Talk:Prime minister/Archive 1

message: Is there an entry on "Grand Wazeer"? The phrase means the same as "Prime Minister".—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 03:11, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
----
from the article: "direct election by the public (Example: Israel.)"
The example is no longer relevant. Israel dabbled in direct elections for prime minister in the 90's, but since then the system has been rolled back (with minor changes)... The latest elections (2003) already did not include a direct prime-ministerial ticket.
Consequently, I think the example should be deleted or clariffied. Any suggestions? --Lidless Eye 18:48, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, I added the years in which this election system operated. However, it will be best to put another (currently working) example, if there is one. --Lidless Eye 23:01, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
: I doubt there is, it would easily lead to cohabitation. Wouter Lievens 16:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Wazeer 

message: While the modern office of Prime Minister developed in the UK the first actual usage of the word Prime Minister and Premiere Minstre was for Cardinal Richelieu. That was his actual title in the council of state. Louis XIV and his decenants went out of their way to never allow that title to be used again.
In the 17th Century the high ranking ministers of the Council of State were all named as Prime Ministre, they were then numbered as Premiere Ministre, Second Ministre, Troisieme Ministre, and so on. Ahassan05 21:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 00:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardinal Richelieu  

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support, of course. -- tariqabjotu 01:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: The following vote was added in after the RM was closed and so is invalid. It was removed from the RM list of votes and placed here. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote added in after RM closed, removed

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support as per usage in the Telegraph and Times, either capitals or not, but not mixed. Since we don't do nocaps and a "technical reasons" template makes WP look amateurish, let's have Prime Minister. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 19:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: So the page has been moved, without waiting for the end of the proper process, and contra to Wikipedia style guide.  Surely that can't be right ? -- Beardo 12:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the move. Discussion is ongoing and there is no urgent reason not to wait until it has finished. Kusma (討論) 12:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. -- Beardo 12:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP's MoS and Naming Conventions make it quite clear that it is correct to have this office at the grammatically correct prime minister or Prime Minister but wrong to have it at the grammatically illiterate Prime minister. Please read the MoS and NC rules, Beardo. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Fear, I disagree.  The correct title of the item being described is "prime minister" (as are "foreign minister", "vice president" etc.). Just as, at the beginning of a sentence, the first letter is capitalised, so in all Wikipedia article names the first letter is capitalised.  If you don't like that, you need to get them to change the software, not force moves to incorrect places.  As it says in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) - "In the case of "prime minister", either both words begin with a capital letter or neither, except, obviously, when it starts a sentence. Again, when using it generically, do not use a capital letter" - it is being used generically here, so "prime minister" is correct. Also see Meriam Webster -  Perhaps the MoS should be changed to read "except, obviously, when it starts a sentence or is used in the name of a Wikipedia article." -- Beardo 21:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have proved the point. Read back your words. either both words begin with a capital letter or neither, except, obviously, when it starts a sentence . . . That is the entire point. Article titles are not sentences. Either you use both  words in capitals, or neither. But then I should know. I was one of those involved in writing the MoS and NCs on this issue. So under the MoS, this article has to be at prime minister (which it cannot be for technical reasons) or Prime Minister. Prime minister is not right and not allowed under the MoS. It is chronically wrong in that format. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly right FearÉIREANN. It's "prime minister" or "Prime Minister". The latter is preferred in British/colonial English, and this is a term mostly used in those countries. --kingboyk 12:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "using it generically, do not use a capital letter" -- Beardo 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading it again and this time understanding it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early move

message: I have been asked by Jtdirl/FearÉIREANN to comment on this matter, but I Fear I cannot support his position. I look in the Britannica and I see the sentence: "The prime minister has no salary as such." This tells me that prime minister is a common noun which should take lower case. The title of an article on the office of prime minister should thus also be in lower case. We can't start an article title with a lower case letter, and nor indeed should we: we have an article called Elephant without anyone assuming that "elephant" is a proper noun. The article title should be "Prime minister," with a note explaining when the expression should be capitalised. (The Brittanica by the way gets around this problem by putting all its article titles in bold caps, thus PRIME MINISTER. This is a most elegant solution, although its adoption by Wikipedia would keep us all busy for some months.) Adam 13:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: ===For the Move===
'Prime Minister' is an exception to the general rule. When a reader goes to this article he/she will expect to see 'Prime Minister', even if the link that brought them there said 'prime minister'. (Could someone flesh out this point, please?  Is this really what an average reader "will expect"?)  Naming conventions are only conventions and should not be adhered to slavishly.
===Against the Move===
* Prime minister is not a proper noun in the sense it is being used in this article, as it's about prime ministers in general not a particular prime minister. -- tariqabjotu 17:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Points (For and Against) 

