Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
So what makes rulers.org a reliable source? Take care you arent inundated with messages claiming you are appropriating unused or not conventional name issues.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from List of state leaders in 1986. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DustiSPEAK!!12:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed content
Hi Dusti! The reason I removed content from the List of state leaders in 1986 page (and from the list of state leaders pages 1990-1984) is because the government-in-exile of Estonia has been included, which is totally inconsistent and illogical because a) no other governments-in-exile are included in the state leaders lists and b) it wouldn't even make sense to include any, since those pages list the actual leaders of states regardless whether they gained their power by constitutional means or not. And the very existence of a government-in-exile is merely a political act, and has no bearing on who actually runs the state. Any thoughts?
ZBukov (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because his title was President of the National Council for Democracy and Development for only two days, 22 December and 24 December, when he became President. The all extra titles are superfluous. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know exactly what I did. We don't put long, unruly names. We put the most common name. It isn't necessary to put former titles there, even if title changes because the office is the same. That's why we have articles. It's perfectly clear that it's directed as the Spanish monarch of Andorra, not Spain; it's equally clear that it's directed as the French monarch of Andorra, not France. There isn't another Macedonia, so there's no need to specify -- regardless of other entry names for international bodies. They Swiss Federal Councillors are to be ordered by seniority, and the added note for the vice president is to explain why they precede other councillors who assumed office prior to the vice president. The "Prime Minister of Brunei" is essentially an imaginary title and has no place but as a single sentence in his article. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When the same person holds both the head of state and head of government position, it's needless to put both. They are simply the head of state and government. Because of precedence, the head of state title is the one used. Fidel merged the positions together when he became president while Brunei became a state with Hassanal Bolkiah already as the sultan who created the prime ministerial post upon independence, he does everything as sultan and all of Saudi Arabia's prime ministers were either the king or regent. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I hadn't seen the first comment. My last message was about the Guinean president. Yes, and that "external sovereignty" is what makes the country a state. And again, superfluous titles are completely and utterly unnecessary. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly have you removed notes about Estonia before regaining independence? It was occupied by the USSR and HAD a government in exile. Now I am going to have to re-add them into the article. Stop pushing your POW in these articles. H2ppyme (talk.) 06:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are at it again. Please re-add the leaders of Estonia during Soviet occupation. Yes, they did not have any real power in Estonia, but still, the Government of Estonia recognizes them as heads of state or government of the Republic of Estonia and they were no less leaders as those, who served between 1918-1940 or 1991-present. In the years during World War II, many leaders for states in exile are INCLUDED and should be. Therefore please revert all your edits about Estonia, if you have no sense of history. Where do you take your standards anyway that they had to be de facto leaders?? You don't own these articles. And another thing, I really thought adding dates would help to improve the article, so anyone could add dates for other countries as well. It would be singnificantly better for leaders who served less than a year, so we could see exactly how long they were in office. Now you reverted my edits for ca. 50 articles (again), I don't want to edit them again. You create a problem - YOU fix it. Thank you. H2ppyme (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is wrong with you?? Where does it say that they can NOT be in the list?? "List of State leaders" - they were the leaders of THEIR STATE, no matter what YOU THINK they were. See this link for heads of government and this link for heads of state. YOU ARE NOT THE LEADER OF WIKIPEDIA, YOU DON'T MAKE UP RULES. They were de jure leaders, of course not de facto. But de jure is the one that is more important, that is official. Don't you know of the rule that the same person can't undo an article twice a day? Can't you see that you are the idiot in this issue?? Otherwise I do have to say you have done a good job on these articles, but you are not right every time, especially not this time? Do you think I like reverting your deletions on every article??? Do you like reverting my ADDITIONS on every article?? H2ppyme (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore I will not re-re-re-revert your deletions this time (for now), I am just going to wait until you find the part of your body that does all the thinking and hope that you can get through your silly dogmas ("no governments in exile"). H2ppyme (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As we seem to take turns calling eachother idiots, I would like to inform you that governments in exile SHOULD be added here. This list should be for any political leader of widely recognised countries - which Estonia was even during Soviet occupation. And besides, the situation for Estonia was different since de facto Estonian state ceased to exist, unlike Hungary or Poland etc. Therefore a government in exile was the only government unlike for other Eastern Bloc countries. What amazes me is that you seem to have taken these "rules" from the top of your head and YOU are the one who reverted all of my edits first - long time ago. I just discovered the abscence of my country's political leaders and re-added them here. You started the trollying. See this for any further discussion. H2ppyme (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As we seem to take turns calling each other idiots"??? When have I called you any name?? You were "civilized" enough to call me "idiot" a few lines further up, but I didn't return the compliment. So don't accuse me of what YOU were doing... And despite the fact that you never seem to provide an appropriate answer to this argument, let me repeat it: it makes no sense whatsoever to include people in the list of state leaders who was not in control of their country. Your country most unfortunately de facto lost its independence to the Soviet Union and we cannot overlook that fact. If everyone who claims to be the rightful leader of a country would be included, the list would be endless. Following your logic most of the deposed monarchs would still be included as they usually didn't abdicate but were overthrown. So in your opinion we should still include the Monarchs of Egypt, Bulgaria, Iran, Laos, etc. to this day... ZBukov (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about Estonia de facto losing its independence and that we shouldn't include every person who says they areleaders of some historical country. Then again, Estonia did get its independence back eventually and the rightful leaders, who headed their government, should be included. Why do you have a plot against adding more information that would be useful, I don't understand that. After all, there would be a note that Estonia was occupied and that the government was in exile. The real "problem" with you is that you don't want to prove that "only de facto leaders should be included". There is no rule about it in any article in the "series" nor in any talk page until I started the discussion after YOU deleted my additions WITHOUT any explanation nor an open discussion on the respective talk page. H2ppyme (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said "the rightful leaders, who headed their government, should be included". The members of the government-in-exile were NOT leading Estonia! They weren't even there!
Obviously I'm conducting no plot to omit useful information. But since the people you want to add were not leading any state and the country whose legitimate leadership they claimed wasn't independent, they definiately don't belong to the "state leaders" list. It properly belongs to the page Government in exile where your expert knowledge of Estonian history could make a valuable contribution.
I deleted your additions without any explanation? If you look into the history tab of the pages where I deleted the Estonian governments-in-exile from you will see that every time I gave the proper reason, namely that governments-in-exile shouldn't be included since they weren't in control of their country, which wasn't independent anyway. And as for the open discussion which you also claim to miss, let me again draw your attention again to the comments I wrote on your talkpage User talk:H2ppyme#Estonian governments-in-exile.
A country losing its independence and getting it back later isn't an unprecedented event. For example an independent Serbia existed until 1918 and then regained its independence in 2006. The same with Montenegro. East Timor declared its independence in 1975 and was forcibly annexed by Indonesia few days later, then in 2002 it regained its independence. And obviously it wasn't listed as independent between those two dates. Hawaii also lost its independence to the USA as a result of the illegal overthrow of its government yet people generally don't question the status quo and don't list it as an illegally occupied territory and recognize the former royal family as legitimate leaders. And you don't seem to be interested in them or any other such country either, only caring about including the Estonian governments-in-exile, while a consistent approach and principle should be applied across the page.
Also you have failed to respond to my argument that sticking only to legitimate transfer of leadership - which you insist should be the supreme principle - would mean that most political leaders of the third world wouldn't appear on the lists. As I said in Africa for example peaceful, legitimate transfer of power is the expection, rather than the rule. So appyling your principle would lead to a bizarre list of a handful of royal families, numerous countries omitted and the whole post-World War II Eastern European history erased since Communists only ever managed to grab power through revolutions, coups d'état and rigged elections. And you can easily see that such a list wouldn't be informative on who led the different countries in the given year. ZBukov (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again about the "idiot" statement. Sorry if I insulted you, but what I said was "you are the idiot in this argument", which doesn't neccessarily mean you are AN IDIOT, only that an argument USUALLY has two sides - the one that is right and the other that isn't. In this issue it is still not clear of course, but the way I see it, you acted AS an idiot, because you deleted information about A COUNTRY for 50 years and only wrote it in the comments for each year, and then edited each and every article several times (which is a good job of course), making it hard for anyone to undo anything if you happened to make a major mistake (which humans tend to do from time to time). And when re-adding the articles you deleted them without any further arguments to me or to the articles.
You still haven't explained me one thing. If you are planning to leave for example the prime minister of norway in exile (because WWII is an "exception"), are you leaving the leaders of Estonia at least the end of world war II?
About East Timor - a tragic history of course, but the state wasn't really recognised internationally, wasn't it? (correct me if I am wrong here). Estonia however was - see this list and existed for 20 years prior to Soviet occupation. And the Serbia example. Serbia's successor state was the kingdom of yugoslavia, or the kingdom of serbs, croats and Slovenes, wasn't it? Its successor state after breakup was Serbia and Montenegro, turning back to Serbia recently. All those are successor states of one another, like Russia is the successor state of the Soviet Union. The Republic of Estonia however has always been the same state, occupied by the USSR 1940-1941; by Germany 1941-1944 and again by USSR 1944-1991.
And it's mostly just Estonia that I want to add here, since Latvia and Lithuania didn't have a government in exile - they were represented by their embassies abroad. If anyone wishes to add some info about them, I would not object, but Latvians or Lithuanians should contribute this, if they want to.
Your example for African countries doesn't really apply, because their governments don't consider those historical "royal families as you said" as legal "leaders" anyway - Estonia however does consider the "leaders of the government in exile" as their "legal leaders". Saying that they shouldn't be included because they weren't de facto in control of their country is clearly POV, among the duties of leaders isn't only "controlling", but also "representing", which they were clearly doing.
Your original question was why on earth did I dare to delete Estonia from the List of state leaders pages. During the course of our discussion you agreed that the government-in-exile "did not have any real power in Estonia" and that it was the case of "Estonia de facto losing its independence". So since we agreed on both points, I think we could regard this argument as settled. I don't think that there could be a strong case for including people in the list of state leaders who neither held real power in a country, nor was their country independent. But let me repeat, despite my position on who should be included in this list, I believe that Estonia's Soviet occupation was totally unacceptable, illegal, outrageous, and a grave historical sin against your nation! I've read a bit about how much Estonia suffered and what destruction the Soviet Union perpetrated in Estonian society and I find it totally appalling. But as these events unfortunately happened we cannot pretend otherwise. We have to take the facts into account, however immoral they may be.
Concerning how long I think Estonia should feature in the list of state leaders, I have to admit that in going through the pages year by year I haven't yet reached World War II. When I do, I'll have to look around to see what is the editorial consensus on whom to include and how. Looking at the matter now, I would think the most logical approach would be to include Estonia until 1940, when it was invaded, because unfortunately it wasn't liberated at the end of the war, so its loss of independence became the permanent status quo for the next 51 years.
You raised the question of international recognition as an important factor in differentiating between the status of occupied countries. Obviously recognition is a vital element of conducting foreign relations, but even international recognition or the lack of it doesn't change facts. Take Taiwan for example. Until 1971 it was accepted in the UN as the sole representative of the whole of China. Then this recognition switched to the People's Republic of China, and fewer and fewer countries recognize Taiwan since. But this (and the "one China policy") doesn't change the fact that there are two de facto independent countries which exercise control over their own territory and have their own leaders. Or take Israel for another example. Most Arab and Muslim countries don't recognize its existence, but again it doesn't change the facts. And, by the way, you didn't say anything about the example of Hawaii which I brought up. Do you 'legally' regard it as an independent state?
As I said we should apply consistent editing principles across the pages. So if you want to contribute to the list, please do so consistently, regarding the whole of the list. If you would manage to get a consensus to include governments-in-exile, then you should dig up all of them and put them into the list, not just Estonia. Now that there are close to 200 independent countries, it would bring chaos if people would only contribute to the entry about their own country forgetting about the consistency of the rest of the list.
You may have misunderstood what I had said about Africa. What I meant was that in Africa free and fair elections and peaceful transfers of power are the rare exception. Usually it's rather military dictators overthrowing each other or winners of civil wars grabbing the presidency. So if we would only include leaders who got their power legally, there would be hardly anyone left in Africa. By royal families I meant for example the King of Bulgaria, the Shah of Iran, the King of Egypt, the King of Laos, etc who were the rightful leaders of their countries but were later removed by revolution or coup d'état, so not by legal means.
"Saying that they shouldn't be included because they weren't de facto in control of their country is clearly POV". What is POV?
Concerning your last argument: yes, representation is an important function of a national leader, but representation only doesn't make one a leader. So people without any real power claiming to represent a non-independent country just don't fit a list of state leaders, however strong legal, moral and historical claims they had to the leadership of their countries.
Now I have a problem with only until 1940 too, Estonia was no different than for example again Norway and should be included at least until the end of World War II, though I am not backing up on that until 1992 government in exile either. It's quite funny that you bring up the editorial consensus, because our recent talks here have showed no consesus, don't you think?
Furthermore I think every country should be taken separately, a country splitting up (China), creating two countries after which one of them occupies half the other's territory (Israel and Palestine) are clearly different situations than Estonia. The Hawaii example is propably the most fitting, but I'd like to bring out two facts 1) At the time, there were no such international organizations as there were prior to WWII, meaning that war (or just a political overthrow) was a "common" way of handling things. But after several states had signed the Briand-Kellogg Pact, the illegal annexation of Estonia by USSR (which too had signed the pact) could not have been tolerated. As such, the Republic of Estonia couldn't have ceased to exist, leading to the de jure non-recognition of the occupation etc. This means, pre WWI country and capital changes are a different matter and cannot be compared to Estonia. And 2) Estonia eventually got its independence back, while Hawaii clearly didn't.
No we shouldn't include all "governments in exile". All your examples about africa, kings of several states - they do not apply. The country remained intact, the government changed. If the current government recognizes them, then they SHOULD be included. But none of these examples apply. When the Estonian government in exile gave its legal power to the local government in 1992, some of the members of the exile government refused to agree with the new constitution. Mihkel Mathiesen and Kalev Ots have now self-declared themselves to be the "legal presidents of Estonia", but they are not recognized by the official government of Estonia, so I will not try to add them. (In this case their de facto power is absent, while their de jure power is questionable if not refutable as well). So I don't know many countries whose governments in exile should be included here, only the ones that escaped from foreign occupation. All I can come up with for now is the three Baltic states, if we mean past WWII.
Ending with POW (Point of view), meaning something is subjective, if you really haven't even used it here in wikipedia (though could be uncommon, but it has been used a lot on the Occupation of the Baltic states talk page I think.). What I think is POW, is that you have an opinion that ONLY de facto leaders should be included here, while I can give you references of state leaders during that era who were de jure leaders of their country. And adding Estonia or the three Baltic states would maximally make an addition of 3 countries, though as said, someone with interest should add their respective leaders for that time. The Baltics clearly were a different issue, don't mix opinion with official politics. H2ppyme (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Now I have a problem with only until 1940 too" - surprise, surprise... This whole chain of messages started with you disagreeing with what I did and almost everything I said subsequently, or if you accepted something than immediately you changed the subject slightly and turned to some other question.
As I've already said that difference between the cases of Norway and Estonia is that the latter remained occupied and annexed into another country (the Soviet Union), while Norway was liberated. So it's not quite the same situation.
Editorial consensus: if you actually read my comment, I said "I'll have to look around to see what is the editorial consensus" on the matter of WWII governments-in-exile. I didn't say you and I are at a consensus. Though actually so far you've taken up to topic of trying to treat Soviet Estonia as an independent country with three people (Kevin McE on your talkpage, Davewild on List of state leaders by year discussion page and myself on both pages), and none of us agreed with you...
I don't see why the existence of any international organization would influence (or justify?) the annexation of a country. And as I've said a few times, the illegality of Estonia's annexation doesn't change the hard fact that it lost its independence to the Soviet Union. Hawaii: obviously it hasn't regained its independence, but according to your POV it should still be treated and reported as an independent country because its annexation was illegal - that's what your approach inevitably leads to.
"All your examples about africa, kings of several states - they do not apply." On the List of state leaders by year discussion page you categorically stated that in your opinion in questions of who is the leader of a country "what is de jure, matters". But when I demonstrate what bizarre consequences your approach leads to, you just generally claim that the examples I bring up, "don't apply"?? As I said we should be editing based on consistent principles. So please make up your mind what principle you promote in this question - so far your only motivation seems to be to get the Estonian governments-in-exile into the list without any consideration of where that precedent would lead. You further claimed that applying your principle would only result in the addition of the Baltic states. I don't agree with that. Georgia was also independent in the beginning of the 20th century and then was incorporated into the Soviet Union - I imagine that it was against their will. So it certainly doesn't stop at the Baltics. "Someone with interest should add their respective leaders" - as I said: consistency is needed. If you would want to introduce and apply such editing principles, then you should collect and include all the other cases too, NOT just Estonia.
You still haven't answered my question on the List of state leaders by year discussion page: What definition of "state leader" includes absent or imprisoned people claiming to represent a non-independent country?
But anyway, since we agreed that the people we are talking about neither had any real power, nor was Estonia independent at the time, I don't think the question of whether they should be included needs more discussion. If there is no independent country to lead and they weren't exercising any power, then there isn't much to talk about. ZBukov (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I quess you didn't understand why most of your examples don't apply. The problem is that:
1)Unlike the Hawaii or Georgia case, Estonia's occupation by the USSR was not recognized de jure by numerous countries, for example maps in many western countries had Estonia as a SEPARATE country on the map, maybe within Soviet borders, but "with a different colour". I honestly don't know if any state had even recognized Georgia's independence before Soviet annexation, also I don't believe ANY state continues to recognize the Kingdom of Hawaii as an independent state.
2)Estonia, as Norway eventually got back its independence. One country was occupied for 5 years, the other nearly 50 years. Of course there is a difference, but where exactly goes the border?? Again with the World War II exception issue? One thing is clear - both countries lost their independence de facto after a foreign occupation, but since that was forceful, de jure this couldn't have been legal - the country couldn't have ceased to exist - both COUNTRIES remained occupied, one for many times longer of course. I don't want to add Hawaii here, where have you gotten that idea?? Hawaii is internationally recognized as a US State, not an independent country. Estonia was recognized as an independent country throughout the occupation by many states.
3)The previous comments on my talk page...They were about the fact that many athletes had Soviet Union or Estonian SSR in their birth place. Some had a note that they were "Soviet athletes" etc. Since the occupation was illegal, the country they were born in was still Estonia, not USSR and since their nationality was still Estonian - legally they were Estonian citizens - they couldn't have been Soviet athletes - they were Estonian. They only competed under the Soviet flag.
4)What is de jure DOES MATTER. It does not mean that everyone who feels they have de jure right for leadership, should be added - only the de jure leaders of current recognized states - where Estonia does apply. The "precedent" is not a precedent at all - Estonian officials have taken part of international meetings during the occupation - this does not mean that every historical country needs to be added. I can add Estonia if I want to, I have no NEED to add Latvia and Lithuania as well, besides they didn't have a government in exile - but their independence was not de jure lost - same as with Estonia.
5)"What definition of "state leader" includes absent or imprisoned people claiming to represent a non-independent country?" - mkay - I'd like you to see List of current heads of state and government under North Korea. "Eternal President Kim Il-sung" is still considered as a leader of the state, although he has been dead for a long time. Now I don't want to add any dead people, only people arrested by a FOREIGN POWER.
Yes it does DEMAND further discussion, you obviously don't care about my arguments - you only THINK this issue has been solved. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania case is DIFFERENT - you can not put them together with Hawaii or Georgia. In today's world independence can not be lost de jure if there has been a foreign forceful occupation. De facto and de jure independence are two very different things. And I still don't get it where do you take the rule that the country needed to be De facto independent...So basically the discussion comes down to two facts:
1)You THINK de facto independent countries need to be added I THINK de jure independent countries (whose independence was recognized of course - in THIS case countries that ARE DE FACTO INDEPENDENT today) should be added.
