Talk:History of Greenland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Greenland article.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Featured article star History of Greenland is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy History of Greenland appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 3, 2004.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified History of Greenland as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Spanish or Ukrainian language Wikipedias.
Former featured article removal candidate This article is a former featured article removal candidate. Please see the archive to see why its featured status was upheld.

To-do list for History of Greenland:

 edit - history - watch - refresh
  • Maintain at FA status!

Contents

[edit] Old talk

'the only territory to leave the European Union'? - not so. Algeria won independence from Europe along with its independence from France.--XmarkX 14:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but Algeria's independence came in 1962 while the EU as we know it today was not formally recognized until 1993. True, there were similar organizations before the EU, but they aren't really seen as one in the same, are they? I think the statement you removed is actually correct and should be reinstated. -- Hadal 15:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Update: It looks like Rmhermen thinks so too, and has reverted your changes. That settles that, eh? -- Hadal 14:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how a revert "settles" anything. I believe both views are correct in their own way. As the statement could be interpreted as both true and false, and seeing that it's not a very important statement anyway, I'm in favour of leaving it out. -- Jao 10:23, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
Of course a revert doesn't settle anything; nothing on a wiki really does. I was using a figure of speech, for heaven's sake; because I was the only one responding to Mgekelly's removal of the statement and wasn't getting any reply, Rmhermen's (if I'm not mistaken one of this article's primary authors, another being yourself) revert could be interpreted as an agreement. As for the statement itself, I don't see how it could be both right and wrong (and if it were so ambiguous, why it was included in the first place). How could Algeria leave a union that did not yet exist? Neither you nor Mgekelly have explained (and please forgive my ignorance). It may be trivia, but it's interesting trivia. I've heard/read the factoid elsewhere from a reputable source (scotsman.com I think), so I'm genuinely curious. A quick Googling found this quote from Marius Vahl of the Centre for European Policy Studies:
"There is nothing in the treaties in force today that stipulates how a country may leave the European Union.... No country has left the European Union. The only one that left the European Union is actually Greenland. But that was not a country in itself. It was a part of Denmark"[1]
Again, I'm not trying to irritate anyone here. I simply want to know. :) -- Hadal 20:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ok, how about: "The only territory to have left the EU in its current form (or incarnation or whatever) "? Either way, I agree with JNE, a great article --Dyss 13:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I meant, my logic was as follows: Greenland did not leave the EU 'as presently constituted', but an earlier version, the EC. Algeria left an even earlier version, the EEC. So either way, Greenland is not unique in this. Indeed it is commonly said that Algeria is the only territory to have left the EU, which apparently is false too. In any case, I agree with Jao that this is in fact a really pointless piece of trivia anyway, which is a reason I felt no compunction in removing it. --XmarkX 05:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ignoring the EU discussion...

A lovely article. I'm very impressed. -JNE, 00:36, 03 October 2004 (Visiting without my user ID)

[edit] Questions

You mention a written marriage record from 1405. I understand this record had been conserved in Denmark, not in Greenland ?

I understand from the article that Denmark stopped navigation to Greenland early in the 15th century, and we have no information about what became of the settlements. What should be available, however, is information about what the Danish knew and thought about Greenland in the following 200 years, before they decided in 1721 to look after them.

[edit] Claim of "Largest Island"

My dictionary describes and island as "a tract of land entirely surrounded by water". Under this definition, surely Australia is the largest island. Down here we are taught that we inhabit the largest island and the smallest continent...

Not trying to be picky. Just pointing out a different view. Cheers John Henriksen

I think if the island is big enough, it is considered a "continent" and not an "island." Therefore, Australia is a continent, Greenland an island. Of course, since the division between continent and island is probably arbitrary, it's probably just a matter of personal opinion... Brutannica 22:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it has to be either an island or a continent. If Australia is both, then Eurasia is a much bigger island, since that is also completely surrounded by water.
My understanding is that Australia is commonly seen as a continent, while Greenland is an island. I think this doesn't only have to do with the amount of land area, but also with the fact that Australia has its own unique biota, while Greenland isn't very different from Northern Canada.
It might also have to do with tectonic plates, since Greenland is part of the North American plate, while Australia has its own.--MaxMad 09:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The wikipedia entry on continents is excellent on this issue. It's not to do with tectonic plates, since they were only discovered relatively recently. Eurasia is not an island, since it is physically joined to Africa. The main reason that Eurafrica (Europe, Asia and Africa) is not an island is that it includes numerous smaller islands: Madacasgar, Japan, Britain. Australia the continent would include Tasmania, an island - Australia the island would not. Anyway, Australia is normally considered these days to be a part of a continet 'Oceania' which includes New Guinea and New Zealand etc. Australia the political entity includes numerous small islands. I'm not sure that there is an Australia which is just an island actually - you'd call that the Australian mainland, since no-one's going to want to say that Tassie, Fraser Island etc. are not part of Australia in any sense at all. --XmarkX 05:16, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Detached from Denmark

