Jump to content

Talk:Denmark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 141.154.251.80 (talk) at 23:07, 9 May 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleDenmark was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 10, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 29, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 19, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of April 24, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject iconDenmark B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCountries B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Countries to-do list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL

misleading information in the origin of the Denmark name

I would like to know where anybody would get the idea that Dacians were a "Greek people". Dacians, as I recall them, are a subgroup of the Thracians; Thracians were never so called Greek, but a separate identity with different traditions and so forth. The mistake is the same as saying that the German people are Slavic people. --Dacnuroman (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Information in the Religion article?

First of all, I'd like to complement on how well written this article is. Now my point, not to be a nitpick, but is there not an inaccuracy/misleading information in the religion article where it states that 83% of Denmark are members of the Danish Lutheran Church, but only 80% said that they believed in a god of any kind. How does this work? If you were a member would you also at least marginally believe in God even if you are not devout? I see that there are 2 correct sources for each one, but they contradict each other. Is this a problem, or is it so minor that we should not be concerned about it? Canutethegreat (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information is sound enough. Here in Denmark, most people join the church at birth, they are "confirmed" (transitional rite) about age 14 (getting nice pesents at the party), and whether they are religious or not, never get around to leaving the church. Thus, they pay a small tax to the church all their lives - on top of the regular, quite high, taxes to the state and the local authorities. You often hear the argument that they pay this tax to conserve the church buildings as part of our cultural heritage.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing it up for me. Anyways keep up the great work on the article! Canutethegreat (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported Claims

The article states: "In 2006 a survey found Denmark to be the happiest place in the world, based on standards of health, welfare, and education. In 2007 the country's capital is ranked the second most liveable city in the world by Monocle magazine [1] [...]" -- However, that source quotes something entirely different: it says that Denmark is number 3 in a list of the most peaceful nations. Can the author provide the correct source? --Gulliveig 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Here is what is left to be done from the automatic evaluation of the article:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

I'll be working some more on this tonight. MartinDK 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of islands

Recently I added to the geography section that Denmark has 406 island, which is sourced from danmark.dk. Unfortunately a little earlier in that section it is mentioned that Denmark has 443 islands. Which claim is correct? --Peter Andersen 20:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark has 406 named islands according to Store Danske Encyklopædi (Danmark har 406 navngivne øer, hvoraf 78 er beboede., entry: "Ø") I don't know the total number including skerries. Valentinian T / C 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American or British spelling

What kind of spelling is most logical? I just noticed that an editor had changed favourite to favorite, ie from British to American spelling. Neither seems more correct than the other, so I recommend that we reach a consensus and then try to maintain all spellings in the article as either British or American English, depending on which one we decide for. Lilac Soul 05:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For an article about Denmark one is not better than the other. The important thing is just to be consistent. --Peter Andersen 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I think the editors of this article should attempt to reach a consensus here, so that we have a basis on which to be consistent. So let me be the first to cast my vote. I think we should try and stick to British English spelling, because we're a country in the European Union and because, in my own completely biased opinion, British English is prettier... Lilac Soul 05:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't quite understand your logic Lilac..., as an American I'll admit British English is prettier. I say lets just go with the British way, but it really doesn't matter. Canutethegreat (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spellins should be the same!

Immigration, concerning the influx before and after the new immigration laws.

The overview shows a clear and significant rise in residence permits granted (from 36.354 in 2001 to 46.543 in 2006), it is not an exact measurement of individuals as the same person, over time, can be listed in more than one category. But that isn't the issue here, the specific numbers of immigrants isn't stated in my contribution nor in my reference. The official publication does, however, emphasise that although the numbers of individuals aren't entirely exact - these differences causes only minor displacements in the total sum and final disposition, furthermore the official publication shows a clear statistic trend with comparative data. Which entirely validate my, repeatingly deleted, contribution.

http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/86C56774-CAC9-42A5-BBC4-F28B3629078B/0/talfakta_uk.pdf - quick overview; page 3.

If we look at immigrants and second-generation immigrants as a section of the population, this segment has increased, both in absolutes and relative terms, since the new immigration laws and regulations has been implemented.

http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/AAAC9AB3-1EBA-4711-90F8-C4AB14483205/0/labour_market_integration_immigrants_denmark.pdf - quick, easy graphic overview; page 11.

I had imagined these facts might serve as indicator for the level of the anti-immigration sentiment in Danmark and it's political power and influences on legislation.

