Talk:List of oldest living state leaders/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 8

This list lacks South Korea's Kim Jong-pil (90)

--Zarateman (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Prime minister of South Korea is not Head of Goverment Lancelot (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that after he became PM, the constitution of South Korea was changed at least twice. Maybe things were regulated differently then ? Does someone have any info on that ? --Killuminator (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

So why include Peruvians?

The Prime Minister of Peru article specifically says that the holder of that post is not head of government...but this list includes two holders of that post (Javier Perez de Cuellar and Pedro Richter Prada) and the List of longest-living state leaders article includes three more of them.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back, Louis. Good catch...I guess state leader isn't the same as head of government... --104.56.23.57 (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, I hadn't knew that thing about Peruvian Prime Ministers. Let's wait for more opinions, but to me, it seems that Peruvian PM is more of a representative of President than a state leader himself... HeadlessMaster (talk) 07:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


The United Nations' list of heads of state and heads of government (https://www.un.int/protocol/sites/www.un.int/files/Protocol%20and%20Liaison%20Service/hspmfm.pdf) lists both the South Korean and the Peruvian prime minister, therefore they should be on the list. ZBukov (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Unproven possibilities and future additions

There is a list of all leaders for which there is not a death date on Rulers.org (at least before one month), and I sorted them in few categories (U stands for "unproven", A for "alive"):

1. Highly unlikely of being alive (born before 1914): (U=7, A=0)


2. Unlikely to be alive (1914-1918): (U=6, A=0)


3. Moderate possibility of being alive (1919-1923): (U=10, A=0)

  • Rota Onorio, Kiribati, junta, 1919
  • Feliciano Avelar, El Salvador, junta, 1919
  • Max Bolte Haiti junta, 1920
  • Kim Yong-ju N. Korea acting general secretary (?) 1920, alive as of 02/14/2012, but unclear if actual leader; I think he was, as the position of president was vacant, the four vice-presidents formed a comitee (from the constitution (1972 version with slight changes in 1990's): " The Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly continues its work until the Presidium is newly elected, even after the term of the Supreme People’s Assembly expires.", that means that even after the death of the president, the presidium was de jure still in power until replaced by the new one: the only doubt I have is if this change is from 1998 or 1992)
  • Avtar Singh Sikkim I. officer, 1921 (unlikely this position qualifies)
  • Ricardo Falla Cáceres, El Salvador, junta, 1921
  • Christopher Okoro Cole, Sierra Leone, president, 1921, there is vague info about him dying "after 1990", but nothing besides that
  • Nguyen Van Loc S. Vietnam prime minister, 1922, Vietnamese Wikipedia says he died in 1992, but without references
  • Jaime Vargas Bolivia junta, 1922
  • Gurbachan Singh Sikkim I. officer, 1923 (unlikely this position qualifies)


4. Good possibility of being alive (1924-1928): (U=14, A=0)


5. Upcoming (1929)

HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Despite the fact that this section is essentially fanfluff of limited value, the proper way to stop it being archived is to add a new post! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The hidden supplementary list

As the possibility of even 3 entries on this list being removed from the main list on the same day there is no need to expand the hidden list ad infinitum. Even the current 10 extras is excessive, continuing to add more is just listcruft/fancruft. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful positions

As somebody noted, Peruvian Prime Ministers seem to be only representatives of President, who is both head of state and government, and as such, they would not qualify as "state leaders" and my opinion is to remove them.

On the other hand, there is dubious case of multi-person juntas and commitees without obvious leader (various South American juntas, Irish acting commission and Vatican leaders between two Popes, etc.). Those wouldn't qualify as "heads of state" in person, but are still "state leaders", in my opinion. However, I would add them as dubious cases at the end of the list, but not in the main list.

Also, what about de jure leaders which never had de facto power (one of the Somalian "leaders"), and vice versa?

More opinions, please.HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The Peruvian Prime Minister features on the UN's list of heads of state and government (https://www.un.int/protocol/sites/www.un.int/files/Protocol%20and%20Liaison%20Service/hspmfm.pdf), so I guess that settles the matter rather authoritatively. ZBukov (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, Vatican Secretaries of State are on that list, so we should perhaps ad them... StjepanHR (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I support your idea based on the unique position of the Holy See as a sui generis subject of public international law possessing universal diplomatic recognition. ZBukov (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Bantustan

I think that the state needs to be internationally recognised and those states were only recognised by SOuth Africa and each other... StjepanHR (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Addenda for doutful leaders

I want to know more opinions if we should add new addenda (besides the one for leaders older than no. 100 with unknown birthdate) for leaders with doubtful positions (members of collective presidencies without obvious leaders, acting Holy See leaders) and those who are possibly older than no.100 (those born in 1929, but with unknown date). If there is no objection, I will add it in few days. StjepanHR (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Switching list to age-based inclusion requirement?

Was there ever a particular reason that the list is fixed at 100 names, plus the various entries with unknown dates of birth? Or is there a potential to eventually revising the list to only leaders who have attained a certain age (say, 90 years or older)? Farolif (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

No, despite the fact that some other list also include 100 names/objects. I am fine with both. StjepanHR (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
The counterpart list of youngest state leaders has an age limit (30 years or younger): List of youngest state leaders since 1900.
Also, the lists which reflect longest times in office are based on a milestone of 50 years or more: List of longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900 & List of longest-reigning monarchs. Farolif (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but List of oldest living people includes 100 people. I mean, there are examples of both. StjepanHR (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
That list could be adjusted as well, I suppose. And it might make better sense in both cases, since achieving a milestone birthday is likely to get media coverage & provide a useful citation when the name is introduced to the corresponding article. Farolif (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Anton Vratusa and more doubts

1)Why former Slovenia's and Yugoslavia's Anton Vratusa (born 1915) is not on the list? 2)Tun Tin last appearance is dated back 2010. I heard he died last year, but I have no sources for that. Anyway that piece of news may be too old to consider him still alive. 3)Sibghatullah Mojaddedi. Was reported dead in February 2016. He was then said to have partecipated to the commemoration of Afghanistan victory over URSS, but I would not rely too much on that source. I think we may find another, and more recent one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folengo (talk • contribs) 16:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

