![]() | 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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I would like to know where anybody would get the idea that Dacians were a "Greek people". Dacians, as I recall them, are a subgroup of the Thracians; Thracians were never so called Greek, but a separate identity with different traditions and so forth. The mistake is the same as saying that the German people are Slavic people. -- Dacnuroman ( talk) 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to complement on how well written this article is. Now my point, not to be a nitpick, but is there not an inaccuracy/misleading information in the religion article where it states that 83% of Denmark are members of the Danish Lutheran Church, but only 80% said that they believed in a god of any kind. How does this work? If you were a member would you also at least marginally believe in God even if you are not devout? I see that there are 2 correct sources for each one, but they contradict each other. Is this a problem, or is it so minor that we should not be concerned about it? Canutethegreat ( talk) 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it up for me. Anyways keep up the great work on the article! Canutethegreat ( talk) 06:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The article states: "In 2006 a survey found Denmark to be the happiest place in the world, based on standards of health, welfare, and education. In 2007 the country's capital is ranked the second most liveable city in the world by Monocle magazine [1] [...]" -- However, that source quotes something entirely different: it says that Denmark is number 3 in a list of the most peaceful nations. Can the author provide the correct source? -- Gulliveig 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Fixed by someone, now links as intended to FT.com. Other than it is actually number 1 not 2. My illusions are shattered; I was hoping it was number 2 so I could pretend I don't want to live there, where the immigration is too strict to get in. Anarchangel ( talk) 03:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is what is left to be done from the automatic evaluation of the article:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic
javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2 metres, use 2 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 metres.
[?]{{fact}}
s.
[?]I'll be working some more on this tonight. MartinDK 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Recently I added to the geography section that Denmark has 406 island, which is sourced from danmark.dk. Unfortunately a little earlier in that section it is mentioned that Denmark has 443 islands. Which claim is correct? -- Peter Andersen 20:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What kind of spelling is most logical? I just noticed that an editor had changed favourite to favorite, ie from British to American spelling. Neither seems more correct than the other, so I recommend that we reach a consensus and then try to maintain all spellings in the article as either British or American English, depending on which one we decide for. Lilac Soul 05:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
While I don't quite understand your logic Lilac..., as an American I'll admit British English is prettier. I say lets just go with the British way, but it really doesn't matter. Canutethegreat ( talk) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The overview shows a clear and significant rise in residence permits granted (from 36.354 in 2001 to 46.543 in 2006), it is not an exact measurement of individuals as the same person, over time, can be listed in more than one category. But that isn't the issue here, the specific numbers of immigrants isn't stated in my contribution nor in my reference. The official publication does, however, emphasise that although the numbers of individuals aren't entirely exact - these differences causes only minor displacements in the total sum and final disposition, furthermore the official publication shows a clear statistic trend with comparative data. Which entirely validate my, repeatingly deleted, contribution.
http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/86C56774-CAC9-42A5-BBC4-F28B3629078B/0/talfakta_uk.pdf - quick overview; page 3.
If we look at immigrants and second-generation immigrants as a section of the population, this segment has increased, both in absolutes and relative terms, since the new immigration laws and regulations has been implemented.
http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/AAAC9AB3-1EBA-4711-90F8-C4AB14483205/0/labour_market_integration_immigrants_denmark.pdf - quick, easy graphic overview; page 11.
I had imagined these facts might serve as indicator for the level of the anti-immigration sentiment in Danmark and it's political power and influences on legislation.
As to Lilac Souls reluctance to accept work-, study- and EU/EEA residence permits as immigration I disagree, as do Wikipedia:
"Immigration is the movement of people from one nation-state to another."
No matter the causes or motivation is labour-, education,- personal reasons,- health related reasons or escape from persecution or extreme poverty; is all immigration! But I'll happily accepted this current version if that ends this skirmish.
Sincerely David 82.143.196.86 05:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think lots of this talkpage should be put in an archive. Do people agree? I'll do it if you want me to, but I'd like some consensus about it first. Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 11:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I Concur. Angelbo Talk / Contribs 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have moved most of the existing discussions to the archive. I have left a few as being either ongoing or still important (i.e. the peer review one). If anyone thinks that I have moved an ongoing discussion erroneously, please go to the archive and copy-paste the discussion back to this page, leaving a note that you have done so. Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
please i would love to know the language that is spoken im denmark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.214.231.141 ( talk) 21:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
It says Danish in the bar on the right, though I agree the article could have a few more lines about the language. EBusiness 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Danish is right, although a (German) minority speaks German. People from the Faroe Islands speak Faroeish, the Greenlanders speak Inuit. Both of the latter are taught Danish in school and are usually fluent. Danish is a germannic language, specifically an East Scandinavian language, i.e. closely related to Norwegian and Swedish, and less so to the West Scandinavian languages of Faroeish and Icelandic, which are closer to ancient Norse. (Finnish is not a germannic language at all, related to, I believe, Hungarian.) /roger.duprat.copenhagen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.243.125.190 ( talk) 00:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
In the infobox, which should we use? At least in the Danish language, the two are different; Denmark is the country located just North of Germany, whereas the Kingdom of Denmark incorporates this country as well as both Greenland and the Faroe Islands. An editor recently added the Greenlandic and Faroeic prime ministers to this infobox - this is not technically incorrect. However, the rest of the infobox pertains only to Denmark proper, i.e. the country, when dealing with area and population. What should we do? I don't think this is a trivial point, so I'm bringing it to the talkpage. Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) - Review me! 07:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
well i believe that political and geographical information on Greenland and the Faero islands should be included in the Denmark page because of the simple fact that Greenland and the Faero islands are part of the Kingdom of Denmark as a whole.they use the same currency as the danish mainland the Danish krone. they both use danish law. They both send 2 representatives each to the Folketing. and the constitution of denmark extends to the kingdom as one sovereign state both Greenland and the Faroe islands as well as the mainland. plus both articles on Greenland and the faroe islands explicitly say in the side column state that they are autonomous provinces of the Kingdom of Denmark. ok theyre not part of the European union but thats because they both withdrew of their own acord because of their right to home rule. I believe excluding greenland and the Faroe islands from the main Denmark page is being ignorant to the fact that Denmark is more than just the jutland peninsula and its scatered islands. and is ignorant to danish history in which both provinces play a massive part. id also like to add that Greenland and the Faero islands are closer politicaly to Denmark than Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are to The netherlands. theyre not part of the Eu they dont have the same currency as the mainland netherlands yet they are included in an article kingdom of the netherlands because they are part of the netherlands as one sovereign state. thats why theyre included with the netherlands and thats why i believe Greenland and the Faroe islands should be included with the denmark page because they make up denmark as a whole soveregn state. Gr8opinionater friday 5th september 23:08 (Gmt)
I agree if there cannot be any agreement to keep or to erase the information i added about Greenland and the Faroes then there should be a
new article about the Danish mainland, Greenland and the Faero islands as the one sovereign state and the current article could be renamed to just Denmark. It could be like the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands articles one which talks about the mainland and one which talks about the state as a whole. or we could just keep the information i added on the article about Greenland and the Faero islands either way id seriously consider one or the other because i added the information because i believe it is ignorant to to ignore the fact that both Greenland and the Faeroes make up along with the Danish mainland the one sovereign country of the Kingdom of Denmark, not just the mainland. and i believe information about the relationship between the Danish mainland, Greenland and the Faeroes should be added either way new article or added to the current article because i dont think it should be ignored.
user : Gr8opinionater Thursday September 6th 21:19 (GMT)
This is an academical discussion.
