Talk:List of oldest living state leaders/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Unproven possibilities

There is a list of all leaders for which there is not a death date on Rulers.org (at least before one month), and I sorted them in few categories (U stands for "unproven", A for "alive"):

1. Highly unlikely of being alive (born before 1910): (U=9, A=0)

2. Unlikely to be alive (1910-1914): (U=13, A=0)


3. Moderate possibility of being alive (1915-1919): (U=9, A=1)


4. Good possibility of being alive (1920-1925): (U=17, A=6)

HeadlessMaster (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hyun Soong-jong

The only person on the list without an article. Last report of being alive is now over a year old, and the link is dead making any assessment of its veracity impossible. I can find no evidence that he is still alive, or that he has died. Given that there is no proof that he is in fact still alive I suggest that he be removed until such evidence is forthcoming. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I would leave him for now, as his Korean article has him as alive: http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%ED%98%84%EC%8A%B9%EC%A2%85 , and he is, in my opinion, too important person that his death would go unnoticed by the Korean media. HeadlessMaster (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Anton Vratuša

Should Anton Vratuša, former Prime Minister of Slovenia be put on this list? Several sources seem to suggest he is still alive and well at the age of 100. [4] [5] --Dps04 (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Slovenia was not an independent country at the time,. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Awaiting proof that they are still alive

Updating the previous list (see archives), removing those confirmed deceased and those confirmed alive and added to the list.

1. Extremely unlikely to be alive (born before 1910):

Notes
  1. No living men, worldwide, who have been proven to have been born in 1902 or earlier.
  2. No person from any of the countries below has ever been proven to have lived to 110 years.

2. Unlikely to be alive (1910-1914):

3. Possibly alive (1915-1919):

4. Reasonable likelihood of being alive (1920-1925):

DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Vittorio Meloni died in January 2014 [9] Tommieboi (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

5. Next

Bias

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

Not bias. I've no problem with using no flags, but the entry should highlight the United Kingdom, per WP:WEIGHT. Verifiably - Elizabeth II is mostly associated with the UK. She actually lives in the UK, thus the UK is the only Commonwealth realm which doesn't have or require a governor general. She was born in the UK & will mostly likely be buried in the UK. Indeed the United Kingdom is unique among the Commonwealth realms & this should be reflected in the article. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed on all points. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
None of that is relevant to the subject of this article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
We'll shall have to disagree. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The gal lives in and rules the UK first and foremost. When was the last time she made headlines as The Queen of New Zealand ? --Killuminator (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