1)Slovenia in 1980 was not independent, ambassador is not state leader

2)Limit is 10 years (MAYBE too long)Lancelot (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

He is listed in this page and it says Prime Ministers, not Ambassadors. Socialist Republic of Slovenia was partially independent, so I believe he could be considered as a head of state. 10 years seem indeed too long, maybe 5 would be better.Thanks for the attention, --Folengo (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty cut and dried that Slovenia was not independent until 1991. The length of time is debatable, but it's quite rare for a state leader's death to go unreported. They're much more likely to be reclusive, due to unpopularity or health, than they are to be dead without outsiders knowing. Star Garnet (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ri and Romero sources

I've ferreted out most of the bad sources linked here, but two remain. Carlos Romero hasn't shown his face in public since the 1980s and there isn't a recent source that claims he's alive (although I think he's living in exile in Texas). Citing Britannica proves nothing. He died on 27 February 2017.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the source for Ri Kun-mo (aka Li Gun-mo, Li Geun-mo, 이근모, 리근모, 李根模) actually references him in the present tense. He published something in 2004 and this gives a good chronology of his life through 2001. It's possible that he edited something in 2007, but I believe that's just somebody else with the same name in Chinese. It would not be surprising for a death to go unreported from North Korea.

My vote is that these be hidden unless somebody can find a 10-year source. Thoughts? Star Garnet (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you; I tried to remove Romero but someone added him back in assuming that Britannica would know if he died. I honestly would not be surprised if both Ri and Romero are already deceased. Both of them led repressive regimes and one lives/lived in exile. Also, I agree with the previously mentioned post that 10 years is too long. Telmo Vargas and Fred Degazon are just two examples of state leaders who showed activity less than 10 years before their deaths but died without news coverage and were not noticed by Wikipedia until years later. EternalNomad (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Tun Tin page was modified by an anonymous user on October the 15th 2016, to say he was dead. The user also modified the page of Burmese Prime Ministers. No wonder if Tun Tin's death has gone unreported in Burma. --Folengo (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The user was from China and this doesn't turn up anything, so maybe just a hoax. Star Garnet (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Remengesau Sr.

I am not an expert on Palau, but to me, it seems that he was a leader before they gained an independence. More opinions, please? StjepanHR (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My bad, I'd always thought it happened in 1979. Star Garnet (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Unproven possibilities and future additions

There is a list of all leaders for which there is not a death date on Rulers.org (at least before one month), and I sorted them in few categories (U stands for "unproven", A for "alive"):

1. Highly unlikely of being alive (born before 1914): (U=6, A=0)


2. Unlikely to be alive (1914-1918): (U=4, A=0)


3. Moderate possibility of being alive (1919-1923): (U=7, A=0)


4. Good possibility of being alive (1924-1928): (U=5, A=3)


5. Upcoming (1929)

StjepanHR (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Carlos Humberto Romero died 27th February 2017 according to press reports. Here's one such report: http://www.elsalvador.com/articulo/sucesos/muere-expresidente-carlos-humberto-romero-142390 Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
What a surprise. I'm now more confident there are really few unreported deaths of state leaders. Nothing can be said about Ri Kun-mo, though. North Korea is not a free country as El Salvador became in twenty years. --Folengo (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Babiker Awadalla

This man appears on the list, relying on the 2015 article, but he does not appear on this other list though he presumably turned 100 on March the 2nd. The 100th birthday of a state leader is usually reported by the press. The fact Awadalla's birthday was NOT reported by any Sudan news agency makes me not so sure he's still alive. Maybe an article will come out in two/three days, but, if it doesn't, there will be a considerable incongruence between the lists. --Folengo (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really, the list serve different purposes and have different criteria. For inclusion in List of living centenarians the person must have a citation stating that they have reached 100. This list only requires that the person is defined as a state leader, is old enough for inclusion in the list and has not been reported to have died. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I said it's unlikely that the 100th birthday of a state leader goes unreported. Vratusa's (not a real state leader) and Do Muoi's birthdays were celebrated bt the press, I thought Awadalla would get a mention in the Sudan press, at least. Strangely he didn't. He is now one of the oldest living state leaders, but not one of the living famous centenarians. For a state leader, that's really unlikely. Let's see what happens. --Folengo (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The person is defined as a state leader, is old enough for inclusion in the list and has not been reported to have died. Not true at all. Ri Kun-mo has not been reported to have died, but he's not on the list. --Folengo (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

See the thread 2 above this one. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know Ri has not 10-years sources on his side (the same happened with the late Romero). My question is if we should consider Awadalla alive. I mean, there's that source of 2015 and nothing else, no photos of the man in his old age at all. What's the reliability of that source? Couldn't it be written without knowing if he was in fact stil alive? And why there were no articles at all about his 100th birthday? I'm starting to have serious doubts about him being still alive. That, but nothing proves he's dead though, so he'll not be removed till 2025, which is a long long time. I hope some article clears the situation sooner or later. --Folengo (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand Arabic, so I can't confirm it, but the following source appears to say he died last year (using Google Translate)[6] I will remove him from the list. EternalNomad (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I always suspected it. His birthday would have been reported for sure by the press. Thanks, EternalNomad. I'm also really doubtful about Tun Tin being still alive, but that's another story ;-)--Folengo (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Doubts about some names

I'm doubtful about the following state leaders being still alive. Seeing how Awadalla's death went unreported for months, this doubts are not unfounded.

1)Tun Tin (1920). Myanmar wiki says his date of birth is 1923, French adfirms it's 1930 (that may be a simple mistake, of course). No sources about him since 2010, which is a long long time. My PC is not able to read this facebook post of December the 22nd 2012. It may be important, it may be not. In my personal opinion Tun Tin may have died in 2015 or 2016, his death going unreported. There may be some obituary in his language, but it may be really difficult to find. To give the odds, dead 75%, alive 25%.

2)Mustafa Ben Halim (1921). Four years since his last sighting. Lybia has been in a difficult and chaotic situation after 2013, so he could have died without anyone noticing it. I can't find any source after 2013. He appared to be quite fat, too so the odds to find him still alive are quite low. Since his death has not been reported, I'd say 50% alive, 50% dead.

