Talk:State leaders by year/Archive

Contents

1 Capitalization and naming, or something 2 Proposal 3 Suggestion 4 Naming

Capitalization and naming, or something

Why is "Head of State" capitalized in the article title? It's Wikipedia policy to use lowercase when possible. - SimonP

Head of State is capitalized because it is a specific political term that is usually capitalized, as many times it is used as a title. -- Jonel

While it is often capitalized, it is not always so and thus should be lower case. Our own article is as head of state rather than Head of State - SimonP 20:41, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

A whole new title might even be preferable as heads of state is too limiting. In my opinion it would be best to have Prime Ministers, U.N. Secretary generals, Popes, etc. on the list as well. - SimonP 20:41, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Heads of State is intentionally limiting. A Head of State is distinct from a head of government; the head of state is the titular ruler while the head of government is the functional one. Often, constitutional monarchs will be Head of State, while a Prime Minister will be the head of government. This is the case in Britain, for example. Other times (Germany, for instance), there will be a President who is the elected Head of State; that person appoints a Prime Minister as head of government. Non-state organizations, such as the UN and EU among others, do not have Heads of State but rather only heads of government. Popes are Head of State in the Holy See in their role as Bishops of Rome. -- Jonel

I am aware of the difference, the question is why we should intentionally limit the list. I personally think a list of world leaders would be more useful than a list of heads of state. Knowing that Wilfrid Laurier was Prime Minister of Canada in 1897 is more useful than knowing Queen Victoria was head of state in that year. - SimonP 20:41, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to do a separate page listing world leaders? Personally, I find a listing of heads of state intriguing. I see no reason to wade through prime ministers when I want to see who was king of what when, but I see how some might like to know who was in charge. Perhaps a separate heads of government series? -- Jonel 20:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The difficulty is that there is a great deal of duplication. Pre-modern the lists would be identical, 18th and 19th century would only have slight differences, while today I can easily see a reason for separate lists. In 1783, a year from which you expunged the PMs, there were only a handful of non-head of state leaders of great importance and I see no reason to have two almost identical lists, one of national leaders and one of heads of state. - SimonP 21:02, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

For the older years, your point is valid. But, as soon as states begin to have a separation between the head of state and the head of government an important difference is created. This needs to be reflected for accuracy. I think it would be more useful to have two similar lists than to have one convoluted list with both sets of information. -- Jonel 21:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also it would be best if each article linked to the actual year article, and also to the directory of all the head of state listings at heads of state timeline. - SimonP

We're still working on the format of the pages, so we could certainly work that in. I think ugen64 is working on that. -- Jonel 20:23, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It would probably be best to have to have a bar at the top similar to what is found on all the articles in the "year in science", "year in Canada", and other such series. - SimonP 20:41, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Go for it. -- Jonel 20:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Proposal

My solution to this is to before 1850 just have a list of incumbents that has both heads of state and other important leaders. After 1850 have a list of reigning monarchs and a list of world leaders. - SimonP 21:56, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

No. Many countries have heads of state that are not reigning monarchs. If you want separate lists, make separate lists. But I really feel that there needs to be a heads of state listing. -- Jonel 22:01, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why? Why does George Bush deserve to be on a list but Tony Blair doesn't. I can see the need for a separate list of royals, but distinguishing between politicians based on whether they are heads of state or not is silly. Even in early years head of state isn't that meaningful a concept, for instance you listed Mehmet Ali as head of state of Egypt, but that certainly is not correct. - SimonP 22:08, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

As far as diplomatic contacts go, yes there is a major difference between heads of state and heads of government. When George Bush goes on a state visit to Britain, he visits the Queen, not Tony Blair. Again, many times in earlier years the head of state and head of government will be the same; Mehmet Ali was both de facto. -- Jonel 22:12, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely, but for your average encyclopedia reader why is a list of heads of state by year more important than a list of world leaders by year? - SimonP 22:25, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I see no problem with having world leaders, including both heads of state and heads of government (and Communist Party officials in communist countries) in the list. The problem with Mehmet Ali is that he was not head of a sovereign state - he was merely an (eventually) hereditary Ottoman governor. At any rate, I'd suggest a more inclusive list is not really problematic. On the other hand, I wouldn't like to create some kind of segregated list where monarchs are separated from other heads of state. john 22:18, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Rather than making hundreds of poor stubs that will be pain to edit later, why don't we all work on one article that we can then use as a template for all other years. I would suggest 1816 or 2003 - SimonP 22:28, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I like 1816 incumbents better. ugen64 01:26, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

