Talk:Prime Minister of Greenland

Name of office

The official English translation of the title of this office is Premier,[1] not Prime Minister. His office is called The Premier’s Office.[2] Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on personal opinions. The title of the head of state of the US is President of the United States, not Prime Minister of the United States. There is only one Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Denmark. Mocctur (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for using the talkpage, Mocctur, but please note that you are already well past the level of edit-warring that would normally warrant a short block if someone were to report you.

Wikipedia policy about this is set out at WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. It seems clear that this is Prime Minister, but please provide evidence if you think otherwise. Comparing Google searches ([3] [4]) seems to me to provide fairly good evidence, particularly since "premier" is a generic term that can always be applied to a head of Government ([5]).

That notwithstanding "Premier" is not the official title in this case, not least because English is not an official language of Greenland. The official title is "Naalakkersuisut siulittaasuat" (Leader of the Government). Please also note that the Danish version of this, "landsstyreformand", translates the same way into English - the only word in "chairperson of local authority" that is present in either the Danish or the Greenlandic is "of". Formerip (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you are the only one edit-warring to add unsourced material into the article and warranting a block. Your ideas about what various titles mean are entirely incorrect, and I see no sources that demonstrate the title to be "Prime Minister" in English. Mocctur (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT, all the most reputable sources in English-speaking countries use the term "Prime Minister". For example, CIA World Factbook,Britannica,BBC country profile,Reuters,Wall Street Journal,The Guardian,New York Times. I did a search to find our what news sources use "Premier" and I was only able to find Europe Online Magazine and a passing reference in Nunatsiaq Online. Formerip (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME is clearly "Prime Minister". The fact that they are officially called the Premier is irrelevant here (and it is mentioned in the article) - for example, see Prime Minister of Spain (who is officially the "President", but almost everyone in the English-speaking world refers to them as the Prime Minister). If you disagree and want Premier as the main title, you need to do a WP:RM. Until then, the name in the lede matches the title. Number 57 22:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Its still rather odd to use PM given that this is normally a title reserved for the head of an independent state, are there any exceptions to the WP:COMMONNAME rule i cases where its clear that its incorrect? It seems most likely that PM is simply used out of ignorance. In e.g. Caribbean states in the Commonwealth PM is never used before they actually become independent. Are they any other cases where PM is used for the head of a non-sovereign government? The Danish title landstyreformand means "chairman of the leadership of the country" btw, so its not a 1:1 equivalent of the Greenlandic title which means "the leader of those who decides". Danish is no longer an official language in Greenland, so I am just stating this to clear up a misunderstaning.--Batmacumba (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Greenland is very close to being an independent state, certainly independent enough that they can decide what titles to give their political leader (except maybe "king"). Prime minister and premier are the English titles used by the Naalakkersuisut website[6], so of course that is what we use "ignorant" or not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Greenland is in no way "very close to being an independent state". They are a self-governing part of the Kingdom of Denmark, which is constitutionally defined as a unitary state, so the powers of the Greenlandic self-government are devolved by the Folketing. Its equivalent to saying Scotland is "very close to being an independent state". In both cases the country they are part of has recognised their right to secede if a majority supports it in a referendum, but that doesn't change the character of neither the Danish nor the British state.--Batmacumba (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean to trigger anyone by saying its due to ignorance. There are two reasons for using PM. The first is that you support Greenlandic independence (which is why the Greenlandic government uses it), and the second is that you are ignorant of the constitutional status of the country and/or the distinction between PM and Premier. Its just my impression that the latter reason is the more prevalent. Either way Premier is the correct form and I was therefore asking about possible exception to CommonName, which think is an unhelpful criteria in matters that involve a constitutional aspect. I did not want to reopen the general discussion before that matter is clarified.--Batmacumba (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Greenland is not a selfgoverning part of Denmark, they are a self-governed constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark - and therefore they can well have a primeminister if they wish. We shouold use what the government itself uses - and they do use Premier in two out of three cases.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As you state on your own talk page: "Dunning-Kruger also applies to you", and frankly you do not seem to be very knowledgable about this issue, and you also do not have background that includes constitutional law (or any other kind of law for that matter), so I think you should refrain from using phrases like "nonsense". Greenland is not a part of Denmark proper (something I of course never claimed), but it is part of the Kingdom of Denmark (which is the official name of the Danish state, there is no state called "Denmark" that is only a convenient shorthand - legally Denmark only exists as a negatively defined entity = the KoD minus the two autonomous countries, hence the phrase "this law does not apply to Greenland and the Faroe Islands" if its solely meant for Denmark proper). Greenland is not a "constituent country" of said state as it was simply a colony that was incorporated into Denmark in 1953 and then granted home rule in 1979. Making it a constituent country would require a new constitution that redefined the relationship between the three parts of the Kingdom of Denmark (I am all for that, but it isn't the current situation). Legally the KoD is a unitary state where two parts of the state have autonomy while the main part is ruled by the common parliament, similarly to the UK where England is ruled by the HoC and Wales and Scotland by their own parliaments with powers devolved from Westminster. Premier was what I wanted to replace PM with, so the Greenlandic government using that term is an argument for a move.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There have been plenty of Prime Ministers of non-independent countries. The Faroes (which I see you have just moved to Premier - I have moved it back), Northern Ireland, Southern Rhodesia immediately come to mind. Aruba and Curaçao are other examples. Number 57 10:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair point.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually the link to Northern Ireland supports Batmacumba's point. Northern Ireland's head of local government is today a First Minister and not a Prime Minister. The article even states:

"The office-holder assumed the title Prime Minister to draw parallels with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom".