The Kingdom of Denmark includes the Faeroe Islands and Greenland through the "Rigsfælleskabet".
Historically the two islands didn't belong to the Crown of Denmark, but to the Crown of Norway, but after the congrees of Vienna in which our brothers, the english, apparently forgot about the islands and forgot to stipulate that they too was to be handed over to Sweden as part of Norway.
Defacto the two islands became part of the Kingdom of Denmark, eventhough they were never annexed as lands of the Crown of denmark.
They were colonies of Denmark, when that became old fachioned, they became special administration areas or "Amter" with limited homerule.
From 1953 the relationship is handed through rigsfællesskabet which is a constitutional matter.
Now since Rigsfælleskabet is a constitutional matter and that denmark is a constitutional kingdom, it's pretty clear that they belong to the entity which is known as The Kingdom of Denmark. F.ex. should the Rigsfællesskabet be fundamentally changed it would be a constitutional matter for Her Majesty the Queen and the parliament "Folketinget" - not, strictly speaking, a matter for the Homerules on the Islands (eventhough we must admit that they would be interested...).
All Greenlandics and Faeroe-islanders are citizens of the Kingdom of Denmark and there exists no Greenlandic or Faeroe citizenship (they do have "Hjemmehørende" status on greenland, which denotes people with a special relationship to Greenland).
Ofcourse they/we belong in the article on the Kingdom of Denmark.
Jomsviking (
talk)
12:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Will Denmark be ready for FA status anytime soon? Can/should I nominate it? Laleena 12:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Recently, someone has added that Denmark is short for "Marshes of the Danes". I seriously doubt this, living here, the story I have heard is that it is "Dan's Mark", the field of Dan (a supposed King). Marsh (Danish: marsk) is something else, I have never heard it related to the Danish word for field (mark), although I am not saying there could not be a connection. I know that king Dan is probably an invention of Saxo or some other "historian" and not counted as a historical person.
I am not saying this could not be right, and I do not have the sources at hand for adding "fields of Dan". Also, as I stated, this is not exactly accurate information and it is quite possibly that we simply do not know the etymology. Lundse 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The German use of the word marsk was unknown in Scandinavia at that era then the Denmark first is mentioned.Håbet 09:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet ( talk • contribs)
Just added a large chuck of etymology-like info. I’ll appreciate some copyediting as well as what needs specified sourcing, in that I’m unsure what lines needs specified sourcing, in that most sources are in the text itself. Twthmoses ( talk) 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Made some changes to the Etymology section. Sourced what I thought needed sourcing (much of it is self sourcing in the very text) and removed things I could find no sourcing for (even talking about it), like “Denmark, is derived from Danish Danmark”. Not only could I not find anybody talking about this, it also seems dubious at best, since the earliest source using the word, not only are English in origin, but also uses Den… rather than Dan… My own best guess, and I did not include any of that, so don’t worry, is that “Denmark” and “Danmark” are probably equal old and does not derived from each other. If more sourcing is needed, please specify where and I will add it. Twthmoses ( talk) 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Normally the motto of Denmark is Gud bevare Danmark (God preserve Denmark) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.200.107 ( talk) 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems doubtful. I am quite certain that this law does not exsist. It was a major debate issue in the justheld elections. The leftwing wanted to current right government to pass it, but nothing promices have been made. Education is still free, but not by law. (It is in Norway however)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the article currently doesn't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning sourcing. Although the article is well-sourced in some areas, other areas are lacking. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the article's status. Coloane 05:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Archaeology is the study of human cultures. The article states that the "earliest archaeological remains" in Denmark are from 110,000 to 130,000 years ago, and then it says that people have lived there since 12,500 BCE. What does this mean? Rossen3 ( talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Dragonrider27 ( talk) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
"The world is probably about only 9,000 years old" -How do you figure that exactly?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedmanToby ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, before this starts into some really big arguement, just tell me your an Evolutionist so I don't have to say "READ YOUR BIBLE". Just go on ahead and think the world is 153,0000 BILLION years old. Dragonrider27 ( talk) 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And I'm not saying that that's the real age but just to give you an Idea that i's not a Billion years old and probably not more than 10,000. Dragonrider27 ( talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Do I see a problem between European usage and American? American English sees a Billion as 1000 million (1.000.000.000), European usage sees a Billion as a million million (1.000.000.000.000). There are some Wiki-articles about it: Billion (word) and Long and short scales. Just putting my two cents worth in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.102.100 ( talk) 13:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to summerize some main points of danish history. Generally it's ot sourced a lot, because it's not controversial. With a few exceptions that I will note below. Jomsviking ( talk) 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In response, Harald Bluetooth built six fortresses around Denmark, collectively called trelleborge
I think this should be removed. Harald most likely builded the ring fortresses, since the dating corresponds to the later part of Harald's reign - Though it could also be Svend I Haraldson "Tveskæg". But it is not likely that they were builded as a response to a southern pressure. Their strategical position are not suited to counter a southern land invasion. Instead they control water ways: Aggersborg Limfjord+Skagerrak, Fyrkat, Nonnebakken: Kattegat. Trelleborg (Slagelse) Storebælt, Trelleborg (Sverige) the approch from the Baltic. The pattern is complete with the discovery of Borgeby in Skåne, which controls the sound. Now adding in how we know the "vikings" preferably fought - at sea - the Fortresses has probably not been intended to defeat invasions, rather they are builded of the same reasons that 99% of all other medival fortresses are builded: Inorder to fortify the king's internal position. That's why they are placed near the waterways that carried the trade and the toll which could be pressed - I believe the mafia in Itally call it "protection money". Jomsviking ( talk) 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I came to this article via 'ariciles marked for cleanup', only to find substaintial, detailed article. It seems someone had marked demography section for clean-up, but does not seem to have given reasons. I adjusted the tag to read 'section' (rather than article) may need clean up, but, to be honest, I'm not really certain what the problem is??
I will move on to other page requiring more attention! Bruceanthro 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the Demography section - it's now somewhat more concise.
