwealth realms is currently inconsistent, with a mixture of accession dates & alphabetical order. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course that is fine with me as it matches my initial instinct; I searched for the Coronation Oath, as sworn in 1953, for support. I perceived an analogy with the ordering of US states by admission to the Union, with date of ratification of the Constitution as the tiebreaker in that case. I will now step back from the France/Andorra question. 213.78.82.8 (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)