![]() | 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 |
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
from Greenland:
from History of Greenland:
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 Minist e r of War (Peace) 14:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Please, someone make Natural history section. 212.97.173.215 18:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I've removed the following recent insertion:
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)
[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)
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´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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
Thanks, I'll consider it. KarlXII 11:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
What is the sources. -- Arigato1 17:23, 13 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is it notable that people over there count as majors since they're 12? Age_of_majority -- escondites 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
Does the sun really shine 24-7 there?-- 69.113.131.124 22:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
I have finally gone public with my new article:
-- Fyslee/ talk 07:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
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)
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 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)
Come on! Is there ANY island in the world that is also considered a continent?
Osias ( talk) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Mainland Australia, with an area of 7.69 million square kilometres, is the Earth’s largest island but smallest continent.
![]() | This page 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. |
Recent news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100210/sc_nm/us_human_genes and Nature magazine: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/full/nature08835.html
Conclusion from Nature's:
We report the successful genome sequencing of a ~4,000-year-old human. Data authenticity is supported by: (1) the private SNP analyses that indicate contamination levels in the raw sequence data to be ≤0.8%; (2) the mtDNA and Y-chromosome DNA haplotypes fit within haplogroups typical of north-east Asia; (3) population admixture analyses do not record any European component in the Saqqaq genome; and (4) the PCA plots clearly reveal close affiliation of the Saqqaq genome to those of contemporary north-east Siberian populations. These observations, coupled with evidence of excellent DNA preservation, and sample handling being restricted to northern Europeans before incorporation of a sequence indexing, indicate that contamination in the Saqqaq genome is not of concern. Our study thus demonstrates that it is possible to sequence the genome of an ancient human to a level that allows for SNP and population analyses to take place. It also reveals that such genomic data can be used to identify important phenotypic traits of an individual from an extinct culture that left only minor morphological information behind. Additionally, the ancient genomic data prove important in addressing past demographic history by unambiguously showing close relationship between Saqqaq and Old World Arctic populations (Nganasans, Koryaks and Chukchis). A single individual may, or may not, be representative of the extinct culture that inhabited Greenland some 4,000 yr bp. Nevertheless, we may conclude that he, and perhaps the group that once crossed the Bering Strait, did this independently from the ancestors of present-day Native Americans and Inuit, and that he shares ancestry with Arctic north-east Asians, genetic structure components of which can be identified in many of the present-day people on both sides of the Bering Sea. The next technical challenge will be to sequence an ancient human genome from material outside the permafrost regions. Although undoubtedly challenging, it will, if successful, take the emerging field of palaeogenomics to yet another level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.224.16 ( talk) 00:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that this article doesn't describe how the people live in Greenland. Do they mostly live in cities, towns or villages? What are the major cities and their population. What is the main harbor? With such a small total population, how much access to services do they have (for example is there a major hospital or university on Greenland) or would they have to go to Denmark proper for advanced services? How is infrastructure (roads, bridges, harbors, construction) maintained. What is the median age of the population and is the population size stable, increasing or decreasing. Are people immigrating to Greenland or are Greenlanders more likely to move somewhere else for opportunities? These are just some of the questions I came to this article to learn, but none of these issues are addressed in the article. If anyone has this knowledge or sources, please incorporate it into the article. Thanks.-- William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 22:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The total claimed demographics add up to over 100%, with 88% and 18% respectively adding to a total of 106%. Sadistik ( talk) 17:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Perhaps, when you read the article, there was vandalism.Now the article has:88% inuits or mixed, against 12% pure danishs. Agre22 ( talk) 03:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)agre22
In the info box for population it just says "6".
Surely that can't be right ... in the article it says about 68,000. -- Biatch ( talk) 01:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Somebody has been putting crap information in this article, like the motto is: Green is good! And that the anthem is Greenland is green. I'm repairing what I can of this stuff...
Not cool!
(And I'm not sure if it's a minor change or not...)
