Talk:List of current heads of state and government/Archive 1

message: ===>Issue: I added Western Sahara/SADR a few edits back, someone else added Palestine. They were deleted on the grounds that they weren't sovereign territory. The SADR has both de jure recognition from over 70 states, is a full member of the African Union, and administers territory east of the Moroccan Wall, thus it is also a de facto state. In the case of Taiwan/ROC, the ROC has recognition from 25 states, and controls only a small portion of the territory it claims (Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, and the Pescadores versus all of the above, plus, Mainland China [including Tibet], Mongolia, and Tuva). Since the SADR has recognition from more countries, and controls more of its claimed territory, it is legitimate to have it on this list. We can discuss Palestine, since it is a different beast, but it too has foreign recognition, and the Palestinian Authority actually administers territory (although, one could argue that this is merely devolved power from Israel). I don't really care to debate the finer points of this case, since I'm more ignorant about it than Western Sahara, but from my understanding, there is legimitate cause to consider it a de jure and de facto state. Nevertheless, my main point is: to include Taiwan, and exclude Western Sahara is inconsistent. To exclude Taiwan from the list is patently ridiculous, if you ask me, because it is clearly a functioning state (functioning much better than many on this list!) Justin (koavf) 04:12, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
The extent to which the Republic of China actually claims control of Mainland China is, I think, open to question.  But I basically agree with you - the SADR does control territory, and is recognized as a de jure state, and should be included.  I'm also not certain about the Palestinian Authority, but I'd be inclined to include it.  john k 05:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only sensible approach to this list is for it to include only those states that are widely recognised as being independent. Otherwise we'll get into loads of silliness with Sealand, and secessionist movements in the Basque country, Scotland, Kurdistan, and more micronations. Plus, it's the only way to have an objective NPOV list. Taiwan and Palestine do not even recognise themselves as being independent - so it's a bit of a joke them being here. Western Sahara is not generally recognised (although it is in the AU, rather than Morocco). But largely Western Sahara is seen as being part of Morocco, and almost all of Western Sahara is governed as such too. It's not for us to make political judgments, it's for us to select an objective criterion for inclusion, and stick to it, jguk 21:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the same list as list of sovereign states. We've clearly provided the criteria there and explcitly stated that Micronations are not included. Basque country, Scotland, and Kurdistan obviously do not meet the criteria defined as they do not have governments exercising at least de facto sovereignty. There have been no major reverts war there so I dont see a reason there should be one here. Why create a revert war in order to anticipate for one? And the Republic of China does regard itself as a soveriegn state. You are plain wrong on that. The most commonly floated "number of countries" is 193: 191 UN members, the Vatican, and the Republic of China. --Jiang 21:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not for us to determine what is or is not a country. As I note above, we do need to go by internationally regognised international states. Anything else is POV. That means no Western Sahara, no Somaliland, no Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, no Taiwan, etc. etc., jguk 10:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to include (Taiwan, Western Sahara, Palestine) 

message: My understanding of the situation in Iraq as of today (4/25/05) is that while Ibrahim al-Jaafari has been agreed upon as prime minister designate by all the components of what will be the ruling coalition in Iraqi National Assembly, as of yet said coalition has not worked out the distribution of ministries for the new government and thus no new ministers have been sworn in.  Thus, Iyad Allawi is still serving as a lame duck PM, along with the rest of his cabinet.  Does anyone have any specific evidence to the contrary?  --Jfruh 17:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. Allawi is still in office. —Seselwa 20:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq: Allawi still PM, I think 