As to Lilac Souls reluctance to accept work-, study- and EU/EEA residence permits as immigration I disagree, as do Wikipedia:

"Immigration is the movement of people from one nation-state to another."

No matter the causes or motivation is labour-, education,- personal reasons,- health related reasons or escape from persecution or extreme poverty; is all immigration! But I'll happily accepted this current version if that ends this skirmish.

Sincerely David/82.143.196.86

Archiving

I think lots of this talkpage should be put in an archive. Do people agree? I'll do it if you want me to, but I'd like some consensus about it first. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 11:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving would be good.--Peter Andersen 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Concur. Angelbo Talk / Contribs 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have moved most of the existing discussions to the archive. I have left a few as being either ongoing or still important (i.e. the peer review one). If anyone thinks that I have moved an ongoing discussion erroneously, please go to the archive and copy-paste the discussion back to this page, leaving a note that you have done so. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

language

please i would love to know the language that is spoken im denmark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.214.231.141 (talk) 21:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

It says Danish in the bar on the right, though I agree the article could have a few more lines about the language. EBusiness 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark or Kingdom of Denmark?

In the infobox, which should we use? At least in the Danish language, the two are different; Denmark is the country located just North of Germany, whereas the Kingdom of Denmark incorporates this country as well as both Greenland and the Faroe Islands. An editor recently added the Greenlandic and Faroeic prime ministers to this infobox - this is not technically incorrect. However, the rest of the infobox pertains only to Denmark proper, i.e. the country, when dealing with area and population. What should we do? I don't think this is a trivial point, so I'm bringing it to the talkpage. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) - Review me! 07:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a link to Rigsfællesskabet is appropriate in the infobox. I think Greenlandic and Faroeic politicians and officials do not belong in an article about Denmark proper and vice versa. Philaweb T-C 10:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well i believe that political and geographical information on Greenland and the Faero islands should be included in the Denmark page because of the simple fact that Greenland and the Faero islands are part of the Kingdom of Denmark as a whole.they use the same currency as the danish mainland the Danish krone. they both use danish law. They both send 2 representatives each to the Folketing. and the constitution of denmark extends to the kingdom as one sovereign state both Greenland and the Faroe islands as well as the mainland. plus both articles on Greenland and the faroe islands explicitly say in the side column state that they are autonomous provinces of the Kingdom of Denmark. ok theyre not part of the European union but thats because they both withdrew of their own acord because of their right to home rule. I believe excluding greenland and the Faroe islands from the main Denmark page is being ignorant to the fact that Denmark is more than just the jutland peninsula and its scatered islands. and is ignorant to danish history in which both provinces play a massive part. id also like to add that Greenland and the Faero islands are closer politicaly to Denmark than Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are to The netherlands. theyre not part of the Eu they dont have the same currency as the mainland netherlands yet they are included in an article kingdom of the netherlands because they are part of the netherlands as one sovereign state. thats why theyre included with the netherlands and thats why i believe Greenland and the Faroe islands should be included with the denmark page because they make up denmark as a whole soveregn state. Gr8opinionater friday 5th september 23:08 (Gmt)

The problem, however, is that Denmark is a country, as are both Greenland and the Faroe Islands. There are a lot of differences, but you could compare it to "England" and the "United Kingdom", with the UK equivalent being Rigsfællesskabet, aka the Kingdom of Denmark. The problem, however, is, that while the names "England" and "United Kingdom" are not easily confused, the names "Denmark" and "Kingdom of Denmark" are. I'm unsure what to do. One thing is for sure, though - if the infobox says "Kingdom of Denmark", then it would be incorrect to exclude Greenland and the Faroe Islands. So perhaps the options should be: 1) include the two self-governing regions, or 2) exclude them, and rename the infobox to "Denmark" rather than "Kingdom of Denmark". Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) - Review me! 07:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously we need to articles. One for the Kingdom of Denmark and one for the country of Denmark. Carewolf 09:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I agree if there cannot be any agreement to keep or to erase the information i added about Greenland and the Faroes then there should be a new article about the Danish mainland, Greenland and the Faero islands as the one sovereign state and the current article could be renamed to just Denmark. It could be like the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands articles one which talks about the mainland and one which talks about the state as a whole. or we could just keep the information i added on the article about Greenland and the Faero islands either way id seriously consider one or the other because i added the information because i believe it is ignorant to to ignore the fact that both Greenland and the Faeroes make up along with the Danish mainland the one sovereign country of the Kingdom of Denmark, not just the mainland. and i believe information about the relationship between the Danish mainland, Greenland and the Faeroes should be added either way new article or added to the current article because i dont think it should be ignored. user : Gr8opinionater Thursday September 6th 21:19 (GMT)

