Talk:List of oldest living state leaders/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

No 78 (Elizabeth II), lead footnote (flags)

The explanatory note[1] at least should be put back, with the addition of the information that each of the States headed by Elizabeth II has its own flag. Qexigator (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've no objection to restoring the note. But, we should wait until others weigh in. Let's give this atleast week. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you clarify what gives you the right to create and impose these rules? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any final say in what goes in this article or stays out. If you can get a consensus to add Canada, Australia & New Zealand (with their flags) to Elizabeth II's entry? then so be it. Likewise, if you can get a consensus to add the footenote? then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You get a say on when I can and can't edit, over and above WP:BRD. You can revert me without stated reason and tell me to wait for others. Who gave you that power? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If you must know, 2 editors thanked me for reverting your bold changes. Atleast one of them, would defintely have reverted your changes, himself. No doubt, in a few hours, you'll again attempt to insert your changes. Would you prefer I allow somebody else to revert you? GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Proof positive you don't pay attention. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
We'll have to allow others to decide if this is so. GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I just proved it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You're entitled to your own opinon. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You can have a red herring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that the footnote has been restored, albeit differently. If it's left in the article, then I recommend the content of it be changed from "16 sovereign states" to "United Kingdom and 15 other sovereign states", in order to better reflect the real world's view. GoodDay (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe that the footnote is simply unnecessary and should only be implemented if broad consensus is reached. There is absolutely nothing in the article suggesting that the other three original realms do not have a national flag; it is practically a given that every single country in the world has one. What exactly can be so fundamentally wrong with "15 other states" and "16 former states"? This is ridiculous; this debate has already naturally died. We need to move on. Both Miesianiacal and Qexigator (opposing editors) even supported deleting the article in question—with the former stating that the list's veracity is uncertain and, even if it weren't, the list provides no new information, nor displays information in a way that reveals anything new. How would adding a redundant footnote fix these problems (if any)? This—relatively trivial—page should be kept neutral per WP:WEIGHT.
Moreover, the point about Giscard is irrelevant. The French president is not President of Andorra but the Co-prince of Andorra. Had Elizabeth II once been Sultan of Pakistan instead of Queen of Pakistan, this point would carry weight—otherwise, it is a moot point. This edit should be reverted. Neve-selbert 08:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I've no objections to its removal. The footnote isn't overly important, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that it isn't overly important—although this does not deem it necessary either. It equals too much information, in my opinion. This page should be about the oldest living (sovereign) state leaders, not the amount of states headed by each leader. States headed by Elizabeth II and Commonwealth realm are both linked for those seeking further information. Neve-selbert 08:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
In agreement, it should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The above comments reveal pov and fail to see that UK and 15 other... stands in column 3 with only the UK's flag, and that, given that the list has had flags added, the footnote explaining the unflagged, with an in line link to them and their flags, should be retained, if the article and its flags are retained. This is a neutral way for letting the information be presented, and the article would be deficient without such a note. Qexigator (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The above comments reveal pov
    • They absolutely do not and I refer above to the Google Books references.
  • This is a neutral way for letting the information be presented, and the article would be deficient without such a note.
    • This whole flags issue is utterly irrelevant and is simply a distraction from any real issues at stake here; " United Kingdom" is in a different column above the aforementioned two. We cannot fit all of the other and former flags (31) into each column, the article would look messy and clogged.
The note is redundant and unnecessarily congests the article. Neve-selbert 09:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Once more, the tone and content of that and previous comments shows a pov too passionately held to be able to accept reasoned discussion. Perhaps some trimming of the footnote would be in order, but the information and link is certainly not redundant given the article content and its flags. Qexigator (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The links that are indeed linked in the footnote have already been linked within the table; this is not an issue of WP:POV but rather that of WP:WEIGHT. The footnote is pointless no matter how long or short it is. Secondly, the flag issue is non-existent: we are not referring to one nation but 15 and 16 different ones collectively—most readers will realise that different nations hoist different flags without us having to clog the table up with each and every single one of them. The note is wholly redundant and disposable. Neve-selbert 11:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
