Talk:List of oldest living state leaders/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

Line for Elizabeth II

Well that was an interesting read! It seems like a formal solution has been found, in which a variant on the status quo version is kept but historical accuracy is maintained through a footnote. It's not one that everyone's happy with, but the vast majority of commenters seem to support the status quo version. Brustopher (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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

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

The three options are:

Status quo
№ Name State Position Birth Age Living as of
78 Elizabeth II  United Kingdom Queen (1952–present) 21 April 1926 98 years, 34 days Incumbent
15 other states
16 former states Queen (1952–1992)
Option 1
№ Name State Position Birth Age Living as of
78 Elizabeth II  United Kingdom Queen (1952–present) 21 April 1926 98 years, 34 days Incumbent
 Canada Queen (1952-present)
 Australia Queen (1952-present)
 New Zealand Queen (1952-present)
 Jamaica Queen (1962-present)
 Barbados Queen (1966-present)
 The Bahamas Queen (1973-present)
 Grenada Queen (1974-present)
 Papua New Guinea Queen (1975-present)
 Solomon Islands Queen (1978-present)
 Tuvalu Queen (1978-present)
 Saint Lucia Queen (1979-present)
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Queen (1979-present)
 Antigua and Barbuda Queen (1981-present)
 Belize Queen (1981-present)
 Saint Kitts and Nevis Queen (1983-present)
16 former Commonwealth realms Queen (various years between 1952 and 1992)[Note 1]

.......

  1. ^ In 1952, Elizabeth II also acceded to the thrones of South Africa, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and Pakistan. Ghana in 1957 was the first of her British colonies to attain independence and join the other Commonwealth realms, followed by 24 others on different dates. Pakistan became the first of her realms to become a republic and replace Elizabeth with a president in 1956. In all, 16 ceased to be Commonwealth realms, the last being Mauritius in 1992.
Option 2
№ Name State Position Birth Age Living as of
78 Elizabeth II  United Kingdom Queen (1952–present) 21 April 1926 98 years, 34 days Incumbent
 Canada
 Australia
 New Zealand
12 other Commonwealth realms Queen (various years between 1962 and 1983-present) [Note 1]
16 former Commonwealth realms Queen (various years between 1952 and 1992)

.......

  1. ^ In 1952, Elizabeth II also acceded to the thrones of South Africa, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and Pakistan. Ghana in 1957 was the first of her British colonies to attain independence and join the other Commonwealth realms, followed by 24 others on different dates. Pakistan became the first of her realms to become a republic and replace Elizabeth with a president in 1956. In all, 16 ceased to be Commonwealth realms, the last being Mauritius in 1992. Aside from the four remaining of her original realms, Elizabeth is today queen also of Jamaica (since 1962), Barbados (1966), the Bahamas (1973), Grenada (1974), Papua New Guinea (1975), Solomon Islands (1978), Tuvalu (1978), Saint Lucia (1979), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1979), Antigua and Barbuda (1981), Belize (1981), and Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983).