Copied from psb777's user talk page:

Could you explain your objection to "effectively detached"? "Less influenced" seems far to slight since the island was occupied by the U.S. throughout the war which attacked any Germans found in the area. The U.S. even printed the postage stamps for the island. Rmhermen 03:40, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Greenland has always been geographically "detached" from Denmark. As the primary meaning of "detached" is to do with physical location it is awkward to use it in the way it is being used. It immediately calls to my possibly too literal mind a rapid continental drift and not the metaphorical meaning meant. Already we suffer in the paragraph in question from the pathetic fallacy - let's not make the para worse than it already is. "Effectively" really means "actually" but (I guess) it is being used with the opposite intention. I suggest the replacement of "effectively" with "politically" or "socially" or "militarily" or "culturally" or ? Or a combination thereof. You choose. Paul Beardsell 04:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I fail to agree that detach is primarily to do with physical location. It is primarily to do with lack of attachment, whether physical, mental, political, etc. Effectively means "in actuality or reality or fact" which is exactly what we mean hear. Legally Denmark was still owner of Greenland but in reality, in fact, in actuality Greenland was occupied, supplied, patrolled, controlled by the United States. Rmhermen 13:05, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I do not deny that "detach" has other common meanings. However those meanings have arisen from metaphorical uses of the original meaning and original derivation of the word. I am not saying you are wrong but that there must be a better phrasing to use. I contend the use of "detach" in a Greenland became more detached from Denmark context is like saying that financial damage will arise from the explosion of Mt St Helens. Yes, correct, and we all know what is meant, but the usage is potentially misleading, albeit it most likely only to a seven year old. Both are puns: Greenland moving away from Denmark and damage rising from the mountain. Paul Beardsell 12:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well? Paul Beardsell 23:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Less influenced" is wrong. I have explain this. Continuing to return it is to propagate errors intentionally. Compare this to the supposed possibly misinterpretation by a hypothetical seven-year old. Language is used this way all over and all over Wikipedia. Perhaps you would like to right for Simple English wikipedia where this is a constant concern. However if you have a better and correct phrasing, please go ahead. I also don't agree that these are puns. Rmhermen 01:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

The issue resolves to this: Has the sentence been improved? Yes. Paul Beardsell 15:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Best ask Jao as it was him that added basically all the content. Pcb21| Pete 19:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Return to the EU Question

This is one for those who spend to much time considering the ideas of sovreignity and such like: when East Timor 'left' Portugal in 1975, this was never recognised officialy; according to the East Timor article, it was a "non-self governing territory under Portuguese administration". Does this not mean that when it was recognised independent from Portugal in 2002, it also left teh EU?

oops, forgot to sign my comment Robdurbar 08:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What does this mean?

I'm baffled by: "Greenland was unknown to Europeans until the 10th century, when it was discovered by Icelandic Vikings. Before this discovery, it had been inhabited for a long time by Arctic peoples, although it was unpopulated when the Vikings arrived; the direct ancestors of the modern Inuit did not arrive until around 1200." Does this mean there had been inhabitants of Greenland before the Vikings, but they left before the Vikings arrived, and then the Inuit came later? If so, who were the pre-Viking settlers and where did they go? And what's the evidence for them? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 11:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly what it means. We have a paragraph on "Early Palaeo-Eskimo cultures". Rmhermen 14:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jared Diamond

In the links at least, some reference should be made to Jared Diamond's book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" which has an extensive section on the Viking settlements, which is probably the most approachable and available book on the subject for non-specialists. Snori 21:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edge

The prehistory of Greenland is a story of repeated waves of Palaeo-Eskimo immigration from the islands north of the North American mainland. As one of the furthest outposts of these cultures, life was constantly on the edge and cultures have come and then died out during the centuries. Of the period before the Scandinavian exploration of Greenland, archaeology can give only approximate times

The statement "on the edge" is meaningless in this context. On the edge of what? I suggest either survival or society ...or both.Guernseykid 04:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have said that the phrase "life was constantly on the edge and cultures have come and then died out" is fairly obvious. Certainly on the edge culturally is just worng. There are no Dorsets wearing tie-dye sealskins and open-toed mukluks. Rmhermen 04:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're responding to. I didn't say on "the edge culturally". If "on the edge" without reference is so obvious, please explain it to a numbskull like me. "On the edge" is a modern expressions with modern implications; it is imprecise and tries to pass on the strength of its currency today. I "think" I know what you mean but I don't "know" I know. It seems like an important paragraph, why not expand and clarify it beyond this issue.