3)Abdelmalek Benhabyles (1921). Algeria was spared by the Arab revolutions of 2011 and deaths of important politicians usually go reported (see Smail Hamdani). I found this, but my PC is not able to read it without blocking. It's from January 2017. According to me he's still alive, but we must find a recent source to testify that. Alive 80%, Dead 20%

4)Arturo Armando Molina (1927). No sources since 2008. El Salvador recently reported Romero's death, so I guess Molina's death would be reported too. Just need to find a recent source. Alive 75%, Dead 25%.

5)Mohammad Hasan Sharq (1925) Nothing in four years and Afghanistan is not the best place to live nowadays. Alive 65%, Dead 35%

6)Gombojavyn Ochirbat (1929) Six years are a long time. Alive 65%, Dead 35%

7)Sean Treacy (1923) I think his death would be reported in Ireland, so he might be still alive. Alive 70% Dead 30%. --Folengo (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, for some of them, maybe something could be found in their languages (I am afraid I know nothing of Pashto, Burmese or Mongol and only a very basic Arabic, so I can't help). As we see, Awadalla's death was reported, but we have just missed it.

1) I agree with you on him.

2) There are several Youtube videos of him posted in 2014 (i.e. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOSygjU4r9M ), although I don't know if they are from the 2014. However, he is more well known than some other leaders whose death was reported, so I think he is either alive or, if not, there are reports of his death.

3) I am confident he is alive or many sources would be there of his death.

4) Again, I agree with you.

5) Same as for Ben Halim.

6) He is not a well known person, but his party is in power with huge majority currently and he is still a respected figure, so I guess they would report the death of their former leader.

7) I am confident he is alive. In my country (Croatia), death of somebody who held similar position would not only be reported, but would be on all news StjepanHR (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll point you toward a page I've made to monitor this. While Degazon and Vargas are the most notable screwups, there have only been six leaders who were removed more than a week after their death in five-plus years. I would say it's more notable that at least 19 leaders have not been on the list at the time of their death. Tun Tin (maybe Ochirbat) is the only one that is probably dead, however funerals are pretty big affairs in Burma, so unless he was somehow disgraced, I still think it would have hit the news. Star Garnet (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Trichkov

I'd say there's a good reason Krastyu Trichkov hasn't had an article until recently. I can't find anything that puts him alive this century unless this has something Google isn't picking up on. I also don't think his position qualifies. Any thoughts? Star Garnet (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't see that the Deputy could possibly be considered a head of state. The List of First Deputy Chairmen of the State Council of Bulgaria states specifically that "the Chairmen of the State Council — Todor Zhivkov (1971–1989) and Petar Mladenov (1989–1990) — were the heads of state of Bulgaria". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Josip Manolic

Some IP removed him from the list adfirming he was Prime Minister when Croatia was not independent. I'd tend to consider Croatia's independece beginning from its declaration on June the 25th 1991. Manolic should not be removed, the declaration was made when he was Prime Minister. We have frequent updates on him and his health, it would be a waste to remove him with such reasons. --Folengo (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

