Talk:Greenland/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

When was Greenland ever part of the Portuguese Empire?

What exactly justifies having a "Portuguese Empire" template box at the bottom of this article? --87.51.246.215 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken care of that.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Some maps maybe? Like Cantino 1502: http://docenti.lett.unisi.it/files/33/1/6/1/cantino.jpg They have followed Lavrador and Corte-Real explorations and claims. Câmara 16:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You can look at the discussion on the article about the Portuguese Empire. I think this should be mentioned. It's part of Greenland's History.

The Greenland archipelago?

See also (new) article:Greenland Ice Sheet Jens Nielsen 07:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If the Greenland ice cap were to completely melt away, Greenland would most likely be an archipelago instead of an island-continent like Australia.

It are not correctly, because the land wil do grow up, if weight of the ice do disappear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs) 22:41, 29 April 2003 (UTC)

That's probably correct but in the meantime it would be a bunch of islands (it would take centuries if not millenia for the land to rise to a "normal" level I would think). -- stewacide 08:32, 27 March 2004 (UTC)
it would take 20.000 years to melt Greenland away.
and the land never rise to a "normal" level, but rise quickly in start and slovly
slow later.
New map of the rocky ground show as Greenland is one island today.
Haabet 18:43, 15 April 2004 (UTC)
It's still a bit of a toss-up. Presumably raised sea-levels concomitant with the loss of the ice sheet would make at least some islands from parts of greenland, but one would need to see that sub-ice topographic map to know at what sea level this would break Greenland up altogether. Post-glacial rebound is, as stewacide says, not an immediate issue. Scotland is still rising from relief the weight of the Devensian glaciation, which was entirely gone 10 millenia ago. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 00:56, 28 March 2005 (UTC)

How can you separate the rising after the last 20 glaciations from the last 4 millenia ago, from the rising after Devensian glaciation.? Håbet 07:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The connection between north and south Greenland is a mountain ridge, about 50km broad and about 500m high. The first radar map was so primitive as the mountain ridge not been seen. Håbet 07:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Depression would cause a temprary trough that would fill up with melt water and become a giant lake. --Homer slips. 20:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

STOP CHANGING IT!!!!

Please stop changing the new Greenland format to the old one. You can add on to it, please don't revert it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Nagy (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 March 2004 (UTC)

'Australia Considered One'

It is the world's largest island (if continents are excluded and Australia is considered one). Wording is vague: when I read that, I presume that Australia is to be considered an island. Anyone else struck by the same? If not, ignore the ignorance, but if so rewording may be in order. Tolo 14:55, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

That's not the worst of it. Someone here considers Greenland a continent. Hey, Mic! Look at a map! It's part of the same island group as the Canadian Arctic Islands. Greenland is in North America, not a continent in its own right.-----------Kelisi 2005/2/4 —The preceding comment was added by Kelisi (talk · contribs) 02:12, 5 February 2005 (UTC).
The first examination (by ca. 50km uncertainty) of the land under the ice say Grenland is two Isles, but many later more precise examination say its is one island. But the first result is ineradicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 March 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that Australia should be excluded as being an island. Granted that "Australia" is considered a continent, but I think the continent is made up of more than one island or country (Australia, New Zealand).----------Mark, 7 April 2005 —The preceding comment was added by 152.163.101.6 (talk · contribs) 19:37 - 19:38, 7 April 2005 (UTC).

Is Australia a "Continent"? Some say that Australia is a continent unto itself, some say it is part of a continent called Oceania, others say it is part of a continent called Australasia. It all depends on the system you are taught and the regions you are trying to distinguish between. It is, however, widely recognised that Australia is a country which consists of a number of islands. The biggest of which (mainland Australia) spans nearly 7.6 Million Square Kilometres. This is by far the biggest 'single country' island in the world - Much larger than Greenland. In fact, Greenland at 2,166,086 sq km would easily fit into mainland Western Australia alone which measures 2,526,786 sq km. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.159.211 (talk • contribs) 13:31 - 13:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Australia is the world's largest island as well as being the smallest continent. Technically, greenland would be the second largest then. I'll make the change.--Tiberius47 04:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

None of this removes the fact that if you don't count continents as island and if you consider Australia to be a continent then Greenland is the world's largest island. Therefore - "It is the world's largest island (if continents are excluded and Australia is considered one" - is perfectly correct. Esquimo 15:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

NATO but not EU

I think that it's worth adding that Greenland is a member of NATO but unlike Denmark, not of the EU.--JBellis 22:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Australia is technically not a continent on its own.
Australia is part of the continent of Australasia (now known as Oceania) which includes other island nations like New Zealand, Fiji, Soloman Islands and others aswell as mainland Australia and Tasmania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.176.131 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 23 June 2005 (UTC)


fyi: Australia is of course a continent. The difference between a continent and an island is the climat. If a landmass is huge enough to cerate its own climat, it is a continent, and have contineltal climat. And this is the case with Australia. On the other hand, Greenlandtic climat is affected of the surrounding ocean, even on the top of the icecap. Therefore Greenland is an island.

Greenland part of North America?

It is obvious from looking at any map of North America that Greenland is largest and easternmost island in the Arctic Archipelago, most of which lies in Canada. It is definitely part of North America. (The only other choices would be Europe or Asia, over the North Pole -- and neither of those make any sense.)

As of 31 March 1917, when the United States purchased the Danish West Indian Islands for $25 million (renamed "U.S. Virgin Islands"), Greenland has been the only piece of the Danish Empire left in North America.

