Talk:History of Greenland

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allencr10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Old talk
'the only territory to leave the European Union'? - not so. Algeria won independence from Europe along with its independence from France.--XmarkX 14:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm missing something, but Algeria's independence came in 1962 while the EU as we know it today was not formally recognized until 1993. True, there were similar organizations before the EU, but they aren't really seen as one in the same, are they? I think the statement you removed is actually correct and should be reinstated. -- Hadal 15:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Update: It looks like Rmhermen thinks so too, and has reverted your changes. That settles that, eh? -- Hadal 14:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a revert "settles" anything. I believe both views are correct in their own way. As the statement could be interpreted as both true and false, and seeing that it's not a very important statement anyway, I'm in favour of leaving it out. -- Jao 10:23, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course a revert doesn't settle anything; nothing on a wiki really does. I was using a figure of speech, for heaven's sake; because I was the only one responding to Mgekelly's removal of the statement and wasn't getting any reply, Rmhermen's (if I'm not mistaken one of this article's primary authors, another being yourself) revert could be interpreted as an agreement. As for the statement itself, I don't see how it could be both right and wrong (and if it were so ambiguous, why it was included in the first place). How could Algeria leave a union that did not yet exist? Neither you nor Mgekelly have explained (and please forgive my ignorance). It may be trivia, but it's interesting trivia. I've heard/read the factoid elsewhere from a reputable source (scotsman.com I think), so I'm genuinely curious. A quick Googling found this quote from Marius Vahl of the Centre for European Policy Studies:


 * "There is nothing in the treaties in force today that stipulates how a country may leave the European Union.... No country has left the European Union. The only one that left the European Union is actually Greenland. But that was not a country in itself. It was a part of Denmark"


 * Again, I'm not trying to irritate anyone here. I simply want to know. :) -- Hadal 20:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, how about: "The only territory to have left the EU in its current form (or incarnation or whatever) "? Either way, I agree with JNE, a great article --Dyss 13:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I meant, my logic wow was as follows: Greenland did not leave the EU 'as presently constituted', but an earlier version, the EC. Algeria left an even earlier version, the EEC. So either way, Greenland is not unique in this. Indeed it is commonly said that Algeria is the only territory to have left the EU, which apparently is false too. In any case, I agree with Jao that this is in fact a really pointless piece of trivia anyway, which is a reason I felt no compunction in removing it. --XmarkX 05:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ignoring the EU discussion...
A lovely article. I'm very impressed. -JNE, 00:36, 03 October 2004 (Visiting without my user ID)

Questions
You mention a written marriage record from 1405. I understand this record had been conserved in Denmark, not in Greenland ?

I understand from the article that Denmark stopped navigation to Greenland early in the 15th century, and we have no information about what became of the settlements. What should be available, however, is information about what the Danish knew and thought about Greenland in the following 200 years, before they decided in 1721 to look after them.

Claim of "Largest Island"
My dictionary describes and island as "a tract of land entirely surrounded by water". Under this definition, surely Australia is the largest island. Down here we are taught that we inhabit the largest island and the smallest continent...

Not trying to be picky. Just pointing out a different view. Cheers John Henriksen


 * I think if the island is big enough, it is considered a "continent" and not an "island." Therefore, Australia is a continent, Greenland an island. Of course, since the division between continent and island is probably arbitrary, it's probably just a matter of personal opinion... Brutannica 22:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it has to be either an island or a continent. If Australia is both, then Eurasia is a much bigger island, since that is also completely surrounded by water. My understanding is that Australia is commonly seen as a continent, while Greenland is an island. I think this doesn't only have to do with the amount of land area, but also with the fact that Australia has its own unique biota, while Greenland isn't very different from Northern Canada. It might also have to do with tectonic plates, since Greenland is part of the North American plate, while Australia has its own.--MaxMad 09:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The wikipedia entry on continents is excellent on this issue. It's not to do with tectonic plates, since they were only discovered relatively recently. Eurasia is not an island, since it is physically joined to Africa. The main reason that Eurafrica (Europe, Asia and Africa) is not an island is that it includes numerous smaller islands: Madacasgar, Japan, Britain. Australia the continent would include Tasmania, an island - Australia the island would not. Anyway, Australia is normally considered these days to be a part of a continet 'Oceania' which includes New Guinea and New Zealand etc. Australia the political entity includes numerous small islands. I'm not sure that there is an Australia which is just an island actually - you'd call that the Australian mainland, since no-one's going to want to say that Tassie, Fraser Island etc. are not part of Australia in any sense at all. --XmarkX 05:16, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Detached from Denmark
Copied from psb777's user talk page:


 * Could you explain your objection to "effectively detached"? "Less influenced" seems far to slight since the island was occupied by the U.S. throughout the war which attacked any Germans found in the area. The U.S. even printed the postage stamps for the island. Rmhermen 03:40, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Greenland has always been geographically "detached" from Denmark. As the primary meaning of "detached" is to do with physical location it is awkward to use it in the way it is being used. It immediately calls to my possibly too literal mind a rapid continental drift and not the metaphorical meaning meant. Already we suffer in the paragraph in question from the pathetic fallacy - let's not make the para worse than it already is. "Effectively" really means "actually" but (I guess) it is being used with the opposite intention. I suggest the replacement of "effectively" with "politically" or "socially" or "militarily" or "culturally" or ? Or a combination thereof. You choose. Paul Beardsell 04:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I fail to agree that detach is primarily to do with physical location. It is primarily to do with lack of attachment, whether physical, mental, political, etc. Effectively means "in actuality or reality or fact" which is exactly what we mean hear. Legally Denmark was still owner of Greenland but in reality, in fact, in actuality Greenland was occupied, supplied, patrolled, controlled by the United States. Rmhermen 13:05, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I do not deny that "detach" has other common meanings. However those meanings have arisen from metaphorical uses of the original meaning and original derivation of the word. I am not saying you are wrong but that there must be a better phrasing to use. I contend the use of "detach" in a Greenland became more detached from Denmark context is like saying that financial damage will arise from the explosion of Mt St Helens. Yes, correct, and we all know what is meant, but the usage is potentially misleading, albeit it most likely only to a seven year old. Both are puns: Greenland moving away from Denmark and damage rising from the mountain. Paul Beardsell 12:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well? Paul Beardsell 23:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * "Less influenced" is wrong. I have explain this. Continuing to return it is to propagate errors intentionally. Compare this to the supposed possibly misinterpretation by a hypothetical seven-year old. Language is used this way all over and all over Wikipedia. Perhaps you would like to right for Simple English wikipedia where this is a constant concern. However if you have a better and correct phrasing, please go ahead. I also don't agree that these are puns. Rmhermen 01:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

The issue resolves to this: Has the sentence been improved? Yes. Paul Beardsell 15:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Best ask Jao as it was him that added basically all the content. Pcb21| Pete 19:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Return to the EU Question
This is one for those who spend to much time considering the ideas of sovreignity and such like: when East Timor 'left' Portugal in 1975, this was never recognised officialy; according to the East Timor article, it was a "non-self governing territory under Portuguese administration". Does this not mean that when it was recognised independent from Portugal in 2002, it also left teh EU?
 * oops, forgot to sign my comment Robdurbar 08:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What does this mean?
I'm baffled by: "Greenland was unknown to Europeans until the 10th century, when it was discovered by Icelandic Vikings. Before this discovery, it had been inhabited for a long time by Arctic peoples, although it was unpopulated when the Vikings arrived; the direct ancestors of the modern Inuit did not arrive until around 1200." Does this mean there had been inhabitants of Greenland before the Vikings, but they left before the Vikings arrived, and then the Inuit came later? If so, who were the pre-Viking settlers and where did they go? And what's the evidence for them? --Angr/undefined 11:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes that is exactly what it means. We have a paragraph on "Early Palaeo-Eskimo cultures". Rmhermen 14:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Jared Diamond
In the links at least, some reference should be made to Jared Diamond's book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" which has an extensive section on the Viking settlements, which is probably the most approachable and available book on the subject for non-specialists. Snori 21:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, easily among the most biased and least accurate. A shout-out here on the talk page works just fine, and I for one strongly discourage any use of that work on this general page. The Norse-specific pages could probably do with some mention and fact-checking of his claims, though, given its unwarranted popularity. — LlywelynII  08:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Edge
''The prehistory of Greenland is a story of repeated waves of Palaeo-Eskimo immigration from the islands north of the North American mainland. As one of the furthest outposts of these cultures, life was constantly on the edge and cultures have come and then died out during the centuries. Of the period before the Scandinavian exploration of Greenland, archaeology can give only approximate times''

The statement "on the edge" is meaningless in this context. On the edge of what? I suggest either survival or society ...or both.Guernseykid 04:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have said that the phrase "life was constantly on the edge and cultures have come and then died out" is fairly obvious. Certainly on the edge culturally is just worng. There are no Dorsets wearing tie-dye sealskins and open-toed mukluks. Rmhermen 04:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're responding to. I didn't say on "the edge culturally". If "on the edge" without reference is so obvious, please explain it to a numbskull like me. "On the edge" is a modern expressions with modern implications; it is imprecise and tries to pass on the strength of its currency today. I "think" I know what you mean but I don't "know" I know. It seems like an important paragraph, why not expand and clarify it beyond this issue.