2003 has been revamped since the above comments. -- Jonel 16:00, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion

If you'd look at 1816 incumbents, I described some really obscure countries/leaders. I think that we should only include the following:

1. Countries that exist today (as long as they were a colony, country, etc. at the time WITH A DEFINED LEADER)

What's wrong with countries that no longer exist? Listing monarchs of Prussia or Piedmont-Sardinia or Bavaria is surely more important than princes of Liechtenstein, isn't it? One of the things I've thought was cool about this idea is that it gives you an idea of what countries that existed at that time, rather than who was leading modern countries then. Along those lines, I think countries should be listed according to the names by which they were known at the time. Calling the head British official in the Gold Coast in 1816 the leader of "Ghana" makes little sense. I do agree that if a country which exists today does not have a defined leader, it should not be listed. john 16:34, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agree with John that major historical entities are important. I disagree that non-sovereign states should be listed. It just makes things confusing because people will make the wrong assumptions.--Jiang 03:01, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1. Colonies that exist today, WITH A DEFINED LEADER

A couple of issues with colonies. 1) What do we do with colonies that are countries today, but which were part of bigger colonies in the past? For instance, most of the west African countries had their own French governor, but were part of the larger colony of French West Africa, which had a governor-general. The identity of the governor-general is clearly more important than the identities of his various subordinates. 2) What about protectorates that still have native rulers, like Cambodia or Vietnam under the French, or the various Indian princely states? john 16:34, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps situations like that should be treated like current Commonwealth countries? See 2003_incumbents#North America and the Caribbean for those. (Note - "Commonwealth Monarch" should probably be "Head of Commonwealth" on those) -- Jonel 15:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1. Currently disputed countries THAT HAVE SOME RECOGNITION OR MAJOR HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE (Taiwan, Abkhazia, Palestine, etc.)
2. Countries that were the focus of a major war, but were not recognized widely (Confederate States of America, ex.)

If not recognized widely (or actually, perhaps for any time that there is a governmental rift), perhaps they should be a subheading under the recognized country? See China in 2003 for example -- Jonel 15:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We should look at effective exercise of sovereignty as a criteria. What about countries that were under suzerainity, like Tibet? --Jiang 03:01, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1. Large countries that were taken over in the last 100 years (Tibet, the various portions of Yugoslavia, etc.: use your own judgment)

What's wrong with small countries that ceased to exist more than 100 years ago, like, say, Tuscany? Among other things, one might note that we actually have a page on, say, Grand Duke Peter Leopold of Tuscany, while we almost certainly don't have articles on, say, who the British colonial governor of the Cayman Islands was at the same time, but the policy you propose suggests that we should list the latter, but not the former. john 16:34, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This way, we have some sort of continuity. Also, use the old short name (Korea instead of South or North Korea, Czechoslovakia instead of the separate parts, etc.), but not the old long name (France instead of French Republic is okay). The format should be the following:

• Country name - Leader name, King/Ruler/etc. of country (Year1-Year2)
  • Colony name - Leader name, Governor/Commandant/etc. of colony (Year1-Year2)
  • Example situation - Leader name, Governor of example (Year1-Mon. 12, 1999); Leader 2 name, title ONLY IF DIFFERENT THAN PRECEDING ONE (to date2); Leader 3 name, title ONLY IF DIFFERENT THAN PRECEDING ONE (to date3)

Not entirely sure about this format... It looks much cleaner if the different leaders are on different lines. Also, I think everyone should have their title listed even if it is the same. -- Jonel 15:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Naming conventions should be the following:

• Henry I of England, James II of Spain, etc. - always disambiguate with common names (judgment) or large, traditional monarchies (Britain, Spain, etc.)

