Jump to content

Talk:Greenland/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Danish is an official language of all of Denmark

A province cannot remove the official status of the official language of the Kingdom. That's a joke. So I guess even if some new Greenlandic document states that Inuit is an "official language" in Greenland, and even if Inuit will be used to a larger extent than before by the local government (although Danish will continue to be widely used, especially in education), Danish must be considered an official language in the sense that it is the official language of the state (Denmark) that Greenland is part of. The Danish language's official status does not rely on the text in some Greenlandic document, as Danish is by Danish law considered the official language of all of Denmark. Denmark has more than one region with other official languages than Danish, but it isn't necessary to make a local law in South Denmark to make Danish official there (with German) either. News outlets are often very unprecise, for the time being other encyclopedias state that Danish is official and we shouldn't rush to conclusions. Jægermester (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you haven't heard but today Greenland was granted what amounts to autonomous status - that is why now Greenland decides what is the official language of Greenland - not Denmark.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish. The responsibility of policing and some other matters, which does not make it an independent country, was transferred to the local government. If Greenland is a "country", then so are all the "autonomous" Italian provinces and similar regions in Europe! Jægermester (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Wrong.
Yes, Danish is the official language of the country of Denmark. But Greenland is not part of the country of Denmark, it's part of the kingdom of Denmark. AFAIK the kingdom has no official language. Greenlandic is the only official language of the country of Greenland. I was able to confirm some months ago that when the autonomy went through, Greenlandic would be the sole official language. You are, of course, correct that Danish will continue to be widely used in Greenland, and is a major language of education. kwami (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Greenland is not part of geographical Denmark, but it's part of the state of Denmark, formally known as the Kingdom of Denmark. Country usually means state. The country, state or Kingdom of Denmark is the same entity. Greenland is not an independent state, it's a province of Denmark, although enjoying a semi-autonomous status. Jægermester (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Wrong again. It would help your case if you presented arguments instead of just stating your opinion.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User:Jægermester

Jægermester has now been introducing the following changes todays in a row:

  • Changing "Primeminister of Greenland" to "Primeminister of Local Government"
  • Changing Greenlands status to "Semiautonomous province of Denmark".
  • Changing Danish to be an official language of Greenland.

These changes do not follow the current consensus among editors - which is to use "prime minister" for "landsstyreformand" and Greenlandic parliament for "landsstyre". Greenland became semiautonomous in 1979 and is now as autonomous as other autonoumous areas of the world - and as User:Johannes Rohr has pointed out - the liberties of Greenland are probably even greater than most other autonomous areas. For example the Greenlandic Parliament can for example recall any area of responsibility form Denmark when they should so chose. The referendum also gives Greenland the right to status as a "country" within the kingdom of Denmark (rigsfælleskabet) in a way suímilar to how Canada is a country within the British Commonwealth. One of the points of the self rule referendum of 2008 was to remove Danish as an official language. Now Jægermester is right that such a referendum would not be valid unless the Danish Parliament approved it - but they did and so Danish is no longer an official language of the country Greenland.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Maunus. Greenland is currently heading towards full independence even though some steps remains. It is to be exact a country with a few ties left from its former danish ruler. it is basically a fully independent country as of june 21,2009.--Judo112 (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, indeed I reverted Jægermester's edits before noticing this posting Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 15:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

judo, i disagree. an independant nation wouldnt need 100's of millions of dollars to survive econimicly. An independent nation would also handle its foriegn policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk • contribs) 0:354, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Haiti (and many others) is independent, and completely relies on foreign aid.Daniel32708 (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Update for global warming

Article should be updated to reflect changes to ice loss. I just read an article stating that forests are now being planted in certain areas, as well as gardens. That one native got rid of half of his sled dogs. This seems like a very interesting and significant change. Anyone? Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The ice cap in Greenland had survive long eras by "global warming" 4 and 6 degrees centigrade hotter than today. That have several explanations.
1. More heat by Equator give more evaporation, and more evaporation give more snow in Greenland.
2. More heat give more steady warm south-wester in Europa and more extreme cold northerly wind in Greenland. The "global warming" is uneven. A global average.
3. If the border of the ice cap melt, the land grow in the border, as the land preserve the ice.

In Greenland only two small bush trees had survive the ice age. And they had make some brushwood in some spots. But the sheep and released reindeer had ruined the mostly. The forests are now being planted in certain areas, as well as gardens because they had introduced new species and fenced them against the animals. The climate of Greenland is completely unpredictable, as the trees had difficulty by recognize the seasons. Haabet 22:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Land of the Greenlanders

I realise the translation of Kalaallit nunaat is sourced to a reliable source, but it is wrong nonetheless. In Greenlandic Kalaaleq means "Greenlander" and Inuk means "person". ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Kalaallit Nunaat -> Land of Kalaallit named by Greenlanders, Greenland -> Grønland in Danish named by Danish. Meaning Kalaaleq or many Kalaallit as we call oursevles. Uanga aamma kalaaliivunga, massakkut australiami inoqarpunga, jeg elsker grønland. ^^ -Unuku

Three islands?!

So is there now any proof/disproof of the claim that Greenland consists of three islands underneath the ice shelf, as mentioned as a theory in the introduction? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This http://nia.ecsu.edu/ur/0708/07summerinterns/smith_cresis_greenland.ppt map (p. 4) seems to imply that Greenland remains connected, though with a large lake in the center.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't notice anything about a lake in the center. Which slide was it? There is of course some subsurface water, though I don't know if anyone knows how much. AFAIK, most of the ice lies on bare rock, not on water. (And if it is on water, that would be glacial melt, not sea water.)
One of the sources for that claim dates from 1951! Much of the bedrock in the center of Greenland is below sea level, so if the ice were to melt, we'd end up with a giant atoll. Probably quite a few islands, though maybe there would be three main ones. We've also gotta ask ourselves how much sea-level rise to take into account. Didn't NatGeo publish a map showing what Greenland would look like with the ice melted? Of course, we get the same kind of thing with Antarctica.
I'm not sure it's quite fair to say Greenland is islands "bridged" by an icesheet. The reason it's below sea level is the weight of that very icesheet, so if the icesheet hadn't been there, the bedrock would be high and dry. If we were to melt the ice, the bedrock would initially be below sea level, but would immediately start rising, probably at several inches a year, and in a couple millennia it would be a single island again. kwami (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Here[1] is data from 2006 showing areas below current sea level. Since melting would raise sea levels by ~3m, and the map is only marked to +100m, it's not clear if we'd end up with a last central lake, or if it would connect to the sea. (It's also possible melt water would cut a channel deep enough for the sea to enter as it rises, but I'm just guessing.) kwami (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the map you link is similar to the one I referred to. (Sorry for the confusion - I didn't mean there is a lake currently, but that there would be one if the ice thawed). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I've seen older maps of 'Greenland without ice' that show it as a ring of inter-connected peaks and islands, but even if Antarctica were to melt, the rise in sea level wouldn't produce that effect according to the 2006 map. But there are a couple places, esp. those two in the north, where the sea might come in, so we might end up with 2-4 islands: it just doesn't look like we would get that from only Greenlandic melt. kwami (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The statement at the lead of the article, 'The bedrock in the center of Greenland has been pressed below sea level by the weight of the ice sheet, so that if the ice were to melt, much of central Greenland would be under water.' seems very suspect to me. During the time it would take to remove that amount of ice there would be so much isostatic rebound that it would be unlikely that the bedrock would be below sea level. Is there a citation that actually says this?147.26.186.35 (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You're right, the references mentioned do not say this. I've added a "suddenly" to the ice melting, are you now fine with it?--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Middle-age climate

