Talk:List of state leaders in 2016/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

In case it was not clear

The RfC result is:

1. Palestine is not a sub-entry of Israel.
2. Palestine is in pending any future RfC on disputed recognition generally.

I will WP:AGF and allow for the fact that it may be possible to misinterpret my close. I hope this removes any remaining ambiguity. Guy (Help!) 12:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Indeed, the notion that Palestine is somehow displayed as a sub-entry of Israel is a common conception perpetuated by Spirit Ethanol. Perhaps a hidden comment on the article could be necessary to prevent further misunderstandings such as these in future.--Neve–selbert 22:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The proposal discussed was that Palestine was to displayed as a sub-entry. The RfC concluded that it should not be. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and a red herring at that.--Neve–selbert 09:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A report was filed here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Spirit_Ethanol by Neve claiming that starting Rfc and question wording was 'Disruptive behavior'. I would like to invite RfC participants to give a statement on any observed 'Disruptive behavior' if any. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A rallying cry, I assume? Leave WP:AN/I to the admins.--Neve–selbert 09:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is perfectly appropriate for involved editors here to be notified of your extraordinary decision to file an ANI complaint against the editor who started the RFC. At your ANI report you implicitly criticise editors who participated in the RFC. It is simply astonishing that you would have the brass neck to accuse others of "unjust and reprehensible behaviour" given your appalling conduct during the RFC and your constant WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour regarding this topic. AusLondonder (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This is extraordinary. If anyone has a "brass neck", it is certainly not me. The premise of the premature Rfc question was inaccurate, and I should have every right to appeal the verdict per WP:CCC. Accusing me of running into WP:LETTER would be quite silly, IMO.--Neve–selbert 10:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it's you. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

In your opinion.--Neve–selbert 10:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your campaign of disinformation. The premise of the RfC was extremely accurate and has been accepted by other editors as being entirely legitimate and accurate. In stark contrast, your preferred version of listing Palestine as simply a dependent territory under the sovereignty of Israel was completely rejected as ludicrous and false. Appealing is one thing you certainly are not, with great respect. AusLondonder (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

We can exist to agree to disagree, AusLondonder. I have made my case, and I shall now proceed to rest it.--Neve–selbert 10:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently not, since you now added "confusing" templates without prior discussion, in an obvious attempt of doing more disruption. Please revert them (or I will) and start a discussion first. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion at Talk:Time Person of the Year, as a similar thing happened over there over a similar confusion. Now, I must iterate that the templates are absolutely vital until we can come to unanimous agreement on the meaning of sovereignty versus states recognised and those partially recognised. Moreover, I would also refer you to JzG's second point above mentioning a pending future discussion in the wings.--Neve–selbert 10:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It's very similar, in that in both cases one editor first edit-warred, and then WP:BATTLEd and then went on to do a lot of pointless disruptive editing including adding "confusing" templates. Just like you. Are you twins? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rfc result, is to give Palestine its own entry. There's nothing more to do here, IMHO. PS - It's one less article, on my watch list :) GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Does RfC outcome apply to all similar pages?

I would like to inquire if RfC outcome applies to all other similar pages (previous years, foreign minister pages), as same ambiguous and misleading hierarchal layout used across. One editor already thinks that outcome applies to this page only. cc: @JzG: Spirit Ethanol (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it does not apply generally, it is specific to this case. A wider RfC on states with disputed or partial recognition is also needed to settle the wider question of whether they should be included at all. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: my inquiry is whether to keep placing Palestine as a sub-entry to Israel on other pages of this list series (e.g. 2015 page, 2014, ...), not other partially recognized states. Thank you. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

For current lists I think it could reasonably be argued so, yes. For list on previous years it should likely be discussed on a year by year basis, as the situation has changed over time. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to say for every single year - though arguably it was never appropriate to place it as subsidiary to Israel since Gaza [i.e. the Gaza Strip; Gaza City of course was occupied illegally by Israel for some years] has never actually been part of Israel as far as I know. I suggest a wider RfC. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: How shall the international status of Palestine be rectified?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would the example below be a suitable option?

