Talk:List of state leaders in 2013

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Leaders by year, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Leaders by yearWikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by yearTemplate:WikiProject Leaders by yearLeaders by year articles

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Countries

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

International relations Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Out of date

I have reverted this edit by Zoltan Bukovszky. It is based on the notions that Kosovo is an "unrecognized state" which is "trying to secede from" Serbia. These notions may have been true a few years ago, but not now; Kosovo has successfully succeeded; it has state institutions and a president and so on; it has been recognised by most other countries. Belgrade may feel differently, but Belgrade does not control Kosovo. Look at Taiwan, for example - Beijing may still believe that Taiwan is a rogue province, but this article treats it as a state, which reflects reality. This article's treatment of other controversial states should reflect reality. 77.221.173.243 (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it got reverted again, undiscussed. Why? bobrayner (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert it this time, but here are my arguments. Taiwan is a unique case and dissimilar to seceding states as Taiwan did enjoy broad international recognition in the past, most importantly: a seat in the UN. And unlike all the others Taiwan is not trying to secede from China, but claims to be the rightful government of China, therefore it's rather a case of rival governments. UN membership can be regarded as the unquestionable benchmark of universal international recognition - Kosovo (and all the others) never had that. Another crucial point is that there is a UN Security Council Resolution (1244) still in force which placed Kosovo under interim UN administration and reaffirmed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia (over Kosovo) - it has not been repealed. Every other unrecognized or partially recognized state also has presidents and state institutions, therefore that fact is irrelevant in determining the success of secession. ZBukov (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say "the unquestionable benchmark of universal international recognition". I think this is another criterion that you just made up to justify your edit, since it's not mentioned in the lede of the article, nor is it in Sovereign state. The title of this article just says "state leaders". We have sources showing state leaders for Kosovo; what's the problem? Showing Kosovo as part of Serbia is a blatant NPOV failure. Nonetheless, it's been reverted a third time. There is, of course, no reliable source to support the suggestion that Kosovo is still part of Serbia, because reliable sources say the opposite. bobrayner (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When a country has UN membership, is there real doubt left about the universal recognition of its independence? No. That's why I said that membership can be regarded as a benchmark (or indicator). I didn't say that it's the definition of independence, but that it's a benchmark thereof.

"We have sources showing state leaders for Kosovo; what's the problem?" Kosovo's leaders are included in the List of state leaders articles. So what's the problem?

"There is, of course, no reliable source to support the suggestion that Kosovo is still part of Serbia" You failed to notice the above mentioned UN Security Council Resolution (1244) which states the opposite.

It was claimed that Kosovo's independence has been recognized by "most other countries". Currently that's about half of the UN members, not most of them (98 out of 193 member states).

It was claimed that Kosovo is mentioned in the article as an "unrecognized state" and as "part of Serbia", and that this is a violation of neutral point of view. In fact the article designates Kosovo as a "partially recognized secessionist state under nominal international administration". Which part of that does not correspond to the facts? Partially recognized - 98 out of 193 UN members; secessionist - unilaterally claiming independence from and practically broke away from Serbia, but hasn't made it into the UN yet; under nominal international administration - UN Security Council Resolution 1244 in force. ZBukov (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Turkey

Now, I change the question : What do you think about Tbilisi, Yerevan, Baku located entirely in Asia. Unfortunately, your opinion is not satisfactory and acceptable. This article is purely political and you would specify a geographical reason. Turkey, a founding member of the Council of Europe and permanent member of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Also, It's official candidate and negotiator member of European Union since 2005! Geographically, a part of Euroepan continent with Thrace and look at other articles : Europe, List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. I hope it doesn't turn into edit war. Maurice07 (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about politicians, but the countries are not sorted according to some political consideration, but by continents. And evidently the boundaries of continents is a geographical question not a political one, therefore membership in political organizations is irrelevant to the question. So unfortunately, your opinion is not satisfactory and acceptable. As you must have read in the Turkey article, 97% of its territory lies in Asia (including its capital city) - this makes the situation perfectly clear. The location of the Caucasian countries is a question of where exactly the geographical boundary of Europe runs. The List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe article which you referred to says: "the border between Asia and Europe stretches along the Ural Mountains, Ural River, and Caspian Sea in the east, the Greater Caucasus range and the Black Sea". I'm not an expert on this, but if you are, please explain what percentage of the territory of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan lies in Europe, and what percentage in Asia. If it turns out that geographically they belong to Asia, I'll be happy to assist in placing them into the Asia section of the article. I also hope that your wish to change the boundaries of continents will not develop into an edit war. ZBukov (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, article totally ranked by considering geographical features and full of contradictions. The majority of Turkey's territory in the continent of Asia but therewithal, part of Europe with Turkish Thrace [1]. Well, The %100 territories of Armenia in Asia (including it's capital city Yerevan) [2] Likewise; Republic of Cyprus, the entire island, within the boundaries of Asia (ingluding the capital city of Nicosia) [3]. Georgia and Azerbaijan are transcontinental countries but capitals not within the Europe! See files: [4] [5]. Therefore, your claims is invalid and unacceptable. Turkey should be included under the title of Europe! Maurice07 (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If 3% of a country's territory lies on one continent and 97% on another (including its capital city), than the situation is clear. Why would 3% be more relevant than 97%? Is Spain considered to be an African country because of Ceuta and Melilla? No. Is Egypt considered an Asian country because of the Sinai Peninsula? No. Is France considered to be a South American country because of French Guiana? No. To quote you: "Therefore, your claims is invalid and unacceptable." I understand that Turkey would like to be considered part of Europe (and looking at your user page you clearly support that), but it is not - at least not geographically, for sure. If you are concerned by the location of Cyprus, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, than put those into Asia, but not Turkey into Europe. But while you are arguing about Armenia and the others, you only keep changing the location of Turkey. So clearly you you are not interested in those, only in pushing Turkey into Europe. So would you please stop pushing a political / ideological agenda in this question, and leave your political preferences out of a factual question? ZBukov (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still, no convincing reason. You cant find rational explanation about Armenia, Republic of Cyprus, Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh), Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) ! U show me an example overseas territories and deflect the topic. This article is not the place of your thought and ideological impositions. I have proof but there is no concrete and verifiable reference for you. I'm wondering, your claim geographical or political? If geographically, Turkey part of Europe like Caucasus countries and Republis of Cyprus, completely or partly. [6], [7] Or political, Turkey member of Council of Europe, European Union Customs Union, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe negotiator member of EU and it's shown by the many official international organizations in Europe