per WP:BRD, you shall have to wait. Please don't be forcing your PoV into this article, withou consensus. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD says nothing about waiting. I was bold, you reverted, though, you've since offered nothing to discuss. I can't emhasise the "nothing" enough. POV accusations aren't backed up. "No consensus" isn't an argument. You're going to have to provide a reasoned argument of your own addressing the content of my edit--not the action of making an edit. Otherwise, you're being disruptive. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Just because you're not satisfied with the result of 4 editors opposing your changes to Elizabeth II's entry, doesn't give you an excuse to force your change into the article. Please allow, User:Neve-selbert, User:Killuminator & User:DerbyCountyinNZ to comment further. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Four editors didn't oppose my changes. Two did. One hasn't responded in four days to my last remark in our discussion on the matter, which can be interpreted as meaning s/he no longer objects. And then there's you. Who appears as though he can't formulate a cogent argument to justify his knee-jerk revert. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Please be patient & get a consensus for the changes that you wish to make. It's bad form, to seemly ignore or bypass the objections of others. Maybe the others will have changed their positions & will support you or maybe not. Let's see. The last time you attempt this move of yours, it caused quite a commotions. You should've proposed your change here, in the first place. It's a mighty big edit that you wish to make. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You are deliberately ignoring what I write. I just explained to you how I asked for Neve-selbert's explanation or response to certain matters related to this list, waited four days, and nothing came. It's not unreasonable to conclude from that Neve-selbert no longer has objections or wishes to express objection. Additionally, you've offered nothing in the way of a comprehensible argument for why you object. You just keep focusing on the act of making an edit, rather then the content of the edit, repeating made-up rules you insist I'm to follow. So, please, don't lecture me--or anyone--on form.
One editor agreed four days ago with your personal opinion about Elizabeth II and governors-general and burial and other red herrings. Another said something about headlines in New Zealand. None of that contains one single remark on exactly what was wrong with the edit I made.
This, right now, is the result of that still extant battleground mentality and attraction to drama that, in part, led to your "vacation" from Wikipedia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
We can also assume that Neve assumed that the dispute was over & that his edits were accepted. Neve-selbert may not be as aware as I, how determind you can be on this topic. PS: I'll ask you again, not to bring up my past on public talkpages, as it comes across as though you're trying to discredit me. Also, IMHO, you should've waited until the others commented further before jumping to DRN. If Neve-selbert & the others agree with your changes, then those changes will stick & the DRN won't be required. However, If they don't? the DRN commences. BTW: If things go your way, I'll accept such results. But I wonder - Will you accept the results, if things don't go your way. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
My position on the matter echoes that of user Good Day. Listing all these countries is overwhelming, an excessive representation. She is primarily associated with and represents her home country. When was the last time she went on a diplomatic trip as the Queen of St Lucia ? Most of her roles are delegated to governor generals of these countries. I don't see this as a bias, be liberal about it. --Killuminator (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"Home country" is a vague term in this context. What does it mean, exactly? Why the focus on St Lucia? Does it matter Elizabeth II has represented other countries abroad? If not, why? Of what relevance are governors-general?
But, perhaps more importantly, does your logic apply to Giscard, as well? He is primarily associated with and represented his "home country". When did he go on a diplomatic trip as Co-Prince of Andorra? Most of his role was delegated to a representative in Andorra. So, why are both Andorra and France shown, with their flags, next to Giscard's name? Is it because he was head of only two states and Elizabeth of 16? Are readers really incapable of understanding one as much as the other? If so, where's the line between comprehensible and incomprehensible? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Home country as in the place she lives and carries out these stately duties, her HQ if you will. I would avoid analogies since such logical reasoning is prone to mistakes, we should evaluate each case separately. Since she is indeed head of state for a dozen countries, one question pops to mind. When the Queen visits let's say Australia, does she come come to represent the UK abroad or Australia at home or maybe both ? Being head of state many countries is a tricky thing, so most of these stately duties are delegated to these governor generals. The Queen is first and foremost the head of state of the UK, they ruled the UK before most of these other countries came into existence. Whenever she and her family are in media attention, they are called the British Royal family. Giving same weight and enumerating these other countries is just taking up more space than needed on what is basically a list article. Even the template for the British Royal family doesn't go to such length to list every country she rules. The infobox for her own page states Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms and prompts you to click show to see the rest of them. Are these two other cases also biased ? I don't think so. It's better to have a more navigation friendly page than a gargantuan detailed page. I don't see it as bias, I see it as a practical approach. I also noticed that your edit still puts the UK above Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Does that amount as bias, UK still first eh ? Why not list them the alphabetically ? --Killuminator (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Then, technically, she has 16 "home countries", as, when she's in any of them, she's "home" (not a foreign visitor, which answers your question about representation) and carries out stately duties there. Elizabeth II is not "first and foremost" head of state of the UK. She's head of state of all the realms equally. That is by law and international understanding. That has been recognised, even by the Brits, since the beginning of her reign. Yes, the UK is where she spends most of her time (now more than before simply because of her age). But, that is not relevant to this matter; my edit didn't deny the fact and, more importantly, it is simply one fact arbitrarily chosen out of many that make each realm different from the other and doesn't, by simply existing, justify the ignoring of fact and creation of inconsistency in the list by diminishing the not-UK countries in this list into "and 15 other states". Canada is her largest realm and she may have travelled more distance around it than any of her others. That wouldn't be reason to put Canada first, either.
I listed the realms in the way of established protocol: oldest country first, followed by order in which the country became a Dominion, followed by order in which the country became independent. That was made obvious by the bracketed dates. Any bias, then, wasn't based on personal hunches or over-inflated and rather arbitrary differences in constitutional structure or time spent where.
Unjustified bias elsewhere does not justify bias here.
In the context of the whole list, providing 15 (now 13) more lines is not a "gargantuan" change. If space were really a concern, editors would be arguing for Giscard's lines to be reduced to one by footnoting or otherwise minimising Andorra. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

United Kingdom’s Queen Elizabeth II plans to address UN General Assembly
Speaking as Head of State of the United Kingdom and 15 other Member States, read the second paragraph
Read the first paragraph, As Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other countries