2)You don't understand what de jure means in this case. You keep bringing up examples like Georgia, Hawaii, China etc. that are clearly different cases.
ad 1) As I said even international recognition doesn't change facts. Arab countries' lack of recognition of Israel's existence doesn't undo it. And vice versa, international recognition of Estonia's independence didn't make Estonia independent. A government-in-exile and its recognition only means that the country in question SHOULD be independent - but in fact it isn't. By the way, a few countries did give de facto recognition to Georgia's government.
ad 2) According go my understanding the general rule is that only independent countries feature in these lists, but there is an exception made for countries that were occupied and liberated during WWII. Regarding Hawaii: you keep shifing your position. Previously your opinion was that in matters of leadership "what is de jure, matters". So according to this principe, you should still regard Hawaii's royal family as the rightful leaders of the country. They were removed illegally and consequently the country was taken over by the USA, obviously illegal, so according to your principle you don't recognize that either.
ad 4) You wrote: "It does not mean that everyone who feels they have de jure right for leadership, should be added - only the de jure leaders of current recognized states" and "this does not mean that every historical country needs to be added". By the way, its my pleasure to inform you that the examples I mentioned (Bulgaria, Iran, Egypt, Laos) ARE current and recognized states... The year when their last recognized monarch was deposed by revolution or coup d'état (so by illegal means): Bulgaria 1946, Egypt 1953, Laos 1975, Iran 1979.
ad 5) North Korea was and continues to be an independent country. By the way I don't necessarily agree with Kim Il-sung's inclusion in that list. However the people you want to include satisfy neither of the two: they were neither present/at large, nor was their country independent.
ad 5/1 The people you want to include properly belong to the Government in exile list.
ad 5/2 I believe I DO understand what de jure means. What I contest is how relevant it is in this case since the facts were contrary to the de jure situation that was recognized. You keep shifting your position in order to make Estonia appear as a different case from anything else that happened in history. As I said Georgia was partially recognized before being incorporated into the USSR. You argued for de jure succession of leadership as a principle, but you want to avoid facing the consequence of having to recognize Hawaii as independent and recognize its royal family.
Regarding pointless argument: feel free to seek other people's opinion whether a non-independent country's government-in-exile should be included in the state leaders list. ZBukov (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear ZBukov, you intentionally contradict facts and bring up totally different examples to not include Estonia. You said that they belong to the Governments in Exile list, but who said they must ONLY be included there? By that logic, every State leader should be included ONLY in their respective pages - list of kings, list of prime ministers of canada - BUT NOT HERE? De facto recognition of Georgia doesn't mean legal recognition. Also, as I see the Government of the Democratic Republic of Georgia in Exile existed until 1934, which makes it a difficult issue whether to add it or not. I would personally add some note of it, but the question here is Estonia - which had a government in exile until regaining independence. Estonia was occupied during world war II, but not liberated. Now please show me some decent FACTS or REFERENCES that only countries that WERE liberated can be added to this list. Otherwise, it will stay YOUR personal opinion, which most of your arguments are based on. And I don't keep shifting position. What is de jure does matter, but where have I questioned the legality of Hawaii being part of USA?? If the current government should recognise Hawaiian monarchs as current leaders - they should be added. In this case, they obviously don't - nor does any other country in the world... With your following argument, I was surprised you still don't understand my point: again with Bulgaria, Egypt etc....DO THEIR CURRENT GOVERNMENTS RECOGNISE HISTORICAL MONARCHS AS THEIR CURRENT DE JURE LEADERS?? I think not - so I don't want to add them, you don't want to add them, can't we stop bringing these examples up?? You mean de facto independence, but Estonia was de jure independent throughout the occupation - Estonia is still the very same state that it was prior to WWII. You say "non-independent country's government-in-exile", I say "government-in-exile of an occupied country". H2ppyme (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Otherwise, it will stay YOUR personal opinion, which most of your arguments are based on." We have both stated our opinions several times and I maintain that I don't think a country that practically lost its independence and leaders that weren't leading the country should be added to the list.
Let my try to explain again the inconsistency of your attitude concerning the examples I brought up. You said that only legal changes of leadership should be acknowledged (in questions of leadership "what is de jure, matters"). So according to this after a revolution or coup d'état we should continue to acknowledge the previous, deposed leader because he lost his power through illegal means. So if the abolition of the monarchy in Iran, Laos etc happened illegally, than the subsequent leadership has been illegal. So your question "DO THEIR CURRENT GOVERNMENTS RECOGNISE HISTORICAL MONARCHS AS THEIR CURRENT DE JURE LEADERS" is equivalent to asking "Did Soviet Estonia recognize the Estonian govenment-in-exile?" Which is clearly absurd. But according to the editing principle which you suggested - which would result in the inclusion of Estonia - the new regimes of Iran, Laos etc shouldn't be included. It's a fact that those regime changes happened and - in my opinion - it's therefore correct that they are included in these lists regardless of the legality of the regimes change and of regardless of the new regimes' international recognition.
Estonia's continued de jure independence was only a theoretical and moral matter since for 51 years it was practically part of another country and governed as such. Often the facts of life overwrite legal and theoretical considerations and official recognition. It was in illustration of this that I brought up the examples of Israel, Taiwan and deposed monarchs. But I believe that in order to reflect what the world's political leadership actually looked like in a given year, we have to stick to the facts when facts and de jure considerations come into conflict.
"I would personally add some note of it, but the question here is Estonia" - this is what I mentioned a few times. It's a rather disruptive attitude that you don't seem to be interested at all in editing these pages in a consistent, principled manner, but your sole aim seems to be that the one change you suggest should be made regardless of that happens to similar historical situations. ZBukov (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting funny and boring at the same time...As I see it, the question is quite easy. Is Estonia an independent nation? Yes - so let's check it's government website and add the heads of government. Now, for the list of heads of state, let's check the president website. I have shown you both of them already I believe. " But I believe that in order to reflect what the world's political leadership actually looked like in a given year, we have to stick to the facts when facts and de jure considerations come into conflict." - now aren't governments in exile also part of "political leadership"? The problem is, that you want to include governments in exile during world war II, but not after. "Did Soviet Estonia recognize the Estonian govenment-in-exile?" So answer please - "Did the Quisling government of Norway recognize the Norwegian government in exile?" This IS clearly absurd. But the fact stays - they were political leaders - "State leaders" as the article name goes...To not include some countries seems to be your agenda, so PLEASE stop saying that "by that logic the new regimes of Iran, Laos etc shouldn't be included". The current government of Laos, Iran etc is the currently recognized government. There is a DIFFERENCE between domestic and foreign power change. In Estonia, in 1934 Konstantin Päts stayed in power illegally, but this does not matter that the Government of Estonia doesn't recognize him as a legal Head of State. If the "coup" is organized by a foreign country, which thereafter annexes the first country illegally - it does not mean the country ceases to exist. You can call it de facto losing independence, but the STATE remained there. It had a government - which was in another country. And I thought the point of wikipedia is to give correct, referenced information. Adding Estonia to these articles doesn't contradict that. There WILL be a note that Estonia remained occupied and this was a government in exile. H2ppyme (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the question is quite easy. Was Estonia an independent nation? As you yourself admitted, Estonia de facto lost its indepenendence (for 51 years). Was the government-in-exile Estonia's "political leadership"? As you yourself admitted, they "did not have any real power in Estonia". So without an independent state and without holding any executive power how could they have been state leaders? Only morally and in constitutional theory but not in real life. And I stand by my view that when facts and de jure considerations come into conflict, we have to stick to the facts in order to represent the world as it really was, not how it should have been.
You do keep shifting your position! (Or maybe YOU don't understand what de jure means.) You did write that in your opinion in questions of leadership "what is de jure, matters". But when I bring up examples of illegal regime changes, your reply is that those governments are currently recognized... However de jure and recognized are two VERY different things! The de jure situation is a matter of law and legality, and recognition is a political act which doesn't change facts. So if something is recognized it doesn't make it legal and vice versa (e.g. Kosovo's independence and subsequent recognition despite UN Security Council Resolution 1244). So if you don't stand by your opinion ("what is de jure, matters") anymore, since it would clearly lead to absurd consequences, admit it!
You may not have noticed but the question about Soviet Estonia's recognition of the government-in-exile was a rhetorical one to illustrate how illogical your original question ("DO THEIR CURRENT GOVERNMENTS RECOGNISE HISTORICAL MONARCHS AS THEIR CURRENT DE JURE LEADERS") was...
And I continue to find it unhelpful and disruptive that you just push for the implementation of your personal view and assessment of Estonian history without any regard for consistent and principled editing of the pages in question. ZBukov (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"de jure and recognized are two VERY different things" That's where you ZBukov got it all wrong. Anybody recognizing anybody de jure, means simply legally recognized by this somebody. Saying "So if something is recognized it doesn't make it legal and vice versa" has gone completely wrong. That's what de jure, de facto in the context is all about, it's about recognizing any country's existence either de jure (legally) or de facto (fatually). For example Estonia was recognized by many countries as de facto part of the Soviet Union, but only de jure as pat of the Soviet union by Soviet satellite states and some others. Th US , Vatican etc didn't recognize Estonia as part of USSR either de jure nor de facto (meaning, the for the officials of thse countries it was forbidden to visit the territory of Estonia because it was considered ilegally occupied by the USSR) . On the Estonian government in Exile, the only official and recognized representations of the Republic of Estonia during the era (1940-1991) were the Estonian diplomatic missions abroad. For example the Estonian embassy/consulate in the US remained open and fully accredited during the entire period. That is how for example you can find Estonia among other nations sending Apollo 11 Goodwill Messages to the moon in 1969. So Estonia was clearly recognized as an independent state during the time. Should Estonian government in Exile be part of the list, that's what's under the dispute over here? I personally don't really care if t is or not. But at the same time the fact is, the government in Exile wasn't recognized by anybody at the time unlike the Estonian diplomatic missions abroad that remained open in many countries during the entire period of the Soviet occupation.--Termer (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the two types of state recognition (de jure and de facto). However the de jure concept came up in H2ppyme's opinion that in matters of leadership "what is de jure, matters". This could only refer to two things: either international recognition of a government, or the historical / Wikipedia editor assessment of the situation. My above remarks were about demonstrating that only considering the de jure situation in accepting a state leader as such or not leads to bizarre consequences. I don't contest the fact that the Estonian government-in-exile and Estonia's independence was recognized by foreign governments (de jure, de facto, or both) during the country's illegal Soviet occupation. The point where our views differ is that in my opinion the exiled government of a country that de facto wasn't independent for 51 years shouldn't feature on a list of state leaders since - despite any amount of diplmatic recognition - they weren't actually leading Estonia, which in turn wasn't functioning as an independent state. ZBukov (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the thing that Estonia still functioned as an independent state. For example the territories of lets say Consulates/Embassies are considered also the territory of the country and those officially accredited diplomatic missions were functional institutions representing the Republic of Estonia in the Western block. The only thing neither the government in Exile nor lets say the Estonian embassy to the US had control over the territory in Estonia, and that's another story. So yeah, they were not leading Estonia, they were leading the Republic of Estonia in exile.--Termer (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. regarding the dispute here than it obviously originates from the fact that Estonians even today consider the government in Exile to be their state leader during the years of Soviet occupation.--Termer (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to take issue with your statements. According to my understanding Estonia, the roughly 45.000 km2 Baltic country, unfortunately did not function as an independent state after 1940 (interal and external sovereignty). The territory of the embassies do not form part of the sending state (a country's size doesn't change with the opening or closure of an embassy), what's more the embassies don't even enjoy extraterritorial status within the receiving state. I guess the situation of the network of recognized Estonian embassies and consulates without an independent country could be likened to the status of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, except that the latter is sovereign and extraterritorial, which embassies are not. So while the Republic of Estonia as a legal entity continued to be recognized, it didn't have control over the state of Estonia (the territory and the population).
Regardless of Estonians' ex post facto recognition and several governments' concurrent recognition of the Estonian government-in-exile, it doesn't change the fact that at the time the state of Estonia wasn't independent and the people in question weren't leading it. And since the list in question is of state leaders I don't think the government-in-exile qualifies.
Estonia unfortunately did not function as an independent state after 1940. OK , again how do you explain, just one example Apollo 11 Goodwill Messages signed also by Estonia (not ESSR) among other 73 countries around the world in 1969? Things are not as straight foward with this as you suggest. --Termer (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how Estonia's Apollo 11 Goodwill Message would have been indicative of a matter of fact, namely that who was in control of the territory of people of Estonia. Since Apollo was an American project, I guess they invited some leaders to send a message, so this was probably a symbolic confirmation of the fact that the US government continued to recognized Estonia's independence. But this recognition didn't change the day to day realities for the inhabitants of Estonia, did it? For them it was still USSR, Red Army and Brezhnev (at the time of the Apollo Message). ZBukov (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what has "day to day realities for the inhabitants of Estonia" and "who was in control of the territory of people of Estonia" to do with anything here? There were "people of Estonia", the citizens of Estonia carrying Estonian passport that were recognized in the Western world during the entire period of the Soviet occupation. And the passports were issued continiusly by the Estonian embassies abroad. Regarding the Appollo messages than all embassies to the US were contacted to get an input and Estonia was just one among others. Does the nonrecognition of the Soviet occupation have symbolic value like you suggest? No, it's a practical fact that the continuity of the Estonian state has been kept consistant from 1918-1920 until now.--Termer (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I don't contest the fact that the Estonian state as a legal entity continued to be recognized by foreign governments which had such consequences as operating embassies abroad, and the embassies issuing passports, etc (as the Estonian Government In Exile page says: "the Estonian government in exile did serve to carry the continuity of the Estonian state forward"). What I cannot agree with, however, is that Estonia, the country, functioned as an independent state. It was occupied by the Soviet Union and forcefully merged into it. It didn't have a free national government (in Estonia), it didn't conduct its foreign relations (a group of people living abroad, claiming the legitimate leadership of the country did, but not anyone in Estonia), it wasn't controlling its own terrtory, etc. ZBukov (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend ZBukov, we are at it again...The Estonian SSR NEVER declared its independence, it is factually INCORRECT. Its name was changed in 1990, as said behind the name. And PLEASE understand that this is YOUR POW, because officially Savisaar and Vähi were acting prime ministers, their office was named Vahevalitsuse peaminister translating to "Prime Minister of the Interim Government". Please, can't we leave it as it is?? H2ppyme (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YES it had a head of state. A head of state IN EXILE!!! Hard to understand if you keep pushing your POW. the first president (non-exile) was elected only in 1992. H2ppyme (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can't you really see what you are doing here. You obviously don't know anything specific about Estonian history and politics and you KEEP reverting my edits WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. H2ppyme (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's it. The interesting thing about Estonian history...The two PARALLEL governments are even listed on the government of Estonia website. It has a lot to do with "national pride", but it still is the OFFICIAL viewpoint of the Republic and that's why FACTS tend to be facts to some and something else to another. The fact that Estonia lost its independence (your "fact") and the fact that the Republic of Estonia continued to exist on many levels (my "fact") are parallel facts, one doesn't refute the other. But the thing about Rüütel as Supreme Soviet leader doesn't belong here. He was not democratically elect and basically representing moscow in Tallinn...and therefore not recognised as a "President" or "head of state" by our government. Estonia regained its independence between 1988 and 1991, it didn't happen overnight. August 20 1991 is the sort of "reindependence day", but we both know that independence days often represent nationalist propaganda...A country recently regaining independence might not have the "logical" head of state and head of government. Things are never as easy as they could be. Check user:h2ppyme page and see the two templates at the bottom. These are both created by me, after A LONG study on Estonian political history. If anyone knows about "listing leaders" of Estonia in wikipedia, it's propably me...I have shown you the evidence, you have shown me nothing. Your facts do tend to be POW. H2ppyme (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"two PARALLEL governments are even listed on the government of Estonia website""it still is the OFFICIAL viewpoint of the Republic"Rüütel is "not recognised as a "President" or "head of state" by our government"So what? Why is that relevant? Wikipedia shouldn't stick to governments' official opinions. If we did, than Taiwan wouldn't exist - according to Beijing's view, and the Communist leadership in Beijing wouldn't exist - according to Taiwan. We should try to concentrate on what actually happened independently of official viewpoints and ideological interpretations.
"The fact that Estonia lost its independence (your "fact") and the fact that the Republic of Estonia continued to exist on many levels (my "fact") are parallel facts, one doesn't refute the other." I agree. As I explanied my understanding a bit further up in the discussion with Termer, the Republic of Estonia as a legal entity survived (evidenced by continuing international recognition and operating embassies), but Estonia the state practially lost its independence (the supreme authority over the territory and the people was exercised by another country).
Rüütel "was not democratically elect and basically representing moscow in Tallinn" Many state leaders weren't democratically elected either, and Communist leaders in many independent countries also practically represented Moscow back home.
"Estonia regained its independence between 1988 and 1991, it didn't happen overnight." Most historical events are the results of a longer process, but still they need to be tied to a point in time. So what's your problem with naming one particular day?
"I have shown you the evidence, you have shown me nothing." You have already demonstrated an ill-tempered and sometimes uncivilized style of argument during our earlier discussion, so I regard this one as just the latest example. As far as contribution to listing state leaders is concerned you should just look at every single List of state leaders page between 2009 and 1955. ZBukov (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your continuous attempts to demonstrate your intelligence over official facts surprise me...Mart Laar was a Prime Minister, not of the Interim Government, but the real de jure, and de facto government, LET HIM STAY. What is wrong with re-declaring independence?? And this wasn't the Estonian SSR anymore, this is obviously your mistake. it was changed to Republic of Estonia in 1990. Rüütel wasn't representing an independent country, therefore he should be left out. It is idiocy to include him. I have no problem with one particular day. I was just demonstrating that things didn't happen overnight. We had a governmetn (interim), but no president yet, don't be so surprised. H2ppyme (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Mart Laar's government really wasn't interim. I'll correct the link to Republic of Estonia, but I want to include a link so people can access info about what happened before independence. Rüütel was in office until 1992 by which time Estonia did regain its independence. Why do you think he wasn'the was representing an independent state? And I maintain that the Estonian government's official viewpoint is an opinion and should not be substituted for the facts. Why do you want to turn Wikipedia into the Estonia government's bulletin? ZBukov (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So OK, IF we are to leave Rüütel there (which still doesn't really make sense, he was head of the parliament - would we include the heads of parliaments for ALL THE INDEPENDENT STATES???), than he was the "Chairman of the Supreme Council" - not Soviet, as mentioned at the Riigikogu website. He was not a president, please don't mix the two obviously difficult words for you. Estonian SSR can not be in the same link with Estonian Republic, therefore this will be removed. And keep on mind that Savisaar and Vähi WERE the Prime ministers of the interim government. I still call for removing Rüütel from that list. If you think that his power was like those of the other communist Chairmen of Supreme Soviets, then no...He was no longer the Chairman of the Presidium of the.., he was just the Chairman of the Supreme Council, just as Ene Ergma is the chairman(woman) of the Riigikogu.H2ppyme (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"would we include the heads of parliaments for ALL THE INDEPENDENT STATES?" No. As you may or may nor be aware some states (for example some Communist countries did in the past) decide to designate the head of their parliament as their head of state. It only depends on the constitutional setup the country has.
"He was not a president, please don't mix the two obviously difficult words for you." You have a point there, I will put in Head of State instead of President. However it would be nice if you could transcend your pathetic level of debating culture and stop insulting me only because I dare to disagree with you.
"Estonian SSR can not be in the same link with Estonian Republic, therefore this will be removed." Again considerations of government recognition supplanting facts. Despite the fact the Estonian SSR didn't come into existence legally and despite the fact that the current Estonian governments don't recognize it as such, the Estonian SSR was on the practical level predecessor of present day Estonia because that was the state formation that existed over that territory before. Are you really unable to make a distinction between your government's official opinion and the facts? You still haven't explanied why you demand so strongly that Wikipedia represents the official viewpoint of the Estonian government in interpreting historical facts. It's time you realized that it's the government spokesman's job, not Wikipedia's!
"If you think that his power was like those of the other communist Chairmen of Supreme Soviets, then no" I made no such comparison at any point. Neither would I need to. A head of state is whom the given state's constitution recognizes as such without reference to any other state's leader. One head of state's constitutional powers don't have to match that of another one. I really don't see where you got that connection from. ZBukov (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of like insulting people in arguments, I like people insulting me in arguments, just to get the heat up or something :D...You obviously didn't get my point. The Soviet "head of state" would have been the chairman of the presidium of the supreme soviet/coucil. If you check the article of List of Chairmen of the Supreme Soviet of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, you will see a note - "hairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was the presiding officer of that assembly. It is not to be confused with the Chairman of the Presidium of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. He was the head of state." Therefore there is no point adding Arnold Rüütel, because he was simply chairman of the supreme council, not chairman of the presidium of the supreme soviet...If we add Arnold Rüütel, then because of consistency (that you are after as said some time ago) we should add ALL THE HEADS OF PARLIAMENTS. Savisaar's and Vähi's office was named Vahevalitsuse peaminister, which translates to Prime Minister of the Interim Government - let it stay as it is. You think you are smart, but this doesn't mean you should know more than I about Estonian political history...So let me ask you this - do you think it would be appropriate to link Federal Republic of Germany to Nazi Germany. Your continuous desire to show your intelligence pisses me off, you keep insisting your personal view, even though official names, dates etc have been shown to you. And don't you think that it would be OBVIOUS to check the local government list of leaders, when talking about leaders of an independent state, not to add what YOU THINK are facts. Facts, facts, facts...please show me some reference to your facts. Without references, facts do tend to be opinions. all your today's edits undone, Rüütel removed...H2ppyme (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definiately don't like to be insulted just so that you "get the heat up or something". You should limit yourself to generally accepted ways of behaviour and seek excitement elsewhere. You should check Wikipedia:Etiquette (be civil, recognize your own biases and keep them in check, etc...)