Mx31 ( talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Population in Greenland:
56.648 (jan. 2007) according to Greenland Statistics. (www.statgreen.gl).--
194.177.253.226 (
talk)
06:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)eab
What happened with the Coat of Arms of Greenland, why doesn't it appear in the article? -- C D 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I re-read Westviking by Farley Mowat, and he refers to some very old sources (Dicul's writings, long before the Norse) speaking of "Cronland" from Cronus/Kronus (greek) implying somehow the edge of the known world. I've never seen any other reference to this - any thoughts?
Generally, I wonder about the tale of "false advertising" that is so often bandied about, and suspect that it is a misinterpretation of the name made years after the original christening. I suspect Vinland the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallFreak ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is simply full of errors - For example, there has never been any such thing as a country named "Denmark-Norway." What is now recognized as Norway was once part of the Danish Kingdom. Thus Greenland was at the time here referred to, as it is today (to my regret), part of Denmark - under the Danish King (today Queen) and Danish law. Never has it been Norwegian. I know, in particular in the United States, that Norse Vikings are often referred to as being specifically Norwegian, Swedish etc. however, the correct phrasing is indeed to use the term Norse (which does not translate to Norwegian). Eisener ( talk) 00:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Eisener
Surprised not to see Greenland represented at the winter olympics, or do people from Greenland represent Denmark? AJUK Talk!! 22:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The adding of the words "Kingdom of" in the fact-box in the articles about the Faroe Islands and Greenland is very problematic. The Danish Realm is not a "united kingdom" with three constituent kingdoms in the same sense as the UK. No authorities within the realm, neither in Denmark, the Faroes, or Greenland, operate with notions such as "Kingdom of the Faroe Islands" or "Kingdom of Greenland" and neither does the Royal House. It is a sympathetic thought, but not in accordance with the facts: The Realm is a single kingdom. I propose to revert this change unless it is sourced within a week. -- Thathánka Íyotake ( talk) 19:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The danish "rigsfællesskabet" is ofiicially translated to english as "the united kingdom of Denmark" 85.83.81.228 ( talk) 17:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"Both on the Faeroe Islands and in Greenland, the attitudes to Denmark and the United Kingdom of Denmark are complex." [1] 85.83.81.228 ( talk) 14:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It is now rumoured that Greenland may likely to become an independant republic just like Iceland when independance will be approved, not a kingdom.
I know nothing about the subject, or I'd add it myself, but aside from one mention of the Kings of Norway converting their realms to Christianity, no mention is made of #Religion in Greenland. Tomer talk 04:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The English name for the island is Greenland. Names of countries given at the start of articles on Wikipedia are always in the language the article uses, with local names given afterward. Grönland and Grönlandic are not words in the English language, with the latter probably not a word at all, as I believe the "-ic" is an English-specific adjective marker. Trau Trau ( talk) 19:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it known whether the Inuit in Greenland have European ancestry from the age of its Norse settlement? 128.194.85.7 ( talk) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The article claims that home rule was granted in 1978 and 1979. Has to be one or the other. 64.81.164.153 ( talk) 21:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The Jared Diamond claim that the Greenland Norse did not eat fish is followed by a sentence claiming a study found they did-- however the link is dead (404). 217.166.94.1 ( talk) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The wording about Diamond's assertion is confusing, I believe. In his book Collapse, he did suggest that the Norse may have had a taboo against eating fish. He based this theory on the fact that almost no fish bones have been found in middens or anywhere else in settlement areas. He then discussed the human skeleton bone analysis that showed the Norse diet consisted mostly of marine life (as stated in this article). But, Jared contends that marine life was likely not fish but primarily seal because there is much evidence of seal consumption. Therefore, if there is a point of dispute, it is not that the Norse did not eat marine life - clearly, they did - but what that marine life consisted of. Chicagojuke ( talk) 13:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
