Talk:List of state leaders in 2016/Archive 4

We need a new footnote for Palestine
Considering the debate and Rfc that has just passed, I feel that a new footnote for a separately listed Palestine seems to be the best way to go from here. The previous one (see above) was condemned as having breached WP:OR and WP:CIRCULAR (by ), so I eventually proceeded to get complete rid of it rather than reform it. Now that his and the majority side of the argument has won, I believe a footnote should be reintroduced by the community, adhering to guideline. Indeed, it must mention the occupation of the West Bank by the State of Israel and should mention the disputed status of Jerusalem. I am open to ideas for a unifying footnote, replacing the "(partially recognised state)" to the right of the newly non-indented  Palestine bulleted entry. Thank-you.--Neve–selbert 08:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We cannot list all List of territorial disputes which is is a separate article. Wykx  (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Palestine is a special exception. Both the Zionist and Arab states dispute the same capital and Israel does interfere intrusively in Palestinian affairs, e.g. infringing on Palestinian sovereignty in the WB. This should be noted in the footnote, IMO.--Neve–selbert 10:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing exceptional, this is common in territorial disputes. Wykx  (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be important to mention that it's under occupation, not merely partially recognized. And Palestine's name should be written with normal font, instead of bold - as is done for similar countries (e.g. Western Sahara). So I propose the entry to look like this ZBukov (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Palestine (partially recognized state under occupation)
 * And if the majority of the RfC participants interpreted the indentation as indication of a "sub-state" status, should Western Sahara, Transnistria, Abkhazia, etc also be included separately, without indentation? ZBukov (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Page should include a clarification on what bold means before unbolding, might be misleading otherwise. I agree that the indentation/hierarchical structure should be rid of for all states... Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, by "all states" do you mean the dependent territories too, or not? Should Gibraltar appear between Germany and Greece, not under the UK, indented? ZBukov (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just for states and not dependent territories. Best to follow lead of List of current heads of state and government. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I strongly recommend and contend keeping states that are recognised by the majority of the international community as part of a sovereign state indented, i.e. we keep Abkhazia and Somaliland underneath Georgia and Somalia respectively. It would just look and seem extremely odd to include the country Abkhazia as a sovereign state on par with Albania below (among other reasons).--Neve–selbert 01:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this needs to be judged on a case by case basis, quite simply. Transnistria is for example a secessionist state that is not recognized by ANYONE except other secessionist states. I'm honestly skeptical to it being in this list at all. Should we include Sealand as well? It's also recognized by other "micronations". :-) Western Sahara on the other hand is officially recognized by over 40 states, is not secessionist and is partly occupied by Morocco after the illegal Madrid accord. Discussing Transnistria and Western Sahara as if we can make the same decision for both is frankly quite absurd. The situation is vastly different. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Surely the public have a right to be protected from Wikipedia editors who are essentially random unreliable people on the internet judging things on a case by case basis and putting their judgments in what purports to be an encyclopedia based on reliable sources? Wikipedia editors know nothing (officially according to policy) and shouldn't be making categorical judgments that haven't already been made by RS. Wouldn't it be better to have something based on RS, like trying to follow the ISO-3166 international standard, at least as a basis/starting point for these matters e.g. Gibraltar and Western Sahara are separate, Abkhazia is an autonomous republic and a subdivision of Georgia, Transnistria and Somaliland haven't been assigned ISO-3166 codes. Everything about an article has to be based on RS. If anyone asks "why is it like this?" it must be possible to point at RS and say "this is why".  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Geez, why so aggressive? Obviously the judgment needs to be based on reliable sources. Did I say it was to be arbitrary? I said that we can't apply the same decision for wildly different cases and either make both Transnistria and Western Sahara subdivisions or make both of them top-level. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't you guys keep it simple? A state only becomes a state when a majority vote recognises it as a state in the UN, just like it happened for Palestine. Then it is based on easily verified facts and no more arguing is required. --Lgriot (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I honestly believe this big hullabaloo is all over now. The current rendition of the article is absolutely fine considering the circumstances, and absolutely respects the verdict of the Rfc. We should have this whole page archived, by now.--Neve–selbert 11:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion still ongoing on placement of other states, footnote(s). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, the other states are fine, e.g. of the world recognises Abkhazia as an integral part of Georgia, etc. A footnote has already been added. You had a problem with a Palestine, did you not? Fixed. Now please, move on and carry on.--Neve–selbert 12:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Layout should follow reliable sources, I suggest ISO (see post above). Western Sahara, Kosovo need to placed separate entries, neutral footnotes... Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Get a consensus first, please.--Neve–selbert 12:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It wold be over, if you didn't start a revert-war. But you did. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is giving me a headache. I accept that Palestine should be listed apart from Israel. That was the result of the Rfc. And I have since adhered to that result.--Neve–selbert 12:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The unashamed hypocrisy on the part of is outstanding. Indeed, he did not seek a local consensus before opening his Rfc.--Neve–selbert 13:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Kindly add your suggested footnotes for specific agreement on a new footnote. Part of this discussion is general display of other entries (with suggestions of following ISO for layout). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

How shall the international status of Palestine be rectified?
Would the example below be a suitable option? --Neve–selbert 13:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Palestine (assigned UN observer state, in line with motion; occupied, partially recognised; administered de jure by the National Authority)