Unfortunately it is not that simple (actually its pretty danm complicated). Kingdom of Denmark (Kongeriget Danmark) is the official name of Denmark proper, meaning Zealand, Funen and Jutland (plus many other islands).
It is used in laws and some laws even expressly specify that the usages of the term do not include Greenland and the Faroe Islands. In other laws you will see expressions like “Kingdom of Denmark together with the Greenland home rule…………”, an expression containing irrelevant information if “Kingdom of Denmark” was the de facto term for Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. You would not need to add Greenland home rule, if they already is a part of “Kingdom of Denmark”.
But Kingdom of Denmark does include Greenland and the Faeroe Islands, because these are not sovereign states, nor is it some form of commonwealth, were “Kingdom of Denmark” is the name of the union (Denmark, Greenland, Faeroe Islands). Greenland and the Faroe Islands are special societies within the “Danish Realm”.
And here is the fundamental of the problem; Denmark is missing a term and a crystal clear definition of the exact status of Greenland and the Faeroe Islands within the “Kingdom of Denmark”. It simply does not exist. The constitution of 1953 does not explains in clear terms what the exact relationship of the different parts of the ‘Kingdom of Denmark’ is. Note that the constitution of 1953, does not specify that this constitution applies to the ‘Kingdom of Denmark’, but rather the “Realm of Denmark”, maybe hinting that the “Kingdom of Denmark”, is just a part of the “Realm of Denmark”. Greenland’s home rule law (1978) does also not use the term “Kingdom of Denmark”, but rather makes Greenland a special society within the “Danish Realm”. A similar expression is used for the Faeroe Islands (1948).
Even more interesting it gets, reading the 2005 Greenland home rule law that grant Greenland (and the Faeroe Islands) the right to conduct certain foreign relation with States and organizations, though not on behalf of “Denmark” (where the deal includes Denmark proper), in so far as that it is not counterproductive, to “Kingdom of Denmark”’s sphere of interest. They must sign such docs with the “Kingdom of Denmark”. That is the case with Faeroe Islands also. Together they can also make deals, still signing with “Kingdom of Denmark".
Confused? Greenland can conduct certain foreign relations, but not on behalf of “Denmark” (proper), yet they must sign with “Kingdom of Denmark”. Here is the very essence of the “Kingdom of Denmark” problem. How can Greenland sign deals with the “Kingdom of Denmark” signature, yet they can’t make then apply to Denmark proper? Obviously “Kingdom of Denmark” is not a union nominator.
This is because it is not a commonwealth union sort of thing. “Kingdom of Denmark” is Denmark proper, in foreign policy; “Kingdom of Denmark” is also Greenland and the Faeroe Islands. In absolute terms Greenland and the Faeroe Islands are special societies within the “Danish Realm” (or “Realm of Denmark”).
I took a look at the Danish wiki, and they split it into Denmark and Kingdom of Denmark. Convenient and maybe we should do it like that, but unfortunately it is not entirely correct. I rather use the unofficial term “Rigsfællesskabet”, or much more correct “Danish realm”, ”Denmarks realm”, “realm of Denmark” Twthmoses 14:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is an academical discussion. The Kingdom of Denmark includes the Faeroe Islands and Greenland through the "Rigsfælleskabet". Historically the two islands didn't belong to the Crown of Denmark, but to the Crown of Norway, but after the congrees of Vienna in which our brothers, the english, apparently forgot about the islands and forgot to stipulate that they too was to be handed over to Sweden as part of Norway. Defacto the two islands became part of the Kingdom of Denmark, eventhough they were never annexed as lands of the Crown of denmark. They were colonies of Denmark, when that became old fachioned, they became special administration areas or "Amter" with limited homerule. From 1953 the relationship is handed through rigsfællesskabet which is a constitutional matter. Now since Rigsfælleskabet is a constitutional matter and that denmark is a constitutional kingdom, it's pretty clear that they belong to the entity which is known as The Kingdom of Denmark. F.ex. should the Rigsfællesskabet be fundamentally changed it would be a constitutional matter for Her Majesty the Queen and the parliament "Folketinget" - not, strictly speaking, a matter for the Homerules on the Islands (eventhough we must admit that they would be interested...). All Greenlandics and Faeroe-islanders are citizens of the Kingdom of Denmark and there exists no Greenlandic or Faeroe citizenship (they do have "Hjemmehørende" status on greenland, which denotes people with a special relationship to Greenland). Ofcourse they/we belong in the article on the Kingdom of Denmark. Jomsviking (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally correct, however there do not exist anything called “Rigsfællesskabet”, it is a purely unofficial term, (invented within the last 25 years), thus nothing is “handled” though Rigsfællesskabet, as there is not such thing. It is however a term widely used, even by politicians, to describe the Danish realm. It exists solely because Greenland’s and the Faeroe Islands exact status within the Kingdom of Denmark are lacking a crystal clear definition.
I don’t think anybody disputes that Greenland’s and the Faeroe Islands is part of Kingdom of Denmark, and this is also not what the discussion is about. As you state it’s an academic discussion about terms and definitions. The only truly term (and official) that comprises Denmark, Greenland and the Faeroe Islands in all matters is “Realm of Denmark”, “Denmark’s Realm” or “Danish Realm”,- it is the one used in laws. Twthmoses (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA Status?

