Jump to content

Talk:Lists of office-holders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prime Ministers

[edit]

Any particular preference on how to name such lists?

  1. Xish prime minister
  2. Xish Prime minister
  3. Xish Prime Minister
  4. Xish prime ministers
  5. Xish Prime ministers
  6. Xish Prime Ministers
  7. Prime minister of X
  8. Prime Minister of X
  9. Prime ministers of X
  10. Prime Ministers of X
  11. List of Xish prime ministers
  12. List of Xish Prime ministers
  13. List of Xish Prime Ministers
  14. List of prime ministers of X
  15. List of Prime ministers of X
  16. List of Prime Ministers of X


My preference is

  • to use "of X",
  • to omit "List of" if the page includes a (short) description of the function of the Prime Minister, and
  • to capitalize Prime Minister,

i.e. List of Prime Ministers of X or Prime Minister of X

Docu


  • Prime Minister is a title so as with President of the United States, etc it should be capitalised when referring to the Prime Minister. But if referring to a prime minister, it is used in lower case.
  • Prime Minister should normally be used as 'Prime Minister of X' because unlike, say, 'President' it is simply a title. President, like Queen, Pope, etc is both a title and and style so is used as a prefix. Hence one says President George Bush, not President, George Bush or Pope John Paul, not Pope, John Paul. However though people often say 'Prime Minister Tony Blair', the actual way that should be written is Prime Minister, Tony Blair. However one problem does arise; some states use a formal name and an abbreviated version that may through usage be different. So people say Prime Minister of the United Kingdom or British Prime Minister. 'Prime Minister of Britain' is wrong because Britain is an island and does not cover all the United Kingdom (whose full title is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Similarly one can have the Irish Prime Minister but not the Prime Minister of Ireland. There is only one Irish person who holds the title prime minister (or Taoiseach) but there is actually no state called Ireland, there are two, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. In other words, if using 'Prime Minister of 'X' one needs to use the exact formal state name. But in using Xish Prime Minister, common usage allows slightly more freedom. STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:58 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have to contradict almost all you say here. "Title" and "style" in this context are basically synonymous. "Prime Minister, Tony Blair" is plainly wrong. You can say "the prime minister, Tony Blair, ..." in the same way as you can say "the president, George Bush, ..." but in any case it should be lowercase then. Alternatively, it's "Prime Minister Tony Blair" or "President George Bush" - then you use the terms as titles and therefore they must be capitalized. Furthermore it's quite common - and acceptable in any encyclopaedia - to use "Britain" for the United Kingdom and "Ireland" for the Republic of Ireland, including in terms like "the prime minister of Ireland" or "Prime Minister Bertie Ahern of Ireland."
Tony Blair should be called "the Prime Minister, Tony Blair", as Prime Minister is not a title but an office. Similarly, you couldn't have "Speaker of the House of Commons Michael Martin" or "Secretary of State for Defence Geoff Hoon". "President", however, can be used as a title, and so George Bush could be either "the President, George Bush" or "President George Bush". The use of "Prime Minister" and similar UK offices as titles is deprecated by experts here, and is not used in any decent UK newspaper. They should always be capitalised when referring to a specific person or office. The use of "Britain" for "the United Kingdom" is not correct and should not be used, especially in an Encyclopaedia. The adjective "British", however, is acceptable (and is used, for instance, by the British Broadcasting Corporation, who broadcast to the whole UK). The country generally known as the Republic of Ireland is actually called "Ireland" (Eire), as that is the name given in the Irish Constitution. "Republic of Ireland" is a description (albeit an officially and legally authorised description), but is not the country's actual name. Proteus 10:44 GMT, 14th January 2004
I like the form "List of Prime Ministers of X" the best (thus avoiding the use of adjectives). The capitalization here is appropriate (and in fact necessary) because "Prime Minister" in this context part of a specific title (therefore a proper noun) and not a general one (common noun). But if we did have an uber list of lists of all prime ministers in the world, then that would be at Lists of prime ministers. --mav
Oh, and any encyclopedia article on the office of Prime Minister in any particular nation would be at Prime Minister of X. In fact, so long as the list is short, it can be at Prime Minister of X without any problems. But when the list is long, then it should be on its own "List of" page. --mav

These don't make any sense to me:

Since when are article cross-references ever italicized, and why are these handled differently than Ostrogoth, Vandals, etc? It's just bizarre. There's no point in me trying to make all the lists consistent with each other if they're just going to be reflexively messed up again. Stan 07:01 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

I added a short note below on the current formatting. Please comment. --- User:Docu


Current formatting

[edit]

(as of 21:28 15 May 2003 (UTC)) Most of the lists included are linked in the forms:

  • 1 [[Incumbent of ABC]]
  • 2 [[List of incuments of ABC|Incumbents of ABC]]

A few are listed as:

  • 3 [[Incumbents of ABC]]

Where the lists are included in articles not titled as to be about the office of the incumbent, the format is:

  • 4a Incumbents of ABC, see ''[[ABCasdf]]''
  • 4b Incumbents of [[ABC]]

I prefer this to:

  • 4c [[ABCasdf|Incumbents of ABC]]
  • 4d [[ABCasdf]]

as it's easier to read where a list is included. List of reference tables handles it in a similar way. I don't particularly care about italics on the see of format 4a (similar to see also links used elsewhere). Sumerian king list has italics for a different reason (see editing note), Kings of the Picts and Kings of Easter Island haven't.

The lists are grouped by time period, country, etc., e.g. Africa, Rome, United States.