Carltzau (
talk)
08:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The selection of sources for this article also needs a clean up. For example, the use of the web site "Asernes Æt" as a source is problematic. The site does not meet WP's verifiability requirements for reliable sources as it is a self-published, private home page ( see classification by Fagenes Infoguide, a site established by Undervisningsministeriet: "Privat hjemmeside der giver et bud på folkevandringerne"/"Private home page which gives a view of the migrations"), created by a former banker and amateur historian, i.e. without formal training (Jeg ikke professionel forsker / "I'm not a professional researcher"). The information presented on the site has not been peer reviewed and lacks references to scholarly sources at times (i.e. footnotes), and in addition, it occasionally provides rather controversial speculations. The site is used in this article as a reference to the sentence fragment "maybe similar to Finnmark, Telemark or Dithmarschen[6] (See Marches)." I find that fragment unnecessary. Similarities between the segment "mark" in Denmark and "mark" in other place names are surely not limited to the three names mentioned? I would instead suggest that Inge Skovgaard-Petersen [5], Niels Lund [6], Peter Sawyer or Ole Krumlin-Petersen are consulted for this section, as their contributions have been thoroughly vetted by the international research community and are often cited by other scholars. Sophiasghost ( talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:DanishKroners.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm resuming with the inclusion of an independent Kosovo in the maps of the countries that recognise it. Bardhylius ( talk) 14:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In the article it is stated that Denmark has a foreign debt of zero, but in the list of countries by external debt, Denmark has a debt of 405 billion dollars. The statistic is from 2006, so it's obviously outdated. Could somebody please find some newer sources? -- Mostar ( talk) 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the List of countries by formation dates article, the "Date of acquisition of sovereignty" of Denmark was in May 1945. This is not reflected in the Denmark article. Which date is correct? -- Mais oui! ( talk) 13:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me what is meant by "in the time of David", in the same sentence at "Emperor Augustus" in the first sentence of the second paragraph in the "Mythological Explanations" section? The only "David" I know of is the king of ancient Israel, who ruled in like the 8th or 9th century B.C., whereas Emperor Augustus ruled right around the birth of Christ, i.e., a lot later.
Jlaramee ( talk) 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Denmark!!! I have something that may interest contributers for this page. In a nut shell, it allows the option to display two maps in your info box, one could be a close up of Denmark, and another would be Denmark in a wider European or EU context. This is an example that was being discussed on Scotland's talk page (though I think they have rejected a two map option). Prior to now no one knew that you could have two maps displayed in the info box. For 'smallish' counties the benifits are easy to graps, an up-close view of the country, and a wider contextual visualisation of the country. Dydd da!!
PS: This is an example from the Scotland page, please do not be offended that I display the Scotland info box here. It is only ment as an example.
Motto:
Nemo me impune lacessit] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (
help) (
Latin) "No one provokes me with impunity" "Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh" ( Scottish Gaelic) '"Wha daur meddle wi me?"' ( Scots)1 | |
Anthem: ( Multiple unofficial anthems) | |
Location of Denmark/Archive 2 (orange) in the United Kingdom (camel) | |
Location of Denmark/Archive 2 (orange) in the European Union (camel) | |
Capital |
Edinburgh 55°57′N 3°12′W / 55.950°N 3.200°W |
Largest city | Glasgow |
Official languages | English |
Recognised regional languages | Gaelic, Scots1 |
Demonym(s) | Scot, Scots and Scottish² |
Government | Constitutional monarchy |
ISO 3166 code | GB-SCT |
23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)~
The pictures of the Queen and the Prime Minister are rather horrible... we should look for better photos to use for the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.251.80 ( talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid the Queen IS quite horrible. /roger.duprat.denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.243.125.190 ( talk) 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't a more accurate statement, "There is no college tuition in Denmark, as all higher education is paid for with taxes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave148109 ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 12:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The claims of how unreasonably large the danish population is must be revised. Although a swede, I have knowledge of my neighbouring countries. Denmarks population is about 5.4 million people, not some incredible 18 million! Someone please revise and review this. The numbers repeats themselves over the article and give some horrible statistics on population density etc. I also have a strong feeling that the proposed 3 million living on Faroe Island and 5 million on Greenland is way of the charts. The total of nearly 27 million in population of the whole "Kingdom of Denmark" is just ridicullous. Please fix it!
Herrnilzzon ( talk) 20:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, Denmark is one of three countries in the Kingdom of Denmark, the other two being the Faeroes and Greenland. (Or at least it will be three from June 2009.) Currently, Kingdom of Denmark is a redirect to Denmark, and the Denmark article is primarily about that one country, with the Faeroes and Greenland being afterthoughts.
Should we move Rigsfællesskabet to United Kingdom of Denmark, and dedicate this article more fully to Denmark, as we distinguish England from the United Kingdom, and Netherlands from Kingdom of the Netherlands? Normally we go by English names, and the ministry of foreign affairs translates Rigsfællesskabet as "United Kingdom of Denmark". I'd make the move myself, but I'm concerned I may be missing some reason why the United Kingdom of Denmark in not an appropriate name.
BTW, according to the BBC, if the referendum is implemented in June 2009, then Greenlanders will be considered a separate people from Danes under international law. kwami ( talk) 07:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that this article, primarily about Denmark (the European country), be kept at Denmark, and that Kingdom of Denmark be created to deal with the Kingdom that includes Denmark proper, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. The best analogy I can think of is to Kingdom of the Netherlands, where the Kingdom includes the Netherlands in Europe, Aruba, and the Netherlands Antilles. (The legal and political structure of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of course not identical to that of the Kingdom of Denmark, but there are analogies; I notice that this has been noted via a "see also" reference in the Rigsfællesskabet article.) The term "United Kingdom of Denmark" is not really used in English, so should not be the name of a main article, but could be a redirect to "Kingdom of Denmark," even though I do note the usage of this term in a Danish government site cited in Rigsfællesskabet. Compare for example the usage on the official Danish government website in English, for example here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Under Economy it says: "Denmark has a GDP per capita higher than that of most European countries, and 15-20% higher than that of the United States".
This is simply not true. The US is ranked higher on per capita income both nominal and by PPP. By PPP the US is ranked 6th and Denmark 14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.163.90 ( talk) 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Kim, so I guess the same numbers from Wikipedia is faulty, even though the data seems to be from IMF too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.90.146.8 ( talk) 15:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Kim, your sources are good, but you do not use them right. The most accurate way of determine a countrys wealth is not by GDP but by DGP PPP (Purchasing Power Pariaty). Take a look a this link and you'll see, that any clamis by Danes to be wealthier than Americans are wrong. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.163.90 ( talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The entry does not mention the Danish Government signing a pact with the Nazis, in return Nazis would control Danish foreign policy.