What is the problem with my "centuries" comment in my other edit? Why don't you take a minute and explain your thoughts?

edit: Saw your comment. Nevertheless, the name has persisted until today. Wouldn't those practical Scandinavians have changed the name when the truth became obvious?Guernseykid 05:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well obviously they didn't change the name so that is an odd question. Why would they? And why would they have changed the name if it was a deceit but not if it was a climate change? You said on the edge socially - do you think there is a difference between the society of a culture and the culture of a culture? Rmhermen 05:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If the sentence bothers you that much how about: "As one of the furthest outposts of these cultures, life was constantly precarious and cultures have come and then died out during the centuries." Rmhermen 06:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, simply go ahead and change the wording. Try terms like "precarious", "fragile", "vulnerable", "remote", "pioneer", "outpost", &c, and see how that works for yourself and others. Here are some links to pages that focus on the likely climatological causes to the extinction of the Greenlanders:     .   // Big Adamsky •  BA's talk page 09:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see, by the light of day, how "on the edge of society" is too ambiguous. I meant on the outskirts/fringes/edge of the Palaeo-Eskimo demographic group. I don't necessarily want to craft a new paragraph and I do find it an interesting concept, but simply "on the edge" has too many overtones of modern grunge/punk/drug/goth/etc. groups. I was trying to avoid this pitfall and ended up putting my foot deeper into it.

I would think that, after the first wave of Scandinavian immigrants, word would have gotten back to family and friends in the homeland that this was not by any means a "green land", and whatever you do don't come here or it will mean misery and death. However, if it was indeed "green", at least along the southern shore, people would have been reluctant to change an established name, one their ancestors had been using for centuries, when the climate shifted. I'll have to study your links more thoroughly, Adamsky, but link #6 seems to support the idea of climate change after several hundred years' occupation. Basically I'm concerned with the potential interpretation that Scandinavians were stupid enough to fall for any gambit, even one perpetrated by a fellow Norseman.

Side note: Iceland is further south than Greenland. I've heard that Iceland was once covered by trees. Odd disparity between Iceland/Greenland names. Guernseykid 15:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The theory is that is was called Greenland to get people to move there - once it was named it didn't change. Why would it? Any number of places still bear names unique to their discovery or early promotion - Nova Scotia, Easter Island, etc. It certainly did not mean "misery and death" to move there and the Viking settlements lasted for hundreds of years. Please remember that far from the noble truth-loving Scandanavians you want to imagine, the founder of Greenland was the exiled murderer and thief, son of a exiled murderer, and desperate to get some people to move to a new land with him.

The other line under discussion is "As one of the furthest outposts of these cultures, life was constantly on the edge and cultures have come and then died out during the centuries." It establishes at the beginning that the settlements were at the extreme range of geographical settlement, in the middle that life was therefore precarious and at the end that multiple settlements over time failed - not once from climate change at one time. It says nothing about cultural traits being different. I have no idea what "overtones of modern grunge/punk/drug/goth/etc. groups" the words on edge have, certainly I am not aware of any such meaning for that phrase. I suggest you consider choices like "precarious", "fragile", "vulnerable" if you think it is a problem. Rmhermen 17:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Naming/Erik the Red
Continuing from the "Edge" discussion above, after glancing through some histories today, one from Iceland, I can see your points. My point is that he couldn't very well have named it Greenland if there were nothing but ice there. Other Vikings had ships and could get there on their own, and other people had been there before. So I guess "marketing" fits, it just sounds gimmicky. But it also has little to do with the question of whether or not the land was actually covered in ice. It supported some minimal agrarian economy, so there must have been greenery.

I suggest: "he named it Greenland to make it more attractive to settlers."