What is the problem with my "centuries" comment in my other edit? Why don't you take a minute and explain your thoughts?

edit: Saw your comment. Nevertheless, the name has persisted until today. Wouldn't those practical Scandinavians have changed the name when the truth became obvious?Guernseykid 05:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well obviously they didn't change the name so that is an odd question. Why would they? And why would they have changed the name if it was a deceit but not if it was a climate change? You said on the edge socially - do you think there is a difference between the society of a culture and the culture of a culture? Rmhermen 05:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
If the sentence bothers you that much how about: "As one of the furthest outposts of these cultures, life was constantly precarious and cultures have come and then died out during the centuries." Rmhermen 06:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, simply go ahead and change the wording. Try terms like "precarious", "fragile", "vulnerable", "remote", "pioneer", "outpost", &c, and see how that works for yourself and others. Here are some links to pages that focus on the likely climatological causes to the extinction of the Greenlanders: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 09:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see, by the light of day, how "on the edge of society" is too ambiguous. I meant on the outskirts/fringes/edge of the Palaeo-Eskimo demographic group. I don't necessarily want to craft a new paragraph and I do find it an interesting concept, but simply "on the edge" has too many overtones of modern grunge/punk/drug/goth/etc. groups. I was trying to avoid this pitfall and ended up putting my foot deeper into it.

I would think that, after the first wave of Scandinavian immigrants, word would have gotten back to family and friends in the homeland that this was not by any means a "green land", and whatever you do don't come here or it will mean misery and death. However, if it was indeed "green", at least along the southern shore, people would have been reluctant to change an established name, one their ancestors had been using for centuries, when the climate shifted. I'll have to study your links more thoroughly, Adamsky, but link #6 seems to support the idea of climate change after several hundred years' occupation. Basically I'm concerned with the potential interpretation that Scandinavians were stupid enough to fall for any gambit, even one perpetrated by a fellow Norseman.

Side note: Iceland is further south than Greenland. I've heard that Iceland was once covered by trees. Odd disparity between Iceland/Greenland names. Guernseykid 15:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The theory is that is was called Greenland to get people to move there - once it was named it didn't change. Why would it? Any number of places still bear names unique to their discovery or early promotion - Nova Scotia, Easter Island, etc. It certainly did not mean "misery and death" to move there and the Viking settlements lasted for hundreds of years. Please remember that far from the noble truth-loving Scandanavians you want to imagine, the founder of Greenland was the exiled murderer and thief, son of a exiled murderer, and desperate to get some people to move to a new land with him.

The other line under discussion is "As one of the furthest outposts of these cultures, life was constantly on the edge and cultures have come and then died out during the centuries." It establishes at the beginning that the settlements were at the extreme range of geographical settlement, in the middle that life was therefore precarious and at the end that multiple settlements over time failed - not once from climate change at one time. It says nothing about cultural traits being different. I have no idea what "overtones of modern grunge/punk/drug/goth/etc. groups" the words on edge have, certainly I am not aware of any such meaning for that phrase. I suggest you consider choices like "precarious", "fragile", "vulnerable" if you think it is a problem. Rmhermen 17:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming/Erik the Red

Continuing from the "Edge" discussion above, after glancing through some histories today, one from Iceland, I can see your points. My point is that he couldn't very well have named it Greenland if there were nothing but ice there. Other Vikings had ships and could get there on their own, and other people had been there before. So I guess "marketing" fits, it just sounds gimmicky. But it also has little to do with the question of whether or not the land was actually covered in ice. It supported some minimal agrarian economy, so there must have been greenery.

I suggest: "he named it Greenland to make it more attractive to settlers."

As to the "noble" Scandinavians, I'm glad to have found someone to agree with me ;-), though they were a bit more the "noble savage" at that time. Erik was probably guilty of "manslaughter" and he wasn't sentenced to death, it was just that anybody on Iceland could kill him without penalty, so he left. There was no deceit in his action, everyone knew he did it. The Njal's Saga is one long story of murder and retribution, but no one is ever morally condemned (to the best of my memory) in the first half of the book, at least, before the Christian conversion. There was one slight moral judgment I remember, of a man who had too much emotional attachment to his wife. (!) Guernseykid 00:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The link provided to the word "murder" leads to an article that calls it "manslaughter". Guernseykid 13:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Frozen Echo (regarding the Norse period)