 * "Rectified" implies that there is something wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed and there is. Palestine is currently in bold as  Palestine, something that has been brought into disrepute both by myself and .--Neve–selbert 14:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Are you saying that it should? In that case why? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ZB just changed it. Besides, we can always update the section title if you are so bothered by it.--Neve–selbert 14:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so it's rectified. And you wanted a 30 day RfC for that? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Had ZB not intervened, we can only speculate. Moreover, the Rfc has been paused pending local discussion.--Neve–selbert 14:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Intervened" :rolleyes: --OpenFuture (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Should palestine be bolded or not?
Let's attempt a constructive discussion about this issue. Palestine is right now the only top-level independent state that isn't bolded. This seems a bit strange, but perhaps with regards to the situation, Palestine should be unique here. What does others think? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What is unbolded supposed to mean anyways? Make it harder to see? What I see is the same problem there was before with the indentation where readers (besides being misled) had no way of knowing why. Looks more like a botched copy edit.--TMCk (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The countries whose names are in bold are recognized, independent, UN member states. Other states of contested / non-independent status are also in normal (non-bold) font (e.g. Western Sahara, Kosovo, Abkhazia, etc). This is why Palestine should be written with normal (non-bold) font. ZBukov (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If your explanation above is not included in article, bolding/unbolding remains subjective editorialization susceptible to misinterpretation by page readers. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec)That does not address my concern: How on hell should a reader know what it means w/o being aware of this discussion here on the talk page?--TMCk (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Try this: A, B, C, D, E. Now you tell me why I haven't bolded the "C".--TMCk (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * But ZBukov, Palestine IS a recognized, sovereign state with UN observer status. Is the bolding difference between observer status and member status? Don't you think that is rather subtle and prone to misunderstanding? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * IMHO, only sovereign states should be bolded in these articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * An example of how this page is misleading/leaves space for subjective interpretation. List of sovereign states. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec) And again, how on earth should a reader know what you had in mind w/o reading this talk page discussion?--TMCk (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Palestine is a sovereign state, it is however only partially recognized. But is that a reason for not bolding? It doesn't seem like it from the others, but I may be misinterpreting it. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If it were up to me: Palestine & Kosovo (for examples) would be deleted from these List articles. However, it's not up to me & therefore I'm not gonna bust a gut over it :) GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no reason that casual readers (the people this page should be mostly aimed at) will have a clue what non-bolding means. I'm sure that most will either not notice it or will assume it is an accident.  By comparison, the indication "partially recognised state" which sits beside the name distinguishes the Palestine entry from the others clearly and has a wikilink for further clarification.  So basically the bold/nonbold distinction adds a useless indication to a useful one. We don't need it. Zerotalk 22:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OpenFuture, of the criteria "recognized, independent, UN member states" only the first is true of Palestine, and even that only partially. By the lack of independence I am referring to the fact that there are foreign troops on Palestine's territory against her will, and another state is deeply involved in administering her territory and population - this is the internal aspect of sovereignty, which is missing. So presently Palestine does not have effective, final, supreme authority over her own territory and population. Having other states recognize her sovereignty and statehood is only the external aspect of sovereignty (and Palestine is not a member state of the UN, only an observer). So these circumstances together make for a very significant difference between Palestine and, say, France - and in my opinion it is crucial to indicate in some clear way. ZBukov (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And I would find it useful to use bold font to visibly separate states with contested (e.g. Abkhazia) or unsettled (e.g. Kosovo) or non-independent status (e.g. French Polynesia) from those that are unquestionably sovereign and independent. In today's practice a clear indication of recognized independence is UN membership status (the sole exception to this is Vatican City, but its independence is universally recognized and is under no occupation). ZBukov (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Your responses do not answer the following simple question: how do you expect a reader to discern what bold/unbolded and subentries mean? I hope aforementioned concern is addressed by either getting rid completely of visual layout or clarifying in lead of article what so means. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I support adding a note to the article explaining the meaning of bold/unbolded font. ZBukov (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Can someone explain here what the meaning of bold/unbolded is? ZBukov said it was for "non-contested" states, so why are China, Israel, Taiwan, and Cyprus bolded? CMD (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * China, Israel and Cyprus are all UN member states. Both Beijing (the People's Republic of China) and Taipei (the Republic of China, often referred to as Taiwan) claim to be the sole rightful representative of entire China. So that is not a case of a new state being established, but of rival governments of the same (independent, recognized, UN member) country. And until 1971 it was the Taipei government that represented China in the UN. But I see that there would be relevant arguments to un-bold Taiwan under the current circumstances. And Turkey's occupation of the northern part of the country did not eradicate the state of Cyprus, her international recognition, UN membership and effective control over her territory, with the exception of the occupied areas - whereas in modern times Palestine never existed as an independent state (possessing both internal and external sovereignty), and has not been a member state of the UN. ZBukov (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just like Georgia's independence, international recognition and UN membership was not retroactively abolished by Russia's 2008 invasion and sustained occupation of northern parts of the country. ZBukov (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand that many of us would like Palestine to be a functioning, independent state, but it is simply not the case yet. And treating it as if it were the case, is a poor reflection of reality - while that's exactly what encyclopedic content should strive for. ZBukov (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And there is also the slippery slope argument. If we start treating Palestine as a properly independent state without her actually being one, than why not Western Sahara (which is also occupied, but has some international recognition), or Somaliland (which is effectively independent, but not recognized), etc? And step by step we'll get to include entities that are farther and farther from what a sovereign, independent, recognized country is. ZBukov (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Let us then avoid the fuzzy and opinionated word "independent", and as many others have proposed, used official reliable sources of sovereign states, which Palestine clearly is, or agree on clear criteria that can be easily and uncontroversially found in realible sources. Which states are and are not is a matter of definition, but this can be defined clearly. I would propose that the state needs to be recognized by multiple UN member states. That's the best criteria I can find. It excludes micronations or separatist wanna-bes, even in those cases where one country is financing the separtist movement and as a part of that has recognized it, when nobody else does. Introducing secondary criteria for when the sovereign state should be bolded or not seems confusing and meaningless, let's bold them all. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ZBukov: "OpenFuture, of the criteria "recognized, independent, UN member states" only the first is true of Palestine, and even that only partially." - No, Palestine has recognition from many UN member states, and is a UN observer member. It is indeed only partially independent, and partially occupied by Israel. But territorial conflicts abound, and if we are to unbold every country that has a territorial conflict we might as well unbold all of them. It's not a reasonable criteria. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * State sovereignty "is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers". According to your information, is the State of Palestine the supreme authority over any part of her territory (free to do anything, regardless of whether Israel likes it or not)? Has the country ever been free from occupation during its existence? So does Palestine actually have full sovereignty? I'm sure you know that international recognition is merely the external aspect of sovereignty, which cannot substitute the internal aspect thereof (which I referred to above as "independence"). ZBukov (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OpenFuture, “Palestine has recognition from many UN member states” → hence partially recognized
 * “partially independent, and partially occupied by Israel” → Correct me if I’m wrong (which can be the case, as I’m not an expert of the Israel-Palestine conflict), but I as much as I know Palestine has no part that is free from either occupation or Israeli control (e.g. borders, military and security matters). And if that’s the case, than she is not the final authority within her borders, hence she cannot be called independent in any practical, meaningful sense.
 * “is a UN observer member” → Palestine is described as a “Non-member State having received a standing invitation to participate as observer”, hence not a UN member state. ZBukov (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And does the partial international recognition turn Western Sahara into an independent, fully sovereign country in your opinion? ZBukov (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What I'm trying to draw attention to here is that we shouldn't confuse what we think should be, with what there is. ZBukov (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is self-evident, which is why I'm saying what I'm saying, but you seem to try to steer the discussion away from that and back into opinion-land the whole time. The question of Palestine's status is clear from previous discussions. Now we are discussing why you want to make it non-bold. You have given no such argument, instead you just keep arguing that Palestine isn't an independent recognized state, which means it shouldn't be listed on the top level at all, a discussion we already had an RfC on, so that discussion is over. Since you can't actually provide any arguments for why Palestine should be the ONLY sovereign state in this list to not be bolded, I will change it back (unless somebody else already has). --OpenFuture (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The RfC was about whether to put Palestine under Israel, or not. And that question was decided. What I am arguing is that Palestine is not sovereign. Rather than voicing opinions I was mentioning facts which - to my mind - disprove the claim that Palestine is sovereign. The mere diplomatic act of giving an entity international recognition does not change the facts on the ground that Palestine lacks internal sovereignty. (If tomorrow 80 countries would recognize Texas as sovereign, that would not make Texas sovereign.) And this is why Palestine should not be in bold, only sovereign countries should be (i.e. ones that possess both the external and internal aspects of sovereignty, so are both independent and recognized as such). Can you please address the points I have raised, arguing that Palestine is not sovereign? ZBukov (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A discussion of this nature has no function in Wikipedia. No one is allowed to make content decisions based on whether they think Palestine is sovereign. No one can prove or disprove anything about the real world here. What we can do is quote what reliable sources say about Palestine.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase then. Can anyone quote a reliable source stating that Palestine possesses "sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers"? If the answer is yes, then Palestine is sovereign. ZBukov (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your premise is that there is consensus about the meaning of the word sovereignty, but there isn't, and we can't pick our favorite. Here are some sources.
 * "The United Nations last night recognised a sovereign state of Palestine for the first time" (The Telegraph)
 * "The U.N. General Assembly approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine in 2012 but the European Union and most EU countries, have yet to give official recognition." (Reuters)
 * "In 2012 the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign State of Palestine after a failed bid by Palestinians to secure full membership." (The Sydney Morning Herald)
 * And I should clarify that those sources don't tell us that Palestine is sovereign. I could just as well have listed 3 sources that don't mention the word sovereign or 3 sources that said something more complicated. The only thing the sources tell us is that there are RS that describe Palestine as a sovereign state. Whether it is or it isn't sovereign isn't our concern. Our concern is reflecting what published reliable sources say.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You were confusing sovereignty and international recognition here (a real life fact vs a diplomatic act). The central claim here is that Palestine should be in bold, because it is sovereign. Independence is too "fuzzy" and "opinionated" a concept to go by, so let's go by sovereign (and I guess none of us would serious start claiming that Palestine is effectively independent). So when I argue that the facts we know about Palestine don't correspond to sovereignty, then you say that such a discussion is out of place and we can only go by reliable sources. But when I ask for reliable sources proving sovereignty, you say that there is no consensus about the meaning of the idea. And you proceed to move the goalpost and claim that sovereignty is "not our concern". And yet it seems to be taken for granted (without proof) that Palestine is sovereign, and the the discussion is diverted to diplomatic recognition, which is another matter. ZBukov (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not confusing anything because I am not trying to make sense of anything or prove anything. I'm behaving precisely as Wikipedia editors are required to behave. RS describe things and our role is to dutifully reflect what they say so that articles reflect the state of affairs according to their statements, including the complexities and contradictions. If that means things don't fit the models created by Wikipedia editors to classify the world, that's okay, just throw the models away.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Palestine is a de jure sovereign state and the de facto status on the ground doesn't change that and neither does your personal criteria on what should or should not be as it has no weight here anyways. Maybe trying to do it the WP way by accepting the facts from RSs could help in having a more fruitful discussion here instead of going in circles? Seriously!--TMCk (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said above, can someone please quote a reliable source stating that Palestine does possess "sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers"? I sense some frustration over wanting to take something for granted (i.e. that Palestine is sovereign) without being able to prove it with reliable sources (going so far as to expressly wanting to ignore what is going on in real life or claiming the matter of sovereignty to be irrelevant). ZBukov (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I just said it has de jure sovereignty and the de facto status doesn't change that just b/c you say so.--TMCk (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC) How about you go back and un-bold every single state occupied at the time by Nazi-Germany and later by the Allies as per your personal criteria and if you're successful you come back here? Enjoy.--TMCk (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, the areas-in-question continue to be described as West Bank and Gaza Strip, in news media. I've rarely (if ever) have heard the areas being called Palestine. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We're discussing the state, not the area.