I started formatting them this way in "Modern Entities" and then on from the beginning. "Middle Ages" currently still mixes

Possible solution for more consistency in "Middle Ages": reformat entries in 4d to 4b or 4a, add more or remove all groupings, possibly change format 4a to 4b, add more lists.

It would be interesting to reformat the page to include more information about the different lists, e.g. as the "lists of prime ministers" on Prime Minister.

One problem with this page is that it only allows for defunct states of the ancient and medieval periods. What about Austria-Hungary? Or the Grand Duchy of Tuscany? Or Prussia? Or any of numerous other modern states that no longer exist? john 23:02 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Go ahead and add them? I think they should be here, no other logical location comes to mind. Stan 02:38 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, obviously they should be here. My question is more, "Where should they go here?" Should we add a "Defunct Modern States" part to the Defunct states part of the page? Or should they be least with all of the non-defunct modern states? john 03:34 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm, something like Tuscany rulers seems logical under Italy - many of the lists under a country are already about defunct governments, so a defunct quasi-national entity fits. Similarly for Prussia. Austria-Hungary could go under Austria (that's what philatelists do). I can't think of any defunct modern states that are not strongly associated with a single existing state, but if there were, seems uncontroversial to add them in the continent list at appropriate alpha spot, maybe add dates of existence in parens to clarify limited existence (I guess Yugoslavia is likely to be up next for that treatment 1/2 :-) ) Stan 05:38 27 May 2003 (UTC)
Hmm...yes, you're probably right. Shouldn't be too problematic after all. john 05:55 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Name of the list

[edit]

Is there a better word than "incumbent"? It doesn't mean anything in the UK... :-/ by office? Martin

Ok with me. - User:Docu

Hmm...Irish offices are a problem here. Could we change the Ireland, Republic of entry to just Ireland, so that we could include lists of Lord-Lieutenants and Chief Secretaries during the British period, as well as Governors-General of the Irish Free State, and so forth? What do others think? john 02:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan

[edit]

At present, it seems that Armenia, Georgia (country), and Azerbaijan don't appear on the list. Under what regional grouping should they be included? Europe? Asia? Both? Personally, I'd prefer placing them under both, even though it means repetition - I've seen them labeled both "European" or "Asian" often enough that we can't really predict which people will look for them under. But is there a policy on the matter somewhere? --Vardion 07:15, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Prime Ministers of Tunisia: Si Mustafa Dingizli 1922 - Si Halil bu Hajib ibn Salim 26 October 1926 - Sidi Muhammad al-Hadi al-Ahwa 2 March 1932 - December 1942 Salah ad-Din (Eddine) Baccouche ibn Muhammad January 1943 - Mustafa Kaak (Saak) 29 July/20 August 1947 - Muhammad Chenik 17 March/17 August? 1950 - 26 March 1952 Salah ad-Din (Eddine) Baccouche 28 March 1952 - acting until 12 April 1952 Muhammad as-Salah ed-Din M'zali 2 March 1954 - 16 June 1954 Georges Dupoizat (acting) 6 July 1954 - 2 August 1954 Tahari ben Ammari 2/7 August 1954 - 9 April 1956 Habib Ben Ali Bourguiba 10/15 April 1956 - President from 25 July 1957 Neo-Destour Party, sole legal party 1963 - 1987 renamed the Parti Socialiste Destourien 1964 Bahi Ladgham 7 November 1969 - Hedi Nouira 2 November 1970 - suffered a cerebral hemorrhage 26 February 1980 Mohammed M'zali 23/24 April 1980 - acting since 1 March 1980 dismissed and fled the country Rashid Sfar 8 July 1986 -

Gen. Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali 2 October 1987 - Hedi Baccouche (Bakoush) 7 November 1987 - Parti Socialiste Destourien renamed the Rassemblement Constitutionnel Démocratique 1988 Hamed Karoui 27 September 1989 - Mohammed Ghannouchi fl.1 January 2000 - from my own collection, Noel Ellis, Wellington NZ 28 March 2004

India

Should'nt the Viceroy of India be in the Defunct Entities since

1- The Viceroy was of British India and India is an area smaller than British India because Pakistan and Bangladesh were also in British India.

2- India is independent now. And the Viceroy was the deputy of the British Empire which is over in India.

I just wanted to say this and see what you guys think before I change the link.

Aalahazrat UTC 0315 10 April 2004

The defunct entries are generally for ancient and medieval entities. Also, the current states of India and Pakistan are direct successors to the British Raj - Mountbatten went from being Viceroy to being Governor-General of the new independent India, and Jinnah at the same time became Governor-General of the parts that became Pakistan. john 03:57, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Organization of this Page

[edit]

I do think, though, that this brings up a good point, which is that the page as currently conceived is extremely confusingly organized. I would suggest discussion as to some kind of major overhaul. john 04:15, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps divide it into incumbents of defunct entities, and incumbents of current states? (I mean make different articles...they are of course already divided that way.) Adam Bishop 07:07, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Seems like much the same, even though the distinction between the two isn't that clear-cut. Personally I like the current page, even though it could us some improvements.
In addition, we could add a Lists of incumbents by entity alphabetized simply by entity. The listing currently in the introduction (titles, functions) could go to a Lists of incumbents by function or Lists of incumbents by title. -- User:Docu
Actually, I tend to think just alphabetizing by entity would be the simplest way to go about it. That way there would be no real question about where to find anything. Or doing the same thing, but still separating by continent. A big problem is that as it stands now, the "defunct" entities are also specifically designated as "ancient" and "Medieval". What about defunct entities of the modern period? They're currently mostly with the still existing entities. Things I do like about the current page are the separating out of subnational divisions and of nonterritorial lists... john 17:36, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It's probably preferable to simplify the defunct entites section further .. alphabetizing Ancient ones already facilitate the list. Obviously alphabetizing only by entity would make it easier to decide where to add List of Presidents of Catalonia -- User:Docu