The other piece of the Danish Empire is the Faeroe Islands. They and Greenland were part of a string of colonial possessions that originally belonged to the Norwegian Empire -- Zetland (Shetland Islands), Orkney, Hebrides (all lost to Scotland), the Faeroes, Iceland, and Greenland; and, ever so briefly at the beginning of the 11th century, Vinland and Markland, in what is now the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The King of Norway then inherited the Danish throne, but the Kingdom of Norway and Denmark found itself on the wrong side of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 - and Norway (including Jan Mayen and Svalbard) was transferred to Sweden, while Denmark got to keep the old Norwegian colonies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.164.87 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If Greenland is part of North America then Cape Spear is not the easterly point on the continent, as some have suggested in recent debate. CBC News
Is Greenland even counted in the total surface area of North America? --Madchester June 29, 2005 15:46 (UTC)
In Denmark we certainly don't consider Greenland part of North America, and neither do we count the area under the official Danish area. Jens Nielsen 08:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well I see Greenland as a part of the North American continent (Geographically) and part of the Danish Realm (administratively). I seem to remember that some fact books show the area of denmark, then area of the entire Realm, the acumulated area of Greenland Faroe Islands and Denmark in ( ). As for the CBC story I agree with the guy saying its something to discuss over a beer, my treat :) Angelbo 02:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Somebody keeps adding the stub-category denmark-geo to locations in Greenland. Yes, Greenland belongs to the kingdom of Denmark, but I'm really startled to see Greenland locations mentioned as they were part of Denmark. It just does not seem right to me, even as a Dane. Is there a majority for not applying the Denmark-geo-stub to Greenlandic locations?Jens Nielsen 07:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue of independence

Someone should write about the issue of Greenland's independence please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.228.0.86 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Greenland's independence demand oil strikes. The land is big but cold, mountainous and stormy. without oil strikes no finances to pay the independence.Haabet 23:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Is there any opinion that Kalaallit Nunaat/Grønland/Greenland should join Canada, since Nunavut belongs to Canada? Everton 15:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

If any such movement existed, Danish media would have reported the story long ago. So the short answer to your question is "No", for a number of reasons. 1) the Danish royal family is very popular in Greenland. 2) Greenland effectively "runs its own show" with virtually all the powers it can wish, except conducting an independent foreign policy (Greenland hasn't complained about not running its own defence policy.) 3) Denmark continues to support the Greeenlandic economy with large amouts of money. I believe that former Danish Prime Minister Poul Schlüter declared around 20 years ago, that any mineral finds on/near Greenland would directly benefit the Greenlandic people, not Denmark, so that's still official Danish policy. 4) Denmark has agreed to transfer even more powers to Greenland. Most importantly, it appears that in the future, Greenland will be allowed to negotiate foreign affairs on the behalf of the entire Realm; if the issue solely relates to Greenland. If the issue relates to both Greenland and any other part of the Realm, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will handle the case but consult Greenland and the Faroe Islands first. The current arrangement might not be ideal in all respects, but I think most Greenlanders will agree with me that the current arrangement actually works.

Besides, I believe that (virtually) every party in the Danish parliament have said that should Greenland ask for outright independence, it will be granted. So if Greenland wishes to end the symbiosis with Denmark, then so be it. I can't really see that Canada has to offer that Denmark hasn't already offered? Except, of course, lessons in French :-) On a more serious note; one thing that Canada can match is the colours of the flag. I've been told that the Greenlandic anthem refers to "our red-white flag".) --Valentinian 13:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

mmm, Dannebrog is just as red and white as both the greenlandic and canadian flags.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. The anthem pre-dates the Greenlandic flag, and Greenlandic politicians wished to keep the it when Greenland introduced its own flag. But since it specifically referred to a red-white flag, this ruled out the many green-white flag proposals for a Greenlandic flag, e.g. the proposals of Sven Tito Achen, who suggested a white-green or green-white cross flag. Valentinian T / C 13:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think that joining Canada sound like a quite strange thing to do. If they were ever to join another country, I belive it should be Norway. As you know, Greenland and the Faroe Islands were robbed from Norway at the Kiel treaty in 1815. Greenland was after all part of Norway from 982AD-1815AD and Norway also claimed and occupied parts of the Island as late as the 1920's. But from a Greenlandic perspective, I support independce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.235.121 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree there should be some mention of it, as it is no trivial issue of discussion in Greenland. Then the size of the Danish subsidies should also be mentioned. If I remember correctly it is some 2 billion DKK, or equivalent to the entire import of Greenland and a good chunk of GDP. My personal opinion is that Greenland would not survive a month without these massive subsidies. Jens Nielsen 08:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
It should definitiley be mentioned that there is a general sentiment on greenland towards greater independence from Denmark. And naturally the practical problems involved in achieving such an independence such as lack of educated citizens, lack of selfufficiency in social services, healthcare and education, lack of economical sustainability etc. should all be mentioned.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Any such section should be well-referenced and explain the situation better than simply say that X percent support independence and Y percent support the Rigsfællesskab. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have that many native speakers of Greenlandic around. Just bear in mind that this is a sensitive topic. Valentinian T / C 13:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

International Memberships (EU, NATO)

Greenland is listed as special territory in Special member state territories and their relations with the EU#Greenland, noting that Greelanders DO possess EU citizenship, although Greenland itself does not possess EU membership. I find this odd. Does anybody know something which might clarify this? --The Minister of War 09:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The article states that Greenland left the EU in 1985 (under the Politics heading). Wikipedia's article for the European Union claims the EU wasn't formed until 1992 (which seems accurate). I'll leave the actual edit up to someone who knows for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.234.67 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The treaty provisions on "special territories" refer to lands under the control (in any sense of the word) of an EU member state but that are not to be considered full or partly within the EU. The rules are different for each territory. So France's territory in South America is fully under EU law except in some small areas to do with trade, while the UK's Isle of Man, is fully outside of the EU (even Isle of Man citizens are not EU citizens and cannot move or live on the continent) except in some small areas to do with trade. Greenland, whose territory is outside of EU, but whose people are EU citizens, is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Seabhcán 16:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did Greenland leave the EU, was it fear of losing control of fishing rights? If someone knows they need to add it to the article.