I have added Template:Citation needed there :

Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees{ {citation needed} }....

  • "mild" is vague it makes people believe the climate was temperate ; This sentence also suggests that trees have stopped growing after 1300 and that trees are unable to grow in cold climates, which is wrong. Trees grow in very cold climates, not only in Greenland but also in Iceland, Siberia, Alska and Canada.

Teofilo talk 15:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Coastline length is meaningless

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline#Coastline_statistics Length of a coastline depends on the size of the ruler that is used to measure it. Just quoting a single number is therefore completely meaningless. I will remove it until someone can provide a reference for how the supposed measurement was made. --Tdent (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you overstating your case a bit when you say "completely meaningless"? Wouldn't you just get closer and closer to the actual length, while never really reaching it, but still more approximately correct, as you shrunk the length of the ruler? And doesn't fractal geometry offer some help in approximating? Chrisrus (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
As the ruler gets shorter, the measured length gets longer. Imagine measuring around every grain of sand.--Klausok (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Tdent. As the scale of examination decreases, the length of the coastline increases. It doesn't converge on a solution. Coastline paradox gives pretty good coverage of the problem. Ordinary Person (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
If truly completely meaningless, phrases such as "extensive coastline" are also meaningless and should also be deleted. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Trees

Currently the article reads:

Interpretation of ice core data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a mild climate, with trees[citation needed] and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed.

This could be considered misleading, as there are _still_ trees in southern Greenland, in the Qinngua valley.Ordinary Person (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Greenland-wiki

MattisManzel (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC):
I started the Greenland-wiki running the Oddmuse wiki software. The various inclusions into it might be helpful for you when researching for the article about Greenland in the wikipedia-en.

Media

Are there any radio or TV stations? Newspapers, magazines, books, published for Greenlandic consumption? The literacy rate is stated to be 100%; what do they read? Chrisrus (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of us read Wikipedia. -Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexgenaud (talk • contribs) 07:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Kalaallit Nunaata Radioa. DR used to have Greenlandic news. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
There are all of those. Sermitsiaq is one popular newspaper, Atuagagliudtit another , the largest Greenlandic publishing house is Atuakkiorfik. Greenlandic movies include Heart of Light and the first entirely Greenlandic produced movie is in the making.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Flights

"""In addition to these routes there are scheduled international flights between Narsarsuaq and Copenhagen."""

I believe Kangerlussuaq rather than Narsarsuaq is meant here. Kangerlussuaq is the largest airport and there are dozens of flights direct to Copenhagen all year round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.83.8.110 (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Western European Summer Time

Does Greenland use Western European Summer Time or any particular variant of this? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Greenlantic winter time = UTC - 3 hours, summer time = UTC - 2 hours. (eab)

So why do we have "Time zone = GMT (UTC +0 to -4)" ? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There are several time zones. Greenland is massive and, so far north, it spans many degrees of longitude. Here in Nuuk -0200 WGST (51 degrees W - similar to Rio de Janiero). But for example, -0300 ADT at Thule (69 degrees W). And +0000 EGST at Nerlerit Inaat (Constable Pynt - 22 degrees W) - Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexgenaud (talk • contribs) 07:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. So UTC - 4 hours is also possible; (like Nova Scotia)? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
On this site [2] it looks like GMT-4 is possible in the far west of Greenland. But what about in the far east - if that's -1, what has happened to -2? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Greenland subcontinent?

Should Greenland be a subcontinent of North America? Even though it's stated that it's on the same Tectonic Plate as North America, it looks like it's drifted apart from the arctic islands of Canada, and was once part of the islands, plus, it's a big island.

According to Subcontinent#Greenland, yes. Chrisrus (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Fishing methods

"Fishing by traditional methods has been increasingly replaced by the use of firearms and modern technology."

What does this mean? It sounds like fishermen are shooting fish with shotguns and lasers, which I doubt. Clarification would be helpful. Noah Tye (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the entire section which was mostly stereotyping and in accurate. Most greenlandic fishermen fish from boats with trawl or long lines for e.g. halibut. There is of course still a very living hunting culture focusing on seal and reindeer which is shot with rifles and birds with buckshot. There is a lot more that should be written about Greenlandic culture both traditional and contemporary though.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why sub-articles?

Is it really necessary to divide up Greenland History, Economy and Geography into separate articles? Isn't it better to have all the information in one place, particularly since there's not a lot of information in each of those sub-articles? Landroo (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Kalaallit: "people" vs "Greenlanders"

The introduction of the article translates "Kalaallit Nunaat" as "Land of the people". But Kalaallit are not "people" in general but specifically "Greenlanders" or "indigenous Greenlanders". -- pne (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right and I have changed that translation many times - but someone keeps changing it back. I'll try again.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Rare earth mine?

Under the paragraph about mines and minerals, there is no mention of the mine in the Ilimaussaq intrusion in the southwest, which is expected to be one of the largest rare earth mines in the world (source: BBC Focus issue 227 april 2011). This should possibly be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.97.170 (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

From "autonomous country" to "autonomous province"

I'm going to change the description from "country" to "province".

From the Danish Government's website:

"The Kingdom of Denmark also has 2 autonomous provinces – the Faroe Islands and Greenland."