• Palestine (assigned UN observer state, in line with motion; occupied, partially recognised; administered de jure by the National Authority)

--Neve–selbert 13:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Partially recognized states (part I)

For the partially recognized states but recognized by the United Nations should we:

• A) add this mention to all states with limited recognition (adding the comment to Armenia, China, Cyprus, Israel, DPRK and Republic of Korea)
• B) remove this mention to all states with limited recognition (removing the comment to Palestine) Wykx (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Answers

B - Remove: there is a specific article about this topic. Wykx (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The question is kinda confusing. Also, it doesn't seem clear as to which option you've chosen. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I've choosen option B - Remove (well checked, it wasn't clear) Wykx (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

B - Remove - This is an article about state LEADERS. It's not an article about the states. If you want to read more about the states, click the link. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

A - apply to Palestine & Kosovo. B - remove from Israel, North Korea, South Korea, Cyprus, PR of China & Armenia. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the rationale behind? For Kosovo, I agree as it is not recognized by the United Nations anyway. Wykx (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, Palestinians do not have full control over the land they claim. There's no Palestine in the sense that there's an Israel, PR of China, Armenia etc etc :) GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The question is limited to the question of recognition so I don't see the link with my question. By the way: neither PR of China nor Armenia nor Cyprus nor Serbia nor Somalia, etc has full control on its territory. Wykx (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to stick with my position on this matter. Note: I do recognize that I'm in the minority here & so won't make much fuss 'if' the results don't go the way I believe they should :) GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And your position is include comment for states that don't have full control of territory they claim? Or just Palestine and Kosovo? Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Option A, should apply to Palestine & Kosovo. Again, I recognize that I'm in the minority on this & so won't be arm-twisting anyone. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

B - Remove per OpenFuture. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

C - Remove it only from UN member states - limited recognition is relevant to describe the status of countries that are not member states of the UN (Abkhazia, Kosovo, Palestine, etc), but not relevant for states whose independence has been recognized by admission into the UN. ZBukov (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean we should have added 'limited recognition' for Switzerland before 2002 and we should add it for Holy See now?? It doesn't make sense. There has never been a vote for full membership for Palestine and Holy See. Palestine, Switzerland (in the past) and Holy See were recognized as observer states with proper votes. Wykx (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess we can follow previous logic and make an exemption for states that start with an "S", end with a "d" and joint in 2002.--TMCk (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Which countries do not recognize Switzerland? And even if there are a few countries who don't, how is it reasonable to call that "limited recognition"? "Limited" reasonably must mean that only a few countries recognize it. And it's not in the List of states with limited recognition. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm ;) --TMCk (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo

Folks, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the sharpest knife in the cupboard. But when in 2016, did Kosovo's status change? In the other Year articles, we have it tucked neatly under Serbia. Yet in this article (in the last few hours), it's been given it's own seperate entry. GoodDay (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Spirit Ethanol decided to change it at 10:44, 18 March 2016, for some reason.--Neve–selbert 12:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted that change, as it was inconsistent with Kosovo's entry in the other 'List of state leaders in Year' articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That said, it's recognized by 108 UN members. That's more than half. That really puts it over the line from limited recognition to limited unrecognition. ;-) The discussion of requirements never got anywhere, thanks to some editors derailing it all the time, but it seems reasonable that it should be top level as well, even if the case is less clearcut than Palestine. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Why though, in this article alone? At one point in 2016, did Kosovo's status change? GoodDay (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not say "in this article alone". --OpenFuture (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry ;) GoodDay (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Partially recognized states (Part II)

If Israel is partially recognised, Montenegro is definitely partially recognised as well. 7 African countries don't recognise Montenegro, I'll be making the necessary changes.