Okay, so who do you think was the Estonian SSR's last head of state? The rulers website (http://www.rulers.org/sovrep.html#estonia) names Rüütel as such. If it turns out that in fact it was someone else, I'll remove Rüütel because heads of parliament per se (if they aren't also heads of state or government) are not to be included in these lists.
"You think you are smart, but this doesn't mean you should know more than I about Estonian political history" It's a bit pathetic how you seem to be treating this issue are a personal battle where you think you have to humiliate me in order to maintain your prestige in your own eyes...
Concerning Federal Republic of Germany and Nazi Germany. The Federal Republic's preceding entity was Allied-occupied Germany. But if the Federal Republic came straight after Nazi Germany, than I would definiately link them in the same way as I did with the Estonian SSR and Estonia. Just like Hungary is the successor of the People's Republic of Hungary however much we may have disliked it.
"Your continuous desire to show your intelligence pisses me off" So what? I'm not here to please you. By the way at least this way you "get the heat up or something"...
"even though official names, dates etc have been shown to you" I keep asking you the question which you haven't managed to answer so far: Why should be automatically take over the Estonian government's opinions?? And by the way what you keep referring to as "facts" are rather opinions and interpretations! I didn't question the fact that the members of the Estonian government-in-exile lived and even acted in such capacity. Where I disagreed with you is whether they can be regarded as state leaders - and that's a question of interpretation, no facts. And you are the one who kept denying that Estonia lost its independence while in fact it did!
"And don't you think that it would be OBVIOUS to check the local government list of leaders, when talking about leaders of an independent state" Checking, yes, but accepting uncritically, no.
"all your today's edits undone, Rüütel removed" Surprise, surprise. Waging your little battle...
Oh boy, you have really got yourself going there...If you check the rulers website again - you willsee, that Rüütel was the ESSR's "head of state" until 1990. After that, he became simply the head of parliament. Rüütel should definitely be removed.
Abot the Republic of Estonia and Estonian SSR. Can't we leave it something like this: ...regained its independence by the Republic of Estonia re-declaring independence on 20 August which was recognized by the Soviet Union on 6 September 1991. If you want to put the preceding state there, you will already see the Soviet Union there. ESSR was just a pupped state, not even independent. No need to even mention ESSR here, everyone will see it became independent from the Soviet Union.
What truly amazes me is that you keep pushing your own wording here. "Interim Prime Minister of Estonia" - why not change it to what it really was "Prime Minister of the Interim Government of Estonia".
And why do you need that silly note in the 1992 article, stating "Estonia only regained its independence in 1991." Should we add such a note for every year for Estonia? Should we add such a note for every country and for every year? I think this article doesn't need such a "note".
Why should we add only the official stuff of the Estonian government? Very easy - that's the best source for leaders. Each country's government knows best how to translate official office names, when exactly one's rule ended etc. If we are talking about things like human rights, political freedom etc., then we shouldn't use the country's own sources of course. For this article, since any better sources aren't given - we should use the ones I gave you.
Sorry if you feel insulted by everything, I am not bashing you here, I just try to sarcastically (more or less...) insult everybody, that's what I do...All you can do is be smarter or...H2ppyme (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered my question: in your opinion who was the Estonian SSR's last head of state, and who was independent Estonia's head of state in office between 1991 and 1992?
You removed the Estonian SSR link from the comment regarding independence. It became apparent to me that your every argument, insistence and explanation serves only one purpose, to remove any reference to the Estonian SSR. However this is exactly what I wanted to put in there. Since I want it there and you want it removed, I don't think it makes sense to continue this argument anymore because there's no compromise between including a piece of information and omitting it. For me the Soviet Union won't do for preceding state, because it continued to exist after Estonia's independence plus there is a more particular political entity: the Estonian SSR, which seceded (re-gained its independence) from the USSR.
"ESSR was just a pupped state, not even independent." I made a point of including former colonies' colonial names too (e.g. Gold Coast for Ghana), for reference. So the fact that the Estonian SSR wasn't independent is not a problem. Puppet state? Yes, but most Eastern European Communist countries can more or less be regarded as a puppet states too.
"What truly amazes me is that you keep pushing your own wording here. "Interim Prime Minister of Estonia"" It seems you are amazed by me for several reasons... I try to strike a balance between standard wording but correct titles. For reasons of consistency I tend to use "interim Prime Minister (or President of the Government or Chairman of the Council of Ministers)" for heads of government who only served in a caretaker capacity. Though I can make a compromise on this point.
Regarding the comment in the 1992 list: I added such a "silly note", that bothers you so much, to everyone who took office before their country attained independence, and I inserted such a note into every year's article until such a person was in office (except in the very year the country gained independence because then there is a note about that below the country name). This serves the purpose that when someone looks at it, they will know that for example the person may have been in office for 20 years, but only served as an independent country's leader for 5 years.
About using the Estonian government's data. As I said I don't question the basic data (e.g. person's names and dates of office), but to recognize the government-in-exile as the country's legitimate leaders is a matter of opinion and principle. And while it's legally correct, it doesn't reflect the real life facts. And I'm not willing to omit the real life facts (Estonian SSR, Rüütel, loss of independence, etc) for the sake of theoretical considerations.
"I just try to sarcastically insult everybody, that's what I do... " Well, you shouldn't.
"All you can do is be smarter or..." I have no intention to race and try to catch up with you in sarcasm or insults. Civilized, respectful behaviour will be just fine. ZBukov (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I see Rüütel is mentioned at ruler's, which I didn't notice before...While I know rulers is quite known and relatively correct database for leaders, do you know who has organized it? If we did, I would know how seriously to take this...I think we should ask someone else's opinion about Rüütel. He was until 1990 the last head of state (of the Soviet Estonia), but his office was renamed and I haven't really heard of him being the head of state after that. I've always had the idea that Estonia didn't have a head of state for some time, for all is tought at school is Päts was the last President, then came the government in exile and then Lennart Meri was elected in 1992, while Savisaar and Vähi headed the interim government since 1990.
I don't personally mind if there is a reference to ESSR, but I completely oppose linking Republic of Estonia to ESSR. If you see the Soviet Union article, there is Estonia (of course only de facto) as a succeeding state. Yes, ESSR is the tinyer and more specific entity, the country was still Soviet Union, not ESSR. It isn't the first time a part of the country separates and the former remains in existance, right?
I don't think we need to be too consistent, rather correct. Another thing would be renaming all presidents and monarchs to "heads of state" and all prime ministers to "heads of government", though this would create some problems for single-leader countries as USA. I mean, we shouldn't call (for theoretical example) Rüütel a "president" just because he was a head of state. His office name was "...".
I hope you won't take my every "suggestion" personally, since you seem to be the censor here. You have done a lot of great work, but that note list is kind of obscure. With a little extra work, there could be a note "served as president of the (preceding political enitity) 1972-1985". Notes better be decent notes, not only a list of dates of independence...
Estonian government's data (which generally is quite specific) has never before mentioned Rüütel as a leader, only during occupation times. And the problem with occupation times is that during that time (read: during that illegal government, leave out the exile government) there was no state of Estonia and no need to add communist leaders under Estonia. Therefore it was quite surprising for me to see Rüütel here, I hope you understand.
(oh boy, can't wait until you get to pre WWII articles. I've added Estonia there and the "story" is quite complicated and you want to make it look as easy as possible (read: too easy to be completely true). For now, I agree with leaving out governments in exile, but there comes a point where you and I have to seriously think over where to stop adding Estonian leaders...)--H2ppyme (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the first paragraph of your last comment I was surprised to find that you reverted my edit on the 1991 and 1992 pages yet again. Given that and the warning we both received, I had to refer this matter for Wikipedia:Third opinion.
Why are you "completely opposed" to mentioning the Estonian SSR as the predecessor of Estonia? That was the political entity (albeit not independent) existing over the same territory before the Republic of Estonia regained its independence.
"I don't think we need to be too consistent, rather correct."Internal consistency is a general editing principle on Wikipedia.
"I mean, we shouldn't call (for theoretical example) Rüütel a "president"" I agree. And after you drew my attention to this, I changed the heading in the 1992 article from "president" to "head of state" to accomodate the fact that while Meri was president, Rüütel was "Chairman of the Supreme Council".
"With a little extra work, there could be a note "served as president of the (preceding political enitity) 1972-1985"." I considered it but thought that it would create too long lines for one person and would make the list unnecessarily complicated and reduce transparency. In addition to changes in country names and political entities, often the title a leader bore also changed during their time in office (especially in politically unstable countries). The only exception I made to this rule are the last colonial governors of Commonwealth countries who upon independence became the countries' first governor-general or president (e.g. Sir Clement Arrindell of Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1983, Louis Cools-Lartigue of Dominica in 1978)
"there was no state of Estonia " I'm afraid I can't agree with this statement. It's also apparent in the name: Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic - of course I concede that the Soviet republics (which in Estonia's case was illegally created in the first place) had very little real autonomy, but the Soviet Union definiately wasn't a unitary state.ZBukov (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the warning came in after I reverted your latest edits, I definitely wouldn't have done it after seeing tha warning. Therefore it could have been me, who broke the 3-revert limit, if so I am sorry..Still I quite agree that someone stepped into this madness...
Why are you "completely opposed" to mentioning the Estonian SSR as the predecessor of Estonia? I am not, if you would see what my reverts were for in the first place, you would notice that I did wrote something about ESSR there. I just find it illogical to link ESSR there, since it was the Republic of Estonia that declared its independence, not ESSR anymore. Therefore I don't see the reason why you insist on linking the Republic of Estonia to ESSR.
"An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. One way of presenting information may be as good as another is, but consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. Therefore, even where the Manual of Style permits alternative usages, be consistent within an article." - That's somewhat a good point. You said you have previously written "Interim Prime Minister"? To be even more consistent, why not use "acting Prime Minister" in these cases? Therefore (though you already agreed) writin that Rüütel was president would be consistent, yes, but consistently wrong doesn't mean it's good, I hope you get what I mean..To be consistent in this particular matter would be just "Head of State"
The Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was created in 1940 and ceased to exist (as an independent state) in august 1940. The fact that a place was called Estonia, doesn't make it a state. You could also say the Governorate of Estonia or the Swedish Estonia was a state, because of its name. USSR wasn't unitary, but the fact that Ukrainian SSR and Belorussian SSR had their own UN seats, doesn't mean they were independent or noteworthy entities. The Republic of Estonia isn't the successor state of ESSR, it is the same Republic of Estonia that has never changed its name. To make it clearer, at one point during perestroika, Estonians in the ESSR decided to move for independence again, therefore they gradually started making changes - declared self rule, re-adopted the flag, changed the name (basically having two governments ahead of Republic of Estonia in the world, note the exile government) and so on...Linking two obviously different things is not correct.
Ok, I don't mind about the 1992 "note", although for 1991 article it would be sort of like repeating it, since there is written when it re-declared independence.
I am just so sad that this discussion got so out of hand, by one contributor, who obviously is on a large-scale project and wants to stay as clear as possible, and another who wants to stay as officially correct in these matters as possible. I do agree that demanding correctness everywhere is not always a good characteristic, but it is good if we are talking about editing an encyclopaedia (so is staying clear, of course)...--H2ppyme (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you open the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic article, on the top right hand side it says that the entity existed between 1940 and 1991. Albeit it changed its name to Republic of Estonia in 1990, it was still the non-independent, Soviet entity. That's why I think it's important to put in its link into the comment about the country regaining its independence in 1991. Otherwise it would only be mentioned in the comment, but the link to the preceding entity wouldn't be there. ZBukov (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
!3O
Uhh... wow. So I see that someone requested a third opinion here. Problem is that this discussion has literally been going on for a month now, and there's an absurd amount of backlog to read. Can someone summarize, very briefly, the issue here, as well as what pages you two have been battling over? Maybe we can get some contributors from Wikiprojects to give their input. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)21:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! By far the biggest part of the debate was about whether or not to include the Estonian Government in Exile in the list of state leaders pages, but a few hours ago the other editor agreed that they should not be included, so that's settled now. What's still debated is whether to mention the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic as the predecessor of independent Estonia on the List of state leaders in 1991 page - if you compare the previous and current version of the page on the history tab, you'll see the two solutions which are the bone of contention. If you look around in the article you'll see how it was done in case of other countries. The other unresolved dispute is whom to name (whether to name anyone) as Estonia's head of state for 1991-1992. ZBukov (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate a bit further, as I understand H2ppyme is of the opinion that because Estonia's merger into the Soviet Union was illegal (and unrecognized by many countries), its consequences should be disregarded. On the other hand I believe that we should stick to the facts and reflect the real life situation. Simply: we should report what was there, not what should have been. ZBukov (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve also come here in response to the WP:3O request. With all due respect to HelloAnnyong (who forgot to remove the tag when taking this up), I'd like to go ahead and give my two euros. While mentioning the Estonian SSR in the "List of state leaders in 1991" might seem anachronistic, I feel it would serve a disambiguating role for readers not intimately familiar with the modern history of Estonia. While Estonia renamed itself the Republic of Estonia in 1990, it didn't gain a de facto government independent of the former USSR until its first post-Soviet government acceded to power. Since the name "Republic of Estonia" wasn't changed, it is helpful to have a clarification that the earlier government under that name had formerly been known as the ESSR. The text attempting to explain this in the "List of state leaders in 1991", however, needs to be edited for clarity and proper grammar; neither version is fully satisfactory. In any case, after 1991, I suppose the point is moot. Askari Mark(Talk)00:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Zoltan, regarding the changes in the lists State_leaders_by_year: you are right about the words de facto not being part of the official title held by the de factoPresidents of Argentina. But, in fact, they were neither de iure Presidents (as stated in the Argentine Constitution). So, should we state that they were de facto Presidents, or should we leave their illegitimate titles on display? As an Argentine, I feel as the second option is just not right. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re/the edits: First of all, I think it will be impossible to ever standarize the way you consider the head of State of every single country in World History with any coherent criteria, even using the most abstract of them. As there is no single legal formula to equally consider every case, everywhere, and everytime, I think the best way to cope with this problem is to admit the peculiarities of each case as the real thing. That was what I assumed when I commited the previous editions.
Re/your posting on my talkpage: Probably, every single State (or political institution whatsoever) is based on violence in its foundation -or even on its inception, or conception-, but... as long as a State is finally constituted as such, it functions on a certain normal basis. Even the USSR did. Technically (excuse the term), these de facto military governments considered themselves as the pre-constitutional excercise of some exceptional and temporary means to save the Nation from some ubiquitous menace and return it to its purpoted normality. They were not attempts at regime change but abnormal, illegal, episodes on the basis of a constituted (and never rejected) State.
That said, as long as the Communists considered the excersice of State power as an exceptional and temporary means to save Humanity from itself, there's not that of a difference.
Zoltan, please do not mass-revert well-summarized improvements to these articles with summaries that cover only few of your edits and are moreover incorrect: I did not split Asia, but rather detected a consistent split of Asia and Africa through the inclusion of a fictitious continent (Middle East). Feel free to ask me *any* questions on my edits! Regards, gidonb (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I unintentionally hurt your feelings! But while you wanted to remove a "split" (the Middle East) from among the continents, you created a West Asia sub-region on the 1988 page, a Southwest Asia on the 2008 and 2010 pages, and Southwest Asia and South, Central and East Asia on the 2009 page. Splitting the continents into further sub-regions makes no sense for me. Otherwise if your only goal is removing the Middle East, so that the countries are divided only by continents, I support it as it makes the list even more consistent. When I started cleaning up these pages the Middle East was one of the units of partition and I just didn't challenge it. But otherwise the idea makes sense. ZBukov (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
Apologies, its been a week. What is the fine line drawn to decide who should stay and who shouldn't. Devolution is well known (and much stronger in Scotland), its not a stretch to add the nations as opposed to counties/lander/states (in the usa). they'll be partition in a couple of years along with Belgium anyway ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bosnia's tripartite presidency should definately be mentioned even if we remove the others (it is the official norm Politics of Bosnia). In the interests of consistency you mention, yes i agree with you to remove all the other sub-entities too. (albeit Bosnia's 3 should be there.)Lihaas (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting others as you had suggested, i was saying. Where does one then draw the fine line to keep and remove. Either take off all sub-national entities or include all.Lihaas (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status of the removals? Im not going ahead and removing/adding pending your view on this. Consensus cant wait forever on talk, i suppose you can go ahead and do it.Lihaas (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodluck Jonathan
I checked other sources, and they say he was sworn in as president (not acting president) after Umaru Yar'Adua's death. Searcher_1990 (talk)
Apologies, at first I saw him still being mentioned as acting president but I found out in the meantime that he has been sworn in. ZBukov (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
The reason why I put Governor-General Bryce's name in small font in the List of current heads of state and government is that all the other governors-general are displayed so. I don't necessarily agree with this arrangement, but I think that as the relationship between the Queen and her representatives in her Commonwealth realms is more or less the same, the fashion of displaying their names should be consistent.
As for the moot topic, do you know what answers would those give to the below questions, who regard the Governor-General as head of state?
If the GG is the head of state then what is the Queen of Australia's position in the constitutional system?
As the head of state is the highest ranking state official, how come that (s)he can be removed by the Queen, while the Queen cannot be removed by the Governor-General? (The fact that in doing so the Queen would be acting on the Prime Minister's advice is irrelevant here, I believe, because the PM's will alone would not remove the GG, therefore the Queen's action is indispensable and sufficient per se.)
As I gather from your posts the statement that Australia is a monarchy is not questioned. So how could a monarchy's head of state be anyone else that a monarch (especially as there is a hereditary King/Queen in the constitutional system, while the Governor-General's position is not hereditary)?
Getting back to your above replies to my suggestions.
In my opinion your above explanation dismissing my order of precedence argument doesn't hold water. I suggested that as the Queen tops the Australian order of precedence, she must outrank the Governor-General. You argued that this is due to the Queen being the head of the Commonwealth. However the Commonwealth is an international (intergovernmental) organization therefore whoever is its head should have no bearing on a national order of precendence - just like the Secretary General of the UN doesn't feature on the list either.
You wrote: "All heads of state are appointed or sworn in by some other person or body." I think there is a significant difference between appointing and swearing in. Swearing in means administering an oath to someone taking up an office, so the person performing this doesn't have to outrank the one being sworn in. However if you appoint someone you must be above him/her in the hierarchy.
The Queen's involvement in the appointment of Governors-General might be ceremonial and procedural, but it's indispensable. No matter whom the Prime Minister selects for GG, the person will never take office without being appointed by the Queen, and the Queen alone can dismiss him or her.
If the Governor-General is acknowledged as the Queen's representative the how could (s)he possibly rank equal to or above the person whom (s)he represents?