message: I put Taiwan and Western Sahara in italics, just to distinguish between the de jure and the de facto countries. ~ Zntrip
:I dont see why you should do that. Western Sahara is de jure and Taiwan is de facto. The second point is debatable since recognition by 25 countries and de facto relations with many more is much more than none at all. --Jiang 04:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Western Sahara is de jure because while it is recognized by a handful of states, it does not enjoy de facto sovereignty since it is occupied by Morocco. Western Sahara thus only has de jure sovereignty. The same goes for Palestine (occupied by Israel) and Somalia (overrun by Warlords). These places have external recognition as a sovereign state but are unable to exercise actual sovereignty. Whether Taiwan is de facto or de jure is a hotly debated issue. Most Taiwanese would say that the Republic of China is both de jure and de facto sovereign. Adding italics is unhelpful as it fails to convey to the reader what these italics are means to stand for. --Jiang 05:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even been to Western Sahara?--160.39.195.88 23:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Why would I want to go there? --Jiang 00:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Man, it feels like the same issues going on at List of national flags is starting to come here too. I do not know what expertese I can give here, but for those who usually come here, how can yall build a consensus here of what is considered a "national leader." Zscout370 (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan and Western Sahara 

message: Separating certain countries from others cannot be done unless there is clear criteria for the list. The statement "There are also self-declared, unrecognized, occupied, internationally-administered or disputed areas that claim to be or de facto function as sovereign states." is not enough. What counts as "disputed"? Why aren't both Koreas on the list since both claim each others territory? Do we put a state on the list as long as one of the criteria is satisfied? Almost every state is self-declared... I think the format used at list of sovereign states should be used.--Jiang 00:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra section is inadequate 

message: Should this page have the titles of people, like king, president, prime minister, etc?  Should this page also have peoples full names?  Could someone tell me because some of the names have titles in front of them and I removed them. -- Zntrip
Full names are unnecessary. They are found on the first line of each article. Princes who are not the head of state properly have "Prince" in their short title. —Seselwa 22:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: I appreciate that I didn't canvass opinion here before nominating this page as a featured list, but I thought it might be useful to contributors to this page to see the comments as they are happening with a view to correcting the article, jguk 19:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured list candidature

message: To whoever keeps changing Fiji and Nauru from Republics to Commonwealth Realms: quit it.  They're republics.  From the articles:
From Fiji: "The Republic of the Fiji Islands, or Fiji, is an island nation in the South Pacific Ocean ... Fiji's Head of State is the President, who is elected by the Great Council of Chiefs for a five-year term. Although his role is largely an honorary one, modelled after that of the British monarchy, the President has certain "reserve powers" that may be used only in the event of a national crisis. He is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The Great Council of Chiefs recognizes Queen Elizabeth II as its Paramount Chief, in respect as a nation within the Commonwealth of Nations."
From History_of_Fiji:The_modern_nation: "[Prime Minister] Bavadra was forcibly removed from power during a military coup led by Lt. Col. Sitiveni Rabuka on May 14, 1987 .... After a period of continued jockeying and negotiation, Rabuka staged a second coup on September 25, 1987. The military government revoked the constitution and declared Fiji a republic on October 10."
From Nauru: "The Republic of Nauru ... formerly known as Pleasant Island, is an island republic in the South Pacific Ocean. It is one of the world's smallest independent countries both in terms of population and land area and the smallest independent republic in both terms." --Jfruh 23:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiji and Nauru 

message: How about listing when person started serving as leader/pres/pm, etc?
:I think that's a good idea. But it will be difficult to organize it. – Zntrip 06:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good idea - I came here trying to find out who was the longest serving head of state... Monkey Tennis 10:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Probably the Queen of England or another monarch.  But about the column, how would one be made for the heads of state and government? – Zntrip 23:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Column? 

message: (Note: unsigned comment by User:155.232.250.51 originally placed at top of page, moved here for formatting's sake
Zimbabwe is currently more of a dictatorship.  Elections are openly rigged and there is no press freedom whatsoever.  Should this list still call it a "presidential democracy"?
:The list actually calls it a "presidential republic".  "Republic" just means that the country is not a monarchy.  It makes no claims about its democratic credentials. --Jfruh 16:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zimbabwe