When did their independence take effect? GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Briefly discussed last month. But per Independence of Croatia, the unrecognized status makes me want to treat him as the equivalent of current leaders of Abkhazia, etc., so he'd be off. Star Garnet (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Not recognized as independent means exclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok. How many changes and not due to deaths!--Folengo (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok there are several important points to be made as far as the legality of Croatia's independence declaration on 25 June 1991 goes and therefore the exact date of Croatia's independence from Yugoslavia.
  • Yugoslavia's 1974 constitution established it as a de facto confederation of six republics and two autonomous provinces. The constitution explicitly states that each of those republics would have the right to secede from Yugoslvia, while at the same time not outlining the exact procedure for such a move or stating whether unilateral secession would be legal. The only provisions it outlines are that the consent of all republics is necessary to alter Yugoslavia's borders and that the Parliament of Yugoslavia had the authority to determine changes in the borders of Yugoslavia. So in conclusion of this point the unilateral declarations of independence by Croatia and Slovenia on 25 June 1991 were something that the federal constitution at the time had no provisions for and the move was therefore a legal and constitutional loophole.
  • When equating Croatia and Slovenia with Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus etc. I would argue that the above point makes an important distinction to the manner in which such currently unrecognized entities declared their independence and how it was declared by Croatia and Slovenia on 25 June 1991. As far as I know neither the Georgian, Moldovan or Cypriot constitutions explicitly outlined either Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria or TRNC as elements of a confederal structure with representatives in a federal presidency and the right to secede from such a confederation. In the Soviet Union Abkhazia and South Ossetia had the status of autonomous soviet socialist republic and autonomous oblast respectively, both of which are not first degree administrative federal units and were part of the Georgian SSR. For the most part Abkhazia would have had a level of autonomy comparative with the autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina in Yugoslavia, both of which were considered parts of the Socialist Republic of Serbia (a federal republic) and despite the fact that they had a representative in the federal presidency they did not have the same right to secede under the 1974 constitution as the six republics of Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Montenegro did. As for South Ossetia its status ranked even below that of Abkhazia and was thus even more subject to the supreme authority of the Georgian SSR, a federal unit in itself. So to summarize, Abkhazia and South Ossetia were both autonomous parts of a an autonomous unit of the Soviet Union, the Georgian SSR, and were therefore second and third level units within a federation, as opposed to Croatia and Slovenia which were first degree units with a very high level of autonomy within the confederal Yugoslavia and as already noted, had the right to secede under the provisions of the 1974 Yugoslav constitution, especially with regard to the constitutional loophole with regard to unilateral secession of federal republics.
  • As far as lack of recognition goes as a prerequisite for full independence, I will again reference the 1974 constitution as a basis. But firstly, when Croatia and Slovenia declared independence on 25 June 1991 the international community treated it as a rebellion by parts of Yugoslavia against the federal government, and not as the legal secession of (con)federal units taking advantage of a lack of constitutional provision for taking such unilateral action. Thus as far as the international community was concerned the conflicts starting in Yugoslavia at the time amounted to a civil war and not wars for independence, while any legal basis for such independence was ignored due to the propaganda of the now Pro-Milovšević dominated federal government in Belgrade, which had sought to portray the secession of Croatia and Slovenia as an illegal act and thus managed to convince the international community to withhold recognition independence, despite the 1974 constitution not even mentioning that such a unilateral move would be a breach of the constitution or that it would require the consent of the other republics. Secondly, even though Croatia retained its representative within the Yugoslavian presidency until December 1991, this was only to ensure that the secession of Croatia in all fields was finalized, and not to show that Croatia would remain in Yugoslavia until it was recognized by it or by the international community. Thirdly, a question that should be asked is not only when Croatia and Slovenia, and later on also Bosnia-Herzegovnia and Macedonia, became countries in a legal sense, but also when was it that Yugoslavia legally stopped being a six-republic federation, and became firstly a four-republic and later a two republic federation. I believe that when on 25 June 1991 Croatia and Slovenia, and later on Bosnia and Hezegovina and Macedionia in 1992, decided to withdraw their recognition of the federal government as their supreme authority and evoked certain elements of the 1974 constitution relating to their right to independence and secession (and also using a legal and constitutional loophole) the Yugoslav federation as a six-member federation stopped existing. In other words by a decision of the Parliaments of Croatia and Slovenia the laws of Yugoslavia and the supreme authority of the government in Belgrade were declared to have been terminated and also the 1990 republican constitution of Croatia stated that only the Croatian Parliament could decide on entering and leaving any form of union that would limit or take away the independence of Croatia. Also per the constitution of 1990, a referendum on independence was held in Croatia in May of 1991, because it is a requirement to hold such a binding referendum on joining or leaving any union which limits the independence of Croatia (this was also the case with EU membership in 2012), and as per the provisions of the constitution if the result of the referendum was for leaving such a union, the Croatian Parliament is required by law to act on the results of the referendum, and this was done on25 June 1991.
  • So in conclusion I argue that Josip Manolić was the Prime Minister of an independent Croatia for 22 days from 25 June 1991 until 17 July 1991 because as per the 1974 constitution no provisions were outlined declaring unilateral secession of the republics of Yugoslavia illegal, furthermore the 1990 constitution of Croatia as a federal unit required the holding of a binding referendum on joining or leaving any unions which would limit the independence of Croatia and this was done in May of 1991, with over 93% of voters supporting the secession of Croatia from Yugoslavia, making it legally binding for the Croatian Parliament to vote for independence on 25 June 1991. Furthermore, the Yugoslav Federation as a six-member federation ceased to exist when Slovenia and Croatia, as per the 1974 constitution, declared the federal government in Belgrade to no longer have supreme authority over Croatia's and Slovenia's territory and its political institutions. As for international recognition, the lack of it on 25 June 1991 stems from several key points: 1) a general lack of understanding by the international community of the provisions for secession in the 1974 constitution and the lack of illegality of unilateral declarations of independence (and the consequential branding of the 25 June declarations as acts of rebellion against the federal Yugoslav government, largely influenced by the Pro-Mislosević factions gaining power in Belgrade, as later proven by the unwillingness of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Kosovar and Vojvodinian members of the federal presidency to follow the established norm and name Stjepan Mesić (the Croatian member of the federal presidency) to the post of President of the Presidency)), 2) out of a desire to prevent the Yugoslav conflict from escalating the international community took the side of the federal government and decided to view the erupting conflict as one between ethnic groups and not between political units or countries. In other words the secession of Croatia and Slovenia was viewed as an ethnic rebellion against the Yugoslav government and not as a movement for independence of a certain country. 3) international recognition as a prerequisite for the independence of certain entities should not be viewed as something that is equally applicable in all cases of unilateral secession. In other words throwing Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, TRNC, Palestine, Croatia and Slovenia all into the same category is nonsense. Each of those cases is unique and the difference in their legal status as independent states and as subjects of international law depends really on the nature of their declaration of independence and/or legality of secession. If there are no provisions for legal secession in the constitution, as in the cases of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, and if the de facto secession is the result of a conflict in which territory is occupied and declared an independent state (as is the case with TRNC) without any prior basis for the legality of such a move (or at least the lack of it being declared illegal in the country's constitution), then that declaration of independence cannot be equated with a declaration of independence from a confederal nation in which the units declaring independence had extremely high autonomy to the point of the possibility of leaving the union and had a representative in a federal head of state (Federal presidency). Finally, the question arises what criteria should be used to determine if a country is internationally recognized or not or whether that is relevant to it being considered independent. For example, many countries, including Israel were not recognized by more than a handful of countries until over 6 months after they declared independence, while others including Kosovo are currently recognized by more than half of UN members, but are still not considered independent because the nation Kosovo seceded from still considers it as part of its territory. And Kosovo's declaration of independence had no legal basis whatsoever in Serbia's constitution, yet a large number of countries extended their recognition. While in the cases of Croatia and Slovenia on 25 June 1991, the arguments for recognition were much stronger and with legal basis, but fell on deaf ears because of the misinterpretation of the situation by the international community. And to conclude, a recognition of Croatia's 25 June 1991 declaration could be found in the fact that the European Community asked for Croatia and Slovenia to delay their declarations and cease all activities towards independence, resulting in the 7 July Brioni Agreement (which in itself was never ratified by the Croatian Parliament- the only body legally having the authority to delay the 25 June declarations, and is thus by some law experts considered to have had no legal effect in delaying the declaration of independence until 8 October 1991). In other words for the international community to ask for a delay in a decision on independence seems to imply that a decision is recognized. Because why ask for actions toward independence to be delayed if the then-federal units (presumably the assumption of the international community) of Croatia and Slovenia were not independent in the first place? And even if the Brioni Agreement is recognized as a legally-binding document, though this is disputed, it only took effect on 7 July 1991. So in that case Croatia would have been independent from 25 June 1991 until 7 July 1991, then reintegrated into Yugoslavia from 7 July 1991 until it re-declared independence on 8 October 1991. And this independence declaration (stemming from the 25 June declaration) was still only recognized internationally on 15 January 1992 (apart from Iceland and the Holy See). --Northernelk888 (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The issue of Croatia's independence and its legality is even more complex because certain elements of Yugoslavia's 1974 constitution are seeming contradictory. For example the first sentence of the Historical foundations section states that The nations (narodi) of Yugoslavia, stemming from the right of every nation to self-determination, including the right to secede, and based on their freely expressed will in the joint battle of all nations and nationalities (narodnosti) in the national liberation movement, in line with their historical aspirations (...) formed a socialist federative community of working peoples - the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslvia, while at the same time Article 5 of Part One (Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia) defines Yugoslavia as unitary (jednistvena) and made up of the territories of the socialist republics. The article continues by stating that The territories of the republics cannot be altered without consent from the republic, while the territory of an autonomous province cannot be altered without consent from the autonomous province. The border of the SFR of Yugoslavia cannot be changed without consent from all republics and autonomous provinces. Boundries between republics can only be altered by their mutual agreement, while the boundry of an autonomous province can only be altered with its consent. However, this scenario never occurred and Yugoslavia itself only normalized relations with (a then fully internationally recognized independent) Croatia in the mid 1990s and formally recognized it as independent on 9 September 1996. This was reciprocated by Croatia. So certain provisions from the constitution were not realized on 25 June 1991, but were also never realized even until the formal mutual recognition of Croatia and Yugoslavia in 1996. --Northernelk888 (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Speaking of international recognition as a criteria, why is Taiwan, which has not been the legitimate internationally recognized government of any country since 1978 included on the list with their Premier Hau Pei-tsun? Taiwan is only recognized as (The whole of CHINA's government) by a mere 20 countries and is not a member of the United Nations. At the same time 175 countries recognize the People's Republic of China. And since the PRC and ROC (Taiwan) claim the same territory it is correct to assume that while informal non-diplomatic relations exist between Taiwan and a considerable number of countries because of Taiwan's strong economy, the ROC is in fact a rival government to the one in Beijing. And Taiwan has never formally declared independence as a country nor does it consider itself separate from the territory currently controlled by the PRC. Thus this is in fact a case similar to post-Gaddafi Libya or Yemen in which two or more governments claim the same territory while not seeking to establish independent states on part of that territory, instead seeking to gain control of its entirety. I definitely think some criteria should be set to resolve the question of the necessity for recognition AT THE POINT OF DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. How many countries are enough for a state to be considered recognized? Do constitutional provisions on the right to secession play a role? What if recognition of a state is imminent and retroactive? What if the recognitions are retracted (as in Taiwan's case)? The arguments for Manolić's exclusion or inclusion, or any exclusion or inclusion other leader in a state of possibly questionable sovereignty or recognition should not be dealt with in a manner where one person says Oh I don't think this was a country at the time and the other one just says Yeah, ok I agree without any evidence to support that thesis and not in the least should criteria for exclusion or inclusion on this list be things like saying Oh today we have Abkhazia and South Ossetia (which btw are recognized by a few internationally recognized countries) so this is the exact same thing as Croatia and Slovenia. Solutions can't be summed up in 2-3 baseless sentences just cause someone is too lazy to find evidence either supporting or refuting an argument. We need to quote constitutions, laws and do a lot of research into the day-by-day evolution of situations in complicated matters like dissolutions of countries or federations to determine whether there was possibly any legality to the declarations of independence or whether they were truly illegal unilateral acts against an internationally recognized government. And this should be the main basis for objective criteria, and not some kind of theorization based on things like I think that if it applied in one case it applies in another just eqauly as good. I think I presented valid, strong evidence to support the inclusion of Manolić as PM of Croatia as an independent country from 25 June 1991, with the evidence being exhibited in the extremely detailed and backed up arguments I gave above. I am Croatian myself so I studies through Croatian sources as well. However, being Croatian does not make me biased to have a PM of ours included on the list. As a matter of fact Stjepan Mesić (also President of Croatia 2000-2010), who is considered the 1st PM of Croatia from May 1990-August 1990 by our government is in my book clearly out of all consideration for inclusion on the PM list of my country. Manolić would from everything I've presented be the 1st PM after independence. --Northernelk888 (talk) 1:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Rota Onorio

I cannot access the source for Rota Onorio because the parliament site doesn't load (I'm in the USA). Can someone who can access it post a screenshot so that we can verify he's still alive? I also think he should be on the main list if confirmed, because he is listed under President of Kiribati, so his status really is unambiguous. EternalNomad (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I cannot access it either, from New Zealand. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I also can't access it (from Croatia), but it can be seen this way (and it doesn't say if he is dead or alive): https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20110727080545/http://www.parliament.gov.ki/content/speakers StjepanHR (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Alfonso Lovo Cordero

Seems to be active on MyHeritage: https://www.myheritage.es/member-206516331_75176621/alfonso-lovo-cordero

Same name and his son is listed as "Lovo Blandon", which is correct, according to this: http://www.splicetoday.com/music/the-dance-will-show-the-way

More opinions, please? StjepanHR (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ri Kun-mo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the link I posted indicates he was alive in 2011. The article appears to mention him working on a project. I think that is the correct person in the article according to [7]. EternalNomad (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Rubén Alonso Rosales

Do you think this ( http://www.tributes.com/obituary/show/Ruben-A.-Rosales-71398817 ), this ( http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?_phsrc=LTi3&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&rank=1&new=1&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=angs-c&gsfn=Reuben&gsln=Rosales&msypn__ftp=CA&pcat=BMD_DEATH&h=20289613&dbid=70050&indiv=1&ml_rpos=20 ) and this ( http://www.worldstatesmen.org/El_Salvador.html ) is enough to confirm he is dead or we should leave him on the "possibilities" list? StjepanHR (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing the "Living as of" column

Wikipedia is assumed to be current. Having a "living as of" column contravenes this. Therefore I propose that the column be removed. As with other such age-based lists, inclusion should be accepted once there is a report that the person is/was alive at an age which would see them included (not several/many years earlier). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

NO!!!!...this would let unconfirmed survivals linger indefinitely and leave no impetus to correct that presumption of being current when it falls out of date.12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
No, it would not. The people on this list are highly notable. It is of no use whatsoever to point out that Queen Elizabeth is still alive every few days. In the few cases, such as Tin Tun, where there has been no news about them for a very long time, talk page consensus could decide on whether they should be removed. Having the column there makes NO difference to any such discussion. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Not having any available measure of when survival was confirmed prevents the issue from coming to attention. 12.144.5.2 (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
No it does not. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm defending an IP address editor – it's come to this after 10 years.:-) Yes, a visual reminder of how long between confirmed survival reports is useful for those who edit multiple articles and keeps attention on all 100 individuals. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Dont' say that. There's a great work behind this page and sources are fundamental! It may be really difficult to track down people like Tun Tin or ben Halim without sources. Please don't demonize IP editors. They are in good faith. --Folengo (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

How is it difficult to "track down people"? These people are famous (not just Wiki notable), and are already on the list. They can't be added to the list unless they are known to be alive at that time. With very few exceptions they are "obviously" still alive. Removing the column will not change anything in that regard. As per Wiki policy they are always assumed to be still alive unless proven otherwise. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The older people get the less supportable a policy of assuming people are still alive until you hear otherwise gets.This list includes the oldest people in the "state leader" category no matter how obscure.That column is useful!--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Unnecessary updates to most recent report of being alive

An anonymous IP has made it their mission to update every leaders most recent report of being alive. This is unnecessary. The people on this list sufficiently notable for their death to be reported almost immediately (with the occasional exception). I see no point in flooding this article with updates more frequently more than once a year. It is of more concern that someone with a last report of being alive more than a year ago may in fact be dead than "hasn't died in the last 3 days since the previous report". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

In agreement. The only updates this article ever needs is when someone dies. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
I can't say that I care, as long as the sources are good enough, but I am a bit concerned with the revision of Kim Yong-nam's birthdate, which seems to be Wikimedia-wide. Star Garnet (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, the same IP changed the English article for Kim, without a source (as usual), so I've reverted it. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem is he updates always the same people, and we know they are still alive. It would be useful if he finds updates for people like Tun Tin, Molina, Sharq and others. Everyone can find an update on Napolitano or Mugabe or Kaunda or Tinsulanonda almost every week, but that is just useless. An update on one of those I cited before would be really precious. But no one here is Superman, I guess ;>| --Folengo (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Twitter profile of Kim Yong-ju. Don't know if it's fake but it's very likely. --Folengo (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection would likely be best, seeing as the IP(s) are still making these un-necessary updates. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I requested it but it was declined as the edits were supposedly "constructive". We need an admin who is "closer to the action" to sort this. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a strange situation as the edits aren't vandalism. Just un-necessary. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I would have thought that the consensus here that they should stop would be enough, but apparently not. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
The person behind the IPs has apparently taken the WP:IDHT route. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna start reverting such useless updates, if they're less then 3 months apart, from the last updates. For example, we don't need an update every week, that George H.W. Bush is still alive. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

GROW UP.
It is completely irrelevant that these edits are unnecessary...the important thing is that they are harmless.Revert-pounces make sense for vandalism but not for tweakery that neither adds nor subtracts meaningfully from the article.12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Excessive, UNNECESSARY, updates are disruptive. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the anonymous user has a point here. Even though the edits may be pointless, and I wouldn't add them myself, I wouldn't revert them either. The only way these edits may do actual harm is clogging up the system or the edit history, but reverting them only worsens the problem. EternalNomad (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I've requested Page Protection. There are so many of these pointless updates it is a burden to verify them. It's a form of vandalism, like the guy that is inserting spaces all over the place. This page should come up on my watch list when someone on the list dies, not 20 times a day. Legacypac (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I repeat...the IMPORTANT thing is that these edits are HARMLESS,that they are insignificant is irrelevant.Just quit fussing about them!--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Weekly updates that an individual is still alive, is pointless. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Reverting weekly updates that an individual is still alive is pointless.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
How about the timewasters who keep making these edits, laboring under the delusion that they're making a useful contribution to Wikipedia, find something to do that is actually useful, like updating individuals with no report for more than 1 year? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The pointless updates will continue to be reverted. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The pointless,timewasting reversions will continue to deserve and receive complaints.12.144.5.2 (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Status of Jannati

Certain people are on the supplemental status-questioned table because of interim significance when a top leadership position is unfilled...e.g. the Dean of the Sacred College and Chamberlain of the Holy Roman Church during the period in which there is no Pope.However,while the Assembly of Experts selects the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran,its chairman would only be considered in leadership during a vacancy,and none has occurred while Ahmad Jannati has been chairman.Unless he's still in office when Ali Khamenei dies,I don't see why he's on the list.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that he at any time was in a position that could be determined to be a "State leader". I think he should be removed from the list. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Unproven possibilities and future additions

There is a list of all leaders for which there is not a death date on Rulers.org (at least before one month), and I sorted them in few categories (U stands for "unproven", A for "alive"):

1. Highly unlikely of being alive (born before 1914): (U=7, A=0)


2. Unlikely to be alive (1914-1918): (U=4, A=0)


3. Moderate possibility of being alive (1919-1923): (U=7, A=0)

  • Rota Onorio, Kiribati, junta, 1919
  • Feliciano Avelar, El Salvador, junta, 1919
  • Max Bolte Haiti junta, 1920 - [9] says he died before 2000
  • Avtar Singh Sikkim I. officer, 1921 (unlikely this position qualifies), someone with the same name and year of birth died in 2015: [10]
  • Ricardo Falla Cáceres, El Salvador, junta, 1921, Spanish wiki and some other sources claim that he lived 1929-1990
  • Nguyen Van Loc S. Vietnam prime minister, 1922, Vietnamese Wikipedia says he died in 1992, but without references
  • Jaime Vargas Bolivia junta, 1922
  • Gurbachan Singh, Sikkim I. officer, 1923 (unlikely this position qualifies), died in 2012: [11]


4. Good possibility of being alive (1924-1928): (U=5, A=3)


5. Upcoming (1929)

StjepanHR (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


User:Mewulwe recently modified the dates for former Syrian Prime Minister and Syrian President Izzat al-Nuss from (1900–1972) to (1912– ), which would make him #1 on this list and +105 years old. Mewulwe also left this reference note from Google Books in German (https://books.google.de/books?id=zWRmAAAAMAAJ&q=nuss+izzat+1912&dq=nuss+izzat+1912&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y). Could someone please verify this and confirm that al-Nuss is still living?

Given that Syria is mostly in chaos right now, the only places where someone geriatric who is friendly to the Assads could survive within Syria right now would be in Latakia Province or in the immediate Damascus area. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Obviously he is most likely not living, but I see no reliable source for his death, nor for the birth year 1900. Mewulwe (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Unproven possibilities and future additions

There is a list of all leaders for which there is not a death date on Rulers.org (at least before one month), and I sorted them in few categories (U stands for "unproven", A for "alive"):

1. Highly unlikely of being alive (born before 1914): (U=7, A=0)


2. Unlikely to be alive (1914-1918): (U=4, A=0)


3. Moderate possibility of being alive (1919-1923): (U=7, A=0)

  • Rota Onorio, Kiribati, junta, 1919
  • Feliciano Avelar, El Salvador, junta, 1919
  • Max Bolte Haiti junta, 1920 - [17] says he died before 2000
  • Avtar Singh Sikkim I. officer, 1921 (unlikely this position qualifies), someone with the same name and year of birth died in 2015: [18]
  • Ricardo Falla Cáceres, El Salvador, junta, 1921, Spanish wiki and some other sources claim that he lived 1929-1990
  • Nguyen Van Loc S. Vietnam prime minister, 1922, Vietnamese Wikipedia says he died in 1992, but without references
  • Jaime Vargas Bolivia junta, 1922
  • Gurbachan Singh, Sikkim I. officer, 1923 (unlikely this position qualifies), died in 2012: [19]


4. Good possibility of being alive (1924-1928): (U=5, A=3)


5. Upcoming (1929)

StjepanHR (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Chief Administrative Officer of Sikkim

The sources for the position:

  • "Emergent North-East : A Way Forward", author: H. C. Sadangi, page 266
  • "Europa Regional Surveys of the World: South Asia", page 239
  • Regmi Research Project, Issues 100-199, [24] StjepanHR (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Top images

Is there a way to re-arrange the top images, so that they're presented horizontally, instead of each on top of the other? GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's possible, but why would it be better? Wykx (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Would make easier/quicker to see the images, rather then scrolling down. Would also shorten the length of the article & remove a lot of empty white space. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess it depends on the size of the screen then. It is only for smaller screens that it is an issue. Wykx (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Acting state leaders

I see a number of acting leaders, so I presume they are included. But then, there are many (perhaps dozens) we are missing. Mangosuthu Buthelezi was acting president of South Africa 22 times (!) and yet is missing. Should he be included? Should Dick Cheney be included when he is old enough, as he was acting president when Bush was undergoing surgery in 2007? EternalNomad (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Buthelzi is not listed as a President of South Africa, nor Cheney as POTUS. I think we should explicitly state that someone who temporarily acts as President while there is still a living President is different from someone who acts as President between the 2 Presidential terms of office. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Acting President does tend to be used for two different situations - 1) Official serving while the president is ill & 2) Official serving while there's a presidential vacancy. I'd suggest using Interim President, for the latter case. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, Interim President makes sense. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Slovenian Prime Minister Anton Vratusa has died aged 102. --Folengo (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Babiker Awadalla

There is an edit war on Babiker Awadalla. This source says he's still alive and living in Dublin, while this obituary seems to indicate he died in Egypt in September 2016. According to Rulers.org Awadalla died in 2016, but they probably knew it from Wikipedia (and therefore from the previous obit). We should decide what to do, clear and simple. --Folengo (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Given the conflicting information, just how do you propose that we decide? The only way to break this impasse seems to be direct contact with the Sudanese government. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
It's OK. How do we move?--Folengo (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that since his living status is unclear he should be removed as this list is only for people we know for sure are living.--Dorglorg —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

That is not the way Wikipedia works. No-one has to "prove" they are still alive. There is no undisputed proof of death, so no reason to remove. WWGB (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

One-China Policy?

I suppose I should have anticipated this a couple of years ago when the Wikipedia consensus shifted to validating the delusions of one of the rival Chinese governments rather than sticking to the facts on the ground they both make a policy of ignoring. As a "Two Chinas" diehard I regard "China" as a geographic expression never to be used for a particular nation-state in the post-1949 era,and the pretenses of the Republic of China and People's Republic of China that the other does not exist as total irrelevances...the assertion that the former is Taiwan may have a basis in reality,but calling the latter simply China is contrafactual and best avoided. Now someone partial to this philosophy has taken the next step and decided that the PRC should be regarded as governing the territory of the ROC (which has not ever happened in the history of the PRC)...and that leaders of the ROC (a de facto nation larger in various ways than many whose leaders are in the article without comment) are to be placed in the dubious section. Will no one resist? L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously,is no one going to oppose a random user's desire to downgrade the Government of the Republic of China?LE (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Edit wars appear to be brewing here.Hau Pei-tsun,alive in July,belongs on the list!LE (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, the leaders of Taiwan should be included. The One China policy is only the political opinion / claim of one of the contestants of a historical dispute. ZBukov (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

First Ladies article?

What do you think of creating an article with the oldest first ladies still alive? Cecilia Caballero Blanco (Colombia, 30 September 1913, age 103), Barbara Bush (United States, 8 June 1925, age 92), Amelita Ramos (Philippines, 29 January 1926, age 91), Rosalynn Carter (United States, 18 August 1927, age 90), Imelda Marcos (Philippines, 2 July 1929, age 88), Ngina Kenyatta (Kenya, 24 June 1933, age 84) 201.30.109.226 (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

There are the oldest first ladies who have article and famous. Many first ladies have no article and don't know her birth date, so don't have to creating this article.

Unproven possibilities and future additions

There is a list of all leaders for which there is not a death date on Rulers.org (at least before one month), and I sorted them in few categories (U stands for "unproven", A for "alive"):

1. Highly unlikely of being alive (born before 1914): (U=7, A=0)


2. Unlikely to be alive (1914-1918): (U=4, A=0)


3. Moderate possibility of being alive (1919-1923): (U=7, A=0)

  • Rota Onorio, Kiribati, junta, 1919
  • Feliciano Avelar, El Salvador, junta, 1919
  • Max Bolte Haiti junta, 1920 - [26] says he died before 2000
  • Avtar Singh Sikkim I. officer, 1921 (unlikely this position qualifies), someone with the same name and year of birth died in 2015: [27]
  • Ricardo Falla Cáceres, El Salvador, junta, 1921, Spanish wiki and some other sources claim that he lived 1929-1990
  • Nguyen Van Loc S. Vietnam prime minister, 1922, Vietnamese Wikipedia says he died in 1992, but without references
  • Jaime Vargas Bolivia junta, 1922
  • Gurbachan Singh, Sikkim I. officer, 1923 (unlikely this position qualifies), died in 2012: [28]


4. Good possibility of being alive (1924-1928): (U=5, A=3)


5. Upcoming (1929)

(Some people have been adding people born in 1930 to the hidden list...I think that is premature!)--12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Polish Council of State

Lately some people's membership of the Polish Council of State has been noted either on the main list or the dubious list...I think this is an overbroad interpretation of allowing "members of collective presidencies".The Council of State had a Chairman,who was considered the Polish head of state,and only those who were members during a vacancy of the chairmanship would be considered at the topmost level and thus qualified for inclusion.I recommend deletion.12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Mugabe's party position

I see it was recently removed as "not a state leader position"...for part of that tenure Zimbabwe was a one-party state.Should the party leadership positions held by Do Muoi,Milos Jakes,Rezso Nyers.Khamtai Siphandon,Stanislaw Kania,et al also be removed? (Still no response on the members of the Polish Council of State,which had a chairman.If all members of "collective presidencies" that have designated heads,rather than just those heads,are "state leaders" then members of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet,etc. would be eligible).12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Communist states were single party states and the head of the party was usually the most influential person in the country. Zimbabwe is, at least nominally, a multi-party state, with no official "leading role" of party in constitution (for example, they had opositional prime minister several years ago) and the party leader doesn't have any official role as a state leader. As for Polish State Council, I see no valid reason for listing individual members, as there was clearly a leader of the Council and he is the only one who should be listed, IMO. StjepanHR (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
As I said,there was a period when ZANU-PF was the only permitted party,which was always their goal.I hope the Poles are removed.12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, can you please specify when was the period in question? I know they were always the dominant party, but I don't know that they were the sole official party. If they indeed were, his position as a party leader during the period should be restored as a leader position in the list, IMO. I would remove the Poles if there is no oposition to that decision.StjepanHR (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Being party chairman is neither a head of state nor head of government

I propose deleting Miloš Jakeš and Rezső Nyers from this list because they never held any of the leading government positions in their countries (e.g. President, Prime Mnister, President of the Presidency of the Republic, Member of the Presidency of the Republic...) that would qualify them to be considered de jure leaders of their countries. I am well aware that 99,99% of the time in cases where the party chairman and the de jure head of state/head of government of a country in the Eastern Bloc were not the same person, that meant that the de jure leader was just a puppet and all the real influence was with the party chairman, BUT, constitutionally the puppet head of state or government was the leader of that respective country (be it in the form of a single leader or a council of 10, 15, 30, 50 people...). Another reason I would discourage the inclusion of people who were considered only de facto leaders is because it opens up a whole pool of possibilities on how to define de facto leaders. For example, even some party chairmen had times when they were locked in a power struggle with leaders of other party factions, and then the issue of who the de facto leader was pulling the strings attached to the puppet presidents or collective heads of state becomes anyone's guess. As the most constructive proposition I can think of is to just crate a separate table for all these (usually communist) de facto leaders who's true power came solely from party influence and positions and not formal government hierarchy or structures. That way their status as the de facto most influential people in a country is recognized and there is less room for arbitrary definitions of who should or should not be included. Northernelk888 (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree with Your proposal. It would seem to be an oposite of the current "de jure leaders with limited powers" and it would be wrong to completely exclude them, IMHO. StjepanHR (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Images

Recommend we limit the images to two individuals. The oldest living & the oldest living incumbent. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I would keep the three oldest & the oldest incumbent. Wykx (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of Javier Perez de Cuellar

Javier Perez de Cuellar served as Prime Minister of Peru, but in Peru, the "prime minister" is the head of the cabinet, not the head of government nor the head of state. 148.85.224.108 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The position has been discussed before,apparently on some UN listing it's considered a head-of-government post.(Note that on the List of longest-living state leaders there are five Prime Ministers of Peru.)12.144.5.2 (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Unproven possibilities and future additions

There is a list of all leaders for which there is not a death date on Rulers.org (at least before one month), and I sorted them in few categories (U stands for "unproven", A for "alive"):

1. Highly unlikely of being alive (born before 1916): (U=7, A=0)


2. Unlikely to be alive (1916-1920): (U=5, A=0)


3. Moderate possibility of being alive (1921-1925): (U=6, A=0)


4. Good possibility of being alive (1926-1929): (U=3, A=1)

  • Ambrose Patrick Genda, Sierra Leone, head of government, 1927, somebody with the same name died in London in 2001 (and in "Reinventing the Colonial State: Constitutionalism, One-party Rule, and Civil" (p. 138), it is claimed that he had lived in London) and German wiki claims he died in 2015
  • Ri Kun-mo, North Korea, prime minister, 1926, published in 2004, chronology through 2001, now disputed. Died in 2001 according to Alexandre Mansourov.
  • Arturo Armando Molina, El Salvador, president, 1927, was alive in 2008, but 10 years without report, on the list
  • Emmanuel Bodjollé, Togo, committee, 1928


5. Upcoming (1930)

Arturo Armando Molina

I don't see anything in that source to indicate Molina is still alive, just no mention of his death Emk9 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It says Romero and Molina have never been processed, which presumes it was possible to process them even in 2017, at the time of Romero's death. Plus they would be referring to Molina as the "late" president Arturo Armando Molina, while no mention of his passing is given. Though it is not so clear, I think it is better to rely on it than losing a State Leader which may be still alive, as it happened with Romero himself. --Folengo (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
That's fair Emk9 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_oldest_living_state_leaders/Archive_4&oldid=886421605"