Talk:Kingdom of Denmark

See Talk:Denmark

this line
Greenland gained home rule in 1979 and sovereignty has been approved for 2009. Isn't that a little misleading, its not independent and or has sovereignty. How about this line "A referendum on greater autonomy was approved on 25 November 2008."


 * "Greater autonomy" is awfully vague. The point is that it will be a separate country within the Kingdom of Denmark. kwami (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

However we should state that it is not independent, i like the way you put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk • contribs)


 * In the recent Greenlandic referendum, a majority of the Greenlandic population voted in favour of the proposal for autonomy (Danish: "selvstyre"). That, however, is not the same as independence (Danish: "uafhængighed"). Greenland and the Faroe Islands already had a wide ranging home rule agreement, the recent referendum gives Greenland "autonomy" [term used by leading Greenlandic politicians] but not independence. Many Greenlandic politicians wish for eventual independence, but that status was not an option in the recent referendum. A feature of Greenland's new status towards Denmark proper is that the Greenlandic people is recognized as a "nation" in the cultural sence of the word, i.e. a distinct cultural community, and that the people of Greenland - should it one day choose to do so - now has a formal assent from Copenhagen, that Copenhagen will respect the outcome of any future vote that might declare Greenland an independent country. This is a promise that many leading Danish politicians had given anyway years ago, but some Greenlandic politicians wished to get this promise in writing. To sum up: the Faroe Islands have a wide ranging home rule agreement within the Kingdom, and new areas of responsibility are still being transferred from Copenhagen to Tórshavn. Greenland is currently moving from a similar status of home rule to formal autonomy within the Kingdom, but not to independence. However, the Danish government in Copenhagen has now formally accepted that the Greenlandic people has a formal right to one day leave the Kingdom of Denmark, should Greenlanders at some future point in time wish to do so. 80.163.68.22 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Denmark
If this article is about the Kingdom of Denmark should it really say "commonly known as Denmark". That seems to complicate matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it higly misleading that the articles "Kingdom of Denmark" and "Denmark" are seperated into two. There is no such distinction in the Danish constitution or Danish law. There is only one country - "The Kingdom of Denmark", which comprises Greenland, the Faroese Islands and the southern part consisting of Jutland, Seeland, Funen etc. Within this kingdom, Greenland and the Faroese Islands have autonomy, but "Denmark" is not an entitiy within "The Kingdom of Denmark", as these articles suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.95.225.193 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources? — kwami (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Danish constitution's first paragraph states that "this constitution applies to all parts of the kingdom of Denmark", and makes no distinction between any "countries" or parts of the kingdom. Hence, whenever a law is passed in the Danish parliament (in which representatives from Greenland and the Faroe Islands sit, as well as representatives from all other parts of Denmark), it automatically becomes the law all over the kingdom, including Greenland and the Faroe Islands, unless the two parts are specifically excluded (which they usually are). There might be two laws which grant autonomy to Gr and Fo, but first of all, these laws could be revoked by a simple majority in the Danish parliament, and secondly, there is absolutely no law to establish this idea of a "Denmark" that does not include GR and FO. 83.95.225.193 (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles title
Is this really the best title for this article? I dont know much about Denmark, but it seems very confusing to me to have an article with the offical title of "Denmark"(Kingdom of Denmark) to talk about the relationship between Denmark, Faroe and Greenland. Even with out the "commonly known as Denmark" which has now been removed, to someone who doesnt know anything about this country i think it would be confusing. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph from the Danish constitution: This Constitutional Act shall apply to all parts of the Kingdom of Denmark. The constitution doesn't say anything about the Kingdom being a union. This is also why laws dealing with domestic matters explicitly state that this law does not apply to Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Without those words all laws would apply with very few exceptions. I'm still waiting for a reliable source for the claim that the Kingdom consists of 3 independent countries. That's news to me and anyone else in this country. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is saying they are independent countries, the use to the term "member countries" on here which i dont have a problem with if thats how they are described (even if its not offically in the constitution). If its not a term generally used to describe them then it should be removed, but country does not just apply to sovereign state.