As to the "noble" Scandinavians, I'm glad to have found someone to agree with me ;-), though they were a bit more the "noble savage" at that time. Erik was probably guilty of "manslaughter" and he wasn't sentenced to death, it was just that anybody on Iceland could kill him without penalty, so he left. There was no deceit in his action, everyone knew he did it. The Njal's Saga is one long story of murder and retribution, but no one is ever morally condemned (to the best of my memory) in the first half of the book, at least, before the Christian conversion. There was one slight moral judgment I remember, of a man who had too much emotional attachment to his wife. (!) Guernseykid 00:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The link provided to the word "murder" leads to an article that calls it "manslaughter". Guernseykid 13:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Frozen Echo (regarding the Norse period)
The Frozen Echo by Kirsten Seaver contests some of the more generally-accepted claims about the demise of the Greenland colony and I suggest that it deserves mention in this article. For example, Seaver surmises that the Greenland colony was healthier than commonly thought and that the Greenlanders didn't simply starve to death but rather were probably wiped out by Indian or unrecorded European attack, or abandoned the colony to either return to Iceland or to seek out Vinland. Would be happy to fold this information in if there is agreement that it would be worthwhile.--Caliga10 15:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Norse
"Obviously, the Norse knew that Greenland could not be a permanent place to settle because of the above factors". I'd suggest this needs to be rephrased as a) the Norse were only somewhat aware of most of the factors relating to the fragility of their existance and b) they settled there for 450 years so I suspect they intended to live there permanently.

Without some kind of citation, it does not seem there is evidence the Norse knew anything of the kind. Striking these sentence, as I don't see how it's based on historical data (no citation) and doesn't seem based on fact. JerryRitcey 20:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

81° N
I recently removed what I thought must be a typo regarding the latitude. Greenland is to this day still uninhabited north of 81° N, if it is even permanently inhabited at all. Siorapaluk is the northernmost settlement in Greenland and is only at 77°47' N. Kaffeklubben_Island is the northernmost point of land and is barely north of 81° N (at 83°40' N). Did the original editor mean 61° N? (Nanortalik near the southern tip is only 60° N.) Or 71° N? Ufwuct 15:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wrote the original - which wasn't quite what was currently in the article but was also not entirely correct. The source is this page: . It should say something along the lines of: "Although scattered hunting camps existed as far north as 81° N, permanent settlement was concentrated farther south. 18th century immigrants from Canada populated Avanersuaq in northwestern Greenland." Rmhermen 05:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So are you okay with the way I have reworded it? I've also included your source. Ufwuct 15:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is ok. Rmhermen 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Shouldn't this article be merged with Greenland ?
 * By no means! First, it is too big. Second, such article exists in many wikipedias. I myself translated it into Ukrainian :). Verdi1 16:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus, this was/is a featured article. I've never heard of a featured article needing to be merged into a larger article.  Has this ever happened before? Ufwuct 22:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Year of Discovery
In Daniel Woodley Prowse's book A History of Newfoundland on page 1 footnote it states; in the year 834 the Norwegians were acquainted with the country in the north called Grønland, commonly called Old Greenland to distinguish it from Spitzbergen. The article goes on further to state: In the charter of the Emperor Ludovicus Pius to St. Ansgharius, first Archbishop of Hamburg, dated 834, published by Lindenbrogius in 1706 (p. 125) it reads We make known to the present and future sons of God's Holy Church that, in our days, by divine grace, a door is opened for preaching the Gospel in the northern regions, viz., Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Greenland, Halingalandon, Iceland and Scredevindon. Can this claim be substantiated? HJKeats 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Inuit
When did the Inuit arrive in Greenland? The article leave a blank between the decline of the Dorset culture and the arrival of the Norse. Didn't the Inuit arrive between them?--Cúchullain t/ c 22:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the Inuit arrived afterwards as the article at least used to state. Rmhermen 00:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If they arrived after the Scandinavians, then it wouldn't be right to call them "native". Zaurus 23:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Inuit is both singular and plural
I've edited the word "Inuits" to "Inuit".
 * That's great, but it's not the singular and the plural. It's the collective. The singular is . — LlywelynII  08:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Vegetation
"The only vegetation present were sedges and, on rare occasions, dwarf shrubs. Palynologists' tests on pollen counts and fossilized plants prove that the Greenlanders struggled with both soil erosion and deforestation.[3] Since the land was agriculturally inept, the Greenlanders resorted to pastoralism and hunting for food.[4]"

The only vegetation? No. There were willow and birch, plus grasses and introduced plants, as well. The next sentence even talks about "Greenlanders struggled with both soil erosion and deforestation". How can you have deforestation if there were no trees? Of course there were.