You concluded that there is no definite, explicit answer to the question (therefore it's undecided). In such a case shouldn't one take into account the implied answers (order of precedence, relationship between monarchy and monarch, GG being Queen's representative, etc)? It might only be logical inference but where do you find fault in the following chain: Australia is a monarchy. A monarchy in headed by a monarch. There is a legally acknowledged Queen of Australia. The Governor-General is the Queen's representative. Therefore the Queen outranks the GG, who thus cannot be equal to or above the Queen. -- ZBukov (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Athos
Hello. About our coverage of Mount Athos, I'm afraid it has been seriously distorted in a months-long agenda campaign by one editor, Peeperman (talk·contribs), who has been pushing for the OR notion that Mount Athos is a "state". The statement you cited from the Mount Athos article, and the statements reflecting it in the "state leaders" series, all go back to unsourced and undiscussed assertions by that editor. In reality, Mount Athos is defined in the Greek constitution as "a self-governed part of the Greek State, whose sovereignty thereon shall remain intact" [1]. Nothing about a status as a "state", and, most importantly, nothing about any separate "leader" or "head of state" (other than the leadership of the Greek Republic). The whole idea about the Patriarch and the foreign minister is purely Peeperman's imagination. Fut.Perf.☼15:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information! The fact that Mount Athos may not be a 'state' only a 'self-governed part of the Greek State' doesn't pose a problem for the List of state leaders articles' current setup, because other autonomous regions are included (Rodrigues, Southern Sudan, Zanzibar, Kurdistan, etc) so Mount Athos should also appear. The territory's description can easily be changed from 'autonomous monastic state' to 'autonomous region'. However do you have a reliable source about who is the leader of this territory? By the way, the Mount Athos entry is included in each and every List of state leaders article from 1971 up to 2011. Why did you pick the years 1982, 1988, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 to delete the Mount Athos entry altogether? It seems completely arbitrary. ZBukov (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, two things. If the lists generally include also non-state entities, that's a fundamental problem, because it contradicts the page titles. The pages are all called "... state leaders", and beyond this rather unambiguous title there is no further qualification of their scope and inclusion criteria. Second, my whole point is that since M.A. has no sovereignty of its own, probably no such thing as a "leadership" in the sense of these lists exists, and finding out if there is one would be your responsibility. At this point, given the long-term pattern of disruption that the topic has suffered from, I hope you'll understand I must insist we play this quite by the book in terms of WP:V and WP:NOR, so unless there is a reliable outside source that includes some entry entry for M.A. in a list of "state leaders" (in an Almanack or some such list), or a source saying explicitly that "the head of state of M.A. is so-and-so", it should stay out. – As for why I didn't go through with the other articles, the answer is simple: I got bored after a while. But you are of course right that this should ultimately be done consistently for all. Fut.Perf.☼07:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your point. Actually I raised this very question several months ago on the relevant talk page, but only one person cared to give his opinion (though that was a 'yes'). So in concurrence with your above opinion I now started removing the autonomous regions from the list of state leaders articles. It's gonna take quite some time, but consistency matters. ZBukov (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This diff? The article referred to on the talk page demonstrates the position. Your unilateral view, through some very shakey reasoning, can hardly be taken as in any way official or definitive.--Pete (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Vanuatu prime ministers
Hi. It's already indicated in the "Prime ministers of Vanuatu" article, of course. I see your point, both in terms of length and consistency. I do still think it would be a useful distinction to make, but if it isn't made in other, fairly similar cases, I wouldn't want to break the trend. I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but all right, we'll leave it at that. Aridd (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Astonishingly dedicated work to the "List of state leaders in XXXX" articles - you've done considerably more than ten thousand edits to them now. And yet I don't see any awards - you're clearly an editor that edits for the joy of editing and improving Wikipedia, and in some ways this makes this even more overdue. Bravo! EggCentric20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the John McManus referred to doesn't have an article yet, I guess it's better to leave the link to the disambiguation page. ZBukov (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign Minister
Dear fellow editor,
I must admit to being a bit confused as to who is the current foreign minister of Somalia. Different sources name different people.
Hello. As I explained in my edit summary, Mohamed Abdullahi Omaar at least until recently seemed to have been the Foreign Minister of Somalia. Mohamed Mohamud Ibrahim was one of several current Deputy Foreign Ministers, and Abdullahi Haji Hassan was a Deputy Prime Minister. Jengeli was a Foreign Minister a couple of years back. The refs in the linked-to wiki pages explained this. That said, although a couple of the links you have produced above appear to be out-of-date, the UN minister list indicates that as of February 20th, Hassan is the new PM. This is consistent with an apparently promised Cabinet reshuffle by the incumbent PM, including the Foreign Minister portfolio [2]. The wiki list should probably therefore now point to Hassan. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 1920, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Government Junta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 1918, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hetman of Ukraine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of state leaders in 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edmund Lawrence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It is interesting that you have decided in your edit without the approval of the Parliament of Ghana that Hanna Tetteh has been confirmed in her new post. Hopefully you are aware that the President of Ghana, John Dramani Mahama has asked all ministers to carry on in their jobs prior to the elections until the new ministers are confirmed. This means she is still the Minister for Trade and Industry until cleared by Parliament. Do you want to review your edit or should we do it for you. Check your references before you mislead everybody. As you can see from this link, the vetting is only just about starting. Ghanaweb--Natsubee (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to correct any erroneous information on Wikipedia (observing the relevant guidelines). After all that's what it's all about. ZBukov (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support regarding the correct titles debate! :) The reason why I think it's relevant to indicate that the heads of state of Brunei, Cuba, Oman and Saudi Arabia are also heads of government is that the two positions haven't always been held by the same person, and therefore they can be regarded as separate offices. And in the case of Hassanal Bolkiah he hasn't been holding the two offices for the same amount of time, as he has been Sultan since 1967 and Prime minister only since 1984. And it's the same case with the Sultan of Oman. Do you think the Prime Minister titles should not be mentioned? ZBukov (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree your position. In the cases you exemplified are different functions temporarily fulfilled by the same person. So I consider it is necessary to mentioned the title of Prime minister (or Chairman of Council of Minister in the case of Cuba) where it is such a situation.
Bogdan Uleia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan Uleia (talk • contribs) 07:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bogdan Uleia, thank you very much for your kind words! As we often edit the same articles, we see each other's contribution a lot. So your comment means a lot. :) ZBukov (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
Thanks for catching the omissions I've done on the yearly lists (fixing the years of the Andorra archbishop, the Captain on the Fiji PM in the early 80s), as well as a thanks again for so quickly agreeing on the compromise. Dralwik|Have a Chat23:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dralwik, I have truly appreciated your flexibility and constructive approach! And I must admit that the lists without the military ranks do look leaner and more transparent - even to me. :) ZBukov (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, the decree relieving Sylvie Hubac from her position as personal representative of the French co-prince is dated 31 December 2014 (see here). Gugganij (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The part where you said "see rulers.org" is ironic, as if you go to that source, in particular to www.rulers.org/rula2.html#andorra you will see that Blum is not listed there. Furthermore, if you look at the edit summary previous to yours you will see that I cited rulers.org already, before you did.
As to the rest of your edit summary, that's just not how WP works: claims must be verifiable and based on reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you cannot form syllogisms about laws concerning heads of state, and the fact that Blum was French head of state to conclude that therefore, Blum must have been Co-prince of Andorra because that claim is WP:SYNTH.
There could be any number of reasons Blum is not listed in references as Co-prince of Andorra:
Blum was Co-prince of Andorra, any references claiming the contrary are wrong
Blum was Co-prince of Andorra, the references just forgot to list him somehow
Blum was not Co-prince of Andorra, so the references are right despite the laws automatically declaring he should be so, we don't know why the laws were not applied
Blum was not Co-prince of Andorra, the references are right, the laws about heads of state are correct, we are interpreting them incorrectly
some other reason
As a purely speculative matter, and I'm no expert on French law, one possible reason might be that Blum was temporarily installed in 1946 as Chairman of Provisional Government of the French Republic between the Third and Fourth Republic and didn't actually hold the title President of the Republic of France. But in the end, it really doesn't matter what the reason is that Blum was omitted from the list in reliable sources, it only matters that he's not there. If we cannot find a reliable source to back up the claim that Blum was Co-Prince of Andorra, we cannot include him in the list, pure and simple.
If you can find a reliable source listing Blum as Co-prince of Andorra, please provide it and I will happily revert my change. Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a brief follow-up, the other issue concerns whether rulers.org is a reliable source in the first place. The website is owned by Benjamin Schemmel, who is also the author of the self-published (print on demand) book Rulers.: A comprehensive record of heads of state and heads of government since 1800, which at 1,074 pages long, certainly sounds comprehensive, but what are his sources, and who is he? Other than rulers.org and this book, the internet has no trace of him, as might be expected if he were a historian. At first glance, his website and book seem to be a labor of love, which OTOH is great, but OTO is also worrisome as far as Wikipedia relying upon it to the exclusion of any other independent resource. If we could find additional sources other than this website and book, not only for Blum, but for the whole article, that would be a step in the right direction with respect to verifiability. Mathglot (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a follower of international politics, there is most certainly something unclear about co-equal diarchial rule, of which I specifically have sceptism with. As both the captains regent are elected via the legislature, surely the co-partner belonging to the majority party of that legislature must hold some further sway in legislation than that of the other—from the party of the opposition. I would note that the other partner is highlighted in blue, indicating that he does have executive authority, but without the administrative clout of his co-partner. Neve-selbert (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Neve-selbert:, I understand that you find this arrangement unlikely or unusual (even 'unclear'). My question was if there is anything to back up this presumed imbalance between the two members of this collective body, where they mutually possess veto power. By the way, my understanding was that this newly introduced colour scheme indicates the balance of power between the offices of the head of state and head of government, not referencing the legislative branch. ZBukov (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly references the legislative branch, as this is a key point of the political discourse. The blue highlighting represents two purposes, (1) Tonga: Despite the fact that the King of Tonga is still technically an executive monarch, the Prime Minister assumed most of the executive duties of the state after the previous king gave up most of his significant powers; (2) Turkey: as PresidentErdoğan wields de facto executive power through his erstwhile ruling party of which members are exclusively loyal to him, which I suppose would bring us back to San Marino but with multiple differences. I am currently searching for a credible source on this matter, as this is mainly an unsaid—indeed, de facto—situation, although I remain confident to denote (with a [dubious – discuss] template until I find a justifiable source when/if available) the key circumstance in which the former partner is a member of the majority party in parliament, she therefore holds legislative and thus executive (but not exclusive) advantage. Neve-selbert (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The designations of Head of Government in List of current heads of state and government
I am near you in yours fight against these stubborn Therequiembellishere who beleves he detaines the absolute true. I had also problems with he concerning Palestine. (of legal point of view they are two States of Palestine, a state proclaimed by PLO which are only putative but ineffective, and the Palestinian National Authority which changed his name in State of Palestina without accord of Israel). I intend to open a discusion on talk about these designations. I hoppe you will support my intervention.
On the other hand, i want to warn you about the fact that www.un.int/protocol/sites/www.un.int/files/Protocol and Liaison Service/hspmfm.pdf is not a too reliable source. Congo Brazzaville has not prime minister from 2009 but the site still indicates a prime minister.
On the other hand, this site indicates Sartaj Azizi as foreign minister of Pakistan wile http://www.mofa.gov.pk/ indicates him as a simple adviser of Prime minister who is titular foreign minister. In accordance with my experience, Worlds leaders of CIA is more reliable. I felt obliged to inform you about these problems because I always appreciated the accuracy of your interventions.
Bogdan Uleia (talk)
Hi, Zoltan. I am currently having troubling researching whether or not Leslie Jacques, the Commissioner of the Pitcairn Islands, is or is not still in office. According to → [1] and [2], he stepped down in March 2010, although according to [3], [4] and [5], it would seem to me that he remains in charge. Additionally, it appears dubious at to what his actual title is: either Commissioner of the Pitcairn Islands or Commissioner for the Pitcairn Islands, plus the spelling of his surname, with or without the "c" in Jacques[6]. What do you happen to make of this? Thanks. Neve-selbert · 10:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky. You have new messages at Talk:List of state leaders in 2015. Message added 12:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, I'm Chip123456. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Chip12345618:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chip123456, thank you for your message. I explained my reason for removing people ("Libratians and judges are not political offices"). It appears quite evident to me. If judges were politicians that would mean that there is no separation of powers (executive, legislative and judicial). And including a librarian among a list of political offices sounds outright absurd. I'm wondering what definition of 'political office' would possibly include that. ZBukov (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying your reasons; it appears to me that because it was a large removal of content, and that it has been on the article for some time, it may be best to seek what others think of it's removal by bringing it up on the talk page? My removal was just to incite the debate of whether they do come under the same category. For example, I know here in the UK that some judges (I.e the leader of all the courts in England and Wales) also simultaneously hold positions in the House of Lords, which is a legislator. That's just for the UK, of course, but it could be applied in this case too. Though yes, with the librarians, I can see common sense prevailing in that removal. --Chip12345618:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chip123456, the example of the British Law Lords is an excellent one. In that case - in my opinion - those office holders would not warrant inclusion on the list as judges, but by virtue of their membership of the House of Lords. In the meantime I've raised the topic on the talk page of the article. I hope people will offer opinions. ZBukov (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky. You have new messages at Talk:List of state leaders in 2015. Message added 11:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
This dispute has gone on for over two weeks now. Is it really hard to just accept Viceroy –, or would this result in total apocalypse? This matter will not be solved via personal attacks either, so I suggest you stop while ahead. We must come to an agreement sooner or later. You must stop infuriating the editor you are in dispute with: it is not funny at all, and can seriously distract from solving a proper issue. Your hardline stance does nothing to temper mine—rather the absolute opposite. Neve-selbert11:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert: three out of the four editors taking part in this debate firmly favour "Monarch's representative", and three out of four unequivocally reject "viceroy" as being unfit for the purpose. Ignoring all this, you simply keep repeating your arguments in favour of your suggestion, which you already declared that you will not compromise on. Doesn't this make you ponder? Is this your idea of working hard towards a compromise and examining each others arguments...?
And let me turn your question around, would it result in total apocalypse if you abandoned your suggestion which you apparently cannot get support for? Is it a matter of prestige for you not to budge and continue fighting a losing battle? ZBukov (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Another vote, why are my arguments redundant? I care about this issue much more than you surely do. Is your life at stake if QR is changed? I guess not, although from the way you are acting it seems as if you will be facing the electric chair. I will not accept any outcome simply from 2 other editors (arguably disagreeing with "viceroy"); we must advance this to WP:DRN. A losing battle? Not at all, prestige is of your concern and not mine. Neve-selbert12:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They were not concrete enough, any rebuttals were dismissive. Happysquirrel and Miesianiacal were simply skeptical, curious editors. They can hardly be considered experts in this arena. We really do need a proper expert on par with us both. Neve-selbert12:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert: By the way, anyone had the opportunity to weigh in on the talk page, even without a DRN. So where will be the end of this debate for you? What number of opinions will give you peace of mind? What if four people will back "viceroy" and six come down against it? Will you consider that the end of the debate and drop "viceroy", or do you plan to drag on until you will have your way (as you already declared)...? ZBukov (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One passing observation: you never offer solutions. If "Viceroy" is deemed unsuitable (unlikely), then I am sure we would come to some compromise agreement. The status quo is grossly unsustainable, the discussion proved it. Neve-selbert12:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert: I never offer solutions? :) I have suggested "Monarch's representative" right from the beginning (which the other editors - and temporarily even yourself - came to accept), while you changed your suggestion about five times during the debate (monarchical representative, viceregal representative, monarch's representative, viceroy, associated viceroy). ZBukov (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a laughing matter. You have never offered simple solutions—of which the debate was intended for. I have already made the case against Queen's Representative. I have also made the case as to why my position had evolved over a relatively short period of time. I will consider decisive any opinion with a reasoned rebuttal against every single one of my differing recent arguments, with a full explanation as to why. Neve-selbert13:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert: Never a simple solution? :) The other editors beg to differ. MIESIANIACAL wrote that Monarch's representative "doesn't seem to be problematic in any way", "eliminates redundancies", and "maintains consistency", while Happy Squirrel wrote after careful consideration that with "Monarch's representative" "we get some consistency". And they also offered their reasoned rebuttals as to why they do not support "viceroy". And when the debate is not going your way, you suddenly realize that they aren't competent enough... Would you have considered them more of an expert had they supported "viceroy"? ZBukov (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake—your replies are getting more and more wasteful by the day.
Autopsy:
Never a simple solution? :)
The smiley face? I will not accept mockery. You are not taking this dispute seriously at all. Redundant
The other editors beg to differ. MIESIANIACAL wrote that Monarch's representative "doesn't seem to be problematic in any way", "eliminates redundancies", and "maintains consistency", while Happy Squirrel wrote after careful consideration that with "Monarch's representative" "we get some consistency".
Now, these are the views of only two editors. They have not debunked my arguments. But until they do: Redundant
And they also offered their reasoned rebuttals as to why they do not support "viceroy".
Quote them word-by-word. I have checked and I have seen no concrete rebuttal. I have also replied to them since—telling them why I believe their view is misguided. Do you take notice?
And when the debate is not going your way, you suddenly realize that they aren't competent enough
And when the debate is going too long. My "sudden realisation" was a clear, retrospective reflection. Refer to previous point.
Would you have considered them more of an expert had they supported "viceroy"?
It depends. Would you have taken the action I am taking had they opposed your options outright?
To finish off, we need to get this dispute finished with a satiable outcome and a reflection on all points made (albeit lengthy). Neve-selbert13:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert: If I'm not mistaken, I have reacted to all the substantial arguments you brought up about the core issue of the debate (that is to say, I didn't reflect on each and every example brought up, as I wanted to prevented the debate from losing focus and spiraling even more out of proportion). If you feel there are substantial arguments I didn't reply to, please let me know.
You want me to quote them word-by-word, because you have seen no concrete rebuttal?? MIESIANIACAL wrote: "'viceroy' is the term for a male individual appointed to exercise all the powers of a monarch and 'vicereine' is the term for the wife of the aforementioned or a female individual appointed to exercise all the powers of a monarch. 'Viceroy' is not gender-neutral". And Happy Squirrel wrote: "My position on Viceroy is that it is not a commonly used word for curent events. It may be the correct term but I suspect many of our readers will have to look it up. Also, while Viceroy can be applied to women, Vicereine is also in use for female Viceroys. This does not seem to improve the gender neutrality issue." And before you come back simply dismissing their opinions, please remember that your disagreeing with them doesn't mean that they failed to offer reasoned rebuttals.
"Now, these are the views of only two editors." And the view that "viceroy" would be an appropriate solution here, is merely the opinion of one editor out of four, after having discussed all the pros and cons... ZBukov (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Merely the opinion of one editor out of four, after having discussed all the pros and cons", nope, that is a twisted logic. Their replies that you mention are unclear, i.e. (a)viceroy can be used as a gender-neutral term in the same sense a governor-general is; (b) it is a commonly-used word having already proven a source to justify it being so—readers will not have to research the term as the title is already displayed fully to the right after the name of the QR—you could also look back on my Dutch case-in-point. Maybe you might want to read back? I must reiterate, their views cannot be easily ascertained as they are yet to reply to my justifications. Neve-selbert14:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert: We are either not speaking the same language, or we are not looking at the same sentences. What is "unclear" about "'Viceroy' is not gender-neutral" and "This does not seem to improve the gender neutrality issue"...??
But in any case this pins down the fact, that since I found and cited their arguments against your proposition, it proves that they did provide reason rebuttals. So your claim denying it was without foundation, and was merely conflated with your disagreement with their arguments. ZBukov (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, how much more unequivocal do you want Happy Squirrel to get than stating that "I cannot see myself supporting Viceroy as a viable option"...? Do you still have doubts about what he meant? ZBukov (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly is Viceroy such a bad, indigestible option?
Are you opposed to it outright; an ironclad opposition?
Do you have any new compromises which may be of help?
Ad 1) If you have no idea why all three of us came to reject viceroy as inappropriate, than it raises the question whether you were making a real effort to understand the views you were countering...
"Vicereine is either a female incumbent, or the wife of a viceroy". So "if there is a word that means either wife of X or female X, than can X be gender-neutral?" To which you replied: "not exactly" – and this is the one point where all four of us agree. With Happy Squirrel adding: "while Viceroy can be applied to women, Vicereine is also in use for female Viceroys. This does not seem to improve the gender neutrality issue". And the other major argument: "Viceroy" is an actual title. So, its use in this context could be confusing."
Ad 2) Yes, I am. The aim of the whole debate is finding a gender-neutral description to replace "Queen's representative" with. It makes no sense whatsoever to replace a gendered phrase with a slightly less gendered one, when there is a gender-neutral option that can be applied consistently across the page.
Ad 3) You should make up your mind whether your aim is to save face in an increasingly embarrassing debate (by seeking out a solution which neither of us has advanced so far), or to solve the original problem which you started the whole debate for. Because I have already proffered the one solution that means zero inconsistency and zero gender-bias. You tried to defend "viceroy" by claiming that there is some inevitable pro-male bias – yet "monarch’s representative" completely eliminates this problem. You tried to defend "viceroy" with claiming that it only maintains an inevitable level of inconsistency – while "monarch’s representative" causes no inconsistency at all. You even opined that "viceroy" and "monarch’s representative" "have the exact same definition". But the one thing you never explained is why you still stick so doggedly to one over the other. If you think they are equivalent then it shouldn’t matter to you. And since all three of us firmly favour "monarch’s rep" over "viceroy", the only thing standing in the way of resolving the original problem is your unexplained insistence. ZBukov (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Debunk Ad 1): Look, I have no idea, absolutely. No credible assertion can be made fully to state the case that viceroy is indeed simply "inappropriate". This is not a black versus white, and neither is it morally wrong. Yes, I did indeed reply Not exactly, as this simply was to state that while you may be at least half-right, I am half-right too. It is a (somewhat) 50-50 situation. And, since the definition of viceroy is first and foremost a gender-nuanced title per the respected Oxford Dictionaries, I am confident that I have the slight edge. These are not the major arguments, it is simply spin on your part. On the whole title business, this is irrelevant. We refer to the head of government of Morocco as a Prime Minister without any qualms.
