Talk:List of state leaders in 2016: Difference between revisions

Attribution

If, as I assume (and as the bot assumed), the first version of this article was largely copied from List of state leaders in 2015, shouldn't the attribution be given according to the processes at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, [1] shows it was a direct copy and didn't even remove any of the 104 leaders who were listed as ending in 2015. CorenSearchBot was right in [2]. User:Ninney should not have removed the notice without giving the attribution it correctly said was required. I don't think the page should have been created at all without bothering to remove more than 100 obsolete entries. The new page name was misleading when it was just a copy of an old list of state leaders in 2015 and not 2016. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I made a dummy edit with attribution in the edit summary.[3] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

Should Palestine be included as a stand alone state or a sub state of Israel like this:

• Israel
  • President – Reuven Rivlin, President of Israel (2014–present)
  • Prime Minister – Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel (2009–present)
  • Palestine  (non-state administrative authority)
    • President – Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority (2005–present)
    • Prime Minister – Rami Hamdallah, Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority (2013–present)

footnotes

Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Keep the status quo, prior to 9 February, for three reasons:

(A) Israel still occupies parts of the West Bank, thus Palestine does not have complete control over its territory.

(B) Per the footnote (unlike Taiwan) the State of Palestine is merely only de jure sovereign entity, recognised by other nations mainly for symbolic and ceremonial reasons.

(C) This is an extremely controversial issue, and we must abide to the neutral PoV. Besides, the fact of the matter still stands: No two-state solution has been agreed as of February 2016. To go ahead and list Palestine as a standalone state today will create the patent illusion that an agreement has indeed been reached between the two sides.

I strongly believe that the current revision of the page is WP:POINTy and should be reverted by someone else ASAP.--Neve–selbert 12:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, the RfC question is formatted incorrectly, per his addition of unnecessary templates clogging the footnotes.

This discussion is illegitimate as it stands now, as the proposed changes have already been made without consensus.--Neve–selbert 13:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: User:Neve-selbert is a participant in edit dispute that led to starting this RfC. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: Spirit Ethanol (as the creator of this Rfc) did not adhere to Section 1 of WP:RFC stating that "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt to working out their disputes before seeking help from others."--Neve–selbert 21:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Palestine is not a 'non-state administrative authority', nor is it some kind sub-state of the State of Israel (that is just dumb) and the footnote is a truly bizarre bit of blogging. Palestine (like Israel) is a partially recognized state. The statement "recognised by other nations mainly for symbolic and ceremonial reasons" is simply not the case. Statehood comes from recognition by other states, not from having control over the territory, not from UN membership and not from what Israel accepts or rejects. So rather than being symbolic and ceremonial, recognition is a critical part of how statehood is achieved. A neutral POV means treating a state as a state and describing the current status using accurate and neutral terms. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: Israel occupies parts of the West Bank. Palestine does not have total control over its territory, unlike Taiwan vis-à-vis China.--Neve–selbert 17:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a partially recognized state currently under Israeli occupation, not a 'non-state administrative authority', and it's ISO 3166-2 code is PS. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland: Logically, the ironclad fact that it is under occupation from Israel means that it should be under the entry of Israel. Furthermore, the Palestinian National Authority simply renamed itself as State of Palestine in supranational forums, i.e. the PLA still exists and has not been dissolved or superseded by any newly-created sovereign state.--Neve–selbert 17:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Treating Palestine the same way reliable sources like the International Standards Organization treat Palestine is how Wikipedia is meant to work. Wikipedia is meant to reflect RS rather than the preferences of its contributors.

Also...

• "The United Nations last night recognised a sovereign state of Palestine for the first time" (The Telegraph)
• "The U.N. General Assembly approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign state of Palestine in 2012 but the European Union and most EU countries, have yet to give official recognition." (Reuters)
• "In 2012 the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the de facto recognition of the sovereign State of Palestine after a failed bid by Palestinians to secure full membership." (The Sydney Morning Herald)

etc etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Palestine should always be a stand alone state. It has a President, Prime Minister, Flag, Coat of Arms, Anthem of its own. Almost, every other nation has some form of Territorial dispute and hence should not be considered while discussing the identity of a state. Let it be the headache of the two region & not the world problem. Let the dispute be solved sooner in peace. PALESTINE - A Stand Alone State & not sub state of ISRAEL. - Ninney (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ninney: You are trying to illustrate a point, this does not help matters. The fact of the matter is that no two-state agreement has been signed and we must (abiding by WP:NPOV) reflect this reality—however unbearable that may be for some.--Neve–selbert 17:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia has an article at List of states with limited recognition that treats the status of Palestine in some detail. It would be logical to notify all the Wikiprojects that are listed at Talk:List of states with limited recognition about the existence of this RfC. It's possible that whoever created List of state leaders in 2016 was not aware of Wikipedia's other coverage of partially-recognized states. These issues have been heavily discussed elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really have an opinion either way, but it is important that there is consistency both on this list for partially-recognised states – Palestine, Kosovo and Western Sahara should all be treated the same way – and for the other lists of this ilk. Spirit Ethanol also needs admonishing for their failure to respect WP:BRD and breaking WP:3RR. For the closing admin: This debate will attract a lot of people with an axe to grind, so it may be a job of trying to see the wood for the trees by the end. Number 57 20:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I concur and agree, and I must add that Palestine, Kosovo, and Western Sahara are all treated the same way, underneath as part of the entries for Israel, Serbia, and Morocco, respectively.--Neve–selbert 01:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: Out of interest, why were you not offended by the listings for Kosovo or Western Sahara? Number 57 15:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with #57, only we should be talking about Palestine, Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus which are all considered occupied by the international community. For what it's worth, I think the setup with the "sub countries" (what does that even mean?) is ridiculous but as long as everything is treated equally I don't really care. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: - I am offended by that. I simply reverted Palestine first. I would support separate entries for those states. AusLondonder (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: You didn't revert anything, you just made a change to the Palestine listing (it was listed like that from the first revision of the article). I'm not criticising you, it's more making the point that this is a fairly standard example of how the Israel/Palestine situation is often singled out for special attention when Morocco's treatment of the Sahrawis is widely ignored. Number 57 23:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: Whether or not you feel offended is frankly irrelevant. We must be obliged to WP:NPOV. The fact of the matter is: Neither Palestine, Kosovo, or Western Sahara, can be considered sovereign entities in their own right. They are all disputed territories and this is total fact. Taiwan is a notable exception—as in the lead section it specifically defines Taiwan as a "sovereign state in East Asia" (unlike Palestine, Kosovo, or Western Sahara). Also, keep in mind: we are using the term "Palestine" instead of the more apt description of "Palestinian National Authority" due to reasons mentioned in the footnote, i.e. we are not referring to the State of Palestine proclaimed in 1988.--Neve–selbert 09:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• What is the logic behind giving Taiwan its own entry, but having Kosovo, Palestine, and Western Sahara be sub-units, despite each one being more recognized by UN members (and the UN itself with observer status, in the case of Palestine, equivalent to that of the Holy See) than Taiwan? Also, Northern Cyprus is partially, not un-, recognized. Why are the North American parts of the Netherlands noted under Netherlands, but the Oceanic parts of the U.S., UK, and France, aren't noted under their main entries? Why do French territories get two flags but other nations' territories only get one? Why is the Kingdom of the Netherlands (which has several parts in two continents) given an entry, but the Kingdom of Denmark (which has several parts in two continents) doesn't? Basically, this list has a lot more issues than Palestine. I think maybe a settling on solid rules for the undisputed countries should come before trying to figure out the disputed ones. --Golbez (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with Golbez. I'd suggest that listing eg Kosovo under Serbia, Palestine under Israel and so forth is a little perverse and really misses the issue. The page needs two things:

1.A rationale for when leaders of sub-national entities are listed, which needs applying equally

2.A way of differentiating leaders of entities which claim sovereignty, particularly where that sovereignty is part-recognized, from those which don't. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• The idea of placing Palestine as a sub-nation of Israel is mind-boggling. Palestine may be being ripped apart into Bantustans, it's population being encouraged to flee, and it's politicians fearful of being killed by Israeli forces, but that doesn't make it a sub-nation to Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Israeli control over Palestinian territories is not recognized by any country in the world, not even the United States. Furthermore, this directly contradicts with security council resolution 242. "Sub state"! What is this? A metro system? wikipedia.il? The article's title is "list of state leaders" Palestine is a state whether observer or not, sovereign or not, its a state regardless of if you like it or not. --Makeandtoss (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Kosovo and Palestine are not sub-states whatever that is supposed to mean. Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• This looks a whole lot like original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Separate For a start, including something as a "non-state administrative entity" in a list of state leaders is silly in its own right. If it's not a state entity, it shouldn't be in this list. Secondly, Israel itself does not claim itself to be sovereign over Palestine or of much of the land which it currently controls. Similarly, no government claiming to represent Palestine claims to be subject to Israeli sovereignty. The Israeli position I suspect is to not have it on the list at all, whereas the Palestinian one would be to have it on this list without note. The compromise of putting Palestine under Israel while favouring neither side misrepresents the situation, far worse I feel than the risk of suggesting a two-state solution has been agreed (which is easily explained with a note anyway).

On a slightly separate issue, I think the footnote misleadingly simplifies what is quite a complex topic. It would be better shorter and simply pointing to relevant articles. CMD (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - IMHO, these articles should be limited to undisputed sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • So... no China, Taiwan, Israel, or Palestine? Or if that's wrong you need to explain what you mean by 'undisputed.' Would such a definition include Syria? Northern Cyprus? --Golbez (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    • China & Israel would be included, while Taiwan & Palestine would be excluded. But of course, others can make adjustments to my suggested inclusion criteria. GoodDay (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
      • No criteria has been offered beyond the undefined term "undisputed sovereign states." --Golbez (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
        • It's not written in stone. Others can make adjustments to it. GoodDay (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Israel has no internationally recognized sovereignty over Gaza and the Westbank, including East-Jerusalem. It has occupied these territories in 1967, but that is all. Any entity of whatever nature erected in those territories can therefore logically and in accordance to the Hague Treaties, never be a substate or subdivision of Israel. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Let's face it, no matter what is decided here some or all sides are going to be disappointed, but lets try to make some reasonable decision here even if it's going to piss someone off, which will probably be the case. A 'sub state of Israel' solution would mean to consider Palestine in the same way as the U.S. considers the Indian tribes like the Navaho and Cherokee. Now, as to whether or not this area should be considered a separate country, let's just duck the issue to higher authority. I'll give an example. Maybe 15 years ago, someone posted a message on the IETF discussion list saying that they should not give one of those countries that had broken out of the Balkans - I think it was Macedonia - its own 2 letter top level domain. I blew the guy off by posting a message saying more ore less "it's not our problem. If a place is assigned a two-letter code by the U.N. then it qualifies to be assigned that code for use on the Internet. The IETF is not in a position to judge what is or isn't a country, and if the U.N. decides it is, then that's good enough for us. You got a problem with the assignment, take it up with the U.N. Security Council."

So my thought is this:

(1) Is the Palestine Authority recognized by several countries (at least ten or even better, twenty)?
(2) Does it have recognition by the U.N., I mean, can it at least send observers to the UN or some of its agencies?
(3) Has it been assigned a UN two-letter code, such that it could have its own Internet TLD?
(4) Has it been assigned a UN three-letter code and country number?
(5) Can it issue its own currency as legal tender, postage stamps as valid for international mail?
(6) Does it have a radio license call sign group (the way the US has K, W, and N, while Mexico has XE and Canada has CI, and as such, can it license broadcast and amateur radio users?
(7) Does it have its own legsl police, fire and military?
(8) Does it have its own courts that can issue authoritative decisions, especially in criminal cases?
(9) Can it issue its own motor vehicle license plates, ship registrations, or aircraft registrations that are recognized by other countries? (10) Can it issue passports?

So let's be a bit generous here, and say that if it meets at least four of these, it qualifies as an independent state, as long as it has some things it issues like currency, boat or plane registrations or passports, then I think it qualifies as sovereign and independent. If it has internal control over its own area, but doesn't really have externally recognized registrations, but does operate its own courts and police, then I think it can be considered a 'sub state' of israel. But if it lacks local control, especially local courts, I think it hasn't yet reached the level of 'sub state'.

Note I did not include whether it controls its own territory or can be considered under occupation. The Vatican and Monaco are both essentially inside of Italy and France, respectively, and the host country would be responsible for protecting them, but the Vatican and Monaco are legitimately recognized as sovereign states. So I left that off. Plus Israel spent years sitting in Lebanon but it was still an independent county.

Maybe these points can provide more light than heat and help give a reasonable objective response on this extremely political issue. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Be consistent, as others have said above, but I do not personally like the "sub-state" idea, which seems to me biased in favour of Israel. I would list the State of Palestine separately along with a footnote explaining the situation (also called Palestinian Authority, under Israeli occupation, not full UN member, etc). Like it or not, they are widely recognised as a state at diplomatic level. The rest is in my view not particularly relevant to this discussion and would be better covered elsewhere. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Benjamin Netanyahu doesn't practice any authority over Abu Mazen. The Palestinian Authority (currently officially-ish called State of Palestine although not even the president use this term and their passports still have "Palestinian Authority" in the coat of arms) is not a sub state of Israel. It is somewhat dependent and influenced by Israel, but not under it's authority or sovereignty what so ever. The Prime Minister (and the President who is more like the Queen of UK) has no authority on the PA. The situation is far more complicated then that in the article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Include Palestine separately I find it astounding that anyone could seriously believe it is acceptable to include Palestine, which is recognised by 70.5% of all UN members including major world and regional powers such as Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Russia, South Africa and China, as a "sub-state" of Israel, whatever the hell that is. If we are wanting "Western" recognition then a number of European countries, such as Malta, Serbia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Iceland and Sweden. Taiwan is exactly the same. Taiwan claims sovereignty over all of Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Mongolia, parts of Pakistan, India and Nepal and numerous other islands. The area it controls is minute in comparison with its desired control. What has happened here is extraordinarily offensive and stupid WP:OR. AusLondonder (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: - could you tell me what reliable sources regard Palestine as being a "sub-state"/integral part of Israel? AusLondonder (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: I have never, not once, inferred that Palestine was ever a sub-state of Israel. The premise of your question (and indeed the question of this Rfc) is false. All that said, I am quite happy to tell you what countless reliable sources regard the West Bank as being occupied by Israel, in all but name.--Neve–selbert 22:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Palestine is not a sub or dependent State of Israel. Israel does not claim that, and does not recognize any State of Palestine anyway, at least until an agreement can be reached, which everybody agrees is not realistic in the foreseeable future. But Palestine is not a State neither. A virtual State of Palestine may be recognized by many countries, but you need more than that to be called a State, starting with, well, existing. So it should not even be mentioned in the list of States. Benjil (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  Both Israel and Palestine are partially recognized states. Check out this related RfC. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal has no connection to reality. Debresser (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - The Rfc question should've been as follows: "How should we display Palestine?". The question then should've been followed with visual examples of the options. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  The RfC question presents a visual layout. The only reference I am aware of states that subentries are for a Quasi-sovereign Subnational Entity. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

  • IMO, a comma should be added between Quasi-sovereign and Subnational Entity. This should reduce the confusion.--Neve–selbert 20:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

  The question should've been "How should we display Palestine", which is a neutral. Also, this Rfc was begun prematurely, as there was no attempt to gain local consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Palestine should be no different than Sahara and Kosovo. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - A partially recognised state is still a state. Palestine has internationally recognised leaders. They should be listed separately. As should Kosovo and Western Sahara. AusLondonder (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose subjective classification and editorialising on the list. Every place that is recognised as a state by a substantial number of other states should be listed as as a state here. People can click on the wikilink to find out more about each one. Moreover, they should be listed here under the names they ask to be known by (or equivalent popular contractions). The Palestinian Authority has asked to be called the State of Palestine, popular contraction Palestine. That is now its official designation at the United Nations. Adding that Israel doesn't recognise it is some sort of joke, right? Zero^talk 11:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose UN lists State of Palestine at the same level of Vatican City. Wykx (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

comment edited to fix link to UN. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

This is an issue covering several articles

It's worth noting that there are articles with similar issues titled things like List of sovereign states in 2011 and List of state leaders in 2009 which are formatted in the same way and which ought to be changed along similar lines.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No change is required (as per WP:WEIGHT). The above Rfc is yet just another effort by some to score pro-Palestinian political points (as per WP:POINT).--Neve–selbert 09:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Above mentioned articles and all such similar instances need to be updated according to outcome of this RfC, this includes List_of_foreign_ministers_in_2016–1950. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This is complete madness. The Rfc question is outrageously biased, and any outcome of this Rfc will need to be reviewed by an administrator (see WP:VOTE). This has already been a complete waste of time & there is absolutely nothing wrong with the status quo. You are simply trying to make biased political points in favour of Palestine at the expense of Israel per WP:POINT.--Neve–selbert 16:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, the Rfc question needs to be changed. I'd recommend it being - "How should we display Palestine/PNA in these articles?" GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Check out this list or the French counterpart page of this list for a page with a better layout/presentation. Counterpart pages in all other languages do not place Palestine as a sub-entry to Israel. Your insistence on having Palestine a sub-entry to Israel in this and many other lists is subjective classification and editorialization. Outcome of RfC is binding to this page and all other instances across english wikipedia.. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

A better layout? Your sarcasm is appalling. Listen, there is absolutely no such thing as a "sub-entry" on this list. The reason why the Palestinian National Authority is directly underneath the State of Israel as a quasi-sovereign entity is mostly due to fact of it being partly occupied by Israel. The outcome of this Rfc is most certainly not binding, read WP:VOTE.--Neve–selbert 16:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere in the list do I find mentioned that states that are subentries to other states are quasi-sovereign and occupied by nation in parent entry. This is the subjective classification and editorialization that is subject of this RfC. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spirit Ethanol: View this. Subjective classification and editorialisation? Just your opinion.--Neve–selbert 17:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Subentries are for Quasi-sovereign Subnational entities, Palestine is not a subnational entity of Israel. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spirit Ethanol: Subnational entries are not included on the list. I have never inferred that Palestine is some sort of subnational entity of Israel— although the latter certainly occupies the former's West Bank. Would you dispute that fact?--Neve–selbert 17:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Leaders_by_year#Format:_State_leaders_by_year, subentries only for a Quasi-sovereign Subnational Entity, which is how Palestine is listed now and subject of RfC. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spirit Ethanol: The "Subnational Entity" part does not specifically apply to Palestine. It is rather meant to infer relationships similar to that of the UK vis-a-vis Gibraltar. The Palestinian National Authority (Palestine) is not sovereign (yet), although you are trying to make out that it is, which is false.--Neve–selbert 17:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd note that Puntland is currently a subnational entity included on this list, as are arguably the various dependent territories that have been included (territories which mind you are represented differently based on geographical interpretation rather than political status, and with Dutch territories inconsistent with the others, but that's another issue). It is correct however that like Palestine other self-declared and heavily contested states are listed under the countries they split from (putting aside details on how Israel has never officially claimed most Palestinian territory), which has not been made clear in this RfC. CMD (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur with the points made by CMD. Furthermore, the Rfc is seriously flawed, and is not worded neutrally.--Neve–selbert 17:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that nobody can understand what the indentation even means is a very strong argument for not having it at all. Zero^talk

I respectfully disagree. I am content with the article as it is at the moment, and this all much ado about nothing.--Neve–selbert 22:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Another way of looking at it is that Wikipedia using a hierarchical approach like this that is inconsistent with the way the International Standards Organization and countless reliable sources handle these matters suggests something has gone wrong. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I must stress for the umpteenth time that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way the article is formatted at present. The current format has worked well for three years, and hopefully for years to come. Any offense is uncalled for, and such contraventions work against both WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. The reason why most editors seem to think that there might be problem is due to the biased and non-neutral Rfc heading—which in itself is actively discouraged.--Neve–selbert 13:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Golbez made the point well above Neve-selbert - this article is terrible. It is woefully flawed. It has no way of differentiating between Palestine, Abkazhia and Guernsey. There is a debate to be had on where different entities are placed, and what fits where, but it is clear that the page needs to make much clearer distinctions between fully sovereign states (Canada); partially recognized states (Palestine/Taiwan); state with limited recongition (Abzakzhia) and sub-national entities (Guernsey). How it does that is up for debate, but that it needs to do that should be obvious. What it is not is an Isreal/Palestine issue; it applies to Kosovo, Transnistria, and the rest of states with limited recognition. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Super Nintendo Chalmers: Nonsense. The article is brilliant & I am very much content with it. It certainly does have way of differentiating, e.g. for Guernsey we have (Crown dependency of the United Kingdom) to the right of its name, and for Abkhazia (partially recognised, secessionist state). No debate is needed, this is all much ado about nothing. Have you ever wondered why the Sovereign Military Order of Malta is excluded, while Taiwan is included? The former is considered de jure sovereign yet has zero de facto control over territory, and the latter is considered de facto sovereign and has total de facto control over its territory. Furthermore, I shall be requesting closure of the above Rfc in the coming days, due to its own evident anti-Israel bias and the ironclad fact that there is simply nothing wrong with the three-year-old status quo. There really is nothing to see here—some editor just wanted to make his own point about the Palestinian issue, and it has all spiraled into this nonsense. The fact of the matter still stands: Israel occupies the West Bank. Henceforth, the status quo is apt and should not be changed in any way, shape, or form (until their occupation eventually ceases). Any attempts to compromise on this non-issue will render as futile. We must reflect reality, and that reality is that no two-state solution has come into fruition as of February 2016.--Neve–selbert 16:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

While Taiwan is de facto sovereign, what it definitely does not have is de facto control over its claimed territory. Taiwan officially regards itself as a representative of all of China, yet it controls but one large island and a few smaller ones. CMD (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps true, although most of the island of Taiwan is under the control of the Republic of China, and this is really all that matters. On the article Taiwan, the image used in the infobox only includes the island & not the other claimed territory. The criteria could be: If the country is described as a de facto sovereign state in the lead sentence of the lead section of its Wikipedia article, then it qualifies to be in bold...

... For example:

• Y → The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain is a sovereign state in the European Union.
• N → Kosovo is a disputed territory and partially recognised state in Southeastern Europe that declared its independence from Serbia in February 2008 as the Republic of Kosovo.

--Neve–selbert 14:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but that needs converting into a clear and expressed rationale, and writing into the page. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment What I see on reading this whole messy page is User:Neve-selbert arguing almost alone for the status quo. I think it is time for Neve–selbert to accept that the argument is lost. Personally I see some case for a two-level presentation, but no case for Palestine to appear on the second level. None of the other examples are similar. Some of them are secessionist states whose secession has not been accepted by the state they assert their independence from, nor by strong international consensus (eg. South Ossetia). Others are territories that by their own agreement enjoy some degree of autonomy but legally belong to another state (eg. Virgin Islands). At least one I would argue is just a mistake (I wonder if there is any source at all that calls Christmas Island a state). Palestine fits none of those categories. It has not seceded from any other state; nor is any of its territory considered by any other state to belong to any other state, with the sole exception that Israel claims Jerusalem without international support. Given the uniqueness of this situation, we should follow what organizations like the United Nations do in conformity with international consensus: list it as a state under the name it chooses. Zero^talk 09:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  @Zero0000: The argument is lost? Laughable nonsense, the argument is stronger than ever before. I have said what I have wanted to say—to avoid ad nauseam, please ask Zoltan Bukovszky (also a staunch supporter of the status quo) for any further details as to why there is absolutely nothing wrong with the status quo. You simply fail to understand both the layout and formatting of the article(s) in question, hence an unabashed Dunning–Kruger effect. Palestine is occupied by Israel, and no two-state solution exists. Deny this, and you border WP:FRINGE and breach WP:NPOV. I must stress again, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the status quo and I continue to plan to defend it and preserve all the way with all blood, toil, tears and sweat I can muster. This all just boils down to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT by pro-Palestine campaigners per my reckoning, and we must respect fact.--Neve–selbert 15:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Compromise

Ya'll should consider creating two sections for these articles. A sovereign state section & a disputed sovereign state section. The former, would have Canada, United Kingdom, France, Israel etc. The latter would have Palestine, Taiwan, Western Sahara, Kosovo, etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Israel with its double-digit lack of recognition? A split is definitely possible, but the criteria you propose do not line up with your examples. CMD (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

People here know that "recognition" is not the only and not even the main criteria to being a State, right ? Israel is a State because it has sovereignty . Palestine is not because it has not. Being recognized or not by some countries does not really change anything to it. Benjil (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

These words are barely meaningful. If a state is occupied by another, it does not suddenly become not a state. It becomes a state unable to exercise its sovereignty. Some academic experts distinguish between legal sovereignty and practical sovereignty, others reject that distinction. Basically your point of view is your point of view and doesn't match the views of many more expert than you. Zero^talk 22:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

First there never was any State of Palestine that Israel then occupied. Then, if a State is entirely occupied by another - well then it can cease to exist. That's what happened to many States in history. Benjil (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You have to show it the other way around. Did Iraq cease to be a state when the USA occupied it? No, it became a state under the belligerent occupation of another state. That is what international law specifies, especially since the UN Charter outlawed acquisition of territory by force. Zero^talk 09:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Iraq existed prior to the US occupation. Palestine never existed and to this day there is no "State of Palestine". Benjil (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not a compromise but just a different way to entrench a particular pov. Zero^talk 22:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeepers & I thought I had a wonderful idea, here :( GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay - I think that the principle here is an excellent idea. The article should list three sections:

• Soveriegn states
• States with limited international recognition
• Sub-national entities

It also needs a clear rationale for why some sub-national entities should be listed and others shouldn't. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this would solve a lot of headaches. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The idea is superfluous—any sudden headaches being solved would render as nothing more than a Placebo effect.

The clear rationale is the following:

• In order for an independent state to be in bold it must has 100% de facto control over its territory.

How can one be clearer?--Neve–selbert 16:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

For what its worth, I am totally against this compromise as an option.--Neve–selbert 16:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It was the best I & SNC could come up with. Otherwise, it's looking more like the Rfc's going to adopt the proposed change of giving Palestine/PNA its own full entry. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: The Rfc question desperately needs to be halted/aborted—yet I have no authority to make this happen. All of the contributors seem to believe that the status quo is Palestine being its own independent state, and not the other way round. They also seem to believe that we are trying to infer that the PNA is some sort of subnational entity of Israel, which is completely false. This was foul play on Spirit Ethanol's part and I will not let him get away with it. Personally, I doubt that the Rfc will adopt anything. This is such a controversial issue anyway (subject to sanctions, as I have experienced) and as editors we are obliged to WP:NPOV. Therefore, I am confident the status quo will be retained, just as with what happened over here earlier this month.--Neve–selbert 16:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed sectioning above would be great enhancement to page and remove subentry ambiguities. I propose following lead of French counterpart page of this list, pretty close to proposal above by Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk · contribs). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spirit Ethanol: Nope, nay, ixnay. I will not let you destroy the article in question. The French counterpart is beyond atrocious and disgraceful compared to our English example. There will be no change, and I will certainly see to it that there will be no change. You are deliberately disrupting this project to make a point, and I will not let you get away with that. I will seek administrative action if necessary, as your presenting of this Rfc was inexplicably corrupt and crooked. This discussion is worthless, and is a waste of everyones' time.--Neve–selbert 17:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Neve-selbert, 100% de facto control as an independent state in bold is indeed a clear rationale, however it is not what this article is using. Such a definition means that you define China, Ukraine, Suriname, Somalia, Venezuela, Comoros, Azerbaijan, Sudan, and many many others as non-independent states. It would also define Abkhazia, Kosovo, and some others currently not bolded as bolded independent states. If this rationale is indeed what is being used, then it is applied woefully inconsistently. CMD (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I did not mean to infer overlapping territory. That rationale was my idea of what was being used—although I think that saying that it is being applied woefully inconsistently is a bit of a stretch. Most sources describe Taiwan as a sovereign state, unlike Abkhazia and Kosovo (described as disputed areas far more frequently). So per WP:WEIGHT, there really is no problem, and so we should all be getting on with more important things.--Neve–selbert 17:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The list as formatted at the moment implies that the entities such as Palestine and Nagorno-Karabakh, which are listed with indented bullet-points underneath the entry for the recognized/land controlling state, are somehow subdivisions, sub-states or administrative entities that form part of the main entry. There are other ways we could do this - for example, upgrading non-recognised/limited-recognized states to the same textual level as recongized states but still avoiding bold font. My view would be that extracting them may be better, but I can see the advantage to the reader of the current geographically-based list. FWIW, I don't think we need huge changes here: just a way of better differentiating between sub-national administrative entities and entities which claim sovereignty; and a clear rationale for the presence of sub-national entities (why Guernsey and not Greenland?)Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The list as formatted at the moment implies that the entities such as Palestine and Nagorno-Karabakh, which are listed with indented bullet-points underneath the entry for the recognized/land controlling state, are somehow subdivisions, sub-states or administrative entities that form part of the main entry.

No, this is quite simply an inaccurate assessment and just goes to show some lack of enlightenment on this issue in particular, so I will attempt to explain briefly what this entails.

Please note that to the right of the disputed entities, there is in parenthesis a general description of their status as a state alongside their international recognition, e.g. for Abkhazia we have: (unrecognised, secessionist state). Now, where did Abkhazia secede from? Switzerland? Of course not, Abkhazia seceded from Georgia back in 1992 (a secession unrecognised by most of the international community) and to make this clear it only makes sense for us use to include Abkhazia jointly underneath Georgia, mainly for historical record—almost its parent state, in a sense.

Why Guernsey and not Greenland?

Guernsey is not an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whereas Greenland is an integral part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Simple as, really.

IMO, we are probably in need to revive the defunct WikiProject Leaders by year in order to avoid misunderstandings such as these.

Specifically, Super Nintendo Chalmers, I would refer to section 8.2, for more information.--Neve–selbert 02:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This is possible. A few years ago, a bunch of List of countries articles had to be changed to List of sovereign state articles, to end disputes over including/excluding England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and that was a decision that has definitely paid off in that those discussions stopped happening after that point.

Two notes on above: Abkhazia declared independence in 1999 but backdated it to 1992, and while Guernsey is not integrated into the UK, all the Dutch and French territories are considered integral parts of their states, yet appear on this list. CMD (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

OK; we are at least getting somewhere - you've revealed your criteria! So sub-national entities which are listed here are those which are not integral part of a sovereign state. Great. The first thing that we need to do then is to get the page to say this, and to clarify some of the cases raised by CMD and others above. The information needs to be on this page ; it can't be hidden on some Wikiproject. Look at List of best-selling music artists or List of sovereign states - both give the reader clear information on the criteria and design of the list. This page needs something similar (at very very least in a footnote).

Then we have the 'parent' state issue. I don't think it's correct to list 'Abkazhia' as a division under Georgia (or Palestine under Israel, etc. etc.). There is an implication that the secessionist state is an administrative division of Georgia. BTW, I think that the following change would probably suffice, for me at least:

• Somalia
  • President – Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, President of Somalia (2012–present)
  • Prime Minister – Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, Prime Minister of Somalia (2014–present)
  • Somaliland (unrecognised, secessionist state)
    • President – Ahmed Mohamed Mohamoud, President of Somaliland (2010–present)
  • Puntland (self-declared autonomous state)
    • President – Abdiweli Mohamed Ali, President of Puntland (2014–present)

Becomes

• Somalia
  • President – Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, President of Somalia (2012–present)
  • Prime Minister – Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, Prime Minister of Somalia (2014–present)
• Somaliland (unrecognised, secessionist state disputed with Somalia)
  • President – Ahmed Mohamed Mohamoud, President of Somaliland (2010–present)
• Puntland (self-declared autonomous state)
  • President – Abdiweli Mohamed Ali, President of Puntland (2014–present) disputed with Somalia)

The 'disputed with' could be edited to 'generally recongized as part of' or some such? I was a little harsh above claiming that the page is woefully flawed, but I don't see what harm this sort of clarification would do. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If we go with this, I'd change the wording from "disputed with" to something along the lines of "secessionist area of". "disputed with" to me implies reasonably equal entities, which these are definitely not. As an aside this is probably not the best example, as Puntland is completely out of place on this list and should probably be removed completely. CMD (talk) 10:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

 Unnecessary and completely oppose. There really is no need. We are not listing Abkhazia, Palestine, etc. as "divisions" or "subdivisions" under Georgia and/or Israel, etc.—this is another key red herring and is totally false and misleading. They are listed underneath those sovereign entities due to the fact that they were previously integrated with them, and also because they are both within the same continent. Overseas collectivites are not considered part of the French Republic (only the overseas departments are). The Dutch issue is quite different, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands is the prime minister of the constituent Netherlands country only & not the entirety of the kingdom on par with the UK—so the state leaders of the other constitutent countries are necessary for inclusion also. Moreover, I must stress further that any superfluous changes will just further complicate matters in the future, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the status quo as it is. For me, the real issue is to get the related WikiProject up and running again; the information does not need to clog up this page, and it would be perfectly fine included in the associated WikiProject. This is what we should be focusing on doing—as there is a strong chance that reviving the WP will significantly aid in avoiding similar misunderstandings in future.--Neve–selbert 14:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, then we disagree. Fundamentally - it looks like secessionist or limited-recognized states are being listed as sub-entities of other states (though I anticipate that that is not the intention). With regards to sub-entities - I still don't understand the rationale for the inclusion of different leaders. Is this page meant to be a list of heads of state? Or heads of government? OK, I think I see - so it's heads of state and heads of government, such that the highest level of governor of all territories in the world are somehow covered? In which case it's nothing about being an integral part of the state, and more about the role of heads of government? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Most dependent territories are different in certain aspects, so it depends on which of those you are referring to. For example, neither Scotland, Mayotte or Hawaii qualify for inclusion on this list due to the established fact that they are directly under the governance (either federal or devolved, etc.) of the United Kingdom, France, and the United States respectively. On the contrary, the Cayman Islands, Saint Martin, and the Northern Mariana Islands do qualify, as they are not directly governed by their sovereign state as an integral part of that sovereign state—although not exactly as a colony, as is evident through their degree of autonomy. So, all in all, leaders of dependent territories not considered as an integral part of the state having sovereignty over it are indeed qualified for inclusion—as they represent their state not as an internal part of the administering nation, but as an external part of it.

• On the issue of your question, I would note that on the article Kingdom of the Netherlands, all five leaders are mentioned in the Government part of the infobox:

1. Monarch
2. Chairman of the Council of Ministers
3. Minister Plenipotentiary of Aruba
4. Minister Plenipotentiary of Curaçao
5. Minister Plenipotentiary of Sint Maarten

• The contrary is with the Denmark article: the Prime Minister of Greenland is excluded.

I must admit that the issues involving the SLBY articles have the potential to be quite complicated. IMO, if we try to adjust one thing there will certainly be some kind of Domino effect, so instead of thinking of ways of how to change the article as it stands around now, we should be thinking of ways in clarifying what needs to be clarified in order to prevent similar misunderstandings and confusions such as these whenever in future.--Neve–selbert 22:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I don't really see how what other Wikipedia pages do can act as proper criteria for this article, though I recognize the point that you're making. I still don't really see how the status of Greenland/Faroe Islands is any more integral into Denmark than Aruba etc are in the Netherlands (indeed as I understand it, the latter are part of the EU, while the former are not). I don't think that there is a basis for their different listing here other than "we list them differently".

I appreciate the issues with complexity too, but I also don't quite see it as a reason for accepting a list that doesn't make its own terms clear. It's not actually asking anything new; it's asking for at most a paragraph to describe what the list is doing - which as I understand it is: listing heads of state; heads of government of sovereign states; heads of government of de jure independent states; and heads of government of dependent territories which are 'independently governed', in which 'independently governed' means that that territory's government is fully independent of the central sovereign state government. The final point, I agree, is complex and I may not have quite understood, but this is only because the page has not defined its terms.

Beyond this, I still agree with the original point of the RFC - the listing of Palestine and others is misleading. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Every country treats its distant territories in different ways, but as far as I'm aware Greenland and the Faroes could arguably be considered more integrated than others because each sends representatives to the Danish parliament, whereas as far as I know the Dutch countries are not represented in the primary Netherlands parliament. That said, I wouldn't use that as a reason to present this list as is. At any rate, Neve-Selbert is incorrect that only the overseas departments are considered integral parts of France. The French constitution lists all their territories, and like the Danish territories the French territories are represented in the French parliament. CMD (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

So now, twofold, here I go again:

1. The original point of the Rfc is redundant. Their listings are not misleading in any way. I understand them perfectly. I cannot comprehend this argument.
2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year is the best "guide of some sorts" that I could find. Although, notably, one particular section is empty.

You can make of the second point what you will (of course). So, to close up, I still firmly believe the article should stay as is.

Nobody had a problem with the layout before 9 February, with everything being smooth sailing—until that POV torpedo hit.--Neve–selbert 23:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion so far has produced many concerns about current layout that need to be addressed. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

<reduce indent> OK; we're not really progressing much further with this debate. How much longer does the RfC last for? We can hold for or invite further comments, we could summarize where we're at, or we could move to some sort of dispute resolution? Perhaps holding for a week and seeing who else drops by and what less frequent contributors have to add might be a good idea - it would also allow currently interested parties to reflect further on the points made. We could then summarize and move forward? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So far consensus is placing Palestine as a standalone entry in alphabetical order. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs for duration and how to request closure of an RfC. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's highly disingenuous to make that claim at this stage. We need to properly consider the arguments made, summarize them, and look at how to move forward. We also may need an independent admin/reviewer to look at the case. There is no rush here and decisions need to be made properly, and if there is no agreement then we need to keep discussing. Consensus is based on agreement, not on majority vote, weight, or rushing things through. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur that this discussion needs to be closed by an independent admin/reviewer once topic of RfC thoroughly discussed, arguments summarized. Outcome affects not only this page, but also many other pages (previous list of state leaders pages, list of foreign ministers, etc...). Spirit Ethanol (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have asked Newyorkbrad to review this questionable case. Nonetheless, the fact that no two-state solution has been agreed upon yet must be relevant—somehow? How could it not be? Or will we attempt to breach WP:NPOV and live in a fantasy world where Palestine is its own sovereign nation in its own right without any foreign occupational interference whatsoever? Say what you will about Taiwan, although China has as much power over it as Spain and Argentina have over Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands respectively. The Rfc question is ambiguous, biased, and blatantly inaccurate. Furthermore, this has been a redundant discussion and a redundant Rfc. The only reason why we are here today discussing away is due to the fact that some editor happened to be upset at the reality that Palestine is occupied by Israel, and wanted to whitewash this patent truth by pretending that Palestine is a sovereign state in every way due to the (70%?) international recognition it has got over the years back. This was an irrelevant justification. The fact of the matter still stands: Palestine is not fully sovereign and is not fully independent of Israeli interference, i.e. the occupied territories. Any attempt to dismiss otherwise borders on WP:FRINGE and is flagrant propaganda. For the hundredth time, the list does not in any way, shape, or form infer that Palestine is some sort of substate of Israel. If it were, why would six administrative districts including the Tel Aviv District be excluded? Those are the sub-states. Palestine is directly underneath the Israeli entry due to both the downright lack of de facto sovereignty and the de facto fact of the occupation on the part of Israel. This whole debate has been all without substance; of course, there are some people that are genuinely upset at the lack of Palestinian sovereignty—just as there are people that are upset that the Falklands are not part of Argentina & the Crimea no longer being part of the Ukraine, etc. The entirety of the premise of layout change is unashamedly a form of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. There is no genuine problem on the article, the end of the world will not occur in the event we conclude there is no genuine consensus for change of some sort, we are not misleading editors or readers (as most editors and readers alike are aware of the Palestinian situation; in fact, we would probably astound them if we listed Palestine as its own separate sovereign nation—they would be misled to believe that peace between the two nations has finally been agreed). All that said, I will state that this misunderstanding is partly due to a lack of enlightenment over how the SLBY articles' mechanisms work (and although I would refrain from calling myself an expert on the layout, I do know my fair share insofar to get by). I realise and concede that the layout may be confusing for some—and perhaps it would be wise to make the rules of the layout clear on the associated (albeit defunct) WikiProject page. To conclude, I must reiterate that this layout has worked well for well over three years and I honestly see no concrete, credible reason to change the format now. Nothing politically has really changed or transformed in the West Bank for us to go to the lengths of displaying Palestine as its own seperate sovereign entity. Palestine and Israel are closely affiliated, there can be no doubt (with the latter occupying the former). The layout as it stands now makes sense, and I plan to defend it all the way.--Neve–selbert 16:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere in article do I see mentioned that subentries lack de facto sovereignty which is a source of ambiguity and can imply many things. Take a look at List of current heads of state and government for an example of a properly done list where difference between de facto and de jure is expressed in colors. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

A properly done list? The irony. What part of Member and observer states of the United Nations is ambiguous to you?--Neve–selbert 17:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This does not explain subentries, which can imply many things.... Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, red herring. You are adamant in making a mountain out of a molehill at every turn. Read WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.--Neve–selbert 17:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Wait, what? There's an article called List of current heads of state and government? Then why does List of state leaders in 2016 even exist? The articles are the same thing!! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Rfc reboot?

Concerns have been raised that this RFC's been started in a biased fashion. To remove any doubts about this Rfc? I wouldn't object to an administrator shutting it down & starting up a new one. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, though if Newyorkbrad is going to review this discussion first perhaps we can wait on that. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see the that NYB has decided to not intervene - so I'll request closure of this RfC unless anyone objects? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I would be more than happy in closing this Rfc, per lack of consensus between parties on change.--Neve–selbert 17:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It is up to closing admin to assess consensus, which is so far on placing Palestine in a separate entry. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's allow the closing administrator to decide what the consensus is, if there is any :) GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion the RfC question is seriously flawed and misleadingly in a way that can easily be seen as offensive. The current setup does not indicate that Palestine is a "sub state" of Israel (which neither corresponds to the facts, nor is claimed - as much as I know - even by Israel). What the current format indicates is that the internal and external circumstances of sovereign statehood (internal control and external recognition) are not wholly present. Palestine has a number of recognitions, but certainly no sovereign control over the territory. And it is for similar reasons that the likes of Abkhazia are also under the state to which they are most closely linked one way or another (either being occupied by it, or their territory being claimed in its entirety by the other, etc). So re-phrasing the question could well be crucial for a fair and balanced discussion where debaters could concentrate on what is, rather than what should be. ZBukov (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The current format is ambiguous and it is left to the reader to interpret what a sub-entry implies. RfC question is clear on whether to include Palestine in a standalone manner or a subentry to Israel as evident by almost unanimous response to include Palestine in a standalone manner. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

We assume that when an administrator checks over this Rfc, he/she will also determine if the Rfc is flawed or not. Let's be patient. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

<reduced indent> OK, I've listed it, including a note that some editors have questioned the phrasing of the RfC. Agree that we need some patience here - there could be a wait for closure. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I find it funny how Spirit Ethanol finds my attitude (and ZBukov's) towards this misunderstanding as "intransigent". I am merely trying to maintain the status quo which has worked for many years—for all practical purposes you border WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT at every turn. There is nothing misleading about how the article is currently formatted, it is clear and concise and if you cannot cope with that then you really should just move on to something else. Administrator Alison has also been notified by GoodDay to assess this dispute, so there could be several admins attempting to make some assessment of this. All in all, I remain confident that the status quo will be retained due to lack of concrete consensus on an alternative.--Neve–selbert 21:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh I agree that Barnstar (/all Barnstars - we are not 10 year olds looking for stickers) is stupid and miss characterizes your edits Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge

OK, it's just been brought to my attention that we have an identical article titled List of current heads of state and government. Either that page or this page need not exist. This whole thing is a farce. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This article exists, because it's part of a series of articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Is that not bit recursive? OK, I admit the merge thing was provocative - ignore it, I see that we will want this article in 11 months time, so why not work on it now - but surely will can agree that we need to fix that this article and 'current sate leaders'list entities differently? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

How do you propose to differentiate them? GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I can see some justification in this page as it would track any changes that occurred during this year, whereas in List of current heads of state and government only the current one would be shown. A lot of overlap, but it works itself out over 12 months.

I on the other hand agree that it would be convenient for the reader to have this page formatted reasonably similarly to the List of current heads of state and government. There is an issue in that the division done in that article would become less workable as you go back in time, but I suppose that would be the same with any system, and it can change flexibly among these articles. CMD (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

To be frank, this is a stupid & rash "idea", and makes zero sense whatsoever (even those whom are sectioned would know the fundamental difference between the two articles). As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it (per WP:BROKE). These SLBY articles have worked fine for years, and I oppose any attempts in changing the minimalist design of the article in the question—of which there is absolutely no problem with whatsoever. This article is fine & the series of which the article is part are fine (and I have continually made sure of that over the past 6 months, strenuous proofreading and all). To quote everyone's favourite bard, this is all much ado about nothing, all caused by a disruptive POV, pro-Palestine campaigner.--Neve–selbert 06:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

CMD is of course correct that the two pages would be idenitcal on 1st Jan 2016, but differ slowly over the year - I do see that, and that that would be a reason for holding two articles - as I noted, my merge suggestion was not a serious one, but more of a way of raising the question of why the formats differ. This reinforces in me a sense that we do have a problem - how can we claim to be producing a coherent encyclopedia when we list the same entities, existing simultaneously, along different criteria in different orders on different pages. To me, that seems broken. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

One further note - the table format on the page is superior to the layout here. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

One further note - the table format on the page is superior to the layout here.

I could not disagree more fervently and emphatically.

I am completely at loggerheads with the above statement, almost offended. Your personal opinion on this article is as flawed as can be, and having spent hours and hours on end proofreading this article and 15 others (and counting) over the past 6 months—yes, may I indeed say, that I do feel offended by your gross lack of respect and enigmatic vitriol. It is honestly about time this wasteful dispute is reviewed and ended for good (again, all because one editor was emotionally upset over how Palestine was displayed). The quasi-perfect status quo will be retained, I am quite sure and confident of that. I look forward to this talk page being archived in due time (and the clock is ticking for that).--Neve–selbert 16:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You are of course correct to point out that I should have said that I prefer it, rather than it is better; those are different statements and I used the wrong one - for that I apologise. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I accept that.--Neve–selbert 16:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)