Talk:Greenland

Why is there a pentagram on the image of the flag?

Seems suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nivstein (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Contrary to the assertion here of this article's language variation being established in 2002, it was actually established later, in 2003, here. I have therefore changed the tag. Inglok (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you, Inglok, and to support Oxford spellings in this article. MOS:RETAIN is clear on this – you cite a page that can be considered the first non-stub version of the article. While that edit was poorly spelled in other respects, it did establish Oxford spelling with the word "rumoured" rather than "rumored". Looks to me like any later change to American English was not in accord with the guideline. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 13:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know how that edit of December 15, 2003, "can be considered the first non-stub version of the article". I didn't see any "Stub" heading on previous versions of the article that was suddenly not visible on the December 15, 2003, version. How do you determine that?CorinneSD (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A stub article is one because of its size and limited content, not whether or not it was tagged as a stub. If I were to come across an article that looks like this, there's a fair chance that I'd tag it with a stub template. Not so much for an article that looks like this, which is developed well enough to definitely not be considered a stub article. Bottom line, CorinneSD, is that it's always a judgement call, and some contributors might disagree with my assessments above. What we must ask ourselves is pretty much summarized at MOS:RETAIN:

In general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive.

To me, this means that past community consensus has led to the wise sentences above, and so, do we really want to involve ourselves in a debate like this? (That's not to say we shouldn't question those things that appear to be inconsistent. That's always okay and that's how we grow as editors.) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

To editor Inglok: I took the opportunity to research a little deeper, because the edit you cite to establish Oxford spelling really did not do so. In that rendition of the early article there was still an American-spelled "colonization" rather than "colonisation". So the edit you cite merely added an Oxford-spelled "rumoured" (rather than "rumored") to an article that already had an American spelling. The only thing that edit did was to mix the spellings in the article and really didn't establish anything. I checked every edit after that up until this edit in September, 2005. That edit altered "rumoured" to "rumored", the American spelling. I went through that entire rendition of the early article and found two more American spellings and no Oxford spellings. The two other American spellings were the words "materialize" and "colonization", the latter having been there since the second edit in 2002. This does appear to establish American spelling as the preferred spelling for this article. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth:. "Colonization" is the Oxford spelling (American and British English spelling differences#-ise, -ize (-isation, -ization). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Either way I'd serious challenge the notion that this is when the article went from being a stub to not a stub. At most it's the edit that added British "ou" spelling to an article that was already using the American/Oxford "ize". Were any specifically American spellings used after that point?--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that now I'm not too sure. "Colonization's" root, "colony" comes down from Latin, and the way I read the paragraph at Oxford spelling#Defining features, the British spelling "-ize" was retained for words of Greek origin, of which "colony" is not. To me, it follows that "colonisation" would be the correct Oxford spelling, while "colonization" would be the American type. Frankly, I'm no expert, but I found that cited paragraph to be pretty clear. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "Colonize" is what's used in the OED.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Then, at best, "colonize" is both the American and the Oxford spelling. The other word I mentioned, "materialize", is also of Latin roots ("material"), so apparently it, too, is a mixture of both American and Oxford spelling. When the word "rumoured" was added with the cited edit, it was added to an article that was already a mixture of American/Oxford spelling. Then "materialize" was added at some point, which merely continued the mixture. When "rumoured" was changed to "rumored", it cannot be said that it definitively made the article American spelling, so I was wrong. However, by that time the article was definitely not a stub article, so this is decidedly a tough call. I would not have tagged the "rumoured" edit as a stub, because it gave enough info to be a "start" article. But that may still be a judgement call. The thing that matters is that by the time it was changed to "rumored", it definitely was not a stub article, so that edit may be called into question. Was it correct? thereby making the article American spelling? or was it incorrect, thereby making the article Oxford spelling? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the courteous, thoughtful exchanges here, and I find the discussion quite interesting. Since I was not even able to find the particular moments when these edits were made, I cannot add anything on these points. However, I would like to remind my fellow editors that the differences between American and British English go beyond spelling to include both vocabulary (apartment/flat; elevator/lift; truck/lorry; aluminum/aluminium, etc.) and some grammatical structures that are often quite subtle, including, for example, when using the verb "do" as a kind of verbal pronoun or substitute to avoid repeating a verb: British: I said I would fix the drawer, and you can see that I have done. American: I said I would fix the drawer, and you can see that I have. and in some past participles: British: They have got lost. American: They have gotten lost. When one reads an article, essay, or book, even if one ignores spelling differences, one can pick up these slight differences and determine whether the writer was a speaker of American or British English. I feel that, overall, the article on Greenland is written in American English. But, that's just my impression. I prefer American spelling, but if there is consensus on changing all spelling to British English style, I would not object. – CorinneSD (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been looking and looking for all kinds of such differences and have found none in the early edits. The word "rumoured" was the first specific difference between Oxford and American. When that word was changed to "rumored", it was still the only specifically Oxford spelling in the article, and the article at that time was not by any means a stub article. At this point, unfortunately perhaps, I have to stick with my initial choice. The word "rumoured", which may or may not have been added to a stub article that remained a stub article for a bit longer, survived in the article from this edit made in December, 2003, until this edit that was made in September of 2005, nearly two years. I can find no other specifically American nor Oxford spellings nor grammar in that later rendition of the article, which was definitely not a stub article. My lack of expertise notwithstanding, I would have to call that 2005 edit a poor edit and agree that this article should be in British-English style. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• If you guys had spent the efforts you have used on discussinng whether to make one arbitrary and inconsequential choice over another on improving the page, we'd have this article close to GA by now.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  So what have you been wading for? !>) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

June 21, 2009 agreement

The lead section says that Denmark maintained control of police and judiciary as part of the June 21, 2009 agreement. But in the body of the article, it says the opposite — that Greenland assumed self-government in those areas. Which is it? 76.169.117.161 (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead section was inaccurate. I´ve corrected it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Written records

The "Norse Settlement" section says:

Apart from some runic inscriptions, no contemporary records or historiography survives from the Norse settlements.

But then the caption to the picture of the ruined church says:

The last written records of the Norse Greenlanders are of a marriage in 1408 in the church of Hvalsey

I find this confusing and contradictory. 86.167.125.50 (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

True, Norse settlement is ancient dating back 85,000 years, was a 200,000 year old civilization. Proof is that if greenland were looked correctly at, the top indentation on google earth would explain it was half of its continent of today and flipped over. Britain hit the top ridge, and cuba as well, was centered in the atlantic. No need to edit it. Case closed.