Link: http://www.denmark.dk/en/menu/About-Denmark/Denmark-In-Brief

In the Greenland Home Rule Act from 1978, Greenland is referred to as a "community";

"Greenland is a distinct community within the Kingdom of Denmark."

The act was also a decision made in conformity with the Greenland >Provincial< Council.

In the ACT ON GREENLAND SELF-GOVERNMENT from 2008, Greenland is referred to as a "people";

"Recognizing that the people of Greenland is a people pursuant to international law with the right of self-determination, the Act is based on a wish to foster equality and mutual respect in the partnership between Denmark and Greenland."

Never was Greenland referred to as a country in any of the two acts, but it is referred to as a "autonomous province" by the Danish Government, and thereby the Kingdom of Denmark, which Greenland is a part of. Org.aidepikiw (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a little more complicated than this - we cannot just adopt the wording province from the Danish government website without some thorough analysis - we should rely on secondary sources here . Greenland is not a state, that is true, but it is possible to be a country without being a state. The wording "people pursuant to international law" clearly echoes the terminology of nationhood - since nations are exactly peoples pursuant of international law. The 2008 document also explicitly states that Denmark and Greenland are partners of equal standing in ("ligeværdige" in Danish). The relative status between a province and the nationstate it is a part of is not typically one of equal standing. I think that perhaps the most useful wording would be to define Greenland as "Greenland is an island in the north atlantic. Politically it has selfrule within the Kingdom of Denmark" or something like that. Alternatively we could try to find some better secondary sources - that are not directly affiliated with either of the governments of Greenland.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure this was talked about in the archives. Also I don't think that www.denmark.dk is a government website. It says Ministry of Foreign Affairs down the bottom, but www.um.dk is the real one. Rennell435 (talk) 10:11, 12 June 201 (UTC)
Danes aren't native English speakers and as such translations may sometimes be different depending on howwhat people lay weight on. For most Danes province and regions is just synonym for the same thing. But official it describe itself as Self Government(nothing more nothing less) from 2009, and before that home rule in the period 1979-2009. A Danish county from 1953-1979 and before that a colony.

http://uk.nanoq.gl/Emner/About/Facts.aspx But the first two are just direct translations from Danish and Greenlandish, as such some people sometimes try to use term which are more recognisable and familiar for foreigners, when talking about Greenland in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.48.104.170 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Flora and fauna

Is anybody in a position to add information about the flora (such as it is) and fauna of the country? Q·L·1968 ☿ 05:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

97% Christian???

Having traveled some in Greenland and having met several Greenlanders, I find that statistic rather improbable. No source is cited presently in the article. Is there are any contemporary data on Greenlandic religious belief? I would guess that the non-religious are significantly more numerous, probably comparable with most Western European countries. {66.62.230.2 (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)}

That seems like a very unrealistic stat to me, ill see if i can find any census info in a few days.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

All statistics must be cited. You find a citation, it can be put in, but the citation must be in the article. Otherwise, the old statistic stays. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 19:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The cited source is something called the Joshua Project, which writes on its front page that "Joshua Project is a research initiative seeking to highlight the ethnic people groups with the least followers of Jesus Christ". It is a missionary project, so I doubt very much that is a reliable source for this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Here is a more rerliable source in Danish[3]. This is the Bishop of Greenland saying that there is no official statistics for church membership, but she estimates 85% to be members of the Danish popular Church. Of the remaining 15% there is of course also other Christians, Bahai, Muslims and Atheists.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to replace the current figures and all the text added in this edit with the figures from your source, because further research of the linked page on the Joshua Project reveals a very faulty source being completely misrepresented in the article (the Joshua Project actually says ">5%" Christians in all ethnic categories, except for a mysterious people named "Deaf" which has 96,5% Christians even though their population is unknown, etc etc). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

National Geographic resource

Danish language - regional?

I notice that Danish has been moved to the recognised regional language parameter of the infobox... which specific region of Greenland is Danish "recognised" in? I realise that Danish hasn't been an "official" language since 2009, but if we're going to demote Danish then we should call it a minority language rather than a regional language.

Okay, I've gone ahead and changed this. If anybody objects then please revert. Peter (Talk page) 17:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

File:National Anthem of Greenland.ogg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:National Anthem of Greenland.ogg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Kangerlussuaq settlement

Klaus Kleist is right that in Greenland there is a distinction between Towns (by) and settelments (bygd) (srry I don't remeber the corresponding Greenlandic terms).But we still need a good reference to show that Kangerlussuaq is the largest settlement. Also the article ought to explain the settlement/ton difference. WHat are the criteria and historical reasons some places are setllements and not towns - I assume it has to do with the colonial history.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

POV: Danish monopoly

Removed a sentence or two of excuse for the Danish monopoly on Greenlandic trade from the article, some things to the effect that the Danes made the Greenlanders pay too much for things in order to "protect" them from "outside" "exploitation". While I'm sure that is quite possibly what the Danish government said at the time, it both needs to be sourced and quite obviously isn't the whole truth. The article could use sourcing on that attitude and opposition to it, as well as the actual company names (Royal Greenland & al.) and the composition of the "Greenlandic" council that approved its continuation (i.e., at the time of the meeting, was it composed mostly or entirely of Danes? of local Danes or imported administrators from the mainland?) — LlywelynII 08:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Inuit languages

The article on Inuit could use information on how widespread Inuit bi- and trilingualism are in Greenland. Is it true that almost all of them can speak Danish and study English in school? or is that only true for the few 'major' towns? — LlywelynII 08:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds accurate and the vast majority of the population live in the few major towns.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Not sure why this seems so common, but this page also has an inappropriate {{UK-English}} tag on the top. This 2002 edit established the use as American English, not British. — LlywelynII 08:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There's several US military bases on Greenland, but Greenland and Canada have several international disputes; and Greenland is part of Denmark, which usually uses British English in those articles... so any of those three dialects is appropriate if no precedent existed. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Canadian dollar

According to Iceland, Greenland could move to use the Canadian dollar? [4] Is that accurate, or just Icelandic wishes? 70.24.251.208 (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think its safe to call it wishes by two Icelandic economists. The article you're referring to does have problems with its factual accuracy, i.e calling Greenland independent. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
And I never heard about that before anywhere in any source.Kuba.greenland (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Greenland as three islands

Turns out Greenland would not divide up into three islands if the ice melted. For the lowest channel to open between the inner depression and the sea (a double channel at the Qaasiutsap–Park border, so that the northern cape of Qaasiutsup would become an island), you'd need a sea rise of 47m. With the full expected rise of 68.3m from Antarctica fully melting (not that we'd expect that to happen), we'd get a 2nd, narrow channel at Ilulissat. For the 3nd channel, we'd need a 100-m rise, which is not possible. (Just playing around with NOAA data.) — kwami (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. If you can provide a link to this data and other third party sources then it can be added to the article. -- Peter Talk to me 19:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

'long-range' ?