Next time you will be reported on Administrators' noticeboard ! Maurice07 (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of issuing warnings, please read my earlier comments and take the trouble to reply to my arguments. As I have been saying right from the beginning, the boundaries of continents is a geographical question, not a political one. So if you are bothered by the location of Cyprus, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in Europe, than put them under Asia. (And since it's a geographical question, membership in political organizations is simply irrelevant.) But you only seem to be interested in moving Turkey into Europe as you haven't changed the location of the other countries a single time, only ever kept reverting my edits resetting the original order in the article. And as for the geographical question: when the split between a country's territories on two continents is 3% (Europe) to 97% (Asia), why would 3% be more relevant than the 97% in determining which continent a country lies on? What about Spain, Egypt and France, as I mentioned in my previous post here? Geographically Turkey is overwhelmingly an Asian country, that's why it belongs to the Asia section of this article. ZBukov (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the countries of the Caucasus (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan) and Republic of Cyprus are located in Europe, Turkey will take place here! It geographically, politically, culturally and economically integrated Europe. Your personal efforts to impose, contrary to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

Armenia and Republic of Cyprus : Geographically completely in Asia.
Georgia: 4% in Europe and 96% in Asia [12]
Azerbiajan: Less than 10% in Europe and 90% in Asia [13]

The capital city of Turkey is in Asia [14] This statement belongs to you and these four nation's capital, is located geographically in Asia ! You still can not give a definitive answer! You've been reported Administrators' noticeboard [15] Maurice07 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Maurice07 has a valid point when comparing Turkey with Armenia, Georgia and other states. It does not make sense to use different rules for different states. That means that we have to agree on the rules, and then follow them. In addition to the list Maurice gives, also Russia and Kazakhstan, as transcontinental countries, should be taken into consideration. To be consistent, we will in addition have to consider Egypt (mostly in Africa, but with a part in Asia).

Armenia and Cyprus are geographically totally in Asia
Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Kazakhstan have their overwhelmingly largest part in Asia, both in area and population, and they have their capital in Asia
Russia has their largest area in Asia, but their largest population and their capital are in Europe
Egypt has their largest area, their largest population and their capital in Africa

There are several possible ways of presenting these countries: The most straightforward is to place Russia in Europe (population and capital), Egypt in Africa and the rest of the states in Asia (population, area and capital). Another possibility is to place all the transcontinental countries in both continents, explaining with notes similar to what is done in List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe and similar pages. A third solution comes to my mind, maybe a bit like the egg of Columbus: What about dropping the division into contonents altogether and list all the countries alpabetically? That just might solve the dispute. Regards! --T*U (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with putting Cyprus, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan into Asia. As I have told Maurice07 if some country does not fit into the continental category it's currently in, that put it into its proper place. Just don't create even more exceptions, especially not as illogical ones as claiming Turkey to be in Europe. I also totally agree with keeping Egypt in Africa and Russia in Europe. ZBukov (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edi Rama

Being named to a position and taking office are two different things, the second often being subject to parliamentary approval. Please see the last sentence of this newspiece(http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/edi-rama-officially-named-albanians-premier-20209475): "The outgoing government continues operating in the interim." And this one (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/sep/14/eu-albania-new-government/) says: Rama "will be formally sworn in later this month". The prime minister's website (http://www.km.gov.al/) says it's still Sali Berisha, the UN protocol list (http://www.un.int/protocol/documents/Hspmfm.pdf) says it's still Berisha, www.rulers.org only says Rama has been asked to form a government (which to me suggests that he hasn't actually done it yet, let alone gained parliament's approval). ZBukov (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for interviening, since I am Albanian, but ZBukov has a point because the prime minister of Albania was voted for prime minister in 23 June but the he took the office in 15 September when he formed the government and the President aproved the new government was legal the same day. The chronology:

23 June - Elections
25-26 June - All votes counted
from 26 June to 7 September Edi Rama was not yet prime minister because the mandate ended in the first week of september.
9 September - PM Sali Berisha resigns. All members of the Assembly took oath. The new prime minister is proposed in parliament (Edi Rama, Socialist party).
10 September - The president approves the new prime-minister and asks him to form the new Government. The new head of Assembly is voted in parliament.
11 September - The new Government's program is presented.
12-15 September - The program is disscused in the Parliament.
15 September - The new Government's program is voted in the Assembly and approved by the President. Also with the approval of the program. The new Government takes office And finally the new prime-minister is official by law and constitution of Albania.

Visi90 (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spirit Ethanol: Why are trying to urgently hasten the matter? The Rfc has only been up since 09:57 (UTC)—yet you are rushing around town as if there are only hours to spare (until the maximum 30 days are finally up). It all seems rather odd. Why the rush? --Neve –selbert 19:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of Publicizing an RfC for maximum input. More related pages on the way. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spirit Ethanol: What do you expect to gain out of this RfC? What would be your preferred outcome?--Neve –selbert 20:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]