Will Denmark be ready for FA status anytime soon? Can/should I nominate it? Laleena 12:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not even close to being ready for FA. All sections basically need to be rewritten from scratch and have citations added.--Peter Andersen 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark, the name and etymology

Recently, someone has added that Denmark is short for "Marshes of the Danes". I seriously doubt this, living here, the story I have heard is that it is "Dan's Mark", the field of Dan (a supposed King). Marsh (Danish: marsk) is something else, I have never heard it related to the Danish word for field (mark), although I am not saying there could not be a connection. I know that king Dan is probably an invention of Saxo or some other "historian" and not counted as a historical person.

I am not saying this could not be right, and I do not have the sources at hand for adding "fields of Dan". Also, as I stated, this is not exactly accurate information and it is quite possibly that we simply do not know the etymology. Lundse 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected that posting from "Marches of the Danes" to "Marshes of the Danes". But maybe I'm the gullable victim of a joke or something. Anyway, I've posted a query on this page User talk:64.131.180.206 asking if the contributor has a source. --RenniePet 22:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a joke, it is a well-chosen word for seeming like a fair misunderstanding :-) Lets see what he says and consider it... Lundse 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea if the story sticks or not, but it has nothing to do with a "marsk" (either the officeholder of the type of territory). The relevant word "Mark" is related to "Ostmark", "Mark Brandenburg", "Mark Lausitz" etc, in other words; this theory claims that the word is inspired by German and the territorial organization covered in the Marches article. Valentinian T / C 08:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finnmark in Norway, created in same way Finn(Sami people)+mark. see also Mercia.Håbet 08:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs)

The German use of the word marsk was unknown in Scandinavia at that era then the Denmark first is mentioned.Håbet 09:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs)