Opinions

  • Option 1 is my main preference. It may take up more space, but I think that's a fair trade-off as it is the option that is most consistent with the rest of the list, both overall and more specifically (note how the entry for Valéry Giscard d'Estaing—line 76—is treated), lacking in any bias (either by way of inconsistent treatment in the list or implication of low-to-non-status for non-UK realms), links to each article on each country's monarchy, and most accurate in terms of dates. It is a format that has served well enough at List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office, space not being of more importance there than accuracy and neutrality. For those who misread and misapply WP:WEIGHT to justify giving the UK prominence over the other realms, Option 1 satisfies their concerns by placing the UK at the top of the list (which is ordered by original realm, followed by date of attaining Dominion status, followed by date of independence; that is the protocol used by the Commonwealth of Nations). Option 2 is my second choice as a compromise between Option 1 and the status quo. I do not like the division between the four realms Elizabeth became queen of in 1952 and those she became queen of in and after 1962 and it does not link to any monarchy article. But, unlike the status quo, its dates are accurate and the note explains the missing information, while the UK remains in place of prominence. The note could possibly do with some trimming.
The satus quo is totally unacceptable. It is incorrect (this list deals with sovereign states, not colonies, and Elizabeth II has not been queen of the UK and 15 other sovereign states since 1952) and biased, both by showing only the UK and its flag, as well as linking only to Monarchy of the United Kingdom. The lumping of the non-UK realms into the words "15 other states" gives the false impression those countries form some kind of bloc, apart from the UK, and lack heraldic identification. "16 former states" is also inaccurate, as the Commonwealth countries once headed by Elizabeth II are still states; they did not become former states when they became republics. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Status quo - per WP:WEIGHT, we should reflect the real world's view of Elizabeth II, which associates her the most (many times exclusively) with the United Kingdom. Also, the United Kingdom is unique among the Commonwealth realms. Elizabeth II (and her family) live in the United Kingdom. Her coronation was held in the United Kingdom. When she passes on, she'll most likely be buried in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom doesn't have a governor-general. Also the Commonwealth realms that didn't exist when Elizabeth II ascended the throne, were already under her reign (since 1952) before becoming Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Status quo - concurring with GoodDay. Neve-selbert 22:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2: "status quo" is a poor attempt to dodge the problem resulting from the introduction of flags and "16 former states". Agree, "status quo" is incorrect (this list deals with sovereign states, not colonies, and Elizabeth II has not been queen of the UK and 15 other sovereign states since 1952), but there is also a link to States headed by Elizabeth II. Comparison with List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office is helpful, but it seems clumsy to repeat here the information (with flags) given for Elizabth II there (at "Prior to 1970"). Of the two options proposed, I see the format and content of option 2, together with the footnote, as the better one for presenting the information for this article. The two comments above supporting "status quo" fail to address the points in question and look more like beating and following a drum for some discussion which could have some relevance elsewhere. Qexigator (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
+ But, given the links to States headed by Elizabeth II and 16 former Commonwealth realms, the footnote could be trimmed to read: In 1952, Elizabeth II also acceded to the thrones of three other countries. From 1957 to 1992, some of her British colonies attained independence and joined the other Commonwealth realms on different dates, and some countries ceased to be Commonwealth realms upon becoming republics. Qexigator (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I felt it was more important with Option 2 specifically to make reference in the footnote to all the dates given in the EIIR line in the list. This would give readers a better understanding of the chronology. However, if we were to go with a truncated version of the proposal, it would be better as "In 1952, Elizabeth II also acceded to the thrones of three other countries. On different dates between 1957 and 1983, some of her British colonies attained independence and joined the other Commonwealth realms. On different dates between 1956 and 1992, some of the Commonwealth realms became republics." I'd prefer to keep the note as proposed, though. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Given Option 1 's shorter footnote (needed only for the "16 former Commonwealth realms") and its consistency with the structure of the table's other entries, I see it as practically a tie with Option 2, but its format could be tweaked by using a single box for the first four: UK, Canada, Australia, NZ - Queen (!952-present). Qexigator (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that, but it raises the problem of what article to link what would be the single mention of 'Queen' to.
Unless the dates were put in their own column (for the entire list) and a single box containing '1952-present' could span the four countries.
That suggestion may make this the point to present another: have the list show how long the individual occupied the office they did or do, using the same template that tracks the person's age. (For example, for EIIR as Queen of Barbados: {{age in years and days|1966|11|30}}, which would show as: 57 years, 177 days). This would allow an easier understanding of how much of the individual's life was or has been spent as leader (since length of life and being a state leader are together the core of this list, apparently). It would show as:
№ Name State Position Length of term Birth Age Living as of
78 Elizabeth II  United Kingdom Queen 1952–present (72 years, 109 days) 21 April 1926 98 years, 34 days Incumbent
 Canada Queen
 Australia Queen
 New Zealand Queen
 Jamaica Queen 1962-present (61 years, 293 days)
 Barbados Queen 1966-present (57 years, 177 days)
I'm not sure what would be done with those who've occupied the same office for non-consecutive terms, though. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Is two or more terms a problem? Why not give each successively as in present column 4, such as "27 | Michael I |... (1927–1930 (...years, ...days); 1940–1947) (...years, ...days)"? That would be the surest way so far to let the information be presented according to the general purpose, content and format of the article. Qexigator (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
+ and see Slade Gorton's Senate term in the table at Oldest senators currently living. Qexigator (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose that would work. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - Per MIESIANIACAL. It takes up more space, but it does provide the essential and fitting information upon her majesty's current and former ruling nations. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Though I'd rather you opted for the status quo. I will respect your choice & not try to make you to change your mind :) GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Status quo. This list is primarily about age. Readers of this page want to know how old she is. We shouldn't devote a huge amount of space to details tangential to the topic. Readers who want to understand the details of Elizabeth's reign can find that information on the article about her, which we link to. Pburka (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Inquiring readers looking for information have a variety of interests, not necessarily those upon which any commenter is focussed. Given that the article, in respect of the longevity of state leaders, is being retained, it is more informative to explain the exceptional and unique position of one of those named in column 2 who is sole head of multiple states. Qexigator (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment If the list is primarily about age, then you should suggest that we remove all the extraneous detail about countries and time that offices were held. That's another way to solve the incorrect dates problem with the status quo; a matter you didn't address at all. However, Quexigator is correct: this list provides more information than individuals' ages. There is also material conveying what state or states these people headed and how much of their long lives were dedicated to heading those countries. Elizabeth II is a very unique case in that regard, in that she has headed multiple sovereign states and given different amounts of her lifetime to each. That should be made evident, not hidden or regarded as a meaningless afterthought. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Primarily" doesn't mean "exclusively." We can summarize EIIR's position without going into excessive detail. In the context of this list, she is not unique at all. Like everyone else on the list, she is a state leader who's relatively long-lived. Pburka (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
If you have another way of presenting this information about Elizabeth as monarch and head of multiple states, feel free to make a positive proposal here for comment. She is unique precisely in the context of this list, the sole purpose of which is to communicate information to readers with an indeterminate range of interest in anything related to the topic according to its content. For the reasons given above, the present version is deficient and internally inconsistent. Qexigator (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You're quite correct, Pburka. This article is about 'how old' these individuals are & that's what we all should remember & focus on. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I, too, would be interested to see a proposal for presenting EIIR's position in a way that goes into less "detail" than the two above and rectifies the matter of inaccurate dates (which, curiously, you still evade) and recognizes the fact this list does partly focus on the length of time each individual in it has acted as a head of a particular nation. If you wish to maintain that EIIR's line shouldn't give attention to the states she's headed and for how long, we can explore removing all that information from the whole list. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