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

It's both separately and equally.
  • "[The realms are] equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown."p.3
  • "Britain had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had elevated status within the Commonwealth and that their queen was now equally, officially, and explicitly queen of separate, autonomous realms."p. 28
  • "The royal titles adopted in each of the fifteen realms, of which she was equally Queen, would require the assent of the Parliaments of each."[11]
  • "The Acts passed by each of the then members of the Commonwealth after the 1952 conference had to reflect the fact that the other members of the Commonwealth were full and equal members with the United Kingdom, so that the Queen was equally Queen of each of her various realms, acting on the advice of her Ministers in each realm."p.18
  • "Elizabeth II embodies in her own person many monarchies: she is Queen of Great Britain, but she is equally Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, and Ceylon... it is now possible for Elizabeth II to be, in practice as well as theory, equally Queen in all her realms."p.52, 369
  • "Elizabeth II was equally Queen of Canada and the United Kingdom. The monarch remained shared, but the institution of monarchy had now evolved into independent constitutional entities... Although there was no hesitation among the Queen's realms in showing allegiance to their sovereign by appearing at her Coronation, their lack of official participation in the ceremony itself proclaimed to the world, in a dignified yet visible fashion, their status as equal, independent, and autonomous constitutional monarchies... [T]he Statute of Westminster, passed in 1931, had granted the former colonies full legal independence and had declared that the British and Dominion parliaments were equal in status."[12]
  • "We in this country have to abandon any sense of property in the Crown. The Queen, now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms..." [House of Commons, vol. 512, col. 199]
  • "In the Commonwealth the path to equality has led to separate but equal facilities. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this process is the way in which the monarchical part of the constitution has been domesticated in the Commonwealth countries overseas."[13]
  • "Britain could no longer rest on its imperial laurels and dreams of former glory; it had to reconcile itself to the fact that it no longer had an elevated status within the Commonwealth and its queen was equally queen of separate autonomous realms."p.144
  • "The Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930... declared the Dominions to be equal in status with the United Kingdom...
"So what changes in that constitutional relationship had occurred, which the Royal Style and Titles Act reflected? Australia, as a Dominion, was given equal status with the United Kingdom."pp.81, 111
So, whatever a UN press release may say, many sources say something else. And, once again, the equality of the realms and Elizabeth's place as head of state of each is but one issue with the row for Elizabeth II in this list. The only solid argument tabled here against my edit has been "it takes up more space". Well, yes it does. But that's a pretty weak reason to retain an inconsistency that itself is factually sloppy and biased.
I note, too, the France/Andorra matter never gets addressed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed Killuminator, there's many reliable sources that present Elizabeth II as the British monarch. This includes sources from CNN & yes, even CBC news. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Who said she's not the British monarch? Enough red herring, GoodDay. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
We'll have to let the others decide on whether or not your proposed changes should be added to this article. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
And there is why mediation is a necessity. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is the best compromise I could come up with—looks clean, compact and concise. Neve-selbert (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
That still suffers from all the problems I've outlined. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It's does the job perfectly. Neve. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It looks good but there is a tiny mistake. She isn't the incumbent ruler for those former states. --Killuminator (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but unlike the Incumbent above it, there is no bold italics formatting; she is still an incumbent office-holder, and therefore does not need a citation or reference to verify whether or not she is still alive. Neve-selbert (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Classifying

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

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

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

Well, I don't know there's anything more I can say that I haven't already above. As you're aware, I hold that anywhere Elizabeth II is being referred to in a context that isn't related specifically to one of her realms, the way her realms are mentioned shouldn't be governed by personally invented and rather shifty rules based on randomly chosen differences between one country and another or the others. But here, there's the added matter of suffering inconsistency and double standard: The "15 other states" are the only ones that don't get named individually, unless, that is, one of their former governors-general is in this list. The former President of France, Giscard, has next to his name both France and Andorra, not "President of France and head of another state". In other words, this list is as long as the items to be listed except when it comes to 15 particular countries. "Saving space" or highlighting the UK to paint an aura of foreignness around the Queen to advance the republican cause in Canada are not valid reasons to keep things as they are. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that response. Maybe we agree that for newcomers, or reasonably well-linformed persons with hazy notions, getting to understand the Commonwealth in its various ramifications, like any new and intricate topic such as jurisprudence or diplomacy, needs either unusual acumen (quickness on uptake) or patience in moving up a learning curve, including a readiness to understand that in the real world there is a continuing process of adapting to circumstances, and a real (not merely theoretical or textbook) process of external and internal checks and balances. The evolution of the Commonwealth is an especially good example, not always well enough understood by well-intentioned persons with hazy notions. Qexigator (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Who's correct & who has "hazy notions", is in the eye of the beholder. If one wishs to educate or re-educate the international community (because one feels the international community misunderstands) on how to recognize Elizabeth II? then one should do so in the real world. Wikipedia isn't suppose to be used to 'right perceived wrongs'. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, majority sources have proven that Elizabeth II is recongized first & for most as Queen of the United Kingdom. Attempts to hide or downplay this recognition & replace it with another recognition? is pushing a minority point of vew. A practice which is also discouraged by Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, GoodDay, for letting us know what you have to say about "hazy notions" and what you seem to suppose (mistakenly) to be attempts to downplay Elizabeth's recognition as Queen of the United Kingdom. Please note: Anyone with anything useful to contribute is welcome to reply to my above questions about former states and "incumbent", or to comment, pro or con, on my above remarks about UN speeches and items to be listed. Qexigator (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Qexigator for letting us know what you have to say about "hazy notions" and what you seem to suppose (mistakenly) to be a mistaken supposition. Also, "Anybody with anything useful to contribute is welcome to reply to my above questions"..., appears insulting & an indirect backhanded swipe at myself. Please tone down the snarky comments. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It appears we're falling into a back and forth personal argument. Let's end this little dispute within a dispute. If we were to continue? it could possibly get nasty & we'd both be risking getting into hot water :) GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
A commenter who is unwilling to participate civilly and assuming good faith is well-advised to stay away. Have you anything useful to contribute in reply to my above questions about former states and "incumbent", or on my above remarks about UN speeches and items to be listed. Qexigator (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth is head of yet more states