Norseman food habits
"What seems clear is that the Greenlanders never made a transition to pisciculture. " - Well, that part is terribly wrong. We have evidence from isotope proportions from Norse Greenlanders remains, that towards their demise as a population, their menu composition shifted from 80% land food/20% sea food to 20/80 in favor of sea food. Claims like the one I quoted are...well...outdated. 83.21.135.146 18:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Ramond

Absolutely wrong. Checkout "Change of diet of the Greenland Vikings determined from stable carbon isotope analysis and [14]C dating of their bones", Radiocarbon (Radiocarbon)  ISSN 0033-8222, 1999, vol. 41, no2, pp. 157-168 (1 p.1/4)University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Very clearly the Norse Greenlanders ate lots more fish as the climate became colder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UEGRAD (talk • contribs) 01:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Whaling stations on the east coast
I've deleted the sentence stating that European whalers established temporary stations on the east coast of Greenland in the 17th century, because I have never heard of such a claim. It is possible that a station MAY have been established in the second half of the 17th century (the only time it could have been established during this period), but given I have never read of one, it is very doubtful there ever was one. The only whaling I know of off the east coast of Greenland was in the pack ice, although they did at times come within sight of the coast. Jenkins (1921; 157), most likely citing Zorgdrager's 1720 work, says that "in the eighties of the seventeenth century there was a prosperous fishery in Gael-Hamkes Bay [modern Scoresby Sound, unless map makers have misplaced it] in Greenland." They only would have gone ashore (if they did at all) to store the blubber in barrels to bring back to port, where the blubber would have been processed into oil. The only stations I know of in the Arctic the 17th century were established on Spitsbergen (1611), Edge Island (1610s), Jan Mayen (1614), and Northern Norway (1610s).

So, please, unless you have a primary source that proves stations were established on the east coast of Greeland in the 17th century, don't revert this section. Jonas Poole 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
A user by the name of Pendant17 proposed to merge a section of Erik the Red to this article. But they did so by adding a hidden the message into the section. This was back in November 2006. So no one ever noticed. Eventually the whole section was hidden. So, I'm re-proposing the merger in a more familiar fashion. -- ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The last Norse Greenlander?
this website has the following section:

''Not everyone would have left; some must have stayed on their homesteads, unable to give up old attachments and resolved to wait out their fate. One such stoic was found lying face down on the beach of a fjord in the 1540s by a party of Icelandic seafarers, who like so many sailors before them had been blown off course on their passage to Iceland and wound up in Greenland. The only Norseman they would come across during their stay, he died where he had fallen, dressed in a hood, homespun woolens and seal skins. Nearby lay his knife, "bent and much worn and eaten away." Moved by their find, the men took it as a memento and carried it with them to show when at last they reached home.''

Does anyone know any more about this? Perhaps it should be added to the article. Although the 1540s seems like a very late date... Esn (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"When Germany Extended Its Military Operations to Greenland"?!
Although the revisionist history of World War I was already well underway in the 1930s, pushing the old wartime propaganda of the victors into the background, with respect to the historiography of World War II it seems we are still mired in the era of Allied propaganda. The way this section is phrased in the Greenland article it sounds as though the Allies had no choice but to invade Greenland to protect it from or displace the German aggressors, which is simply untrue. The only "military operations" that Germany had near Greenland of any dimension prior to the Allied invasion were a very few submarines passing by in the waters around Greenland, which hardly excused, justified, or explained the Allied occupation of Greenland, as your article makes it sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.12.3 (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

New report on Vikings and climate change
Interesting summary on sciencedaily.com of a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Brown University (2011, May 30). Climate played big role in Vikings' disappearance from Greenland. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 31, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110530152331.htm

Article balance
There is none.

There are eighteen (18) looong paragraphs on the abortive Norse colony and five (5) moderate ones on the actual centuries of Danish rule (with numerous errors). Frankly, it'd be nice to get FA status again but the Norse stuff – particularly the Collapse versus actual scholarship debate where the editor went down every one of Diamond's "five factor" Powerpoint bullets – has just got to be taken off the wp:coatrack and shunted to more appropriate articles in the name of readability and wp:relevance. This is the general history article: the theories can be noted and linked but, in the end, need to be dealt with as the theories they still are, with the focus of this article on the historical facts.

Some notable omissions: Davis (?!) and the other early explorers; whaling (?!!!); the Danish companies responsible for colonization, their operation and profitability; Paarss; the Moravian missions; the Instruction of 1782; the KGH's (esp. Rink's) paternalism regarding the natives; the explorers, terra nullius, and the risk to Danish sovereignty; the discovery of meteoric iron; the Peary Channel controversy; the Peary-Cook controversy; the Ivigtut cryolite mine; Operation: Iceworm; cod; attempts at localization and privatization of Denmark's monopolies; and the recent international campaigns against whaling and sealing.