List of Incumbents

[edit]

Germany - Lander Links: what is the point of having a list of Lander, some of whose links point to a list of premiers (e.g. Bavarian) while others point to an article about the Land? This is supposed to be a list of incumbents, not a list of national or regional articles. A broken link (in red) tells the reader that a list of incumbents has not been compiled yet, whereas a blue link gives the false impression that there is such a list. A broken link invites the reader to compile a relevant list himself/herself; a link that seems complete does not; a reader not bothering to follow the link would have no idea that it leads to something other that what it seems. I hate senseless edit conflicts so I will not revert you without discussing the matter first, but I want to know what you (and others) think. There is a copy of this not on Docu's talk page). David Cannon 14:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've had a look - I see that some of the German Land articles actually include a list of Premiers. Well I never. But to be consistent, wouldn't it be better to move those lists to separate articles, as per Wikipedia custom? What do you all think? David Cannon 14:39, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Back when I added them here, all did have a such a list integrated in the article on the State. It seems to be part of the State-template (template which I wouldn't dare change just to make this list). I prefer if we link to the article (with or without anchors) rather than, make readers of this list of lists think there is none available yet.
I agree with Davidcannon that it's preferable to not link to the state if there is no list. -- User:Docu

Shall we include the List of Afghan Transitional Administration personnel? The list gives various officials from 2002 and is not limited to the subsequent holders of a given office/title. -- User:Docu

There is a list of Iraqi officials from 2002, shall we readd it? -- User:Docu

Uh oh!

[edit]

Uh oh! This page is 58 kilobytes long! Can you try to break it up so that there are 2 pages both of which are at most 32 kilobytes long?? 66.245.80.142 15:50, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As it's a list rather than an article, you may want to try section editing instead. -- User:Docu

Renaming the Page (again)

[edit]

Should this page be renamed? Is the title a proper usage of the word incumbent? We could instead name it lists of office-holders or perhaps lists of leaders. - SimonP 00:59, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

see Talk:Lists of incumbents#Name of the list above. -- User:Docu

I like lists of officeholders, personally. john 06:45, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about Lists of people by office held ? -- User:Docu

Why have the title longer than necessary? Lists of office-holders accomplishes the same thing and is shorter. john 17:36, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It would match Lists of people, but it's probably better to keep it shorter .. let's rename to Lists of office-holders. -- User:Docu

I suggest a wait of 24 hours to see if anyone objects, and then we do it. john 18:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, it is so ordered. john 03:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hyphen? Looks a little odd. "office holder" or "officeholder" seems more familiar. Stan 05:14, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...yeah, maybe you're right... john 06:45, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Page organization (again)

[edit]

I have to be honest: i dislike this page and i avoid it as much as i can. I am working on duchies and counties (Duke of Lorraine and therein, for instance) and i would like to have a central list, where i could link the things i have done, keep track of what is left to be done (eg. Duke of Cleves) and etc. This is impossible with the current page, which is too messy and too big. I know this was discussed before, but not much action was taken. I am proposing to divided it according to mixed parameters:

I think some of the things can duplicated. Eg: Duke of Burgundy -> head of state + dukes. What do you think? Muriel G 14:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I sort of agree...the page is huge and clumsy to work with. I tend to just edit a particular section (say, the ancient section, or the medieval section), although it is often the case that a certain office will extend past the medieval period. Sometimes it is also difficult to determine where something was (was it in France? Belgium? Germany?) so I just stick it where it is now. On the other hand, having a dozen smaller pages would make things even more complicated, wouldn't it? Adam Bishop 17:14, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I also kind of agree. The current structure is just utterly confusing. The problem is just that the variety of different things one might want to have lists of defies easy categorization - I can think of several problems with your suggested revision, for instance. (For instance, many bishops and archbishops have been secular rulers as well as religious leaders) But I do think that it could certainly be done better than it is now. Certainly the "Medieval states" category makes hardly any sense at all. john k 21:04, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am so glad that you (kind/sort) agree with me! Ok, what kind of offices there are? I suggest we first think about that, and then, how to organize them. Muriel G 09:38, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So, we have:

  • Presidents of modern entities
  • Presidents of defunct entities (former USSRs, Jugoslavian republics, etc)
  • Executive offices - present day:
    • Prime ministers
    • Ministers (secretaries of state), Lord Chancellors, Speakers
    • Governors of sub-national entities modern (Governors, Mayors...)
  • Executive offices - past:
    • Governors of sub-national entities defunct (eg. Vice-roys of India, Roman governors of provinces...)
  • Kings of modern entities
  • Kings of defunct entities
  • Emperors of modern entities (japan and ???)
  • Emperors of defunct entities
  • "Ruling Dukes" (eg, Dukes of Brittany)
  • "Peerage Dukes" (eg, Dukes of Cornwall, of Argyl, of Terceira)
  • "Ruling Counts" (eg, Counts of Holland)
  • "Peerage Counts" (eg, Count of Clermont, the Earls)
  • Electors
  • Grand-dukes
  • ...
I kind of agree with you too, but I haven't come up with a solution yet. The easiest solution would probably be to alphabetize by entity. (except for "Iberia" and .. and ..).
If you want an overview of what needs to be done, this page, even reorganized, is not necessarily the best. More specific lists may be more suitable, e.g. List of Barons, List of Reichstag participants (1792), List of cities, List of ministers of the environment, Prime_Minister#Lists_of_prime_ministers, chancellor, Cabinet of Canada or State leaders by year (pick any year).
In parallel, I'm intending to develop Category:lists of office-holders, but this is even less flexible, as even simple categories, e.g. Category:lists of political parties, aren't very easy to look at (Let's assume that layout for category pages will be improved). The starting Category:lists of mayors isn't going to be better than Mayor. Anyways, don't let category:lists of office-holders get in the way of improving the structure of this page. -- User:Docu

Not a list of people ?