Yes, but use piping so we have [[Henry I of England|Henry I]], King of England. john 16:34, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And of course, wiki the King of England as well - [[List of British monarchs|King of England]] -- Jonel 15:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Asadiho-towhta awoirja rotij at - don't disambiguate obscure names
• Shiekh Muhammed Ali Ali Muhammed Muhammed Muhammed Barry Bonds - even common long names should not be disambiguated unless they could cause confusion
• Osama Bin Laden of Azerbaijan - this name could cause confusion; use a pipe, to create [[Osama Bin Laden of Azerbaijan|Osama Bin Laden]]
• Maria I of Portugal - foreign names should be either translated (such as Francois --> Francis) or disambiguated, the latter being preferable

Maria I of Portugal is normally called that in English. I've never heard "Mary I of Portugal". john 16:34, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Most of the pages you link to should have the English form. It would probably be best to use that if it looks right. -- Jonel 15:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Use whatever naming conventions are common for royalty. Britain generally goes: Charles, Prince of Wales (for really really really high-ranking ppl, usually in the immediate royal family), Elizabeth II of England (for monarchs), George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham (name, followed by numeral and title), or simply Bernard L. Montgomery for someone that is a Viscount, Marquess, etc., unless he's notable or received a higher peerage later.

No, when he's a viscount, he should be called "Viscount Montgomery of Alamein", even if the article is (and should be) at "Bernard L. Montgomery". Use piping. john 16:34, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Honorary/courtesy titles should be omitted (i.e. "sir", "lady", "king", etc.) unless it's "Shiekh", another commonly used title (don't know how that'd occur).

Sir, Lady, Lord (as prenomen, like Lord John Russell), ought to be used, imo.

Dame as well, since it's the equivalent of Sir.

• ALWAYS USE YOUR JUDGMENT. If you see some obscure situation that doesn't follow these rules, feel free to do whatever you wish; if it's really messed up, someone'll notice and fix it, hopefully.

ugen64 02:33, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with pretty much all your suggestions, we should make sure to limit the number of minor leaders to keep the page usable. Smaller leaders can go to nation timelines, e.g. all the "year in Canada" articles have the Canadian Premiers listed.

Naming

The major unresolved issue is what should we call these pages? There are number of options that have been tried, but all have flaws:

• Heads of state in XXXX - overly limiting
• XXXX incumbents - vague, questionable grammar
• Rulers in XXXX - is GWB really the ruler of the US
• XXXX world leaders - term has other meanings
• List of national leaders in XXXX - nation is an awkward term

Any other suggestions? - SimonP 03:30, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)~

List of governmental leaders in XXXX

It is a bit long, but we do need to have 'list of' in the title because it is a list. It is limiting, but see below for my suggestion of splitting it between states/state-like entities, IGOs and secular NGOs, and religious institutions. -- Jonel 16:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Personally I think that this is a terrible title. Incumbent what? Yes, I can figure it out if I think about it, but an encyclopedia should be more clear than that. "Incumbent" is usually an adjective and it's awkward to me to see it as a noun. Moreover, I think the title should be prefaced by "List of..." Moncrief 01:40, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I've always felt that the List of incumbents name is also a bit wonky grammatically. What alternative would you support? - SimonP 02:55, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I really have no problem with "List of Heads of State in XXXX". I understand the limitations to that title, but I was intrigued by the original concept and didn't necessarily care that British prime ministers and the like would have to be omitted.

