Talk:Greenland

Cities/Towns

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)

Agree - the article needs to indicate the population distribution - are the main towns, villages around the south? mostly in the capital? I came to make the same comment as WilliamThweatt. Earthlyreason (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Demography

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

Population in Infobox

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)

Just bad luck on your part, you happened to get here four minutes after vandalism, which was quickly reverted. There's something fishy with the numbers though. The text says 68,400 (2007) but references a source that says 57,100 (2005), the infobox says 60,000 (Dec 2007) with no source at all and the country list gives the UN estimate of 58,000 (mid-2007). Could it be that 68,400, introduced by an anonymous user in January, is just unfounded? -- Jao (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been vandalised again; Incredibly lame... does anyone have an accurate number?

this seems plausible: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gl.html#People 82.73.93.89 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That does, I updated the article with that information and added that as a source. Gh5046 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody has been messing with this article

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

Coat of Arms

What happened with the Coat of Arms of Greenland, why doesn't it appear in the article? -- CD 19:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The image seems to have been deleted from Commons. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 17:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a seriously problem as many PD-images been deleted from CommonsHaabet 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of the name

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)

Full of Errors!

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

Before accusing others of error, you should make yourself acquainted with the topic you're discussing. The Norse colonists on Greenland acknowledged the authority of the King of Norway in the 1260s. Denmark-Norway is a common way of referring to the double monarchy of Denmark and Norway, which had the same king, from the 16th century to 1814. Norway was formally a separate kingdom though. Norway was ruled from Denmark, but not part of Denmark. --Barend (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

While it might be true that the Norse colonists acknowledged the authority of the King of Norway in the 1260s, there was no loanger any Norse settlement after 1550. After 1721 Greenland came under the influence of European settlers again. The Danish Kongelige Grønlandske Handel (Royal Greenlandish Trade) got a trade monopoly from the Danish/Norwegian King. One may find it difficult to use modern conceptions of nations for a time when there was no clear difference between them and the main aspect was the allegiance to a King. Having said that, the fact is that Norway was a separate kingdom and from 1380 de jure only shared the King with Denmark. This is something, many Danes find hard to understand, which again is understandable, as Denmark de facto treated Norway as a Danish colony, and Danes took over the administration and economy in the time of the personal union. Additionally the written Norwegian language was assimilated to Danish until there was no difference any more. So therefore it would be correct to say that until 1814 Greenland was ruled from Denmark but neither a part of Denmark or Norway.

Additionally I find it worth mentioning that even if there were an error in the article it wouldn't make it "full of errors".--Vicki Reitta (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Western European Summer Time

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

Winter Olympics

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)

As Greenland is not a soverein state, it does not have its own representration at the olympics. It is something that Greenland is lobbying for, but so far the IOC has not allowed it. Any Greenlanders who compete in the olympics do so under Dannebrog. --Klausok (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be a sovereign country to be represented at the Olympics... see Chinese Taipei (aka ROC, Taiwan), Hong Kong, Commonwealth of Independent States, Team Korea, etc. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Although Denmark has never been much of a Winter Olympics nation anyway. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 07:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom?

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)

Not just very problematic, but downright wrong, as far as I can see. I've never heard anyone describe Greenland or the Faroes as "Kingdom of Greenland", etc. Should be removed right away.--Barend (talk) 20:24, 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)

But the rigsfællesskabet is not a kingdom, no matter how it's translated. kwami (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The rigsfællesskabet is three parliaments by the same sovereign. "united kingdom" is a union.Haabet 00:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I just stated that Thathanka is of, when referring to it as a realm and not a union. he/she postulate that the authorities has to use the term kingdom of Greenland for there to be a united kingdom. you have to notice the missing s. It is not 3 kingdoms that are united but 3 countries united in one kingdom. Govermental authorities of Denmark also use the term united kingdom of Denmark when referrring to rigsfællesskabet in english language document. Thathanka may not look upon it as a union but that is his/her personal oppinion.

"Both on the Faeroe Islands and in Greenland, the attitudes to Denmark and the United Kingdom of Denmark are complex." 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.

New section needed

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)

Why Grönland and not Greenland?

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)

its entrenched vandalism. It will be removed right away. Greenlandic is the right name for the language though.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

greenlandic? don't they speak danish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.212.196 (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Some do but Greenlandic is the official language.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Norse/Inuit intermarriage?