[edit]

I almost hate to bring this up, considering how much work everyone has put into this page, but this is not a list of "incumbents" or of "office-holders". It is a list of offices. Merriam-Webster Online defines incumbent as "the holder of an office or ecclesiastical benefice", and and office holder is a human being, generally expected to be identified by name.

If one wants a list of current office-holders, one would hope to find that list here. In reality, however, one must start here and click on every single relevant link to get each page, then search through each page to find the last name in the list of that office's holder.

I would respectfully suggest that, if this page wishes to retain its name, it should identify the office holders and not just the offices. Although listing each office-holder for each office would be highly impractical for a single page, it is reasonable to expect to see the current office-holder's name included here with each office entry. — Jeff Q 19:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's currently called "Lists of office-holders", as it's a list of lists of people by office held. -- User:Docu
Ah, I stand corrected. I missed that very important final "s" in "Lists". I think my error was in arriving at this page through the redirect from List of incumbents. Of course, that begs the question, "Why does "List of incumbents" redirect here?" This article's first line says that "These are lists of incumbents" (emphasis mine). I also see that, while there is a Lists of incumbents that logically redirects here, there is currently no List of office holders or List of office-holders. I infer from this state that no one is maintaining a single-article list of current office holders, and that the List of incumbents article is improperly redirected. Alas, my interest is not strong enough to fix this and create the list myself. I was just hoping it was already done. Oh, well. -- Jeff Q 08:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

JohnArmagh

[edit]

This user has created dozens of lists based on the site worldstatesmen.org, which is created by a certifiable dyslexic who can't even spell the names of countries right ("United Arabi Empirates", "Tuvalau") and is teeming with obvious (to me, if not to JohnArmagh) errors, from which it follows that there are even more non-obvious errors. I don't think this is an acceptable source. Gzornenplatz 01:29, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, there are various notable errors on worldstatesmen.org (although the spelling examples you give seem a bit unfair - he does spell Tuvalu correctly, for the most part). Do you consider rulers.org to be an acceptable source? I've generally found it to be correct for most instances when worldstatesmen.org is in error, although the two are clearly not independent of each other (My assumption has generally been that worldstatesmen copies off rulers, but I'm not sure). At any rate, most internet lists of this sort seem to derive from the rulers.org/worldstatesmen.org template. If neither of them is trustworthy, what do you suggest we do? john k 02:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Try this Google search and you see right away six separate occurrences of "Tuvalau", with a gratuitous "Papaua New Guinea" to boot. Yes, I think rulers.org is an acceptable source; it seems to be the original from which a number of incompetent copycat sites are derived. There are not many "Tuvalau"-type bloopers there. But in general, it must be clear that if we find no reliable source on a specific topic, it doesn't mean that any website is acceptable, as your last question might suggest. Any information we add should be based on a reasonably competent source; we should not write about a topic where we don't have such a source. For example at Empire of Atlantium some people think that the website of that entity is an acceptable source about its origins, although it might just as well be completely made up by the "emperor". Gzornenplatz 03:35, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
After initiating this furore, I have kept out of this thus far - however now there is a section in my name I think I will contribute. I am awaiting, by snail-mail from the USA, and at some not inconsiderable expense, a number of sources of information with which I intend to corroborate (or not as the case may be) the information I have posted. If I find that the information (whether originally obtained from worldstatesmen or rulers or any other source) cannot be corroborated or any other source then I will undertake to remove it. I will, of course, quote the sources used for the corroboration when I have undertaken the exercise for each listing. --JohnArmagh 07:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I certainly don't disagree with you, theoretically, Gzornenplatz. The problem is that we have a huge number of articles already in existence which consist entirely of copied lists from worldstatesmen. If there were no good internet source to back these up against, there would be no quick/good way to really correct the problem - it would be painstakingly slow, and we'd be left with somewhat inaccurate articles for a long time. As it stands, I think we should at least check all these articles for accuracy against rulers.org. john k 18:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now JohnArmagh falsely lists rulers.org and some books as sources, even where he doesn't change the information, which is still clearly from worldstatesmen.org. Gzornenplatz 17:38, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

That is hogwash. Where I have put sources, and where those sources have details conflicting with worldstatesmen, then I have chosen those sources in preference to those in worldstatesmen. Where I have not done so this is omission on my part rather than intent. But then none of us are perfect - except maybe Gzornenplatz. --JohnArmagh 19:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say it's intent, just that as a matter of fact you do it. Apparently you think that where you don't find other sources, worldstatesmen is still good enough (for example for the party affiliations). Gzornenplatz 20:55, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Gzornenplatz, could you give an example of this? john k 23:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Heads of Government of the Bahamas. Gzornenplatz 00:17, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
OK - that is an example of a list - could you now give an instance on that page where you perceive that the detail is totally and solely reliant upon worldstatesmen and I will investigate it. Is it in particular the details in the political affiliations box, or the affiliations against some of the people on the list itself? --JohnArmagh 06:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The party affiliation info was clearly from worldstatesmen, with the usual inaccuracies like "Bahamas United Party". I see that you have revised it now, although the listing of "Abaco Independence Movement" is still rather absurd (a small separatist group that existed only for a few years in the early 1970s, which of course none of the listed incumbents was affiliated with). Gzornenplatz 13:35, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
What is demonstrated here is that working together on a project achieves far more than wrangling about it. I agree that the transient nature of some of the parties is at odds with the list of affiliations of specific incumbents. I know that this is a particularly weak argument on my part, but: if the template contains only the parties of the listed incumbents then the box can only be used for that purpose, however a box with all the parties may have a wider application. I have no objection to removing defunct entities which have never had incumbents, but am a bit reluctant to remove extant parties which have not had incumbents in case in a week's time a party has to be put back because they have suddenly and unexpectedly come to power. --JohnArmagh 16:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So is this section the reason why there is a template {{accuracy-worldstatesmen}}?