The long-range divides the domestic market into many small units that have high operating costs. -- er, what's a or the 'long-range', here? --Wda (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

country or territory?

Lead paragraph 1 confusingly refers to Greenland as both a country and a territory. Suggest that vocab be standarized, but will leave it to others more knowledgeable. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, it seems possible to be both a country and a territory - since a country is a political unit and territory can be a geographical one as well as a political one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Ambiguity as to which definition of "territory" was the problem. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Turns out the RS uses the word "country" so I'll change it on that basis. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the concern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_area strictly shows difference between country and region, showing Greenland as region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.44.134.247 (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
That is a problem with the map. In the legislatoin Greenland is a country within the realm of Denmark, not a region.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Island

Greenland (island) should be created because the country consists of not only this island but also a hundred of others. Infovarius (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

and the current Geography of Greenland is insufficient for discussing the particulars of the island? Are there cultural peculiarities to Greenland that don't exist on the outlying islands? or vice versa? Irishexpatriate (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

2 consecutive vowels, not long vowels

I moved the discussion to talk:Greenlandic language#Gemination and vowels. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Need glaciologists to interpret Postglacial glacier advances

The section is incredibly technical and could possibly be very interesting if the complex wording can be translated. I tried, and just couldn't do it, but I'll do some research and try to get a basic understanding of the topic. Any glaciologists could be very helpful! AVAAGAA↪ 15:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

World's Largest Island?

Antarctica and Australia are both more than twice the size of Greenland, both are islands.

14.2.32.116 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

They are widely considered continents, not islands. Elockid (Talk) 03:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

8.1 (Sport: Association Football)

Original Text: Association football is the national sport of Greenland. The governing body, the Football Association of Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaanni Arsaattartut Kattuffiat), is not yet a member of FIFA because of ongoing disagreements with Sepp Blatter and an inability to grow grass for regulation grass pitches.[citation needed] However, it is the 17th member of the N.F.-Board.

Suggestions: 1) Greenland is considered part of Denmark for the purposes of international football in the eyes of FIFA. To state there is a disagreement with Blatter is personalising the issue of the reason they are not recognized by FIFA: if this is truly so a reference is needed. A country may not have 2 national teams recognized by FIFA for international play. Greenland is however recognized by the IFU, and despite objections from China and FIFA played an historic match. 2) Grass is not required for FIFA matches. Artificial turf is allowable, the restriction being on it's colour. (See FIFA Laws of the Game, subsection: Field of Play). This is an erroneous supposition on the part of the author and I believe should be deleted as it is misleading.

To place both of these assertions in one sentence to me seems to be a biased statement, not one of fact or supported by citation. I will not suggest that it is consciously done, but nonetheless it should be recognized as an assertion of local or individual opinion rather than fact and either be removed or amended.

I hope this does not sound offensive, that is not my intent - this is my first time suggesting an edit. 50.70.16.104 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a pentagram on the image of the flag?

Seems suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nivstein (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

June 21, 2009 agreement

The lead section says that Denmark maintained control of police and judiciary as part of the June 21, 2009 agreement. But in the body of the article, it says the opposite — that Greenland assumed self-government in those areas. Which is it? 76.169.117.161 (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead section was inaccurate. I´ve corrected it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Written records

The "Norse Settlement" section says:

Apart from some runic inscriptions, no contemporary records or historiography survives from the Norse settlements.

But then the caption to the picture of the ruined church says:

The last written records of the Norse Greenlanders are of a marriage in 1408 in the church of Hvalsey

I find this confusing and contradictory. 86.167.125.50 (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

True, Norse settlement is ancient dating back 85,000 years, was a 200,000 year old civilization. Proof is that if greenland were looked correctly at, the top indentation on google earth would explain it was half of its continent of today and flipped over. Britain hit the top ridge, and cuba as well, was centered in the atlantic. No need to edit it. Case closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd666 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Suicide statement in lead