Debunk Ad 2): You contradict yourself. You gladly say that you would rather leaves things as is (with Queen's Representative as gender-biased) but not the reverse (with Viceroy supposedly gender-biased). The latter is widely regarded more gender-nuanced than the former. In fact, referring to someone of the male sex as a "queen" can be seen pejoratively and can indeed carry offence, I will have you know. The latter is certain to not offend anyone, it equals a bastion of equality, of a kind we should be proud of.
Debunk Ad 3): Save face? Again, stop making this personal. I am confident of victory—or at least, to sound less arrogant, a satiable outcome on my part. The fact that you have confirmed your ironclad opposition for Viceroy – only makes my steadfast commitment to it stronger than ever. This is perhaps bad diplomacy on your part. "Zero inconsistency and zero gender-bias"? Nonsense, this statement is beyond parody. "Monarch's Representative" simply makes things worse and more complicated; what of the UN representatives? Should they be designated as UN Secretary General's Representative –? Absolutely not, as the UN S-G is not and never will be a state leader: if we were to go with this option, we would wreck the article(s) completely and thus tragedy will result. "My unexplained insistence"? Your attention span must be quite slow, I am with zero doubt passionate on this great issue—yet you fail to wonder why. Surely, for someone of your ability and apparent expertise, you can use your brain to work this one out. And lastly—of all the other editors involved in this dispute—none have expressed certain expertise in this arena specifically. Unlike yourself, they have not declared their ironclad opposition in the exact same merciless, unjust way that you have done. Until they do so (without hesitation): another moot point.
So now, we have basically resorted to the same arguments albeit with different wording; I am losing patience with you and I am sure you are with me. Now: off to the DRN, and stop this whiny denial of my arguments on your talkpage. I am not replying to your (in my own humble opinion) claptrap any further on here. We must avoid the tempation of our metaphorical rifles: think Gandhi; engage in realpolitik for once. I shall never blink first. Neve-selbert04:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert: Let me ask you one simply question: Do you feel that the phrase "Monarch's representative" is gender-biased to ANY extent? No matter how many times I read your answer, I cannot find a single substantial argument explaining why you so desperately stick to one of two alternatives, which you yourself regard as equivalent. Because a sweeping statement like "simply makes things worse and more complicated" is not an argument, merely an unexplained opinion. Your recurring references to the UN Secretary-General are irrelevant distractions as no-one suggests any change pertaining to him. "Ironclad opposition" are your words, not mine, so you are merely confusing yourself by attributing them to me.
"I am with zero doubt passionate on this great issue—yet you fail to wonder why." If you have some personal attachment to the topic, you can disclose it for the sake of transparency, but strictly speaking it is irrelevant to the debate, as that is only your subjective emotional state, and does not constitute a rational argument.
At the end of the day the basic question remains the same: Do you want to solve the problem you started the debate for, or not. And sadly, your behaviour (and your above declaration) consistently confirms that what you are after is "victory" not solution. ZBukov (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel that the phrase "Monarch's representative" is gender-biased to ANY extent?
No, but this is besides the point. Frankly, if we opted for Monarch's Representative – we would have opened a dreadful can of worms, and things would start getting overly messy and complicated. We would be stuck inside a painful dilemma, a spiralling loop. Easy question: what for the Governor of Sint Maarten? Easy answer: Yes, I would believe you suggest changing this too. But yet, here we are, outside the safety net of The Queen and into the realm of another, different type of monarch. Sure, no problem, we can easily change this too. But then, this indicates a bias. Not only monarchs have representatives in their differing territories; why on Earth should we put monarchs on a pedastool? Surely, the W&T administrator is a President's Representative –? Absolutely, you will reply, we shall have to change this too. But then, we realise something icky:
What exactly of the de facto representatives? Is it policy to place de jure ones on a pedastool?
Oh dear. This is where things get complicated.
Perhaps we could draw some analogies to what happened to the Titanic and Iraq. It seems odd, but if you think about this in the long-term: how on earth could we have been this stupid?
Note #1: Although the two analogies are not entirely similar, they both prove a fundamental error in human logic.
You know—on face value—nothing really seems to be wrong with Monarch's Representative –. In fact, it just seems about perfect. I mean, why not—to match Elizabeth's designation—simply replace the word Queen with Monarch? Voilà. Job done.
So there we set off on our journey, and make the preparations for regime change. We will get in, and we will get out.
We seem to be pretty confident with this outcome—it makes sense, it is an easy answer solving a quick problem with hardly any serious qualms.
Note #2: This is precisely the short term. What of the long-term?Ah, sugar.
You see, this is where we heed my warnings of this iceberg. We cannot simply just change the designations of those under the British monarch, but also of the Dutch one too. Simple, job-done. We shall do this too.
Iceberg, right ahead. You see, now we are in the situation of changing the designations of the representatives of not only monarchs, but also presidents as well. This is a somewhat panicky move, as Monarch's Representative – simply would not do. Even you would not dispute this. So quickly, to avoid casualty, we change the designations of not only monarchs but of the other heads of state too, such as those under the French President with President's Representative –.
But, what of the UN Secretary General? Hard-a-starboard. This is beyond complicated. For consistency, if we are to connect another designation with another, merging them together, we will have to implement this everywhere. This includes representatives of the S-G. As of course, any reader or editor would be misled. They may be believe that this UN Special Representative represents his or herself on a freelance basis, without anyone to report too—unlike the representatives of the other heads of state. What are we to do? This is a dead-end.
And then, bam. Collision. The de facto representatives. This is the final blow. If we choose to regard Paul Bremer as the President's Representative –, then what of puppet leaders? If we are to go all the way back to World War II, was Philippe Pétain not a representative of Adolf Hitler? Was he or not? In favour of him being so, Hitler did actually personally select him—would it be a bit of a stretch to call and label him as Fuhrer's Representative? And, there. We have sunk.
Simply put, this is why I believe your "Monarch's Representative" solution simply would not work. We would have editors coming up and down from everywhere enquiring "Is this X person the representative of this X person?". And so on, and so on, and so forth. We would be unable to cope. This is a can of worms, there can be no doubt.
Resort to WP:RfC—which just carries this thing on and on and on.
You accept that due to my arguments (and Happysquirrel) that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Viceroy –.
I can indeed quote her response to your most recent argument (of which you seemed to be conceding, somewhat): While I agree that changes should be consistent, I can think of a few arguments: 1. Governor Generals form a large body with consistant descriptors, thus their descriptors should not be changed. 2. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Only change those with obvious issues. 3. Standard descriptors do not account for the diversity of these positions. Hence we should give up on consistency and just abreviate titles. I don't want to get into a huge debate here as I don't think it is allowed :) but I just wanted to point out why question #2 is worth discussing. These are in fact the arguments I thought of when writing the list of starting suggestions for #2.
If we could come to an actual compromise, that is agree to disagree or a give and take, etc., I would be willing for it. But the fact that DRN failed really comes down to the fact that it really was only us disagreeing in the debate; user Miesianiacal is pre-occupied with this and the aforementioned user seems to be swaying towards the Viceroy camp (additionally, she has stated here that her semester has started and I just don't have as much time anymore. I will be logging off for at least a week so don't wait for responses from me. I hope this gets sorted out. All the best to all of you.) So, this basically just leaves me and you, then.
@Neve-selbert: How about this for the third option: You accept that due to my arguments (and Happysquirrel and Miesianiacal) that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Monarch's representative –. Wouldn't you find your own sentence arrogant, if someone else said it to you? Though certainly you are free to re-reconsider your position, and return to your 23:39, 7 January 2016 state of mind, when you expressed your acceptance of and support for "Monarch's representative" as the solution.
In your above message you wrote that you are willing for a compromise. Which of your points are you ready to give up? What is your offer?
"If you refuse to enforce your opposition fully by 31 January, I will give it until the end of this month." Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. But yet again it sounds like some ultimatum. Imagine what it would feel like if someone addressed you in the same manner. I see on your talk page that this is not your first time of having issues with cooperative behaviour. ZBukov (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neve's uncooperative nature is currently quite evident elsewhere, too. At DRN we weren't allowed to comment on editors, but, now, I don't think its inappropriate to suggest the attitudes of a particular editor are the obstacle on the road to resolution. --₪MIESIANIACAL17:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Miesianiacal: I was appalled to find out that in order to obtain support to re-phrase the Cook Islands description his way, Neve last night left a message on the talk page of the moderator of the failed DRN alleging that I "seem to be admitting defeat" on the issue - while I haven't actually written anything which he could have misconstrued. And ten minutes after making the allegation he wrote the above message, offering me the choice to capitulate. And as it turns out he had had another run-in a few days earlier (while the Cook Islands debate was already underway), where his conduct was subsequently characterized by two editors as profoundly silly, very poor and uncooperative. ZBukov (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making this personal. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Viceroy –. Your opposition to it remains bizarre, and I will make the edit by 31 January. You may revert the edit, and then I will have to resort to alternative measures. Although I would really hope you would seek the courage not to do so—as my arguments have already outweighed yours and I have practically debunked every single one of your opposing arguments given so-far. I have no idea why on earth Miesianiacal is involved in this discussion, he should just mind his own business. Specifically:
How about this for the third option: You accept that due to my arguments (and Happysquirrel and Miesianiacal) that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with Monarch's representative –.
This is twisting the debate: Happysquirrel seems to be doubting this option and I query whether or not Miesianiacal really cares about this issue.
I see on your talk page that this is not your first time of having issues with cooperative behaviour.
Ah, making this personal. Stop. This is unconstructive and will lead us nowhere.
Wouldn't you find your own sentence arrogant, if someone else said it to you?
I certainly believe we have been equally arrogant to each other, in the last few weeks.
Though certainly you are free to re-reconsider your position,
Rejected
In your above message you wrote that you are willing for a compromise. Which of your points are you ready to give up? What is your offer?
What is your offer? I happen to be content with Viceroy – and that is that for now.
Imagine what it would feel like if someone addressed you in the same manner. I see on your talk page that this is not your first time of having issues with cooperative behaviour. and And as it turns out he had had another run-in a few days earlier (while the Cook Islands debate was already underway), where his conduct was subsequently characterized by two editors as profoundly silly, very poor and uncooperative
Again, incivility and personal attacks. Imagine what? This is absurd. And that past dispute has been sorted, and I have already apologised. Do not bring up any of my past disputes to make a point.
This is getting us nowhere. Why are you so unable to just accept Viceroy –? It is the finest option. List every single one of your concerns below, and I will try and debunk each and everyone of them. How exactly would you (personally) or the article suffer once the changes are implemented? Specify. Neve-selbert22:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert: So you provoked an edit war, broke a compromise, then lost the debate, wrecked the DRN, lied about my position behind my back, and when none of this helped, you declare than you will implement your suggestion anyway? So far I haven't been aware of what Wikipedia mechanism are available to put a stop to aggressive and antisocial conduct, but the current situation seems to be calling for it. ZBukov (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you provoked an edit war
You engaged in the edit war. This is total hypocrisy on your part. Had I not respected WP:3RR, we both would have ended up blocked.
Broke a compromise
Which "compromise" are you talking about? Monarch's Representative –? I have already given my reasons why.
Then lost the debate
NOBODY won the debate. It failed.
Wrecked the DRN
I beg your pardon? What on earth? How exactly did I "wreck" the DRN? This is absolute, defamatory gibberish.
Lied about my position behind my back
How exactly did I lie? I stated that you seemed to be admitting defeat—this was purely a presumption—I did not state that you had officially done so. I presumed a holy war against the implementation of Viceroy – would prove unlikely.
When none of this helped, you declare than you will implement your suggestion anyway?
It is far better than a stalemate, although I will wait until the end of this month to see whether or not we can agree on something on civil terms. If you want to pursue a personal vendetta against me for whatever reason, then any talks between us both striving for a proper, concise compromise will not work.
So far I haven't been aware of what Wikipedia mechanism are available to put a stop to aggressive and antisocial conduct, but the current situation seems to be calling for it.
One can either laugh or cry at this. If I am the one being aggressive and antisocial, what exactly are you? Perhaps it does indeed take one to know one. Your tone towards me has been aggressive and vice versa, and even an onlooker would probably view this debate as a rather pig-headed one on both sides—thus on the verge of being considered anti-social.
"There is absolutely nothing wrong with"Monarch's representative –. "Your opposition to it remains bizarre, and I will make the edit by 31 January." "It is the finest option." "although I will wait until the end of this month to see whether or not we can agree on something on civil terms." :) ZBukov (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what you are playing at; you are quoting me word for word—for what reason? All I would like to know is: do you regard my criticism of Monarch's Representative – as legitimate? A Yes or No answer will suffice. Thank-you. Neve-selbert22:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, I have debunked every single argument against the implementation of Viceroy –. There, I have answered your question. In return, answer my question—we both need to (at least) agree to disagree. Now, if I may ask again. Do you or do you not acknowledge the legitimacy of my arguments against the Monarch's Representative – alternative? YesorNo. If you take this dispute seriously enough to refrain from playing games, you would answer this question, and perhaps we would be getting somewhere (eventually) after all. Neve-selbert01:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you ask? Did I appear to waiver in my position at any time during this debate? Is it that you are fantasizing again of me "admitting defeat"?
That would be a No, then. So, there you have proved yourself an engager in ownership of content; this is not permitted on Wikipedia. If you refuse to compromise on your position on Monarch's Representative – by 31 January, I will boldly make the edits anyway. You do not own the article, stop acting as if you have a copyright over it. You do not. If you immediately resort to reverting like a petulant child, I will seek administrative help. You were speechless when I gave my complete denunciation of your alternative on 17 January. You did not respond. I have responded to every single one of your concerns against mine. Therefore, your arguments against struggle to hold water. You are the one refusing to cooperate, engaging in hostility, etc. You should reflect on your own views for once. Stop intimidating me against making the edits. Don't call a spade a spade. Refrain from bringing up any of my past disputes to make a point—purely for the benefit of yourself.
Don't over-guard articles: Even if a subject is close to an editor's heart, or an article has been fostered lovingly, remember that no one owns an article and articles are built by communal shared collaboration. Even if an edit takes the article in a direction that the original editor doesn't agree with, so long as policies are being followed, allow communal ownership to supersede personal emotional involvement.
Do not underestimate the power of community guidelines. This is not considered as "hot air", I will have you know. Understand that. Neve-selbert11:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was you who hinted that you have some strong emotional connection to this issue, not me (I can live with the status quo, while you seem unable to). And you appear desperate to force through your idea at any cost, by any means, regardless of lack of support and lack of consensus. Therefore you seem to exhibit symptoms of trying to own the article. Yet look who is mentioning ”petulant child”. :)
Yes, you did respond, but three of out three editors were not convinced by your arguments, and instead expressed support for ”Monarch’s representative”. And ever since you just keep repeating the same arguments, often conflated with your opinions and apocalyptic hyperbole of what will happen if we fail to ”heed your warning” and abandon our opinions at once. And when one reads the same arguments for the umpteenth time, there is just no point in reiterating one’s own arguments yet again. I simply find your arguments insufficiently convincing. Plus you also appear to confuse your disagreement with an argument and having disproved it.
You periodically express your wish for some compromise, but when I ask you declare that you are not willing to compromise on any of your points.
Will you seek administrative help? You already did that. When I challenged your edits, you initiated a debate on the talk page. When every editor involved voted against your idea, you initiated a DRN. And then the DRN failed due to lack of conciseness (where you have written much longer by far than any other participant). And now you simply threaten to make the changes anyway, AND at the same time accuse ME of hostility, intimidation and uncooperative attitude? It would appear funny, if it weren’t for this air of despair and aggression about getting your way. Is this your idea of "communal shared collaboration"...?
The reason why your ’dispute’ about the "List of state leaders in 2016" article is relevant is that you are exhibiting a conspicuously similar behaviour now (and rather than being an example from the distant past, that incident was simultaneous with the beginning of this 3-week struggle to impose your idea at all cost). So in light of all that, you don't seem to be in a position to try to teach me a lesson about communal behavioural standards. By the way, is Gandhi a community guideline too...? :) ZBukov (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This situation remains a patent, distressing dead-end. Again, you seem to be the one also provoking a war of words—you continuously fail to mediate at this issue. You also seem to have an emotional attachment on this issue, otherwise you would just let it go and let it be. I am a constructive contributor, and I only want to contribute to the best of my abilities for the betterment of the article(s). I remain certain that Viceroy – is the right answer. All three editors failed to clearly rebuff my arguments, yes: that does include you.You have simply dismissed my arguments for Viceroy in a seemingly sadistic and non-cooperative (without consulting other editors upon your own request) manner. Did you not once write that Even if we settled on "viceroy", or decided to keep "Queen's representative" [...]? "Even if"? Please, just drop the stick, refrain from reverting the edits, and move on. This issue means a lot more to me than it does to you. How big a sacrifice would it be, for you personally?
If you may reconsider these following lines of reasoning—at least, come to terms with:
It is sufficiently gender-neutral. We are able to refer to comediennes and actresses as comedians and actors without any confusion, why should viceroy be any different?
It was not "apocalyptic hyperbole"; you are simply disrespecting my concerns. You have also failed to make a reasoned rebuttal against it.
If we could just agree to disagree on this one issue and just this one time, and let off the steam and tension, we could finally move on to something more constructive and then perhaps a beneficial partnership rather than animosity. I am sure there are more important things you are obliged to deal with. A few points to remember:
Only you and I are equally committed to this dispute. The other two editors were simply passers-by, and did not evaluate this case and each others' arguments fully without hesitation.
I am not a vandal. I abide by the community guidelines. The only person who remains steadfast against Viceroy is you—nobody else is as committed as you remain in opposition. Viceroy will not wreck the article, it will not maim it and it will not damage it. Imagine 1985: we are arguing over pages in an actual, printed encyclopedia—I would, after all this, strive to pay and fight this case in court. Of course, I am unable to do so in reality as there is no sufficient Wikipedian Supreme Court on par with a non-virtual jury—this is partly tongue-in-cheek, although I really do wonder if you would fight the case in return or even appeal the verdict?
What happened on New Year's Day remains irrelevant. Not everyone is entirely thinking straight come 1 January, and I unfortunately happened to be one of those people. It was a personal thing, and I am unwilling to discuss this with you.
All in all, I hope you gather the courage to refrain from reverting by 31 January.Think beyond the horizon. We need to give and take. I gave up Monarchical Representative –, which was originally my preferred option. This remains a critical issue to sort, and I nave evolved my position in trying to help doing so. I apologise for the tension between our talking points. We should indeed act like Gandhi, a man who fought for his cause and died from the division fallen from it. Take care, and I mean this sincerely. I have been grateful for many of your edits elsewhere, and I do not want sustained animosity between us—the oven has turned itself off. This remains a minor issue undetected and misunderstood by many other editors other than both of us. If we can come to a mutual understanding, I would be extremely grateful. Please, just accept and acknowledge the hours of effort I have made in my arguments, and hold your head up and eventually move on. Neve-selbert02:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your amiably toned message.
“All three editors failed to clearly rebuff my arguments”. After having evaluated the case and everyone’s arguments, all three of us clearly expressed that we don’t approve of ”viceroy” and that we approve of ”Monarch’s representative”. Three out of the three of us fail to agree that ”viceroy” "is sufficiently gender-neutral". And to my mind it stops the debate at that point, since your original complaint against ”Queen’s representative” was that it’s not gender neutral. And even you never denied that ”Monarch’s representative” is totally gender neutral. But as you quoted my observation "Even if we settled on "viceroy", or decided to keep "Queen's representative", it would still be applicable to every Governor-General”, so the question of consistent usage of descriptions is still an unsettled one.
"The only person who remains steadfast against Viceroy is you”. Well, as you pointed out one editor’s semester has just started, and the there is no ongoing DRN or talk page discussion which the other editor could contribute to (and he has already expressed his opinion clearly, anyway). You remember it as well as I do, that the other two editors, after having familiarized themselves with all the arguments, clearly and openly expressed their preference for ”Monarch’s representative” over ”viceroy”.
I have at no point alleged or even thought that you would be a vandal. I acknowledge your knowledge and constructive contributions in keeping articles correct and up to date.
I have never asked you to discuss with me anything related to the row of 1 January, let alone personal issues. I hope you never got the opposite impression.