Denmark coordinated its foreign policy with Germany, extending diplomatic recognition to Axis collaborator and puppet regimes and breaking diplomatic relations with the "governments-in-exile" formed by countries occupied by Germany. Denmark broke diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and signed the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1941.[31] In 1941, a Danish military corps, Frikorps Danmark was created at the initiative of the SS and the Danish Nazi Party, to fight alongside the Wehrmacht on Germany's Eastern Front. The government's following statement was widely interpreted as a sanctioning of the corps.[32] Frikorps Danmark was open to members of the Danish Royal Army and those who had completed their service within the last ten years.[33] Between 4,000 and 10,000 Danish citizens joined the Frikorps Danmark, including 77 officers of the Royal Danish Army. An estimated 3,900 of these soldiers died fighting for Germany during the Second World War. Denmark transferred six torpedo boats to Germany in 1941, although the bulk of its navy remained under Danish command until the declaration of martial law in 1943. Denmark supplied agricultural and industrial products to Germany as well as loans for armaments and fortifications. The German presence in Denmark, including the construction of the Danish part of the Atlantic Wall fortifications, was paid from an account in Denmark's central bank, Nationalbanken. The Danish government had been promised that these expenses would be repaid later, but this never happened. The construction of the Atlantic Wall fortifications in Jutland cost 5 billion Danish kroner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.86.235 ( talk) 18:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
when did Vendsyssel-Thy become a island? I dont remember any earthquakes....? Rasmus1166 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmus1166 ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The statement: "Neither does the Index account for the actions of governments to nurture business[61] in the manner of the Japanese Zaibatsus during the late 20th C, that helped lead to the Japanese economic miracle." is simply incorrect.
Zaibatsu where family run business conglomerates of the late 19th-early 20th centuries. Post-WWII the Americans believing the Zaibatsu to have played an important role in Japanese militarism stripped the Zaibatsu families of their assets, forced the firing of the top-management and split the Zaibatsu up. Later some of the pre-war Zaibatsu (E.g. Mitsubishi) member companies began to link themselves together again forming what are referred to in English as Keiretsu. In Japanese the 6 large Keiretsu are more commonly called 大企業集団 (Dai-Kigyou-Shuudan - Large Business Groups) and described as 横系列 (Yoko-Keiretsu - Horizontal-Keiretsu). Either way the post-war linkings between Keiretsu-member companies are much weaker than they were in the pre-war Zaibatsu.
Furthermore, the height of the Keiretsu-era was during 1960's post economic liberalisation, when fears of take-over by foreign corporations was high and the companies linked themselves together through mutual stock holdings. By the late 20th century especially after the collapse of the economic bubble, Keiretsu were already becoming increasingly irrelevant.
The Japanese government did however work closely with industry, especially during the high-growth era (1950's and 60's). However, there are just as many examples of failures of these policies as there are of success and the usefulness and effectiveness of these policies is under debate.
Anyway, in summary, this section is incorrect and doesn't have any places in a discussion about the Danish economy. I'm calling for its deletion.
-- Jeeeb ( talk) 09:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Why no Viking Age heading in the History section? Seems this most interesting and glorified part of Denmark's history deserves far more than an introductory paragraph under the Iron Age heading. A major expansion is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.127.118 ( talk) 07:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"During the 8th–11th centuries, the Danes were known as Vikings, together with Norwegians, Swedes, Geats, Gotlanders and Goths. Viking explorers first discovered and settled Iceland in the 9th century, on their way toward the Faroe Islands. From there, Greenland and Vinland (probably Newfoundland) were also settled."
Who were these Danes exactly that settled Iceland? And is Denmark really to take credit for the discovery of Greenland and Newfoundland?-- 194x144x90x118 ( talk) 00:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I find this passage rather weird. It only mentions internet, though the subject is of course quite large, and the section itself reads like a rant by a teenager. I reworded the most weasel-wordy passage (Denmark like China and Turkey...), but really, the entire section should perhaps be moved to the internet censorship article, with perhaps a link and a small passage like "Denmark, like many other countries, maintains a blacklist of hostnames which are filtered by most internet service providers". How does the crows feel about this? I cannot even claim that the blacklist is controversial, as most people seem not to care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esben ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone is using faulty numbers in the economy section about the tax rates. Their sources even contradict them. There's no 63% tax rate in Denmark. The minimum tax rate is also too high. Lord Chaos ( talk) 08:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Is the following supposed to on the cinema section as the most important contributions of Danish cinema?
* The erotic melodrama of the silent era. * The increasingly explicit sex films of the 1960s and 1970s. * The Dogme95-movement of the late 1990s.
I dont know but if I was Danish i would prefer something a little more classy be listed as the most important contributions lol Zantorzi ( talk) 02:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Since Denmark was the first country in the world to legalise pornography, hence the outpouring of sexually explicit films in the 1960s and 1970s, it is indeed something that is worth mentioning. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 16:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
infobox doesn't match da list. what da deal? which is correct? n-dimensional §кakkl€ 16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Denmark apparently has a gini-index of 21.7 according to this article. I've searched far and wide and have been unable to verify this. A change in economical equality would simply not go unnoticed by in this country, yet no article confirms this change.
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/161.html says it's at 24.7, so let's stick to that. :) 91.150.226.225 ( talk) 18:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Surely science is one of the driving forces of history and as such is a good deal more important than e.g. Cinema or Food culture, yet although the article has sections on Denmark's contributions to the latter fields there is no section on science. Shouldn't there be a section mentioning scientists like:-
Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) Niels Steensen (1638-1686) Ole Rømer (1644-1710) Hans Christian Ørsted (1777-1851) Rasmus Rask (1787-1832) Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (1788-1865) Ludwig Lorens (1829-1891) Valdemar Poulsen (1869-1942) August Krogh (1874-1949) Niels Bohr (1885-1962) Inge Lehmann (1888-1993) Anders Hejlsberg (1950-) Bjarne Stroustrup (1950-) Jakob Nielsen (1957-) Lene Vestergaard Hau (1959-) Rasmus Lerdorf (1968-)
(and perhaps with all Danish Nobel laureates in the sciences thrown in)? Perhaps my list at http://blogs.chron.com/peep/2009/12/5_things_you_should_know_about_1.html could serve as a starting point. I would be glad to write the section, but I won't jump right in and do it in case somebody feels the entry on Denmark is his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.224.13 ( talk) 03:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Is Denmark really Scandinavia? Sure, culturally and linguistically we connect it with Norway and Sweden, but geographically it's not located on the Scandinavian peninsula. 77.251.187.25 ( talk) 23:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
According to wikipedia
Scandinavia is a historical and geographical region in northern Europe that includes, and is named after, the Scandinavian Peninsula. It consists of the kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark ... which share a mutually intelligible language (a dialect continuum), ethnic composition and have close cultural and historic bonds, to a degree that Scandinavians may be considered one people
-- Lasse E ( talk) 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Quoting Wikipedia as a source on which to base a wikipedia article, does anyone else see the problem here? Especially when every credible source in the world considers Denmark a part of Scandinavia. It is beyond discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.45.142 ( talk) 13:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I would like to know where anybody would get the idea that Dacians were a "Greek people". Dacians, as I recall them, are a subgroup of the Thracians; Thracians were never so called Greek, but a separate identity with different traditions and so forth. The mistake is the same as saying that the German people are Slavic people. -- Dacnuroman ( talk) 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to complement on how well written this article is. Now my point, not to be a nitpick, but is there not an inaccuracy/misleading information in the religion article where it states that 83% of Denmark are members of the Danish Lutheran Church, but only 80% said that they believed in a god of any kind. How does this work? If you were a member would you also at least marginally believe in God even if you are not devout? I see that there are 2 correct sources for each one, but they contradict each other. Is this a problem, or is it so minor that we should not be concerned about it? Canutethegreat ( talk) 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it up for me. Anyways keep up the great work on the article! Canutethegreat ( talk) 06:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The article states: "In 2006 a survey found Denmark to be the happiest place in the world, based on standards of health, welfare, and education. In 2007 the country's capital is ranked the second most liveable city in the world by Monocle magazine [1] [...]" -- However, that source quotes something entirely different: it says that Denmark is number 3 in a list of the most peaceful nations. Can the author provide the correct source? -- Gulliveig 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Fixed by someone, now links as intended to FT.com. Other than it is actually number 1 not 2. My illusions are shattered; I was hoping it was number 2 so I could pretend I don't want to live there, where the immigration is too strict to get in. Anarchangel ( talk) 03:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is what is left to be done from the automatic evaluation of the article:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic
javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2 metres, use 2 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 metres.