On User talk:64.131.180.206 the person who changed the meaning of Denmark to "Marches of the Danes" has explained what this means. It was not vandalism or a joke. "March" actually means "border" or "borderland" in old English.
Here are some references from Dictionary.com:
march –noun
1. a tract of land along a border of a country; frontier.
2. marches, the border districts between England and Scotland, or England and Wales.
–verb (used without object)
3. to touch at the border; border.
Origin: 1250–1300; ME marche < AF, OF < Gmc; cf. OE gemearc, Goth marka boundary; see mark
American Heritage Dictionary
march n.
The border or boundary of a country or an area of land; a frontier.
A tract of land bordering on two countries and claimed by both.
intr.v. marched, march·ing, march·es
To have a common boundary: England marches with Scotland.
Middle English, from Old French marche, of Germanic origin; see merg- in Indo-European roots.
I'm a native English speaker with a better-than-average vocabulary, but was totally unaware of that meaning of the word "march". Maybe British people would be more likely to understand it, but my guess is that almost zero Americans would understand it.
I happen to have an Icelandic friend, and he says that "mark" in Icelandic means "forest", and he assumes this is from the old Nordic language.
My apologies for misunderstanding 64.131.180.206 and going off on a tangent with "marshes". --RenniePet 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is perfectly understandable. I didn't know about "marches" either, nor had I ever considered another root for "-mark" than, well, "mark" (Danish for field). This new interpretation does make sense, although I am beginning to become curious about whether the Danish "mark" originally meant what "march" does. Also, although I am not saying the current version is wrong, sources would be nice as this is bound to come up again and I would personally really like to know this for sure :-) Lundse 10:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"-Mark" is the same North-east germanic word as the above middle english "march" coming from french "Marche" which is the same as german (North-Central germanic) "Mark".
It denotes a borderland or Border-field. You see it in the german "Grenz-mark" which was a "karolingischen Grafschaft" (Caroline Countship??, Karolinsk grevskab) which was ruled by a :"Mark-graf". Now we are close to the meaning of "Denmark", The Caroline emperors established "Grenz-mark"s or "borderfields" near troublesome barbarians, one of these barbaric people :was danes and the borderfield to them was hence "Dane-mark". In modern Danish "Mark" more precissly has the meaning of a Farmer's field, I don't know whether this meaning existed in :old times - regardless both the germans and danes apparently accepted the term.
Jomsviking (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a large chuck of etymology-like info. I’ll appreciate some copyediting as well as what needs specified sourcing, in that I’m unsure what lines needs specified sourcing, in that most sources are in the text itself. Twthmoses (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments on what you added. I have not added any fact tags, basically because I would add a lot and it doesn't exactly look great. Especially the beginning of the section, where you claim that people are debating, needs source. Also you need contemporary sources to confirm what the medieval sources say. Also I feel the section is too long as it stands now. Maybe it would be better to make a separate article called "Etymology of Denmark" or something like that, and then cut the section down here.--Peter Andersen (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that Lilac Soul slapped an OR tag on. Not very helpful in that you actually need to address what parts you consider OR. But luckily you Peter added some comments. A separate article might be the way to go, my only concern would be how to summarise this down for a short intro in the Denmark article. What I have added is already a summarise of much more complicate threads linking together when some writers make their case. I just added base info. Debating is easy. Pickup any Danish lexicon or history book written within the last 200 years and you will see different opinions to the etymology, uniting of Denmark and the approach to legendary Danish kings (which sequel is used to explain the uniting and etymology, - sort of circular logic in some cases). Of the shelf, Mentor Westermanns Leksikon (1950), Illustreret Konversations Leksikon (1907), Lademanns Store Leksikon (1991) and Norden I Tusinde aar (1951). Online there are several very good sources, like; Kristian Andersen Nyrup's Middelalderstudier, BOG IX. Kong Gorms Saga (most relevant Kapitel 2. Danernes lande, but the whole book is very good) [2], Asernes Æt (several extreme informing pages here, here, here and many more, all well researched), Navneforskning at KBH uni [3], and heimskringla [4] with an large amount of information on many Nordic texts and subjects, including them being available (translated) online. As for contemporary sources to confirm what the medieval sources says, is a very strange requirement. I must misunderstand what you mean. A source is a source regardless of its age, in fact the more close in age to an event it is, the better. There is no contemporary source for say Gesta Danorum. Sure there is many books dealing with Gesta Danorum, but the ultimate source is to Gesta Danorum is Gesta Danorum itself. As said I must not understand what you mean. Twthmoses (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to remove it all again, but I would like to see if anyone really has a good argument for keeping it. It is way way too much text describing a subject of little relevance and with no verifiable references or facts. It is my belief that if this subject is encyclopedic at all, it belongs in a separate article with only a very short concise text here. I do not like to see this much space in the top of the Denmark article wasted on urban legends and idle speculation Carewolf (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat surprising comment, that you don’t consider the very origin of the country you live in encyclopaedic. Luckily some do. The very funny thing is that just about any information about Denmark before the year 1000, including much of the Viking age, is nothing but urban legends and speculation, that scholar, interested in these things, try to string together, with just about no verifiable references or facts. In fact that goes for much of world history. Example, if I remember correct the entire chronology of Ancient Egypt is based on 2 or 3 solid dates, with 200 some pharaohs aligned into that over 3000 years. Can you imagine the scope of error that is available here, yet I would be terrible sad if someone suggested deleting Ancient Egypt on account of no verifiable references or facts. What I have added is what various Danish scholars has arrived at, in summarises form already. Too much text is not an argument; this is how the case is and the etymology of Denmark does not come pre-packed in a nice little cube to select bits from, unfortunately. Twthmoses (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly isn't enough sources to create a fork nor is the amount of text in the section a sufficient reason to do so. Sources would be a good thing but just as the example with ancient Egypt uncertainty does not imply original research. In addition to this NPOV does require us to present all sourced viewpoints. As pointed out above those sources aren't hard to find - it's just a matter of getting them in there. Unless someone has a compelling argument against replacing the OR tag with the more specific unreferenced tag I'll do so. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way: The etymology of Denmark is very clear: Denmark is derived from danish Danmark or Danemark, whether Danmark (the 'some kind of' land of Dan) or Danemark (the 'some kind of' land of the Danes) is the original, is unknown. More is not known, and just ends up as original research. The Denmark article is quite long and has to cover a lot of subjects, we can't go into details on all kinds of research theories for each subject. Carewolf (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being Danish myself I naturally understand that. However, although the section may be too detailed it does not draw its own conclusions. Clearly this isn't as simple as you claim and omitting information is as misleading as including it. It could be rewritten but there are no grounds for calling it original research. It sums up what others have said about a subject that neither you nor I know the definitive truth about. Your logic is flawed as demonstrated by the ancient Egypt example. I suggest you reread WP:OR. It is not original research to sum up what others have said - regardless of any uncertainty. We are not here to judge what is right or wrong - we are here to sum up what others have concluded. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be original research, but without any stated sources, it's impossible to know which parts are facts, which are opinions held by some/many researcher, and which if any are your own conclusions or research. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 11:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, which is why I just retagged it as lacking references. It also needs copyediting. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made some changes to the Etymology section. Sourced what I thought needed sourcing (much of it is self sourcing in the very text) and removed things I could find no sourcing for (even talking about it), like “Denmark, is derived from Danish Danmark”. Not only could I not find anybody talking about this, it also seems dubious at best, since the earliest source using the word, not only are English in origin, but also uses Den… rather than Dan… My own best guess, and I did not include any of that, so don’t worry, is that “Denmark” and “Danmark” are probably equal old and does not derived from each other. If more sourcing is needed, please specify where and I will add it. Twthmoses (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Etymology section is stupid. The language of that age is unknown. The first description of Denmark is from about 1074. The name is used before 900 and Denmark exist about 800, probable about 700, perhaps earlier 400 or 200.Haabet 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Stupid? Strange wording, and a little cheap don’t you think? As always a little correction to your input. The first description of the territory now called Denmark is much older than 1074 (Adam of Bremen's "Descriptio insularum Aquilonis" I believe you refer to), and appears in a dozen or more Greek and Roman works. When Denmark first “exists” is of course pure speculation, and no one knows. Not dealing with the very issue of when to count from (when does “exist” starts?), no one knows de facto, when the word “Denmark” comprises all of current territory of Denmark, when the word was first used, why it became the word Denmark, when the first united Kingdom of Denmark was, who the people where that “made” Denmark, and when from a foreign point of view all of it was known as Denmark, etc... There are some good candidate answers to some of these questions, yet for most of them it remains in a state of unsolved / unknown. Twthmoses (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motto?