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)

I don't think there is any evidence of that. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 09:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read there was very little interaction of any sort between the Norse and the Inuit. There might have been isolated cases of rape, but certainly no widespread consensual intermarriage like with Mexico. 96.237.59.92 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Home rule

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)

Fish-eaters

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)

Fixed.--Barend (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thx. Interesting article. 217.166.94.1 (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2009 (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)

History

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)

language

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)

Greenland subcontinent?

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

Question about Prime Minister

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)

Norse Primary

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)

So we have a technologically advanced culture from Europe entering Greenland. Then we have Intuits coming in much later and, despite their technological backwardness (no metal, for one), not only surviving, but attacking (with bone harpoons?) the helpless Vikings (there's an oxymoron for you!) and destroying them.

Actually, I don't think we have any WP:RELY references that say this. Can you enlighten us? Student7 (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

About 1500 a clergyman in Welsh condemn as the congregation had attacked Greenland and carry off some people.

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)

Portuguese Settlements

Where are the maps that supposedly show Portuguese settlements?--Peter Easton (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No mention of nature, animals, and wildlife

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)

Norse fish

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)

I'm not sure how to address this matter, but wasn't there less of a need to eat fish back than, as the climate was warmer and they could grow crops further north than now? I could well be mistaken about this. We do know that they herded sheep for wool and meat, descendants of which still exist in Austmannadalen, at the bottom of Ameralik fjord. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

They did herd and farm in Greenland, but that doesn't explain the lack of fishing. Fishing was still an important economic activity in Norway and a crucial one in Iceland, even though Norway was a much better place for herding and farming than Greenland, and Iceland just as good, if not better. As Diamond points out, everyone who comes to Greenland to study the Norse settlements is convinced that he or she can discover the missing evidence for fishing, because it is simply bizarre to suggest that the Norse abandoned a central part of their lifestyle in a place that would seem to encourage more fishing, and not less. Yet so far, no one has found this evidence. A. Parrot (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the waste from the Norse Greenlanders, You do not find any fish bones. But if you test the bones from the dogs, you see as the dogs had only eat marine food. Perhaps fish bones been eat before they been to waste.Haabet 21:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the Norse Greenlanders did eat a lot of seal, so that could explain the traces of marine food in the dogs' remains. Seal was the lowest-status meat in Greenland (the poorer people were, the more seal and less livestock they had in their diets), so it would have been a logical choice for dog food. In any case, even if the dogs ate the fish, it doesn't explain why there is no fishing equipment in the remains of the settlements. A. Parrot (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Seal was the lowest-status meat in Greenland" have you any source to that information?Haabet 16:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Military

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)

Media

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

Kalaallit Nunaata Radioa. DR used to have Greenlandic news. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There are all of those. Sermitsiaq is one popular newspaper, Atuagagliudtit another , the largest Greenlandic publishing house is Atuakkiorfik. Greenlandic movies include Heart of Light and the first entirely Greenlandic produced movie is in the making.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So does this mean it's an independent country now?

Well?--Wutwatwot (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It qualifies as a country, but not as independent, since finances and foreign affairs are still under the control of Denmark. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a country, as it's part of Denmark, much like Svalbard is not a country but a part of the Kingdom of Norway. The only thing that happened recently was that the responsibility for policing and legal affairs was transferred from the royal to the local government. It doesn't make Greenland an independent country. Greenland has no foreign, security or financial policy of its own, no head of state of its own, nor is it recognized as an independent country by any state, but remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark. If Greenland is a "country" because it enjoys a semi-autonomous status, then the Province of Bolzano-Bozen and numerous other such territories would qualify as "countries" as well. Jægermester (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenland now has the autonomy to recall any area of policy form danish control when they wish - this is a pretty extensive amount of freedom, that goes far beyond your idea about a "territory within Denmark"·Maunus·ƛ· 21:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all countries are Sovereign states, i suggest you take a look at both of those articles which explains why Greenland can be described as a country aslong as there are sources backing up such usage. The Greenland government website[1] uses the term country to describe Greenland on several occasions and its even described as a country on the Denmark government website [2], so i think its justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Me personally think that the words: within the Kingdom of Denmark, should be removed or re-frased as its not truly a part of denmark anymore atleast not after 21 june. As Greenland now has as close as independent self-rule as it can come just now. Greenland are just steps away from full independence even though it will take years before that happeneds.--Judo112 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is part of the "rigsfællesskab" as long as Greenland has members of parliament in Denmark and it also still has many areas of political responsibility taken care of by Denmark. It still is premature to remove that phrase. When Greenland has taken back all political responsibilities from Denmark and passes a bill to leave the Kingdom then we can remove it.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed!--Judo112 (talk) 15:43, 22 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)

Danish is an official language of all of Denmark

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

I guess you haven't heard but today Greenland was granted what amounts to autonomous status - that is why now Greenland decides what is the official language of Greenland - not Denmark.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. The responsibility of policing and some other matters, which does not make it an independent country, was transferred to the local government. If Greenland is a "country", then so are all the "autonomous" Italian provinces and similar regions in Europe! Jægermester (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong.