--TMCk (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "My personal criteria"? :) I didn't come up with the definition of sovereignty, neither do I claim that Palestine is sovereign. If you claim something, you should be able to prove it with some reliable sources. And I hope you are not making the mistake of confusing sovereignty with international recognition. Or are you - by "renaming" international recognition as "de jure sovereignty"...? ZBukov (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you are only interested in the legal aspect of things and want to ignore what is actually happening, then do you want to list the Shah of Iran as their head of state, because the transfer of power to the ayatollahs was unconstitutional? :) ZBukov (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're back too early (see above).--TMCk (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you care to check for example the List of state leaders in 1943 article, the states that were under enemy occupation are not in bold. :D ZBukov (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion is still way to centered on what opinion you have of Palestines status, but you are not a reliable source, so that's irrelevant. I still think you need to actually make a case for it being unbolded, and that case needs to contain requirements for bolde/non-bolded status, explanations of why those differences would be obvious to the reader. Having states occupied by f ex Germany during WWII makes sense, and is easily understandable by a reader. "ZBukov doesn't think it should be bolded" is NOT an acceptable criteria. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that my opinion about Palestine is irrelevant. All the other states currently (right until a few days ago) written in bold in the article are independent, sovereign, UN member states. Is Palestine independent? No-one is claiming that she is. Is Palestine a UN member state? No, she is not (see above). Is Palestine sovereign? No-one has quoted a reliable source claiming that (and as much as I understand, what we know about Palestine is incompatible with the definition of sovereignty). So according to what criteria should Palestine's name be written in bold, when she is disparate to those that are? ZBukov (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * all bold states are also UN members or observers. All bold states are top level. All bold states are sovereign. We can come up with many arbitrary criteria for boldness. You need to argue for why your criteria makes sense and why we should adopt those criteria. As far as I can tell, you wanting Palestine not to be bold hinges entirely on your personal opinion that it isn't "independent", at least that's your argumentation. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, OpenFuture, but you misunderstood me there. I gather that no-one is claiming that Palestine is independent (let's admit, it would be rather counterintuitive, given Israel's control over the territory, population and borders). But instead it appears to be taken for granted that Palestine is sovereign. Even you wrote above that "all bold states are sovereign", and you changed Palestine to bold a few minutes ago, so apparently you must be claiming that Palestine is sovereign. So would anyone please care to quote a reliable source claiming that Palestine is actually sovereign? I am not talking about the diplomatic act of international recognition (as that is only the external aspect of sovereignty). Do you see my problem here? Instead of promoting some personal conviction about Palestine, I see the proposed (and recently implemented) change resting on an unproven assumption. So my argument is that Palestine is not sovereign. The opposite appears to be take for granted here, yet somehow no-one appears eager to quote the corresponding reliable sources. ZBukov (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * But otherwise I do think that it makes sense to keep only the independent and recognized (i.e. sovereign) UN member states as bold. My reason for this is that extending this relatively easily definable circle is a slippery slope. If instead our only criterion is international recognition (by UN member states), than we should also include Kosovo, Western Sahara, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and even Northern Cyprus. As you go down the list, they have fewer and fewer recognitions (Northern Cyprus only one). But if you want to exercise some measure of consistency, then where do you draw the line, at what number of recognitions (and why there)? ZBukov (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's clear to me, as I already stated, that the main problem with this is the word "independent", which doesn't have a good definition, which is why I suggested we dump that term and use "sovereign" instead, which is much clearer. And then the requirement for bolding becomes the same as the requirement for being at the top-level, as we list sovereign states. Problem solved? Probably not, as you will continue to insist that Palestine should not be bolded, without any other argument than that it isn't, in your opinion, "independent". --OpenFuture (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know how I could make this any clearer... Would anyone please care to quote a reliable source claiming that Palestine is actually sovereign? I am not talking about the diplomatic act of international recognition. It's so simple! If you claim that Palestine is sovereign, then please back it up with reliable sources! (Note that I do not use the word "independent" here.) ZBukov (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Telegraph: "UN defies US to recognise sovereign state of Palestine" - "The United Nations last night recognised a sovereign state of Palestine for the first time,..." Reuters: "Palestinians win de facto U.N. recognition of sovereign state"- "The 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state" --TMCk (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * See this Wikipedia article defining sovereignty as "the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs". This other article about sovereign state says that "It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state.". Now, does this correspond to what you know about Palestine (and what reliable sources say)? So is Palestine the final authority over her territory, to the exclusion of Israel? Is Palestine free from Israeli interference in her domestic affairs? Is Palestine not subjected to Israel? Please answer these questions. This decides if Palestine is sovereign, or it isn't. ZBukov (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * TMCk, please see this sentence above: "I am not talking about the diplomatic act of international recognition." Please note that sovereignty, and the international recognition thereof is not the same thing. If 80 countries would recognize Texas as sovereign, that would not make Texas sovereign. Or do you think it would? ZBukov (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Has Neveselbert borrowed your account? I see the exact same pattern.--TMCk (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Trust me, TMC. They're definitely not the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What you know about Palestine, does it correspond to the definition of sovereignty? Maybe there are some developments in this respect that I am unaware of. Has the two-state solution been implemented since I last checked? ZBukov (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me? GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm hoping that TMC and/or OpenFuture will update me about the situation in Palestine, as they seem to be convinced that Palestine is sovereign. ZBukov (talk) 00:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, reliable sources are convinced that Palestine is sovereign, and that's what counts. Hence Palestine should be at top level, and bold. Case closed. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice attempt at the constructive discussion which you initially suggested. :) ZBukov (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a line that separates what we are allowed to do from what we are not allowed to do and in almost all cases it is very clear what side of the line something falls on. For example
 * It's okay to say that Palestine is a "partially recognized state" because RS say that.
 * It's not okay to discuss or decide what a "partially recognized state" actually is in order to classify a state as a "partially recognized state" on the basis of that discussion. That is explicitly prohibited by policy. It's not okay for Wikipedia editors to decide where the lines are, or what the attributes are, that distinguish one thing from another. Only RS can do that and they don't have to tell us how they make their decisions, they don't have to tell us that if more than 40, or 30, or 20 states don't recognize a state they will describe it as a "partially recognized state". They don't have to be consistent in how they make decisions and they will be inconsistent - different RS are allowed to use different methods to decide whether they will describe something as partially recognized, sovereign or anything else.
 * The mandatory constraint, the WP:OR policy, is simple to understand and yet here we are discussing whether "the facts we know about Palestine" do or do not "correspond to sovereignty". That is not the kind of decision we are allowed to make.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then I guess once someone claims that Palestine is sovereign, the rules forbid them to back it up with RS. :) What's more you expressly dismissed sovereignty as irrelevant ("isn't our concern"). (I presume I am not the only person who is aware that sovereignty and international recognition thereof is not the same thing). ZBukov (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh? Statements by editors about the status of Palestine are a waste of time unless they are supported by reliable sources about the status of Palestine. I have genuinely never understood why so many editors like to play this game, the one where they pretend they are permitted and capable of establishing "the truth" about something like the status of Palestine when in fact it is crystal clear that editors are only permitted and capable of establishing what RS have to say about subjects. I didn't expressly dismiss sovereignty as irrelevant, although I guess that would be a legitimate argument for an article like this that is simply "a list of heads of state, government leaders, and other rulers in the year 2016". I expressly dismissed the use of original research by editors to establish "the truth" about the Palestine's sovereignity because to do so violates a mandatory policy. Establishing "the truth" isn't our concern, our only concern is what RS say. Surely you understand that what you are engaged in here when you try to measure Palestine's sovereignty is WP:OR, that it is explicitly prohibited, and that the only statements that matter in the end are those supported by reliable sources that describe/discuss the status of Palestine.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was indeed constructive. And not only do we claim that Palestine is sovereign, reliable sources to that effect has been provided, and still exist above in the discussion, to be read at your pleasure. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And from which year (what date) do you want to regard Palestine as sovereign? So that her name can be changed to bold in all the articles after that. ZBukov (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And would you please disclose what criterion you suggest for inclusion among "top-level" bolded countries? Is it UN membership or observer status, claim to sovereignty, or partial international recognition? For example Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002, and the Holy See only gained observer status in 1964. Transnistria also claims sovereignty (without anyone recognizing it), and four states recognize Abkhazia's independence. ZBukov (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion about which year, and won't have it until you want to discuss criteria in a constructive way. And no, misrepresenting opinion, ignore answers and repeatedly claiming no reliable sources exist when you have been given several is not a constructive debating style. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are doing me personally a disservice by refusing to discuss your ideas for how the article should be structured. I was not ignoring replies, instead I was pointing out that the thing which you quoted RSs for (international recognition of sovereignty - a diplomatic act) is not the same thing that you claimed (sovereignty - a real life fact). I have not seen from you any substantial reaction to this. I don't know why that was, but after a few futile attempts I gave up trying to bring it home. ZBukov (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not refusing to discuss them. I have been discussing them the whole time. You just ignore it, and start again talking about your personal opinions of Palestine's status. But I think I'm starting to see the problem: You don't think that a country is a reliable source on other countries sovereignty, and that somehow, YOU are a reliable source, and that your opinion on whether Palestine is sovereign or not somehow should trump the United Nations opinion on the matter. And here you are, I might say, quite obviously wrong. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I too, think that the State of Palestine entry should be unbolded, but atleast the explanatory links are there. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I leave it to the other editors' judgement and intelligence to decide whether I ever claimed that my opinion trumps that of the United Nations, or instead I was requesting reliable sources for a claim; and whether OpenFuture acknowledged and duly reacted to the distinction I was trying to make between sovereignty and international recognition. ZBukov (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You have reliable sources. You just keep saying that they are incorrect, based on nothing than your own opinion. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever :) ZBukov (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What about the sub-entry visual layout, I am hoping there is consensus to get rid of layout in favor using reliable sources (e.g. ISO/follow lead other wikipedia pages). The current layout can be perceived as offensive (Kosovo comes to mind). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Kosovo is still a part of Serbia & so IMHO, shouldn't even have an entry in the article. GoodDay (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinions might be important, but what matters is what reliable sources say, List of states with limited recognition contains some. See Kosovo entry over here Reactions to the 2016 Brussels bombings and throughout wikipedia/online references, never a subentry with the exception of this page series. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If the Wiki-community overall, wants to treat Kosovo the same as Russia, Japan, UK, Canada, Mexico etc etc? then that's the Wiki-community's choice. Heck, we've got Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania being treated on many bios, as though they were never a part of the Soviet Union. These sorta things fall under editor-discretion. If the majority want it a certain way? then that's the way it will be :) GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I think the best approach would be to list all entries using the same typeface, bold or normal, it probably doesn't matter which, but not using bold for list members appears to be the norm across Wikipedia. It's unclear why a number of state/country related lists have departed from that norm. The Manual of Style doesn't seem to say anything about it. What I think matters is clarity and avoiding original research, which means not hiding information in things like typefaces and not using decision procedures created by editors to classify states based on their beliefs and what they think they know. If something needs to be said in an article, use words from reliable sources to say it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sean - it seems a simple key, which I would say needs to be included, would solve your issues? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments I had been quite involved in these discussions, but have had a couple of weeks work/holiday travelling. It seems that we've had some progress, but also that things have splintered somewhat. So a few thoughts:
 * 1. I like neve-selbert's suggested wording for Palestine
 * 2. GoodDay is correct to point out that solutions adopted here need to then, once discussion is finished, be applied back to previous 2015, 2014, etc., articles
 * 3. I think it's useful that this article lists sovereign and non-sovereign states: it fits in with older articles eg List of state leaders in 500 when 'sovereignty' did not really exist as a concept
 * 4. But I think it's also useful to distinguish between sovereign and non-sovereign entities. To that end, I think indenting for administrative sub-entities and not bolding for states that have limited recognition is a good idea (with the caveat that, in conversation with reliable sources, we need to work out what we mean by 'limited recognition': any workable way of doing this ought to allow China/North Korea to be fully listed and Abkazhia to be distinguished as different. All of this does, as Sean points out, have to follow the Manual of Style and be supported by reliable sources. However we decide to do this must then be described in a key/introduction. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