The reason I ask is that I came here from Rulers and Heads of State of Ethiopia, & having compared the entries for the Emperors of Ethiopia up to the late 18th century against Paul B. Henze, Layers of Time (ISBN 0312227191), I have to say that Henze agrees for the most part with the material there with some important differences:

1. Henze differs significantly over the rulers of the Zagwe dynasty -- which should not be surprising, since Henze observes that even the Ethiopian historians differ greatly over not only how many rulers were part of this dynasty, but who were the rulers of this dynasty.

2. Henze has different dates for 3 emperors of the 16th century.

Other than those 2 points, my main quibbles with the list as it stands are with the forms of the names given for the Ethiopian emperors -- I would put in the native form of the names over the Anglicized forms -- & how overlapping reigns of usurpers & competing kings are shown. But both of these are issues better discussed on the Talk page of that article.

In other words, I didn't find the information drawn from worldstatesmen.org suspect in this case. And I'd prefer to discuss the material's strengths & weaknesses on that article's Talk page. -- llywrch 04:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: Bishops

[edit]

May I propose that the various bishop lists listed here be moved to their own page? Over all, it might be useful to make this page more of a clearinghouse, and put many of the lists of lists on their own pages. Any thoughts? john k 04:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We do have List of Bishops and Archbishops, where I think they are all listed - some of them are kind of randomly listed here too. Lately I have been wondering if we should try to split up the page by time period, if that is feasible, but it would definitely be easier to move the religious office-holders elsewhere. Adam Bishop 05:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that the heading "List of office holders" (or "... incumbents as it was previously) was always going to be very broadly-based. Where does it end? - "lists of head of biology at Little Wolding-in-the-Marsh secondary school". I think that there should be separate pages for lists of religious leaders, national leaders (possibly separate pages for extinct states and extant states), leaders of international organisations and municipal leaders, but with an umbrella index page. --JohnArmagh 15:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this might be sensible. In the meantime, I'd suggest that only lists of Patriarchs and higher should be here... john k 21:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've moved all the bishops and archbishops, and now there are simply links to that article and the Patriarchs list. Adam Bishop 23:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good move of bishops. If there were more knights we might have to move them, so as not to put the kings in checkmate --JohnArmagh 05:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Capital letters -- maybe an Augean stable in this case?

[edit]

Why is an article titles Heads of Government of Slobovia rather than heads of government of Slobovia? One writes "The Pope has decreed that..." with a capital "P" or "The last three popes have decreed that..." with a lower-case "p". When "Head of Government" is the official title, one could treat it just like "pope" in this example. But it's seldom the official title. I just moved heads of Government of Ethiopia to heads of government of Ethiopia, thinking the former title was clearly incorrect, and then when I clicked on "what links here" so that I could fix the (very few) links, I find the Augean stable that is this page. Michael Hardy 02:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have seen you taking the lead on this and, without it being top of my agenda, I have been following your example. No-one as yet appears to be up-in-arms about it. Historically where "Head of Goverment" etc. has been the official title it has tended to be only one of a number of titles used by incumbents who rightly belong in the one listing. --JohnArmagh 05:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong and Macao

[edit]

User:Huaiwei has extended his months-long point of view pushing to this article, by relocating Hong Kong and Macao to the section for subnational entities. According to the subnational entity article, " Subnational entities are conceptually separate from dependent areas so that the former are included in the core or mainland of the respective state. ". She/he is editing the article according to her/his point of view that Hong Kong and Macao are not dependent territories, and has resisted to restore to how they were presented in the article before her/his edits. — Instantnood 18:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