IMHO Pburka, removing the countries/years of service, would come across as merely 'another' attempt to avoid having (for lack of better word) the United Kingdom/UK flag soley in the spotlight. It's not quite as drastic as seeking deletion of the entire article, but nearly as bad. Indeed, like the 2 above proposals, it would be pointy in nature. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
It's kind of you to admit your sole motivation here is to ensure the UK flag alone gets the "spotlight". --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
That's your opinon. Unfortunately, the real world's view, sides with the status quo. You certaintly would have 'zero' chance of showing 'only' Canada or Australia or Jamaica, etc etc. To suggest replacing the UK in the slot, with any of the other Commonwealth realms, would get little to no support. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
What a lovely red herring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, that's just your opinon. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment You're quite correct Pburka, in your reasoning. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
And the inaccurate dates? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, the Crown also has a shared character. Also she has been Queen in them regardless of statehood. We could also remove the dates for the other states entirely. Which would seem like a good solution to me. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, Hebel. We can delete the tenure dates from all the entries, if enough editors are concerned about date accuracy. Afterall, this article's primary goal is 'how old' the individuals are :) GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes I think so too. I wouldn't be in favour of making an extensive list for the dates of all the present and former Commonwealth Realms, or another list that depicts the ones in which she has reigned continuously from 1952 until now. If that's a problem we could simply add the other states as "other commonwealth realms" and add the texts "various dates". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
And of course, like you & I have both pointed out, the dates are easily already correct, in that the areas which were British colonies when Elizabeth II ascended the throne, but are now commonwealth realms, were still under her reign :) GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure of the relevance of the shared nature of the Crown. Elizabeth II didn't become queen of 16 countries in 1952; most of the 16 of which she's today queen were colonies when she acceded to her thrones and this list covers sovereign states, not colonies or territories.
Yes, removing the dates is a possibility. But, it's my feeling that doing so would make this list even more meaningless than it already is. As I've mentioned already, having the dates at least lets readers know how much of a person's life was given to leading a country or countries (which could be augmented as per my suggestion above). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
When they were British colonies, they were still under Elizabeth II's reign & so the dates are less of an issue. PS: Let's remember, this article's primary content is the age of the individuals. Should Elizabeth II pass on before Charles reaches his mid-80's, it's likely Charles III won't be an entry in this article for sometime. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently you need me to repeat myself: the article deals with sovereign states, not colonies. I don't think that simple fact should be hard to understand. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Elizabeth II, still reigned over these areas which were colonies of a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 9 Then you agree; she hasn`t been queen of 16 states since 1952. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Since 1952, she's been Queen of the areas that are today, the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms. But, again let's not forget the primary purpose of this article. What's significant to this article's entry of Elizabeth II, is her age. GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you were clear the first time: you agree that she hasn't been queen of 16 states since 1952. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The entries are linked to States headed by Elizabeth II, which shows the UK & the 15 other states, all going back to 1952 as being under the Queen's reign, which include their time before Commonwealth realm status. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
No, it doesn't do that at all. And it's irrelevant. The pertinent issue is the content of this list and it does not include colonies, Dominions, or territories. It includes only sovereign states. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but adding other countries along with the UK, would be disrupting the article to make a point & as patriotic a Canadian as I am? I won't agree to such a change. The dates of service isn't your primary reason for wanting to change the info of Elizabeth II entry. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Another red herring. It's incorrect to assert Elizabeth II has been queen of 16 countries since 1952 and your admitted stubborn resistance to correcting that error only shows even further what your motivations are. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Elizabeth II is an entry to this article, due to her age. Let's stay focused on that, please. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
That's understandably what you want, but ignoring problems is not what's best for the encyclopedia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me, but as patrioitic a Canadian as I am, I shall not agree to disrupting this article, merely so you may make a point. BTW, not to be morbid, but upon Elizabeth II's passing, this entire Rfc would become moot. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you already said that and I already said it's a red herring you're plopping out here to avoid the fact there's presently an inaccuracy in the line for Elizabeth II and you want to pretend it doesn't matter so you can stand by the status quo that puts the UK flag in the "spotlight", the ensuring of which is what you admitted is your primary motivation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It's obvious (since November) that you & I aren't ever going to agree on how Elizabeth II's entry should be shown. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, your stubbornness is very evident. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
That's is just your opinon, of course. We'll have to allow others to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, it was certainly held by a lot of those who also held the opinion you needed an involuntary vacation from Wikipedia. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I realize you're frustrated right now. But, bringing up another editor's past, with the hope of discrediting him in a Rfc, is un-necessary. I've huge shoulders, so you're forgiven. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
When the behaviour that got you into trouble previously is presenting itself yet again in this RfC, it's fair game. You have the option to not be stubborn and seek a solution, rather than a victory. But, you've chosen the old, battleground way. While others make compromise suggestions, you stick to the same inflexible demand, despite flip-flopping and otherwise struggling to form and maintain a supporting argument. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
What goes in or stays out of this article, isn't up to me. Furthermore, I'm not interested in gaining a victory. I've no motivation or personal stake in the outcome of this Rfc. WP:WEIGHT must be upheld & that translates to United Kingdom United Kingdom, in this article. PS- I don't know what the Rfc's result will be, but I will respect that result. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
How you behave is up to you. You choose to reject all compromise. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
As this is an Rfc, others will have the opportunity to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
As you have free will, you have the opportunity to open yourself to compromise. As a participant in this RfC, that could make a difference in the pursuit of a solution. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The international community almost exclusively views her as Queen of the United Kingdom. Therefore, WP:WEIGHT must be respected in this matter. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
You've made your stubborn refusal to accept any compromise clear. There is no need to repeat yourself. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
We'll let others have their say. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
There's no need to repeat yourself. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. To qualify for this list she must be (a) old, and (b) at least briefly head of at least one state. Clearly, the state she's most closely associated with is the UK, as that's where she's resident, etc. We could reduce her entry to only mention the UK, which would be sufficient to justify her inclusion in the list. That she's the head of more than one state by dint of her position (much like, for example, the French president) is an interesting piece of trivia which isn't particularly relevant to this list. (Disclosure: I'm a Canadian subject of Her Majesty.) Pburka (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
In view of the discussion on this page, I am not sure that every one of the realms after New Zealand need be named in column 3. A generic term , with suitable footnote and links, may suffice. For the reasons already explained above, given the information for which the present version is constructed, and that it purports to give the information in a consistent, undistorted, npov manner, it is not acceptable to let the information about Queen Elizabeth's position as head of more than one state, as from and to various dates, be dismissed as trivia. We are looking for a way of presenting the article, and the list it contains, in a way which accomodates that information. The version proposed above at 21 January[1] is an improvement on Options 1 and 2 above, but perhaps could be trimmed as mentioned in this comment. The information is particularly relevant for those readers who are not familiar with the position of Elizabeth in relation to countries, such as Canada, other than the United Kingdom. If there is anything ridiculous in this discussion, it would be objections which appear to have something to do with dislike for letting the national flag of Canada appear in column 3. Qexigator (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