We need some clarification here
I may be wrong, but I honestly believe that a vote is likely to render as necessary on this.--Neve–selbert 17:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, my GOD! Don't start this shit all over again! We've been through this already. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That's up to you. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The necessity of References
IMHO, the references included in the corresponding article render as superfluous and WP:OVERCITE. Sources as such are already provided in the External links section and have been for as long as I can remember. The initial first two links provided in the section that I mention (Rulers & WorldStatesman) are both trusted websites—notably where most of the articles in this particular set series regularly receive most of their information from, e.g. for Madagascar most recently. Just for the record, I am not totally against a References section here, although the way that it is currently being used and regulated by is really the wrong way to go, I reckon. Per WP:STATUSQUO, the references should be removed on at least a temporary basis in due course.--Neve–selbert 19:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: References are necessary for verifiability, external links not references. See Special:Permalink/714746264 for arguments and pointers. Baking Soda (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose what? No motion was moved. Exactly what problem do you have with the links in the External links section, ? Are they untrustworthy, in your opinion? Why do we have to cite every single new state leader? For how long should the citation remain in place? Indeed, there are many unanswered questions.--Neve–selbert 21:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Citations stay in place for as long as an article exists.--TMCk (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Even for list-articles?, you have to admit that these inline citations are superflous. New world leaders are always updated in both the Rulers and WorldStatesman databases underneath the External links section, and to dismiss this article as "unsourced" is a great misunderstanding of the way this article is meant to work. None of these articles use inline citations, since their need is greatly superseded by the data given by the links included in the External links section. To be clear, I only oppose inline citations for newly inaugurated state leaders. I would not oppose per se the introduction of inline citations to source other information. But the present 'status quo' is evidently unsustainable and WP:RFC may prove necessary in the coming days.--Neve–selbert 16:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Vatican
Having gone through the List of state leaders in Year articles. I've noticed we've listed 'other' officials beside the Popes, in the Vatican's entry. I can accept listing the Camerlengo & College Dean, during a papal vacancy. But aren't we overdoing it, by listing Presidents of the Governate of Vatican City & Secretaries of State along with the popes? Isn't listing the popes, enough? GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wykx  (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The UN's list of heads of state and government lists the Secretary of State as the head of government of the Holy See. And the above mentioned two officials belong to different entities. The Secretary of State is the second in command of the Holy See, while the President of the Governorate is the second leader of the Vatican City State. The former entity has observer status in the United Nations (and is a subject of public international law), while the latter is an independent country. ZBukov (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK indeed you're true. Wykx  (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems odd though, making it appear as though those cardinals were somehow equal to the popes. GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would their inclusion in the list create such a semblance? Including both Queen Elizabeth II and David Cameron in the list doesn't imply that those two are equal. ZBukov (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Elizabeth II, is a constitutional monarch. Whereas the Popes are absolute monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot see how this difference would push readers to the conclusion that the Pope and his Secretary of State are of equal rank. I honestly don't understand how the presence of a head of state and a head of government on the list could give rise to such confusion (and why that would be specific to the Vatican City State, if it occurred to someone). ZBukov (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The pope has full authority over those 2 officials & can fire both of them at will. I'll just continue to allow others to chime in. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My problem is that I don't understand your point about why listing these two officials would make readers think that they are equal to the Pope. ZBukov (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I realize that you don't understand & that's unfortunate. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