The final sentance of the lead states that "According to a 2011 consensus, Greenland holds the highest suicide rate in the world". However the two references given are from 2009 & 2010. --LukeSurl t c 15:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll remove that from the lead. It is not necessary to include it there, we dont tend to have a paragraph on major social problems in leads of articles about the worlds countries.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Contrary to the assertion here of this article's language variation being established in 2002, it was actually established later, in 2003, here. I have therefore changed the tag. Inglok (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you, Inglok, and to support Oxford spellings in this article. MOS:RETAIN is clear on this – you cite a page that can be considered the first non-stub version of the article. While that edit was poorly spelled in other respects, it did establish Oxford spelling with the word "rumoured" rather than "rumored". Looks to me like any later change to American English was not in accord with the guideline. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 13:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know how that edit of December 15, 2003, "can be considered the first non-stub version of the article". I didn't see any "Stub" heading on previous versions of the article that was suddenly not visible on the December 15, 2003, version. How do you determine that?CorinneSD (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
A stub article is one because of its size and limited content, not whether or not it was tagged as a stub. If I were to come across an article that looks like this, there's a fair chance that I'd tag it with a stub template. Not so much for an article that looks like this, which is developed well enough to definitely not be considered a stub article. Bottom line, CorinneSD, is that it's always a judgement call, and some contributors might disagree with my assessments above. What we must ask ourselves is pretty much summarized at MOS:RETAIN:
In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive.
To me, this means that past community consensus has led to the wise sentences above, and so, do we really want to involve ourselves in a debate like this? (That's not to say we shouldn't question those things that appear to be inconsistent. That's always okay and that's how we grow as editors.) – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 02:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
To editor Inglok: I took the opportunity to research a little deeper, because the edit you cite to establish Oxford spelling really did not do so. In that rendition of the early article there was still an American-spelled "colonization" rather than "colonisation". So the edit you cite merely added an Oxford-spelled "rumoured" (rather than "rumored") to an article that already had an American spelling. The only thing that edit did was to mix the spellings in the article and really didn't establish anything. I checked every edit after that up until this edit in September, 2005. That edit altered "rumoured" to "rumored", the American spelling. I went through that entire rendition of the early article and found two more American spellings and no Oxford spellings. The two other American spellings were the words "materialize" and "colonization", the latter having been there since the second edit in 2002. This does appear to establish American spelling as the preferred spelling for this article. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 17:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth:. "Colonization" is the Oxford spelling (American and British English spelling differences#-ise, -ize (-isation, -ization). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Either way I'd serious challenge the notion that this is when the article went from being a stub to not a stub. At most it's the edit that added British "ou" spelling to an article that was already using the American/Oxford "ize". Were any specifically American spellings used after that point?--Cúchullain t/c 15:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to admit that now I'm not too sure. "Colonization's" root, "colony" comes down from Latin, and the way I read the paragraph at Oxford spelling#Defining features, the British spelling "-ize" was retained for words of Greek origin, of which "colony" is not. To me, it follows that "colonisation" would be the correct Oxford spelling, while "colonization" would be the American type. Frankly, I'm no expert, but I found that cited paragraph to be pretty clear. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 15:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, "Colonize" is what's used in the OED.--Cúchullain t/c 15:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Then, at best, "colonize" is both the American and the Oxford spelling. The other word I mentioned, "materialize", is also of Latin roots ("material"), so apparently it, too, is a mixture of both American and Oxford spelling. When the word "rumoured" was added with the cited edit, it was added to an article that was already a mixture of American/Oxford spelling. Then "materialize" was added at some point, which merely continued the mixture. When "rumoured" was changed to "rumored", it cannot be said that it definitively made the article American spelling, so I was wrong. However, by that time the article was definitely not a stub article, so this is decidedly a tough call. I would not have tagged the "rumoured" edit as a stub, because it gave enough info to be a "start" article. But that may still be a judgement call. The thing that matters is that by the time it was changed to "rumored", it definitely was not a stub article, so that edit may be called into question. Was it correct? thereby making the article American spelling? or was it incorrect, thereby making the article Oxford spelling? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 16:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the courteous, thoughtful exchanges here, and I find the discussion quite interesting. Since I was not even able to find the particular moments when these edits were made, I cannot add anything on these points. However, I would like to remind my fellow editors that the differences between American and British English go beyond spelling to include both vocabulary (apartment/flat; elevator/lift; truck/lorry; aluminum/aluminium, etc.) and some grammatical structures that are often quite subtle, including, for example, when using the verb "do" as a kind of verbal pronoun or substitute to avoid repeating a verb: British: I said I would fix the drawer, and you can see that I have done. American: I said I would fix the drawer, and you can see that I have. and in some past participles: British: They have got lost. American: They have gotten lost. When one reads an article, essay, or book, even if one ignores spelling differences, one can pick up these slight differences and determine whether the writer was a speaker of American or British English. I feel that, overall, the article on Greenland is written in American English. But, that's just my impression. I prefer American spelling, but if there is consensus on changing all spelling to British English style, I would not object. – CorinneSD (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've been looking and looking for all kinds of such differences and have found none in the early edits. The word "rumoured" was the first specific difference between Oxford and American. When that word was changed to "rumored", it was still the only specifically Oxford spelling in the article, and the article at that time was not by any means a stub article. At this point, unfortunately perhaps, I have to stick with my initial choice. The word "rumoured", which may or may not have been added to a stub article that remained a stub article for a bit longer, survived in the article from this edit made in December, 2003, until this edit that was made in September of 2005, nearly two years. I can find no other specifically American nor Oxford spellings nor grammar in that later rendition of the article, which was definitely not a stub article. My lack of expertise notwithstanding, I would have to call that 2005 edit a poor edit and agree that this article should be in British-English style. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 18:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for a good article. -- AstroU (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Norse People

I know for a fact that Erik the Red was banished to Greenland claiming it for the Norse, and he went there long before the "native" Inuit people got there. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Geography and climate section

The section should be split up and left aligned images are bad for reading imho. prokaryotes (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article says "Apart from some runic inscriptions, no contemporary records or historiography survives from the Norse settlements." However, at the article Hvalsey Church it says "the Church was also the location of the last written record of the Greenlandic Norse, a wedding in September 1408". These two statements are not compatible (I assume that the marriage record was not a "runic inscription"). 109.145.19.117 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The wedding was recorded in Icelandic records, not by the people at Hvalsey themselves. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks, if you feel inclined to make the phrasing "also the location of the last written record of the Greenlandic Norse" clearer, especially the underlined part, that would be useful. 109.145.19.117 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Greenland. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Approximately the major

This text is in the Biodiversity block: "the fishing industry is a major part of Greenland's economy, accounting for approximately the major of the country's total exports." What does that even mean? Is it the majority or isn't it? Jogar2 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Renewable energy sources

According to the introduction, Greenland is the country with the highest percentage of energy produced from renewable sources: it quotes a 70% figure I've managed to find in a press release, attributed to Palle Christiansen, Greenland's Minister of Finance: http://www.nib.int/news_publications/cases_and_feature_stories/223/hydropower_creates_clean_energy_and_jobs_in_greenland

There are several issues regarding this.

First, according to Renewable_energy_in_Iceland, Greenland would at most be second in renewable energy sources, given the 75% figure attributed to Iceland. That quote can be reframed to something like "one of the countries with a higher use of renewable energy sources". Or maybe there are different categories being considered (maybe one takes into account transportation, while the other doesn't?).

Second, the fact that the only quote I managed to find is from a press release makes the figure... questionable. If the search were to be done in Danish, more references might be found, probably even the Minister's quote in a newspaper or some official document. I don't speak Danish, so this is as far as I'll go. There might also be some international organization which tracks this info and release yearly or regular updates, but I don't know where to start looking.

Third, given such a high ranking as a consumer of renewable energy, it is quite strange that the whole article makes no mention of that again. The only instance of "renewable", "energy" or "electricity" beyond the introduction is in the Economy section: "Electricity has traditionally been generated by oil or diesel power plants, even if there is a large surplus of potential hydropower. Because of rising oil prices, there is a programme to build hydro power plants. The first, and still the largest, is Buksefjord hydroelectric power plant." I think this subject should receive some attention in the article: what are these renewable sources? hydropower? wind? thermal? Are these figures expected to improve with planned infrastructure? Maybe not to the extent of creating a completely new article, as was done with Iceland, but at least provide some information. Other interesting information would be how Greenland ranks in per capita greenhouse gas emissions.