In the history section the sentence 'A sledge patrol (in 1952, named the Sirius Patrol), guarding the northeastern shores of Greenland using dog sleds, detected and alerted American troops who then destroyed several German weather stations, giving Denmark a better position in the postwar turmoil.' contains a very probable mistyping (the date 1952, which is years after the WW ended). The part 'detected and alerted American troops' may need to be rephrased, since it might now be interpreted as if American troops had been detected. 91.120.32.66 ( talk) 09:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
According to the language secretariat, "The Greenlandic Home Rule (since 1979) recognises the Greenlandic language as the principal language. The Danish language must be taught thoroughly. Both languages may be used in public affairs. (Home Rule § 9). But the Danish language has never been the official language in Greenland," and the acceptance of self-rule on the 25th of November 2008 means that "Greenlandic will become the sole official language [from June 21st 2009], to the exclusion of Danish", though Danish will still be used in higher education. kwami ( talk) 21:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
So this article says that the PM of Denmark is the Prime Minister of Greenland, whereas Enoksen is the "First Minister", and the box seems to place Enoksen in some subordinate role to Rasmussen. However, other pages associated with this article, e.g. Politics of Greenland, Hans_Enoksen, Prime_Minister_of_Greenland, the claim is that Enoksen is the Prime Minister. It seems to me that it has to be one or the other, does anyone know what the story is? -- Deville ( Talk) 14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It is a matter of translation. Anders Fogh is "statsminister", minister of state, usually translated prime minister. The country he is prime minister of includes Greenland as an autonomous region. Enoksen is "landsstyreformand", country steering chairman, of Greenland. Landsstyret is the cabinet of Greenland. When talking about purely Greenlandic affairs, landsstyreformand may also be translated prime minister.-- Klausok ( talk) 08:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There is much evidence to suggest that the Norse were the first inhabitants of Greenland, and Eskimo/Inuit people only came later. Therefore, this article should be marked with 'disputed'. There are also theories, less widely held, that the Eskimo/Inuit were responsible for the temporary demise of the Norse people in Greenland. 66.31.55.175 ( talk) 04:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
At the same era Iceland been attacked of Arab, who carry off some people. The Eskimo tell as some ships arrived and the Eskimo run away and do not see the Norse again.Haabet 17:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The only source I have read about Norse Greenland is Diamond's Collapse, but the section it devotes to Greenland is very thorough. According to that book, the Paleo-Eskimo cultures did precede the Norse arrival, but they disappeared from the southern part of the island by the time the Norse settled it. The modern Eskimos (Inuit) migrated to the region around 1300, after the Norse had already been present for centuries. This is in accordance with what the article already says, though I suppose it could be clearer.
The Norse had more trouble with the Inuit than you would expect, because the Greenland settlement was so marginal. The few trees near the settlements had been cut down in the early days of settlement, and between Greenland's harsh climate and the grazing of Norse livestock, they never grew to a decent size again. Therefore, the Greenlanders did not have enough wood to smelt iron, and with few goods to trade they couldn't obtain much from Norway. Their greatest technological advantage was thus negated. The Inuit could also support themselves using some resources that the Norse couldn't access (whale and ringed seal, which the Norse didn't know how to hunt). Knowing that, it's easier to see how they could have competed with the Norse. There is evidence of conflict between Inuit and Norse, and Diamond believes this conflict contributed to the Norse collapse, although I don't know if most other experts agree. A. Parrot ( talk) 05:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Where are the maps that supposedly show Portuguese settlements?-- Peter Easton ( talk) 07:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a serious lack. It is an important subject and Greenland has much to offer. These subjects need to be described. -- Brangifer ( talk) 13:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The article presents Diamond's views about the Norse Greenlanders not eating fish, then appears to refute them by citing the Europhysics News study about the marine content of the Norse diet. But the two don't necessarily conflict; the study only says that much of the Norse Greenlanders' diet came from the "marine food chain", but that would include fish-eating seals, which the Norse did eat a lot of. Diamond also says that, in addition to the lack of actual fish remains, there is no evidence of fishing equipment in the Norse settlements, a point which the Europhysics News study does not address. I'm not sure how to rewrite this, but I think it needs some changes.