 * My concern is the title and the fact it may confuse people between the Kingdom of Denmark and Denmark as thats its offical title as you said before. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I propose then that we move Rigsfællesskabet to this title since this is the official title of the Kingdom/Rigsfællesskabet. This would clear up the confusion. Denmark is simply the term generally used to describe the Kingdom without Greenland and The Faroe Islands. This works perfectly fine in Denmark and Greenland/The Faroe Islands and has done so for years because everyone knows what people are talking about when they use the word Denmark. It's understandable that this is confusing to people outside Denmark but as you said yourself Rigsfællesskabet explains this better than this article. EconomicsGuy (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think the safest thing to do to avoid confusing people is for "kingdom of Denmark" to redirect to the Denmark article, like it was for a long time until a month ago unless this is really the accurate way of describing it, backed up by offical sources. But even according to that article its "United Kingdom of Denmark" rather than just Kingdom. Im no expert on this, i dont understand the system all i know is when i looked at this article today after clicking it from Greenlands page i was very confused about the difference between the two "Kingdom of Denmark"s. Considering both articles before started "Kingdom of Denmark commonly known as Denmark"BritishWatcher (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIK the Rigsfællesskabet is not synonymous with the Kingdom of Denmark, but rather is the relationship between the constituent polities of the kingdom. The "United Kingdom of Denmark" only exists in English translation, and is not actually a kingdom, which is why we retain the Danish.


 * In previous discussion, people who seemed to know what they were talking about argued that the situation is quite similar to the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. kwami (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The constitution does not call Greenland or The Faroe Islands countries in any sense of that word. Rigsfællesskabet is not an official title. It does not refer to anything constitutional other than the Kingdom of Denmark. ...and is not actually a kingdom Okay, now you lost me completely. What is not a kingdom now? EconomicsGuy (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "United Kingdom of Denmark" is not a kingdom. It is an odd English translation of the Danish term for "the relations between continental Denmark and its two self-governing insular regions". kwami (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well i know very little about the Denmark and Greenland etc but i dont think its anything like the United Kingdom situation. Scotland has never been a province or territory of the United Kingdom. England and Scotland were countries that came together to form the sovereign United Kingdom. The Kingdom of Denmark was a sovereign state that owned (dont know the history) two overseas territories which it has slowly been giving home rule and more powers to over the past 50 years.
 * The situation with Netherlands and Kingdom of the Netherlands seems to be the closest thing to this and its seems like the reasoning behind using this title. But im sure their system is different too. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Kingdom of the Netherlands is a closer analogy. kwami (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Trying to respond to a couple of the points above:
 * On the difference between Rigsfællesskabet and the Kingdom of Denmark: The terms are sometimes used in an interchangeable way, so confusion is certainly possible, but the term Rigsfællesskabet is never used in contexts where the kingdom functions as a single unit (such as most international relations). It may be interesting to note that the term used in the home rule acts is "rigsenheden", "the unity of the realm", even though that term would probably better describe the pre-home rule situation. (Harhoff's "Rigsfællesskabet", p. 31 and a couple of other pages, discusses this further if anyone's interested. Will put the full citation data on that book in the article in a moment.)