P.S.: this The Guardian article might be relevant: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/28/independent-greenland-could-not-afford-to-sign-up-to-paris-climate-deal According to it, a lot of the energy consumed by the country is still produced by fuel plants, and it might go higher, as plans for new mining plants would raise electricity requirements beyond what they currently produce. The per capita figure is, however, tricky, because of the low population density of the country.

Elideb (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit needed

The seventh paragraph in Greenland#Geography_and_climate starts with: in eastern Greenland, the largest sund/fjord system in the world.

It is pretty clear that something is missing but it is not at all clear what is missing. Perhaps editors more familiar with the subject matter can tell whether something was inadvertently removed in an edit or otherwise no how this paragraph should start.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Done, it was an image caption that was out of wack.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Blockquote

The use of <blockquote> in section Geography and climate makes it appear strange (narrow strip of text), at least at somewhat high zoom levels in a web browser. Shouldn't it be changed? --Mortense (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't this a FA

This is one of the most beautiful articles that I've come across. The images are amazing and the prose is great. In any case, thanks to the editors for working so hard and making this enjoyable to read. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 03:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Greenland is not the largest island in the world.

Map of Greenland bedrock

Greenland is not the largest island in the worrld as it consist of three, four minor island with ice covering it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.206.106 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You sure about that? It looks like if the ice melted there would be a big lake in the middle. And there's isostatic rebound to factor in. Mojoworker (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
There was talk over a decade ago about this....but disproved soon after read me.--Moxy (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The "lake" you (using geoscope) see in the middle is just all the ice and snow covering all the four islands that you think is just one big island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.206.106 (talk • contribs)

You are mistaken. The map has no ice, since it is a map of bedrock, as it clearly states in both the title and description. The "lake" portion is the only part below sea level (if the ice were suddenly magically removed – and then the entirety of Greenland would begin to rise due to isostatic rebound). Mojoworker (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Section on Postglacial glacier advances on the peninsula Nuussuaq

I did not want to delete this section, but I thought it had very little bearing to the general description of Greenland's geopgraphy and climate - it is very specific and detailed. Besides that, the section is poorly written and virtually unreadable.

I would recommend deleting this and instead adding a link to the main wikipedia article on Greenlands icesheet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

2601:280:4B00:590D:5DBF:493D:D2C2:D198 (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Norsmen colonisation and eskimos settlements?

what difference between colonisation and settlement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.140.130.86 (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Colony:
The Thirteen Colonies are perfect examples of what a colony is. They were owned by England - "another country". The eight Norse sod buildings found at L'Anse aux Meadows, the only confirmed Norse site in North America outside of Greenland, and described by Parks Canada as a small encampment, was not a colony as it was not owned by "another country". England, France, and Spain are countries, the Norse were not a country. The meaning of "settlement" is very ambiguous, but it is not the same as a colony.

  • Merriam-Webster "a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state."
  • Simple English Wikipedia ​"A colony is a place controlled by another country. The metropolitan state is the country that owns the colony.
  • Wiktionary colony (plural colonies)​
1. Governmental unit created on land of another country owned by colonists from a county​​
2. A settlement of emigrants who move to a new place, but remain culturally tied to their original place of origin​​
3. Region or governmental unit created by another country and generally ruled by another country.​​

Jerry Stockton (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I've noticed that when you cursor over a link for "Greenland," the resulting navigation popup begins with, "Greenland IS VERY BIG..." I'm guessing that somebody put it there as a joke, but who knows? Should it be there? And how do you edit text on a navigation popup? Thanks. Noble Oni (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Future of greenland

Greenland will be independent from Denmark in near future Nittin Das (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the Constitution of Denmark

Wikipedia is not the constitution of a specific country; neither we support legalistic religious racism.

  • apply that correction: Church of Denmark (official), irreligion

they have locked the page probably being monoreligionists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:2600:5C90:70E9:13C6:2516 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Constituent country

please change ((constituent country)) to ((constituent state)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:2D45:1D4A:46D4:9F73 (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done, the constituent countries of Denmark seem to be called constituent countries. – Þjarkur (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Þjarkur: Aren't constituent states and constituent countries equivalent? Idiacanthus 19:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I would have thought so, but we'll have to reflect how sources describe things. It seemed the standard way to describe Greenland was as "a constituent country". We could maybe link it as [[constituent state|constituent country]] if we find sources describing it as such. Or [[autonomous administrative division|autonomous constituent country]] like the Faroe Islands article does, although I'm not sure which way is the most descriptive. – Þjarkur (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Þjarkur: this source here seems to indicate Greenland as an autonomous administrative division: http://www.gfbv.it/3dossier/eu-min/autonomy.html#r2

Can you please change the "Greenland map of Köppen climate classification.svg" to "Greenland map of Köppen climate classification.png"? There are two versions of this, but the shape of the png is less distorted than the svg. The svg looked too squished vertically. Entity Valkyrie (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Grünland listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Grünland. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ancient biomolecules from deep ice cores

I've just removed this paragraph that was out of place in the section "Climate change" and was a copy-paste of a dubious pop-science magazine repeat of this ice core study: [1] The study may however be relevant to mention in Flora and fauna of Greenland. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Willerslev, E.; Cappellini, E.; Boomsma, W.; Nielsen, R.; Hebsgaard, M. B.; Brand, T. B.; Hofreiter, M.; Bunce, M.; Poinar, H. N. (2007-07-06). "Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland". Science. 317 (5834): 111–114. doi:10.1126/science.1141758. ISSN 0036-8075. PMC 2694912. PMID 17615355.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) Study summarized in: University of Copenhagen. "Fossil DNA Proves Greenland Once Had Lush Forests; Ice Sheet Is Surprisingly Stable". Science Daily. Science Daily. Retrieved 16 August 2019.

Buying Greenland

I was asked about this on my talk page and thought I should explain my edit here too. By inserting a sentence on Trump's idea into the end of the history section it makes it sound like this is the most significant thing that happened in Greenlandic history for the last 10 years. And it really is not, this is just some little idea that will go nowhere and affect nothing. At this stage it feels to me like WP:NOTNEWS applies, along with WP:UNDUE.