Given that Elizabeth is also incumbent head of state of the three Crown dependencies, and of the British Overseas Territories, each with its own flag, they should also be mentioned by their (linked) legally assigned collective names, but it is acceptable not to list them all here separately by name and flag.[14] Qexigator (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Topicality: Sometimes editors differ about whether referring to Elizabeth as queen of the UK is sufficient, without naming the other independent realms or dependencies or territories outwith the UK. Today's newspapers are reporting that a judge in the London High Court has ruled in contested proceedings that in a will "United Kingdom" can be interpreted to mean including the Crown Dependencies if the court is satisfied on the evidence that such was the testator's intention. "In a will he signed in 2009, Mr Crowley-Milling bought a home for his carer and left a £400,000 gift to his relatives, with the rest of his estate going to The Royal Society. But his family laid claim to his offshore £1m when the mistake in the will was discovered. They argued that such a brilliant man must have known what he was doing when he had the will drafted and had clearly wanted the cash to go to them. Mr Justice Nugee said there was evidence that Mr Crowley-Milling had become disgruntled with The Royal Society - but went on to uphold the charity's claim to the disputed £1 million."[15] Qexigator (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Is listing the British Overseas Territories necessary? Afterall, we don't list Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, etc etc? in Bush & Carter's entries. The B.O.T's aren't independent states. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, according to Territories of the United States there are currently 16, of which 5 are inhabited, but they are "part of the United States", and the 5 participate in Congress, while the Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories are not part of UK. Qexigator (talk) 16:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I would opt to exclude the BOTs, since they have the British head of state, as their head of state. Best to wait for others to weigh in on this. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that the BOT have no "head of state" or that it is not Elizabeth? Qexigator (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The head of state of the BOT, is the British head of state. Thus United Kingdom's entry in the article, removes any requirement to include the BOT. We must remember, this article is primarily about the individual, not the places. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
That seems to reopen the question about the "15 other" Commonwealth realms, where past and present monarchs and heir apparent are the same as UK.[16] Qexigator (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to the exclusion from this list, the former states. The entry of "United Kingdom and 15 other states" is sufficent, IMHO. To add furhter, if we did include/present all past/present areas which had/have the British monarch as head of state & chose to present them seperately? we'd end up with a total 46 places & thus an overly elongated entry column of Elizabeth II. Concise & compact, is the best option. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
But the head of state of the "15 other" realms is the same as the head of state of UK, so, by your reasoning above, why mention them if not also the Crown dependencies and the British Overseas Territories? Qexigator (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
The "15 other" realms don't have the British monarch as their head of state. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
So Canada's federal government, parliament and governor general were mistaken about that, and other assenting realms, not including Australia or New Zealand? Qexigator (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