The Frozen Echo by Kirsten Seaver contests some of the more generally-accepted claims about the demise of the Greenland colony and I suggest that it deserves mention in this article. For example, Seaver surmises that the Greenland colony was healthier than commonly thought and that the Greenlanders didn't simply starve to death but rather were probably wiped out by Indian or unrecorded European attack, or abandoned the colony to either return to Iceland or to seek out Vinland. Would be happy to fold this information in if there is agreement that it would be worthwhile.--Caliga10 15:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Norse

"Obviously, the Norse knew that Greenland could not be a permanent place to settle because of the above factors". I'd suggest this needs to be rephrased as a) the Norse were only somewhat aware of most of the factors relating to the fragility of their existance and b) they settled there for 450 years so I suspect they intended to live there permanently.

Without some kind of citation, it does not seem there is evidence the Norse knew anything of the kind. Striking these sentence, as I don't see how it's based on historical data (no citation) and doesn't seem based on fact. JerryRitcey 20:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 81° N

I recently removed what I thought must be a typo regarding the latitude. Greenland is to this day still uninhabited north of 81° N, if it is even permanently inhabited at all. Siorapaluk is the northernmost settlement in Greenland and is only at 77°47' N. Kaffeklubben_Island is the northernmost point of land and is barely north of 81° N (at 83°40' N). Did the original editor mean 61° N? (Nanortalik near the southern tip is only 60° N.) Or 71° N? Ufwuct 15:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the original - which wasn't quite what was currently in the article but was also not entirely correct. The source is this page: [8]. It should say something along the lines of: "Although scattered hunting camps existed as far north as 81° N, permanent settlement was concentrated farther south. 18th century immigrants from Canada populated Avanersuaq in northwestern Greenland." Rmhermen 05:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
So are you okay with the way I have reworded it? I've also included your source. Ufwuct 15:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is ok. Rmhermen 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Shouldn't this article be merged with Greenland ?

By no means! First, it is too big. Second, such article exists in many wikipedias. I myself translated it into Ukrainian :). Verdi1 16:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Plus, this was/is a featured article. I've never heard of a featured article needing to be merged into a larger article. Has this ever happened before? Ufwuct 22:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources

The article could be improved by quotations and references to primary sources, such as Íslendingabók, Landnáma, Grœnlendinga saga, Eyrbyggja saga and Eiríks saga rauða. Take this paragraph, for example:

"The name Greenland (Grønland) has its roots in this colonization and is widely attributed to Erik the Red (the Inuit call it Kalaallit Nunaat, "Our Land"), and there has been speculation on its meaning. Some have argued that the coasts in question were literally green at the time due to the medieval climate optimum, in as much as the Viking settlers practised some form of an agrarian economy. Others have suspected that the name was in part a promotional effort to lure people into settling there by making it sound more attractive."

The "widely attributed" theory is quite vague. It would be worth mentioning that it is actually recorded in the early 12th century Íslendingabók which tells that Eric the Red named the country Greenland to entice people to go there. Haukur 16:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year of Discovery

In Daniel Woodley Prowse's book A History of Newfoundland on page 1 footnote it states; in the year 834 the Norwegians were acquainted with the country in the north called Grønland, commonly called Old Greenland to distinguish it from Spitzbergen. The article goes on further to state: In the charter of the Emperor Ludovicus Pius to St. Ansgharius, first Archbishop of Hamburg, dated 834, published by Lindenbrogius in 1706 (p. 125) it reads We make known to the present and future sons of God's Holy Church that, in our days, by divine grace, a door is opened for preaching the Gospel in the northern regions, viz., Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Greenland, Halingalandon, Iceland and Scredevindon. Can this claim be substantiated? HJKeats 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inuit

When did the Inuit arrive in Greenland? The article leave a blank between the decline of the Dorset culture and the arrival of the Norse. Didn't the Inuit arrive between them?--Cúchullain t/c 22:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the Inuit arrived afterwards as the article at least used to state. Rmhermen 00:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inuit is both singular and plural

I've edited the word "Inuits" to "Inuit".

[edit] Vegetation

"The only vegetation present were sedges and, on rare occasions, dwarf shrubs. Palynologists' tests on pollen counts and fossilized plants prove that the Greenlanders struggled with both soil erosion and deforestation.[3] Since the land was agriculturally inept, the Greenlanders resorted to pastoralism and hunting for food.[4]"

The only vegetation? No. There were willow and birch, plus grasses and introduced plants, as well. The next sentence even talks about "Greenlanders struggled with both soil erosion and deforestation". How can you have deforestation if there were no trees? Of course there were.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_Greenland_6f34.html"