Here's another way to think about this: Should we add a sentence on this to the Donald Trump article? I think we probably shouldn't, this is such an insignificant part of Trump's career that it's probably not worth mentioning at this stage. But it's an even less significant part of Greenland's history.

This was a minor blip on August 16. As of today (August 21) it has turned into a significant incident that is leading the news in the US and Europe. Do you wait until US aircraft carriers are steaming into the port of Nuuk before it is considered relevant to the story of Greenland that people around the world are looking to learn? The Premier's quote that Greenland is not for sale is essential information that people are seeking, and that needs to be in a prominent location to pre-debunk the inevitable crowd of people who believe whatever comes from the man in the Oval Office. Malangali (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It's true that this is an idea that has been pursued with more seriousness in the past and there would be nothing wrong with writing about that. There's probably even enough material for a separate article on Attempts by the United States to purchase Greenland and it would be fine to deal with Trump's version of this there. Haukur (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, although it does lighten the mood in this article, it's just too minor to mention. The section went quickly over the entire history of their home rule, and then mentioned offhand comments by a foreign politician. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I would be in favor of including it if it had some context and wasn't just to mock Trump. There was an apparent attempt by the Truman administration to buy it in the mid-1940s, primarily for its strategic military value:
Nelson, W. Dale (May 2, 1991). "Wanna Buy Greenland? The United States Once Did". AP News. Retrieved August 16, 2019.
The plan varied over time. Variations considering offering to swap Point Barrow in Alaska for Greenland, and separate treatment of oil rights. Apparently it never went anywhere past an offer that was tendered to the Danish foreign minister when he was in New York in 1946; and it became moot once Denmark and the US signed a treaty allowing the US to maintain military bases there. TJRC (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
[edit] I see now this is already covered in the article, in the first paragraph. Given that, at most, it would rate an additional sentence along the lines of, "according to reports in 2019, President Donald Trump also expressed interest in acquiring the territory.[cite]"
By the way, a little more detail on the 1940s proposal is in Rytter, Jens Elo (2010). Phasing Out the Colonial Status of Greenland, 1945-54: A Historical Study. Museum Tusculanum Press. pp. 49–50. ISBN 9788763525879. TJRC (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
How come the History of Greenland can go into detail about the previous attempted purchases, but it's forbidden to mention this one? Do you people have some kind of political agenda against news relating to Donald? Yes, I'm talking about my edit that was undone. I came back to add the by now available response from the danish government, but apparently the matter is too insignificant to speak of and/or has to be covered up, like it never happened. GMRE (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, as for the above excuse of "By inserting a sentence on Trump's idea into the end of the history section it makes it sound like this is the most significant thing that happened in Greenlandic history for the last 10 years." It's not my fault that greenland is such a boring place where noting else has apparently happened in recent history. How is the lack of other events even relevant? GMRE (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Lots of things happen in Greenland like in every country. But we have no Greenlandic editors and so this article and History of Greenland tend to reflect an outside perspective to an embarrassing degree – we are reporting on Greenland insofar as Europeans and Americans interact with it and not as a living breathing country with its own people and culture. But even by that standard this latest piece of transient trivia is especially bad. Haukur (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, in the context of Greenland as a whole, it's more of a blip, isn't it? Greenland covers a lot of material, well beyond its history. Arguably, neither of the attempts -- neither of which have amounted to much -- should be in the main article, and the History of Greenland article is the right place to treat it. TJRC (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this is an ineffectual momentary news in terms of the whole history. I added about it to the "strategic importance" section of the History of Greenland article and the person who undid my edit directed me to this talk page. Naturally by now I have not only readded my edit there, but improved it to include the response from the government of Denmark. That section of that article exists for no other reason than that exact kind of news. GMRE (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Denmark–United States relations feels like a reasonable place for this information and, indeed, someone has already added it there. I still don't feel it belongs in the main Greenland article but I am not going to fight a revert war here. Haukur (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

And now Kim Kielsen expresses interest in Greenland buying America.[5] I assume this important matter will be immediately added in a prominent place on the United States article. Haukur (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course the Greenland page should feature this moment. More people will visit the Greenland Wikipedia page in the next 24 hours than have in the past 365 days. Wikipedia exists to provide people with the information they are looking for, not to decide what information is palatable for their pretty eyes. If you want to provide a gentle redirect to a more informative article about Danish-American diplomatic relations, then keep the text about the current incident short - but keep it, don't delete it. Malangali (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I've now added a link to Proposed United States purchase of Greenland. The section in question needs some work, though. Haukur (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I think my most recent edit leaves the article saying the right amount, in the right place. The issue may need to be revisited if the US threatens an invasion, or if the idea becomes a basis for invoking the 25th Amendment Malangali (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there any evidence this is more than yet another Trump spews something crazy to get the media in a tizzy? I think this should be kept out until it is shown to be more than NOTNEWS. Springee (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I still agree with this. Note that no-one is adding this to the Donald Trump article but this is still much more about Trump than it is about Greenland. However, now that we have an article about buying Greenland, the Greenland article ought to be able to link any searching readers access to this information if they're looking for it. But we need to find a good wording which doesn't give this WP:UNDUE weight. Haukur (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
At this point, our otherwise-chronological history section jumps from 1946 to 2019 to 1950.
So far as I can see, this addition completely fails the ten-year test. This is basically a Trump thing, only tangentially connected to Greenland. I see no reason to include it. Kahastok talk 21:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Ten year test is not a wikipedia policy or guideline. Right now, the addition meets notability. Greenland is a tiny country - in terms of its global influence. That's not a criticism, it's merely stating the facts. This incident made global headlines and news, and it is still coming up in media several days later. Based upon Greenland's overall global influence, this is a significant incident in Greenlands history - otherwise, Denmark would never have even responded to it. The interest in 'buying' Greenland is clearly notable, and meets the inclusion criteria. Anastrophe (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Stuff can get a lot of media attention and search hits without attaining encyclopedic significance. We don't have an article on Belle Delphine and no mention of her in any other article either. But in this case we do have a whole article now on Proposed United States purchase of Greenland and a perfect place to discuss minor diplomatic spats at Denmark–United States relations. The Greenland article can link to both of those in some appropriate place but it doesn't need to actually discuss this beyond that. If it ever actually looks like this idea will have some real consequences for anyone or anything then we can revisit it. Haukur (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I have no strong disagreement with this. However, the fact that wikipedia is a 'living' encyclopedia gives some latitude. I think in the moment, there is no harm in the mention, along with a pointer to the main article on 'purchase of greenland' - in fact, it's quite reasonable, and people are clearly coming to this article as a first stop to learning more. So including the mention - for now - isn't really a big deal. Leave it for a week or two, then remove it, after interest has fully waned. I think excluding it right now, while it is of public interest, is a disservice to the general reader. Anastrophe (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Questionable accuracy on the naming of Greenland being a land scam