I don't understand the meaning of this. In what way would Greenland belong to the EU? Corsica, Sicily, Mallorca, the Frisian Islands, Bavaria, Yorkshire, and County Cork are all parts of countries that are EU members, but they aren't EU members themselves. —Largo Plazo 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The meaning is that Greenland is not an independent nation, as constitutionally speaking, both the Faroes and Greenland are completely integrated parts of the Kingdom of Denmark and foreign affairs are specifically excluded from the home rule arrangements covering these two regions. But when it comes to the EU, both territories remain outside of the EEC / EU in all respects. They are not part of the customs area and EEC / EU laws don't apply. This is not due to a constitutional arrangement, as the Danish constitution doesn't specify any special status for either region, in fact, the contrary is the case as § 1 states that "This constitution shall apply for all parts of the Kingdom of Denmark". However, when Denmark joined the EEC in 1973, the Faroese home rule administration managed to ensure that the Faroes were excluded from the EEC zone. I don't know why but fishing rights is probably a good guess. In 1985 the Greenlandic home rule administration ensured the same, and Greenland officially left the EEC. Such an arrangement had not been possible earlier since the Greenlandic home rule administration was only established in 1979. As a consequence, no customs union exists between the Faroes & Greenland vs. Denmark proper. Valentinian T / C 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Number of Norse Settlements?

from Greenland:

Icelandic settlers found the land uninhabited when they arrived ca. 982. They established three settlements near the very Southwestern tip of the island, where they thrived for the next few centuries.

from History of Greenland:

This colony reached a size of 3,000 to 5,000 people, initially in two settlements – the larger Eastern Settlement and the Western Settlement (of a peak size of about 1,000 people.)

Taken together, these statements suggest a third settleent that has been unmentioned in History of Greenland. Is this really the case? --Bletch 22:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember seeing a map years ago showing a third (minor) settlement between the two well-known ones. I'll try to find a source. --Valentinian 21:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the term Icelandic settlers are quite strange. The settlers arriving in Greenland were settlers from the island of Iceland, but all the people in Iceland were Norwegian. Iceland was a part of the kingdom of Norway. Although there is today a Icelandic culture and nation, this was not the case at the time around 1000ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.235.121 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Norway are from abut and the large settlement of Iceland was that time, the settlers was new Norwegian. The one of the first settlement of Iceland was about by Norwegian from Ireland.
The Iceland was independent 930 and fairly independent from Norway until 1262.Haabet 10:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

<-------- I disagree somewhat. Although you are right about it being fairly independent from 930-1262, it was still a part of the kingdom of Norway. Iceland had it's own "parliment"(the allting), so did parts of Norway( the gulating, borgating, etc). The people living on Iceland were Norwegian. (they were also irish and scottish norsemen). Fact is that Erik Raude was a norwegian. (Eirik Raude discovered Greenland) Eirik Raude was born in Norway, but had to flee to Iceland because of his fathers murders. Later he had to flee Iceland after himself comitting several murders. This was when he discovered a fair and temperate island similar to the climate of Norway, that he called Greenland. His son later on sailed further south to discover North America, presumebly at Newfoundland, which he named Vinland. The discussion here was who settled Greenland. As Eirik Raude clearly was a Norwegian, I must agree with the writer above that Norwegians discovered and settled Greenland, although they might be icelandic Norwegians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.235.121 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think nationality was such a big thing for people in these days, they probably just identified with the place they were living in at any given moment. The settlers of Greenland are for instance called 'Greenlanders' in the Saga of the Greenlanders but it would be hard to argue that they constituted a 'nation'. Nationalism is a fairly recent invention. --Bjarki 15:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the number of settlements mentioned are only two in all written medieval sources. But during the last 50 years extensive archaeological excavation in the old settlements archaeologists have frequently used the term “Middle settlement” (also in maps) for the 20 or so northernmost farms in the southern settlement – Eystribyggd”. These farms are quite remote from the rest of the settlement and constitute a separate cluster. Secondly, the obvious phrase for the settlers is Norse, not Icelandic nor Norwegian. And of course the idea of a nation in the modern sense did not exist at this time but surely the Greenlanders must have looked upon themselves as a separate group of people just as the Icelanders soon did after the settlement of Iceland. After all, the Norse Greenlanders lived there for almost 500 years. - Masae 22:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is worth doing a project on it.--Sarah Partington 08:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to cover a few point in one post, although the term "middle settlement" is used by a few scholars, it is used as matter of convenience for the small cluster north of the eastern settlement, I'm not sure that it consititutes a full settlement in the way that either the eastern or western settlements were. maybe something along the lines of a "potential" 3rd settlement could be included.

2nd point, although Greenland or at least the eastern and western settlements were essentially un-inhabited, greenland itself was not, and there are sources which suggest that the first settlers there found evidence of the people they called "skrœlings", that is, the Inuit. I think it may be mentioned in Historia Norvegiae, although I could be mistaken.

Thirdly, there is a section under the history/sovereignty bit that mentions Greenland was under the soverignty of Denmark from the 11th century. A) the link takes you to a page about the 13th century, and B) Greenland was most definitly not under the sovereignty of Denmark OR Norway in the 1000's. I'm new at this, but I might have a go at tidying this up a bit if thats ok? I'm likely to mess up the link thing, so please tell me if it seems wrong. Bird1982 22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Geographical vs. political classifications of regions

This appears to be a region that can be part of either of 2 continents, one geographically and the other politically. How many regions of this kind are there?? Georgia guy 01:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a really good and interesting point to ponder! See article "Subregion" for more on the difference between Political geography, Physical geography and Cultural geography. --Big Adamsky 12:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Topographical Facts

Are there no topographical facts about green land? What is the average elevation? How thick is the ice sheet? What is the ice sheets volume? How much of the ice is below sea level already?

I have seen it stated that, if Greenland melted, sea level would rise 5M. Lets check the math. "Scientists' say" is not good enough for somthing that can be measured and calculated. It would be nice to be able to check it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.171.81.135 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I am in favour of including a little information on the ice sheet, which I know to be up to 3 km thick, but I dont see any need to provide (in this article) all the information needed for people to verify everything with their own calculations. Go check with the scientists instead or check the facts and discussion in Greenland ice cap. Jens Nielsen 08:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC). I've just written a full article on the Greenland Ice Sheet, you should find all the facts there. Jens Nielsen 08:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Employment in Greenland

I am a Belgian citizen living and working full-time in Ireland. My goal is to go further north, and I would be interested in going to Greenland for a while. Is there anyone who has more insight in the Greenlandic employment market, as the Economy part of the article is not very in-depth (which is logical I guess as it has to stay somewhat general), but is there someone who has some more detailed information on the current jobmarket in Greenland? You can always send me an email as well as it may not be of interest to the other site visitors, send email to gerrit.df @gmail.com (without the space before the @) Nocturnal Me 21:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