I can only hope that you will gather the courage to stop forcing your suggestion through, let it go, ”hold your head up and eventually move on”.
I appreciate your honesty about your emotional attachment to the topic. Now imagine the following for a second! If I declared a strong personal attachment to the question, would that change your mind about the merits of ”Monarch’s representative”? I presume it would not – and rightly so. If it did, that would mean that instead of considering arguments, you are deferring to my presumed ownership of the article. Because one editor’s private emotions say nothing about the usefulness of a particular suggestion for a particular purpose. And the question I am being asked here is how I think this particular problem in the article can be remedied. And my answer to this has been clear and consistent.
I sincerely hope that getting your way in this question is not your only way to ”let off the steam and tension” and “move on to something more constructive”! About ”beneficial partnership rather than animosity”, in my opinion partnership and the avoidance of animosity depends of civility and respect for each other. The opposite would be equivalent to saying: "I will only not hate you if you agree with me" - and I presume we agree that behaving like a petulant child is no way to conduct an intelligent debate.
The encouraging thing is that our aim is at least common: ”the betterment of the article”. I am equally grateful for your edits elsewhere, and I don’t want sustained animosity between us either. I acknowledge that you fought fiercely to convince everyone of what you thought was right. ZBukov (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now then, I feel that we are finally getting somewhere now.
I can only hope that you will gather the courage to stop forcing your suggestion through, let it go, ”hold your head up and eventually move on”.
I am unable to do so, this situation is to complicated to apply both ways. Would you be able to? If I were to make the change(s) now, could you resist the urge to revert? I certainly do wonder.
The opposite would be equivalent to saying: "I will only not hate you if you agree with me" - and that would say a lot about the person who tries to buy concurrence with such desperate measures.
I am not asking you to agree with me—not necessarily. I am simply querying whether or not you are yourself able to accept the constructiveness of the alternative and hence agree to disagree.
I am not going to give up on Viceroy –. Recently, GoodDay came out in support of Viceroy –. He said, and I quote: Use Viceroy, it's short & neatly compact & as I understand it, can also be gender-neutral. My alternative is finally gaining traction—thus strengthening my resolve even further. Warm regards. Neve-selbert23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I am unable to do so". Being unable to endure not getting one's way in a social situation does indeed sound like a deeply personal issue, to which it is not a sustainable solution to blackmail one's way out of a debate. Your personal issues are none of my business, but neither do they count in your favour in a debate, where they are irrelevant due to their very nature.
So far "Monarch's representative" still has the more supporters, therefore if anyone should impose his version on the article, than it should be me. So far I have refrained from imposing the majority opinion on the article, rather leaving the article as it is, in the absence of consensus. But I will certainly not have you abuse my sense of fair play and impose the minority opinion. Warm regards. ZBukov (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither attempting blackmail or abuse, you are resorting to personal retorts and insults which will lead us nowhere. Your replies are unreasonably astounding. The majority view has already been proven to strike disaster. And yet, you refuse to accept this. I reiterate that I will indeed make the constructive edits by 31 January—hence refusing to allow your depraved, flawed arguments against them prevail in disrupting the quality of the article(s); i.e. you misled the other editors with pre-invalidated arguments and have completely disregarded my discrediting as such. You are the one in need of some time for self-reflection and not me. Sincerely. Neve-selbert01:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So are you implying that those who did not agree with you were just misled and mistaken? How sweet! :) Appaprently we did not subscribe to your "disaster scenario" idea. That is merely your unfounded fear. There is no consensus on the issue, so I will not stand by and watch you impose your opinion on the articles just because you are emotionally attached to the issue, and would like to win, regardless of what others think. It shows rather clearly that you feel no need for self-reflection on your part. Warm regards. ZBukov (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the implication was not sweet (as in a doughnut-type of sweet), but rather sour (in a lemon-sort of way). In other words, I am still gritting my teeth over this. "We did not subscribe to your "disaster scenario" idea? We? Erm (excuse me) but when did the two other editors get the chance to respond to this "idea"—FWIW: it is not an "idea" as such but rather the complete opposite of one. It is not an "unfounded fear". How can it be so? Have I not laid the grounds adequately enough? If that is so, would you even care to specify or would this be too much time and haste for you? Secondly, the point against Viceroy – being included due to chances of misunderstandings if used as a generic description as it has been used previously as an official title remains totally irrelevant; e.g. the Moroccan prime minister has been officially titled since 2011 as Head of Government, yet we use the designation Prime Minister – because of the fact that we know he serves the duties of your typical PM—same thing applies to the Queen's Representative, serving the typical duties of a viceroy. And yet—all in all—if manage to lose the resolve and courage and resort to a pitiful Falklands-style editing battle on 31 January, then shame on both of us—it would be quite a matter of who blinks first would it not? I have self-reflected—make of this what you will—and I have indeed determined that I am losing patience (after almost a month). How long would you be prepared for having this dispute go on and on and on? If your answer replies how long is a piece of string, then there we have it. And, therefore, both of us are equally damned as petulant as each other. Neve-selbert11:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you are evidently and admittedly emotionally motivated in this matter, you are dismissing the opinions of others and you are losing patience because no consensus is emerging in your favour. At this point you should really abandon trying to force your way on this issue, as you don't seem to be taking part in the debate in a reasonable and constructive fashion. And no matter whether you try to frame the situation as a chicken game between the two of us, or asking for understanding for your unexplained strong personal attachment to the topic, or exhibit an unwillingness to accept anyone else's suggestion prevailing in the debate, the facts remain that Happysquirrel, Miesianiacal and myself have read all your arguments, and after having considered them, all three of us clearly expressed that we prefer "Monarch's representative" over "viceroy". That's it. ZBukov (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how do you (personally) envisage a solution to this dispute? You seemingly remain steadfast against Viceroy – and I remain equally (and if not, more) steadfast against Monarch's Representative –. There most certainly is a chicken game going on between the two of us. The first editor (Miesianical) has not commented directly on this matter for almost weeks—I very much doubt he really cares either way, and the second (Happysquirrel) seems to be going on a personal break from Wikipedia. It really is about time you became more considerate for somebody else's feelings for once. I could indeed "explain" why I feel a strong personal attachment to this topic, although I am practically certain you will dismiss it as meaningless. Again, you should at least consider Viceroy – as something to think about—compared to Monarch's Representative, it is harmless and will not breach WP:NPOV. Why exactly is this news article meaningless to you? Your dismissive attitude towards this issue (and me personally) is something I find overwhelmingly intimidating and alienating. You are trying to divide this issue between us and them; with us being you within the Gang of Three and them being me and GoodDay. The further you antagonise equals the further you anger, and your provocation and sarcasm is equivalent to winding me up for your own amusement, e.g. That's it, and how you notably try to keep this case as enclosed as possible. The merits of Viceroy outweigh the merits of Monarch's Representative, this is my opinion and I realise the fact that yours is quite different. Only you feel as fanatical as I do on this issue. Either way, this probably won't result in the end of the world. Sincerely. Neve-selbert05:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert: Please don’t get me wrong! I have not ignored the article referring to the Queen’s reprsentative as viceroy. That’s exactly what I referred to when I stated that for the time being this description is indeed apt (just like „Queen’s representative” itself).
If I were to claim that I am emotionally attached to „monarch’s representative”, would you consider that relevant and would you give way? If not, then why do you expect the same from others?
You feel intimidated and alienated? Unlike you, I have not made a distantly threatening statement, and – as much as I know – we don’t know each other in real life, so I don’t see how or why you would be afraid of anything in connection with me. And how could you feel increasingly alienated from a complete stranger, which we are to each other?? I don’t know you, so I could not have (and have not) commented on you, only on your arguments, and your conduct in the debate.
I have considered „viceroy”, and after consideration, I brought up my arguments about why I think it would not be suitable for our goal here. If I hadn’t thought about it, I wouldn’t have offered arguments against it.
Would I feel as fanatical as you do…? Did I declare emotional/personal attachment in the debate? I did not, while you did (and backed it up with corresponding conduct). As much as I know, I did not make clearly baseless claims about you, I did not dismiss the opinions or question the competence of others when they disagreed with me, and I made no threats as a means of conducting the debate – and I’m afraid these are not entirely true of you. Kind regards.
@GoodDay: Would you please list your arguments for and against „monarch’s representative” and „viceroy”, preferably evaluating the arguments mooted in the debate? I though looking for a solution to a problem is not a matter of making personal favours to cater to individual tastes. ZBukov (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, Viceroy can be used for either a male or female. Aswell, it's more compact then Monarch's representative. TBH, I don't have any solutions of my own. I'll leave it up to the 2 of you, to decide on where to go from there. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like an endless spiral, does it not? Would either of us give way, eventually? Probably not. I concur with GoodDay, it really is a more compact and harmless alternative than the one that you are proposing. We will always fail to convince each other. I could go on and on and on. Salutations. Neve-selbert22:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to claim that I am emotionally attached to „monarch’s representative”, would you consider that relevant and would you give way? If not, then why do you expect others to do that?
Why do you feel intimidated and alienated when I didn't make a single threat and we don't know each other in real life?
I know you think "viceroy" is the perfect solution. You have indeed been going on and on and on for weeks, not matter what. ZBukov (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have quite a limited social life. When you point out that this whole situation is a 3 against 1, I find that alienating and somewhat intimidating. You give me the impression that I stand no chance against your arguments, also making me feel as if no-one will ever come over to back me up. Luckily, someone eventually came over.
Surely, you must detect the cold atmosphere. Our discussions have been excessively heated for weeks—any curious user or reader happening to come across our discussions probably would have become bloated with popcorn by now. Any metaphorical oven is automatic whenever we begin to converse.
@Neve-selbert: Whether sexist or not, official titles are up to each state to decide, therefore using them is a matter of factual correctness, regardless of opinion. One is not in a position to overwrite that, even if it is evidently not neutral (e.g. Ruth Perry having been the Chairman of the Council of State of Liberia, the Queen's representative in the Cook Islands, or as you pointed out, the possibility of a female French president being a Co-Prince of Andorra). But on the other hand with descriptions (since those are not the official titles) we can use such considerations as gender-neutrality and consistency, as you correctly noticed, and what you started this whole debate for. ZBukov (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once the reign of Elizabeth II ends, Queen's/King's Representative – should be used.
It is time for us to end this dispute and keep the status quo. Neve-selbert17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not agreed. Only because "viceroy" is not winning, it doesn't mean that the problem (which you rightly spotted) cannot be solved. :) ZBukov (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Monarch's Representative isn't winning either. Queen's Representative is. Didn't you say this once?:
Neve-selbert you wrote: “The Cook Islands has never had a female QR—when this happens, if ever, we may have to reopen this case.”. If this is indeed your opinion than we don’t need to deal with the original issue at all, because for the time being the description “Queen’s representative” is apt, since the current monarch is female.
The debate is around 4–7. Support for the status quo is almost more than double than that of your alternative. Why do you refuse to acknowledge your previous quote? The fact that I can let it go and you cannot just goes to show who is really throwing the tantrum. Is letting go really beyond you? Or are you the true fanatic? Neve-selbert18:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Neve-selbert22:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rfc's clarifiction
I'm not very good with re-creating optical examples. I think it would help clarify things for outsiders, if you added optical examples to the 3 options at the top of the Rfc. It's highly likely, that many are confusing description with title. BTW, you should get an archive bot, for your talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: I doubt there is confusion—as the section heading is as clear as can be. For example, NativeForeigner stated: To me, Queen's Representative seems to be the choice. It's represented by fact, and should the queen die this year, one could say King/Queen's Representative. Clunky? Yes. Correct? Yes. Somewhat unlikely she dies this year? Yes. In 2015 Marsters was the Queen's Representative, not Viceroy or Monarch's representative. People will have to mess with the royal cypher when the queen dies, but we don't argue about its usage in those cases.Neve-selbert18:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to put optical examples of the 3 options at the top of the Rfc, but I didn't know how. I felt it would've removed any potential confusion among outsiders. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the interesting discussion above about Estonia (2009), perhaps you have already taken into account that the constitutional position of the monarch as sovereign and "head of state" in Australia has a more than ceremonial significance, given that: first, "most public lands in Australia are held by the Crown in the right of each State, while the only crown land held by the Commonwealth consists of land in the Northern Territory (surrendered by South Australia), the Australian Capital Territory, and small areas acquired for airports, defence and other government purposes; secondly, the juridical importance of this in connection with, among other things, the common law doctrine of Aboriginal title (referred to as native title); thirdly, the influence that may have upon public opinion and populist politics, openly or covertly. Qexigator (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
+ Perhaps you have also taken into account that this is not the same as in Canada. While all lands are subject to the Crown, the British and Canadian authorities recognized that indigenous peoples already on the lands had a prior claim (Aboriginal title), which was not extinguished by the arrival of the Europeans. "This is in direct contrast to the situation in Australia where the continent was declared Terra nullius, or vacant land, and was seized from Aboriginal peoples without compensation. In consequence, all of Canada, save a section of southern Quebec exempted by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, is subject to Aboriginal title." Qexigator (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The Crown" does not mean the monarch, Qex. "Crown land" merely means land belonging to the people in common via the state or federal government. If certainly does not mean land personally owned by the monarch. --Pete (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I may so, would it be possible for you to state your opinion as to whether the Rfc should be rebooted in favour of Palestine being considered a sovereign state fully independent of Israel? The Rfc creator (Spirit Ethanol) seems to think that the tide is swaying in his favour—as false as this assertion is. Thanks.--Neve–selbert17:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. I don't have a thorough understanding of all the issues related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but the RfC question is indeed misleading. ZBukov (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above to Neve (during the Cook Islands debate), for me these are basically not about friendships (since we are complete strangers), but opinions about the matter at hand. ZBukov (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously suggest that you comment further on the discussion, I am finding it extremely hard to handle on my own. Most editors seem convinced and hence misled that Palestine is some sort of "substate of Israel". There is a thin chance of the Rfc question be rephrased or the whole Rfc being paused until that happens. Thanks.--Neve–selbert15:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought about it, a credible option to help cool the tensions would be to elucidate the accompanying footnote at the Palestine entry, clearing up matters as a sort of compromise, unity route.--Neve–selbert10:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking the question to the other fellow, then you indent the same as me. Otherwise, you appear as though you're asking me the question. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, do I come across in the Palestine debate as inconsistent, or opaque? The responses I get don't seem to react fully to the points I am raising. ZBukov (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not surprising that the Israel/Palestine discussion might get heated. There's been 3 Arbcom cases over that topic. If it were up to me? those articles would be restricted to sovereign states. Therefore, Palestine would be excluded entirely. However, at the moment, a majority of editors don't see it that way. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it's clear that I do not have fanatical view for or against Palestine. It's the inconsistency, and the unproven assumption (and the apparent lack of self-reflection about this) that bothers me. ZBukov (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much like in the real word, the Israel/Palestine dispute can easily become volatile on Wikipedia - 3 Arbcom cases will attest to that. I don't know about you, but I'm gonna walk away from it. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most active editor in the discussion seems staunchly oblivious to the distinction I am at pains to make. But even ignore that particular point it would be crucial to agree on what new consistent rules to arrange the article by. ZBukov (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
José Ramos-Horta
Compared to Traian Băsescu, this perhaps is a situation slightly more complicated and tangled. For one, I really find it hard to understand why exactly the Acting presidents are necessary for inclusion. Despite his incapacity, Ramos-Horta remained both the active and unsuspended executive president despite his incapacity—as with Bush in 2002 and 2007 (and perhaps even Reagan in 1981 or Hugo Chávez in 2012–13). If Cheney should continue to be excluded, why should these Acting presidents be included? FWIW, the article 2008 in East Timor contains zero mention towards the Acting presidents. I do wonder why that is.--Neve–selbert23:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert: Ramos-Horta was not suspended, but was of a medical leave (therefore he was anything but active), hence the need for acting presidents! And the reason why acting presidents should be included is that the article is about heads of state and government, therefore if someone was president or prime minister (whether acting or substantial), they should be included! The person officially exercising the head of state or head of government functions - save for routine absences, like the incumbent going on a vacation - should be included. Excluding acting presidents was only your idea, not mine. ZBukov (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, indeed, why was Cheney never originally included? And when Reagan was practically incapacitated (shortly after his assassination attempt) in 1981, who was exercising the head of state or head of government functions? Indeed, Alexander Haig did controversially state that he "was in charge, here", although this statement is unofficial. With that being said, it remains my view that the inclusion of the East Timorese Acting presidents is unjustified and unnecessary. Your justification is inconsistent with day-to-day realities. Now, of course, a footnote should not be out-of-the-question completely as a subsequent solution (and you may have to concede to one, if it eventually comes down to it).--Neve–selbert10:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I haven't put Cheney on the list was that I haven't been aware that he was acting president. If he was, then please proceed to add him. If Haig was Acting President of the United States, please add him too. If he wasn't, then don't. I disagree with your opinion that adding acting presidents (save for routine absences) is unjustified and unnecessary. I don't think that the reason for being on a leave of absence (whether it's major medical emergency or impeachment) matters because the effect is the same, namely that the acting president exercises the head of state functions for the duration of the absence. ZBukov (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist, a relegation to footnote status would be acceptable to me. Unlike with Romania, the president of East Timor was not dishonourably suspended but rather honourably incapacitated at the expense of an Acting president serving a slightly different purpose (to that of Romania's). This may be the only forward in this case, as a digestible compromise.--Neve–selbert23:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with you there. In the way that I see it: if a president is suspended, he must have an Acting president executing his constitutional, etc. duties, whereas if a president is incapacitated, he only should have an Acting president. In the case of Ramos-Horta, he had two during his incapacity. Reagan and Chavez both mysteriously had zero. It's all very inconsistent with the incapacitated state leaders—unlike with the suspended ones. I strongly believe that the rule of thumb should be the following: if a president is suspended and an Acting president(s) is serving concurrently, forgo a relegated footnote and instead include them both equally with a footnote simply explaining the constitutional irregularity; if a president is merely incapacitated, relegate any Acting president(s) into a neatly compact footnote. This certainly seems to me as a sensible and doable compromise.--Neve–selbert01:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am indeed eager to demote the acting state leaders for those merely incapacitated into footnotes this week—assuming you are OK with this.--Neve–selbert12:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree with excluding (or relegating to a footnote) some acting presidents on the basis of the reason why the substantial president was on a leave of absence. ZBukov (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find your position to be extremely odd. Either we exclude them or include them in a footnote remains my proposition. I must say, your opposition to a simple footnote is something I find really quite puzzling. For example, Netanyahu was incapacitated in December 2015 and Moshe Ya'alon apparently served as the acting prime minister on his behalf. Rulers didn't seem to catch this and simply ignored the occurrence. Indeed, this is all very inconsistent. Which acting state leaders are important enough to be included? How does one measure the notability degree of an acting leader serving concurrently under an incapacitated leader? This is rather bizarre.--Neve–selbert12:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I remain opposed to your proposal of ignoring or hiding them, Neve. In the example you quoted the leader was incapacitated for a mere few hours (for the duration of being under sedatives). To my mind this doesn't seem important enough to include (just like an absence for a holiday, for example), but we can talk about this. By the number and choice of your adjectives (extremely odd, quite puzzling, very inconsistent, rather bizarre) I feel that you are very upset again. You shouldn't be. ZBukov (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and after bringing up an example of someone acting as Prime Minister for a few hours, now you are deleting someone who was in an acting position for years. It seems you are starting to get worked up. ZBukov (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to exclude them completely. But then again, I understand that there is a point to mentioning acting leaders serving concurrently. Hence the implementation of a footnote, a compromise option. I strongly urge you to reconsider. Per WP:WEIGHT, the undue attention to acting leaders serving concurrently to constitutional leaders is blatantly obvious. Your reverts do not adhere to guideline, as far as I am concerned.--Neve–selbert12:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you would prefer to delete them, which I categorically disagree with. If they were acting presidents or prime ministers, they should be listed. It's as simple as that. And even you agreed with this in the Romanian case. So excluding someone who was acting leader for a much longer time, is inconsistent and makes no sense. You deleted this information without discussing it first. ZBukov (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's include them then. Tucked neatly into a footnote is the best way to go, I reckon. A perfect compromise between our preferred options. Indeed, we must give and take (and I am prepared to do so).--Neve–selbert13:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, in the Romanian case even you agreed to listing acting president in the article proper. And as I already mentioned the reason why a president is on a leave of absence (whether it's a major, prolonged illness or impeachment) makes no difference to the end result (the incumbent retains his position, but the powers are temporarily exercised by the acting president). So there is no reason to exclude some acting presidents, but put others into the articles. ZBukov (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing the notion of a footnote is a reluctance to compromise. The fact of the matter is: if a president is suspended, he cannot possibly exercise his powers; whereas, if a president is incapacitated, he has the additional option of foregoing an acting stand-in leader and carrying on with his/her duties without hindrance (as with the Reagan case back in 1981). My proposition is: we include the concurrent acting state leaders listed proper if the permanent leader is suspended by law, and we demote concurrent acting state leaders to a nearby footnote for permanent leaders that are merely incapacitated. This doesn't seem to be too much to ask.--Neve–selbert14:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neve, you still haven't reacted in any way to the following substantial argument. If and when there is an acting president, then the reason for going on a leave of absence (whether it's illness, impeachment or an impending criminal investigation, etc) is irrelevant, because the end result is the same, namely the incumbent remains in office but the powers are temporarily exercised by the acting president. By the way, if someone "carries on with his/her duties without hindrance" then they cannot be regarded as incapacitated (unable to function). ZBukov (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And you still haven't reacted in any way to the following substantial argument. If and when there is an acting president, then the reason for going on a leave of absence (whether it's illness, impeachment or an impending criminal investigation, etc) is irrelevant, because the end result is the same, namely the incumbent remains in office but the powers are temporarily exercised by the acting president. ZBukov (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My reaction is simple. Listing concurrent acting leaders on par with permanent (and temporarily) incapacitated leaders results in undue weight. Sure, if the president is suspended, he cannot possibly execute his powers. But there is a key difference for leaders merely incapacitated. This should not and cannot be overlooked. My compromise remains sound.--Neve–selbert14:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the powers are transferred to an acting president, than it is judged that the president cannot execute his powers. I'm sure that you perceive your own suggestion as sound. I never had any doubt about that. ZBukov (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not certain as to how it's done in the other countries. But in the United States, when the vice president assumes the presidential powers & duties during the president's being too ill? the president continues on as being president & the vice president continues on as vice president. Therefore GHW Bush would not be added to List of state leaders in 1985 & Cheney would not be added to List of state leaders in 2002, List of state leaders in 2007. Note that in the USA (unlike many other republics), when the president dies, resigns or is removed from office via impeachment conviction, the vice president automatically become president. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, GoodDay, but I don't understand the reasons given in your above message. Why would the parallel possession of the offices of vice president and acting president somehow exclude someone from being listed as an acting president? I would, however, exclude both acting presidents on the grounds that they were exercising those powers for something like two hours, which - to my mind - is too insignificant (about which I'm open to discussion). And I also failed to understand why the US mechanism of presidential succession is relevant for this discussion. ZBukov (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They only way a vice president/acting president should be included, would be if the presidency is vacant. An example would be Venezuela in 2013. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: I am really quite ambivalent with this palaver, although I am mostly fine with listing acting leaders serving concurrently if the permanent president is suspended by the constitution. With those incapacitated, I would rather demote them to footnote status, tucked neatly away.--Neve–selbert14:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never was a fan of the infobox setup (for example) at Basescu's article. His tenure should be shown as unbroken, as he was president of Romania, even though his powers/duties were suspended. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, I couldn't agree with you more! I find the break-up of Basescu's presidency into three parts to be fictitious, misleading and simply incorrect (as he at no point ceased to be President of Romania). But at the same time ignoring the acting presidents would also be a problematic omission as it would exclude relevant, effective and official information about the person who held the presidential powers. Neve and I already had a discussion about this and we agreed on both points. ZBukov (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox can be handled easily. Make his presidential tenure unbroken. Then underneath the 'tenure' part, list the acting presidents and their tenures, in small print. As for whether those Romanian actin presidents should be listed in the List of state leaders of Year articles? I'd say no. But, I'm not going to bust a gut over it. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a look (searching for the word acting) through Rulers, I have found quite a few missing acting state leaders from the SLBY articles. I am willing to include those acting for suspended presidents— bulleted on par with other state leaders—although I still do not see the fundamental purpose of not including those acting for incapacitated presidents inside a footnote. I certainly hope, as a compromise option (since my preferred option would be the get rid of all acting state leaders serving concurrently), that we can come to an agreement on this matter sooner rather than later.--Neve–selbert00:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
President is on leave of absence. Acting president does the president's job for the duration of the absence. Once the president returns from his leave, he takes back the exercise of the presidential duties. What he did while on leave, whether he was in hospital, defending himself in a criminal case, or attending impeachment proceedings, is simply irrelevant because it did not change the fact that he was not performing his duties while on leave. If you disagree with this, please explain. ZBukov (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained. I strongly believe that it is a source of undue weight including acting leaders serving concurrently for incapacitated leaders on par with those acting concurrently for suspended ones. There is a key difference: the end result may be similar, but the start is strikingly different; I believe that this matters. As I have previously stated, I would be very happy to remove all acting leaders serving concurrently for an incapacitated/suspended president. You would indeed be very happy to do the exact opposite. We need to bring about a compromise here. And I believe that the footnote for those serving for incapacitated leaders only—leaving those for those suspended alone—is the best compromise we have. Besides, you already get the better deal here, anyway.--Neve–selbert06:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only way an Acting President should be included in those articles, would be if the Presidency is vacant. It's unfortunate that countries without an automatic succession, have been inconsistent with the usage of the term Acting President. IMHO, in cases of presidential vacancy, Interim President would be a more appropriate usage, for those countries. GoodDay (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neve, as I said this is a distinction with an irrelevant difference because - as you yourself agreed - the end result is all the same. I note (without understanding the underlying reasons, though) that for you in matters an awful lot why someone in on a leave of absence, but based on this you are calling for encyclopedic content to be deleted! And deleting acting presidents and prime ministers (regardless of whether it's full deletion of relegation into a footnote) would be a loss of relevant information. And apart from the difference being irrelevant, I also believe that the distinction isn't clear either. Because Moshe Katsav voluntarily decided to go on a leave of absence due to the pending criminal proceedings against him, and in the end he was not impeached (but resigned anyway). Furthermore an acting president is a fact whereas the undue weight rule mostly deals with the presentation of minority opinions.