In the article it states "Erik the Red's recruitment of others to settle in Greenland has been characterized recently as a land scam, the scam (and the name) portraying Greenland as better farm land than in Iceland" - i wish to dispute the accuracy of this. The quote that the citation leads to is "men would be more readily persuaded thither if the land had a good name." which in itself does not imply that it is a land scam. The argument behind it being a land scam is Greenland is currently covered in roughly 81% ice. I dispute this based on the fact that the western coast of Greenland was farmed during this time, which today is perrenially frozen. Thus, the land scam claim is basing this claim off todays climate in greenland rather than that of the the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkellly (talk • contribs) 11:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

​I've removed it, the source appears to be a self-published source and was a bit of an exaggeration. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The Greenlandic language is NOT indigenous

The name of the country in the indigenous Greenlandic language is Kalaallit Nunaat ("land of the Kalaallit").[24] The Kalaallit are the indigenous Greenlandic Inuit people who inhabit the country's western region.
Can the mention of the Greenlandic language as indigenous be removed? See this discussion.--Adûnâi (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Since there are more indigenous languages in Greenland it maybe should be called “Greenlandic languages” --80.210.75.105 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

insert an internal link to fjord under the "History" chapter "Norse settlement" subchapter 50.200.76.222 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done The first instance of the word "fjords" (in the second sentence of the Norse settlement section) is already linked. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

HDI

The source for Greenland’s HDI seems outdated, and was published 2012. ThisIsMyUserName4321 (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: please specify which of the external links you would like to get rid of. I'd keep at least the Overviews and data and Government links. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Finnusertop, I say this. I'm particularly aggressive about removing archived links unless they are very valuable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Fine. Let's see if someone objects. The tag had waited for action for a year. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Came under Inuit control?

What is this: the article says "After the Norse settlements died off, Greenland came under the de facto control of various Inuit groups". Is the author locked in a view that there needs to be a dominating power? I suppose the Inuit just lived on as before, perhaps some of them settling where the Norse had lived. The Norse settlement(s) never had any control "on Greenland", and I strongly doubt some Inuit kingdom was established. --LPfi (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The Norse actually arrived on Greenland BEFORE the Inuit. The Vikings weren't the first people to reach the island (several Amerindian cultures had an on-again/off-again presence on the island), but the Inuit arrived from the west several centuries after the Vikings and began their own colonization (they weren't "native" to the island at the time of the first Viking settlement). So the Inuit were in a process of expansion and colonization at at time when the older Norse colonies were in decline. In the late 1300s, nearly 400 years after the first Viking settlement, reports of Inuit attacks on long-established Viking settlements started to appear as the colonizing Inuit spread southward along the west coast.
Now, the last known contact between Greenland and the rest of the Nordic world was sometime in the early 1400s. Nobody knows what happened to the remaining Norsemen in the following centuries. 300 years later, in the 1700s, it wasn't even clear if they were still around (they weren't, but no one knew for sure). By then, the Inuit had very much laid claim to the island, but modern Denmark, a sort of successor to the the much older Kingdom of Norway political union, still laid claim to the island, a claim which pre-dated the Inuit who had come to dominate the land. It's fascinating stuff.
So, in the conext of Greenland, it's inaccurate to assume "the Inuit just lived on as before," as their culture was expanding on the island at the time the Viking culture was declining. It was a new frontier for them.
A lot of people seem to think the Inuit were already there when the Vikings came(they weren't). A lot of people seem to think the Vikings all packed up and left one day (there's no report of a mass exodus of Vikings from Greenland in the 1400s). No one knows for sure what happened.
I suspect some left, some died from famine and disease, some were killed off by the expanding Inuit, and the remainder simply got absorbed into the newly-arrived Inuit populace. 300 years later, when Europeans re-appeared, they couldn't really find anyone that looked Nordic after all those generations.
71.226.227.121 (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

nearly incomprehensible section

" In 1973, Greenland joined the European Economic Community (EEC) with Denmark. However, in a referendum in 1982, a majority of the population voted for Greenland to withdraw from the EEC, which was effected in 1985 and then changed its status to an OCT (Overseas Countries and Territories) associated with the EEC (now the European Union (EU)). The associated relationship with the EU also means that all greenlandic nationals are EU citizens.[18]"

Can someone who understands this please rewrite it so that the rest of us can understand it? They left the EU so now they're EU citizens? Breaking up that 60-word sentence would likely help. Thanks.

WikiAlto (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Minor error

The Black Death hit Norway in 1349, not in the 15th century. I suggest correcting that in the opening paragraph. Elendil 03 (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There’s also a mention further into the paragraph. Maybe the reference to the Black Death should be removed instead. Elendil 03 (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Changed to "after Norway was hit" – Thjarkur (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Misleading and misinterpreted information in the Languages subsection

The sentence in question is the following:

While one strategy aims at promoting Greenlandic in public life and education, developing its vocabulary and suitability for all complex contexts, there are opponents of this.[1]

I read the cited article and it's talking about English marginalizing Danish, not Greenlandic.Ourdearbenefactor (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McGwin, Kevin (2018-05-09). "A Nuuk plan to marginalize the Danish language in Greenland worries Copenhagen". Arctic Today. Archived from the original on 17 August 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-17.
Have removed. The source was added to an unsourced paragraph in this edit but the editor does not appear to have read the sources added in detail. Might be worth checking if the other sources added in that edit are correct. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

2409:4063:4E03:2F57:E037:3E2B:3B64:6501 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 14:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Donald Trump’s 2019 suggestion of buying Greenland in history section?

It’s a fairly major news event for the US president to have suggested purchasing the country, despite no practical way of carrying it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.143.152 (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Why not? Just fork out the cash, and it’s yours. But if the Danes won’t sell, then that’s that. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:F9D8:8A26:E223:4522 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Protected

Why on earth is an article about Greenland protected? What’s that about?? 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:F9D8:8A26:E223:4522 (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of "Template:Largest cities of Greenland"

Template:Largest cities of Greenland has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greenland/Archive_2&oldid=1136777430"