 * Regarding the term country: I agree completely with BritishWatcher that a country is not necessarily a sovereign state. I am not sure whether the term should be used here, though. Neither the home rule acts, the proposed self-government act, nor Harhoff's "Rigsfællesskabet" (a quite comprehensive analysis of the constitutional structure of Denmark/Faroe Islands/Greenland) seem to use the term "country". The home rule acts speak of "folkesamfund" ("communities of people") and according to Harhoff, the kingdom simply consists of three parts. I can't find a similar term in the proposed self-government act, but country isn't in there. So I will rewrite that part of the article to a sourced version without it in a moment. If someone can came up with better sources that says otherwise, feel free to add it back. Hemmingsen 14:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, 'country' seems appropriate in English, regardless of whether it's mentioned as such in the acts. We have different peoples in different polities, pretty much the definition of "country". Previously Greenland was a subdivision of Denmark, now Greenland and Denmark are constituent parts of the kingdom. At the least, we should note somewhere that Greenland and the Faroes are countries, not provinces. kwami (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the wording used in the acts is not necessarily the only one that's appropriate. As I said, if you can come up with better sources than I can, feel free to add the term country back in. I might add as an aside that isn't directly relevant to this article that the wordings used in the article country certainly doesn't make it obvious to me that the term applies and that that article at doesn't seem to mention peoples at all, so if you feel confident of your definition that article may be able to use your help. Hemmingsen 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Kwami, you're statement that the Faroe Islands and Greenland are "countries" (non-sovereign ones, if I understand you correctly) is not backed up back the relevant government acts nor how the relevant administrations refer to their own status. To quote from the website of the Faroese Prime Minsiter's office: ""As a self-governing territory under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Faroe Islands legislate and govern a wide range of areas in accordance with the Home Rule Act of 1948. These include the conservation and management of living marine resources within the 200-mile fisheries zone, sub-surface resources, trade, fiscal, industrial and environmental policies, transport, communications, culture, education and research. The Faroe Islands have chosen not to be a part of Denmark’s membership of the European Union. The Faroes negotiate their own trade and fisheries agreements with the EU and other countries, in consultation and cooperation with the Danish foreign ministry, and participate either independently or together with Greenland (Denmark in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland) in a range of regional fisheries management bodies." The following phrase is used by the Faroe Islands board of tourism: ''"Since 1948, the Faroe Islands have been a self-governing region of the Kingdom of Denmark. It has its own parliament and its own flag. It is not, however, a member of the European Union and all trade is governed by special treaties." The Greenland administration use this phrase: "(...) In 1953, Greenland became a county [Danish: amt], in principle on equal terms with the other Danish counties. Greenlandic opposition to Danish administration contributed to the introduction of home rule in 1979. In accordance with home rule, Greenland retains extensive powers of self-government while remaining under the Danish Crown. The Folketing (the Danish parliament) has transferred almost all legislation to the Landsting (the Greenlandic parliament) but the Folketing and the Danish administration retain control over some areas of government. Greenland‘s voters elect two representatives to the Folketing. (...)''" and notes that Greenland is a member of the Nordic Council in its own right. (the same applies for the Faroe Islands and the Åland islands in Finland). Keeping in mind that the average reader of a wikipedia article will understand "country" to imply a sovereign entity referring to these two entites by this word will only lead to further confusion regarding something that is already confusing enough. Greenland and the Faroe Islands are autonomous regions of the Danish Kingdom (a.k.a. "Danmarks Rige", short: "Danmark"). This is also how the relevant local administrations refer to themselves and how the office of the Danish Prime Minister refers to them . A search on www.retsinfo.dk (the official database of recent Danish legislation) also shows that the official term used by the Danish Ministry of Finance - which is responsible for the financial grants to the islands - is "hjemmestyre" i.e. "home rule [administration]". The relevant acts specify the regions status towards Copenhagen thus: "Article 1. Within the framework of this Act the Faroe Islands shall constitute a self-governing community within the State of Denmark. In conformity herewith the Faroese people, through its elected representatives, the “Løgting” and an Executive established by the Latter, the “Landsstýrid” takes over, within the unity of the Realm, the administration and government of Faroese affairs as indicated in this Act." and "Article 1. Section 1. Greenland is a distinct community within the Kingdom of Denmark. Within the framework of the unity of the Realm, the Greenland home rule authorities shall conduct Greenland affairs in accordance with the provisions laid down in this Act." Other details are specified in sections 4 and 11 (Greenlandic agreement) and described on the website of the office of the Danish Prime Minister  Referring to these two communities as "countries" isn't backed by a single one of these sources. Instead they refer to the regions as communities with home rule. 80.163.68.22 (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A "community with home rule" is a country, but you may be right about that wording being confusing. kwami (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa
If the area of Denmark (inc. Greenland) is 2.2 million square km, it CANNOT be 5.8 million square miles. That's just not how it works. Are those two numbers just reversed, or what? I don't think that can be the case, since Greenland's square mileage on wikipedia is listed at 830,000 square miles, and it's certainly not less than 50% of the country's total. I don't know anything about this other than what wikipedia tells me, so I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable to fix. But please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.42.79 (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Greenland in North America
This article says that Greenland is in North America. Really?--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Really what, that it's in NAm, or that we shouldn't need a citation tag? kwami (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no citation tag in the article. It's fine the way it is. kwami (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Greenland
A quick read of the references at Greenlandic self-government referendum, 2008 should convince everyone that Greenland is, for the time being, still a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. They have more home rule today than a few days ago, and appear to be on the road to independence, but they are not independent, and have not declared themselves to be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, see this recent NY Times article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been planned for some time, and it always was going to be a devolution of power within the kingdom. Independence is not considered practical for the time being, and there's no way to know if or when it will happen. kwami (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Confederation, federation, federacy or what?
Could someone please clarify for me whether the Kingdom of Denmark is a sovereign state consisting of three legally equal countries (i.e. Denmark, Faroe Islands, Greenland) or is it just that the Faroe Islands and Greenland have autonomy within the state? The Rigsfællesskabet article clearly says "It is one state with two self-governing areas, and as such it can be referred to as a federacy.". However the Kingdom of Denmark article states that the Danish Realm consists of three autonomous parts, the Denmark article gives the definition "senior member of the Kingdom of Denmark" and also the fact that there are three prime ministers in the state seems to suggest a theoretical equality between the parts as if the Kingdom was the alliance of the three "countries". ZBukov (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Rigsfællesskabet" article is correct, and the division between "Denmark" and "The Kingdom of Denmark" is incorrect. This is one state with two self-governing areas - and the name of the state is "Kingdom of Denmark". There is no such thing as a "senior member" of Rigsfællesskabet, and there is legally no difference between Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.95.225.193 (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Name
According to the constitution the name is not "Kongeriget Danmark" (Kingdom of Denmark) but "Danmarks Rige" (Denmarks Realm).94.145.236.194 (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I've initaited a discussion about this article at WikiProject Denmark. Please join if interessted. Rennell435 (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
I just tried merging the infoboxes but the standard syntax seems incompatible with multiple answers. I don't know enough about the syntax to be of much help there. I will post the data we need to add below. Rennell435 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Maps
If we are changing the map these are possibilities, but probably won't do if we want to keep the EU shaded. We will probably need to modify whichever version we choose to get the best possible result. Rennell435 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! Nice find! I think the first map would be best for the infobox. Maybe it could be added lower down in the infobox; as done of the France article (although still displaying the other information in a different way). The third image would be useful to include in the Rigsfællesskabet article to replace the poorer quality map I made a month or two ago. I'll also try and incorporate that information you found into the infobox (I'll post it here), but I think we'll need a handful of editors to decide exactly how the information should be displayed (i.e. should we have only the Danish name at the top of the infobox?) or make it themselves. Also,do you the main section of the KoD article be merged into the Geography → Administrative divisions section + subsection, or an entirely new section?Peter (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just realised that the France infobox uses its own unique parameters for overseas territories. We could do with something similar for this infobox. Peter (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Only Danish should go at the top of the infobox, the other languages are regional. I dislike creating unique parameters, but we should be able to use some built in flexibility, or create some. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind about languages (does the infobox and lede have to match?)