NATO

Is Greenland a member of NATO? I expect that Denmark is allowed to pursue foreign affaris and defence for Greenland, but it isnt specified in teh text? Can somebody clarify? The Minister of War (Peace) 14:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Greenland ist member of the NATO on behalf the Danish Empire, since 27 April 1951. -- Arne List 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Technically speaking, it would be more correct to say that the Kingdom of Denmark is a member of NATO, and since both Greenland and the Faroes are parts of the Danish Realm, the NATO area also covers these two areas. But of course this version sounds more cluncky. :) The situation is different in e.g. the Nordic Council where Greenland and the Faroes have their own seats. Valentinian T / C 21:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Vegetation

Actually, I was wondering if there is any vegetation or trees in any part of Greenland. The article does not address this matter other than a remark about some farming in the past. If some one has some information to add, that would be nice. Very interesting article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.142.160 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Some inner fjords in Nanortalik municipality in the far south have patches of birch forests, otherwise there are no trees, only shrubs and grasses (except on the ice cap and on barren rock). BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 23:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
http://www.sl.kvl.dk/Faciliteter/GroenlandsArboretet.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs) 04:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, someone make Natural history section. 212.97.173.215 18:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Football

The article states that Greenland's national football team competed in the 2006 world cup. Clearly it doesn't refer to the finals, but perhaps qualification. If so, did they compete as part of UEFA? This seems incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.211.200 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Read it again, it's the Wild Cup, not World Cup. :) I'm not sure though if the Greenlanders take this seriously or that this belongs in the article. --Bjarki 14:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Greenland

Can't someone put a picture of Greenland in the article to show what it looks like when you're in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.95.63 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll upload one this week. Jens Nielsen 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.95.63 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Greenland named by Eric the Red or settlers?

I've removed the following recent insertion:

According to the article on Greenland in the 3rd edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1790-1797), the name was given not by Erik the Red but by the settlers he attracted to the island, owing to the verdant appearance of the coastal areas where they settled, in the warmer climate of the 10th-11th centuries.

It could be true, but I distrust the old source: My 1999 version of Encyclopedia Britannica says it was named by Eric the Red. Does anyone have corroborating sources? Jens Nielsen 18:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The saga say as Grenland was named Gundbjørns skær, efter the mand who was the first to see that in mirage. And the land was renamed of Erik the Red. The farm of Erik the Red in Island, was a desert farm, by black lava soil, and the part of Grenland reside in was gren-gren in the summer. perhaps only was the gren part Grenland, the livable part of Grenland, which was named Grenland, but it is the livable part, which have named all the island. Håbet 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
In the medieval Icelandic saga, The Saga of Eric the Red (Eiriks saga rauða), which is about the Norse settlement in Greenland and the story of Eric the Red in particular, it is expressed quite directly: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people we would be eager to go there if it had a good name." This is actually the only source of who gave the, in our eyes, odd name to the country. - Masae 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Greenland oil exploration

[1] is a Yahoo News article saying that Greenland might have as much as half of Saudi Arabia's oil reserves. Six previous test drillings were not profitable, but with oil prices shooting up and global warming making the region more accessible there is renewed interest. Simesa 21:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of this on Google news to.--86.29.243.163 03:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Under the ice

What's under the ice? I understand there are several ancient maps that indicate not only the correct terrain but also former cities. In any case the type of terrain that can be found under the ice should be talked about in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.30.78 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that claim. As you'll see in the article: Greenland Ice Sheet, the ice sheet is hundreds of thousands of years old, predating any settlement of Greenland. Jens Nielsen 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Kalaallit Nunaat means..

I´ve tried to edit the article a couple of times, since "Kalaallit Nunaat" doesnt´t mean The Human´s Land, as stated in the article, but "Land of the Kalaallit". "Kalaallit" means Greenlanders in Greenlandic. Both times the article has been edited back to the incorrect explanation. The name might have been confused with another, more informal name for Greenland, "Inuit Nunaat", which does mean The Human´s Land, or Land of the Humans. Jakob.

Sorry, but an unexplained edit by an anonymous IP that seems odd (saying "Greenland means land of the Greenlanders" sounds like a joke) is assumed to be vandalism, that's why it was altered. Are you sure that's right? I certainly know nothing about the topic and can't argue it, but where did the word "Kalallit" come from? Is "Kalaallit Nunaat" the right term in the first place? - DavidWBrooks 01:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I´m sure, I´m Greenlandic. The origin of the word "kalaallit"(pluralis), or "kalaaleq"(singularis) is not too clear, though. It doesn´t really "mean" anything other than Greenlander. And yes, Kalaallit Nunaat is the correct Greenlandic name for Greenland. Jakob.