Yes, Danish is the official language of the country of Denmark. But Greenland is not part of the country of Denmark, it's part of the kingdom of Denmark. AFAIK the kingdom has no official language. Greenlandic is the only official language of the country of Greenland. I was able to confirm some months ago that when the autonomy went through, Greenlandic would be the sole official language. You are, of course, correct that Danish will continue to be widely used in Greenland, and is a major language of education. kwami (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenland is not part of geographical Denmark, but it's part of the state of Denmark, formally known as the Kingdom of Denmark. Country usually means state. The country, state or Kingdom of Denmark is the same entity. Greenland is not an independent state, it's a province of Denmark, although enjoying a semi-autonomous status. Jægermester (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. It would help your case if you presented arguments instead of just stating your opinion.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User:Jægermester

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

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

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

Agreeing with Maunus. Greenland is currently heading towards full independence even though some steps remains. It is to be exact a country with a few ties left from its former danish ruler. it is basically a fully independent country as of june 21,2009.--Judo112 (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, indeed I reverted Jægermester's edits before noticing this posting Highfields (talk, contribs, review) 15:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Update for global warming

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

The ice cap in Greenland had survive long eras by "global warming" 4 and 6 degrees centigrade hotter than today. That have several explanations.

1. More heat by Equator give more evaporation, and more evaporation give more snow in Greenland.

2. More heat give more steady warm south-wester in Europa and more extreme cold northerly wind in Greenland. The "global warming" is uneven. A global average.

3. If the border of the ice cap melt, the land grow in the border, as the land preserve the ice.

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

Land of the Greenlanders

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

Three islands?!

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

This http://nia.ecsu.edu/ur/0708/07summerinterns/smith_cresis_greenland.ppt map (p. 4) seems to imply that Greenland remains connected, though with a large lake in the center.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice anything about a lake in the center. Which slide was it? There is of course some subsurface water, though I don't know if anyone knows how much. AFAIK, most of the ice lies on bare rock, not on water. (And if it is on water, that would be glacial melt, not sea water.)

One of the sources for that claim dates from 1951! Much of the bedrock in the center of Greenland is below sea level, so if the ice were to melt, we'd end up with a giant atoll. Probably quite a few islands, though maybe there would be three main ones. We've also gotta ask ourselves how much sea-level rise to take into account. Didn't NatGeo publish a map showing what Greenland would look like with the ice melted? Of course, we get the same kind of thing with Antarctica.

I'm not sure it's quite fair to say Greenland is islands "bridged" by an icesheet. The reason it's below sea level is the weight of that very icesheet, so if the icesheet hadn't been there, the bedrock would be high and dry. If we were to melt the ice, the bedrock would initially be below sea level, but would immediately start rising, probably at several inches a year, and in a couple millennia it would be a single island again. kwami (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Here[3] is data from 2006 showing areas below current sea level. Since melting would raise sea levels by ~3m, and the map is only marked to +100m, it's not clear if we'd end up with a last central lake, or if it would connect to the sea. (It's also possible melt water would cut a channel deep enough for the sea to enter as it rises, but I'm just guessing.) kwami (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the map you link is similar to the one I referred to. (Sorry for the confusion - I didn't mean there is a lake currently, but that there would be one if the ice thawed). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen older maps of 'Greenland without ice' that show it as a ring of inter-connected peaks and islands, but even if Antarctica were to melt, the rise in sea level wouldn't produce that effect according to the 2006 map. But there are a couple places, esp. those two in the north, where the sea might come in, so we might end up with 2-4 islands: it just doesn't look like we would get that from only Greenlandic melt. kwami (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The statement at the lead of the article, 'The bedrock in the center of Greenland has been pressed below sea level by the weight of the ice sheet, so that if the ice were to melt, much of central Greenland would be under water.' seems very suspect to me. During the time it would take to remove that amount of ice there would be so much isostatic rebound that it would be unlikely that the bedrock would be below sea level. Is there a citation that actually says this?147.26.186.35 (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)