In agreement with Neve-selbert, again. The footnote should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be helpful if comments addressed neutral points of editing, instead of clinging on to personal pov. Given that the article, in respect of the longevity of state leaders, is being retained, it is more informative to explain to readers at the top, above the list, the exceptional and unique position of one of those named in column 2 who is sole head of multiple states, than to decorate the list with flags (introduced 9 November 2015)[2] for any of the countries named in column 3. The motivation for starting the article in September 2011 was because the longevity of heads of state was considered much more important than, for example, longevity of United States Senators.[3] That list is not decorated with state flags, nor is Earliest serving United States Senator. If the second link (at 78) offends as overlinking, it could be restored to Commonwealth realm as at 18 May 2014[4]. Qexigator (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) 8 The matter of dates continues to be forgotten; it is starting to appear as though it is deliberately so. Elizabeth II has not been Queen of 16 states since 1952. She has been queen of four states since 1952.
There is a real problem here with the misuse of WP:WEIGHT as a hammer to squash any change to the EIIR line in the list. Even though it works well enough at List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office, listing the Commonwealth realms is contrary to WP:WEIGHT. Even though the UK gets the place of prominence at the top of any list (full or truncated), it's contrary to WP:WEIGHT. Now a footnote is against WP:WEIGHT. WP:WEIGHT isn't even related to any of those matters; it is about viewpoints, which this list doesn't contain. There are so many holes in these arguments, but, their exposure only leads to cyclical repetition of the same tattered argument fringed with a bullying tone and held up with revert warring. This is stonewalling in the extreme.
I'd ask again how the top of a list is not a place of prominence, but, having asked seven times already, I know an answer is not forthcoming. Qexigator is quite correct that passions (some personal) and POV have choked cooperation to death here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, we are aware (since last November) of your determination to stop the United Kingdom and its flag, from being shown alone. We wish you'd just drop the stick on this. As for accusations of bullying? You're the one who's being demanding. Just because you haven't gotten a consensus for the changes you want, doesn't mean anyone's stonewalling. One thing is for certain. It's likely that you won't get that consensus, if you continue the way you're currently going on in this entire discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, it's painfully obvious you can't explain how the UK is not getting place of prominence at the top of a list, thereby meeting your bastardised and irrelevant interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. All you can do is try to deflect with made-up rules about me having to wait for others and pushing your pro-UK, Canadian anti-monarchist bias (and personal contempt for me) by way of reverts without justification. There's your bullying; disruptive editing, ownership, whatever you want to call it. There's no sense in helping you hide that. As I said, the permanent record will show forevermore how you've behaved. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Prominance is irrelevant. The United Kingdom & its flag should be shown alone, as it's the sovereign state that is most associated with Elizabeth II (i.e WP:WEIGHT) & it's unique among the Commonwealth realms. If everyone else involved with these discussions, were to support your preferred changes? then so be it. Instead of throwing your frustrations at me. You should be concentrating on selling your proposals to the others. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The UK must be named alone to express its prominence among the other realms; but prominence is irrelevant. That's self-contradictory.
You made the reverts and you still can't soundly justify them. You continue to oppose any change, but you continue to fail to mount a strong argument. You keep trying to get me to forget about both those points. That says much. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Concentrate on getting support for your proposals. If all the others come around to your side? then good for you. Remember, it's best to 'persuade others. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Translation: I can't defend my own actions. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
That's your opinon. Meanwhile, if you can't get everyone else on board with you? then I recommend WP:MEDCOM as your next step. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Who else's would it be? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
(to Qex) I'll let Neve-selbert respond. He's more knowledgeable about this footnote usage/non-usage, then I. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