Jakob is right. kalaaleq pl. kalaallit means greenlander(s) , "human" in Greeenlandic is Inuk pl. Inuit.
Maunus 04:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice to hear from such well-informed editors! - DavidWBrooks 16:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
But have the Greenlanders need of the name of they self before the Danish colonization? Håbet 18:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The Danish-Norwegian missionary, Hans Egede, (who was the first European to stay in Greenland in “modern” times) wrote in his different books on Greenland (Det gamle Grønlands Nye Perlustation pub. 1741 for example) that the people in western Greenland (probably the area around the modern Nuuk) that they use the word Inuit about themselves but present themselves as Kalaallit. So does his son, Poul Egede, in his book (the first on Greenlandic) Dictionarium grönlandico-danico-latinum pub. 1750. The word Kalaallit (pl. in sing. Kalaaleq) is has puzzled linguists because it is definitely not of Eskimo-AleutInuit origin. One common explanation is that it derives from the norse skræling. Masae 17:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It is good that we're looking into this thoroughly. I agree with others that "land of the Greenlanders" sounds like a joke. We really ought to go to the depth of the word "Kalaallit" then. Could we perhaps better describe it as "land of the Kalaallit people"? Does Kalaallit pertain precisely to inhabitants of Greenland the island? Or does it also include inuits of Nunavut, for example? I'll appreciate any further insights (and references!). Jens Nielsen 18:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
To name one source, ”Nordens språk med rötter och fötter”( ISBN 92-893-1043-X, published by the Nordic Council of Ministers in 2004 [2]), it is only in Greenland that the word Kalaalleq is used as a name for the inuit. Another source is the Alaska Native Language Center [3] “The Inuit people of Greenland refer to themselves as "Greenlanders" or "Kalaallit" in their language, which they call "Greenlandic" or "Kalaallisut."”Masae 09:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I do not think "land of the Greenlanders" sounds like a joke. You have to realize that very often, the people have a name first,and then the land is named after the people. Examples: England (land of the Angles (first half of the Anglo-Saxons)), Deutschland (German word for Germany, where Deutsch does not mean "from Germany" but rather originally just "people", now specifically "the german people"); Afghanistan (Land of the Afghans). So just because the history of the Europena naming is the other way round ( Greenland->Greenlander ) is no reason at all for me to consider the history (Kallaalit -> Kallaalit Nunaat) in any way funny or strange. Endorf 23:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Endorf (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Agreed. Add Finland, Poland, Thailand, Slovakia, Slovenia, Botswana, and Mongolia to the list of countries whose names in English, or in a language from which they came into English, are derived from the name of a people. There's nothing unusual about this. Perhaps the people who think this is strange are confused because "Greenlander" is obviously based on "Greenland" and not the reverse. If so, the confusion is in failing to understand that the discussion was about the Greenlandic names for the people and the country, not the English names. —Largo Plazo 01:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

HANDBALL!

I believe that the national sport of GREENLAND is HANDBALL not FOOTBALL. They take part in the World Cup you know. One of 24 countries. Check 2007 World Men's Handball Championship for info and PLEASE change the article. Thx. 62.47.150.78 10:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure, but I think the national sport of Greenland is football. It is most likely football, cause at any rate football is the national sport of Denmark. Trust me! I'm Danish... --83.91.175.157 19:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It's football, as it says here, and I got two more hits claiming so. Jens Nielsen 22:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Official its Skiing, both alpine and country skiing. But football, handbold and many other sports are very popular to.

Ive got this mail from Greenland Tourism.

Tak for deres henvendelse.

Har snakket med Grønlands Idræts forbund (GIF), og de siger at officielt er det ski. Både Alpin og langrend. Men sport er meget populært I Grønland. Så lige så snart der er Grønlands Mesterskab (GM) I fodbold, håndbold, ski eller een eller anden form for sport følger stort set alle med I kampene. Det er en stor samlingspunkt I Grønland. Såvel som det er her I Danmark.

Hvis jeg kan være mere behjælpelig så kontakt mig venligst igen.

Med venlig hilsen / Inussiarnersumik/ Best regards

Kim Falck-Petersen

Nunatsinni Takornariaqarnermi Inuussutissarsiornermilu Siunnersuisoqatigiit Grønlands Turist- og Erhvervsråd Greenland Tourism & Business Council Strandgade 91 P.O. Box 1139 DK-1010 Copenhagen K.

--Arigato1 17:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Norse period

Should a more in-depth history of the Norse settlements in Greenland be entered here or in a separate/another article?KarlXII 09:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say in a separatte article. Something like Norse settlement in Greenland for example. But of course the main articlee should link to it.Maunus 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll consider it.KarlXII 11:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Greenland project

There is now a proposed WikiProject related to Greenland. All interested parties should feel free to sign up on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Greenland page, and we will see if there is actually enough interest to create the project. Badbilltucker 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Greenland has belonged to Norway?

What is the sources. --Arigato1 17:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has. Greenland entered the union kingdom of Denmark-Norway as a Norwegian possession. When Norway was ceded to the King of Sweden with the Treaty of Kiel the Norwegian dependencies of Greenland, the Faroes and Iceland were specifically excluded. So, it was because it was a Norwegian possession that it became a Danish possession. As for source, is the Smithsonian good enough for you [4]? Nidator 16:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


