Talk:List of state leaders by date

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Notes from construction

Here are some of the principles I used in putting this page together. Hope they help in maintaining it.

  1. Only included CURRENT heads of state.
  2. Included the same heads of state as listed on the List of state leaders page. Many republics have two leaders - a formal head-of-state, such as a President, and an excecutive leader, such as a Prime Minister. Both are included. Some states have more than two leaders eg Monarch, Governor General and Prime Minister. All are included.
  3. Each person should be listed only once, they can have only one current continuous period as leader. Title may change, and this is noted. They may hold more than one postion, such as Queen Elizabeth II, that is also noted.
  4. The position given for the head of state is their current position, if they have held a number of positions since the date they assumed the office, the former positions are given as notes.
  5. The date used is the start date of their current continuous period as a state leader, eg if a PM lost an election and won a subsequent election to commence a second term, the date is the start of the second term.
  6. The date used is the date they assumed office, eg by inaguration, not the date of an election win, unless the inaguration date is not known
  7. If they were considered the state leader, but were not officially holders of the office, the earlier date is used. Eg acting Prime Ministers who subsequently became PM, are listed with the date they became acting PM, eg Ehud Olmert of Israel is considered to have started on Jan 5th 2006
  8. The dates come from other WP pages - individual bio pages, or the related list-of-officeholders page, but should also be verified against Rulers.org, I have not done this
  9. Short interruptions, eg as the 3-day Venzeulan Coup of 2002 are not taken into account in deciding the start-date
  10. For Royals, periods of regency are not counted, since there is another person, the outgoing Royal, still in the role.
  11. Where there is a complication about the date given, I have used reference notes to explain the background.
  12. Reference notes are used so that the list remains simple to read without too much confusing information. The list can just be date, name, country, position, with the details elsewhere. Allows for easy comparison.

Enjoy, and help keep it up to date.--Rye1967 06:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that rules nine and ten should be used. The interruptions may be short, but they were still not in the position until the interruption was over. As for rule ten, we cannot have seven apply either then, which is also ridiculous. The actor/regent is not official until they truly take office, but if they do take office directly after the acting/regency, the date that began the acting/regency should be used. Therequiembellishere 20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions and Remarks

Hi, Rye. I see you have finished the work, and that's indeed a very good work. I have few suggestions to improve it, but I know from my experience how painful it can be to make a work, and then someone else comes and changes all what you've made because he has views on things he feels are far better... So, I don't want to change anything without your consent.

Thx. I do have some opinions so I do like discussing changes first. I dont own the article of course, so once its bedded in, Im not going to stay involved.--Rye1967 16:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I think the general presentation can be improved, using cells with fixed widths. For example, in List of popes, you can find such a board. If you agree, I can do it myself.

Agree. In my wide-screen browser, the date col wraps around in places. Do whatever you think--Rye1967 16:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, the "1996 to 2000" section is too long. It could be replaced by shorter one-year-sections.

Agree. I considered making 1999 its own section, but either way is fine. I also think that the 2nd half of the current year, ie 2006 at the moment, should be its own section to keep the list to a reasonable size--Rye1967 16:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thirdly, you tried to expose as simple as possible some very complicated facts. I think, it's not really possible and a happy medium must be found between the complicated reallity of facts and a simple presentation. If I take your Notes for construction one by one, here is what I think:

I need more time to read these so I will come back to it later.--Rye1967 16:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. I agree.
  2. I agree.
  3. I agree in theory, but in practice it's more difficult. When a leader changes posts, his power changes too. A prime minister isn't a president and a president isn't a prime minister. Furthermore, even if one leader changes posts, there is nearly always a few days gap between the first one's end and the second one's begin. I propose (as I have already done with Sam Hinds and Artur Rasizadə) to show them twice: once with the date of their first continuous post in office, and the detail of their different continuous posts, and the other one with only their current post. Of course, we can play on presentation or typography to find a good way to show they are in continuous power from an older date. For exemple we can write this second mention with smaller letters, or in a coloured line, and so on.
This is the one that I have issue with. Either the person is a state leader or not. If they change post, they either remain a state leader (but with a new post) - so the original date stays eg Fidel Castro, they are no longer a state leader - in which case they are dropped from the list, or they become a state leader, in which case they are added to the list. If someone changes from PM to Pres, they probably were a state leader before the change and remain so. If there is a gap, then we either decide to ignore it, or take it into account for start-date. If we take it into account, it means that that there was a break in the period of state leadership when we consider that the person was not a a state leader, so only the new date is used. In all cases, we should justify what we do in the refs/notes.
I think that having a person more than once in the list is confusing for the reader. By definition, they are looking for the start-date for a particular person assuming office. We should advise a start-date, and give them the info in notes in case they wish to consider an alternative date. No-reader is going to like scrolling up and down through the list to find a 2nd piece of info on a person. Also, when I look at the sections on Sam Hinds and Artur Rasizade there is a multitude of dates and periods to think about. As a reader, I want to be lazy and not have to analyse anything to draw conculsions if not necessary. So we should simplify it to say '<date became state leader> <name...etc> Notes:<pos1> then <pos2> from <start date>, <pos3> from date and leave everything else to the notes. The list should answer the question, what date did Sam Hinds become a state leader, in his current 'term'. More info should be in notes, saying 'We have chosen x, but here is more info ....'. Ref notes are the system for jumping fwd/back in the list for more info rather than saying 'Scroll up to 1.June.96 etc'.
If a person is in the list twice, we are giving two dates for when they became a state leader. If we are are talking about a continuous period, by definition, there cannot be two start-dates. We could explain more in the into notes, but readers like me will ignore those and decide to understand the list construction just by reading the list contents.
I agree that I am trying to generalise a very varied system, and trying to simplify things that are not simple.
I've mucked up the numbering by posting this response here, but I know which is which anyhow --Rye1967 00:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. I agree.
  2. I agree. But small gaps are possible, not only because of a lost election or, as Hugo Chávez, because a failed coup, but for institutional reasons. King Baudouin I of Belgium, for example, abdicated one day to avoid to sign a law allowing abortion and he let his governement, acting as regent for the empty throne, to sign it. The day after the Parliament voted to put back the king on the throne (of course King Baudouin is dead and no more in this list, but it is just an example). Another example: In Guyana, when the Office of president is vacant, the prime minister becomes president. When president Janet Jagan decided to retire for health reason, prime minister Sam Hinds steped down to allow the parliament to chose an other prime minister, who became president two days after and Sam Hinds was renamed prime minister. So I agree with Principle #5, but the "current term in office" must be understood without taking "technical gaps" in account, but thoses gaps must be explained in a note.
  3. I agree.
  4. I agree, but the date of their inauguration as rightful leader must be showed two. I think it's simpler too show with the same means when an "acting prime minister" becames a "prime minister" as we do when a "prime minister" becames a "president" for example.
  5. I agree and I can verify all the dates on Rulers.org myself.
  6. I agree. Same remarks as #5.
  7. I agree: it must not be counted, but it can be indicated in a note. In some cases (for example now in Liechtenstein) the regent acts as the sovereign himself and for him. So the regent's role is very near the role of governor-general you can find in Canada or Australia. If we include governors-generals in the list, why not the regents?
  8. I agree, excpet for the definitition of "note". See next point:
  9. I don't agree at all. If the board is well presented, as List of popes is, for example, there is no "confusion" problem. If every note is a footnote, there will be two many footnotes, it will be hard to find the good one and nobody will read it. I find it far better to place the notes in the board itself. If you want, we can add another column to seperate the office and the remarks. For exemple for Kim Yong Nam, we can write "Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly" in one column and "Performing ceremonial head of state functions only. The "highest post of the state" has been declared on September 5, 1998 to be the post of Chairman of the National Defence Commission hold by Kim Jong Il since April 9, 1993." in another. Or for Sam Hinds, we can write "Prime minister" or even "Various offices" in one column and the details in the next column. I think the list can be clear enough without any footnotes and all the information in front of every proper name.
Ok, I see your point. I like the layout of list of popes, so I don't have any objections to that. Although the list is not as 'tidy', it is easier for readers to get the info they need. -- Rye1967 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of my remarks? As I have already said, I won't change anything in the presentation without your consent. Once again, thank you for your work.

Švitrigaila 11:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discssion on start-date from talk-page

Hi, Good suggestion on the seperate col for state and office. It means slightly less work for me in converting the data into the page. I've taken the dates of office from the individual WP bio pages/List of leader pages, so if you are sure of the date changes that you have made, could you update the relevant bio pages also? Also, take a look at the entry in the list for Denis_Sassou-Nguesso Republic of the Congo, there seems to be a conflict in your chanages between 1996 and 1997.--Rye1967 21:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi too. I know an excellent site about the subjetct. It's Rulers.org. About Sassou-Nguesso, it's difficult to say the real beginning of his rule because he returned to power after a coup d'état and a short civil war.
There can be a presentation problem about rulers who changed offices or who stepped down only for a short time. I think it's better to show the date of the first appointement when there is a small interruption between two terms... but what can we call small ?... A good exemple is Guyana Prime Minister Sam Hind. The constitution says in case of vacancy of the presidency, the Prime Minister becomes President. So Sam Hind stepped down twice as Prime Minister only to let the ruling party to appoint a new Prime Minister who became immediately President, and Sam Hind became president again. The same applies to Artur Rasizadə in Azerbaijan. But how to decide if an interruption is short enough?
Švitrigaila 23:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure. I just think we should pick a date and see if anyone else wants to change it. I think there should be only one entry per person though.--Rye1967 06:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Should Ali Abdullah Saleh be under 1978 instead of 1990? I tend to think the earlier date is better because it more accurately represents how long he's been in power; however, a technicality issue (N. Yemen and unified Yemen) obviously exists about it.