Normally the motto of Denmark is Gud bevare Danmark (God preserve Denmark) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.200.107 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It's just a phrase used by the Queen in her New Year Speeches.Jonaslind

Free education by law doubtful

This seems doubtful. I am quite certain that this law does not exsist. It was a major debate issue in the justheld elections. The leftwing wanted to current right government to pass it, but nothing promices have been made. Education is still free, but not by law. (It is in Norway however)

The Danish Constitution (Grundloven) reads in § 76: "All children in the age of education (undervisningspligtige alder) have the right to free education in the elementary school (Folkeskolen). Parents or legal guardians, who themselves provide the education of their children, which matches what is normally required in the elementary school do not have to let their children be educated in the elementary school. (My translation).
The Folketing has the right to decide what "the age of education" is, and it is currently free to attend elementary school, high school (gymnasielle uddannelser), and universities.
I saw political demonstrations by teenagers, but please provide a citation for just one political party actually suggesting to terminate free education. The government certainly didn't, and any such policy would have been contrary to decades of Venstre policy. Valentinian T / C 14:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the article currently doesn't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning sourcing. Although the article is well-sourced in some areas, other areas are lacking. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the article's status.Coloane 05:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology

Archaeology is the study of human cultures. The article states that the "earliest archaeological remains" in Denmark are from 110,000 to 130,000 years ago, and then it says that people have lived there since 12,500 BCE. What does this mean? Rossen3 (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two statements appear to contradict each other but they don't: Denmark became uninhabitable somewhere around 100,000 years ago because of the last ice age. (It's an important bit of information that the earlist remains are from the Eem interglacial period.) Do you think this needs clarifying? Hemmingsen (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Denmark became uninhabitable..." - Wow, you had me scared there for a moment! :-) --RenniePet (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: I do not consider it to have remained uninhabitable. :-) Hemmingsen (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The world is probably about only 9,000 years old so there couldn't be Archaeological Remains from 12,000 B.C. or what ever. Drop the conversation!