[?]{{fact}}
s.
[?]I'll be working some more on this tonight. MartinDK 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Recently I added to the geography section that Denmark has 406 island, which is sourced from danmark.dk. Unfortunately a little earlier in that section it is mentioned that Denmark has 443 islands. Which claim is correct? -- Peter Andersen 20:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
What kind of spelling is most logical? I just noticed that an editor had changed favourite to favorite, ie from British to American spelling. Neither seems more correct than the other, so I recommend that we reach a consensus and then try to maintain all spellings in the article as either British or American English, depending on which one we decide for. Lilac Soul 05:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
While I don't quite understand your logic Lilac..., as an American I'll admit British English is prettier. I say lets just go with the British way, but it really doesn't matter. Canutethegreat ( talk) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The overview shows a clear and significant rise in residence permits granted (from 36.354 in 2001 to 46.543 in 2006), it is not an exact measurement of individuals as the same person, over time, can be listed in more than one category. But that isn't the issue here, the specific numbers of immigrants isn't stated in my contribution nor in my reference. The official publication does, however, emphasise that although the numbers of individuals aren't entirely exact - these differences causes only minor displacements in the total sum and final disposition, furthermore the official publication shows a clear statistic trend with comparative data. Which entirely validate my, repeatingly deleted, contribution.
http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/86C56774-CAC9-42A5-BBC4-F28B3629078B/0/talfakta_uk.pdf - quick overview; page 3.
If we look at immigrants and second-generation immigrants as a section of the population, this segment has increased, both in absolutes and relative terms, since the new immigration laws and regulations has been implemented.
http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/AAAC9AB3-1EBA-4711-90F8-C4AB14483205/0/labour_market_integration_immigrants_denmark.pdf - quick, easy graphic overview; page 11.
I had imagined these facts might serve as indicator for the level of the anti-immigration sentiment in Danmark and it's political power and influences on legislation.
As to Lilac Souls reluctance to accept work-, study- and EU/EEA residence permits as immigration I disagree, as do Wikipedia:
"Immigration is the movement of people from one nation-state to another."
No matter the causes or motivation is labour-, education,- personal reasons,- health related reasons or escape from persecution or extreme poverty; is all immigration! But I'll happily accepted this current version if that ends this skirmish.
Sincerely David 82.143.196.86 05:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think lots of this talkpage should be put in an archive. Do people agree? I'll do it if you want me to, but I'd like some consensus about it first. Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 11:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I Concur. Angelbo Talk / Contribs 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have moved most of the existing discussions to the archive. I have left a few as being either ongoing or still important (i.e. the peer review one). If anyone thinks that I have moved an ongoing discussion erroneously, please go to the archive and copy-paste the discussion back to this page, leaving a note that you have done so. Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
please i would love to know the language that is spoken im denmark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.214.231.141 ( talk) 21:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
It says Danish in the bar on the right, though I agree the article could have a few more lines about the language. EBusiness 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Danish is right, although a (German) minority speaks German. People from the Faroe Islands speak Faroeish, the Greenlanders speak Inuit. Both of the latter are taught Danish in school and are usually fluent. Danish is a germannic language, specifically an East Scandinavian language, i.e. closely related to Norwegian and Swedish, and less so to the West Scandinavian languages of Faroeish and Icelandic, which are closer to ancient Norse. (Finnish is not a germannic language at all, related to, I believe, Hungarian.) /roger.duprat.copenhagen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.243.125.190 ( talk) 00:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
In the infobox, which should we use? At least in the Danish language, the two are different; Denmark is the country located just North of Germany, whereas the Kingdom of Denmark incorporates this country as well as both Greenland and the Faroe Islands. An editor recently added the Greenlandic and Faroeic prime ministers to this infobox - this is not technically incorrect. However, the rest of the infobox pertains only to Denmark proper, i.e. the country, when dealing with area and population. What should we do? I don't think this is a trivial point, so I'm bringing it to the talkpage. Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) - Review me! 07:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
well i believe that political and geographical information on Greenland and the Faero islands should be included in the Denmark page because of the simple fact that Greenland and the Faero islands are part of the Kingdom of Denmark as a whole.they use the same currency as the danish mainland the Danish krone. they both use danish law. They both send 2 representatives each to the Folketing. and the constitution of denmark extends to the kingdom as one sovereign state both Greenland and the Faroe islands as well as the mainland. plus both articles on Greenland and the faroe islands explicitly say in the side column state that they are autonomous provinces of the Kingdom of Denmark. ok theyre not part of the European union but thats because they both withdrew of their own acord because of their right to home rule. I believe excluding greenland and the Faroe islands from the main Denmark page is being ignorant to the fact that Denmark is more than just the jutland peninsula and its scatered islands. and is ignorant to danish history in which both provinces play a massive part. id also like to add that Greenland and the Faero islands are closer politicaly to Denmark than Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are to The netherlands. theyre not part of the Eu they dont have the same currency as the mainland netherlands yet they are included in an article kingdom of the netherlands because they are part of the netherlands as one sovereign state. thats why theyre included with the netherlands and thats why i believe Greenland and the Faroe islands should be included with the denmark page because they make up denmark as a whole soveregn state. Gr8opinionater friday 5th september 23:08 (Gmt)
I agree if there cannot be any agreement to keep or to erase the information i added about Greenland and the Faroes then there should be a
new article about the Danish mainland, Greenland and the Faero islands as the one sovereign state and the current article could be renamed to just Denmark. It could be like the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands articles one which talks about the mainland and one which talks about the state as a whole. or we could just keep the information i added on the article about Greenland and the Faero islands either way id seriously consider one or the other because i added the information because i believe it is ignorant to to ignore the fact that both Greenland and the Faeroes make up along with the Danish mainland the one sovereign country of the Kingdom of Denmark, not just the mainland. and i believe information about the relationship between the Danish mainland, Greenland and the Faeroes should be added either way new article or added to the current article because i dont think it should be ignored.
user : Gr8opinionater Thursday September 6th 21:19 (GMT)
This is an academical discussion.
