User:Drcrazy102/DRN transclusion demonstration 2/Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders discussion

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Recusing myself as a volunteer on this request as I have had interactions with at least one participant.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC) ✅ There has been sufficient prior discussion on the article talk page. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Not all participants have been notified on their talk pages of this request. I will do so shortly if filing party does not. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Please keep discussion to a minimum before the case is opened by a volunteer. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC) ✅ All parties have been notified. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Are the involved parties inclined to wait for DerbyCountyinNZ before we begin, or should we start without him/her? Also, will Killuminator be joining us? JQTriple7 (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: Is DerbyCountyinNZ included as a participant? Killuminator only rejoined the dispute at the list talk page after GoodDay pinged him today and he made his first comment after I placed this request. There is a general notice about this request at the list talk page, but I will leave a note at Killuminator's talk page, as well. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  20:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I've invited DerbyCountyinNZ. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have manually added DerbyCountyinNZ to the users involved list. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps give it 24 hours from time of posting this request? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  01:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * He will be joining us, shortly. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I will accept this case either a) when all dispute summaries are complete, or b) 24 hours from posting of the case. JQTriple7 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Thank you for your summaries. It doesn't seem like we will be hearing from DerbyCountyinNZ, and since participation here is voluntary, the silence of one party does not prevent this case from beginning. The final party may join at any stage if he/she so pleases. I am JQTriple7, and I will be moderating this case for the duration. I would like to begin by laying some ground rules. Failure to follow these rules may result in the case being closed as 'Failed'. First of all, I expect you all to participate every 24-48 hours. If this doesn't happen, the case may be closed as stale. I also expect you to focus on content, not conduct, any personal remarks will not be tolerated. Please be clear and concise in your responses. Failure to follow these rules may result in comments being collapsed or deleted. Finally, please avoid editing the article while this dispute is taking place. Hopefully we can resolve this dispute successfully. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by volunteer moderator
Greetings everyone. I've looked extensively at all the summaries and evidence provided and it isn't clear to me how to proceed at this stage. I've done a little bit of research, and I am aware one user raised a concern about only the British flag being displayed if we go with 'United Kingdom and 15 other states'. There is in fact a Commonwealth Flag, and it seems to me that another possible solution would be to place the Commonwealth Flag there and state that she is the queen of the Commonwealth of Nations or the British Commonwealth, as it is more commonly know, and to link to the Commonwealth of Nations page where a user can view all member states. I just thought I would add that to the list of possible solutions. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Miesianiacal
Thanks for taking this on. (You may deserve a bravery commendation at the end of this.)

As others have noted already, Elizabeth II is monarch of only 16 of the 53 member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. So, neither the Commonwealth Flag nor Elizabeth's personal flag would apply in the context we're focused on.

The problem of the British flag also is one that stems from the existence of another problem: the UK being named and the remaining Commonwealth realms being lumped into "15 other states". Even if there were a solution to the flag issue, the pro-UK bias in that row and the inconsistency in the overall list (which itself includes a double-standard; see the entry for Giscard) would remain if the wording "United Kingdom and 15 other states" were unaltered. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  22:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we were to list them all, would you be inclined to list the 16 former States, not mention them, or simply state that there are 16 former States? JQTriple7 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no real problem with listing the states formerly headed by Elizabeth II. It would show readers which countries she is the incumbent leader of and which she is no longer leader of and for how long she was leader of those states, as is consistently done for all the other former leaders in the list. The only other way I can conceive of dealing with this is to somehow link directly to the "Titles and succession" table at Elizabeth II, which already covers such information. But, the whole line for Elizabeth II in List of the oldest living state leaders would have to be changed, a note explaining the inconsistency included, and biased wordings like "United Kingdom and 15 other" still avoided. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  19:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue of removing all the flags is a red herring; it's drawing focus away from the other problems with Elizabeth II line of the list as is. As I noted above, the flag problem is really just the result of the existence of another problem: the random highlighting of the UK (which itself leads to inaccuracy and inconsistency in the list). Keeping in or taking away the flags won't resolve the latter issues.