And User:Instantnood continues his 7-month long exercise in promoting the autonomy of the two SARs beyond what is factually acceptable. As has been mentioned before countless times, the two territories do not fit into the description of a "dependency", and they are considered first-level subdivisions of the People's Republic of China. By this, they are subdivisions, and hence fits perfectly well in that part of this article.--Huaiwei 19:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is never easy to draw a line between them as for the case of Hong Kong and Macao. Nowhere in the PRC Constitution, nowhere in the basic laws, the constitutional documents of Hong Kong and Macao compares special administrative region with other levels of subdivisions, or lists them together. Anyways that's not the key issue here, but POV pushing and the resistance to restore to how it was presented earlier, while the disagreements have not yet been settled. — Instantnood 19:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing "difficult" about this. You keep looking at a limited number of sources to base your judgement on, by selectively highlighting those which does not make clear mention over the status of the two SARs. The lawmakers who came up with the various documents obviously do not find it important nor critical at all in actually putting down on paper as to whether a SAR is comparable to an AR. What will that accomplish? Yet what is clear, is that nowhere in any Chinese publication do they call the SARs "dependencies" in any form. Instead, they consistently refer to them as fully Chinese territories and an integral part of the "motherland". By calling them "dependencies", you directly question Chinese sovereignty over these territories, and I doubt that is something wikipedia is able to take responsibility for.
Anyhow, dont use the stalled disagreements as an excuse to counter a POV, because firstly, you are not exactly uninvolved in POV pushing despite the disagreements (and even during the arbcom), secondly, resisting a POV is also POV pushing in itself, and thirdly, I do wonder if there is a delibrate attempt to stall negotiations to take advantage of the situation as is so in this case.--Huaiwei 19:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Special administrative region and autonomous region are stipulated in different articles in the constitution, and the constitution does, respectively, address what autonomous region and special administrative are. There's no direct, exact and accurate equivalent in the Chinese language for dependent territories, which meaning is entirely translated and preserved. In each of the basic laws, it is stated that Hong Kong/Macao is an "inalienable part of the People's Republic of China". The term "dependent territory", unlike "colony", does not address the legitimacy of the sovereignty holders.
I have not modified any article in which there is existing reference of Hong Kong and Macao according to my point of view like what you have been doing, and I don't understand why you're saying I am "not exactly uninvolved in POV pushing". — Instantnood 20:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary [1] it says: dependency: (2) : something that is dependent on something else; especially : a territorial unit under the jurisdiction of a nation but not formally annexed by it
Is Hong Kong/Macao not formally annexed by PRC? --Vsion 01:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. They're formally annexed into the sovereign State (well, it's "assumed" instead of "annexed", as the PRC is recognised as the successor of Qing and the ROC), and are denied from all rights from independence. At the same time they're not administered as an integral part of the State. — Instantnood 07:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

World Fact Book considers Hong Kong and Macau to be dependent territories. While World Fact Book isn't to be followed blindly, I would trust it for judgments on things like this. john k 02:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you refering to CIA? From https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/hk.html#Govt , it says hong kong is a special administrative region of China. Please clarify. --Vsion 02:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well.. the CIA World Fact Book lists some French DOMs as dependencies too. The trouble here is whether special administrative regions are dependent territories. The dependent territory status of British overseas territories, for instance, is rarely, if not never, disputed. — Instantnood 07:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, yes, I'd forgotten about the fact that Réunion, Martinique, Guadaloupe, and French Guiana are also listed by fact book. Other than the DOMs and the SARs, though, all of the entities in the World Fact Book are either sovereign states or dependent territories. Note, for instance, that incorporated territories like the Northwest Territory or Australian Capital Territory, autonomous regions like Åland or any of the Russian republics, are not given their own entries in the World Fact Book. That the DOMs are given their own entries is likely due to the fact that they are distinct entities located at a great distance from the Metropole. Although technically integral parts of France, they are widely thought of as dependent territories. On the other hand, Hong Kong and Macau are not located at any distance from the Metropole. If SARs were just like autonomous regions of Russia or Finland, why would they have a separate factbook entry? But I will admit that this isn't as cut and dried as I had thought previously. john k 08:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
IMO dependent territories are entities that do not enjoy full independence or sovereignty as sovereign States, with their own governmental representations in the international contexts, and are conventionally listed along with other sovereign States on lists of countries. — Instantnood 08:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Your definition is different from Merriam-Webster dictionary, and also the description in Dependent territory article. It can be quite confusing to readers, how do you reconcile that? If I may ask a related question: Is Hong Kong a subnational entity of China? --Vsion 18:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A dictionary definition is a generalised one and is not necessarily all-encompassing to fit into all possible real-world situations. Hong Kong and Macao are formally annexed, but are not incorporated to be administration by the PRC. It might be true that special administrative regions are usually said to be first-order division along with provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities, special administrative regions are not part of the same administrative division structure as the others. According to the subnational entity article, " Subnational entities are conceptually separate from dependent areas so that the former are included in the core or mainland of the respective state. ". Hong Kong and Macao are not included it the "core" of the "respective state". Saying Hong Kong and Macao are dependent territories or subnational entities can both be right or wrong, depends on the points of view of different people, and their different ways of interpretation of the terms. In my opinion, they do demonstrate the characteristics of dependent territories. As this article started by listing them as dependent territories, I'd prefer keeping it as it was, while I agree with adding a pointer under the section for subnational entities. — Instantnood 17:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
You reject definitions which you disagree with, despite them being authoritative (and choose to stick to narrow definitions when you agree with them). Yes, certain definitions cannot be cast in stone in today's complex world, but this does not give anyone a legitimate reason to take advantage of the situation to advance political agendas.
In the above, you make bold claims that the two SARs are not "the core of the People's Republic of China". Did you consult with the Chinese government when making such a statement? How would you define a country's "core", and how do you define the "core" of the PRC? In what way are the "special administrative regions are not part of the same administrative division structure as the others", when they are the administrative sub-divisions of the same country? In what way do they "demonstrate the characteristics of dependent territories", when you cant even seem to fully describe what a "dependent territory" is, and if the PRC actually accords them that status?
And finally, may I know what is the logic in "keeping articles/lists to their original state", as thou the first version of any article is always the best and most accurate? (and mind telling if this is linked to your agendas in here, as I see the same demand to "restore" pages/lists to their "orginal versions"?) If the "original version" is superior, then perhaps no one should be editing anything in wikipedia since that will tarnish them according to your books?
If you persist in offering us your personal views over this issue, then does that not demonstrate your personal rejection of Chinese sovereignty over the two SARs, since you fail to establish them by facts?--Huaiwei 17:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is a definition from an authoritative source always applicable to all real real-world situations? And in what way is my definition a narrow one? You cannot just say it's narrow without presenting why it is so narrow that you cannot agree with.
On several talk pages that you're involved I've already mentioned special administrative region is not provided for in the same article of the PRC constitution that governs administrative division. I have also mentioned that nowhere in the PRC constitution, and nowhere in the basic laws, says that the special administrative divisions are the same administrative divisions like provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities. Comparing to the definition of dependent territory on Wikipedia, Hong Kong and Macao do not enjoy independence or sovereignty, are a separate order of separation with the rest of the PRC, and enjoy high degree of autonomy. They have international governmental representations along with other countries, or more accurately, sovereign States and dependent territories. The PRC is always said to be a unitary state to a certain extent, power rested in the hands of provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities is limited. Special administrative regions, in contrast, are out of the reach of almost ministries in Beijing. They are, according to the basic laws, " come directly under the Central People's Government " (note: not even the State Council). If you don't agree they're not included in the core, then how would you perceive the phrase " core or mainland of the respective state " (taken from the definition of subnational entity on Wikipedia)? What is the core, and what is not? In what way would something be said to be (not) included in the core?
Original states are not necessary accurate or authoritative. Nevertheless as long as the original states, particularly those used to be stable ones, represent one of the points of view, and when there's a disagreements with two or several points of view, the original states should be restored to when the discussion is in progress. It should not be seen as an endorsement of anybody's point of view. If you do have valid reasons, if there's any, to suspect I've got a political agenda, speak it out and let others to decide. In what way I were, if I were, rejecting PRC sovereignty over Hong Kong and Macao by emphasising their autonomy? You have always been bold to make such speculative accusations. — Instantnood 18:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Which version to be displayed