Also, the question raised above about leaders who spend periods out of office before returning is quite significant. Quite a few people would appear further up the list if we applied a different standard to this. A case could be made for putting people at the date they first held the office without consideration for intervening periods; it might be worthwhile to have different lists with different rules. Everyking 03:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Governor-Generals

Should we include them? I mean, they are not the official head of state. Therequiembellishere 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

When I was creating this page, I included all the offices who are included on the List of state leaders page. If GGs were to be removed, they would need to be removed from both lists. I don't have any preference myself--Rye1967 17:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-independence rule

If Michael Somare's period as chief minister before independence is not included (John Compton is another example), then Hassanal Bolkiah's should not be either, and he should be listed under 1984, not 1967. Also, Abdullah did not become acting ruler "c. January 1 1995". I don't have an exact date, but it seems Fahd suffered his stroke in early December 1995. If you don't know a date, you just don't include one; you don't add a wrong date as a placeholder. Everyking 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As for Bolkiah, you're absolutely correct and that should be changed to Brunei's date of independence. As for Compton, you are correct there also, and you will notice that his terms as Chief Minister and Premier of Saint Lucia are not included in the article. Therequiembellishere 23:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Head of Government of San Marino

I wrote to the government of San Marino regarding their Head of Government--
from therequiembellishere@gmail.com
to info.segristituzionale@pa.sm
date Jul 15, 2007 8:30 AM
subject Head of Government
To whomever may be kind enough to answer this,
I must first and foremost apologise for not being able to compose this letter in Italian, as the time is late and I cannot do it at this moment in time.
Of course, I am not e-mailing you to tell of my insomnia, but to ask a question as someone who is avidly into geopolitics and as a contributor to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia. There is a question among the community as to whether Secretary of State for Foreign and Political Affairs Fiorenzo Stolfi is the true Head of Government of the Most Serene Republic of San Marino, or if the Captains-Regent Alessandro Mancini and Alessandro Rossi are the Heads of State and Heads of Government. I do not mean this as, for example, Suriname, where their President is the Head of State and Head of Government, though their Vice President exercises a role similar to a Prime Minister.
I would greatly appreciate a quick response as I will not have internet access after two weeks and would like to resolve the problem among the Wikipedia Community as quickly as possible.
Many thanks,
Benjamin (last name omitted)


from antonella.giardi.segristituzionale@pa.sm
to therequiembellishere@gmail.com
date Jul 18, 2007 4:51 AM
subject Fw: Head of Government
Fiorenzo Stolfi is Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Captains Regent Alessandro Mancini and Alessandro Rossi are Heads of State.
The State Congress (Governement) is a "corporate body" composed of 10 Secretary of State and there is no Head of Governement because this specific role is not provided for by our constitution.
Antonella Giardi

Therequiembellishere 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The O le Ao o le Malo is a ceremonial president

 The references in this article may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources.
Please help by checking whether the references meet the criteria for reliable sources. Further discussion may be found on the talk page.
This article has been tagged since July 2007.

I wrote to the Samoan government's website at and the response was that it was a ceremonial presidency.


from therequiembellishere@gmail.com
to contact@govt.ws
date Jul 15, 2007 2:12 AM
subject O le Ao o le Malo
mailed-by gmail.com
To whomever this letter concerns,
I write to you as someone who is avidly into geopolitics and as an amateur contributor to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Within the community, there is a question as to whether your Head of State should be seen as an elective monarch or as a ceremonial president, which would simultaneously answer as to whether the Independent State of Samoa should be considered a parliamentary monarchy or a parliamentary democracy.
I would graciously appreciate if this could be answered quickly, as I will by cut off from internet access in two weeks and would like to resolve the conflict within the Wikipedia Community as soon as possible.
Many Thanks,
Benjamin (last name omitted)


Response:


from presssecretariat@samoa.ws
to therequiembellishere@gmail.com
date Jul 17, 2007 8:08 PM
subject Re: O le Ao o le Malo
Talofa Benjamin,
Thank you for your enquiry. The Independent State of Samoa is a representative government. Our Head of State is a ceremonial president. Being free from politics, any law will not become law unless assented to by the Head of State.
Regards,
Deborah Mauinatu
Office of the Government Press Secretariat

Therequiembellishere 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chrisantemum Throne

Chrysanthemum Throne is the name given to the Japanese Imperial Throne. That is, by extension of its meaning, the name of the post. "To be on the throne" means to "fill the office of sovereign". It's neither a familly name nor a dynastic name. Švitrigaila 19:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acting and Regent

Should we have them on the main table with a note saying who they're acting for, or how it is now? (I prefer the former). Therequiembellishere 00:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's okay the way it is now, but if you want to add info, go ahead. —Nightstallion 16:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I mean, we currently have something, like, Fidel Castro on the list and a reference note saying that Raul is the Acting President, and Hans-Adam II is on the list with Alois in a reference note saying when he became Prince-Regent. I think we should have the Actor on the list with a reference note saying that they are acting for [person] with that person's dates as well. Therequiembellishere 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mswati

After his father died, there were three people (one after the other) who assumed the regency. Should they be considered Mswati's regents or his father's regents? Therequiembellishere 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Botswana and San Marino

This Countries should be updated!84.134.67.149 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)