Footnote trim

How about trimming the footnote thus:

The list includes Elizabeth II who currently reigns as monarch of 16 sovereign states, each with its own national flag. She acceded to the thrones of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and Pakistan seven countries on 6 February 1952. ; she remains today queen of only the first four. Ghana in 1957 was the first From 1957 to 1992, some of her British colonies attained independence and joined the other Commonwealth realms , followed by 24 others on different dates, and through the same period, 16 some countries ceased to be Commonwealth realms upon becoming republics. , replacing Elizabeth II with a president, the last being Mauritius in 1992. Aside from the four remaining of her original realms, Elizabeth is today queen also of Jamaica (since 1962), Barbados (1966), the Bahamas (1973), Grenada (1974), Papua New Guinea (1975), Solomon Islands (1978), Tuvalu (1978), Saint Lucia (1979), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1979), Antigua and Barbuda (1981), and Belize (1981) .

Qexigator (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

False Information

The #1 name on this list is a lie. Telmo Vargas was never head of state or President of Ecuador. (List of heads of state of Ecuador confirms this) He was just a military official that helped overthrow the government and install a new one the next day. I thought this list was OR and subject to error - and finding the top of the list is a fabrication pretty much confirms this. Legacypac (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll allow others to decide as to whether Telmo Vargas belong in the article. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Statistically he is most likely dead too at 103, last confirmed alive 3 years ago. Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Why did you attempt to cut the list down from top 100 to top 49? GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
My edit summary stated that this would resolve the ERII big debate. Additionally, since the very first name is not even a world leader, and never was, it is quite fair to now require RS that state each person is the nth oldest current or former world leader. The overall list is actually quite a bit longer, all I did was hide more names then before. Why did you revert me? Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Cutting down a list to resolve a debate is not a valid reason. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
AFAIK, the ER II big debate/Rfc is very much settled. After a few weeks of ironing out a solution, it was sorta annoying to suddenly see it all get zapped. Anyways, that's over & done with. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not see the name of Telmo Vargas in the List of heads of state of Ecuador linked in column 4, and, now that the anomaly has been noticed, it is eligible for speedy removal. Commenters are aware that it is not helpful to let personal taste for or against an article's topic or a part of it or its format determine editorial judgment of the article or enter too strongly into discussions for improving it. We are currently proceeding on the basis that, as stated at the top of this Talk page, the article was nominated for deletion on 7 January 2016 and the result of the discussion was keep. Taking that as a given, the question about Telmo Vargas certainly deserves attention on the part of those supporting retention of the article. The name first appeared in the list in August 2014[5]. That editor's last edit was in June 2015[6]. Qexigator (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • One of the problems with this list is that the term "state leader" is ambiguous, and it becomes even more ambiguous the further back one goes historically. It's not any sort of official position, so we end up relying on editors debating on this page whether or not someone qualifies. I believe this is original research. Pburka (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    • That said, I think that Vargas really was acting president of Ecuador for one or two days in 1966. Whether or not he ever officially claimed that title, or whether that qualifies him for this arbitrary list is unclear. Pburka (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Also note that a handful of news articles have described Vargas as the oldest living head of state, e.g. NL Times, but it seems most likely that they copied this information from Wikipedia. This is a good reminder of why our articles should be based on reliable sources, and why we shouldn't tolerate original research and WP:SYNTHESIS. Pburka (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
+ Given that there is no source whatever (apart from this article) for Vargas as Head of state, his name should be removed. The question about "state leaders" is resolved by treating this as a generic term for "current or former heads of state, representatives of a head of state, or heads of government (usually a president, prime minister, or monarch) and whose ages can be proven beyond reasonable doubt." Qexigator (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • What's a "representative of a head of state"? Pburka (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I found some good sources about who is the oldest head of state now [7], but that is not this topic. Does anyone have a RS for this topic? Legacypac (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The topic has passed Afd. Every entry has an RS. Nothing more is needed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Pburka: Yes, at the least, consistency with Head of government should be maintained, and persons who are not should be treated as ineligible here. But it has been there from the start.[8] Qexigator (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Passing AfD does not remove the need for RSs, including sources that support the inclusion of a name on this list. Where are these sources? I don't see a single reference and when I start checking the linked articles I find the first one is wrong. #8 looks fishy too as Hyun Soong-jong is a two sentence bio with a source only supporting his appointment and nothing beyond that. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
More importantly, it appears that the prime minister of South Korea is not head of government. So is he a so called "state leader"? Obviously, this would be easier to answer if this list were based on reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Is the Governer of Washington State a state leader? Canada has a Prime Minister, a Governor General and a Queen. So who is the leader for this list? Maybe we should move this to include 'Head of State' as that is easier to define. Legacypac (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the prime ministers & governors-general, be deleted from this article? GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm asking for opinions. Clearly POTUS is the only position that fits for the USA but I see Presidents and Prime Ministers from Countries that have both, and for Commomwealth countries the Queen+GG+Prime Ministers all listed which seems like too many 'state leaders'. What about acting leaders cause the #1 guy was at best an acting leader.
I've not been adding people to the list, so I'm what is the criteria exactly that editors putting this list together are following? Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The article criteria says heads of state (examples: monarchs & presidents), heads of state representatives (example: governors-general) & heads of government (example: prime ministers). GoodDay (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Arguments could be made for the inclusion of those such as Ronald Webster (born 1926), the former Chief Minister of Anguilla, as this country is an Overseas Territory and not an integral part of the UK—unlike Washington State, which is an integral part of the US. Furthermore, leaders of dependent territories are considered heads of government and as state leaders. Neve-selbert 08:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I reckon ya'll will have to decide for yourselves, as to who belongs in this article & who doesn't. PS- IMHO, Cardinal Angelo Sodano from Italy, shouldn't be in the wings, however. GoodDay (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for "representatives of a head of state"?