[edit]

Like other occassion where there is a disagreement on which version should be displated, I have explained [2] [3] why the current version was chosen, that is, according to what the list was like prior to the point of view-pushing edits. Nevertheless, user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat has tried to swap to the other version [4] [5]. I would like to request for third party opinion to decide on which version should be displayed, with acknowledgement of the edit history of this article. Third party opinion will also be requested if there's a similar disagreement over other articles on which version should be displayed. (Please see also articles relevant to the political arrangements and situations.) — Instantnood 17:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think I need to repeatedly respond to roboting comments like the above? This does not look like a viable and workable attempt in dispute resolution. Rather, it looks like instantnood is just going through with the motion least he get into trouble (again) now or in the far future?--Huaiwei 17:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not viable and workable because you guys don't even agree to restore to how the articles were like before the disputed edits were made. If you can take that one step and accept restoration as an intermediary solution we would be much closer to resolution. I would like to take this opportunity to beseech again for your willingness to work towards resolution. — Instantnood 17:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I do not speak for him, but as I said before, would you mind telling me how anyone should agree to the above when you are obviously using it to your advantage? You propose an unworkable solution. I am quite sure I made my opinions on it very well known. You ignored them, and continue to insist that I adhere to your solution. Now, it appears that you are saying the ball is in my court. Oh yeah right. Since you propose a lousy solution, than please do something about that solution instead of shifting the blame onto others for not complying.
I hope you learnt something new today? You have a long long way to go from here thou. :D --Huaiwei 18:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What you have been doing was basically carrying on saying they're not countries.., they are subnational entities like provinces, and so on and so forth. Everything I said was disregarded, for you don't care to agree with any bit of them, that you don't even attempt to look for any thing in common or any middle ground, and you keep putting labels on me such like immature and provincial. And now you're accusing me for throwing the ball to your court. Who's actually shifting the blame onto others? I have been genuinely trying with all my efforts to seize every single chance to explore with you and see if there's any possible way out, but what I got were words showing your unwillingness to carry on the dialogues. — Instantnood 19:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Apologies for being rude..~ — Instantnood 19:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I find it difficult to accept your "apology" to be honest, especially when it comes from someone who rings the alarm bells at the slightest hint of a "personal attack". [6]. If such a comment is considered a personal attack, then I suppose you made the above comments fully aware that they would have amounted to one (in your books)? Never mind that I dont personally find it offensive at all actually! :D --Huaiwei 20:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(response to Instantood's comment at 19:22, August 29, 2005) To put it plain bluntly, quit putting words into my mouth, quit trying to misintepret my edits, and quit being personal when it comes to evaluating the edits made by others. Why and how should this particular edit have anything to do with whether they are "countries" or not? If you may quit constantly displaying such anal retentive behavior, then yeah, we probably would save ourselves having to read such an emotional amd irrational outburst like the above. Sounds exactly like a typical 13 year screaming at her mom "You never listen to me! Everything I say is wrong and dismissed by you! You #$&!$^(@#&@!!!!"
So was I "wrong" in my labelling of your behavior? That isnt for me to judge, to be honest. Anyone can observe your behavior up there. And no, my dear. Its not exactly an "accusation" that you are "throwing the ball to your court" (whatever that means. That dosent sound like a normal way of using an English idiom). You did exactly that above! Perhaps you take it as a "hostile" move on my part to call it an "accusation", but no, I merely "state" a plain fact. A single word makes one heck of a difference here.
I dont need to major in psychology to notice you are clearly takings things very personally. If you continue to adopt such a mental attitude, then may I know how possible is it for a resolution to be made? And no. Please dont lie to me any further, especially at this juncture. You didnt "seize every single chance to explore" any possible solution with me. This has got to be one of the most unabashedly blatant lies ever to be made.--Huaiwei 20:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine if you keep saying it's anal retentive behaviour. What we should focus on in this talk page is to decide on which version should be displayed, with third party opinion. — Instantnood 08:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Honestly, Instantnood, on this one I don't even see how you can argue it with a straight face. HK and Macau aren't independent. Even former independent countries, such as the Hawaiian monarchy, are listed under their sovereign if they have been annexed. SchmuckyTheCat 19:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So are you comparing Hong Kong and Macao with Hawai‘i? Are you meaning to say only independent sovereign states are countries? (and while they're not independent entities, they are not dependent territories too?) — Instantnood 19:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Seriously, lets not waste time trying to discuss with him what a "country" or a "dependency" is. Instead, I would love to know if they are or are not sub-entities of the People's Republic of China.--Huaiwei 20:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained in details in the section above why they do not entirely fit into the definition of subnational entities. — Instantnood 08:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
And it needs not much of an explanation why they are not independent nations either.--Huaiwei 08:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has ever said they are independent sovereign States. — Instantnood 08:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Good. Then may the list reflect that. Case closed.--Huaiwei 10:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My answer above does not automatically mean they are subnational entities. — Instantnood 10:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Dosent matter much, really.--Huaiwei 11:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You present them as subnational entities, and you're telling me whether or not they are subnational entities "dosent matter much". Interesting logic. :-D (and you were the one who asked "if they are or are not sub-entities"~! [7]) — Instantnood 12:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Haha I am sorry, but are you sure what I was refering to when I said "dosent matter much"? ;) Anyway, so listing them as such is "presenting them as subnational entities". Instead, you prefer to list them with largely independent states. Hmmm.....--Huaiwei 12:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Am I listing them as independent sovereign States by listing them under the PRC? [8] And by keeping the section under subnational entities am I declaring your point of view is unacceptable? Am I not compromising on anything? — Instantnood 12:57, August 30, 2005 (UTC) (modified 09:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC))