Additionally, the drop-down idea, as executed, did not resolve those problems, either. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  20:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
The Commonwealth of Nations proposal, is unacceptable. Most of the 53 member states are republics & so don't have Elizabeth II as a monarch or as their head of state. There's also monarchy members (example:Swaziland) which don't have Elizabeth II as their monarch or head of state. Per WP:WEIGHT (via international recognition) it would be best to go with Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms or Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other states. We can also add the 16 former states. Also, because of the above, the Commonwealth of Nations flag, would also be unadvisable. The Union Jack would suffice at that article. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out my oversight. Yes, that certainly would not do. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of all flags from the article, would solve part of the dispute. They're decorative, but I believe un-necessary if they're going to cause such commotion. This shouldn't be a huge move, as the flags were only added earlier this month. PS- Besides, country flags are better suited for sports articles, like the Olympics. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Neve-selbert
I have just attempted another effort at resolving this dispute—to some extent, at least. Neve-selbert (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Killuminator
The Commonwealth of Nations is an intergovernmental organization, not a state. The article in question deals with leaders of states (even defunct states). I think our first step should be to establish whether the discrimination exists at all before we approach proposing alternative models. The current and disputed formulation goes along this line United Kingdom and 15 other states. Is this a discriminatory formulation ? --Killuminator (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (involved topic editor)
May I intervene with the comment made at "In my opinion, listing all the realms of which Elizabeth is queen is correct, in the way Mies. proposed. It is not undue. It is true to the uniqueness of her position. If there are others in a similar  position in respect of one or more states, they too should have multiple entries. There is no established criteria for selecting one out of the many, and there is no need for Wikipedia to make some up. Its only a list! There is no good reason for leaving out the sublist for naming the other independent realms whose monarch is Elizabeth.  Compare with the Timetable at Perth Agreement, which contains  a sublist for all six states of Australia." Qexigator (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

- Moved from 's comment section, unless there is a discrepancy here? Qexigator, are you planning on remaining in this discussion? I ask so that may be aware of your involvement. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment : Please note that the word states can mean a) countries and b)federal units. The article in question deals with the first kind of states or countries if you will. --Killuminator (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Perth Agreement Table is an example for including a sublist, not an illustration of sovereign states comparable with the 16 realms having the queen as reigning monarch. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that the revision is not within the scope of this DRN. which is about listing all 15 "other" realms. Qexigator (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see there could possibly an issue with the wording '16 former states' if that is the end result, as that could imply that they are no longer states, rather than that they are now republics. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note further edit and Talk. Qexigator (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

+ The hidden flag lists  well illustrate the point that the flags as such have no informative value whatever for the article. They appear to have been introduced recently to make an otherwise dull list have some eye appeal for those who like colourful flags for their own sake. It would be better to have no flags hidden or not. Further, if the flags are retained, there is no point in naming the 16 former states (again recently introduced), whether flagged or not. The words and links in the second column of the previous version suffice : United Kingdom and 15 other independent states, each with its own national flag. Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Juan Riley (uninvolved topic editor)
I know this will be viewed as unhelpfull, but how about two lists: one actual heads of state the other symbolic heads of state? Juan Riley (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Juan Riley, will you be remaining in this discussion until the end? I ask for administrative purposes. JQTriple7 (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am paying attention. And still question whether this article need exist. Seems like it belongs in Guinness World Records not on WP. Only my thoughts. For what they are worth Juan Riley (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by volunteer moderator
So at this point we have two main avenues which we can go down, with some smaller details to work out along the way. The first is to say 'United Kingdom and 15 other states' or something along those lines, and that could be seen as sensible, and listing all 15 and possibly all 16 former would get very long and possibly unnecessary. As for selection of the United Kingdom for the mention, perhaps it could be seen as biased, but not really as 'random'. In all honesty, if anyone thinks Queen Elizabeth they think Queen of England (incorrect, I know) or Queen of the UK. She predominately resides there and everything. If we were to randomly select one of her countries and it weren't the UK, casual readers may get confused. The other option we've discussed would be to list them all. That is consistent with the others, yes, but also very long. It may not look too ridiculous but in my honest opinion its a little excessive. I guess it all comes down to what the casual reader wants to find out from the page, which is about the oldest living state leaders. Do they just want to know who the oldest living state leaders are, or do they want to know all 16 countries they lead? Perhaps they do want to know that. Undoubtedly many won't. We'd need to work out how we are going to do that. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Miesianiacal
It seems two matters are being forgotten: 1) Having "Queen (1952-present)" adjacent to "United Kingdom and 15 other countries" communicates a falsehood. 2) Listing the countries one person was simultaneously head of while clumping all but one of the countries another person is simultaneously head of into "other states" below and apart from the one named country is a double standard.