Recognition label should be, in my opinion, put by UN recognition, not state recognition. Jewnited (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a hunch, but those "necessary changes" will likely be reverted. Best to talk'em out, first. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

So what should we do? Nearly all African countries and some Balkan countries have a couple states with no recognition of them? The recognition should be about UN recognition. Jewnited (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The UN does not recognize states - "The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government." You should not make changes to articles based on what you think you know. Also, be aware of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 which applies to your account and says "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." So you should steer clear of making changes to the Israel and Palestine entries in this list. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

After more consideration, it is not the place in this article to smack people in the face with "partially recognized" or not. This is not a list of partially recognized states, we have that in other places. I think it should all be removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It's odd to add "partially recognized" to Israel & Montenegro's entries in this article, when it's not applied to their entries in List of state leaders in 2015, 2014, 2013 etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It could be argued that it should be added everywhere. And it could be argued that it should't be added anywhere. It could also be argued that it's silly to have one list per year. I certainly would. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

But not adding the "partially recognized" label anywhere could give readers the impression that places like Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh or Somaliland are countries just like all the others, without the fundamental difference of not being recognized members of the international community. Yet excluding them would deprive the list of relevant information (i.e. the president and prime minister are indeed the leaders of the respective states instituted on those territories). ZBukov (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

1. No, because those are not top-level. 2. No, this is just a list of state LEADERS, it does not give any impression of the STATE. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. What do others think? ZBukov (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly the same as OpenFuture. These states are already not listed at same level. Wykx (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And consider this: Do we need to add a footnote explaining that Palestine is partially recognized in every mention on Wikipedia? If not, then why do we have to have it here? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo as a subentry to Serbia (and subentry layout in general)

From what I understood, sufficient arguments have been given by many users, and consensus is getting rid of visual layout that is unsourced original research and leaves it to reader to interpret meaning. Should we:

• A) Get rid of visual layout and use footnotes to explain particular statuses.
• B) Keep subentry layout and add to page explanation what 'subentries' mean.
• C) Keep subentries without any explanation on meaning.

Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion for all list of state leader pages, and not 2016 page only. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• B - This option seems to be the one that would most likely end these tiny squabbles on this & the other List of state leaders in Year articles ;) GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• B - Per points raised by GoodDay. The Kosovo note template works in a similar fashion on other citations so as things stand, Option B can only be a bonus to many. --OJ (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Any, with qualifications - A is fine, assuming we decide to not list unrecognized (or mostly unrecognized) states at all. I suspect that will cause some people to throw a tantrum. C is fine, if the subentries structure is obvious, ie, if we only use it for when it's self-evident why, ie in the case of civil wars and breakaway regions. Now, it doesn't hurt to also have an explanation, meaning B is also fine. But we still have to have a self-explanatory hierarchy, because most people will skip the explanation. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm also perfectly OK with deleting these lists, as I honestly don't see the purpose of them.--OpenFuture (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• B - with explanation into brackets as done today - it is better to explain each particular reason into brackets as it is done today just after the state listed (secessionist state, rival governement, etc.) because we have many different cases (Taiwan, Syria, Yemen, Kosovo, Transnistria, etc.) Wykx (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• A – Hierarchical structure can imply a leader of subentry takes orders from leader of parent entry among other things. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• C - my preferred option, followed by B using WP:HIDDEN. Strongly oppose A.--Neve–selbert 06:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• B - is a suitable compromise which is used on many many lists on Wikipedia! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• A - The same graphic solution is now given for widely differing situations. Get rid of them all and explain in a footnote. Kosovo is widely recognized, while Northern Cyprus is not for instance. SADR is recognized by many countries, while it's territory is mainly under Moroccan occupation. Most countries recognize Georgian and Cypriote sovereignty over Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus while almost no country except Morocco, recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over West Sahara etc. And then there's the spooky fact that the same graphic solution is used for subnational entities like Greenland, Aruba, St. Helena etc. They are not states and shouldn't even be on this list. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm more concerned with consistency across these List of state leader in Year articles. If we make certain changes on this article 'alone'? it gives the erroneous appearance that the status of some of those places changed in this year alone. Dare I say it - An Rfc should be opened up, to cover all these List of state leaders in Year articles :) GoodDay (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Subentries seems to me to be reasonable in the case of sessesionist states with limited recognition (and with limited I mean only a few, usually countries somehow involved in the conflict directly or by proxy). I would also be quite OK with simply removing them completely. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, they should be deleted from all these List of state leaders in Year articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I also think that one article per year is pointless and hard to manage, too much duplication. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The 3 options offered by User:Spirit Ethanol, shouldn't be limited to this article alone. We need a place to have these types of discussion, which covers all these List of state leaders in Year articles. GoodDay (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay is of course correct - any solution needs to be workable across the set. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan and Palestine aren't, so why should Kosovo be? Kosovo functions more like a state than Palestine and Kosovo has almost ten fold recognition than Taiwan. We must treat all partially recognised countries equally, even though Kosovo has a better claim than Palestine and Taiwan. Also showing Kosovo as subentry to Serbia suggests that Serbia acknowledges the Republic of Kosovo as a sub-national entity to Serbia which isn't the case. Also Hashim Tachi, the President elect, still has a Serbian arrest warrant over him. How can we say that he is an official to/of Serbia? That is misleading to our readers. IJA (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