message: As I have said several times before, the Constitutions of certain countries explicitly provide that the President is both head of state and head of government, regardless of the existence of a so-called prime minister. Most prime ministers are heads of their respective governments, but others (most notably Tanzania, Sri Lanka, and Mozambique, Namibia, and Uganda) are not. It is obvious some have not bothered to Google for the Constitutions of these countries. —Sesel 11:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The prime ministers under these systems are not heads of government, and are only deputy to the presidents who're also heads of government, am I right? What about the French president and prime minister? Who's the head of government? — Instantnood 11:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Above, the presidents are the heads of state and government. Its like the United States. But in France, the President is the head of state, and the prime minister is the head of government. It depends on what the constitution says. – Zntrip 16:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what's the prime minsiters or premiers in these countries if they're not heads of government? Are they deputy fo the presidents, senior among other ministers? — Instantnood 16:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Prime ministers"

message: What would people think of replacing "Communist-party led republic" in the govt. column with "single-party state" or something similar?  While I think it's a good idea to distinguish China, N. Korea, etc. from other republics, I'm not convinced that single-party dictatorships like, say, Syria should be lumped in with other Presidential republics just because Syria's leading party happens to be called "Ba'ath" and not "Communist."
Also, I'm wondering what the fine points of distinction are between the Vatican's descriptor ("sacerdotal") and Iran's ("clerical"). --Jfruh 18:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  terms used in the "Government" column 

message: I think this list would be more professional if someone with a lot more knowledge (and time) than I included each world leader's date of inauguration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MosheA (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It so happens that I have been creating a 2nd list, with all leaders, ordered by date of inaguration, see List of state leaders by date.  That should help. --Rye1967 01:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of Inauguration 

message: I've  tried to get some discussion going on this point but to little avail.  Still, the recent change of Bosnia's entry in the "government" column to the overblown "federal parliamentary representative democratic republic" has gotten me thinking about how to keep the government types to a minimum.  Here would be my suggestions for potential categories, along with a description of what each would mean:
*Presidential republic: A republic where the head of state is the effective head of government, and is elected either by the people or by some body other than the national legislature, or is elected by the legislature but not responsible to the legislature.
*Parliamentary republic: A republic where the effective head of government is elected by the national legislature.  This includes states like Nauru, where the legislature elects an executive President who is also head of state and who is responsible to the legislature.
*Semi-presidential republic: A republic where the head of state and head of the legislature share power
*Absolute monarchy: A monarchy where the monarch operates without legal or constitutional restrictions.
*Semi-constitutional monarchy: A monarchy where the monarch takes an active role in governing the state, but where other bodies, such as a national legislature, have real power as well.
*Constitutional monarchy: A monarchy where the monarch does not participate in day-to-day governance, and real power is weilded by elected constituional bodies.
*Single-party republic: A state where a single political party is explicitly guaranteed a monopoly on power or preponderance of power by the state's constitution.
*Military dictatorship: A state where power is weilded by military officers without constitutional restrictions.
What do you all think?  I would emphasize that in order for a state to be labelled single party, it must, like China or Syria, explicitly give one party dominance in its constitution or law.  A state like Singapore, where one party is very strongly dominant but which could still theoretically be overturned in elections, would not qualify.  We don't want to get bogged down in POV disputes. --Jfruh (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential categories under "government" 

message: The Cuban Council of State and Ministers is subordinate to the National Assembly of Cuba which is the National Parliament. The assembly chooses the Council of State and Head of State. So technically Cuba is a parliamentary republic. Though "socialist republic" is strictly the correct term. "Communist Party led republic" is actually less accurate for Cuba. Though many of the Council of State are members of the Communist Party it is not a prerequiste for inclusion - meaning that many members of the Council are not communists - and a large part of the parliament are not Communist party members. Also, the republic has existed in different forms with different Presidents in modern times. Castro, who himself wasn't a Communist Party member until some time after the revolution was Prime Minister 1959-76 but not President - that was Osvaldo Dorticós Torrado so its more complicated than it appears. --Zleitzen 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to Socialist Republic then because putting Cuba on the same heap as Australia, Lithuania and the like is wrong.--Kalsermar 18:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuba

message: I notice that nobody has updated the Fiji entry to reflect the situation after this month's coup.  I hesitate to do it myself because I'm unsure about the terms to use for the new leaders or form of government.  The main article is a bit confusing on who exactly is doing what.  On the main Fiji page we have the head of state as "Executive Controller	Commodore Josaia Voreqe (Frank) Bainimarama" and Jona Senilagakali as prime minister.  I think we should update these titles and names if nobody objects.  I know this government is not recognized internationally but on this list we usually use de facto leaders, yes? --Jfruh (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  post-2006 coup Fiji? 

message: Unfortunately the word State is also used for sub-sovereign units such as States of America. Can we rename this article perhaps to List of country leaders? AndrewRT(Talk) 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: State is the correct term, regardless of its other uses. "Country leaders" or "national leaders" have connotations that can be interpreted various ways, and Wikipedia attempts to stay neutral on such issues. —Sesel 22:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "national leaders" would be the more natural English phrase, and obviously "state leaders" also  has multiple potential connotations.  We're not supposed to invent neologisms, and I can't recall use of the term "state leaders" outside wikipedia.  If I can be disproved  on that, I'm happy to stay with the longstanding default, but it does rub me the wrong way. john k 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: List of country leaders, though, is even worse than List of state leaders. john k 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nation" and "state" are not equivalent, "country" even more so. Avoiding the word "state" because of its use in the United States of America demonstrates a USA-centric perspective. —Sesel 03:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that "nation" and "state" are not equivalent.  I agree that avoiding the word "state" because of t he states in the US (or Brazil, Mexico, Germany, Australia, and other countries with states as subdivisions) is silly.  I do think, though, that "state leaders" is a neologism, that the almost universally used term in English is "national leaders", and that there's no particular confusion about what "national leaders" means, even if "nation" and "state" don't mean precisely the same thing.  Can you provide some non-wikipedia sources that use the term "state leaders"?  I've never seen that term before. ("World leaders" would be another commonly used term for the same thing, but is perhaps the most ambiguous of all). john k 04:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ideal title would be "List of heads of state and government", but that would start a dispute on whether to include "prime ministers" who do not actually serve as their country's head of government. —Sesel 04:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think there would be much to recommend such a move. john k 04:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Sesel 04:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lovely. john k 05:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: Shouldn't the General Secretary of the Communist Party, as the effective leader of the country, be listed somewhere here? john k 03:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not in the scope of this article. More, your assertion regarding Vietnam government is unsourced. See the articles(s) regarding political parties in Vietnam. --Juiced lemon 08:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our article lists Qaddafi as de facto head of state of Libya.  Are you suggesting that if this were 1986, we wouldn't be able to list Gorbachev for the Soviet Union?  In a communist state like Vietnam, the General Secretary of the Communist Party is the most important political figure.  The article Politics of Vietnam more or less confirms this.  The fact that the General Secretary is technically neither Head of State nor Head of Government is irrelevant, as his absence makes Vietnam's entry on the list misleading.  Also, note that until a day or two ago, this article was List of state leaders.  A weird title, but it didn't limit the scope to formal heads of state and government.  Given that the communist party general secretary functions in many ways more or less like a head of state, I don't see why he should be neglected. john k 22:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: I'm wondering if they should be included on the list as they are not formally the Head of State of the countries they represent. Therequiembellishere 00:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the reasons I was uneasy about changing the title of this list… Of course governors-general should be included; they represent the head of state. —Sesel 00:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then the title should be List of current state leaders to make it more correct. Therequiembellishere 03:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is unnecessary nitpicking. No title would be completely accurate (see also the "Vietnam" section above) unless it was extremely convoluted and confusing to the majority of people who are not familiar with the intricacies of Commonwealth law. —Sesel 17:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well, that makes sense. Therequiembellishere 17:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "state leader" is a term which was made up by wikipedia.  We should avoid it if possible. john k 14:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governor-Generals