You linking to a Private homepage. Greenland has never official belonged to Norway. That's why you cant write that. Look at BBC etc. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1023448.stm --Arigato1 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't written any part of this article. I just looked at the discussion, saw your question and thought I would help you out with a good source. I have to say that I found it amusing that you dismissed the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History as a source, but use the fact that a superficial BBC article doesn't mention it is as proof that Greenland was never a Norwegian possession. The Greenlandic þing (parliament) recognised the sovereignty of the Norwegian king in 1261 [5] [6] [7] [8]. Nidator 19:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Arigato1, you seem to be disputing two things: 1) that Greenland was ever part of Norway, 2) that Denmark and Norway were two nations. To begin with the second issue (again, please read the Kongelov and notice Frederick III's consistent mentioning that he rules two countries). A small quote from Knud J.V. Jespersen / Ole Feldbæk (2002), "Dansk Udenrigspolitiks historie, vol II, Revanche og neutralitet, 1648-1814", page 15 which contains a description of the monarchy: (quote) Geographically, it stretched from North Cape to the Elbe and from Greenland in the northwest to Bornholm in the southeast. The kernel in this wideranging empire was the actual Denmark with the capital, Copenhagen, and the four old provinces, Northern Jutland, Funen, Zealand, and the Scanian provinces - now only encompassing Scania and Blekinge". These provinces combined constituted the Danish monarchy. Apart from these, the Oldenburg state system also included the Kingdom of Norway, the wideranging North Atlantic empire, consisting of the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland, plus the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein ... This entire mix of countries and territories was in practice only held together by one factor, the Oldenburg monarch. ... The Kingdom of Norway had in principle ceased to exist as an autonomous entity following the abolition of the Norwegian Riksraad in 1537, but in practice, it maintained a certain independence within the "rigsfællesskab". In the following time, the Oldenburg monarchs defended, with varying vigour, Norway's status as a separate kingdom and their own claim to this throne. In particular during Hannibal Sehested's term as Stadtholder of Norway, 1642-51, Norway achieved a quite independent status within the rigsfællesskab with an independent administration on Akershus, only responsible to the King and to a large degree outside of the control of the Danish rigsraad. This independent position was momentarily lost following the fall of Sehested, but was restored when the King, in connection with the upheavals of 1660, got his claim ("arveret") to Norway confirmed just like his claim to Denmark. This meant that the two realms legally speaking were on an equal footing; since then, Copenhagen was not only capital of Denmark but also of Norway, and this remained the situation until 1814, when Norway, following the dictations of the Peace of Kiel, was forced out of the "rigsfællesskab" and instead entered into a union with Sweden. (end quote) Conclusion: No matter Christian III's pledge in 1536 (when he didn't even control Norway), the Danish kings emphasised that Norway was an independent nation, since this was their best way to maintain control of the throne. In addition, the Danish rigsraad never held the authority to absorb Norway either. Any such decision should have been taken by the Norwegian riksraad, and this never happend. After 1660, the King of Denmark and Norway ruled by decree, he was the only source of power, and this source of power referred to itself as king of two kingdoms.
Back to the first issue, was Greenland ever part of Norway? To quote from "Store Danske Encyklopædi", entry "Grønland": (quote) Around 1124, king Siguar I Jorsalfar of Norway appointed the first bishop of Greenland. ... The Nordic Greenlanders are believed to have accepted Norwegian rule during King Håkon IV in 1261, and after that time, they paid taxed to the kings of Norway. It is likely that the king in return promised to keep sending ships to Greenland, thus making trade possible for the people there. Conclusion: The Nordic colonists on Greenland accepted Norwegian rule, although not for the first two centuries of the lives of these colonies. Given this basis, I am restoring the original version of this page. Valentinian T / C 20:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point here. Has Greenland ever official belonged to Norway. All the pages you linking to say "the Norse community in Greenland recognised the sovereignty of the King of Norway", and there only lived a few of them in the south east area of Greenland, and only lived there until ca. 1408. And "BBC country profiles" is far from superfictial, and it was only an example. --Arigato1 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. In 1261, the Scandinavian Greenlanders finally accepted that they were under the juristiction of Norway, something that Norwegian kings had claimed for a long time. In one perspective, this could be considered a defeat for these peoples' pursuit of an autonomous life. The webpage of the National Danish archives, refers to Greenland, the Faroes and Iceland as Norwegian "skatlande" (normally translated: dependencies). [9] Just to give one example. The Norwegian kings held next to no actual control over these provinces, but since we don't have documentation that the Greenlanders either rebelled or in other ways tried to cast of any Norwegian yoke, consequently, Greenland must have remained a Norwegian dependency. Quite the opposite is probably true; the moment the ships from Norway stopped coming, the colonies became impossible to maintain and disappeared. The BBC country profiles are not written by professional historians, so I don't give them much credit compared to the work by professional historians. E.g. it states that all Scandinavian settlement had disappeared from Greenland by the 17th century, but this actually happend in the last part of the 15th century. The historiographical term for the Norwegian rule is called "Norgesveldet" (again from the Store Danske Encyklopædi: "N., common name for Norway and its "skattelande" to the W and NW, from the 1160s constituting the Norwegian realm. "Skattelande" were the Faroes, the Orkneys and the Shetlands. In 1261 Greenland was added ,and in 1262-64 Iceland. The Hebrides and the Isle of Man had looser ties [to Norway] and were surrendered to Scotland in 1266. The Orkneys and Shetlands were pawned by Christian I [to Scotland] in 1469 and never redeemed. Following the Peace of Kiel, the Faroes, Greenland and Iceland (until 1944) remained under the Danish crown. Store Danske Encyklopædi's articles about "Østerbygden", "Vesterbygden" and "Nordboere" has more information. The last mentions that in the 18th century, Greenland's original Scandinavian settlers were normally referred to as Norwegians. Valentinian T / C 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid you are missing the point. Recognising the sovereignty of the King of Norway is the medieval equivalent of recognising the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Norway. It was the Norse settlements (which peaked at almost 5,000 people, not "a few" as you claim) on the southern/southwestern coast (not southeastern as you claim) of the island that was the historic Greenland. When the Norse settlers came to Greenland the ancestors of the Inuits of today (the Thule culture) did not live there and when the þing put Greenland under Norwegian sovereignty in 1261 they had only begun to establish themselves in the north. The argument that Greenland was never officially Norwegian because more of the island has later been explored is so strained as to smell of an agenda. It is quite simple, Greenland is a Danish possession today because it was a Norwegian possession before and during the double monarchy. Denmark did not attain Greenland out of thin air. Nidator 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No its not. Denmark started to explore and have interests for Greenland in the 1600's and it became a Danish colony. Norway only had some trading monopols on the norse people of Greenland. Greenland didt belong to Norway. And still there did not live any Scandinavians on Greenland from 1400.

We can write that. "Greenland, ones claimed as a Norwegian position." What do you say to that? --Arigato1 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Let's review: Norway claimed Greenland as a possession; the people who lived there accepted Norwegian sovereignty; and nobody at the time disputed that claim. What is the difference between that combination of circumstances and Norway owning Greenland? What is the missing piece that you believe to be necessary for Norway to be said to have owned Greenland? —Largo Plazo 17:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Whoa. This is very unreal. I hope noone is considering to use that superficial timeline for sourcing, which would be criminal. I appreciate a demand for sources on the 1261 question, but no cause to rewrite history due to BBCnews' sloppy work. Straight fact is, Greenland was Norwegian territory. MURGH disc. 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Strait fact. There is no sources for Greenland was a Norwegian territory, only a claim by modern Norwegian romantic historians. And Greenland wasn't even discovered in 1300 century. Only a small part in the south. --Arigato1 16:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • What do you think the difference is between discovering the edge of a geographic feature and discovering the feature? Was the moon undiscovered until we sent a vehicle that could view its far side? —Largo Plazo 17:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that the setlers came from Iceland not Norway. And Eric the red was bannished from the kingdom of Norway.