Using length as a justification appears random: where the list becomes too long has not been made clear, let alone the rationale for why the line between long enough and too long sits there. The list as a whole contains 101 countries. Why is that an okay number, but 16 is too many? Or 32? Or 117 or 133, taking the entire list into consideration? If length is of such concern, why not save space by applying the same logic to Giscard's line and there use "France and one other state" and the list is cut down to 100 countries?

The country column is there to impart what country or countries each person was or is leader of (not to put across some notion of what country a person lived or lives mostly in or even is or was most associated with). Thus, the list is simply as long as its number of relevant entries. In addition to what I've mentioned above, as well as the misleading impression the UK has some special importance above the "15 other states", cutting certain entries the way they have been is a disservice to readers simply because it hides information; any unfamiliar reader won't realise Jamaica is a country that has one of the world's oldest living state leaders as its queen or will see The Gambia has Dawda Jawara as a former president who's among the world's oldest living state leaders, but also had Elizabeth II, as well.

"It's too long" is a subjective statement that doesn't even hold up all that well. Even if it did, it wouldn't outweigh the fact listing the countries is the clearest and most neutral, accurate, and consistent way to present the information the list is intended to present. I initially thought "The Commonwealth realms" adjacent to Elizabeth II was the best solution; it is unbiased and concise. I now see it creates the same inconsistency and hides information pertinent to the list as much as "United Kingdom and 15 other states" does. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  21:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If the list were only about ranking the named persons in descending order of longevity, there would be no column for countries. Clearly countries are a key part of the list, whether with flags or not.

WP:UNDUE is not relevant; the list is not about what country the leader is most associated with, nor is Elizabeth II being monarch of Australia, Papua New Guinea, or any other Commonwealth realm a viewpoint, let alone a minority one. It is a fact and, given that, it cannot be argued a full list of realms gives undue prominence to any minority opinion. Regardless, a full list of Commonwealth realms does not make Elizabeth II appear any less associated with the United Kingdom (especially if the UK is first on that list). Those who continue to point to WP:UNDUE and say nothing else either refuse to or cannot contend with the matters of inaccuracy (Elizabeth II did not become queen of all 16 realms in 1952) and the line for Giscard (the international community views Giscard first & foremost as the French president; yet, Andorra's name appears next to his). -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  04:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Qexigator
Agreed, it all comes down to what the casual reader wants to find out from the page, which is about the oldest living state leaders. This is only a list, with links for further information if any reader is that interested. It is not about a supposed competitive rivalry between countries to get into the list, raising questions of "bias" or "double standard", but simply to rank the named persons in descending order of longevity. There was little problem before the flags appeared, and the list extended to include "former". Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
We must have the display as "United Kingdom and the 15 other...", per WP:Due and undue weight. The international community views Elizabeth II first & foremost as the British monarch. To display the list as "United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zeland..."? would be attempting to 'right perceived wrongs', which is discouraged by Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

One wonders, how will the next British monarch's coronation oath be worded. Will he (I say 'he', as the next 3 direct-in-line are male) have to mention all the Commonwealth realms by name? GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Killuminator
The 16 states no longer headed by the Queen are unnecessary. The criteria for including leaders in this articles is their age, not the the duration of their rule, the number of states they headed, both currently existing ones and defunct states. The reader is here to find out who are the oldest living statesmen and will be more familiar with currently existing states. Adding more historical info is excessive for purposes of this article. In regards to the existing states, the average reader will associate the Queen with the UK first. It looks more like a customary thing (Even the UN keeps it short and uses the formulation Queen of the UK etc.), rather than bias. --Killuminator (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion by
Making suggestion only Would the line "... Queen Elizabeth II of England/UK, ruling monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries, ..." be a reasonable compromise instead of listing all 16 countries, or relegating 15 countries into an "other" line? This is a neutrally worded line, should satisfy NPOV's Due and Undue weight section, and allows for a Reference Note, i.e., to be placed at the end of the statement which would also satisfy the desire of other editors that wish for a full list to be displayed ... simply move your mouse 2 - 3 cm and you can see the list in a "pop-up" or click and see the reference note. I make this suggestion as a copy-editor that happens to like resolving disputes, not as a mediator or DRN Volunteer. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)