GoodDay, if someone was officially exercising the presidential powers then in my opinion it is relevant and useful to include them in the list, because that gives the full picture of who exercised head of state powers in the given year. ZBukov (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're interested in Heads of state, not Acting Heads of state. On a monarchy basis (for example) I would exclude regents, unless the throne were vacant during that regency. GoodDay (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take Liechtenstein for example. Reigning Prince Hans Adam II is still legally the head of state, however the day to day running of the country has been done by Hereditary Prince Alois as regent since 2004. Therefore is you deleted him from the articles, then the list would not give a realistic picture about Liechtenstein, because it would not list the very person who is performing the head of state functions (for almost twelve years by now). ZBukov (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That I understand. But would you explain why, when it's his signature that is needed for bills to be become law, etc, so on a strictly functional level he is the head of state. ZBukov (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hans-Adam II is Liechtenstein's head of state, until he dies, abdicates or is deposed. PS- I won't be seeking any consensus to get Alois removed, btw. I acknowledge that 12-yrs as regent, would cause most editors to side with including him in those 2004 to date articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But sticking strictly and only to the legal possessor of the office of head of state can conceal reality, as it would in the case of Liechtenstein, or in the case of Stalin's thirty-year tenure as the unquestioned, paramount leader of the Soviet Union (save the twelve years when he was head of government). And in this way - in my opinion - the articles wouldn't be as informative and useful. ZBukov (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I partially agree with the points made by GoodDay, I would perhaps be open to relegating Alois and other regents to footnote status. Per WP:WEIGHT though, I think a footnote is good enough for acting leaders (in republics) not serving during a vacancy. As part of this proposal, those acting for suspended state leaders would be unaffected. In my opinion, it would look much neater—especially with Cuba, mentioning them in a footnote and tucked away accordingly.--Neve–selbert13:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neve, so you want to delete relevant facts (the person who was actually acting as president for years, in the case of Cuba) from the article so that it looks more neat...? I'm wondering how you would judge the relative weight of that argument, if you thought inserting someone is relevant. Aesthetic considetations shouldn't trump facts...
The "trumping facts" argument is merely a red herring. Information is indeed retained, hence the footnote. Please remember, my concerns are directed at those acting for incapacitated leaders, not suspended ones. The difference between the two is that one is powerless against his/her will, while the other is usually the opposite. All that being said, I am always open to removing any mention of them entirely, as this is the option frankly more to my liking.--Neve–selbert15:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still find the question of what one does while on a leave of absence irrelevant as it does not influence the end result (of what actually happens). But you have made your opinion abundantly clear. By the way, impeachment typically happens against the incumbent's will, just like incapacity. ZBukov (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely my point. Imagine the scenario: if an incapacitated president were to give an order or command to the Acting president serving during their incapacity on a hospital bed (example), that Acting president would certainly consider following their advice & counsel; whereas, if a suspended president were to give an order, etc. to the Acting president serving during their suspension/impeachment, that Acting president certainly would not be obliged or persuaded to follow their orders whatsoever. The end result would thus be slightly different in a certain sense—hence my interpretation of WP:WEIGHT.--Neve–selbert15:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what if one discharges the powers through proxy? On a separate note, you just overpassed WP:3RR. If we still can't agree on a footnote, then WP:DRN is probably the next route.--Neve–selbert16:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...or a leader could be suffering from mental problems like George III and Kjell Magne Bondevik was, that's why there are mechanisms to delegate and retrieve the head of state powers from a regent or acting president. You have not managed to convince me that the distinction based on which you want to delete people from the article is irrelevant. ZBukov (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) A suspended president is locked out of power, an analogy can be made to a block over here. The same just can't be said for an incapacitated president, who over here could simply be an editor who decided not to edit for a few days or months, etc. I mean sure, they both aren't editing. So, the end result for both equals the same. But their reasons for not editing are completely different. One is just inactive and one's just straight-out banned. If one does indeed wear rose-tinted spectacles, the difference between them would render irrelevant—since they both aren't contributing anyway and the "end result" is the same.--Neve–selbert16:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy is false. What you described is a passive incumbent, while someone is incapacitated when they cannot perform the duties of their office (holding meetings, receiving briefings, making informed decisions, attending state functions, etc). A barking mad George III is not the same as a king who just sits in his office and chooses to do nothing all day. ZBukov (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would list Dalia Itzik, as she was interim president from Katsav's resignation, until Peres' inauguration. The Israeli presidency was vacant, while she performed its powers & duties. I wouldn't include her time, while Katsav was in office. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get that. :) What I'm saying is that in real life, however, probably nothing changed that day. :) And - at least in my opinion - it's important for the articles to reflect reality, besides legal propriety, and when these two aspects collide head-on, it's the facts that matter more. For example most revolutionary change happens illegally, yet we don't list the Shah of Iran or the Romanovs as heads of state anymore. And this is why I opposed the inclusion of the Baltic states' diplomatically recognized governments-in-exile for the 1940-1991 period because their annexation by the Soviet Union - while evidently illegal - was complete, effective and lasting (e.g. in real life independent Estonia ceased to exist in the given period). ZBukov (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like what you said about Palestine, the fact that (parts of) the Western world gave them diplomatic recognition, didn't mean that Estonia was independent. And if these articles are supposed to give information on who led the states in the given year, then in that period actually there was no Estonia to lead (only a sub-unit of the Soviet Union, which was no more independent than Uzbekistan at the same time). ZBukov (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a group of editors, who refuse to show the Baltic states as once being a part of the Soviet Union. Thank goodness, they haven't infiltrated the 'List of state leaders in Year' articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can very much sympathize with such a stance on an emotional level, but tragically the facts flew in the face of any such claim. It would be akin to refusing to acknowledge when a person or an entire regime is toppled by illegal or unconstitutional means. ZBukov (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the reason against including their governments-in-exile. But you wrote here earlier that "The Baltic states of 1940-91, is a topic of immense headache for me". I though this was a reference to your having conflicting considerations regarding the topic. ZBukov (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a headache, in that a group of editors have managed to deny on Wikipedia, that those 3 countries were ever a part of the Soviet Union. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will there be one or two users still claiming that these sources say one thing but it isn't like that *really*? Yes. But consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees. Usually you get a consensus and the one or two users start edit-warring and get blocked or told to stay away from the article by admins. So it gets the job done. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had any such ambition, but then I'll keep this in mind should temptation arise in the future. By the way, have you tried the "reliable sources" avenue suggester above by OpenFuture? ZBukov (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be that there is no way to correct factually incorrect information on Wikipedia only because some editors oppose it for - presumably - sentimental or sense-of-justice reasons, can it? ZBukov (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reliable sources supporting your standpoint, and those of the opposing standpoint doesn't, then there are ways. If both sides have reliable sources, it may be that it's not a matter of factual correctness. In the case of "Have Estonia been a part of the Soviet Union", this is a fairly open and shut case. Correcting any contrary claim would be trivial, so you have to excuse me that I'm not taking this claim particularly seriously. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been around those disputes in quite some time. If my memory serves me right, those who opposed using Soviet Union had provided sources that said the USSR taking over the Baltic states was illegal. On that basis, they argued against & opposed any changes to Soviet Union. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They also used sources to show that there were countries that refused to recognize the 1940-91 Soviet status of the Baltic states. Anyways, take my advice & stay away from that dispute. You'll end up frustrated there. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Spirit Ethanol has succeeded in convincing editors that Palestine was displayed as a "substate of" Israel. I am unsure whether or not you would like to contest this result or not, or whether you agree with it retrospectively. I myself have tried to contest it although a topic ban could be heading my way if I get involved with the situation any further. Since you were the editor that originally included the Palestinian Authority entry underneath Israel, I am keen to hear your opinion as to whether or not the current rendition of the article is apt. Thanks.--Neve–selbert08:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Neve, I wrote a reply on JzG's talkpage, but I'm afraid the majority of editors are simply against this solution, and I guess some were even offended during the course of the debate. So I don't think there is anything one can do, other than proceeding constructively on the basis that the majority interpreted the indentation as an indication of being a "substate". Please allow me to make an observation as someone who was in favor of and opposed to your position in one debate each: your debating style can be so combative that it becomes counterproductive. And offending other editors will only increase the likelihood that they will want to defeat your proposition - so it's bad for them and in turn bad for you. ZBukov (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
^The UN upgraded Palestine to observer status in 2012—subsequently renamed in supranational circles in 2013—following the General Assembly resolution 67/19.
Hi Neve, this seems a bit too much for me. We didn't mention any other country's UN status in the notes explaining their status, so I'd skip that altogether. Whoever is interested in the details, can look up the relevant articles. What do you think of this one?
Of course you can't force him to do anything. Do you think meat-puppets are being forced at gunpoint? Of course not. It is still highly improper. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the matter of Palestine is too touchy and emotionally charged for most people, so I remain pessimistic about the prospect of conducting rational debate about it. So even if I offer my opinion every once in a while, I prefer to steer clear of very active involvement with the topic in order to spare myself frustration. I am against both deleting the entry for Palestine, and pretending that it is an independent country. You know my reasons: As much as I know Palestine has not had de facto control over its territory and population at any time since its declaration of independence, and international recognition does not make a country independent (just like possessing full UN membership did not make Ukraine and Belarus independent in the 1945-1991 period, so treating Palestine as independent on account of its UN observer status makes no sense to me). But I see no point in banging my head against the brick wall in this matter. ZBukov (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't think Palestine is a state, and although I agree, we have to go with reliable and authoritative sources and they claim otherwise. But having it as a sub-entry under Israel is pretending that it actually belongs to Israel, and that Palestine is separatist. That's obviously false, you must understand that as well. Not even the Israeli state claims that. The only argument for that situation is religious, and claiming that Palestine *actually* belongs to the Jewish people because God gave it to them. Please be above such absurdities. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think that Palestine is a state, what I don't think is that it's independent. I do not think that Palestine belongs to Israel in the sense that Israel is entitled to Palestine, instead what I think is that Palestine is (illegally, but de facto) under the control of Israel. Your opinion about independence and international recognition gives me the impression that your field of expertise is probably not international relations. I was referring to these issues when I wrote that I see no point in banging my head against the brick wall. :-) ZBukov (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not a lawyer specializing in international law, you are correct. But neither are you, and your understanding of international law seems very lacking, although you seem to have a good grasp on political theory. But theory isn't practice. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was expressing the same opinion in the Palestine debate, as above. So your automatic presumption of me holding a fanatic religious view about a territorial/international dispute is an example of how people treat the Israel-Palestine conflict in terms of a false dichotomy (either pro-Palestinian or Zionist Nationalist), ignoring the possibility that someone might not be emotionally, religiously or nationalistically motivated about it, and would wish to be something other than partisan. So I'm afraid your discouraging reaction above does nothing to facilitate open debate.
I guess we can both happily get over the fact that I have failed to impress you with my grasp of international law. Some college professors will soon have the opportunity to form their own opinion about it. ZBukov (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't assume you to be fanatical at all. I just point out that if you think what I say doesn't reflect international law, then you need to learn more international law. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You requested me above to abandon such absurdities as claiming Palestine for Israel on religious grounds (which is a view I have neither expressed, nor held). This to me was a prima facie implication of religious fanaticism. I may have misunderstood what you meant, but then I have no idea what other sense to make of your message. ZBukov (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't request you to *abandon* it. I asked you to please not *have* that opinion. I did not make the assumption that you did. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And since I had given you no grounds whatsoever to assume that I held any such opinion, asking me to "Please be above such absurdities" made no sense other than implying that it was my view (hence the automatic assumptions surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict). Anyway.
As far as the merit of the debate is concerned, I am consistently of the opinion that when law and reality or theory and reality contradict each other, then the encyclopedia has to reflect the latter in order to be informative. So priority should be given to what is over what should be according to the law. And usually this is exactly what happens.
Were Ukraine and Belarus full members of the United Nations between 1945 and 1991? Yes. Did this make them independent? No.
Was the 1940 Soviet annexation of the Baltic states illegal? Yes. So did this keep them independent? No.
Does regime change, like in 1979 Iran and 1917 Russia, often happen via illegal means? Yes. So do we still consider the previous regimes (the Pahlavis and Romanovs) as still being in power in those countries? No.
Does the international community (with the exception of the occupying power, plus Nauru, Nicaragua and Venezuela) recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be part of Georgia? Yes. So does Georgia control those territories? No.
Yet for some reason this approach (respect for facts, if you will) seems to be suspended when it comes to the independence of Palestine. No-one actually claims that Palestine is free from foreign interference i.e. independent (hence the need for the two-state solution), yet they insist that Palestine should be treated as if it were just that. Clearly an independent state is the Palestinians' political aim of the peace process, but claiming it to be reality simply does not correspond to the current state of affairs over there. So I consider this more or less as a lost cause for rational debate. ZBukov (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are against removing Palestine, and you are against making it a top-level entry. I interpret that as you wanting to have it as a sub-entry to Israel. The only logical reason to have that opinion if that you have the position that Palestine rightly should belong to Israel.