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

(edit conflict) 4 To Qexigator's post at top: This list clearly only encompasses leaders of fully sovereign states. The territories and/or dependencies of no other country are included, so why would those that are associated with the British or NZ crowns be? Unless you see fit to extend your logic to the overseas departments and territories of France, the former self-governing colonies of the Netherlands (pre-1971), Greenland and the Faroe Islands next to Anker Jørgensen, and so on. (And that may draw more names of individuals into this list; if there are very aged people who are or used to be heads of dependencies or territories.) I don't think there's any benefit to widening the scope of this list in that way, though. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
GoodDay and Mies. Fair comment. But if we do not have Elizabeth's territories as in the version linked at the top of this section, then it would seem UK alone prevails, with no mention of other realms. Of those two, the mention of all those others seems to me editorially more acceptable for communicating the topic to readers, but not former realms and not the other flags. I do not see the Freanch oversesas departments and others mentioned as equivalent to Crown dependencies or BOTs, but to avoid doubts and queries, the logic would be to mention UK alone. Another possibility would be opening a further section specifically for all those others, to avoid cluttering the present listing. Qexigator (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
For example: Australia's head of state is not the British monarch. Australia's head of state is Elizabeth II, who just happens to also be the United Kingdom's head of state, aswell as Canada, Jamaica's etc etc. The "15 other states" are each sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the UK appears to prevail so long as there is wording anything like "United Kingdom and 15 other states"; whether the OTs and CDs are there or not makes no difference in that regard. Adding the CDs and OTs just creates another inconsistency--those associated with the UK and NZ (sorry for all the acronyms) are in but those associated with other countries aren't (and I don't see any or enough difference between a British OT and a French department to include the former and exclude the latter). Perhaps this is all only demonstrating that the idea of adding overseas territories and dependencies, whether in the current list or as a separate list, is a can of worms we just shouldn't be opening right now. We can focus on it later. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
By "prevail", seniority or status above others or primus inter pares was not intended, only that it looks like the simplest way of identifying the person, not discriminating against the others, or lifting a can-opener even by mentioning "15 other". As before mentioned: it's only a list! But I stand with the initial objection to letting the UK union flag appear to be the flag of the "15 other". Qexigator (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to a line being placed between the "United Kingdom" entry & the "15 other states" entry, to avoid the Union Jack presentation problem. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Better yet, I'd delete all flags from the article, entirely. Which is how it used to be, 'til this month. Decorations aren't needed, if they're going to cause such comotion. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I see "änd 15 other [[Commonwealth realm#Current Commonwealth realms|Commonwealth realms]]" as a suitable compromise and accurate use of piping, reflecting the current number and status of the Commonwealth realms. Readers are then able to click on the link for further information on status and past members none of which needs to be repeated in any form here. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
How do you justify the inconsistency and inaccuracy? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This could be seen as an improvement. Neve-selbert (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
It certaintly is a improvement. But if we keep making changes while the DRN case is in progress, the moderator will shut the DRN case down. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Flags

Neve-selbert: While admiring the skill and diligence which must have been used to construct the hidden flag lists, [17], this well illustrates the point that the flags as such have no informative value whatever for the article. They appear to have been adopted in the first place as a means to make an otherwise dull list have some eye appeal for those who like colourful flags for their own sake. As another says above, it would be better to have no flags, hidden or not. Qexigator (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The flags look great and should stay.--Dangermouse600 (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd recommend removing the flags. They're decorative, but we should be using them on international sports articles list, like the Olympics. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with the flags, they make the list more visually appealing especially since some of them are historical flags. Similar articles use the flags as well (List of current heads of state and government,List of current heads of state and government of Ibero-America etc.). After all, both heads of state and the flag are symbols of countries. --Killuminator (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
If we do keep the flags, then I'd suggest a dividing line be added between the United Kingdom and the 15 other countries entries. So that it doesn't appear as though the Union Jack is the flag of all the realms. GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing list

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

Best of what for what? Qexigator (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Its presentation is - "United Kingdom and 15 other independent states", which (IMHO) satisfies 'undo-weight'. Seeing the other 15 states, when you open the collapse box, should satisfy Mies' concerns of pro-UK biasness, aswell. At this point (if Mies excepts the collapsable proposal), we'd only have the former 16 left, to discuss. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"The former" is unnecessary and should not have been added. No flags are informative, and all should be removed. It is doubtful whether the drop down list for the "15 other" is needed. In ascending order (best last),
  • 1_starting from 17:45, 7 November (no flags, no "former")[18],
  • 2_better is 07:01, 18 November (no flags, no "former", "15 other states linked to Commonwealth realm)[19],
  • 3_then 17:49 23 November (open list of the realms with own flags and dates)[20]
  • 4_then 23:44, 27 November ("United Kingdom and 15 other independent states, each with its own national flag")[21]. Qexigator (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • 5_ditto last, but no flags for any person. The flags are the national flags of the countries not of the persons listed; as flags they are a random selection, and of no informative value for the list.
Qexigator (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Option #1 (first preference), Options #5 (second preference, ps-without flags for any person), Option #4 (third preference) and Option #2 (fourth preference, with dividing line between the UK & 15 other..., so it doesn't appear as though all the realms use the Union Jack), are acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Why not just leave the drop-down down permanently? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
An uncollapsable display of all Commonwealth realms, would go against Due and undue weight. The international community identifies Elizabeth II, mostly with the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
How does it go against WP:UNDUE? There's no viewpoint being expressed; it's simply a list.
Even if, for the sake of argument, it is giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint, why is a not-collapsed list of France and Andorra okay for Giscard? By your logic, showing Andorra is a breach of the policy you keep referring to (as you misread it). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It's likely that Andorra is being displayed openly, because it has 2 concurrent heads of state. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 4 That answer makes no sense and implies you do not comprehend the content of this list. Andorra is being displayed because it is one of the two countries Giscard headed simultaneously. For the sake of argument, why is a not-collapsed list of countries okay for Giscard but not for Elizabeth II? By your logic, showing Andorra next to Giscard is a breach of WP:UNDUE (as you misread it).
I also ask again: How does a non-collapsed list go against WP:UNDUE? There's no viewpoint being expressed; it's simply a list. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The international community associates Elizabeth II first & foremost with the United Kingdom. When was the last time your read a headline or heard on the news that the "Queen of Antigua and Barbados" was visiting the United States? She's mostly written & reported as being the British monarch. Until these off-Wikipedia conditions change? I will continue to support "United Kingdom and the 15 other..." GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