Incumbent

[edit]

Re this para: "These are lists of incumbents, i.e. lists of people in various offices and positions, including heads of states or of subnational entities. A historical discipline, archontology, focuses on the study of past and current incumbents."

This bothers me (and I know the issue has been raised previously). The word "incumbent" means the current holder of an office, and using it any other way is a degradation of our language. "Current incumbent" is a tautology, and "past incumbent" is an oxymoron. It is not correct to say that Bill Clinton is a past incumbent of the office of POTUS. There is only ever one incumbent - the person currently holding the office. All other people who were incumbents are previous office-holders. JackofOz 22:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganizing (?) the page

[edit]

I think we must change some things on this page... I've got 3 proposals:

1. List by offices:

  • International organisations
    • President
    • Secretary-general
    • Heads of x committee, etc.
  • Countries
    • Lists of Monarchs
    • Lists of Presidents
    • Heads of governments (of countries only)
    • Governors/administrators of colonies
    • governors and heads of governments of federated states
    • governors and heads of governments of subnational entities
    • Ministers
    • Members of Parliament
    • Mayors
  • Religious organisations
    • Heads of churches
    • Patriarchs
    • Clericals of non-christian churches (it's an example)
    • archbishops, bishops, etc.
  • Political parties
  • Presidents of companies

2. List by countries

  • International (including high religious offices)
  • Asian countries
    • Each states, with their presidents, prime ministers, archbishops, mayors, governors, ministers, repectively.
      • Subnational entities (if represented).

3. A larger page, including the 2 proposals.

Souris2005 16:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess what you are doing is progress in some sense...but now all the ancient and medieval stuff is mixed in with the modern. (And everything non-contemporary is referred to as "ancient"...) Adam Bishop 05:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer something like this

For clarity I think it would be best to collect all defunct entities under one header. It would also be usefull to add in paranthesis which time-span each list covers. Something like this:
    • Kings of Burundi (c. 1530-1966)
    • Heads of government of Burundi (1961-present)
Fornadan (t) 09:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right... but you can contribute, I cannot do all this in a day :). But ancient and contemporary were already mixed up dozens of time in this list... I just wrote «ancient history» because I'm not sure where some entities go for now.Souris2005 11:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I would prefer it's a listing of about 200 pages of links like this one: Rulers of Afghanistan, or Office-holders of Afghanistan, a page that would includes current and pas heads of states and government, transition personal, and rulers of Kabul, Herat, Kandahar, Peshawar and Ghazni.Souris2005 13:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Today I'm too tired to change everything... so I let the work as I was doing it to continue tomorrow, I hope :) Please don't erase it for now (especially names of countries in the Asian ancient history section... I will erase it when I will be finished, it is helpful).


East Timor

[edit]

Is it me or does it lakes a East Timor incunbents article? (I know, not a lot to say, but some things at least...it is the single country ignored in this!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.17.137 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of office-holders

[edit]

List of office-holders (singular) redirects here. I think it should redirect to List of current heads of state and government instead. --Hamsterlopithecus 07:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Why are the links in the external links on this page? They are personal webpages of an individual who documents this. Wikipedia is not an advertisement those sites? According to wikipedia guidelines just because there are no links, it not given that there should be links. An article of this nature doesn't need external links. Lihaas (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Discussion

[edit]

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 13:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denominations

[edit]

The inclusion of the Archbishops of Canterbury and the exclusion of the Ecumenical Patriarchs of Eastern Orthodox church reflects a seriously British bias! Similarly the absence of the Methodists is questionable, though I guess you can argue that they only hold office for a year, unlike the other denominational heads listed. Great resource however...! Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it recent?

[edit]

Right now the header of the List contains a reference to "2007 in politics" for "recent changes". I could change that in a moment, but I wanted to ask if there is a method to mark this article for an automatic update each January when a new year has arrived? Or is there a portal for political news that can refer to instead without using the "recent changes" angle to it?

Additionally when skimming over this talk page something occured to me... Is there really a point in keeping a "list of lists"? Isn't that the purpose for CATEGORIES??? --5.146.47.75 (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_office-holders&oldid=1208570931"