The inclusion of some of the persons in the current list is at least doubtful without some credible external source confirming a status equal to those whose position is head of state or head of government ("usually a president, prime minister, or monarch"). The description "representative of a head of state" will, in most if not all contexts, be correct for a governor general who is the monarch's representative in one of the Commonwealth realms, but if they are to be considered eligible, the reason should be made explicit at the top. Others, whose inclusion in the current list is at least doubtful on this reckoning, are:

  • 1 Telmo Vargas
  • 31 Miloš Jakeš
  • 36 Rezső Nyers
  • 41 Seán Treacy
  • 42 Octavio Lepage
  • 67 Ali Bozer
  • 75 Abdul-Karim Mousavi Ardebili
  • 94 Stanisław Kania.

Included in the results of a search for any sovereign state office-holders (other than governors general) who might normally be considered as eligible for the description "representative of a head of state"[9] was List of longest-living state leaders, started 01:52, 22 June 2008 as "page moved from List of state leaders", now renamed List of current heads of state and government, but started 23:01, 26 November 2003[10]. I see nothing in that list which supports using "representatives of a head of state" in the list here. In this respect, the list needs to be rectified one way or another. Qexigator (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections to excluding HoS representatives. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW - I have (for quite some time) considered excluding HoS representatives from the List of current heads of state and government article, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Also:

The South Korean prime minister is not head of government, so their inclusion can only be justified if they are considered representatives of the president (the HoS and HoG). Pburka (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Also:

Pburka (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

So long as a person is listed by Rulers or Worldstatesmen as being HOS, HOG or (maybe) RHOS of a recognized independent state, I would consider them eligible. So long as there is a state, there is at least a HOS, and the research behind those sites is by a country mile the closest to complete and accurate chronology of the procession available, far more so than pages this site hosts. While I can't speak to experience with Schemmel at Rulers, in my interactions with Worldstatesmen's Cahoon, I am almost annoyed at the level of verification he requires.

