Talk:Head of government

message: The Prime Minister of the UK is crucial to this article because it is the first of office of the head of government. Due to the presence of this role, the head of government was created.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurusa101 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: Terminology is tough, I know, but is the Head of Government really necessarily the chief officer of the executive branch, as it says in the first sentence? In semi-presidential systems and many parliamentary systems, the chief executive office sits above the Government (or "Administration", in American terms). The person who heads the Government is not necessarily the head of the entire executive branch of government. SteveMcQwark (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chief officer of the executive branch? 

message: Should British monarch be counted as head of government alongside Prime Minister as well ?
By constitutional convention, monarch is head of Parliament
Also for King of Netherlands is similar, since Dutch constitution specifies that government is consisted of 
Crown(king) and his ministers
Siyac  —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @Siyac The British monarch is the head of state and the nominal head of the executive, but is not the head of government. The head of government is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who is a member of the House of Commons elected by the people of the United Kingdom. Even in the Netherlands, the monarch's powers are nominal, and most powers that are formally vested in the Crown are in fact exercised by the government. 112.134.220.222 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional monarchy 

message: Mrodowicz (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that all substantive and generic Head of Government related information should be moved here from the Prime Minister article. The PM article should only deal with the etymology of that expression, and links to offices which use that particular title. The Head of State article, which I have contributed to, may serve as inspiration and many sources used over there could also be used in this article as well. RicJac (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Many countries have a singular head of government and head of state, or a Prime Minister who does not wield the power of head of government. We need to keep historical Prime Ministers from countries which have abolished that position and replaced it with something else. Agreed that Chief Ministers, should be moved, but positions like Premier and Chancellor are not as clear. 204.89.57.225 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

text: The Head of Government talks about the other positions besides Prime Minister as mentioned in the header. There was no merged for the other pages for the different heads of government. I oppose the merge. Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 5:56, April 30 2013 (UTC)
*Oppose Both are equally important, should never be merged. Faizan 14:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with Prime Minister

message: Head of Government or Prime Minister may be 3rd, 4th or even more on a country's precedence table. A Head of Government is the highest political official, who leads a country regarding its national policies. Travelmite (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: The following, found in the lead, apparently not a summary of anything in the body, and unsourced, is partly wrong and partly misleading: "For example, in the United Kingdom, the prime minister 'advises' the Queen on the appointment of the cabinet, advice she is required to accept. On the other hand, the Queen's long service as the head of state enables her to provide the prime minister with information and insight into many matters to better run the government. However, because the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, the Prime Minister uses his or her own discretion regarding whether or not to follow the Queen's advice. The Queen also is entitled to appoint a new Prime Minister."
An English law textbook written for undergraduates and published by Oxford University Press (I cited it for another article some years ago), said that the government has two branches, Crown and Parliament, that the Queen is the head of state, that she can appoint anyone or no one as Prime Minister regardless of which party won the election, that she can appoint 120 ministers who normally serve Parliament and answer when necessary to courts but when serving the Crown need not answer to the Parliament, which means, since courts are inferior to the Parliament, need not obey court orders (a real case to that effect arose not many years ago involving a refused asylum application), that she and not the Prime Minister is the commander-in-chief, that she determines who can receive a passport (presumably meaning she can set immigration and citizenship policies), that her legislative veto is final (making a Prime Minister's rejection of her advice potentially career-ending), and that she may have been within her rights when she responded to a disinclination by the appointive House of Lords to enact legislation she desired by suggesting that she could appoint many more members to that House unless the House passed the bill. Any requirement that the Queen accept the PM's advice on cabinet composition is political, not legal. While it is widely believed that the Queen is not supposed to have political opinions, or at least that they must be private or secret, neither is the law.
Nick Levinson (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: By George! You live in Fantasyland. Well, it's Saturday night: maybe you high on pot..Once you're back on Planet Earth, read this British government short information page on who's the boss in the British system of government:  https://www.gov.uk/government/how-government-works 
--Lubiesque (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I will extend good faith to you and assume you were not engaging in a personal attack but only using humor, which I could match. Seriously, I think you are confusing political and legal. The page you linked to does not significantly separate the two. I did, and said so in the opening post of this topic. If you search the page you linked to  for "Crown" or "Queen" (without quotation marks), you'll notice how little those words are used, whereas U.K. law gives much more weight to the Crown, an office occupied at the top by the Queen, who, legally, is not to be trifled with. I dug out the book citation I referred to above: Public Law, by law prof. Adam Tomkins of Univ. of Glasgow (N.Y.: Oxford Univ. Press (Clarendon Law ser.), 2003). I'd recommend that you read it except that, while I read it 4–5 years after publication, it is now 14 years after publication and apparently no newer edition has been issued, and so I suggest reading a book published within the last 10 years, but of similar quality, and not simply a one-page nonscholarly brochure-like page. (That page reminds me of the big-city U.S. mayor who told a children's book author that he writes the laws, and I think several dozen City councilmembers would properly have disputed that.) In the meantime, Monarchy of the United Kingdom should be just a click away and might be of interest. Now, if the legal book is wrong, and that's possible with any source, you may refute it, but the page you linked to is merely a sketchy disagreement and not adequate as a thoughtful refutation of a law textbook by a well-credentialled author and from a highly reputable publisher. You're welcome to go at it. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved and edited. See the diff. However, I did not add citations that are still needed. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead misdescribes UK Queen's power 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: In a presidential system of government, both the head of state and the head of government is the President. So, the President's role as head of state is more important than that as head of government. But in semi-presidential and parliamentary systems, the head of state and the head of government is separated. So, a President is not specifically introduced as a head of government.112.134.220.202 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Head of State also leads the government in countries without a separate Head of Government