So could you please explain? ZBukov (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, the pope is head of state & gov't. We shouldn't have any cardinals mentioned in these articles, except for the Camerlengo & College Dean, during a papal vacancy. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But how does this relate to the UN listing the Secretary of State as head of government? Do you presume that in an absolute monarchy there can be no head of government? ZBukov (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Palestine re-instated as a subentry for other year pages!
Please see 1, 2. Baking Soda (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are acting like a tyrannous dictator on these set of articles. Read WP:OWNERSHIP.--Neve–selbert 19:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The RFC outcome was clear in that the Palestine should not be listed as a visual sub-entry of Israel.--TMCk (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, got that. But what of the Palestinian National Authority before this happened? Per WP:BRD, is violating and laughing in the face of policy.--Neve–selbert 19:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess one can argue if Palestine needs to be listed at all or how in earlier lists but making it a sub-entry was clearly rejected.--TMCk (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet the fact remains, the UN did not recognise Palestine as the State of Palestine until 2013.--Neve–selbert 19:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, it can not be a sub-entry of Israel for the same, obvious reasons. This is vandalism, stop. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not vandalism by any conceivable definition and this "sub-state" nonsense is purely unfounded. Who exactly are you to say that it doesn't matter? The UN did not recognise the State of Palestine before 2013: that is the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth.--Neve–selbert 19:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody said anything about "sub-state". The arguments against having Palestine as a sub-entry are equally valid for Palestine before 2013. It was never, ever, a part of Israel in any way, shape or form. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec)It's very simple: Was Palestine a state prior to 2013? If yes it needs to be listed separate per the RFC and if no it shouldn't be on the list in the first place. If there is something in between it needs to be discussed here first.--TMCk (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I haven't watched these articles very closely, because I honestly think that they should be deleted, but it seems nobody bothered to implement the RfC on most of them. Palestine (in any form) was never a part of Israel and can not be listed as a sub-entry of Israel. I guess that before 2012 it should just be removed from the articles? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per BRD, the reverts of Baking Soda remain without any justification whatsoever. Indeed, his dictatorial antics must stop.--Neve–selbert 20:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop the nonsense. The RfC is 100% clear: Palestine is not a sub-entry to Israel. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when? Answer: since 2013, as that was when the PNA officially became a State at the UN, hence the name change. His edits remain unjustified.--Neve–selbert 18:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Palestine has NEVER been a part of Israel, it has NEVER been a break away-state, this conflict has NEVER been a civil war. It should not be a sub-entry AT ALL. You know this, and are knowingly pushing through your standpoint against consensus. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

What do subentries mean? Feel free to create a legend/add visible criteria to page, include entries that fit accordingly. Baking Soda (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * may have a more detailed answer, although in a nutshell the "subentry" format that you refer to usually infers states that are under an occupation of some sort of an external power, e.g. Gibraltar is occupied by the British, etc. Now, I would urge to revert your edits on the following premise, so please read carefully. Yes, the resolution on the status of Palestine was passed in 2012, but it did not come into full effect until 2013. Until 6 January of that following year, the Palestinian National Authority remained officially as a non-state administrative authority at the UN. Things fundamentally changed after that date, in my view. You may be interested in this article, for more information.--Neve–selbert 18:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Its independence was declared on 15 November 1988. Best to end subjective editorialization by including clearly what subentries mean and reliable sources. Baking Soda (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, independence was declared in 1988, this was purely symbolic (as with Kosovo). Please end your conspiratorial allegations of "subjective editorialization" and face the facts being cited, for once. Now, the PNA was rebranded as the State of Palestine in 2013, I gave you a source. The resolution was passed in 2012, but did not come into full effect until the following year. Now, you can either choose to ignore what I say or take it into full account. I would hope you choose the latter.--Neve–selbert 19:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keeping the status-quo does not address subentry ambiguity. I am still waiting for sources on your statement "The State of Palestine proclaimed in 1988 has been judged as not worthy of inclusion by the local community". Baking Soda (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For those years in which Palestine was not regarded as a state, a sub entry is equally problematic. For year that there was no internationally recognized Palestinian state, there should be no entry at all for Palestine. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For those years, the Palestinian National Authority is included instead. From 2013 to present, Palestine is included per the redesignation from the PNA at the UN on 6 January of that year. Before the existence of the National Authority in 1994, Palestine is omitted. I would continue to urge Baking Soda to (temporarily) revert his edits until we can come to a unanimous settlement. This does not seem at all as too much to ask.--Neve–selbert 19:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, these articles are about state leaders. Why are non state entities included in them? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Governments are included also, hence the lede.--Neve–selbert 19:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that supposed to mean leaders of governments of sovereign states? Prime Ministers and the like? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does, although the inclusion of governments as well as states is permitted also, i.e. in cases such as the Syrian Interim Government in Syria as an example.--Neve–selbert 20:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But Syria is a sovereign state. Why the PNA before 2013 and why Greenland, Aruba and what have you? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Syria has two competing governments. Palestine should have some representation pre-2013 and the PNA fits the bill. Pre-1994, Palestine is a no-show.--Neve–selbert 21:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec) I could as well include my (notable) dogs b/c they rule the yard and since according to the intro, "This is a list of heads of state, government leaders, and other rulers". The criteria can and unfortunately is indeed randomly applied at will which is the cause of all the grievance lately.--TMCk (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