Greenland has never belonged to Norway. You will not be able to find any single official profe to it has. --Arigato1 17:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • You didn't answer my question. What do you think the difference is between the combination of facts you've already stated yourself and ownership? Unless you can tell us the difference, the facts you yourself asserted are tantamount to Norway owning Greenland. It's foolish to ask for proof of something you've already presented all the necessary evidence for yourself. —Largo Plazo 19:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes it did. The Norwegian crown claimed sovereignty, and this was accepted by a decision by the Greenlandic Thing in 1261, and this was not disputed by other countries. Norwegian books tell the same story, and so does Denmark's most comprehensive work on foreign policy, the biggest Danish encyclopedia and several official Danish webpages (see above). Even the Smithsonian, Berlingske Tidende [10] and many other Danish language websites agree, e.g. [11], [12]. It is that simple, so stop reverting unless you can present adequate proof to back up your verision. Valentinian T / C 18:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently [13] in 1374 King Håkon VI was a bit mad because his official on Greenland had acted contrary to his instructions. Sounds very strange that such a position should have existed without Greenland being part of the Kingdom of Norway. Fornadan (t) 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First european meet with native americans.

I guess the Icelanders were the first European who came in contact with Native Americans. Do you know witch year it was? --Arigato1 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The European was the first people in south-western Grenland. The early peoples was extincted. The Eskimo came from Canada and go south on the east coast. Leif Ericson (born on Grenland) go to Vinland by Bjarni Herjólfsson (born in Norway (or Iceland)) about the year 1000 and the following year Thorfinn Karlsefni had contact with native americans. They give them milk to drink of friendliness, but they do not stand that (lactose#Digestion of lactose), and been ill and get in war by the European. That milk changed the history of the world. The profit by trade by the Indian was so big, as that was able to pay a colonization, and it was easy to sail wood and new boats from Vinland to Greenland and Iceland.Håbet 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's your own theory. Vinland is only short mentored by a Icelandic poet and historian.

What about Eric the Red. Did he found any Eskimos? --Arigato1 20:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember the Sagas by heart, but the Dorset-culture had just about died out when the Norwegians/Icelanders came to Greenland and the Thule-culture came southwards later, so I'm not sure if he personally ever met any. As you might know the Inuits and Native Americans were collectively referred to as Skraelings by the Norse Greenlanders. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nidator (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
With regards to Vinland I recommend the works of Helge Ingstad. It is very fascinating. Nidator 09:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Majority age

Is it notable that people over there count as majors since they're 12? Age_of_majority --escondites 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That line is wrong. The law is identical to Denmark; the age of sexual consent is 15 [14] and people get the vote by 18 [15]. Valentinian T / C 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mercator Projection map

The world map on this article uses the Mercator Projection which I know can heavily distort the geography of areas away from the Equator. Should there be some kind of notation to reflect this? After all on the MP map Greenland and Africa are about equal when in fact Greenland is much smaller. Trcunning 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

24 hrs.

Does the sun really shine 24-7 there?--69.113.131.124 22:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes in the northern area in the summertime.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 23:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Independence?

I've reverted an edit simply stating as a fact that there was a strong move for independence without citing other sources than two pieces by the BBC. The issue is more complicated than this and any such statements need refinement.

A number of Greenlandic politicians have claimed that they will be able to assure independence from Denmark but keeping large subsidies from Denmark for several years, the figure normally given is 25 years after independence. Since the Greenlandic population is overwhelmingly pro-monarchist, the same politicians have stated that an independent Greenland will keep the Danish Queen as head of state. This is a very unlikely scenario. The Danish constitution requires the approval of parliament for the monarch to occupy the throne of a second country and I'm not aware of any Danish party that has suggested this solution. However, Danish political parties have generally rejected the demand for future subsidies should Greenland choose independence. As long as huge oil / gold revenues haven't become reality, the economy of Greenland will suffer rather severely without these subsidies. Pro-independence supporters have also not addressed the issues on how they will pay for the existing well-fare state, not to mention how they will recruit teachers / doctors / administrators without the influx of personnel from Denmark. They have also not addressed the issue on what the future of Greenlandic defence will be. It seems unlikely that a population of 60,000 people will have the resources to finance a permanent presence in remote regions, e.g. the islands and NE Greenland. There has been much criticism that Denmark / Greenland has a "little brother" relationship with the U.S. Such claims may be true, but the bargaining position will hardly improve if an independent Greenland of 60,000 people attempts to renegotiate the future of the Thule Air Base with the U.S.

In the Faroes around half the population is pro-union and the other pro-independence. In Greenland the support for the union or "Rigsfællesskab" is a bit stronger. But if an independence proposal involves the prospect of an independent Greenland without future help from Denmark, without the Queen and without future oil wealth, such a suggestion will not be a vote winner. Successive Danish governments have stated that if Greenland wishes to go its own way, then that will be respected in Copenhagen, but such a decision will also imply the end of future subsidies from Denmark.

The negotiations between the governments of Denmark and Greenland concern the transfer of more powers to the home rule government, and the introduction of banknotes with Greenlandic motifs. Both issues seem to have been resolved. What has not been resolved is the distribution of any future oil revenues. Many people in Denmark feel that Greenland has been subsidised for a long time and that it would be fair to have some of that money repaid. Not surprisingly, the average Greenlandic politician disagrees. It is not the first time this discussion has been around. A new development in Greenlandic politics is the emergence of the new "Democratic Party" which supports greater powers for Greenland but opposes outright independence. The situation is still in a flux. Valentinian T / C 12:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Put it in the article please with citations as you deem adequate. It is important for the treatment of Greenlandic politics. The topic is is even important enough to deserve its own article for example at Greenlandic independence.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't find much fault in the statement that was removed, to be honest. From personal experience during my visit to Greenland I can confirm that there is support for independence among Greenland's population. If that is to be termed 'strong support' I cannot say, so if you really doubt it why not just remove the word "strong"? Jens Nielsen 15:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It is fairly easy to count the percentage of supporters of independence: How many seats do Inuit Ataqatigiit have in the assembly? (and thats a low figure since some parts of Siumut also support it)·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
My main objection was to the word "strong" which is hardly adequate given the context. One reader might interpret the word as 20%, another might read it as 70%. A second issue was the sentence about a future referendum which I found somewhat hanging in mid air. Is such a referendum still expected? If so, has the topic and date been decided or is there a general expectation about what the details will be? Will it be a vote on independence or on a new Rigsfællesskab agreement? Do all politicial parties in Greenland support such a vote or not? I have no objection to a more comprehensive paragraph describing the current debate and the issues involved in it. It must be possible to find a recent poll about this issue so we can provide the readers with some proper figures. Valentinian T / C 20:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Would a link like this be more helpful then? At least there was an intent. http://www.cphpost.dk/get/73631.html That-Vela-Fella 13:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found the minutes of a meeting in a work group under the Danish-Greenlandic home rule commission (6 September 2006) [16] The bottom of page 5 states that "Anthon Frederiksen informed that he during the autumn session [of the Greenlandic parliament] would present a motion concerning the property rights [of the Greenlandic ressources] and one calling for a referendum on independence. However, the Danish-Greenlandic commission still meets, with its latest meeting on 30 January 2007.[17] but I can't find the minutes. Perhaps the motion in question was never made? The last meeting in the Danish-Greenlandic commission is planned for 12 September 2007, to be followed by an conference. [18] Valentinian T / C 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sovereignty