message: "State President" was the title of the head of state of the Republic of South Africa from 1961 to 1994 (Apartheid rule). From 1961 to 1984 the State President was the head of state with limited ceremonial powers, while the Prime Minister was the head of government. In 1984 the office of Prime Minister was merged with the office of State President, thus transferring the executive powers of the Prime Minister to the State President.
So, State President was not the title of the head of government of South Africa. 112.134.220.222 (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  State President of South Africa was Head of State, NOT Head of Government 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hey, can someone add Joe Biden, the President of the United States of America and Chris Hipkins, the Prime Minister of New Zealand (my country) to the list of heads of government at the top of the page, or are the 9 already there enough? thx. Sup3rG33k08 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sup3rG33k08 2001:D08:1399:58CA:9ED4:2CC5:FE96:6997 (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @2001:D08:1399:58CA:9ED4:2CC5:FE96:6997 what does this mean? Sup3rG33k08 (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

text: @Sup3rG33k08: I don't think that the array of images is meant to be an indiscriminate list; we have List of current heads of state and government for that. Biden might not be the best choice because he is not only head of government, but also head of state. I don't have such an objection to adding Hipkins, though, if others think that it's necessary. Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 16:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

text: There is no need to add more images. The current collage reflects the plurality of governmental systems, racial and gender plurality.  _-_Alsor (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add some people 

message: Photomontage should be removed as per MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY for the same reasons outlined  here. Will lead to endless edits and talks  over who, what race, gender etc...to represent....simply for visuals appeal as links to bios dont help in understanding the topics at hand Moxy🍁 07:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY specifically says "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations" this one is neither so it shouldn't apply. I don't really care if there are images at the top or which ones, but MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY shouldn't apply here. Also your edit summary looks really unhelpful to the point that calling it disingenuous might be more accurate. Nobody (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Sort of borderline, assuming the montage is restricted to currently serving, there may be 300 or so, maybe less. Still plenty for potential disagreement/disruption, but that may be preventable with decent consensus, maybe via rfc. If there is too much disruption/timesink on this, I say remove. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: At a glance, the current selection seems pretty decent, arguably it covers South America and Oceania. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is the photos don't actually provide understanding on the topic. The article is on the topic of head of government as a role, putting some photos of some heads of government around the world doesn't actually add anything. It doesn't make it easier for the reader to understand just because there's the photo of the prime minister of Japan at the top of the article. None of these people are mentioned in the article, so it's just really decoration and the selection may as well be random. Seems like it maybe doesn't even pass MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Canterbury Tail talk 13:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree with this. The images show who is actually meant by head of government without having to start reading, so they do provide a basic understanding of the topic. Nobody (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Arguably passes WP:LEADIMAGE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We will have to simply dissagree on that point as the link you provided  says "Using photomontages or a gallery of images of group members should be avoided in articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations."  This article is about a position...not people....the article to spam inages would be at List of current heads of state and government. Not sure how a list of only thoses from democracies helps in any manner...only democracies have heads of governments?Moxy🍁 14:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I find it hard to make "about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations" fit well here. I commented, a little, in the discussions that led to MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, and I supported it for the timesink/disruption aspects. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the type of article the closes talked about "concerning galleries of images of living people in general,"  here Moxy🍁 14:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The AN says . But the second RfC doesn't talk about living people in general, just expanding the first RFCs consensus from "ethnic/"race" to also include "similarly large human populations". (I haven't read the Second RfC completely so it's possible I missed something.) And Head of government is clearly not in the same category as ethnic groups or similarly large human populations. Nobody (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you not consider this a large human group..... there's hundreds of them. Regardless I seen by the edit wars and all the posts above its clearly a point of contention and won't ever be stable.  Perhaps a  RFC so others can evaluate the wording that is clear to me. Moxy🍁 17:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Because ethnic groups apply to millions, similarly large human populations could then be interpreted to also mean millions. The second RfCs Close also specifically mentions Children and Amputees which again are millions. Head of government is what? A few hundred? Clearly a different scale. Nobody (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has to do with the inherent problems not just the scale..... it's the spirit of the protocol we should be following not finding ways to run around it. But clearly we need to make the wording clear for all. Moxy🍁 19:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Agree with Canterbury Tail: it's effectively a random selection of leaders, and does not contribute significantly to an understanding of the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Agree with above it's pretty random. There aren't really any images in the article that help understand the topic. (Not that the article is great either.) Perhaps just sticking to the politics sidebar is more helpful, at least that one gives related links. CMD (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Local consensus not to have a leadimage in this article is certainly possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   Photomontage 

message: 'However, just because the head of state is the de jure dominant position does not mean that he/she will not always be the de facto political leader.' at Under a dominant head of state.
Should there only be one not here? Wikifan153 (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence