Talk:Head of state

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Prince Charles in Aotearoa (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Typo

There is a small typo in the first reference: Foakes, pp. 110–11 "[The head of state] being an embodiment of the State itself or representatitve of its international persona." It says representatitve instead of representative. Please correct it. 85.152.246.66 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

I find it remarkable that neither of the world's two most populous countries – respectively the world's most populous republic and world's most populous parliamentary democracy – have their heads of state included in the table. There seems to have been a deliberate decision taken to exclude non-Western countries. Currently we have six out of nine leaders shown as white European people, which is ridiculously out of step with global demographics. Asia – with 60% of the world's population – has one leader included. In addition, we have the leader of the Marshall Islands, a tiny U.S. client state with a population less than 40,000. I have attempted to rectify this but been reverted twice without explanation. GeebaKhap (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

India was represented until less than a month ago [1] when it was changed without discussion by User:JoshuaJ28. When I tried to revert it back I was reverted and slap with edit warring notices with the blatant lie that this was the long term version. GeebaKhap (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd strongly support the inclusion of the Indian president. Removing them and reverting without explanation or discussion is completely unacceptable behaviour. The original claim that India should be removed as it is an "electoral autocracy" is ridiculous and meritless. India held an election earlier this year in which the incumbent government took a significant hit and lost 60 seats in parliament while the opposition gained nearly 150. India is also a major source of readers for the English Wikipedia. I'd suggest removing either the president of the Marshall Islands due to size and significance or the president of Greece as Europe is already represented with France and the UK (plus the leaders of Brazil, Mexico and the US being of European descent) AusLondonder (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Definition of Electoral autocracy: In these regimes, regular elections are held, but they are accused of failing to reach democratic standards of freedom and fairness. Elections also happen in Russia, which is electoral autocracy like India. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References

This is why I was opposed to adding the image table to this page. I knew sooner or later, editors would start complaining about the content. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@GeebaKhap:, @AusLondonder:. @GoodDay: To avoid edit war over adding images of personal favourites, 3 points and 2 criteria have to be considered:

Points:
1) GDP (in top 3, continent wise)
2) HDI (above 0.700)
3) Democracy index (classified as "electoral/liberal democracy") (or) Freedom in the World (classified as "free", used only if Democracy index data not available for the specific country)

Criteria:
1) Atleast an image should represent every single continent (except Antarctica)
2) Atleast 3/9 images should represent women, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red

All these points have to be satisfied in order to be included in the infobox. It should not be based on population (as more than 3 Asian countries and autocratic leaders will be overrepresented in this case).

Country	GDP	HDI	Democracy
China	1st (Asia)	HDI 0.788	closed autocracy
India	3rd (Asia)	HDI 0.644	electoral autocracy
USA	1st (North America)	HDI 0.927	liberal democracy
Indonesia	5th (Asia)	HDI 0.713	electoral democracy
Pakistan	19th (Asia)	HDI 0.540	electoral autocracy
Nigeria	4th (Africa)	HDI 0.548	electoral autocracy
Brazil	1st (South America)	HDI 0.760	electoral democracy
Bangladesh	15th (Asia)	HDI 0.670	electoral autocracy
Russia	5th (Europe)	HDI 0.821	electoral autocracy
United Kingdom	2nd (Europe)	HDI 0.940	liberal democracy
Japan	2nd (Asia)	HDI 0.920	liberal democracy
France	3rd (Europe)	HDI 0.910	liberal democracy
Mexico	1st (North America)	HDI 0.781	electoral democracy
South Africa	1st (Africa)	HDI 0.717	electoral democracy
Greece	22nd (Europe)	HDI 0.893	electoral democracy
Marshall Islands	11th (Oceania)	HDI 0.731	93/100 in Fredom Index

GDP can be ignored only if it affects criteria1 and criteria2. But HDI should be medium (ranked below 160) and democracy point is must.

Greece and Marshall Islands were added (under criteria2). Although democracy index not available for Marshall Islands, it's rated "free" (93/100) in the Freedom index, according to 2024 report. India also comes under criteria2, but does not satisfy the democracy point.

The current infobox representation is Africa 1 - Asia 1 - Europe 3 - North America 2 - Oceania 1 - South America 1, with 3 women leaders. The maximum limit for each continent have to be 3. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The most internationally known are the US President & British monarch. They thus should be included. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References

No one suggested removing the US president or British monarch, so that's a strawman. AusLondonder (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

UK would be removed if you follow population based criteria suggested by @GeebaKhap:. Also it would make Asia way overrepresented with 5/6 leaders, Europe and Oceania would have no representation (as Russia is part of Eurasia). Currently Europe have 3 leaders, Asia and Oceania have 1 each. Many points and criteria were considered before adding leaders in the infobox to ensure fair representation. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, sorry but can you tell me where there was agreement reached on the "criteria" you have identified? The Bloomberg citation you have provided is an opinion piece. AusLondonder (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No there was no agreement reached yet. But the criteria was made to ensure NPOV and fair representation. It covers all aspects as of now. India being "electoral autocracy" should not be added until they improve in democracy rank. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not support your criteria at all, you accuse others of "playing favourites" but you have invented a criteria that makes no sense and then ignored it to include your own favourites such as the Marshall Islands which is not even a fully sovereign state and has the population of a small town. GeebaKhap (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Marshall Islands is a fully sovereign state. Quoted from Marshall Islands and the United Nations: Although the Marshall Islands are sovereign, the Republic is bound by a Compact of Free Association with the United States. It was selected under the women leader criteria. I did not add my favourite leaders. And I didn't accuse anyone of "playing favourites". Please follow Wikipedia:Civility during discussion and avoid Wikipedia:No personal attacks. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Another blatant lie from you. A direct quote from you above, "To avoid edit war over adding images of personal favourites". GeebaKhap (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I said it in general tone without intention to accuse anyone. And you are continuing personal attack. Please stop and wait for the consensus. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Back at fhe farm: should India be included? The article India states:

India has been a federal republic since 1950, governed through a democratic parliamentary system, and has been the world's most populous democracy since the time of its independence in 1947.

That seems to me to constitute a conclusive argument for inclusion here. If it is wrong, it should be changed; but, until then, I think it should be followed here. Errantios (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC on infobox images

As the previous discussions didn't solve the dispute, I'm starting Rfc now to let more users comment on this and trying to reach a consensus. This Rfc is about the lead images in this article.

1. Three-point method - uses three points (GDP, HDI and Democracy index) and two criteria (continental and women representation)
2. Population-based method - would affect NPOV in continental and women represenation
3. Other methods - any other new method with NPOV
4. Remove it totally - as it causes frequent edit war over adding and removing images.

I prefer '1)' as it ensures NPOV with continential representation (NA 2, SA 1, EU 3, AF 1, AS 1, OC 1) and women representation (3 leaders). JoshuaJ28 (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• (1) – Do not see any reason why this would be changed, the status quo gives a diverse set of examples. Reject (4). See no merit to (2). 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• 4, such galleries always prove issues. Holes can be poked in any method. Continents are an arbitrary cultural construct, and do not have a balanced number of states. Gender representation is a good ideal, but if leadership in the world is imbalanced, obscuring this feels a bit queasy. The lead currently has two sidebars as well as the gallery, which is probably one more than it needs, so the gallery is doubly unnecessary. CMD (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yes they provoke issues but if there is a consensus, we can overcome them. The gallery is necessary as it provides the information at glance about the article and passes the MOS:LEADIMAGE on visual confirmation. It also let us learn about incumbent leaders around the world. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  What information about the article does it provide, and what does a reader learn from it? CMD (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Quoted from @1AmNobody24: in [[2]] The images show who is actually meant by head of government without having to start reading, so they do provide a basic understanding of the topic. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  If readers are meant to be informed that heads of state are people, a gallery is not needed to convey that. CMD (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. It clearly have context and provides understanding of the topic without have to read it first. Also it states Strive for variety. For example, in an article with numerous images of persons (e.g. Running), seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities. Photomontage in city articles serve similar purpose. eg: London. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  That seems to reinforce option 4, the gallery is primarily decorative, as can be seen by this RfC where the images involved can apparently be swapped in and out based on criteria entirely unrelated to reader understanding. CMD (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Can you please explain what is the reason for adding photomontages in several articles about cities like London? What purpose do they serve? Aren't they also decorative as you said? JoshuaJ28 (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Possibly, but that's WP:OSE, the more closely related consideration is MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY. CMD (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  There are 195 countries in world. Would the term "large human population" applies to 195 leaders? JoshuaJ28 (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  You have created an RfC proposing multiple formulas to select within the population at hand. CMD (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  The formulas were proposed to ensure NPOV in selection. How can we apply the definition of "large human population" to a small handful population of 195 world leaders? JoshuaJ28 (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  We don't have to apply legal definitions or similar, it's clear the same arguments apply. The selection of images is apparently unrelated to reader understanding, heavily suggesting they are decorative. The proposed information provided is that images identify who is a head of state, which if it is to work requires initial knowledge of the pictured individuals, but not so much knowledge that you don't already know they are the head of state. Further, this initial knowledge is something that is not a consideration for the formulas, indicating again the formulas are shuffling various decorative headshots. CMD (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Which formula is used to select the photomontage of buildings/structures in articles about cities like London? Aren't they also decorative? When you look at the pictures of the head of state, you can understand the concept without reading it (significant and relevant in topic's context as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature). We can't apply "large population" concept here which is vague. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  If you want to know about the image selection for the London article, you will have to ask there. I don't know why you are fixated on the wording of "large population", the important issue here, which I think I have exhausted at this point, is that the gallery is both contentious and decorative. If you want to convince others that it is not, that will require something stronger than stating that when I look at picture of Lula da Silva I will understand the concept of a head of state. CMD (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  It sounds like personal attack (like you're softly saying "go there and ask yourself") instead of answering properly and deviates from the healthy discussion. I can surely understand the concept of the "Head of State" when I look at the pictures of Biden and Charles III. It serves the purpose, so not decorative. I would like to stop here without continuing this. 14:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC) JoshuaJ28 (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  It's obvious that heads of state are people, what isn't obvious is who is considered a head of state instead of , for example, a head of government. Nobody (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  In the countries with presidential systems, the head of state is also the head of government. Head of state can be executive or ceremonial based on the system of government. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly and the images help identify who is considered what, without having to start reading. Nobody (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• 4, or otherwise 3. No method is truly neutral and this causes continual changes from well-meaning editors, so let's find a better representative single image or otherwise leave images to the article body. Having the heads of states who represent the greatest number of people is next best. GeebaKhap (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• 4 ., simply no need for any illustration. Moxy🍁 13:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  Quoted from Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Illustration taskforce: Illustrations must have an encyclopedic nature. Therefore the concept of illustration in an article is used as it was meant to be and that is to enlighten readers by making concepts graphically more clear. It does exactly what it says. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

  A picture of a human helps me understand what a head of state is? Moxy🍁 01:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• 4 per CMD, 2 as a second choice. I think Nobody's point about head of state vs head of government is reasonable, but it's also already covered by the lede, so I don't think the image gallery adds much besides visual clutter. If we're keeping the gallery, I find the methodology on 1 to be wildly arbitrary. 2 is definitely easier to figure out (and enforce, since we're trying to avoid edit warring) and I don't think it causes NPOV issues. As a note to Joshua who removed this comment a bit ago, it was not made by a sockpuppet of GeebaKhap, it was made by me on my work computer - this specific edit was made on my phone. My apologies if this breaks WP:LOUTSOCK, I'll try to get logged in on there when I have the chance.

Tessaract2^Hi! 15:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment This whole RfC was created in a desperate attempt to exclude the Indian president from the selection of images based on very poor sourcing, original research, and made-up criteria. The "current method" referred to is a complete fabrication. It was invented literally yesterday by the user who started this RfC. AusLondonder (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• 4 - Remove entirely, both this image gallery & the one at Head of government page. They're not worth the edit disputes. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• 4 but maybe with an out - Edit disputes aside, a collection of images of some current heads of state doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the concept. Only exception (the possible "out"): As noted by Nobody above, some heads of state are also heads of government (as in the U.S.) but others are not (as in the UK). So maybe some info value in having two photos, one of a monarch in royal regalia, and one of a President or Prime Minister in ordinary dress, with a caption noting the point. Maybe pick two people who are safely dead so that the image can be stable. For example, we might use the main photos in our articles on George VI and Franklin D. Roosevelt, two contemporaneous wartime heads of state. If using two white males draws too much flak, then dispense with images entirely, per option 4. JamesMLane t c 03:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  So remove all the non white, non-anglosphere leaders? AusLondonder (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• 4 Trying to include a gallery of images here is unnecessary and will only lead to arguing. I strongly oppose 1, since only allowing images of Democratic leaders heavily biases the collection. If 4 fails, I choose 2 as a second choice. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• Question Could someone explain the rationale behind using the Democracy Index? The GDP and HDI (the former especially) tend to point to countries with prominent leaders, and I can see that as an argument for who to include, but the article is "head of state," not "head of democratic state." Readingpro256 _{talk to me contribs} 02:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• 4 There's not really any way to have the images without causing someone to be upset and try to edit war so it's likely best to remove it. As an alternative, if there was an image that presented a more general frame of what a head of state is without undue weight to any one nation or the anglosphere then that'd be great, but I'm not sure what such an image could be. CoconutOctopus talk 08:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• 4 as much as I appreciate the idea. Could have a map of the world showing which countries have ceremonial or executive heads of states?

Kowal2701 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

"Models" of head of state's roles – original research?

The section on heads of states in a parliamentary system distinguishes three different models: the "standard model", the "non-executive model" and the "executive model". While the section cites some references for the constitutional provisions in individual countries, there is no source for their categorisation into these three models which seems to be original research. A citation of the constitution of Israel cannot verify that "the most extreme non-executive republican head of state is the President of Israel" because this would require a comparison with other constitutions. Who says that the role of the president of Israel is more "non-executive" than in any other republic? The whole section would need to be based on secondary literature from the field of comparative constitutional law which it completely lacks as of now. The differentiation of "standard model" and "non-executive model" was introduced in 2012 by now retired User:RicJac, not citing any source. RJFF (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)