It's not well covered in the international community. PS- I appreciate your determination to adopt the changes into this article, that you propose. However, you need a consensus to do so & so far, I'm not seeing that consensus. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
"International community coverage" is a(n unverified) red herring. WP:UNDUE deals with the amount of space given to viewpoints. Elizabeth II being Queen of Antigua and Barbuda is not a viewpoint. It is a fact. How, then, does WP:UNDUE apply here? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have different interpretations of Due and Undo-weight and/or if it applies to this dispute. Perhaps, it's best to allow others to weigh in on this. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
That is a failure to defend your own argument. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Since you've dismissed my arguments? you're free to convince the others of your proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Measuring the strength of arguments is part of that process. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
We shall have to allow the others to do the measuring, then. In the meantime, the onus is on you (as the proposer for change) to gain a consensus. You're free to try to convince the other editors in this dispute, of why you believe those changes should be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't disallow the others from measuring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
It's likely best that you concentrate on convincing them of your position, rather then focus on me. As the editor wishing to make such changes to the article. You're free (of course) to take any other dispute resolution route (if DRN fails), should you continue to fail to achieve a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I have got you to reveal the failure of your argument. Others may consider that. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

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

I didn't ask you to change my beliefs. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Well then. We shall have to allow the other editors in this dispute to go over our (yours & mine) arguments (if they so choose) & decide for themselves. Meanwhile, if the DRN case fails? you're free to seek another route to get what you want at this article. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
No one has disallowed them from doing so. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 07:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
As most sources identify Giscard as a former President of France, but don't mention his being a former Co-Prince of Andorra? I wouldn't object to putting Andorra into a collapsable box. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Well, at least you're consistent, in opinion. But, not action. You shouldn't just not object to Andorra in a collapsable box; you should be actively championing it. WP:UNDUE and all that.
On that note: How does a non-collapsed list go against WP:UNDUE? There's no viewpoint being expressed; it's simply a list. Responded above. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I prefer to handle one dispute at a time. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Option #1. Ditch the flags. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Significance (or lack thereof)

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

DRN moderator's request being ignored

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

Comment on Elizabeth II

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

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

Not exactly. If Elizabeth II lives long enough & Charles survives her? Charles himself will be added to the list & the whole dispute continues ;) GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the problem starts with having an article that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Who combines heads of state and prime ministers and why include former leaders? Maybe someone should create another wiki for trivia no one cares about. The only remotely encyclopedic lists I could imagine would be one each for heads of state and one for first ministers that lists all states, their incumbents and their ages. With a pivot table, the few readers to visit could order them alphabetically, by age, by country. Maybe add in hair color, first language, height, weight, highest level of education, smoker/non-smoker. TFD (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a guess on my part, but I doubt an AfD would pass. GoodDay (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
JIP: The first paragraph of your comment is well-observed, but I note you may have a bias, as a flag waver![22] It was the addition of flags that set this off. Qexigator (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
TFD: Broadly agree, except "trivia no one cares about": pedantically speaking, given a choice some are happy to opt for trivia. Qexigator (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Rank