As far as the South Korean PMs are concerned, my input would be to delete, assuming that that lack of status was official at the time of the PMs' service. While non-presidents/PMs/monarchs/party secretaries require a level of skepticism if they are to be included, holders of positions that are assumed to hold roles by default require skepticism to be excluded. Star Garnet (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

As for general Vargas, this is a list of Ecuadorian leaders from Center for Latin AMerican Studies of Georgetown University, which lists Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Relations as a source: http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Executive/Ecuador/pres.html . Gen. Vargas is listed. HeadlessMaster (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I could not see him there, but maybe I missed it. What exact dates do you think he was President? Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
He is listed as "Gen. Telmo O. Vargas B.", as a "head of state" ("Jefe de Estado"), not "president, sometime in 1966, as this particular list uses only years. Other sources claim either 29 March 1966 - 30 March 1966: http://web.archive.org/web/20130612000721/http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/noticias/sociedad/item/el-general-mas-antiguo-de-las-ffaa-cumple-100-anos.html HeadlessMaster (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. That fits with him being involved with a coup that resulted in a new President 36 hours later and is at best one interpretation of what was likely a couple confusing days. Surely we are not going to count someone who never held an office but together with others exercised some control for a few hours. He was not even Acting_president (another title which should also be excluded along with the cardinals that fill in between Popes and do as little as possible). Legacypac (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Cross Reference this discussion as these two pages should have the same criteria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_longest-living_state_leaders Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

A mostly cleaned up version to double check [11]. It still includes acting presidents (see comment two posts up) Legacypac (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


Legacypac - I see no such "consensus" you speak of in the text here to suggest your removals have been agreed. Can you point me to this, incase I've missed it? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I see you don't have any answers to back up your edits, LP. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Legacypac trying to hide his vandalism now. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Column 6, Age in years and days

The article purports to list only living persons. Column 6 purports to give Age by years and days. The top states that those in bold italics are currently in office. AFIK, sampling these, comparing the current version with 6 December 2015 [12] they are unchanged at number 45/46 ( 91 years, 343 days) , 78/79 (89 years, 284 days), and 90/91 (89 years, 62 days). Is it not more important to getting these periods correct day by day than to show national flags? Qexigator (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

We need a mechanism, that will update the age of the entries, on a daily basis. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
We currently use a template which updates every time you view the page. Note that viewing an old version of the page via history will still show you the person's current age as of today. Pburka (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was too hasty and should have noted the changes occurring day by day instead of comparing earlier and later versions simultaneously. Qexigator (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

column 1

Should this column have an autofill for maintaining number sequence? Qexigator (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look at here and the sister article, there is enough question about the completeness of the lists and if people are still alive that showing rank is really misleading. For this one, it is only living people so unless some really old person becomes head of state and enters the list, it is really just adding people on the bottom and deleting when they die. Legacypac (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Legacypac: No, it is changing all the numbers when persons come and go, including removal of ineligibles: get it? Look at 22-24, 40-42, and the total is less than 100. Qexigator (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I've manually fixed up the numberings. PS: I'm assuming that nobody will dispute my exclusion of Cardinal Sodano from Italy :) GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That would be great. When we delete a deceased entry, those below move up in numbering. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Not yet confirmed as eligible

From above, still doubtfully eligible in current version[13]

Qexigator (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


  • Hau Pei-tsun - Taiwan is a semi-presidential country, so I see no problem with his inclusion, more with the eligibility of Taiwan as a sovereign state, but that is another matter
  • Abdelmalek Benhabyles - I don't know if this [14] is enough
  • Miloš Jakeš - former first secretary of the Communist Party, thus "de facto chief executive" (actually, all other position in the former ČSSR were more doubtful wheater eligible than this one), there is more on the posititon here: http://www.totalita.cz/vysvetlivky/s_ksc_org_02_01.php
  • Rezső Nyers - more doubtful, would look into it
  • Octavio Lepage - pretty clear, there was no vice president back then in Venezuela and the president of the parliament took over when the president of state was suspended
  • Ali Bozer - same as Nyers
  • Yang Hyong-sop - not head of government, but head of state instead, current head of state of Korea is Kim Yong-nam, who holds the same position; although between 1994 and 1998, he was acting head of state insead of an official one
  • Abdul-Karim Mousavi Ardebili - apparently, he was a member of presidential council as a chief justice, as was in the constitution at the time
  • Stanisław Kania - same as Jakeš, only in Poland HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with HM. I lean towards changing Mousavi's title to "Member of the Temporary Council of the Presidency," which isn't in dispute, and sources don't point to an obvious chairman. I've added a source for Benhabyles that should satisfy any qualms. Star Garnet (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove governors general