... I think it is as Chipmunkdavis says, this is the convention. Other options are collapsible a la South Africa, or footnote a la France. I think some kind of unique parameters are going to be the only way possible and are probably preferrable so that there are less potential mistakes on other pages. Otherwise we might be able to find a way to generalize the French parameters to include Danish options as many of their fields will also be useful to us... I didn't realise you could put two maps in the infobox, so that's good. On the last question, I think it would be best if we could merge the content into as many already-existing sections as possible- I'm hoping we don't need to create many new sections. I just noticed that the geography section here is already present in the Denmark article. Rennell435 (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering whether we should changing the infobox, aside from changing the title to "Kingdom of Denmark"... because it may simply become too confusing. We can cover Greenland and the Faroe Islands under the administrative divisions article, but I wouldn't try and turn the whole article into an extended KoD article when we have the Rigsfællesskabet article for that. Peter (Talk page) 20:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is flexibility on the area information. area_label2 and area_data2 fields exist. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that is one problem solved! I will try to see what I can come up with. Rennell435 (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It has already been made confusing by separating the content. The Denmark article should definitely have the European part as its primary focus as that's what most people will be expecting to read about under the title "Denmark". In fact, the article already appears to include the appropriate amount of Greenland/Faroe content, and certainly agree that the descriptions about where these two countries fit in the Danish administrative system should be discussed in length at Rigsfællesskabet. But we should also strive for accuracy, and I think leaving out information where it should be (inclduing leaving out the totals in the infobox) would foster the idea that these are not integral parts of Denmark. Rennell435 (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is just a draft, but there aren't really many changes. I think the colours in the new map may need to be synchronized with those in the older one (grey and green like in the orthographic projections). I'm also not sure on the terminology to use... Obviously "mainland" has its problems. Is "metropolitan Denmark" used? (I found it used on other articles and it gets a fair amount of hits on Google books). Still need to find a solution for the stuff left in the table, but anything that's too complicated or you think might be too confusing for readers, we can just add note C to the end of it. This might be best in some cases, and France does this for the time zones... Rennell435 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the mock-up, it looks good. I've made an addition to the regional languages parameter, although feel free to undo if you want. As for the terminology, I'd propose "Continental Denmark" or even "Denmark proper" (that is, 'proper' to mean "in the strictest sense of the word" or without anything additional". The former would be the simplest. and yes, forget what I said about leaving the totals out of the infobox, that was a silly idea. I'll ask about having a more standard orthographic map created.Peter (Talk page) 16:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Edit: I've also removed the ethnic groups data as that only applies to mainland/continental Denmark and, thankfully, isn't necessarily required in an infobox. Peter (Talk page) 17:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The map looks perfect! Either of those terms look fine to me, changed accordingly. Rennell435 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for that. Just the population needs adding now; hopefully the infobox can be changed. Peter (Talk page) 13:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a (messy looking) HTML hack to add both populations. It's obviously not ideal, and the population density is still can issue, but it could work for a short while. Peter (Talk page) 13:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. It can be polished later and -if need to- generalizing the 2nd population parameter used by France (just so that the label is able to be customized) might help. The only thing that's really left is GDP- but, if not possible, no big deal in my opinion. Rennell435 (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Population density isn't much of an issue. Greenland makes any estimate for the whole Kingdom fairly pointless, and anyone can use basic maths to calculate it themselves. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for shrinking the second map. And should we scrap population density completely or just keep it for the mainland? Peter (Talk page) 16:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say keep just it for the mainland if possible. Rennell435 (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope it's okay that I went ahead with redirecting. I'm looking what needs to be merged (a lot of it seems to already be in there), but Peter—as you're the most familiar with the article, please feel free to rearrange or revert anything I move over. The infobox is also ready to go in my opinion. Are there any objections? Rennell435 (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the redirect is fine, and I'll maybe rearrange some of the content later. I think we should get an admin to formally merge the KoD article into the Denmark article at some part; basically, move the history and other details. The talk page can be left for now. Peter (Talk page) 15:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We should go through Special:WhatLinksHere/Kingdom of Denmark and see whether the links should lead to Denmark or Rigsfællesskabet. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I was going to get around to that. Obviously, certain articles still need to talk about the Kingdom of Denmark (i.e. Greenlandic- and Faore Islands-related articles), but we could probably change Kingdom of Denmark to Kingdom of Denmark. Peter (Talk page) 17:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to close the discussion now, since the article has been merged. Peter (Talk page) 20:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirect or own page?