The sentence after that says, "There is little evidence that they hunted seals or other sea mammals for food, as was common practice amongst their Inuit neighbours." I can see how this misconception might have arisen (the Norse did not hunt ringed seal, whereas the Inuit did, but the Norse did hunt plenty of harp seal), but it has no citation and conflicts with the one source I have on the subject. Therefore, I have removed the sentence. A. Parrot ( talk) 06:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Can someone add stuff about the military situation in Greenland, like NORAD airbases, Danish/Greenlander defence forces, etc? 70.29.212.226 ( talk) 06:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Well?-- Wutwatwot ( talk) 11:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It will likely to became a republic just like Iceland when the break with Denmark was approved as rumoured earlier in the "Kingdom section". It will be better off having a elected head of state with less power, born in Greenland rather than having a foregin queen.
Greenland is not and independent country, and cannnot recall any area of policy from Danish control. Several areas, like foreign policy, are bound by the Danish constitution. Furthermore, before Greenland can gain independence, several political steps will have to be taken, including a referendum have to be passed. Jepaan ( talk) 21:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Greenland is technically a sovereign state. But since the population of Greenland is not large enough to support a state apparatus, they lease most of theirs from Denmark. As noted above, they are at any time free to recall any policy area they so wish. Nobody bothered to inform the Danes about this, since their independence entails that Denmark has given away an estimated seventeen trillion dollars worth of hydrocarbons and numerous other valuable mineral deposits, and yet Greenland still receives subsidies from Denmark to the tune of 14,000 dollars per Greenlander annually. In practice, Greenland has been turned over to Big Oil; Greenland has one of the most lenient taxations on mineral exploitation in the world and has not been able to secure a guarantee that the oil companies would employ locally. As a reward for handing over Greenland, Denmark got the NATO chairmanship. A poor deal if you ask me, but I suspect we didn't get given a lot of choices in the matter. As regards to the foreign policy: yes, Greenland is free to pursue an independent foreign policy, but since it would have to be implemented by the Danish foreign service, it's questionable how independent it would be in practice. //roger.duprat.copenhagen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.212.11.150 ( talk) 06:36, 28 February 2010 (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 |
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
from Greenland:
from History of Greenland:
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 Minist e r of War (Peace) 14:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Please, someone make Natural history section. 212.97.173.215 18:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
I've removed the following recent insertion:
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)
[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)
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´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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
Thanks, I'll consider it. KarlXII 11:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
What is the sources. -- Arigato1 17:23, 13 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is it notable that people over there count as majors since they're 12? Age_of_majority -- escondites 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
Does the sun really shine 24-7 there?-- 69.113.131.124 22:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
I have finally gone public with my new article:
-- Fyslee/ talk 07:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
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)
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 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)
Come on! Is there ANY island in the world that is also considered a continent?
Osias ( talk) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Mainland Australia, with an area of 7.69 million square kilometres, is the Earth’s largest island but smallest continent.
![]() | This page 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. |
Recent news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100210/sc_nm/us_human_genes and Nature magazine: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7282/full/nature08835.html
Conclusion from Nature's:
We report the successful genome sequencing of a ~4,000-year-old human. Data authenticity is supported by: (1) the private SNP analyses that indicate contamination levels in the raw sequence data to be ≤0.8%; (2) the mtDNA and Y-chromosome DNA haplotypes fit within haplogroups typical of north-east Asia; (3) population admixture analyses do not record any European component in the Saqqaq genome; and (4) the PCA plots clearly reveal close affiliation of the Saqqaq genome to those of contemporary north-east Siberian populations. These observations, coupled with evidence of excellent DNA preservation, and sample handling being restricted to northern Europeans before incorporation of a sequence indexing, indicate that contamination in the Saqqaq genome is not of concern. Our study thus demonstrates that it is possible to sequence the genome of an ancient human to a level that allows for SNP and population analyses to take place. It also reveals that such genomic data can be used to identify important phenotypic traits of an individual from an extinct culture that left only minor morphological information behind. Additionally, the