Nothing has been done to explain at the top of the article why governors general are included. It seems likely they are to make up numbers for the arbitrary "100". If no acceptable revision is made, g-gs should be removed. Qexigator (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The governors general waiting removal are

  • 25 Cuthbert Sebastian
  • 33 Reginald Palmer
  • 37 Ninian Stephen
  • 81 Clifford Husbands

Qexigator (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. 'Representatives of heads of state' is too vague and subject to interpretation. Pburka (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Agreed and removed (along with South Korean PMs). Thank you (Q, GoodDay and Pburka) for you helpful input on these pages. Legacypac, please stop acting unilaterally on issues where nobody has agreed with you, especially where most others have expressed opposition. Star Garnet (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sodano also? Lancelot (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I gave Sodano the boot, before he had a chance to be added. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Limit is necessary to marks end of list. 100 is disputable but must consensus. Maybe 50 persons, 75 persons or 90 years old ?Lancelot (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW: I've also opened up a discussion at List of current heads of state and government, concerning governors-general. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Oldest phrasing

I believe that "oldest known" is the best phrasing. It does not contend that they are the oldest, which seems to be Pburka's dispute. The dynamic list tag takes care of this as well. The same logic applies to the other page. Star Garnet (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm content with "oldest known". Meanwhile, does anyone want to figure out who the next 5 individuals are to be added to this article. If we don't keep it at 100 entries? it'll bounce back & forth. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think Dangermouse will do that soon-ish. Star Garnet (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
"Oldest known" directly implies that there are no older known state leaders. What reliable source supports that claim? Without an RS, this is simply a collection of some long-lived state leaders. We cannot reasonably claim that the list is complete, so cannot claim that these are the oldest. Pburka (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Pburka's comment. Qexigator (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
In no way does "oldest known" imply that the list is complete; rather, if anything it implies the opposite is likely true. If there ever are any older leaders that become known, they will be added. But we do not know of any older living leaders, and unless an obituary or news article turns up for some random guy who disappeared into the woodwork fifty years ago shows up, it is unlikely that they will become known. Just because somebody may be known to be living to his fellow villagers does not mean that that he qualifies by normal conventions as being 'known.' Furthermore, as this list in particular only includes leaders from the 1940s to present, the proportion of leaders not covered in this is probably around 2%. Star Garnet (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
What you're describing is original research. A typical reader will interpret "known" as "generally known amongst experts", not "known to the Wikipedia editors who compiled this list". Unless you have a source saying that these are the oldest leaders, we can't make that claim. Pburka (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
No, that is routine calculation supported by news reports. Star Garnet (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Calculating age is a routine calculation. Claiming that the first person on the list is the oldest known state leader is original research. Perhaps we ought to bring this discussion to WP:NORN. Pburka (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Whatever you both can decide on, go for it. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
While I disagree (and I will not have further available time to devote to these pages for some time), 'oldest leaders confirmed living' would seem to satisfy your complaint. This would then introduce a confirmation requirement (five years?) which should already be spelled out, kicking off a few people on the list. Star Garnet (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
We could say "confirmed living by Wikipedia researchers", but that's just an admission that we're involved in WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
As per Q below, listing those 90+ by age would remove the necessity of the word oldest. Verifying data is also not OR. Star Garnet (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Given that all eligible for inclusion in the list can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be nearly or at least 90 years of age, and if a person's age today can be so proven then it must be on the basis that it is sufficiently certain that the person is still actually living, let us settle for "long-lived, still-living, ...whose ages can be proven beyond reasonable doubt", and delist any whose ages (and with it whether now living) cannot be so proven. Qexigator (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That's fine with me. This is easier to manage than a list which is arbitrarily limited to 100 entries. Pburka (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Still Living