So, you, too (and Killuminator below), are under the impression either that Elizabeth II has headed 16 countries since 1952 or that this list includes colonies. I am utterly baffled by how this blatant inaccuracy can be so easily ignored by so many editors of an encyclopedia. One editor, I understand why. But, the others... --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Mies: If "you too" is addressed to Qexigator, the surmise is denied. Qexigator (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
No, my indent was intended to indicate I was responding to Pburka. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
If it were entirely up to me? I'd delete the "15 other states" & "16 former states" & merely add Qex's footnote, next to the United Kingdom/flag. However, it's not entirely up to me. Again, we must keep in mind, what this article's primary goal is. Elizabeth II is entered in this article among the state leaders, because of her age. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Then you support removing the dates indicating how long each person was a state leader, since it is not relevant to their ages. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
If it were up to me? I'd have United Kingdom United Kingdom 'footnote' | (1952-present). GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 10 Then, contrary to what you just said at 16:05, the list's primary goal isn't simply to show people's ages. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The article's primary goal is the age of the state leaders. The states are secondary. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
If they're secondary, then the list can exist without them, and their associated dates, according to you. To list the oldest living state leaders, all that's needed is their names and their ages. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
In such a scenerio, the  United Kingdom United Kingdom, would continue to remain 'alone'. The international community recognizes Elizabeth II, first & foremost (most often exclusively) as Queen of the United Kingdom. Per WP:WEIGHT, we can't deny this. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The scenario was a list without states... Once more, you indicate you're in over your head. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Elizabeth II is recognized foremost as Queen of the United Kingdom. It's not by my choice, that this is so. But, I must accept the international community's view & put aside my personal wants. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
If anyone would like to give a relevant remark about GoodDay's observation that the states are secondary to the point of the list (and thus not necessary), please feel free to speak up. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Whatever "the international community's view" (per GD) is thought to be, it cannot affect the information which relates to Elizabeth for the purpose of this list. At the least, column 3 should name UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, column 4 link to the Monarchy article for each one, and column 5 state "1952–present", with a footnote, either against her name in column 2, or against United Kingdom in column 3, based on the versions already proposed. Qexigator (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with GoodDay's opinion about the secondary need for the states; this is a list that purports to be about state leaders. As such, I think they should stay. If that's to happen, then we're back to the question that still has never been answered (despite being asked five or more times): how does the UK at the top of a list not reflect what GoodDay claims "the international community [whatever that means] view" is? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Response to both Qex & Mies: Forgive me, but I respectfully disagree with both of you. WP:WEIGHT (i.e. the international community's views) does matter. Therefore I shall continue to oppose options #1 & 2. Again, this being an Rfc, others can certainly weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Mies: GD is simply in error, misleading h--self and possibly others. From the start in 2011, when column 3 was headed "Country",[2] the article has been about state leaders. The column has been headed "State" from 9 November 2015 .[3] Qexigator (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The international community quite clearly views Elizabeth II first & foremost (indeed, quite often exclusively) with the United Kingdom. Though I wish this were not the case. It is indeed the case. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
So you keep saying. And saying and saying and saying. In fact, it really looks now like you keep saying the same thing because you think it allows you to evade a fact raised many times: two of the options above put the UK first and foremost next to Elizabeth's name. So simple and yet so very difficult for you to deal with because you can't--just can't--let the British flag be seen with any other, even it it's above them all. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not up to me, as to which country/flag gets shown. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It's up to you to defend your claims and arguments. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
If you don't like or agree with my reasons for supporting the status-quo, then that's your problem. I suggest that you concentrate on getting support from the other participants. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
If you can't defend your claims and arguments, that's your problem. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
At the moment, there are 5 other editors who are in agreement with me. You're free to try to persuade them that options 1 or 2 are better. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not a defense of your claims and arguments. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I've already done so, several times. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
That's your (deluded) opinion. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Others will have to decide that. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
If they're intelligent and rational people who observe all the evidence available here, yes, that is the decision they'd have to reach. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a Rfc & so everyone has a say here. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
No one said otherwise. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed your "If they're intelligent and rational people.." comment, above. You seem to be suggesting that anyone who supports the status quo, is somehow unintelligent & irrational. Now, it doesn't phase me one bit, how many times you bash me. But, IMHO you shouldn't be bashing others, so perhaps you should 'retract' that comment of yours. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 11 You lost the thread of discussion again. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Status quo - this discussion was done to death so I wouldn't add anything new. My views are very similar to user GoodDay. --Killuminator (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • UK only – this is a "leaderboard" list, not an article. We don't need to complicate matters beyond showing her length of reign, and for that, all we need is the UK details. All the other nations will have exactly the same length, and possibly a bit shorter, depending on the times of gazettal etc. Why complicate and confuse things? --Pete (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Then you wish to dump Andorra, too. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
No. Andorra is a different situation, wouldn't you say? You would surely agree that it is rare that the UK has two monarchs at the same time. --Pete (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
You conveniently neglected to note that whomever is one of those monarchs is also head of state of another country and an individual who occupied both those offices is in this list. If you look, you'll see he has France and Andorra (and their flags) shown next to his name, not just France. If we extend your logic to that individual's line, it should show France only. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Extend all you want, Mies. It's a different situation and I don't think this list needs nit-picking detail. The Queen gets her place on this list because she is Queen of the UK. 'Nuff said. --Pete (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for showing the limits of your concern for making good articles. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Status quo + elements of option 2 (i.e. the third one). Option 1 (i.e., the actual second option listed) is ridiculous. The number of entries in the status quo version is appropriate and adequate; option 2/third has the useful feature of distinguishing between Commonwealth nations and former members of the Commonwealth, without falsely identifying former Commonwealth states and former states, as if the countries don't exist any longer. The problem with option 2/third is that it improperly gives special place to CA, AU and NZ among other Commonwealth nations, for no reason. Elizabeth II has no more effect on their actual governance than she does on the other Commonwealth nations (which is quite minimal, at least as an actual ruler, even if there are issues like crown copyright that affect them negatively without that effect being tied directly to the "office" of the monarch, per se). Naming them is pointless in this list, whether we name them all or give three undue favoritism because of ... ? It can't because of population, or India would be in there. European-descended population? I dunno WTF the idea was. Meanwhile, the queen does have a direct, and multifacted set of influences and controls over the governance of the UK. So, it is the only one that should be listed by name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Those remarks helpfully contribute to the discussion. But if it is acceptable to let UK alone be named and flagged in column 3, what other "elements" of Option 2/third would then also be acceptable? Would it suffice to have a footnote, based on the versions already proposed, either against Elizabeth Elizabeth II's name in column 2, or against United Kingdom in column 3? Could we leave out any mention of "16 former Commonwealth realms" in column 3 or footnote? Qexigator (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure, didn't mean to gloss over stuff. I support the footnote; it's helpful to move that information there if it's going to be retained, and we should move more of it there. It's much better to quadruple the size of the footnote than of the table cell, since for this context it's all trivia except the UK. "Queen (various years between 1962 and 1983-present)" is redundant and pedantically hair-splitting.