ancient genomic data prove important in addressing past demographic history by unambiguously showing close relationship between Saqqaq and Old World Arctic populations (Nganasans, Koryaks and Chukchis). A single individual may, or may not, be representative of the extinct culture that inhabited Greenland some 4,000 yr bp. Nevertheless, we may conclude that he, and perhaps the group that once crossed the Bering Strait, did this independently from the ancestors of present-day Native Americans and Inuit, and that he shares ancestry with Arctic north-east Asians, genetic structure components of which can be identified in many of the present-day people on both sides of the Bering Sea. The next technical challenge will be to sequence an ancient human genome from material outside the permafrost regions. Although undoubtedly challenging, it will, if successful, take the emerging field of palaeogenomics to yet another level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.224.16 ( talk) 00:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that this article doesn't describe how the people live in Greenland. Do they mostly live in cities, towns or villages? What are the major cities and their population. What is the main harbor? With such a small total population, how much access to services do they have (for example is there a major hospital or university on Greenland) or would they have to go to Denmark proper for advanced services? How is infrastructure (roads, bridges, harbors, construction) maintained. What is the median age of the population and is the population size stable, increasing or decreasing. Are people immigrating to Greenland or are Greenlanders more likely to move somewhere else for opportunities? These are just some of the questions I came to this article to learn, but none of these issues are addressed in the article. If anyone has this knowledge or sources, please incorporate it into the article. Thanks.-- William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 22:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The total claimed demographics add up to over 100%, with 88% and 18% respectively adding to a total of 106%. Sadistik ( talk) 17:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Perhaps, when you read the article, there was vandalism.Now the article has:88% inuits or mixed, against 12% pure danishs. Agre22 ( talk) 03:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)agre22
In the info box for population it just says "6".
Surely that can't be right ... in the article it says about 68,000. -- Biatch ( talk) 01:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Somebody has been putting crap information in this article, like the motto is: Green is good! And that the anthem is Greenland is green. I'm repairing what I can of this stuff...
Not cool!
(And I'm not sure if it's a minor change or not...)
Mx31 ( talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Population in Greenland:
56.648 (jan. 2007) according to Greenland Statistics. (www.statgreen.gl).--
194.177.253.226 (
talk)
06:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)eab
What happened with the Coat of Arms of Greenland, why doesn't it appear in the article? -- C D 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I re-read Westviking by Farley Mowat, and he refers to some very old sources (Dicul's writings, long before the Norse) speaking of "Cronland" from Cronus/Kronus (greek) implying somehow the edge of the known world. I've never seen any other reference to this - any thoughts?
Generally, I wonder about the tale of "false advertising" that is so often bandied about, and suspect that it is a misinterpretation of the name made years after the original christening. I suspect Vinland the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallFreak ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is simply full of errors - For example, there has never been any such thing as a country named "Denmark-Norway." What is now recognized as Norway was once part of the Danish Kingdom. Thus Greenland was at the time here referred to, as it is today (to my regret), part of Denmark - under the Danish King (today Queen) and Danish law. Never has it been Norwegian. I know, in particular in the United States, that Norse Vikings are often referred to as being specifically Norwegian, Swedish etc. however, the correct phrasing is indeed to use the term Norse (which does not translate to Norwegian). Eisener ( talk) 00:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Eisener
Surprised not to see Greenland represented at the winter olympics, or do people from Greenland represent Denmark? AJUK Talk!! 22:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The adding of the words "Kingdom of" in the fact-box in the articles about the Faroe Islands and Greenland is very problematic. The Danish Realm is not a "united kingdom" with three constituent kingdoms in the same sense as the UK. No authorities within the realm, neither in Denmark, the Faroes, or Greenland, operate with notions such as "Kingdom of the Faroe Islands" or "Kingdom of Greenland" and neither does the Royal House. It is a sympathetic thought, but not in accordance with the facts: The Realm is a single kingdom. I propose to revert this change unless it is sourced within a week. -- Thathánka Íyotake ( talk) 19:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The danish "rigsfællesskabet" is ofiicially translated to english as "the united kingdom of Denmark" 85.83.81.228 ( talk) 17:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"Both on the Faeroe Islands and in Greenland, the attitudes to Denmark and the United Kingdom of Denmark are complex." [1] 85.83.81.228 ( talk) 14:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It is now rumoured that Greenland may likely to become an independant republic just like Iceland when independance will be approved, not a kingdom.