The Kingdom of Denmark includes the Faeroe Islands and Greenland through the "Rigsfælleskabet".
Historically the two islands didn't belong to the Crown of Denmark, but to the Crown of Norway, but after the congrees of Vienna in which our brothers, the english, apparently forgot about the islands and forgot to stipulate that they too was to be handed over to Sweden as part of Norway.
Defacto the two islands became part of the Kingdom of Denmark, eventhough they were never annexed as lands of the Crown of denmark.
They were colonies of Denmark, when that became old fachioned, they became special administration areas or "Amter" with limited homerule.
From 1953 the relationship is handed through rigsfællesskabet which is a constitutional matter.
Now since Rigsfælleskabet is a constitutional matter and that denmark is a constitutional kingdom, it's pretty clear that they belong to the entity which is known as The Kingdom of Denmark. F.ex. should the Rigsfællesskabet be fundamentally changed it would be a constitutional matter for Her Majesty the Queen and the parliament "Folketinget" - not, strictly speaking, a matter for the Homerules on the Islands (eventhough we must admit that they would be interested...).
All Greenlandics and Faeroe-islanders are citizens of the Kingdom of Denmark and there exists no Greenlandic or Faeroe citizenship (they do have "Hjemmehørende" status on greenland, which denotes people with a special relationship to Greenland).
Ofcourse they/we belong in the article on the Kingdom of Denmark.
Jomsviking (
talk)
12:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Will Denmark be ready for FA status anytime soon? Can/should I nominate it? Laleena 12:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Recently, someone has added that Denmark is short for "Marshes of the Danes". I seriously doubt this, living here, the story I have heard is that it is "Dan's Mark", the field of Dan (a supposed King). Marsh (Danish: marsk) is something else, I have never heard it related to the Danish word for field (mark), although I am not saying there could not be a connection. I know that king Dan is probably an invention of Saxo or some other "historian" and not counted as a historical person.
I am not saying this could not be right, and I do not have the sources at hand for adding "fields of Dan". Also, as I stated, this is not exactly accurate information and it is quite possibly that we simply do not know the etymology. Lundse 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The German use of the word marsk was unknown in Scandinavia at that era then the Denmark first is mentioned.Håbet 09:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet ( talk • contribs)
Just added a large chuck of etymology-like info. I’ll appreciate some copyediting as well as what needs specified sourcing, in that I’m unsure what lines needs specified sourcing, in that most sources are in the text itself. Twthmoses ( talk) 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Made some changes to the Etymology section. Sourced what I thought needed sourcing (much of it is self sourcing in the very text) and removed things I could find no sourcing for (even talking about it), like “Denmark, is derived from Danish Danmark”. Not only could I not find anybody talking about this, it also seems dubious at best, since the earliest source using the word, not only are English in origin, but also uses Den… rather than Dan… My own best guess, and I did not include any of that, so don’t worry, is that “Denmark” and “Danmark” are probably equal old and does not derived from each other. If more sourcing is needed, please specify where and I will add it. Twthmoses ( talk) 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Normally the motto of Denmark is Gud bevare Danmark (God preserve Denmark) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.200.107 ( talk) 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems doubtful. I am quite certain that this law does not exsist. It was a major debate issue in the justheld elections. The leftwing wanted to current right government to pass it, but nothing promices have been made. Education is still free, but not by law. (It is in Norway however)
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the article currently doesn't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning sourcing. Although the article is well-sourced in some areas, other areas are lacking. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the article's status. Coloane 05:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Archaeology is the study of human cultures. The article states that the "earliest archaeological remains" in Denmark are from 110,000 to 130,000 years ago, and then it says that people have lived there since 12,500 BCE. What does this mean? Rossen3 ( talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Dragonrider27 ( talk) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
"The world is probably about only 9,000 years old" -How do you figure that exactly?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedmanToby ( talk • contribs) 23:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, before this starts into some really big arguement, just tell me your an Evolutionist so I don't have to say "READ YOUR BIBLE". Just go on ahead and think the world is 153,0000 BILLION years old. Dragonrider27 ( talk) 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
And I'm not saying that that's the real age but just to give you an Idea that i's not a Billion years old and probably not more than 10,000. Dragonrider27 ( talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Do I see a problem between European usage and American? American English sees a Billion as 1000 million (1.000.000.000), European usage sees a Billion as a million million (1.000.000.000.000). There are some Wiki-articles about it: Billion (word) and Long and short scales. Just putting my two cents worth in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.102.100 ( talk) 13:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to summerize some main points of danish history. Generally it's ot sourced a lot, because it's not controversial. With a few exceptions that I will note below. Jomsviking ( talk) 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In response, Harald Bluetooth built six fortresses around Denmark, collectively called trelleborge
I think this should be removed. Harald most likely builded the ring fortresses, since the dating corresponds to the later part of Harald's reign - Though it could also be Svend I Haraldson "Tveskæg". But it is not likely that they were builded as a response to a southern pressure. Their strategical position are not suited to counter a southern land invasion. Instead they control water ways: Aggersborg Limfjord+Skagerrak, Fyrkat, Nonnebakken: Kattegat. Trelleborg (Slagelse) Storebælt, Trelleborg (Sverige) the approch from the Baltic. The pattern is complete with the discovery of Borgeby in Skåne, which controls the sound. Now adding in how we know the "vikings" preferably fought - at sea - the Fortresses has probably not been intended to defeat invasions, rather they are builded of the same reasons that 99% of all other medival fortresses are builded: Inorder to fortify the king's internal position. That's why they are placed near the waterways that carried the trade and the toll which could be pressed - I believe the mafia in Itally call it "protection money". Jomsviking ( talk) 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I came to this article via 'ariciles marked for cleanup', only to find substaintial, detailed article. It seems someone had marked demography section for clean-up, but does not seem to have given reasons. I adjusted the tag to read 'section' (rather than article) may need clean up, but, to be honest, I'm not really certain what the problem is??
I will move on to other page requiring more attention! Bruceanthro 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the Demography section - it's now somewhat more concise.