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

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

I would see your solution as acceptable, (but not necessarily for all the same reasons): put every country but UK under "28 other current and former Commonwealth realms", with "Queen (various years, 1952–present)", change "Incumbent" to "Incumbent (but n/a in former Commonwealth realms)", and tweak the footnote as needed. let this be called "Option 01" . PS: "Elizabeth" = "Elizabeth II". Qexigator (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, "it's ridiculous" isn't an argument. While I get there's WP:OTHERSTUFF, the full list of realms works just fine in other lists, so, until someone can articulate something to the contrary, it should work just fine here.
Secondly, Option 2 is, as has been stated many times, a compromise between the status quo and Option 1. So, it won't be perfect, but it tries to make everyone happy. It also isn't hard to tell the four countries named are those EIIR now heads and became queen of in 1952, which rectifies the incorrect claim she became queen of all 16 of her countries that year. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Howdy SMcCandlish. I find what you're proposing, interesting. May we have a optical example? GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Status quo with UK listed only and other countries mentioned as a footnote. This entire debate is unbelievably pedantic. This isn't an article on the constitutional arrangements of Commonwealth realms, it just a list of oldest living state leaders. Alexander's Hood (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
If we want to really be pedantic we can argue about whether or not the fact that Presidents of France are also co-princes of Andorra - so why don't the entries on French Presidents mention that, eh? Alexander's Hood (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Status quo is my choice per Alexander's Hood and Good Day. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Status quo with the inclusion of an expandable list/box presenting material from option 1 if this is technically feasible. Called by bot. -Darouet (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
We've added a footnote, to show the other realms :) GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Option 01

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

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

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

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

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

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

col 3, should remain as United Kingdom United Kingdom, but add footnote (either long or short version) here or in col 4.
col 4, should remain as Queen (1952-present), but we could place footnote here or in col 3
col 7, Incumbent, should remain as is.