Dragonrider27 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The world is probably about only 9,000 years old" -How do you figure that exactly?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedmanToby (talk • contribs) 23:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People, please do not start an Evolution vs. Creation argument here. This is a talk page about Denmark. If you want to argue about Creation and Evolution, a good place is this website. J.delanoygabsadds 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, before this starts into some really big arguement, just tell me your an Evolutionist so I don't have to say "READ YOUR BIBLE". Just go on ahead and think the world is 153,0000 BILLION years old. Dragonrider27 (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansions of the historical sections

I have taken the liberty to summerize some main points of danish history. Generally it's ot sourced a lot, because it's not controversial. With a few exceptions that I will note below. Jomsviking (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Viking ring fortress

In response, Harald Bluetooth built six fortresses around Denmark, collectively called trelleborge

I think this should be removed. Harald most likely builded the ring fortresses, since the dating corresponds to the later part of Harald's reign - Though it could also be Svend I Haraldson "Tveskæg". But it is not likely that they were builded as a response to a southern pressure. Their strategical position are not suited to counter a southern land invasion. Instead they control water ways: Aggersborg Limfjord+Skagerrak, Fyrkat, Nonnebakken: Kattegat. Trelleborg (Slagelse) Storebælt, Trelleborg (Sverige) the approch from the Baltic. The pattern is complete with the discovery of Borgeby in Skåne, which controls the sound. Now adding in how we know the "vikings" preferably fought - at sea - the Fortresses has probably not been intended to defeat invasions, rather they are builded of the same reasons that 99% of all other medival fortresses are builded: Inorder to fortify the king's internal position. That's why they are placed near the waterways that carried the trade and the toll which could be pressed - I believe the mafia in Itally call it "protection money". Jomsviking (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section Tagged for CleanUp?

I came to this article via 'ariciles marked for cleanup', only to find substaintial, detailed article. It seems someone had marked demography section for clean-up, but does not seem to have given reasons. I adjusted the tag to read 'section' (rather than article) may need clean up, but, to be honest, I'm not really certain what the problem is??

I will move on to other page requiring more attention! Bruceanthro 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have cleaned up the Demography section - it's now somewhat more concise. Carltzau (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up of sources

The selection of sources for this article also needs a clean up. For example, the use of the web site "Asernes Æt" as a source is problematic. The site does not meet WP's verifiability requirements for reliable sources as it is a self-published, private home page (see classification by Fagenes Infoguide, a site established by Undervisningsministeriet: "Privat hjemmeside der giver et bud på folkevandringerne"/"Private home page which gives a view of the migrations"), created by a former banker and amateur historian, i.e. without formal training (Jeg ikke professionel forsker / "I'm not a professional researcher"). The information presented on the site has not been peer reviewed and lacks references to scholarly sources at times (i.e. footnotes), and in addition, it occasionally provides rather controversial speculations. The site is used in this article as a reference to the sentence fragment "maybe similar to Finnmark, Telemark or Dithmarschen[6] (See Marches)." I find that fragment unnecessary. Similarities between the segment "mark" in Denmark and "mark" in other place names are surely not limited to the three names mentioned? I would instead suggest that Inge Skovgaard-Petersen [5], Niels Lund [6], Peter Sawyer or Ole Krumlin-Petersen are consulted for this section, as their contributions have been thoroughly vetted by the international research community and are often cited by other scholars. Sophiasghost (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the source "Asernes Æt", which can easily be removed, along with the sentence belonging to it, I don't see any other source problems, don't you agree? Maybe it's time this article is relisted for promotion to good article status? Comments, please? --Thrane (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thane, there are still entire sections lacking sources (mainly the history sections), so maybe it would be better to wait a little to relist it, so that the sourcing can be fixed, especially since the lack of sources was one of the problems that got it delisted. Please give people time to cover the gaps first. In response to your question: I consider the below links questionable as sources as well.
Patience&Peace, Sophiasghost (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DanishKroners.jpg