I made some changes to the wording under the heading "Sovereignty". As I see that issues of wording have sparked debate on this article before, I thought I would give an explanation for my changes here in case anyone disagrees. The word "crown colony" is inappropriate to describe the Norwegian dependencies, like Greenland. As the wiki-link clearly showed, it is more appropriately used for British dependencies of a later date. The Norwegian equivalent of the word "crown colony" (kronkoloni) is never used in Norwegian historiography about these territories. The Norwegian term is skattland, and I believe dependency is most commonly used in English.--Barend 10:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

New article: Reindeer hunting in Greenland

I have finally gone public with my new article:

-- Fyslee/talk 07:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

lowest population

In the introduction it mentions that greenland has "the lowest population density" Is that of any island, region, self-governing area or what? 140.180.166.176 18:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed that and rephrased the whole largest-island sentence. -- Jao 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Barbary Coast?

I removed this from the article "Other historians have speculated that Spanish or English pirates or slave traders from the Barbary Coast contributed to the extinction of the Greenlandic communities." in light of the fact the Barbary Coast didn't exist for several hundred years after, nor did the North African slave trade. Beyond that, it seems non-sensical that the slave trade would have had anything to do with an island a thousand miles away from Africa.Wangfoo 16:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A English rector condemn as English sailors had take slave in Greenland.
Its illogical but a fact as Icelander hat been taken as slave, of Barbary Coast at the same time as the Scandinavian settlers disappear. The way to Greenland is only 5% longer from the Barbary Coast.
The Eskimo tell as the Eskimos run away, then ships arrive but the Scandinavian settlers was away, then they go back.
Håbet 21:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Please provide some documentation for this claim. I have tagged it and it will be removed soon if it doesn't get documented. -- Fyslee/talk 22:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fifth or sixth largest landmass

Okay, I thought I had rephrased the intro in a neutral way, but the sentence got changed with the edit summary stating that Eurasia and Africa should be counted as separate landmasses. I had not thought about that, but actually the two articles Eurasia and Africa-Eurasia both state their respective subjects to be the world's largest landmass. Does anyone know whether there is actually a consensus on this, one way or the other? I don't really see how the Suez Canal could be landmass-separating when the Panama Canal, for instance, is not -- but I may very well have missed some essential difference between the two. -- Jao 16:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

I cleaned the demographics section up a bit (bad writing mostly), but still sources are lacking. The main article 'greenland demographics' is a mess. Jalwikip 08:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Danish deceit in 1953?

I have found an interesting article in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten ([19]) about Danish deceit in relation to both Greenland and the UN when Greenland was incorporated into the Kingdom of Denmark in 1953. It should perhaps be included in the article. -- Nidator 18:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-continental Island?

Actually, Greenland is a continental island. I realize that whoever wrote that wanted to exclude the Australian mainland from consideration (and the Antarctic one too, I guess), but the way that it's worded here is rather confusing. Perhaps over furious objections, I'm going to try and put it another way. Kelisi 01:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Science Journal FALSE

the following seems to be propaganda!!! the link does not go to science journal but to helium.com

More recently, the July 2007 issue of Science Magazine reported that the oldest DNA ever recovered shows a much warmer planet in relatively recent geological times: "Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said Thursday the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest.

That contrasts sharply with the prevailing view that a lush forest of this kind could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago, according to a summary of the study, which is published Thursday in the journal Science.

The samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 °C (1 °F) in the winter.

They also indicated that during the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 °C (9 °F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away."[7]

This July 2007 Science Magazine report does not support fears of a catastrophic rise in sea levels.[8]

Melting at the edges but thickening in the middle...

Does someone have proof either way that although glaciers are melting, the ice cap is actually thickening in the interior of this region? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.212.68 (talk) 07:09, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Greenland Map Scale

I am concerned that, as Wikipedia is frequently referenced for country information, it should accurately represent inter country relationships as best as possible, in this case - Area.

For most countries, a Mercator projection is sufficient, however with Greenland as an example, the shown map indicates a (visual) land mass comparable to the US. In fact, as shown on the pages in question, it is only 20% the area.

I would suggest using an Oblique Azumuthal projection (or similar), oriented over the country of interest. Although this will only show half of the globe, it will give the reader a clear visual relationship between nearby countries, which I believe would be more useful.

Pls excuse my fist attempt at a Wikipedia edit, I hope I am doing this correctly. 86.135.122.4 10:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC) PeterDeSchulthess, London

GRL

GRL actually directs you to a disambugation page, possibly you could delete the link to that disambugation page?--Royalmate1 (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"It is the largest island in the world that is not also considered a continent."???

Come on! Is there ANY island in the world that is also considered a continent?

Osias (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just a guess but it might be referring to mainland Australia sometimes being considered an island. It is a bit of a vague statement though. Green Giant (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Who considers it? I never heard about... Maybe some refereces could help.
I won't edit that now, I'll look for more info.
Osias (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the Australian Foreign Ministry considered the mainland as an island until after the recent elections when some government pages were taken down for review. I found this page from web archive --> The island continent (takes a while to load). It says:

Mainland Australia, with an area of 7.69 million square kilometres, is the Earth’s largest island but smallest continent.

Green Giant (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.