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

The version now proposed by GD, with an explanatory footnote adapted from the one at [5], appears to be suffciently informative, and at least no worse than either the current version or the pre-flag version.[6]. For internal consistency, Andorra could similarly be mentioned in a footnote to the line for Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, France, President. Qexigator (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
+ I have gone ahead with adding shorter version of footnote in column 4, as 1 of 3 changes. The next two changes would be removing "16 former states", and "15 other states", but may I leave that to others, as well as Andorra? Qexigator (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The footnote isn't functioning correctly. I don't know how to fix it. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
A footnote for Andorra, is also acceptable. I'd say go for it. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Adding the 'Andorra' note & deleting "16 former states" & "15 other states", should get a show of more hands. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
As I see it, enough has been said to let those go ahead without rancour or distress, so please do. Qexigator (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Andorra in a footnote - Seeing as one is/was a French Co-Prince of Andorra, because one is/was a French President (rather then the other way around), it's quite possible that others will agree to having Andorra in a footnote. Due to Andorra's having a co-head of state set up, I'll let others decide. Maybe, Andorra deserves a seperate discussion. Also, per WP:WEIGHT, Gascard has been mostly described during his time in office, as President of France, rarely as Co-Prince of Andorra. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

footnote (proposed for use with Option 01)

May we also consider whether to have a longer footnote based on that of edit 07:12, 20 January [7], or shorter as above at 10:39, 21 January[8], with addition of link to 'States headed by Elizabeth II'.

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

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

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

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

Mies: please see above, 15:17, 28 January. Qexigator (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I have noted that. It's even worse. Now the idea is for EIIR to presented as Queen of the UK only and every other country she is or ever has been queen of are all dumped into a footnote. The uninformed reader is misled to believe she's Queen of the UK and because of that has been somehow, but unimportantly, associated with some colonies of hers.
It's an odd about-face for you, given you seemed to feel before that EIIR's uniqueness as head of multiple states shouldn't be hidden. Now it appears you're behind making her essentially no different to any other individual in this list; the footnote will really have no impact in that regard. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing will be the unique one because he headed a total of two countries at the same time. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Mies: Up to now, your contributions have been intelligible and within reason. If you follow carefully my comments and edits, you will see that to call that "about-face" is as inaccurate as another editor's remark on another topic, who supposed that I had changed sides, from one team or gang to another. I see the proposed change (not yet completed) as the opposite of misleading the ordinary reader. The purpose of discussion on contested points is to seek resolution in a manner that is, editorially and encyclopedically speaking, at least acceptable, from the point of view of readers, so far as we are able to do that, while allowing for differences of opinion. If the listed Frenchman is unique in one way, EIIR is in another, but I do not see this as a competition, and why not let Andorra go into a footnote? By the way it is hyperbolically comical to write about this as if the effect were to "dump" Canada and the other realms. Too big to dump! Cheers. Qexigator (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's irrational to see support for only the UK next to EIIR's name and the rest of the realms, past and present, relegated (is that un-hyperbolic enough?) to a footnote as being contrary to "it is not acceptable to let the information about Queen Elizabeth's position as head of more than one state, as from and to various dates, be dismissed as trivia". Putting the information in a footnote makes it trivial; the definition of trivial being "of little substance or significance". And it's patently obvious a footnote tag isn't going to make EIIR's "exceptional and unique position" (your words) discernable in a list of 100 people.
I maintain that this new idea will be misleading to readers for the reasons I stated. You didn't state how I'm wrong in believing that; you simply said you believe the opposite.
Ironically, calling my use of "dumped" comically hyperbolic is itself hyperbolic. There's less passion behind my words than you seem to think. I don't have the energy for it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Cue for "His servants he with new acquist/ Of true experience from this great event/ With peace and consolation hath dismissed,/ And calm of mind, all passion spent." Samson Agonistes. Qexigator (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
+ In the current version,[9] I do not see the information in Note 2, about Elizabeth, as trivia: if it were, there would be no need for the Note at all in this article. Note 1 gives Andorra similar treatment, which some may see as trivia, comparatively with Note 2, but editorially it deserves to be given parity of treatment. It has been mainly thanks to your diligent proposals for removing the deficiencies in earlier versions that has let us have so reasonable and intelligible an outcome. Qexigator (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Of course the information in the footnote isn't trivia, which is exactly why much of it shouldn't be imprecisely alluded to in a footnote. Yes, the problem of incorrect dates has been remedied, as has the matter of inconsistent treatment of two people who were/are heads of state of more than one country. But, at what cost? The article's nose has been cut off to spite its face, to butcher an expression.
Regardless, your smugness makes it clear you don't see it that way. Your patronising condescension makes it clear you couldn't care less what I think. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Mies: Once again, if you follow carefully my comments and edits, you will see that the ill-feeling you express about my attention to yours is far from the mark. The deficiencies in the list which you mentioned have been removed, and further information added. More than one way for that was proposed. In my view, the current version, which resulted from and was stimulated by a discussion to which you have been a major contributor, before and after opening this section "LIne for Elizabeth", is (as said above) "at least no worse than " either the previous version or the pre-flag version. Now, in my view, it remains open to you or anyone else to propose going further: tweak/expand footnote 2? more links? ...? There may be others who would support that as acceptable. Qexigator (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me, with preference for the shorter note. I also note it's odd that we describe some leaders as 'incumbent' in the rightmost column, and for others we use the column to report when they were last reported living. Why not remove 'incumbent' altogether and use the column consistently? Pburka (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, Incumbent is put in the last column for those who are still in office. In the case of Elizabeth II (for example), it would be replaced 'if' she abdicated or was deposed. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
      • The column is intended to demonstrate that the subject was living as of a particular date. Being incumbent is not quite the same as being alive (see, for example, Kim Il-sung). Besides, incumbency is already mentioned in the 'Position' column. Why not use the 'Living as of' column consistently? Pburka (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
        • All the entries are still living. But yeah, changing Incumbent to links, like all the others, shouldn't be a problem for folks. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
          • I've gone ahead and added 'proof of life' links to the various incumbents in the article, including those commented out at the end of the table. Pburka (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Same discussion happening elsewhere