If you call Kim Kielsen, Aksel V. Johannesen and Lars L. Rasmussen for Prime Ministers, how do you know which one is the real Prime Minister (leader of the national instead of a local government)? Also how can it be common language using Prime Minister instead of Premier? The Prime Minister's Office (danish national government) uses Premier for the local governments. The Premier´s Office on Greenland uses Premier as well as CIA's Fact book. It does not make any sense using a ideological based title for the leaders of the local governments instead of the official title and for me also the common one. Kisualk (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary additions to the list table

I think a couple of additions that keep being made to the list are unnecessary:

1. The invisible images that force the rowheight to be far larger than necessary
2. The "first time" and "second time" under the name of Motzfeld. This is patently obvious to anyone reading the list, and "1st" and "2nd" are somewhat unencylopedic.

Rather than repeatedly add these, can someone please justify their inclusion? There is no MOS for this type of article, so use elsewhere isn't a valid reason. Number 57 17:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for screwed up move

I double botched a move by attempting moving to a title that had already been rejected by consensus AND by misspelling the title. I will get it fixed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prime Minister of Greenland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126232123/http://uk.nanoq.gl/Emner/Government/the_cabinet.aspx to http://uk.nanoq.gl/Emner/Government/the_cabinet.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not a full article but just a list

This is not a full encyclopedia article. It lacks any discussion of the history, powers, and politics of the office. I've added a stub template to the article.

Capitalization

From MOS:JOBTITLES, Capitalize "[w]hen a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description." This means that "The prime minister" is correct, as it's preceded by a definite article. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I get that this applies in normal sentences, but it makes no sense to apply it in the opening sentence, where use of the bolded term is matching the article and infobox title (which by their nature, do not require an article). Number 57 00:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

So if it weren't bold, it wouldn't be capitalized? This makes no sense. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I suspect you may be deliberately missing the point here. Articles generally start with words that match the title (which are bolded). In some cases articles have to be added to the start of the sentence to make it grammatically correct. If the words weren't bolded, they obviously aren't designed to match the article title. Number 57 00:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, "Consensus was reached to keep consistency in style between the first sentence and the remainder of the article." See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: First mention in the first sentence... (MOS:JOBTITLES). —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that discussion did not reach a conclusion about whether that first mention should be capitalised or not. It's rather misleading to try and use this point to prove something here. Number 57 00:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What? That's exactly what that consensus did. The first sentence should match the rest of the article. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion was about whether the first mention of the title should be capitalised or not. Consensus was not reached on that point. The only consensus was that it should be consistent throughout an article; the main query of the discussion was deferred to another suggested RfC. Number 57 00:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you arguing that "prime minister" after "the" should be capitalized throughout the rest of the article? If so, that contradicts MOS:JOBTITLES. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm arguing that the answer to that question will be answered by the suggested RfC. And I'd really rather not waste any more time on this. MOS arguments are one of the biggest destroyers of productivity on here. Number 57 00:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

That's primarily what I do here... MOS stuff. I try to make other people's work look good. I'm happy to end the discussion. I'll just make the first sentence lowercase and move on. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 00:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't make it lowercase. And I'm honestly not trying to be rude but people who focus on MOS-based editing drive many content creators up the wall – what you see as making things look good is not what others see – this being a case in point. There are certain editors who I absolutely dread appearing on my watchlist for this type of reason. Wouldn't creating new content on the millions of missing topics be more fulfilling? Number 57 00:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a technical writer/copyeditor by trade. All day long, I take other's people's content and make it match my company's style guide. It's something that I enjoy doing, mostly because it makes for a consistent reading experience for the reader. It's those skills that I try to apply here at Wikipedia. (I'm also in grad school. I hope to be able to add some content to instructional technology articles one day, but right now, all of my actual writing is spent doing assignments, rather than optional stuff here.) I won't make this lowercase today, but I will encourage others who participated in that RfC to do so, as this page was specifically called out in the RfC. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 01:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The result of the recent RfC resolves (if anything) only what is stated at the close. JOBTITLES is reasonably clear - lowercase with "the". The alternative is to rewrite the lead sentence without "the". The definite article implies a person, which is somewhat contradictory if the article is about the office. If the definite article "appears" to be necessary in one construction it may not in another. As a matter of grammar, the definite article is often omitted for positions and like, where there is only one incumbent. In short, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Since the (edit conflict), I would also add that implicit to the social contract to edit on WP is the undertaking to abide by P&G. Disruption occurs when people "buck" the system, mainly because they believe that their position is "right" and everybody that disagrees with them is wrong. If an employee exhibited such behaviour, they might well be fired because they were disruptive - no matter how good their work was. If one doesn't like something, there are ways to effect change. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change to lowercase, as this seems to be concluded with the only real objection from a guy who says "people who focus on MOS-based editing drive many content creators up the wall". Dissing people with good intentions trying to apply WP style guidance is not an argument that can do any good. Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)