As I have mentioned several times in the debate and here as well, I do NOT think that Palestine should rightly belong to Israel. I'm only saying that currently it actually does. I wrote above that "Palestine is illegally, but de facto under the control of Israel". I'm wondering how you can interpret that sentence to mean "rightfully it should"... You wrote that "the only logical reason to have that opinion...", while I have explained my logical reasons for holding the opinion I do, which falls outside the two which you allow for. My position is fundamentally different from what you are trying to assign to me here. You seem to be exhibiting the logical fallacy of false dilemma which I protested about. ZBukov (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Baltic states were also illegally but de facto under the control of the Soviet Union, yet acknowledging this fact (by not claiming that they were independent 1940-1991) is not portrayed as Stalinist POV pushing. Or do you view it like that? ZBukov (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"As I have mentioned several times in the debate and here as well, I do NOT think that Palestine should rightly belong to Israel. I'm only saying that currently it actually does." - Then it is not a state, and should not be listed at all. Just pointing this out, so you know where your mistake is. The case for having Palestine as a sub entry relies entirely on viewing Palestine as a breakaway region. For it to be a breakaway region it must at some point have belonged to Israel, which it has not, or it SHOULD belong to Israel for religious reasons. Your argument "it's not an independent state" does not mean that it should be a sub-entry, it means it should be deleted, a viewpoint you don't hold. So your standpoint is contradicting your arguments. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see now. So you are confusing statehood and independence. And if you only accept one possible reason to hold an opinion, than no wonder you will find any other approach senseless (self-contradictory in this case). ("The case for having Palestine as a sub entry relies entirely on viewing Palestine as a breakaway region." I do not view Palestine as a breakaway region, yet was advocating for the sub entry solution.) Yet again and again this seems to pass below your radar. :)
I have already acquiesced that the majority of editors find the sub-entry setup misleading and therefore it should be got rid of. What I was arguing against above is regarding Palestine as independent (yet relevant for inclusion, along with the other states whose independence is not recognized or effective). ZBukov (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guarantee you I'm not confusing anything. You have provided no argumentation for having Palestine as a subentry whatsoever. It's possible you have an argument that I have not thought of, but I doubt it. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of independence can be expressed via text as opposed to an ambiguous visual layout. I would like to ask you Zoltan, as a primary editor of this list series to take initiative and rid page of subentry format for all the list pages, all states. Baking Soda (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sub-entry format makes sense in cases where there are competing governments. It's also used for break-away states, but I think that if they are not internationally recognized, they should rather be deleted. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sub entry layout - though I did not separate the Vatican City and the Holy See, given how intricately they are connected. But I will definitely not remove past entries for Palestine because that would be hugely controversial without a prior talkpage consensus or majority, plus I myself thoroughly disagree with the idea. ZBukov (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Best solution for those articles concerning anything to do with Palestine, is to DELETE the PNA from all those articles (1994 to 2012), while leaving the State of Palestine where it is (2013 to present). GoodDay (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there were Palestinian political leaders heading an entity which had declared independence, and the whole conflict is so prominent on the international agenda, that simply deleting them would deprive the articles of the names of people whom even the average person on the street might well have heard of as state leaders. So at the end of the day I'd rather have them in the article in whatever inconsistent form the majority of editors wishes to feature them, than see them deleted. ZBukov (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, people didn't hear of them as state leaders, they were mentioned as "Leader of the PLO" etc. That's not an issue. Before 2013 Palestine wasn't a state, I agree they should be deleted. I'd do it myself if I wasn't of the opinion that the whole series of articles should be deleted. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you broke 3RR on 28 March on this article. To avoid a block, you might promise to abstain from all editing of these lists of state leaders and their talk pages for two weeks. Let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to abstain from editing the List of state leaders in 2006 article only, or each article of the series plus their talk pages? As you see I am having a discussion about the topic with the other edit warring party here on my own talk page (who is equally happy to revert my edits when I restore the date he keeps deleting from the article, and who was reported to you yesterday for edit warring), and also another discussion on the Talk page of the List of state leaders in 2016. ZBukov (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The offer is for all the list articles. If the issue is still current after the two weeks expire, you could pick up the thread then. The person you are talking about is currently blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can undertake not to edit any of the List of state leaders in XXXX articles, rather than be blocked. Please clarify if I also have to abstain from continuing the discussion on the take page of the 2016 article which I had been taking part in - you mentioned the talk pages in your first message, but not in the second. I presume my own talk page is not affected in any way. ZBukov (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Neve–selbert18:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vatican
I've asked for input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism, as to whether the pope is both the Vatican City's head of state & government. If the pope is both? then we shouldn't be listing the Presidents of the Governate of Vatican City and the Vatican Secretaries of State :) GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for having asked for expert input. I'll be interested to learn their advice. The reason why I presumed the president to be something like a head of government for the Vatican is because the UN lists the cardinal secretary of state as head of government for the Holy See (https://www.un.int/protocol/sites/www.un.int/files/Protocol%20and%20Liaison%20Service/hspmfm.pdf). The Holy See is in the unique position of being accepted as a subject of public international law despite not being a state. But it is intricately linked to the independent Vatican City State (though almost all international affairs are handled by the Holy See, not the Vatican). The Vatican is an absolute monarchy but as much as I know it is run by the President of the Governorate - which is why I though that it is appropriate to regard him as akin to a head of government. ZBukov (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the coming hours, I may well discover how little I know about the Vatican & Holy See setup, as well. Odds are, one or both of those officials will remain in the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, your input is welcomed at WP:CATHOLICISM as well. At the moment, the word seems to be include the President of the Governorate of Vatican City State. But exclude the Vatican Secretary of State. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a surprising turn because I guess the UN's list of heads of state and government can be regarded as the par excellence "reliable source" on this matter and it lists the Cardinal Secretary of State as the Holy See's head of government.
Hello User:Zoltan Bukovszky. The thee island territories may not be part of the UK proper, but they are certainly under the sovereignty of the Crown in right of the UK and not the Crown as an institution of the 16 Commonwealth Realms. That means that for purposes of International law, they are not independent countries but basically under the sovereignty of the UK Crown, which is a constituent part of the UK Parliament. The fact that they do not belong to the UK proper (that also goes for the other UK dependencies) or that Parliament's power in these territories may have it's limitations, is of no concern to the international community. That at least should be acknowledged when discussing these territories. Perhaps "Crown" could be described as "Crown of the UK".... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The dependencies are indeed not regarded as independent countries. But there are reasons why we should be eager to avoid creating the impression as if they belonged to the UK (which the formula “Crown Dependency, United Kingdom” clearly implies).
1. The Ministry of Justice fact sheet says that the Crown Dependencies' relationship with the UK is significantly different from that of the overseas territories. They are so clearly separate entities that solutions are needed to deal with conflicts of interest between them when the British authorities represent the Dependencies in the international arena. See pages 29-30 of http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmjust/56/56i.pdf
2. As for the question of whose Crown it is, legislation mentions the "Crown in right of Jersey" (rather than of the UK), and it tracks Jersey’s link to the Crown through the Duchy of Normandy (not through the UK), furthermore they needed legislation to regulate the royal succession (rather than just being subject to the UK's succession rules): https://www.jerseylaw.je/Law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%5Chtm%5CLawFiles%5C2013%2FL-14-2013.htm
3. The Crown owned the Duchy of Normandy earlier than the United Kingdom (or even Great Britain) came into existence. Therefore from a chronological perspective the UK should be regarded as a possession of the Channel Islands, if anything.
4. The UK's involvement in certain aspects of administering these territories doesn't warrant them being labelled a UK dependency either. There have been other examples of intimate connection between states where the minor party was not regarded as belonging to (or being "something of") the major party, but a separate entity. For example the US Department of Interior, no less (through the Office of Insular Affairs) administers federal programs and funds which the independent states of Palau, Marshall Islands and Micronesia take part in. Similarly France looks after the defense of Monaco and used to represent her in the international arena, Andorra relies on France for postal service, internet, etc
However close the relationship is between the UK and the Dependencies, it is entirely sui generis and therefore should not be confused or conflated with the UK's colonies/overseas territories. Clicking on the link to the 'Crown Dependency' article will explain to the reader in greater detail what the Crown Dependency setup is about, so I don't think omitting a reference to the UK here will lead to any significant confusion. ZBukov (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And a sign of how relevant the dependencies' separatesness from the UK is to the international community, is the fact that unlike the UK, they do not belong to the EU! ZBukov (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A Crown dependency is indeed something very different from a UK dependent territory and the semantics are frankly confusing. But even the “Crown in right of Jersey” is an aspect of the British Crown, just like the “Crown in right of Quebec” is an aspect of the Canadian Crown. The legislation you cite clearly acknowledges that as it literally cites UK legislation. The Dependencies don’t fall under the direct authority of Parliament, hence the semantics involved about the Islands not being part of the UK (proper). But that doesn’t need to bother us because these are internal matters of the sovereign entity the dependencies are “dependent” (and the crux lies in that word) upon. And that entity is known to the outside world as the UK. The island territories are not subjects of international law. Only the UK is and whatever the internal workings and semantics involved in that, it’s important that this is noticed.
The difference with Palau, the Marshall Islands and Monaco is that these territories are sovereign states and subjects of international law.
Also notice that the British Crown is the legal successor of the English Crown that, at some time in the past, took possession of the remnants of the Duchy of Normandy (i.c. these island territories). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it was the case that their not being part of the UK "is of no concern to the international community" than they would be part of the EU which they are not (EU membership is quite a relevant matter internationally).
It is an officially acknowledged fact that they are not part of the UK, therefore we should not imply that they are. It is clearly not the case of an autonomous territory within the UK.
And to say that "Parliament's power in these territories may have it's limitations" is misleading because it does not have power there. The parliamentary inquiry states that "the Island parliaments legislate for themselves. UK legislation and international treaties are only extended to them with their consent"[[6]]. And if you can only create rules which the other agrees to, than you have no power over them.
My point was that the Normandy story happened the other way round. The owner of Normandy took possession of England. ZBukov (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. The point and basically the bottom line is that, as Jersey, Man and Guernsey are not independent and sovereign states, by international law they fall under another entity that is a sovereign state. Somehow that is the UK. And that is basically the only thing that matters. Although autonomous the UK (and it's Parliament) conduct the defence and foreign affairs of these territories. They are not part of the EU, although their citizens are regarded as EU citizens... Well, the same goes for some overseas territories of France and constituent countries of the Netherlands and Denmark. I think that at least Man used to be part of the EEC (as it was then) but was excluded on the grounds that they refused to adapt some legislation. Of course the "Queen in right of Quebec" thing is not analogous. But it just goes to show that these semantics do not imply that there is a fully separate situation. The Duchy of Normandy was originally part of the French Crown. But while the Dukes of Normandy conquered England and took the English Crown, they lost the Duchy of Normandy to France again, only retaining the two island territories as a remnant and as a result of the 100 years war, the titles King of France and also Duke of Normandy, were made subsidiary titles of the English Crown. The title Duke of Normandy (just like Duke of Lancaster) isn't used anymore by the Queen. The Duchies are her possession but she is the fount of honor and has no other titles than the titles of the Crown. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Well, if you want to simplify it this much, then "basically the only thing that matters" is that according to the UK Parliament "the Crown Dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom" so we should not imply the contrary. ZBukov (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a can of worms that we are dealing with here. You say I simplify things and basically you're right. But just for arguments sake let me ask you this. Under what internationally recognized state entity do these territories fall if not the UK? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very good question. Given the Westminster Parliament's statement, the counterintuitive answer is that none. But it is not an unprecedented anomaly. Most of us are not aware of the fact that before the German reunification, West Berlin was not part of West Germany (and apparently neither of East Germany, or any other state entity, for that matter). ZBukov (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah.... Nice point. We could argue that these territories are like Antarctica, just without the ice and the penguins. No internationally recognized state authority. But that is a stretch in my view. West Berlin is (or was) another can of worms but that territory was at least subject to what was then called "the joint allied responsibility for Germany as a whole" and whatever entity was derived from that. The "Bundesrepublik" at least argued to be a partial successor to that position at the time and assumed Berlin to be a part of "Germany" an entity only partly represented by them at the time. West Berlin appointed members to the West German Parliament, so there were ties of a civic nature but the judicial situation was basically unwieldy. However from the West-German POV, they never recognized the division of Germany and could suffice by declaring that Berlin as a whole was part of Germany as a whole. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...but the "Germany as a whole" did not exist during the period mentioned, and this does not answer your own question of "what internationally recognized state entity". The reason why men from West Berlin were not drafted into the West German army was that they did not form part of that state, no matter the number of ties of a civic nature (which exist between the UK and the Dependencies too, I'm sure).
I'm afraid they are not like Antarctica either, in the sense that they are not terra nullius, since there are organized state institutions exercising effective control and the territories are not free for anyone to take. As much as I understand the only area where the Crown Dependencies fall short of being sovereign states is their lack of an international "personality". ZBukov (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. If I understand the reason correctly, then it's merely a case of the reader reducing the brightness of their monitor. ZBukov (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the edit for crying out loud. Can we please just talk about this rationally? I realised I made an error of judgment and I reverted myself. And again, I don't want anything to spark up again. Please realise this.--Neve–selbert22:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, GoodDay. His acknowledged unblock condition was observing a "constant WP:1RR concerning all articles", he didn't initiate a discussion either instead of or after his first revert, neither instead of or after his second revert (only after I brought the matter to light), and he is displaying his well-worn attitudes again. He is continuing the same things that got him blocked in the past. ZBukov (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...neither is his making empty promises, nor your mentoring him (" stay entirely away from those articles-in-question for 6 months & stick to 1RR" - and he has contravened both without a critical remark on your part, @GoodDay:). So what do you suggest instead? ZBukov (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neve-selbert self-reverted & apologized for his mistake. After 4-months, I think he's doing quite well. Bringing down the hammer on someone, isn't always the correct answer. To block Neve-selbert in this situation? would be a punitive move, not a preventative move. GoodDay (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He reverted only after being called out. So what prevention do you suggest since it's clear that he cannot be trusted to self-regulate, or to listen to you as his mentor? ZBukov (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Neve selbert self reverted, I'd be inclined towards moving on as well. If they had deliberately violated 1RR and was unrepentant about it after you reminded them, then there could be a case for blocking. It would be quite a stretch of the interpretation of "broadly construed" to say the list article is subject to ARBPIA. Climbing up each other's back about these sorts of things only leads to bad tempers all round and no one wins. Blackmane (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, you're allowed to be human and make the occasional error as long as you fix it and clean up after yourself. Please play nicely. I see no signs of evil here, and this is a content matter that should be discussed on the talk page unless there is evidence of an ongoing problem requiring actual action. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Occassional error would be human and perfectly fine. But you forget the heap of evidence of grave ongoing problems that required action recently (and which got him blocked in the end [[8]]). And after some effusive promises (which he proceeded to break right away) and pleas for a "last chance", he got re-admitted with conditions. And now he is breaking one after the other. So what sense did his block make in the first place, if nobody cares about his behaviour? ZBukov (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather allow the fellow to work through his mistakes & not throw him to the wolves. If you wish to take your concerns over Neve-selbert's recent behaviour to AN, ANI, etc; then that's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What wolves...? I'll be interested to see how he keeps his promise of "total ban from editing or modifying articles/sections concerning WP:IsPal & constant WP:1RR concerning all articles". ZBukov (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there's anymore mistakes made by him? contact me first. That way, I can steer him away from potential arguments or edit spats. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neve selbert violated 1RR, you alerted them to it, they self reverted. What more is there to do? If you feel there is sufficient justification then you are free to raise it up at ANI and ask for a topic ban. Sanctions should never be discussed, or proposed, on a user talk page. However, I can almost guarantee that for a once off trip up, there will be no traction for any sort of sanction. But, I would say to @Neve-selbert: that there is generally not a lot of room to make such errors. Once or twice is probably forgivable, but there isn't a great deal of tolerance for those who repeatedly violate self imposed conditions. Please be mindful that the lack of appetite for sanctions, which I would foresee for this transgression, may quickly turn into a consensus for community enforced sanctions. Blackmane (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand, Blackmane. I should have been more alert, I realise that. I made a mistake and I accept that. Lesson learned. Given that it is already pretty clear that Bukovszky won't hear me out, I shall say no more. I can assure you of my determination to avoid this kind of hastiness in editing in future, such editing that I have indeed shown hitherto since being allowed to edit again four months ago.--Neve–selbert01:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverts, etc.
Now look, there was honestly no need for this. If you could care to explain why exactly you reverted my edits, I would certainly take the time to sort out some sort of compromise or other. Again, all I ask is for consistency. Take a look at the other List of state of leaders articles from the 21st century (those that I have been able to fix up so far) and search for the word "superseded". I was only trying to be consistent with these articles. And if I may ask one last question: why did you revert this edit? What was wrong with it precisely? There is no need for this kind of hostility. You should have assumed good faith, a fundamental pinnacle of philosophy round here.--Neve–selbert21:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guy, you reverted my edits yesterday, but in fact the Beiyang government of the Republic of China is the legal and only Chinese government that has international recognition at that time, and there' s no Nationalist government until 1925. Your reverts has no sense. Cirolchou (talk) 3:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, please do not delete large amount of data from articles without an explanation. If you believe - based on reliable sources - that no alternative government existed before 1925, than please take it up with the Republic of China (1912–49) article as it says that Sun Yat-sen "returned to Guangdong province in the south with the help of warlords in 1917 and 1922, and set up successive rival governments to the Beiyang government". Apart from the mere fact that they controlled a part of the country de facto (albeit without international recognition), what makes them historically even more important is that they proceeded to defeat and take over the Beiyang government eventually. ZBukov (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
these articles
You said "...if one editor doesn't feel like contributing to these articles, he is under no obligation or pressure to do so" Which articles are "these articles"? tahcchat20:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that if you find it very cumbersome to verify and maintain the List of state leaders in XXXX articles, than just don't. You don't have to. But your lack of interest or capacity doesn't meant that they must be scrapped, as there are other people around who are happy to keep perfecting them (me being one such). ZBukov (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you are happy and interested in keeping them does not mean that you get to keep them. Since they violate Wikipedia policy, the only way to keep them would be if that format were better than any of the other choices. (And to me, they are clearly not.) That we editors have to follow all the Wikipedia policies is part of that concept that editors do not own pages. I am trying to assume good faith, but you seem to be purposely avoiding this point and saying a sort of "live and let live" thing. tahcchat22:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless it is curious that these articles have been around for over a decade, read, amended and discussed by a host of editors, yet no consensus emerged about them being so fatally flawed as deserving cancellation. Strange how everybody else was in the dark until 19 November 2016 AD... ZBukov (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and apparently you are the only person working on thearticles designed to supplant the ones created by a multitude of editors. So it more looks like a vanity project, than an indispensable correction of some real and grave shortcoming. ZBukov (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Redirection of list of state leaders in 2016 and list of state leaders in 2017 to list of state leaders in the 21st century
On 4 January Tahc redirected List of state leaders in 2016 and List of state leaders in 2017 to List of state leaders in the 21st century without any reason. Neither I, nor you, nor other contributors of these articles expressed the accord to these action which I consider abusive. Please sustain me in the action for annulment of this action,express your protest to TAHC and ask the reversion of redirections.
Thank you
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
^This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
^Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
Gambia
As I found on https://www.rulers.org/2017-01.html “On January 20 it is reported that Jammeh dissolved his cabinet, declaring he would oversee all ministries himself”. To present, the site www.rulers.org was a very reliable source so I used the information
Bogdan Uleia (talk)
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for to response to late but I wished and I succeeded that, first of all, I finish my work. I have nothing to talk with Tahc. This “clever” guy believed to be the only owner of absolute truth and has absolute rights in the Wikipedia, to destroy the work of other contributors. The sad fact is that there is a group that supports him, although his articles are usually unnecessary and weaker than they destroyed. I retreated to the Romanian Wiki where discussions are constructive and where there is no, at least so far, such individuals "smart" did not appear. Wikipedia English Because on English Wikipedia are also serious people like you and here we received many useful and accurate information, I feel compelled to continue to have contributions but only at the items which are not deformed the guy.
Regarding administrator of Tokelau there is a problem. David Nicholson, was only appointed in November 2016. On http://www.tokelau.org.nz/Administrators+Corner/Administrators+of+Tokelau.html his mandate is presented as beginning in 2017. I wrote to New Zeeland Foreign Ministry in order to obtain more data but, as usually, the Ministry did not answer. For me the problem it is yet unclear
Bogdan Uleia (talk)
Designation of heads of government
Another guy who consider he I the only detainer of the truth and he is clever as List of Heads of State of UN, www.rulers.org and www,WorldStatesmen.org. And otherwise very stubborn and insistent. I think it would be good you should start a discussion about this problem. I will support you as strong as I can.
Bogdan Uleia (talk)
Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Zoltan Bukovszky. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
List of current dependent territory leaders by year
I was curious and I visited the “productions” of Tahc List of state leaders in the 21st century and List of governors of dependent territories in the 21st century. Firstly the both are enough out of date. It is explicable because it is very hard for a single contributor to keep an article up to date. In the same time, are a very little number of other authors who contributed to this article. Generally they are not the contributors who write for the articles which we update and, very interesting, it is none of those who supported Tahc for to destroy List of governors of dependent territories by years. In the term of content, in List of state leaders in the 21st century it is a very sophisticated division of continents by regions which, in my opinion it is very useless. It is simpler to search a country by the continent and by alphabetical order. On the other hand, the articles are very useless. If someone wants to see the leaders of a country in chronological order he can find special articles about these or can use www.rules.org or www.worldstatesmen.org. Talking about forking, in fact the articles of Tahc are forking, because he wrote them in the moment when articles with the same subjects already existed. I have nothing against that Tahc writing his own articles however these are “forking”. It is his time and his work. But I don’t understand why he must destroy the work of others. Only to prove he is the only detainer of the truth and smarter as all the others? I don’t know what to believe. It is a “brotherhood” who acts in favour of some contributors and against others? Although I renounced to the fight because the cleverer give up first, I am very unhappy and think to initialise again a List of current dependent territory leaders by year even I am sure “the gang” will destroy it again. Can you help me to obtain the victory and to insert a useful List of current dependent territory leaders by year? I wait for a response. Thank you!
On the other hand, it is my pleasure to wish you to have a very Happy and beautiful new year in 2020!
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