If anything, we should have a "Partially recognised countries" section, that is NPOV. IJA (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

(Apologies for cutting into middle) I am aware of the point you are making. There is however great inconsistency within the article so although an entry in Kosovo's own right is not ideal, I believe a major clean up operation is in order. Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha is by no means a state, but is listed independently of United Kingdom. I don't agree with that one and its equivalents but that is not what was being asked here. However I must say that Kosovo functioning "more like a state than Palestine" and "has almost ten fold recognition than Taiwan" is an inconsistent comparison fallacy when considering the precise double-opposite is true: Taiwan functions more like a state than Kosovo, and Palestine has a higher number of recognitions than Kosovo. On the whole, the three listed are sui generis (I won't go into technicalities here). The relationship between Serbia and Kosovo is the same as Moldova and Transdniestr. So "subentry" is not in any way taken to mean that the main entry is a "parent" and the subentry is a "property of the host". --OJ (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I do contend that it is indeed much better to include each state by each continent, each year.--Neve–selbert 06:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why it's split up by continent. What's the purpose of that? That said, I think the list should be alphabetical, by continent or not. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

In agreement. The continent scheme, has gotta go. GoodDay (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with IJA, subentry implies that Kosovo a subnational entity of Serbia. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily, see all the entries in the article. I explained the situation in a previous post. --OJ (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

But there's a clear difference between what's intended and what is, or at least can be, read. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Layout in current form leaves space for subjective interpretation, does not follow any manual of style, probably original research. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

When did Kosovo gain independence from Serbia, btw? GoodDay (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

See Kosovo on Wikipedia. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It may have declared its independence in February 2008, but that doesn't mean that it is independent. GoodDay (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That was exactly the difference I was struggling to draw attention to regarding Palestine, with scant success. ZBukov (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Oranges Juicy, the article is split into continents and the entities are listed alphabetically within the continents. This is how the article series was originally structured, and I was happy to keep it when I extended it to include dependent territories and partially recognized states. So the reason why Saint Helena in not under the UK is that they are on different continents. The same goes for French Polynesia and France, or the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten. If, however, the dependent territory is on the same continent, then they are listed under the "mother country" (see Gibraltar, Puerto Rico or Niue). ZBukov (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Off topic comment(s)

Ya know something. I wouldn't shed a tear, if the entire List of state leaders in Year series of articles were deleted. GoodDay (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC) GoodDay, I guess these articles serve some purpose. If for example you read about some historical event, you can see in one article who the relevant leaders were at the time, without having to check several separate articles. It also depicts decolonisation, for example. If you check the List of state leaders in 1950 article, there are a mere four independent countries in Africa, as opposed to the 54 today (I haven't had time to add the dependencies to articles before 1971). So it gives a report about one aspect of what the world looked like in the given year. ZBukov (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC) For better or worst, the recently closed Palestine Rfc has appeared to have opened up a can of worms, concerning partially recognized states. TBH, if somebody were to nominate this entire series of articles for deletion? I'd support it. GoodDay (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Feel free to create a new section/nominate for deletion. This is not subject of this thread. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC) It's just another option. Though, I acknowledge that deletion would likely be opposed by most. Particularly those who've put a lot of time & effort into these articles :) GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC) On the contrary, I certainly would.--Neve–selbert 12:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Current placement is still a major inconsistency which leaves it to the reader to deduce that dependent territories are placed standalone due to being on another continent, while other states are subentries to other without any explanation. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, Spirit Ethanol, it's a relevant reason for inserting the dependencies into the alphabetical order (with keeping the status description behind their names). But in the case of mostly unrecognized break-away states like Abkhazia, Transnistria or Northern Cyprus (which apparently wouldn't have come into existence and probably couldn't maintain a separate existence without foreign occupation) I still feel that it makes sense to list them under the country from which they are trying secede. What do you think? ZBukov (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

My primary concern is space for subjective interpretation (e.g. layout implying leaders in subentries are subordinate to parent entry leaders, ...). Fine with any layout that addresses aforementioned concern. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Spirit Ethanol, I share your concern. There is evidently room for improvement in the article. What I am annoyed by is the lack of any concept of how it should be improved. Because what is being done with Palestine appears to be an ad hoc, piecemeal change, that has no regard to and no idea of how other states (like Western Sahara) should be treated whose situations are in some way similar to Palestine.

GoodDay, I don't see why we couldn't come up with a consistent solution to that problem, if we cared to try. ZBukov (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wish I could answer. But my posts keep getting moved & hidden, per off topic. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess I'm coming round to the opinion that listing every entity alphabetically (under their respective continents) would mean less inconsistency, and would therefore make the article more clear-cut. ZBukov (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well one solution to resolve every issue might be to just list everything in a top level display as long as it has a "head of state" devoted to the region. Far easier from here to add footnotes and templates as these can never be controversial. --OJ (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Treating a heavily disputed country like Abkhazia (recognised by the vast majority of the international community as an integral part of Georgia) on par with a non-disputed country like Andorra would run into conflict with WP:WEIGHT, in my opinion.--Neve–selbert 16:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That's why keeping the note after their name which explains their status is crucially important in my view. And I would also prefer to see their names in normal (non-bold) font to indicate the difference with recognized countries. But as there seems to be no consensus on what to make of the status of partially recognized or unrecognized non-UN member states, listing them alphabetically is probably is an acceptable way to deal with it. ZBukov (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I strongly suggest we focus our attention on Kosovo and Kosovo only. The vast majority of the international community recognises the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Somaliland & Puntland, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia & South Ossetia, and Transnistria as an integral part of Morocco, Somalia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, and Moldova respectively. Kosovo and Palestine are the two notable exceptions—hence why the reason why Spirit Ethanol has focused on these two rather than the eight others.--Neve–selbert 16:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, Kosovo is still a part of Serbia & Palestine doesn't even exist, except on paper. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I agree wholeheartedly, although our views aren't exactly popular over here (sadly).--Neve–selbert 16:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

With the difference being that Kosovo is run by the Kosovar authorities with Serbia having zero power over them but lacks the enough international recognition to make it into the UN, while in Palestine national authorities do exist, but the final control is in the hands of Israel, despite the international recognition given to Palestine as a sovereign state (but even they haven't managed to achieve UN membership, only observer status). So - as much as I understand - neither is quite there yet, for different reasons. ZBukov (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Both are sui generis. Kosovo is not recognised by the state from which it broke away; the Palestinian territories were within Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (West Bank) prior to 1967. Those states no longer claim the Palestinian lands while Israel's disuptes are with regards demarcation with the West Bank (Jerusalem, etc.). Gaza is not claimed by any sovereign body other than Palestine, and it is only for political reasons Palestinian statehood is denied by various powerful nations. So although Kosovo has more recognitions than Somaliland or Abkhazia, its relationship to its (former) overlord is the same as the two previously mentioned. --OJ (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Egypt never claimed Gaza. Zero^talk 11:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

My mistake here. My Middle-Eastern knowledge is not first-hand as is the case with the Western Balkans. I realise Gaza had been occupied by Egypt and given special status though not annexed. But when it came the peace treaty with Israel in 1979, it formally renounced claims outside of its territory and this was my point when demonstrating that at least one part of the State of Palestine (despite internal dispute involving Hamas) is not claimed by any other country. --OJ (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Neve What you say about SADR versus Morocco isn't true. There is virtually no (I believe apart from Morocco no other country) international recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over West Sahara. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The same graphic solution is now given for widely differing situations. Get rid of them all and explain in a footnote. Kosovo is widely recognized, while Northern Cyprus is not for instance. SADR is recognized by many countries, while it's territory is mainly under Moroccan occupation. Most countries recognize Georgian and Cypriote sovereignty over Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus while almost no country except Morocco, recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over West Sahara etc. Subnational entities shouldn't even be on this list. We can get rid of Greenland, Aruba, St. Helena etc. They are not states. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I would like to propose merging List of state leaders in 2016 into List of current heads of state and government with the following changes:

1. Include past leaders for the same year in current heads of state and government page.
2. Archive page at end of year to List of state leaders in XXXX.
3. Add a column for any other information that might be lost in merge (e.g. continent, etc...).

Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: merge into as in use layout and guidelines of current heads of state and government page. Any page can redirect to the other per discussion consensus, please include your preference. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose - as there's a series of List of state leaders in Year articles. BTW - I'd support deleting the entire series. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you clarify your argument, why is it that pages can't be merged? Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging this article into List of current heads of state and government, while we've got List of state leaders in 2015, 2014, 2013 etc etc -- would be an inconsistent setup. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - The List of state leaders in 2016 has an historical purpose. List of current heads of state and government is a snapshot. If one had to be deleted, it would merely be this latest one. Wykx (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Note point 2, Archive page at end of year to List of state leaders in XXXX. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

And what of the leaders that left before the end of the year? Such as with San Marino for instance? Are they merely forgotten?--Neve–selbert 17:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Merge "current" to "by year" as proposed or the other way around to eliminate duplication.--TMCk (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  Add: Also would support redirecting "current head of" to the corresponding recent year list as outlined by OpenFuture below.--TMCk (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  Add more: Use the "current head of" layout for all lists.--TMCk (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - The proposal means that the "List of current heads of state and government" contains people who are not current state leaders. That makes no sense. I might support that List of current heads of state and government redirect to the current "List of state leaders in XXXX]], but I would also support deleting all of the List of state leaders in XXXX" as it makes no sense in having one of these lists per year, especially since most of those list are duplicating the previous year. Also it serves no purpose. Why would anyone need such a list? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@OpenFuture: Proposal is for merging 2016 page into current heads of state page only. Note point 1, Include past leaders for the same year in current heads of state and government page. Major duplication in current form. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, I missed that. Fixed, see above. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - this is a largely ignorant proposal that ignores many key cases-in-point, mainly that this article is a part of an extremely organised and structured series and the removal of this article would be detrimental to this project in particular. It must also be noted that the merge proposer blissfully forgets the fact that should really be self-evident that many states do not have the same leaders at the end of the year as they had serving them at the start of it. This idea has been skimmed over previously and has been subsequently dismissed as quite a silly idea indeed.--Neve–selbert 17:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)