Carltzau (
talk)
08:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The selection of sources for this article also needs a clean up. For example, the use of the web site "Asernes Æt" as a source is problematic. The site does not meet WP's verifiability requirements for reliable sources as it is a self-published, private home page ( see classification by Fagenes Infoguide, a site established by Undervisningsministeriet: "Privat hjemmeside der giver et bud på folkevandringerne"/"Private home page which gives a view of the migrations"), created by a former banker and amateur historian, i.e. without formal training (Jeg ikke professionel forsker / "I'm not a professional researcher"). The information presented on the site has not been peer reviewed and lacks references to scholarly sources at times (i.e. footnotes), and in addition, it occasionally provides rather controversial speculations. The site is used in this article as a reference to the sentence fragment "maybe similar to Finnmark, Telemark or Dithmarschen[6] (See Marches)." I find that fragment unnecessary. Similarities between the segment "mark" in Denmark and "mark" in other place names are surely not limited to the three names mentioned? I would instead suggest that Inge Skovgaard-Petersen [5], Niels Lund [6], Peter Sawyer or Ole Krumlin-Petersen are consulted for this section, as their contributions have been thoroughly vetted by the international research community and are often cited by other scholars. Sophiasghost ( talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:DanishKroners.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm resuming with the inclusion of an independent Kosovo in the maps of the countries that recognise it. Bardhylius ( talk) 14:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In the article it is stated that Denmark has a foreign debt of zero, but in the list of countries by external debt, Denmark has a debt of 405 billion dollars. The statistic is from 2006, so it's obviously outdated. Could somebody please find some newer sources? -- Mostar ( talk) 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the List of countries by formation dates article, the "Date of acquisition of sovereignty" of Denmark was in May 1945. This is not reflected in the Denmark article. Which date is correct? -- Mais oui! ( talk) 13:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me what is meant by "in the time of David", in the same sentence at "Emperor Augustus" in the first sentence of the second paragraph in the "Mythological Explanations" section? The only "David" I know of is the king of ancient Israel, who ruled in like the 8th or 9th century B.C., whereas Emperor Augustus ruled right around the birth of Christ, i.e., a lot later.
Jlaramee ( talk) 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Denmark!!! I have something that may interest contributers for this page. In a nut shell, it allows the option to display two maps in your info box, one could be a close up of Denmark, and another would be Denmark in a wider European or EU context. This is an example that was being discussed on Scotland's talk page (though I think they have rejected a two map option). Prior to now no one knew that you could have two maps displayed in the info box. For 'smallish' counties the benifits are easy to graps, an up-close view of the country, and a wider contextual visualisation of the country. Dydd da!!
PS: This is an example from the Scotland page, please do not be offended that I display the Scotland info box here. It is only ment as an example.
Motto:
Nemo me impune lacessit] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (
help) (
Latin) "No one provokes me with impunity" "Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh" ( Scottish Gaelic) '"Wha daur meddle wi me?"' ( Scots)1 | |
Anthem: ( Multiple unofficial anthems) | |
Location of Denmark/Archive 2 (orange) in the United Kingdom (camel) | |
Location of Denmark/Archive 2 (orange) in the European Union (camel) | |
Capital |
Edinburgh 55°57′N 3°12′W / 55.950°N 3.200°W |
Largest city | Glasgow |
Official languages | English |
Recognised regional languages | Gaelic, Scots1 |
Demonym(s) | Scot, Scots and Scottish² |
Government | Constitutional monarchy |
ISO 3166 code | GB-SCT |
23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)~
The pictures of the Queen and the Prime Minister are rather horrible... we should look for better photos to use for the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.251.80 ( talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid the Queen IS quite horrible. /roger.duprat.denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.243.125.190 ( talk) 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't a more accurate statement, "There is no college tuition in Denmark, as all higher education is paid for with taxes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave148109 ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 12:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The claims of how unreasonably large the danish population is must be revised. Although a swede, I have knowledge of my neighbouring countries. Denmarks population is about 5.4 million people, not some incredible 18 million! Someone please revise and review this. The numbers repeats themselves over the article and give some horrible statistics on population density etc. I also have a strong feeling that the proposed 3 million living on Faroe Island and 5 million on Greenland is way of the charts. The total of nearly 27 million in population of the whole "Kingdom of Denmark" is just ridicullous. Please fix it!
Herrnilzzon ( talk) 20:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, Denmark is one of three countries in the Kingdom of Denmark, the other two being the Faeroes and Greenland. (Or at least it will be three from June 2009.) Currently, Kingdom of Denmark is a redirect to Denmark, and the Denmark article is primarily about that one country, with the Faeroes and Greenland being afterthoughts.
Should we move Rigsfællesskabet to United Kingdom of Denmark, and dedicate this article more fully to Denmark, as we distinguish England from the United Kingdom, and Netherlands from Kingdom of the Netherlands? Normally we go by English names, and the ministry of foreign affairs translates Rigsfællesskabet as "United Kingdom of Denmark". I'd make the move myself, but I'm concerned I may be missing some reason why the United Kingdom of Denmark in not an appropriate name.
BTW, according to the BBC, if the referendum is implemented in June 2009, then Greenlanders will be considered a separate people from Danes under international law. kwami ( talk) 07:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that this article, primarily about Denmark (the European country), be kept at Denmark, and that Kingdom of Denmark be created to deal with the Kingdom that includes Denmark proper, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. The best analogy I can think of is to Kingdom of the Netherlands, where the Kingdom includes the Netherlands in Europe, Aruba, and the Netherlands Antilles. (The legal and political structure of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of course not identical to that of the Kingdom of Denmark, but there are analogies; I notice that this has been noted via a "see also" reference in the Rigsfællesskabet article.) The term "United Kingdom of Denmark" is not really used in English, so should not be the name of a main article, but could be a redirect to "Kingdom of Denmark," even though I do note the usage of this term in a Danish government site cited in Rigsfællesskabet. Compare for example the usage on the official Danish government website in English, for example here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Under Economy it says: "Denmark has a GDP per capita higher than that of most European countries, and 15-20% higher than that of the United States".
This is simply not true. The US is ranked higher on per capita income both nominal and by PPP. By PPP the US is ranked 6th and Denmark 14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.163.90 ( talk) 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Kim, so I guess the same numbers from Wikipedia is faulty, even though the data seems to be from IMF too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.90.146.8 ( talk) 15:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Kim, your sources are good, but you do not use them right. The most accurate way of determine a countrys wealth is not by GDP but by DGP PPP (Purchasing Power Pariaty). Take a look a this link and you'll see, that any clamis by Danes to be wealthier than Americans are wrong. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.163.90 ( talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The entry does not mention the Danish Government signing a pact with the Nazis, in return Nazis would control Danish foreign policy.