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented?; does not appear to raise any different issues.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Using dobsearch as a source

It's inappropriate to use https://www.dobsearch.com/ as a source. It's currently being used to support a claim that Carlos Humberto Romero is still alive. dobsearch is a primary source of dubious reliability, and all it can tell us is that someone with that name lives in Texas. Even if it is the same person, our job is not to act as private detectives hunting down and exposing people who don't seek publicity. That violates our policies on WP:OR and WP:BLP. We need to rely on secondary sources, not synthesis of primary sources. Pburka (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

What is inappropriate is to characterize someone last referenced in news reports in 1983 as being alive. Even ten years is a questionable timeframe, let alone thirty-plus. While I think it is likely he is alive, this is the only contemporary 'source' that claims that. So the options are: leave it as is (referencing a "Carlos H Romero" born one day apart from CHR's cited birthdate, with his wife and two children's names and ages matching), find a source that puts him alive at least in the 2000s, or remove him. Star Garnet (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Classifying a possibly living person as dead isn't good either. I'm ok with removing him from the list, but I think we should make it clear in the introduction what the criteria for being alive are, e.g. "Leaders are excluded from the list if no reliable secondary sources confirm that the leader is alive within the last ten years." (Or a shorter time period.) Pburka (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Anywhere from 10 (WP's guideline) to 15 years seems reasonable to me, particularly with such high media coverage today. It's funny how the ones living in the US (Amouzegar and probably Romero) have about the lowest news coverage. Star Garnet (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I've made the change, removing Romero and Arturo Armando Molina. They're still in the markup, but commented out, so easy to add back should they make an appearance in the news. I suspect that some of these former leaders may feel that it's in their best interest to maintain a low profile, as they are essentially living in exile. Several led oppressive regimes and are not universally loved. Pburka (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Unproven possibilities and future additions

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 1914): (U=10, A=0)


2. Unlikely to be alive (1914-1918): (U=7, A=0)


3. Moderate possibility of being alive (1919-1923): (U=10, A=0)

  • Rota Onorio, Kiribati, junta, 1919
  • Feliciano Avelar, El Salvador, junta, 1919
  • Max Bolte Haiti junta, 1920
  • Kim Yong-ju N. Korea acting general secretary (?) 1920, alive as of 02/14/2012, but unclear if actual leader; I think he was, as the position of president was vacant, the four vice-presidents formed a comitee (from the constitution (1972 version with slight changes in 1990's): " The Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly continues its work until the Presidium is newly elected, even after the term of the Supreme People’s Assembly expires.", that means that even after the death of the president, the presidium was de jure still in power until replaced by the new one: the only doubt I have is if this change is from 1998 or 1992)
  • Avtar Singh Sikkim I. officer, 1921 (unlikely this position qualifies)
  • Ricardo Falla Cáceres, El Salvador, junta, 1921
  • Christopher Okoro Cole, Sierra Leone, president, 1921, there is vague info about him dying "after 1990", but nothing besides that
  • Nguyen Van Loc S. Vietnam prime minister, 1922, Vietnamese Wikipedia says he died in 1992, but without references
  • Jaime Vargas Bolivia junta, 1922
  • Gurbachan Singh Sikkim I. officer, 1923 (unlikely this position qualifies)


4. Good possibility of being alive (1924-1928): (U=14, A=0)


5. Upcoming (1929)


HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nguyễn Ngọc Thơ died in 1976: [13] EternalNomad (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Unproven possibilities and future additions

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 1914): (U=10, A=0)