Is Seán Treacy an appropriate inclusion on the list? Odds are pretty good that a 90+ year old has died since last verified being alive in 2011. Legacypac (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Treacy should be excluded, as the commission he was a member of, merely perforemd the powers/duties of head of state, while the Irish presidency was vacant. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Note that we wouldn't include a Camerlengo, Dean of the College or the entire College of Cardinals, who was serving during a papal vacancy. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
And thus members were co-heads of state. There can be periods where there is no head of government, but there is always a head of state, so long as that state is organized. To Legacypac's question, there is very, very little chance that somebody from as well-covered a country as Ireland would die without a peep from the media. [15] would bump the date up to 2013-09-19. As mentioned above, I would advocate for a five-year verification band. Few state leaders (or first world parliamentarians, as in Treacy's case), even obscure ones, die without being noticed by some news source or other (particularly true since 2005). Star Garnet (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
They were performing the powers/duties of head of state. Thus collectively, they were acting head of state. Anyways, I don't have the final word on who's included or excluded, so it's up to all those involved. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
So is your objection to co-heads of __? If so, Abdel Halim Muhammad and Aníbal Portillo from the other page would be on the chopping block? Star Garnet (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, those two fellows should also be excluded from this article. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
When you get into people that were not really heads of state (like someone that acted for a few days) how much noticed will vary. And no Cardinals between Popes - that is a placeholder position like whatever happens when a king/queen dies and the new monarch is not sworn in yet. Legacypac (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Most monarchies have automatic succession. But then there's Belgium :) GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Seán Treacy (politician)

Seán Treacy does not qualify and should not be retained. Unlike the co-princes of Andorra, members of the Commission were not coheads of state, as shown by this extract from Constitution of Ireland (original text)[16]

Article 14 1.In the event of the absence of the President, or his temporary incapacity, or his permanent incapacity established as provided by section 3 of Article 12 hereof, or in the event of his death, resignation, removal from office, or failure to exercise and perform the powers and functions of his office or any of them, or at any time at which the office of President may be vacant, the powers and functions conferred on the President by this Constitution shall be exercised and performed by a Commission constituted as provided in section 2 of this Article. 2. 1.The Commission shall consist of the following persons, namely, the Chief Justice, the Chairman of Dáil Éireann (An Ceann Comhairle), and the Chairman of Seanad Éireann. 2.The President of the High Court shall act as a member of the Commission in the place of the Chief Justice on any occasion on which the office of Chief Justice is vacant or on which the Chief Justice is unable to act. 3.The Deputy Chairman of Dáil Éireann shall act as a member of the Commission in the place of the Chairman of Dáil Éireann on any occasion on which the office of Chairman of Dáil Éireann is vacant or on which the said Chairman is unable to act. 4.The Deputy Chairman of Seanad Éireann shall act as a member of the Commission in the place of the Chairman of Seanad Éireann on any occasion on which the office of Chairman of Seanad Éireann is vacant or on which the said Chairman is unable to act. 3.The Commission may act by any two of their number and may act notwithstanding a vacancy in their membership. 4.The Council of State may by a majority of its members make such provision as to them may seem meet for the exercise and performance of the powers and functions conferred on the President by this Constitution in any contingency which is not provided for by the foregoing provisions of this Article.

Qexigator (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"The powers and functions conferred on the President by this Constitution shall be exercised and performed by a Commission" means precisely that the members of said commission act collectively as a three-pronged head of state. Star Garnet (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned above. IMHO, Treacy should be excluded as the commission was merely a collective of individuals performing powers/duties of a head of state. In otherwords, an acting head of state situation. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I feel like the like the distinction between official and acting is too blurry (as in the Muhammad and Portillo cases) to allow for this. Star Garnet (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd exclude those 2 fellows, aswell. Anyways, it's not entirely up to me, so I reckon we'll have to be patient & allow others to weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
SG: No, it does not mean "that the members of said commission act collectively as a three-pronged head of state". Merely because you see it that way is not sufficient to treat any of them as if a co-president with the others. Qexigator (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
So long as being head of state is among the president's "powers and functions" there is very little room for interpretation. Star Garnet (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source which describes the individual members of the commission as heads of state? If not, I don't think it's our place to interpret. Pburka (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
SG, the plain fact is, like it or not, Treacy is not qualified for this list. I see nothing to support the proposition that at any time, when the constitution was passed or later, the commissioners were regarded as co-presidents. It is time to let this faulty inclusion be rectified. Qexigator (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Members of this particular collective head of state are still heads of state, like it or not. Constitution only confirms it. I agree with Star Garnet word for word.HeadlessMaster (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Erroneous opinion or preference on such a point on the part of any two or more commenters/editors, devoid of any external source, is not sufficient to treat any of the commissioners as if he were a co-president with the others. Properly understood, the constitution demonstrates the contrary. Are you aware, for example, that in the parliament of England/ Great Britain/ UK it had long been the practice to let royal assent be given by Lords Commissioners, none of whom was ever considered head of state. See also Royal Assent by Commission Act 1541 and Royal Assent (Ireland). Qexigator (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Look, the Irish Presidential Commission has history of dissolving the parliament and signing laws after the parliament has passed them (i.e. serving as a president). I must admit I don't care about "royal assents" and all that procedure, but I doubt that those Lord Commissioners could dissolve the parliament, confirm/reject government members or sign/refuse to sign laws passed by the pariament. As for the commission having more than one member, well, there is no rule in the article which prevents members of "collective" heads of state from being eligible. As for the cardinals in Vatican acting between Popoes, yes, I think they should also be included as acting leaders, as well as presidents of parliament acting between presidents and military leaders who held office for few days after the coup. If there is a problem with this, then keep one list with "full-time, individual leaders" and one with "acting, pro-tempre leaders and/or members of commissions/juntas/etc". I don't have any trouble with that. HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Look? Actually, I have seen no trace anywhere of support for that proposition or reasoning. Qexigator (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I reiterate my position: facts presented on Wikipedia should be supported by reliable sources. See WP:TRUTH. Pburka (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Once launched, this or any other Wikipedia article is expected to satisfy encyclopedic criteria, and, on exposure to critical scrutiny, is liable to be rectified, whether or not that gratifies the personal opinions, desires, sentiments or misunderstandings of launching editors. Qexigator (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we gonna have to go to DRN, over this? GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be the best solution :) HeadlessMaster (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Heads up.

FWIW, I've opened up a discussion at List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office, concerning Elizabeth II's entry there. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I've also opened up a discussion at List of longest reigning monarchs, concerning Elizabeth II. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: A similar situation is also at Time Person of the Year, pertaining to the 1952 Elizabeth II entry. Neve-selbert 11:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, Elizabeth II's entry there, also needs a review. GoodDay (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've made changes to the articles Current reigning monarchs by length of reign and List of longest reigning monarchs, concerning Elizabeth II. Would appreciate if folks here, would review my changes & give their input. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Heads of state without pages in English

Dušan Čkrebić, a former Prime Minister of Serbia, would be old enough to be included on this list. He doesn't have an English Wikipedia page, but does in the Serbian language: https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Душан_Чкребић

Should he be included?

EternalNomad (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No, but reason is other. Serbia in 1984 (1986) was not independent country (part of Yugoslavia) Lancelot (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
He would, except he left his last office in 1985, whereas Serbia wasn't independent until 1991. Star Garnet (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Serbia was a part of Yugoslavia, at that time. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_oldest_living_state_leaders/Archive_2&oldid=1073166044"