Hello. I recently terminated the redirection of this page to the Danish Realm page. And another user reinstalled the former redirect to the Denmark page, which I now see was the agreement in the archived discussion above. Anyway, I would like to argue for establishing its own page for the Kingdom of Denmark.

The recurring editorial problems with the Kingdom of Denmark, seems to be that the Danish royalty is still in existence, but has no political authority except ceremonial. It is the bureaucracy of the Danish Realm that administers and rules Denmark, Faroes and Greenland, materialised in Rigsfællesskabet and its subdivisions of the Danish parliament, the Faroes Løgting and the Parliament of Greenland with its self-rule. For this reason, it is important to describe in detail how the Danish Realm is structured and how it works. This is done in the article Danish Realm. It is also important to describe what the relations between the Danish Realm and the Kingdom of Denmark are. This could be added to the article on the Danish Realm, but I would argue that it is best to include it in an individual page on the Kingdom of Denmark.

Apart from these present day complications and relations, the Kingdom of Denmark has a long history and I think it would be a good idea to write something about that in an individual page. The extent of the Kingdom has changed considerably throughout history and so has the form of rulership of the Kingdom of Denmark.

The Kingdom of Denmark is geographical congruent with the Danish Realm, so I don't think it is a good idea simply to redirect to the Denmark article. Denmark usually just means Denmark proper, ie. not including the Faroes and Greenland.

For all these complicated reasons, I would argue that the Kingdom of Denmark needs its own page, where these details are explained (and properly sourced of course). References and mention of the Kingdom of Denmark could of course be part of the articles of Denmark and the Danish Realm, but it is important that details are thoroughly explained and this would require a separate page in my opinion.

PS. In my work with these things here on WP, I have the impression that some editors have been trying to implement their own political views and wants about how Denmark should be ruled. While the majority of citizens within the Danish Realm are democratic in their mindset and political wants, the Danish royalty remains quite popular, and some smaller groups would like to see a much more prominent political role for the Danish monarch and royalty. To me it appears that they are trying to promote the term the Kingdom of Denmark in as many places as possible, without reference to how things actually works in real life at present. This should not be tolerated of course. RhinoMind (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not see how your proposed topic would not be already covered within Denmark and History of Denmark, which cover history including political changes. CMD (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be right. The majority of stuff might be included there already. It is important however, that you have a place to look up how the Kingdom of Denmark is working, what authority it has today and how the relations with the Danish Realm and the Danish Parliament (or State of Denmark) are in current times. It is not a good idea to leave it up to readers to filter through the article of Denmark to extract these important issues by themselves. It would be a good idea to have it in an individual page of its own. When this has been established, some overview of the history of the Kingdom of Denmark - here meaning the rulership structure and especially the relations with democratic institutions - would add extra value to such a page. RhinoMind (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's currently a short section in Monarchy of Denmark that briefly covers what you are discussing. Would an expansion in that page, including better links to other pages, work? I do not think that people usually refer to the monarchy explicitly when the use the term "Kingdom of Denmark", as you seem to be, instead they'll be referring to the whole state. CMD (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the inputs. I agree that the page Monarchy of Denmark also holds much important and relevant information, but I still think it would be a good idea to write up an individual page on the Kingdom of Denmark. For many reasons. First because the term Kingdom of Denmark is commonly occurring and people are not necessarily searching for detailed information about the monarchy itself, rather than how the Kingdom of Denmark is structured and related to the democratic institutions and what geography it comprise or what the history of the Kingdom or the Kingdom term is. RhinoMind (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know - and would not like to guess at - what people (in general) means when they use the term "Kingdom of Denmark". I would just like WP to supply proper and solid information about what the Kingdom of Denmark is and