I know nothing about the subject, or I'd add it myself, but aside from one mention of the Kings of Norway converting their realms to Christianity, no mention is made of #Religion in Greenland. Tomer talk 04:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The English name for the island is Greenland. Names of countries given at the start of articles on Wikipedia are always in the language the article uses, with local names given afterward. Grönland and Grönlandic are not words in the English language, with the latter probably not a word at all, as I believe the "-ic" is an English-specific adjective marker. Trau Trau ( talk) 19:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it known whether the Inuit in Greenland have European ancestry from the age of its Norse settlement? 128.194.85.7 ( talk) 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The article claims that home rule was granted in 1978 and 1979. Has to be one or the other. 64.81.164.153 ( talk) 21:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The Jared Diamond claim that the Greenland Norse did not eat fish is followed by a sentence claiming a study found they did-- however the link is dead (404). 217.166.94.1 ( talk) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The wording about Diamond's assertion is confusing, I believe. In his book Collapse, he did suggest that the Norse may have had a taboo against eating fish. He based this theory on the fact that almost no fish bones have been found in middens or anywhere else in settlement areas. He then discussed the human skeleton bone analysis that showed the Norse diet consisted mostly of marine life (as stated in this article). But, Jared contends that marine life was likely not fish but primarily seal because there is much evidence of seal consumption. Therefore, if there is a point of dispute, it is not that the Norse did not eat marine life - clearly, they did - but what that marine life consisted of. Chicagojuke ( talk) 13:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
In the history section the sentence 'A sledge patrol (in 1952, named the Sirius Patrol), guarding the northeastern shores of Greenland using dog sleds, detected and alerted American troops who then destroyed several German weather stations, giving Denmark a better position in the postwar turmoil.' contains a very probable mistyping (the date 1952, which is years after the WW ended). The part 'detected and alerted American troops' may need to be rephrased, since it might now be interpreted as if American troops had been detected. 91.120.32.66 ( talk) 09:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
According to the language secretariat, "The Greenlandic Home Rule (since 1979) recognises the Greenlandic language as the principal language. The Danish language must be taught thoroughly. Both languages may be used in public affairs. (Home Rule § 9). But the Danish language has never been the official language in Greenland," and the acceptance of self-rule on the 25th of November 2008 means that "Greenlandic will become the sole official language [from June 21st 2009], to the exclusion of Danish", though Danish will still be used in higher education. kwami ( talk) 21:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
So this article says that the PM of Denmark is the Prime Minister of Greenland, whereas Enoksen is the "First Minister", and the box seems to place Enoksen in some subordinate role to Rasmussen. However, other pages associated with this article, e.g. Politics of Greenland, Hans_Enoksen, Prime_Minister_of_Greenland, the claim is that Enoksen is the Prime Minister. It seems to me that it has to be one or the other, does anyone know what the story is? -- Deville ( Talk) 14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It is a matter of translation. Anders Fogh is "statsminister", minister of state, usually translated prime minister. The country he is prime minister of includes Greenland as an autonomous region. Enoksen is "landsstyreformand", country steering chairman, of Greenland. Landsstyret is the cabinet of Greenland. When talking about purely Greenlandic affairs, landsstyreformand may also be translated prime minister.-- Klausok ( talk) 08:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There is much evidence to suggest that the Norse were the first inhabitants of Greenland, and Eskimo/Inuit people only came later. Therefore, this article should be marked with 'disputed'. There are also theories, less widely held, that the Eskimo/Inuit were responsible for the temporary demise of the Norse people in Greenland. 66.31.55.175 ( talk) 04:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
At the same era Iceland been attacked of Arab, who carry off some people. The Eskimo tell as some ships arrived and the Eskimo run away and do not see the Norse again.Haabet 17:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The only source I have read about Norse Greenland is Diamond's Collapse, but the section it devotes to Greenland is very thorough. According to that book, the Paleo-Eskimo cultures did precede the Norse arrival, but they disappeared from the southern part of the island by the time the Norse settled it. The modern Eskimos (Inuit) migrated to the region around 1300, after the Norse had already been present for centuries. This is in accordance with what the article already says, though I suppose it could be clearer.