IMHO - if the State of Palestine didn't come into existence until 2013? then we should stick to using the PNA & clarifying that it (the PNA) wasn't on equal footing with Israel, France, Canada, Japan, etc etc. Please folks, agree to that. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The countries that have sub-entries are for countries with competing governments due to civil war, or breakaway regions. None of that is true for Palestine. Palestine needs it's own top level entry, or it should be removed altogether. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Deletion would be best. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Recommend that any mention of Palestine in any form, be entirely deleted from all List of state leaders in Year articles before 2013. When in doubt? throw it out. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this series of articles?
I've put my mind to it, but I completely fail to see what the use is of this series of articles. Why would anyone need to know who were the heads of state in the world in a particular year? If you need to know it for one country, you would go to that country's pages. This just seems like an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information to me.

And if it really does serve an encyclopedic interest, do we really have to have one article per year? Most of the articles that way are just repetition, since most heads of state serve for a lot longer than a year. One article per decade seems a lot more sensible, for the 20th and 21st century (and maybe the 19th) and before that, one per century. And right now, there is in fact a list per century for the 8th and 9th century, and ALSO one per year. So if we find an error for a leader that lead his country for 30 years in the 9th century, maybe the starting year was off by one, then there is 31 articles that need updating!?! --OpenFuture (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, both Zoltan and I usually take care of your last point. I use AWB anyway, so the process is much quicker for me.--Neve–selbert 17:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I would support the deletion of these articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, nobody can come up with a use for them... --OpenFuture (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly could.--Neve–selbert 21:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If for example you read about some historical event, you can see in one article who the relevant leaders were at the time, without having to check several separate articles. It also depicts decolonisation, for example. If you check the List of state leaders in 1950 article, there are a mere four independent countries in Africa, as opposed to the 54 today. So it gives a report about one aspect of what the world looked like in the given year. ZBukov (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Or you could just see the detailed History of Africa article (+ subs). A far more likely search anyways.--TMCk (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, so the three of you see no value in these particular Wikipedia articles. But what is there to gain from denying everyone access to them by deleting the articles? ZBukov (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Less clutter and less space for disagreement/warring and thus more time for more important things?--TMCk (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I, for one, use it to look up data during my studies (international relations BA). ZBukov (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * But you also are one of the main editors of this article, why can't you go directly to the sources? --OpenFuture (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * When for example I'm studying about the Cuban missile crisis, it's much easier to look at the List of state leaders in 1962 article to see who the relevant international player were at the time, instead of separately opening the lists of the President of the United States, List of leaders of the Soviet Union, President of Cuba, Prime Minister of Italy, President of Turkey, Prime Minister of Turkey, etc. ZBukov (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Aren't the sources also lists? Won't these lists typically include all major states?
 * 2. If not, wouldn't one article per decade work just as well? --OpenFuture (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Caucasus - Asia or Europe?
I hope the following question will not be as controversial as the previous ones. Do we agree that the Caucasus region is mostly located in Asia, therefore the region's states (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia plus Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh) should be listed under Asia instead of Europe? ZBukov (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Can of worms :)) --TMCk (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Best to stick with what reliable sources say and include references in the page, in particular for countries that are part in Europe, part Asia. Baking Soda (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify the can of worms: See the dublicate listing in Europe and Asia.--TMCk (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * + yes, go by the sources.--TMCk (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Continents are not political but geographical entities, so this should simply be a geographical question (free of countries' political or cultural aspirations). So can someone please tell me what reliable sources say on where the boundary between Europe and Asia lies? ZBukov (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, e.g. Azerbaijan at the CIA's World Factbook says: "Southwestern Asia, bordering the Caspian Sea, between Iran and Russia, with a small European portion north of the Caucasus range". So maybe we need a transcontinental section if we keep the continental layout.--TMCk (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should make things more complicated. It means much less unnecessary hassle to assign countries to the continent where their capital city lies. (For example despite its two southern cities I've never heard current Spain described as an African state, nor today's France as a Caribbean or Southeast African one.) So the question is, is Baku, Yerevan and Tbilisi located in Asia or Europe? ZBukov (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Why are you trying (again) to use some OR criteria like "...assign countries to the continent where their capital city lies."? It's not only against general rules but also absolutely not needed. Add a note to unclear entries if you reject a transcontinental section.--TMCk (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know why it is original research to ascertain from reliable sources where Baku, Yerevan and Tbilisi is located, but if it's a more appropriate solution to add notes to the countries concerned, then let's go for that. So the original question is ZBukov (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not a cities by continent article.--TMCk (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Do others agree that listing countries under the continent where their capital city lies constitues "original research" per se? ZBukov (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey for caucasus
Should Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia be listed under