Denmark coordinated its foreign policy with Germany, extending diplomatic recognition to Axis collaborator and puppet regimes and breaking diplomatic relations with the "governments-in-exile" formed by countries occupied by Germany. Denmark broke diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and signed the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1941.[31] In 1941, a Danish military corps, Frikorps Danmark was created at the initiative of the SS and the Danish Nazi Party, to fight alongside the Wehrmacht on Germany's Eastern Front. The government's following statement was widely interpreted as a sanctioning of the corps.[32] Frikorps Danmark was open to members of the Danish Royal Army and those who had completed their service within the last ten years.[33] Between 4,000 and 10,000 Danish citizens joined the Frikorps Danmark, including 77 officers of the Royal Danish Army. An estimated 3,900 of these soldiers died fighting for Germany during the Second World War. Denmark transferred six torpedo boats to Germany in 1941, although the bulk of its navy remained under Danish command until the declaration of martial law in 1943. Denmark supplied agricultural and industrial products to Germany as well as loans for armaments and fortifications. The German presence in Denmark, including the construction of the Danish part of the Atlantic Wall fortifications, was paid from an account in Denmark's central bank, Nationalbanken. The Danish government had been promised that these expenses would be repaid later, but this never happened. The construction of the Atlantic Wall fortifications in Jutland cost 5 billion Danish kroner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.86.235 ( talk) 18:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
when did Vendsyssel-Thy become a island? I dont remember any earthquakes....? Rasmus1166 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmus1166 ( talk • contribs) 09:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The statement: "Neither does the Index account for the actions of governments to nurture business[61] in the manner of the Japanese Zaibatsus during the late 20th C, that helped lead to the Japanese economic miracle." is simply incorrect.
Zaibatsu where family run business conglomerates of the late 19th-early 20th centuries. Post-WWII the Americans believing the Zaibatsu to have played an important role in Japanese militarism stripped the Zaibatsu families of their assets, forced the firing of the top-management and split the Zaibatsu up. Later some of the pre-war Zaibatsu (E.g. Mitsubishi) member companies began to link themselves together again forming what are referred to in English as Keiretsu. In Japanese the 6 large Keiretsu are more commonly called 大企業集団 (Dai-Kigyou-Shuudan - Large Business Groups) and described as 横系列 (Yoko-Keiretsu - Horizontal-Keiretsu). Either way the post-war linkings between Keiretsu-member companies are much weaker than they were in the pre-war Zaibatsu.
Furthermore, the height of the Keiretsu-era was during 1960's post economic liberalisation, when fears of take-over by foreign corporations was high and the companies linked themselves together through mutual stock holdings. By the late 20th century especially after the collapse of the economic bubble, Keiretsu were already becoming increasingly irrelevant.
The Japanese government did however work closely with industry, especially during the high-growth era (1950's and 60's). However, there are just as many examples of failures of these policies as there are of success and the usefulness and effectiveness of these policies is under debate.
Anyway, in summary, this section is incorrect and doesn't have any places in a discussion about the Danish economy. I'm calling for its deletion.
-- Jeeeb ( talk) 09:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Why no Viking Age heading in the History section? Seems this most interesting and glorified part of Denmark's history deserves far more than an introductory paragraph under the Iron Age heading. A major expansion is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.127.118 ( talk) 07:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"During the 8th–11th centuries, the Danes were known as Vikings, together with Norwegians, Swedes, Geats, Gotlanders and Goths. Viking explorers first discovered and settled Iceland in the 9th century, on their way toward the Faroe Islands. From there, Greenland and Vinland (probably Newfoundland) were also settled."
Who were these Danes exactly that settled Iceland? And is Denmark really to take credit for the discovery of Greenland and Newfoundland?-- 194x144x90x118 ( talk) 00:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I find this passage rather weird. It only mentions internet, though the subject is of course quite large, and the section itself reads like a rant by a teenager. I reworded the most weasel-wordy passage (Denmark like China and Turkey...), but really, the entire section should perhaps be moved to the internet censorship article, with perhaps a link and a small passage like "Denmark, like many other countries, maintains a blacklist of hostnames which are filtered by most internet service providers". How does the crows feel about this? I cannot even claim that the blacklist is controversial, as most people seem not to care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esben ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone is using faulty numbers in the economy section about the tax rates. Their sources even contradict them. There's no 63% tax rate in Denmark. The minimum tax rate is also too high. Lord Chaos ( talk) 08:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Is the following supposed to on the cinema section as the most important contributions of Danish cinema?
* The erotic melodrama of the silent era. * The increasingly explicit sex films of the 1960s and 1970s. * The Dogme95-movement of the late 1990s.
I dont know but if I was Danish i would prefer something a little more classy be listed as the most important contributions lol Zantorzi ( talk) 02:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Since Denmark was the first country in the world to legalise pornography, hence the outpouring of sexually explicit films in the 1960s and 1970s, it is indeed something that is worth mentioning. -- Saddhiyama ( talk) 16:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
infobox doesn't match da list. what da deal? which is correct? n-dimensional §кakkl€ 16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Denmark apparently has a gini-index of 21.7 according to this article. I've searched far and wide and have been unable to verify this. A change in economical equality would simply not go unnoticed by in this country, yet no article confirms this change.
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/161.html says it's at 24.7, so let's stick to that. :) 91.150.226.225 ( talk) 18:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Surely science is one of the driving forces of history and as such is a good deal more important than e.g. Cinema or Food culture, yet although the article has sections on Denmark's contributions to the latter fields there is no section on science. Shouldn't there be a section mentioning scientists like:-
Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) Niels Steensen (1638-1686) Ole Rømer (1644-1710) Hans Christian Ørsted (1777-1851) Rasmus Rask (1787-1832) Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (1788-1865) Ludwig Lorens (1829-1891) Valdemar Poulsen (1869-1942) August Krogh (1874-1949) Niels Bohr (1885-1962) Inge Lehmann (1888-1993) Anders Hejlsberg (1950-) Bjarne Stroustrup (1950-) Jakob Nielsen (1957-) Lene Vestergaard Hau (1959-) Rasmus Lerdorf (1968-)
(and perhaps with all Danish Nobel laureates in the sciences thrown in)? Perhaps my list at http://blogs.chron.com/peep/2009/12/5_things_you_should_know_about_1.html could serve as a starting point. I would be glad to write the section, but I won't jump right in and do it in case somebody feels the entry on Denmark is his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.224.13 ( talk) 03:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Is Denmark really Scandinavia? Sure, culturally and linguistically we connect it with Norway and Sweden, but geographically it's not located on the Scandinavian peninsula. 77.251.187.25 ( talk) 23:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
According to wikipedia
Scandinavia is a historical and geographical region in northern Europe that includes, and is named after, the Scandinavian Peninsula. It consists of the kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark ... which share a mutually intelligible language (a dialect continuum), ethnic composition and have close cultural and historic bonds, to a degree that Scandinavians may be considered one people
-- Lasse E ( talk) 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Quoting Wikipedia as a source on which to base a wikipedia article, does anyone else see the problem here? Especially when every credible source in the world considers Denmark a part of Scandinavia. It is beyond discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.45.142 ( talk) 13:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)