The Norse had more trouble with the Inuit than you would expect, because the Greenland settlement was so marginal. The few trees near the settlements had been cut down in the early days of settlement, and between Greenland's harsh climate and the grazing of Norse livestock, they never grew to a decent size again. Therefore, the Greenlanders did not have enough wood to smelt iron, and with few goods to trade they couldn't obtain much from Norway. Their greatest technological advantage was thus negated. The Inuit could also support themselves using some resources that the Norse couldn't access (whale and ringed seal, which the Norse didn't know how to hunt). Knowing that, it's easier to see how they could have competed with the Norse. There is evidence of conflict between Inuit and Norse, and Diamond believes this conflict contributed to the Norse collapse, although I don't know if most other experts agree. A. Parrot ( talk) 05:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Where are the maps that supposedly show Portuguese settlements?-- Peter Easton ( talk) 07:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a serious lack. It is an important subject and Greenland has much to offer. These subjects need to be described. -- Brangifer ( talk) 13:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The article presents Diamond's views about the Norse Greenlanders not eating fish, then appears to refute them by citing the Europhysics News study about the marine content of the Norse diet. But the two don't necessarily conflict; the study only says that much of the Norse Greenlanders' diet came from the "marine food chain", but that would include fish-eating seals, which the Norse did eat a lot of. Diamond also says that, in addition to the lack of actual fish remains, there is no evidence of fishing equipment in the Norse settlements, a point which the Europhysics News study does not address. I'm not sure how to rewrite this, but I think it needs some changes.
The sentence after that says, "There is little evidence that they hunted seals or other sea mammals for food, as was common practice amongst their Inuit neighbours." I can see how this misconception might have arisen (the Norse did not hunt ringed seal, whereas the Inuit did, but the Norse did hunt plenty of harp seal), but it has no citation and conflicts with the one source I have on the subject. Therefore, I have removed the sentence. A. Parrot ( talk) 06:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Can someone add stuff about the military situation in Greenland, like NORAD airbases, Danish/Greenlander defence forces, etc? 70.29.212.226 ( talk) 06:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Well?-- Wutwatwot ( talk) 11:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It will likely to became a republic just like Iceland when the break with Denmark was approved as rumoured earlier in the "Kingdom section". It will be better off having a elected head of state with less power, born in Greenland rather than having a foregin queen.
Greenland is not and independent country, and cannnot recall any area of policy from Danish control. Several areas, like foreign policy, are bound by the Danish constitution. Furthermore, before Greenland can gain independence, several political steps will have to be taken, including a referendum have to be passed. Jepaan ( talk) 21:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Greenland is technically a sovereign state. But since the population of Greenland is not large enough to support a state apparatus, they lease most of theirs from Denmark. As noted above, they are at any time free to recall any policy area they so wish. Nobody bothered to inform the Danes about this, since their independence entails that Denmark has given away an estimated seventeen trillion dollars worth of hydrocarbons and numerous other valuable mineral deposits, and yet Greenland still receives subsidies from Denmark to the tune of 14,000 dollars per Greenlander annually. In practice, Greenland has been turned over to Big Oil; Greenland has one of the most lenient taxations on mineral exploitation in the world and has not been able to secure a guarantee that the oil companies would employ locally. As a reward for handing over Greenland, Denmark got the NATO chairmanship. A poor deal if you ask me, but I suspect we didn't get given a lot of choices in the matter. As regards to the foreign policy: yes, Greenland is free to pursue an independent foreign policy, but since it would have to be implemented by the Danish foreign service, it's questionable how independent it would be in practice. //roger.duprat.copenhagen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.212.11.150 ( talk) 06:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)