If the intent is to have a list of who actually held the reins of power in a nation in cases in which it was not the Head of State, then a title like "List of national leaders in XXXX" might suffice. That has its own mild awkwardness (mostly around the word "nation," which a lot of these states weren't), but it beats "incumbents" by a long shot. Moncrief 03:10, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Listing all the incumbents of everything is utterly ridiculous. If you want to list heads of government, then either rename "Heads of state and government in YEAR" or make a separate series of page. I suggest the latter, given how many countries are in the world and how cluttered things will become. --Jiang 05:58, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by division? Do you mean a separate head of state and head of government listing? Or some other divisions, by continent, by national leaders vs. international organization leaders? I personally think one list with clear sub-headings is ideal. Both 2003 incumbents and 1816 incumbents are looking great, with a wealth of useful information. - SimonP 14:37, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I mean a separate HOS and HOG listing, but listing them together doesn't seem a bad idea. While 2003 incumbents may look fine now, what if I added the governors of all 50 United States? Mayors of every major city in the world? Where does it stop? "incumbents" is too vague. It should be clear that we limit the list to the HoS and HoG. Adding more without setting a threshhold is too ambitious. --Jiang 22:30, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree we need a clear threshold, a better name for this series would also be good. Here's what I think should be left out:

• No leaders of subnational entities (but a list to United States Governors in 2003 would be fine)
• No opposition leaders, house leaders, judges, generals, cabinet ministers or other such secondary positions
• no mayors
• no leaders of NGOs, like businesses, charities, or terrorist groups.
• Only leaders of major faiths (i.e. with millions of followers)

-SimonP 23:11, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps leaders of faiths should be taken out. Only the pope really functions as anything like a world leader, and he's listed anyway at Vatican City, or Holy See, or Papal States. The other points you make here seem good - basically, we're saying, only heads of state and heads of government. Of course, this is clear enough now. It becomes a lot less clear in the 19th century and earlier, where frequently there isn't any official "Head of Government". You'll have a "leading minister", or a couple of leading ministers, or whatever. This is especially irksome before 1848 on the continent - afterwards, things started to be rationalized a bit. But what about Austria-Hungary? There was no single "prime minister". There were prime ministers of Austria and of Hungary, and the Foreign Minister acted as a kind of quasi-prime minister for the whole thing. I'd suggest that all three should be listed on the page. At any rate, I think the big question is what to do with colonial entities. I'd suggest that they not be listed with the sovereign states, to be honest, but listed somewhere else. Perhaps some type of color-coding could be used to show to what country they belonged. But I dunno. It would become far too cumbersome to list them with the country of which they're a colony's leaders, and it would be confusing to list them among the sovereign countries. At any rate, what do people think of 1957 incumbents? john 23:21, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the case of Austria-Hungary after semi-unification, I would say the main entry is A-H with subentries Austria and Hungary. Of course, this is probably going to have to be a case-by-case basis.
Maybe a parenthetical phrase after a colony's name should be used to identify that it is a colony and what power it is a colony of? -- Jonel 15:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

2003 incumbents is already 43kB long. Therefore, I think we should keep the religious leaders separate, eg Religious leaders in 2003. Given that we already have list of national leaders, and unless someone can come up with a better name, we should use "List of national leaders in XXXX" or "National leaders in XXXX" and assume that people will understan we don't really mean to use "nation". Otherwise, why not "list of heads and government in XXXX"?

I would agree with separating the religious leaders and keeping the Pope listed only as a secular head of state. I do think keeping the heads of the U.N., E.U., and other international organizations is useful, however. I'm just not sure what a good cut off would be for international organizations, we proably don't need all the ones that are currently there. - SimonP 23:45, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps three different pages (split along the lines of the main headings in 2003) would work. Each should connect to the other two, probably at the top of the page. Of course, the Pope gets listed on both the List of governmental leaders and the List of religious leaders -- Jonel 15:59, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That should work, so how about List of religious leaders in 2003, List of governmental leaders in 2003 and List of international organization leaders in 2003. We can dispense with the international series before ~1950, but the other two can continue into the distant past. - SimonP 16:46, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

How about semi-autonomous/independent entities, like Tibet pre-1959? --Jiang 23:28, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Any limits should only be guidelines, and we should all use our best judgement for who is listed. Tibetan leaders pre-1959, Austro-Hungarian power brokers, the leader of Taiwan, the governors of of ninteenth century Egypt, etc. should all be included.