message: * Prime minister is not a proper noun in the sense it is being used in this article, as it's about prime ministers in general not a particular prime minister. -- tariqabjotu 17:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Against the Move

message: To keep the 'for and against' points as just that, I am moving my comment/question and the response to it down here:
*Comment/question: this whole process is getting really unwieldy.  Does anybody have any idea what's supposed to happen at the end of it? Scolaire 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but what kind of consensus position? As things stand, the 'oppose' half is going to say there is no consensus for moving minister to Minister, while the 'support' half is going to say (with some justification) that four votes (v thirty-odd in the current process) doesn't amount to a consensus, so there is no real consensus for moving Minister to minister. Unless all parties can agree on the action to be taken when this vote is closed, we're only digging ourselves deeper into an already deep and muddy hole. Scolaire 22:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right: deep and muddy. Speaking of a big bowl of rocky road ice cream, I'm still waiting to hear from a big-M-ian about how they think the titles of other articles about common nouns should go. Until that question gets answered, we're certainly getting nowhere. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no consensus the article will stay where it is. That is the way it is usually done and I don't see any reason why this would be different. --My old username 03:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that appears to be where we are now, and most of us are ok with that.  Anyone who isn't, has some convincing to do. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case maybe you should close it now.  The talking seems to be done.  Scolaire 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Close it"?  Close what? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The request to more Prime minister to Prime Minister. --My old username 19:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotcha.  It's done. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to add the  and  templates, or something similar, as well. -- tariqabjotu 19:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh goodness, what a lot of templates seem to be necessary.  Isn't a moribund poll just moribund?  Anyway, I've patched those in; if someone thinks  is in the wrong place, please feel free to move it, but be careful, I substed it. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How does it end?

message: Is it supposed to be capitalized when it is on its own? - IstvanWolf 23:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on personal preference and style guidelines; I say no. —Nightstallion (?) 21:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree and say yes for it was established as a title. Neovu79 03:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends if you're talking about the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, for example, which is a specific title and a proper noun, or about prime ministers in general. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  capitalization 

message: Sorry if I'm incorrect, but from what I remember of A level history, didn't Russia have its first Prime Minister in 1917 during the period of the Provisional Government? First Georgy L'vov and then Alexander Kerensky? Looking at the list of 'start dates' on this page I expected to see Russia's list start at 1917. So aren't they counted as real PMs? Blossom552 22:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prime Ministers of the Russian Provisional Government 

message: I cite directly, "In parliamentary systems like the United Kingdom's Westminster system, the prime minister is the presiding and actual head of the government and head of the executive branch. In such systems, the head of state (the King, Queen, President, or Governor-General [de facto]), although officially the head of the executive branch, is a ceremonial position." 
This statement is just plain wrong. This may reflect Tony Blair's aspirations but in no way reflects the reality of the UK's system of government. The Queen will still sppoint a Prime Minister after an election and there is no guarantee that a PM will actually be the leader of the majority party in the House or even a member of it. All s/he has to do is to command the confidence of the House.  
Just because a power is not exercised does not mean it ceases to exist. Nuclear weapons still exist, even though they haven't been used in anger since August 1945. In the same way the Royal Veto is a very real living part of the British Constitution and to imply that the First Lord Of The Admiralty has subsumed that power is both foolish and risible. Could we not go back to Bagehot for this article? Or split the 'actual' Westminster system from those other countries operating a 'Westminster type' constitution, instead of egregiously lumping them together.  The PM remains subordinate to the Queen in the Privy Council and all delegated legislation derives from authority stemming from the Crown. This is not to mention Orders In Council, Treaty-making etc..
This is emphatically not "merely ceremonial" as stated in the article's preamble. I shall edit, after a suitable pause for further discussion, if there is no objection raised. 
Jatrius 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preamble 

message: Is it correct to describe Germany's President as elected ?
Eregli bob 06:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Germany's President 

message: May I move this page to Prime Minister - so as it's consistant with Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister of Australia, Prime Minister of Canada etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fair sure this has been discussed before – PM refers to a specific man, whereas pm refers to holders of similar titles altogether. DBD 21:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, PM of UK (for example) is a position, not a person. The 'Prime minister' thing would call for Prime minister of the United Kingd etc. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prime ''m''inister to Prime ''M''inister