[Edit: To preëmpt the Bebold crowd – Yeah, am. But also working on other pages atm (Although some like Hans Egede, the Bergen Company, the Royal Greenland Trading Department, and Economy of Greenland could be used profitably here).] — LlywelynII  09:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The "abortive" Norse colony lasted longer than the modern Danish rule (by over 150 years). Not unreasonable that it should be treated at some length. Rmhermen (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Update required: 2012 study
Archaeologists Uncover Clues to Why Vikings Abandoned Greenland - SPIEGEL ONLINE refers to an interesting study with detail including dates which would be useful here. The study itself seems to be  It proposes that the cooling of the climate led to changes in their diet but their settlements continued for a couple of hundred years before being abandoned for social reasons, with no indication of the starvation or disease suggested by some commentators. See also the paper (pdf) and. As far as I can see this study isn't cited. . . dave souza, talk 06:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/greenland.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Commented out paragraph
I have commented out this paragraph: (edit here)

''*The Norse established their settlements along fjords (such as the Tunuliarfik and Aniaaq fjords in the central area of the Eastern settlement). Because this was during the so-called Medieval Warm Period, the vegetation there was very different from what it is today. Excavations have shown that the fjords at that time were surrounded by forests of 4-to 6-metre-tall birch trees and by hills covered with grass and willow brush. The Norse probably cleared the landscape by felling trees to use as building material and fuel, and by allowing their sheep and goats to graze there in both summer and winter. The climate also became increasingly colder in the 14th and 15th centuries, during the period of colder weather known as the Little Ice Age.''

This section has existed for many years and had no sourcing at all for a long time. Then someone inserted a link to a completely unreliable source (edwatch.org) and a dead link. As this material was disputed for many years and has no supporting sources I have commented it out and may delete it fully in future, unless someone can provide proper sources for the claims in the paragraph (that shouldn't be too difficult to find if the information is correct). --Hibernian (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Good move. There's some factual information there -- the Norse did settle along fjords, cleared land by burning, and grazed sheep and goats. This is all well established archaeologically. But the stuff about forests of 6-meter trees is nonsense, and temperatures during the MCA were almost certainly no warmer than today. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, at least parts of it seem plausible (I'm no expert in the subject), but with ridiculous citations like that and no real evidence the claims can't just sit there. We need someone to get the correct information about this and post it with proper sources. --Hibernian (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Greenland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120411212816/http://cambridge.academia.edu/JonathanGrove/Papers/397439/The_Place_of_Greenland_In_Medieval_Icelandic_Saga_Narrative to http://cambridge.academia.edu/JonathanGrove/Papers/397439/The_Place_of_Greenland_In_Medieval_Icelandic_Saga_Narrative
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120715044721/http://www.ilisimatusarfik.gl/Portals/0/Ekstern/Generelt/Dokumenter/Gr%C3%B8nland%20som%20del%20af%20den%20bibelske%20fort%C3%A6lling%20-%20Ph.d.-afhandling.pdf to http://www.ilisimatusarfik.gl/Portals/0/Ekstern/Generelt/Dokumenter/Gr%C3%B8nland%20som%20del%20af%20den%20bibelske%20fort%C3%A6lling%20-%20Ph.d.-afhandling.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arcus.org/publications/downloads/greenland.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120411212816/http://cambridge.academia.edu/JonathanGrove/Papers/397439/The_Place_of_Greenland_In_Medieval_Icelandic_Saga_Narrative to http://cambridge.academia.edu/JonathanGrove/Papers/397439/The_Place_of_Greenland_In_Medieval_Icelandic_Saga_Narrative

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Greenland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113130338/http://www.natmus.dk/sw18660.asp to http://www.natmus.dk/sw18660.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113130328/http://www.natmus.dk/sw18650.asp to http://www.natmus.dk/sw18650.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108081655/http://www.randburg.com/gr/nanocomm.html to http://www.randburg.com/gr/nanocomm.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hDNGLGqk?url=http://lccn.loc.gov/97161960 to http://lccn.loc.gov/97161960