comprise. I personally is not necessarily referring solely to the monarchy when using the term "Kingdom of Denmark", but it is nevertheless important to describe what relation there is between the Kingdom of Denmark and both the monarchy and the State of Denmark. And I have to say that the Kingdom of Denmark is not synonymous with the State of Denmark. A common misunderstanding perhaps, and even more reason for having an individual page on the Kingdom of Denmark to explain stuff in detail. RhinoMind (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not understand, from what you have said, what the page you want to create would be about, and how it would connet with other pages. Kingdom of Denmark is synonymous with the state, being the legal formal English name of the state. If there are other meanings, to the term, I think they most likely go under different terms to avoid this confusion. That is for example why we have a page named Danish Realm. CMD (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No the Kingdom of Denmark (KOD) is not synonymous with the State of Denmark (SOD). It is also reflected in the name itself. Kingdom vs. State. As another quick-to-grasp example, the KOD geographically comprise Denmark proper, the Faroes and Greenland, while the SOD only comprise Denmark proper. There is however a political relation between both the SOD (and the Danish Realm) and the KOD. I can see from your comment that indeed a page on the KOD is in need. I will try to write up something when I find the time, this will probably be the best way to exactly show "what I mean". You have provided inspiring inputs. RhinoMind (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The term "State of Denmark" does not produce any real google hits, but your assertion that the Danish state does not include the Faroes and Greenland is incorrect. The Danish constitution mentions both explicitly. CMD (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By the "State of Denmark", or The "Danish State" if you will, I would mean the State administration of Denmark (proper). In Danish it is called Den Danske Stat. The Danish Realm (which involves the Faroes and Greenland) has its own administration, which is called Rigsfællesskabet. Rigsfællesskabet is under the Danish Prime Minister's Office in the government of Denmark (proper). Not everything in the Danish Realm is decided in the Prime Minster's Office though, it just happens to be the highest responsible authority for the Danish Realm. And far from everything decided in the State administration of Denmark affects the Danish Realm (meaning Faroes and Greenland). These issues might appear as intricate relations, which is exactly why better acces to information on WP is in need. To be honest I would rather spend time putting up solid information on the frontpage, than explaining every detail here on a TalkPage. You are welcome to add too, it would be great if you did, just make sure you understands the administration properly before going head in. I mean no offence, but these matters are notoriously diffficult and on-line sources, even from the Danish Parliament are lacking in proper thorough description and usability. Another reason why we need to present some proper and solid basic information on WP. RhinoMind (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The differences of administration you mention are already discussed under Danish Realm. You miss my point that while I feel I understand what you are saying, it does not seem to me that the details you feel are currently lacking would be best suited to their own page instead of properly expanding on other pages. The Danish Realm page has massive room for expansion, and I would suggest editing there, where it will already have wider context to be placed in. If it gets to the point where it is obvious that it would be better suited to its own page, it is easy enough to split off at that point. CMD (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it, I agree. RhinoMind (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is one point though, that I feel I didn't address properly. The Denmark page is about the country of Denmark, not just the administration of The Danish State (and its relations to The Kingdom of Denmark). I blame myself that the discussion above took a turn that only focused on various administrations and their relations, while the country of Denmark is a broader subject in ts own right. On the Denmark page, there is too much focus on the term "Kingdom of Denmark" as the article appears in its present state. It is not correct from even a purely geographical point of view either. Anyway, this issue is perhaps best approached on the Denmark article and its TalkPage, not here. Just felt it was important to note it here too. RhinoMind (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The unity of the Realm which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Danish Realm which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Danish Realm which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)