A - Europe

B - Asia

C - Transcontinental

D - other


 * D Reference entries with CIA factbook/other geography refs, and with footnotes. For example Georgia is considered geographically part of Asia, however, Georgia views itself as part of Europe (suggested footnote for this case). See Map reference, 2, 3. Baking Soda (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * D - Make the listing Alphabetical as per my normal Gordian knot attitude. Why is it listed per continent anyway, that just makes it confusing. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you find confusing about it? ZBukov (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You scroll down for "France" and it's not under "F" and you go "wut?" and then "oh". --OpenFuture (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly find that confusing...? Right under the title one cannot help seeing that the article is segmented into continents, so one needs to completely ignore that to be confused. And under its proper continent France is indeed placed alphabetically. ZBukov (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. And what's the purpose of organizing it by content? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So by claiming that it's confusing, are you saying that you don't know where to look for, say, Nigeria in the article?? In my opinion this structure is not at all confusing. The reason why I left it like that was that the article series had been structured like that when I found it. And if it was re-organized excluding the continents, its format would look exactly like that of the List of current heads of state and government article, potentially leading some readers to confuse the two. Furthermore countries located on the same continent probably have more historical, political and civilizational links with each other, than Namibia, Nauru and Nepal have (as they would follow each other in global alphabetical order). ZBukov (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess that means we have to have a unique layout for every single year then?--TMCk (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what makes you think that, and I am firmly against that suggestion. I appreciate the consistently applied current structure of the article. ZBukov (talk) 16:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It should make sense to you since by your logic one can easily be confused, thinking their at year xxxx but actually could be on any other year article. I wasn't serious, of course.--TMCk (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was arguing against the concept of continents being confusing, so I brought up a rival possible "confusion" of a similar gravity. If one is not taken seriously, neither should the other. ZBukov (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok then.--TMCk (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "And if it was re-organized excluding the continents, its format would look exactly like that of the List of current heads of state and government article, potentially leading some readers to confuse the two." - Do you really think that's a good argument? I still think we should get rid of the continent division. It has no benefits. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced by the generic claim that the current layout is confusing. If the reader has heard about faraway countries than they have also heard of the fact that the Earth's landmass is separated into continents. Or are we optimizing the List of state leaders article series for preschoolers? :) ZBukov (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The end result is that for any country where you are unsure of the continent, and as we see, for many countries even YOU don't know the continent, you have to search for it with the browser search. And it has absolutely no benefit. We keep a format that has only drawbacks and no benefits? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * D - in agreement with OpenFuture. If we're going to keep these articles, then the format should be alphabetical. Not continental. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * D - Plain alphabetical or alphabetical with same layout as List of current heads of state and government which I consider to be the main article. Trickle down from there.--TMCk (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * D Fully alphabetical. No one has yet explained why there is separation along continents in this article series or what it adds. Problems this format creates exist not only within this article, but between various historical articles, which cover periods when people delineated the continents differently to they do today. CMD (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Turkey, Asia or Europe
Thanks GGT for your edit summary. I won't be challenging your change again. Strictly speaking (at least according to some interpretations), Armenia and Cyprus are geographically in Asia, while often regarded as European for cultural reasons and Azerbaijan (like Turkey) is only partially in Europe geographically. The thing with Turkey is that a part of that country gave its name to the Asian continent (Asia minor), so it seems strange to not also mention them there. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is structured by continents and continents are not political units. Geographical boundaries are still clearer and more objective than political or socio-cultural ones (and according to neither of these categories would Turkey be European). According to the Wikipedia article on Turkey, 97% of the country's territory lies in Asia, including its capital city and the vast majority of its population, so this is a clear case. Similarly France is not considered a South American country because of French Guiana, and Spain is not African because of Ceuta and Melilla. Consequently the existing mistakes should be corrected by placing every country under their proper continent, instead of adding further inconsistencies. ZBukov (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

19th century and before

 * I don't want to have a new discussion for each century but on 21 November ZBukov said, "I see no point in deleting these existing articles..." and later said "is the 20th and 21st century states and leaders that I'm competent in, so I only meant those articles." So to me, it seems you don't care about the 11th to the 19th century.
 * If anyone objects to converting all data on these earlier leaders from "by year" to "by century", please let me know now-- but since this is technically off-topic here please do not discuss here. I might also ask just where you want the cut-off to be, since the we already converted all the list before the 11th century. Anyone that needs to discuss (for some reason), I propose you do so at Talk:List of state leaders in 1850, and I will watch that page also. tahc chat 04:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "by century" seems unwieldy. Surely decades would be a better step up? CMD (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you clariify here? Are you wanting lists "by decades" for the 20th or the 19th? Or do you want "by decades" all the way back 11th century?
 * Be it by 'century' or 'decades', it will be cutting down loads of repetitive info :) GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)