Image:DanishKroners.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of Kosovo

I'm resuming with the inclusion of an independent Kosovo in the maps of the countries that recognise it. Bardhylius (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Debt

In the article it is stated that Denmark has a foreign debt of zero, but in the list of countries by external debt, Denmark has a debt of 405 billion dollars. The statistic is from 2006, so it's obviously outdated. Could somebody please find some newer sources? --Mostar (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that it has zero net debt. There is a difference between that just debt. Denmark does have debt, but not net debt. --Maitch (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find a English source, but during the 4th quarter of 2005, other countries owed Denmark 3,021 billion kr., while Denmark owed 2,985 in foreign debts. That was the first time since WWII that Denmark didn't have a net-debt (Danish source). Given the recent POV edit, I should probably also point out that most of the Danish foreign debt is held by companies, while the Danish state only owes just over 90.5 billion kr. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Denmark "acquire its sovereignty" in May 1945?

According to the List of countries by formation dates article, the "Date of acquisition of sovereignty" of Denmark was in May 1945. This is not reflected in the Denmark article. Which date is correct? --Mais oui! (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dates in the list appear to be the most recent date of sovereignty, as in the date when the country was most recently freed from occupying forces. Due to WWII, many European countries will have a date listed as 1945. I think the date in the list is incorrect - it does not reflect that all these countries were sovereign countries before the Nazi invasion, and that the Nazi invasion breached the sovereignty of these countries. So the information in this article about Denmark should stay as it is. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 07:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you! I am not arguing that this article (the Denmark article) should change. However, I am extremely concerned that the List of countries by formation dates article is a massive pile of WP:OR and WP:UNVERIFIED, and it is important that concerned editors Watch and contribute to the List of countries by formation dates article. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, the list is WP:OR with, as far as I can tell, no sources to back up anything. Most lists on Wikipedia are, however, problematic when it comes to WP:OR, unless they have very clearly defined criteria for inclusion and either source everything or are just a list (e.g. List of hospitals in Denmark is easy as it is just a list). -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 07:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...in the time of David..."? (Mythological Explanations)

Can someone explain to me what is meant by "in the time of David", in the same sentence at "Emperor Augustus" in the first sentence of the second paragraph in the "Mythological Explanations" section? The only "David" I know of is the king of ancient Israel, who ruled in like the 8th or 9th century B.C., whereas Emperor Augustus ruled right around the birth of Christ, i.e., a lot later.

Jlaramee (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a vagueness in the language in Chronicon Lethrense (which is from around 1150). It uses the phrase "In the beginning, when the emperor went against Denmark at the time of David, ..."[7], which is a reference to the king of ancient Israel, even though it couldn't possibly have happened in his life time. It shouldn't be interpreted to mean anything more accurate than "at least centuries ago". Hemmingsen 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It threw me too, it needs editing! I'll do it now... Nortonius (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two map optional display

Hello Denmark!!! I have something that may interest contributers for this page. In a nut shell, it allows the option to display two maps in your info box, one could be a close up of Denmark, and another would be Denmark in a wider European or EU context. This is an example that was being discussed on Scotland's talk page (though I think they have rejected a two map option). Prior to now no one knew that you could have two maps displayed in the info box. For 'smallish' counties the benifits are easy to graps, an up-close view of the country, and a wider contextual visualisation of the country. Dydd da!!

PS: This is an example from the Scotland page, please do not be offended that I display the Scotland info box here. It is only ment as an example.

Scotland  (English / Scots)
Alba  (Gaelic)
Motto: [Nemo me impune lacessit] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)  (Latin)
"No one provokes me with impunity"
"Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh"   (Scottish Gaelic)
'"Wha daur meddle wi me?"'  (Scots)1
Anthem: (Multiple unofficial anthems)
Location of Denmark (orange) in the United Kingdom (camel)
Location of Denmark (orange)

in the United Kingdom (camel)

Location of Denmark (orange) in the European Union (camel)
Location of Denmark (orange)

in the European Union (camel)

CapitalEdinburgh
Largest cityGlasgow
Official languagesEnglish
Recognised regional languagesGaelic, Scots1
Demonym(s)Scot, Scots and Scottish²
GovernmentConstitutional monarchy
ISO 3166 codeGB-SCT

23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)~

The pictures of the Queen and the Prime Minister are rather horrible... we should look for better photos to use for the article...

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Denmark&oldid=211357841"