2. Unlikely to be alive (1914-1918): (U=7, A=0)


3. Moderate possibility of being alive (1919-1923): (U=10, A=0)

  • Rota Onorio, Kiribati, junta, 1919
  • Feliciano Avelar, El Salvador, junta, 1919
  • Max Bolte Haiti junta, 1920
  • Kim Yong-ju N. Korea acting general secretary (?) 1920, alive as of 02/14/2012, but unclear if actual leader; I think he was, as the position of president was vacant, the four vice-presidents formed a comitee (from the constitution (1972 version with slight changes in 1990's): " The Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly continues its work until the Presidium is newly elected, even after the term of the Supreme People’s Assembly expires.", that means that even after the death of the president, the presidium was de jure still in power until replaced by the new one: the only doubt I have is if this change is from 1998 or 1992)
  • Avtar Singh Sikkim I. officer, 1921 (unlikely this position qualifies)
  • Ricardo Falla Cáceres, El Salvador, junta, 1921
  • Christopher Okoro Cole, Sierra Leone, president, 1921, there is vague info about him dying "after 1990", but nothing besides that
  • Nguyen Van Loc S. Vietnam prime minister, 1922, Vietnamese Wikipedia says he died in 1992, but without references
  • Jaime Vargas Bolivia junta, 1922
  • Gurbachan Singh Sikkim I. officer, 1923 (unlikely this position qualifies)


4. Good possibility of being alive (1924-1928): (U=14, A=0)


5. Upcoming (1929)


HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nguyễn Ngọc Thơ died in 1976: [17] EternalNomad (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Sikkim

During what period, if any, can Sikkim be considered to have been a "sovereign state". It appears (to me) to have been a British Protectorate since the late 19th century until officially becoming a state of India in 1975. Can anyone clarify this? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's one of the most ambiguous cases of the past century. As I understand it, after independence from the UK in 1947, they became to India until 1975 what Commonwealth states are to the UK today. History of Sikkim#Independent monarchy doesn't really do it justice (in part because there's no practical way to translate Drenjongké). While I do believe they were an independent state, my conviction isn't that strong. Star Garnet (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I checked my book on Public international law. It says something among these lines (It's a translation): In principle, the protected country is still a subject of international law and retains it's sovereignty , especially in internal affairs. In practice however, the protector country intervenes in internal affairs of the protected country as well. So yeah, a protectorate is a relation between two countries, but both are at least formally sovereign. --Killuminator (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
We've always treated protectorates as sub-states, but the question at hand is whether Sikkim retained suzerainty. Suzerainty#Sikkim would indicate that's not the case, although that statement has been unsourced since 2005. Star Garnet (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Unproven possibilities and future additions

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 1914): (U=10, A=0)


2. Unlikely to be alive (1914-1918): (U=7, A=0)


3. Moderate possibility of being alive (1919-1923): (U=10, A=0)

  • Rota Onorio, Kiribati, junta, 1919
  • Feliciano Avelar, El Salvador, junta, 1919
  • Max Bolte Haiti junta, 1920
  • Kim Yong-ju N. Korea acting general secretary (?) 1920, alive as of 02/14/2012, but unclear if actual leader; I think he was, as the position of president was vacant, the four vice-presidents formed a comitee (from the constitution (1972 version with slight changes in 1990's): " The Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly continues its work until the Presidium is newly elected, even after the term of the Supreme People’s Assembly expires.", that means that even after the death of the president, the presidium was de jure still in power until replaced by the new one: the only doubt I have is if this change is from 1998 or 1992)
  • Avtar Singh Sikkim I. officer, 1921 (unlikely this position qualifies)
  • Ricardo Falla Cáceres, El Salvador, junta, 1921
  • Christopher Okoro Cole, Sierra Leone, president, 1921, there is vague info about him dying "after 1990", but nothing besides that
  • Nguyen Van Loc S. Vietnam prime minister, 1922, Vietnamese Wikipedia says he died in 1992, but without references
  • Jaime Vargas Bolivia junta, 1922
  • Gurbachan Singh Sikkim I. officer, 1923 (unlikely this position qualifies)


4. Good possibility of being alive (1924-1928): (U=14, A=0)


5. Upcoming (1929)


HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Adnan Pachachi

Adnan Pachachi was "in power" during US occupation. Shouldn't that disqualify him from the list? I remember that WW2 occupational "rulers" (both Axis or Allies-alligned) were disqualified from the list of the longest-living leaders.... HeadlessMaster (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it, but I'm pretty sure your're right. Iraq wasn't sovereign until over four months after he left office. Star Garnet (talk)
Ok then :) If nobody has anything to say in his "defence", I will delete him at the end of the week.HeadlessMaster (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
If Pachachi is ineligible based on a WW II precedent then why is Philippe Petain of Vichy-France still on the longest-living state leaders list?--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Because even though it was a puppet government, the Germans made sure that the French had nominal sovereignty, even if it was not effectively so throughout most of the country. Star Garnet (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Can anyone give an argument why this article is not stupid, silly, empty of content?

The main argument for this page existing is what? Juan Riley (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_the_oldest_living_state_leaders HeadlessMaster (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Those arguments make a laughing stock of wikipedia. Juan Riley (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to contest them again.HeadlessMaster (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
You mean try to discuss things rationally with the folk who would think that this article is anything but silly? No thanks. Just wondering if anyone here was rational. Guess not.Juan Riley (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, guess not. Regards, HeadlessMaster (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
There's never been a strong consensus on Wikipedia about what constitutes notability for lists. That, combined with a vocal group of longevity editors, is why this list exists. Pburka (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_oldest_living_state_leaders/Archive_3&oldid=869036631"