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on History of Greenland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110419200203/http://www.natmus.dk/sw18632.asp to http://www.natmus.dk/sw18632.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812132119/http://www.natmus.dk/sw18635.asp to http://www.natmus.dk/sw18635.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113130323/http://www.natmus.dk/sw18643.asp to http://www.natmus.dk/sw18643.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511135249/http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_AB/AB_53/01_Groenland_Oriental_Arret.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_AB/AB_53/01_Groenland_Oriental_Arret.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313215205/http://www.natmus.dk/sw18658.asp to http://www.natmus.dk/sw18658.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040720044147/http://www.sila.dk/History/ to http://www.sila.dk/History/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150519204641/http://www.thuleforum.com/broken_arrow.htm to http://www.thuleforum.com/broken_arrow.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Paleo-Eskimo
Is there another term that isn't a racial slur that we can use to describe this group?Allencr10 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Changes I plan to make
Hello fellow editors,

I plan to make a few edits to the Late Dorset and Thule Cultures section. The edits I plan to make are:

Removing most information that doesn't have citations, Replacing with up to date information with citations, Changing the tone of the section to place emphasis off the Norse and onto the Dorset and Thule cultures

Ultimately the section that I will put back in will look smaller than what I took out, but I was shocked by the lack of citations in that section. If there are any questions please let me know, I won't be putting these up for a few days, so it should give adequate time for discussion.

Thank you all! Allencr10 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Edits I did make
Hello Fellow Editors,

I am following up on my previous post to let you know the edits I did make for the Late Dorset and Thule Cultures section.

I rewrote it, deleting information that didn't have citations or weren't relevant. Then I added information using up to date, peer-reviewed sources. I understand that the section is much smaller, but now it is more credible and informative. I was shocked by how much was written without sources.

If there are any questions or issues, please let me know first, before changes are made. I am happy to discuss this with anyone.

Allencr10 (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Vikings as farmers and settlers
I have been asked to discuss these current phrases before editing: 1) "[...] when Icelandic Vikings settled on its southwestern coast, [...]" 2) "Excavations of middens from the Viking farms in both Greenland and Iceland show the [...]"

There are a lot of definitions for the word viking, and whether it even should be capitalized. But the most consistently included definition   and to me most convincing arguments seem to be that they were Norse/Scandinavian pirates/raiders - i.e. an occupation, not a demographic group.

The Norse settlers on Greenland seemed to be living the settled life as farmers, fishermen and traders, but I am unable to find any reference to them going on raids. Therefore I suggest changing the more specific term "Viking(s)" to the generic term "Norse(men)" in the above phrases. The paper that's cited by the second phrase above even specifically talks about the Norse colonies in Iceland and Greenland. Skoskav~enwiki (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with the change from the Viking farms to the Norse farms. The highly respected Norse archaeologist Birgitta Wallace, who was a member of the team that excavated L'Anse aux Meadows in the 1960s, and who in 2015 the Canadian Archaeological Association called "the world's expert" on the Norse in North America, prefers the use of the word Norse and not Viking when referring to the Viking Age settlers of North America. In a 2003 paper [] she wrote why she referred to the settlers of Newfoundland as being Norse and not Viking. She does not refer to the Newfoundland settlers as Vikings, or Greenlanders, or Norse Greenlanders, she refers to them simply as Norse. Jerry Stockton (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Norse or Viking
There is no evidence that all of those who settled on Erik the Red's Land in Greenland were Vikings (pirates/raiders/traders/barbarian warriors) or that they thought of themselves as Vikings. This settlement probably included farmers, women and children. Although some might have been Vikings, they all appear to have been Norse.

Birgitta Wallace, Senior Archaeologist Emerita, Atlantic Service Centre of Parks Canada, Halifax, was a member of the team that excavated L'Anse aux Meadows in the 1960s and was also at the 2016 excavation of Point Rosee. She has had a long and distinguished career as a Norse archaeologist and appears to be the preeminent authority on the Norse exploration in Newfoundland. In a paper published in 2003 she states her preference for using Norse over the more popular Viking. []

The Norse in Newfoundland: L'Anse aux Meadows and Vinland by Birgitta Wallace, Senior Archaeologist Emerita, Atlantic Service Centre of Parks Canada, Halifax "Note that the term “Norse” refers to all inhabitants of Viking age and medieval Scandinavia, not just those of Norway (Webster 1988). Danes and Swedes were part of the migrations of this period, aptly named the Viking Age (c. 750-1050). Although they drastically affected the map of Europe, their role in the Norse ventures to North America was minor, and is therefore not discussed here. The term “Norse” is preferred here to the more popular “Viking”, which really refers to pirates or raiders. Although many men of the Viking Period would have been vikings at some time in their lives, women and children were not."