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

The heading "Rank" is misleading, but the list numbers are helpful simply as such. The first column has been incorrectly headed "Rank" from the start version of September 2011[23], when the list was constructed in imitation of the "Oldest senators currently living" section in List of longest-living United States Senators. Given that:
  • in USA, senators are regarded as being ranked by senatorial seniority (based on length of continuous service), in a way that does not apply to "state leaders",
  • Rank refers to the relative position, value, worth, complexity, power, importance, authority, level, etc. of a person or object within a ranking,
  • From the sense of orderly arrangement 'rank' is applied to grades or classes in a social or other organization, and particularly to a high grade, as in such expressions as a 'person of rank', per 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Rank,[24] and
  • in the present article, the ordinal numbers in the first column denote nothing more than the position in the list itself, unverified by an external source,
the heading "Rank" should be changed to "Listed position" or something equally descriptive and neutral. Qexigator (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
+ The first column has a useful sort inverter/reverter which should be retained.
+ Noted also:
Qexigator (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

EIIR

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

A consensus was reached to show only the United Kingdom. Why are you 'again' trying to change that? GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There was no such consensus. Fantasy does not justify your revert. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, you refuse to except the consensus. Shall we have to go through all this again? GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently you invent consensus.
We can "go through it again" if you're going to explain all your objections to the entirety of the edit I just made. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
We'll have to let others weigh in. Us 2 will never agree on the UK & the Commonwealth realms topic. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
If you're not going to explain the reason for your own revert, then, instead of looking to others to explain it for you, leave the edit alone and see if others revert it and then they can speak for themselves. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, my reverts stands until you get support for your changes. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
BRD doesn't work if you won't discuss. You can't revert and then stonewall by saying we must wait for others to talk on your behalf. Your revert is your responsibility. Justify it or it gets undone. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Even at the DRN, you were a minority of one. We know you want Canada shown, but that wasn't what the others wanted. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
More fantasy. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

If you can't explain why you object to the edit, undo your revert and let anyone else who reverts explain themselves. Right now you are being disruptive by reverting but refusing to explain why other than "you need a consensus", which isn't a justification for a revert. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The consensus here & at the DRN was to show only the United Kingdom. You know this. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently on the phone & will return shortly. When I do, I'll contact the others, who were involved here & at the DRN. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 7 Fantasy. The line never, ever showed only the UK. Going in circles is still stonewalling.
It's sad you can't fight the battles you start; you have to hope someone else will do it for you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
What's sad, is that you just can't let this go. Per WP:WEIGHT, we should show only the UK & it's flag. This is what was decided at the DRN. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
False. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's true. You filed for the DRN case & it didn't go the way you wished. Again, have confidence in yourself & open up a Wikipedia-wide Rfc on how to show Elizabeth II's realms. Wouldn't that be better then all this bickering? GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Red herring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
That's your opinon & you're entitled to it. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Mies.'s comments above are correct, there was no consensus, and the version[25] is acceptable and should be allowed to stand. Qexigator (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I trust it can be seen my edit at least addresses the matter of inaccuracy in the dates and incorporates the idea of a note that was brought up in previous discussions. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem here is that you continue to oppose showing only the United Kingdom. Anyways, User:DerbyCountyinNZ, User:Killuminator & User:Neve-selbert, will likely wish to give their input aswell. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
You're still on about "only UK" red herrings; you still can't justify your repeated reverts. It's the textbook definition of disruptive editing. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you open up a Wikipedia-wide Rfc, so we can settle this once & for all? This idea was suggested at the DRN. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you quit dodging responsibility for your reverts? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Howabout you stop disrupting an article to make a point? Honestly, let's stop with the personal attacks, ok? Let others weigh in. You just might get a consensus for the changes you want or maybe not. Be patient. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There's no use cowering behind dreamed up personal attacks. You have reverted multiple times and adamantly refuse to give proper explanation as to why; you dodge and deflect with made-up stories about consensus that don't justify a revert, anyway, as well as red herrings, and demands that I wait, which are neither part of nor supported by any Wikipedia rule or guideline. In fact, you are operating against guidelines: WP:BRD, WP:SQS, and WP:DRNC. You, therefore, are the disruptive editor and the permanent record shows it to be so. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Please open up a Wikipedia-wide Rfc on this topic. You & I will never agree on how to show the realms, therefore input for the community would be best. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Not a justification for your reverts. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The consensus was to show UK + 15 + former 16. You may not like it, but that was the result. You were Bold in changing that. I Reverted you. Now we're in the Discussion phase. Like it or not, it's you who must get a consensus for your proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
First you insist consensus was for "UK only". Now consensus was for "UK + 15 blah blah". If you're going to flip-flop, how is anyone supposed to deal with you productively?
The fact remains: there was no consensus. Even if there was a consensus, that wouldn't prevent me from being bold and trying something different now. This will be the fourth time it's pointed out to you: "no consensus" for my new edit is not a valid reason to revert it.
This isn't a discussion about my recent edit. This is endless waiting for you to give proper explanation as to why you keep reverting my edit. Since we simply can't partake in the D part of BRD until you explain your objections to my Bold edit that you Reverted, the more you fail to do so, the more it appears you're exercising ownership of the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Then please (for the ninth time) explain what it is about the changes I made that you disagree with. Saying "WP:WEIGHT" does not provide any clarification as to why you want incorrect dates, why you don't want a note, anything to do with the edit, really. You must say more to allow people to understand you. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
You highlighted Canada, Australia & New Zealand, along with the United Kingdom, which goes against WP:WEIGHT. You want UK, CA, AU, NZ + 12 and former 16, instead of UK+15 and forme 16. The international community associates Elizabeth II first & foremost with the United Kingdom. You have all my arguments & reasons from the last time. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, WP:WEIGHT is about viewpoints, not countries. Secondly, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are named next to the box with the dates "1952-present" because they're the four Elizabeth became queen of in 1952, not because of any arbitrary special status for which they deserve "highlight". That corrects the false claim Elizabeth has been queen of all her realms since 1952 while still satisfying your insistence that the UK be given special status by placing it at the very top.
I see nothing to explain why you want incorrect dates or why you object to the note or any of the other changes. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
It was agreed weeks ago, to highlight the United Kingdom (and its flag) only, per WP:WEIGHT. You've already made it clear many times over, that you disagree with this result. Indeed, you supported deleting this article, just days ago. If it turns out that I'm the only editor objecting to your proposals? then I'll walk away from this. I would recommend that you give this discussion 1-week & 'once again' let others weigh in. Just the 2 of us, is only going to be a continued stalemate. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I concur with the opinions and reasoning as expressed by GoodDay. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
There was no agreement to use the UK flag only. None; not by your misapplication of WP:WEIGHT or otherwise. So, here we remain with your revert warring justified only by a misrepresented guideline, false stories about consensus, a total breach of WP:DRNC, bullying, and deliberate ignorance of all the other so-far un-discussed elements of my edit you reverted (that have now been drawn to your attention three times). If DerbyCounty wishes to agree with that, so be it.
Taking the misapplication of your butchered version of WP:WEIGHT to mean you want the UK to be given special prominence vis-a-vis the other realms, answer this: Is the top of a list a place of prominence? It's a yes or no answer. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
So your attempt to add Canada, Australia & New Zealand (and their flags), was because you feel that the United Kingdom (and its flag) is getting special prominance. GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Is the top of a list a place of prominence? It's a yes or no answer. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I realize you hate seeing the UK (flag) having (shall we say) the spotlight to itself. If you can get a consensus to add Canada, Australia & New Zealand (flags), then so be it. Otherwise, you're merely disrupting the article to make a point. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Is the top of a list a place of prominence? It's a yes or no answer. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll have to allow others to decide whether it is or not. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom (and flag) should remain alone. Adding Canada, Australia, New Zealand (and flags) appears to be an attempt to push a point. GoodDay (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I realize you hate showing only the UK & its flag. You've made it quite clear 2 months ago & right now. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If you continue to revert but don't explain why, you are engaging in ownership.
The reverts were yours; you have to explain them. Your argument defending the reverts has so far focused on prominence. The question, therefore, is yours to answer: Is the top of a list a place of prominence? It's a yes or no answer. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but until you get a consensus for adding Canada, Australia & New Zealand (flags)? you're only disrupting this article to make a point. It's best you start convincing others of what you want. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You have been given ample opportunity to explain the reasoning for your reverts and have failed; your argument has focused on prominence, but you refuse to answer the question of whether or not the top of a list is a place of prominence. If my edit is returned and you revert again, you will most definitely be engaging in ownership. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I've already explained my reverts. It's your choice, if you ignore my explanations. This is the second time in this discussion, that you've suggested that I'm exhibiting ownership of this article & yet you're the one who's being quite demanding. Why don't you calm down & allow more input from others. PS: If somebody else reverts you, will that suffice? GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Your "explanation" for your reverts has failed because you failed to answer the simple question of whether or not the top of a list is a place of prominence. Ergo, your reverts remain without proper justification. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If nobody else reverts you, then you'll be able to make your pointy additions (Canada, Australia & New Zeland, with flags) stick. However, if anybody else does revert you? you'll have to convince them to accept your changes. PS: You'll never convince me to support your pointy edits. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_oldest_living_state_leaders/Archive_1&oldid=1136947032"