Here is a little more information about Birgitta Wallace and her qualifications as a Norse expert: Canadian Archaeological Association, 2015: [] “Birgitta’s name is synonymous with Norse archaeology and Viking-age evidence in the west. Her CV [Curriculum Vitae] contains an outstanding 95 published submissions, including top-ranked national and international journal articles and book chapters, as well as the beautiful illustrated volume, Westward Vikings: The L’Anse aux Meadows Saga. Her research has expanded far beyond the academic milieu. As the world’s expert in a field fraught with controversy, mythology, misunderstanding and enormous international interest, she has included in her writing a wealth of public outreach in attempt to educate the interested in the realities of Norse North America.” Jerry Stockton (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't think anyone has said or implied Vikings are not farmers as well. The problem is the definition you have used. ....as of course Vikings were farmers.The term Viking is for a specific period in Norse history. What you would need to talk about is merging the two articles under one name.... as of right now one is history of the Vikings. .. ..... where the Norse page is more about a people and the language. Moxy (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree we should use Norsemen. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Need a merger talk again or something... not changing all the links all over to an inferior article... that doesn't even cover the history.... is disrupted to say the least and it has been reverted on multiple occasions. Got to take this talk to the main page.... as most wikipedians won't think linking to a lesser article with 1/8 the references is going to be better idea.--Moxy (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Webster's Third International Dictionary, 2002: Viking "... one belonging to the pirate crews from among the Northmen plundering the coasts of Europe in the 8th to 10th centuries … SEA ROVER ..." Sea Rover "... one that roves the sea; specifically : PIRATE" The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989: Viking "... the practice of marauding or piracy ... One of those Scandinavian adventurers who practiced piracy at sea, and committed depredations on land, in northern and western Europe from the eighth to the eleventh century; sometimes in general use, a warlike pirate or sea-rover …" Jerry Stockton (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your posting all this in the wrong place.....you need to post at Vikings to merger with Norsemen. NO one will want to change one link here to an article with vastly less information and sources because of a term preference here at this one article. Bring it up....I agree with you as well that a merger to Norsemen from Vikings would be best . ..but will never agree to linking only the inferior article simply because of a preferred term here.   --Moxy (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Started a talk at Talk:Vikings.--Moxy (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Norse settlement - origin of the name
I put a failed verification tag there because the source used is, at best, twisted. The source, in the section "Greenland at the Edge in the Icelandic Tradition", reports that an Icelander, Ari Thorgilsson, in the 12th century recounts that Erik the Red in the 10th century used the name Greenland "to encourage people to go there". The thesis of the paper is that in post-classical saga tradition Greenland is viewed as "a peripheral space in Norse tradition", "a place of exile in which Icelandic heroes were tested by extreme adversity in the settlements andwilderness". Their historicty however is scarce, as assessed by the author: "Embodying the preoccupations of Icelandic writers and audiences, these writings tell us little about historical realities in Norse Greenland; but they do show how details of geographical and historical lore were subsumed and trans-formed in the Icelandic narrative tradition."

- Jonathan Grove

We must also note that in 10th century Greenland was surely warmer than in 12th century, when Thorgilsson writes his chronicles. -- 188.15.91.91 (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I had to reinstate the tag, because the problem, that is the a-historicity of the citation, is not resolved nor stressed. Sagas are not historical documents and do not depict, as stressed by the very author of the cited paper, historical veracity. We can be fairly sure that Erik never said that "it would encourage people to go there that the land had a good name", that is just what the author of the saga wants Erik to say, that is Greenland has a better name than Iceland thanks to a scam. To present this as some historical fact is simply disingenuous. -- 194.36.72.102 (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The section is a mess. The primary source here is Íslendingabók which is the oldest and most reliable Icelandic historical source. For his information on Erik the Red, the author cites his uncle Þorkell who had himself got it from talking to a man who was with Erik when he went west. So we have a hadith-style chain here. That doesn't mean this is necessarily true information but it's also almost certainly not something Ari Þorgilsson made up in the 1120s. Haukur (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Buying Greenland
Trump daydreaming about buying Greenland is of no consequence to the history of Greenland and should not be in this article. Nothing will come of this. To the extent that we should be covering it at all, Denmark–United States relations is a good place for it. Haukur (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree - it's WP:RECENTISM. But I particularly object to this because:
 * The section is clearly about a specific period in history from the 1940s to the 1980s, so adding events from 2019 makes no sense.
 * The 1946 proposal is already covered in the section and does not need to be covered a second time.
 * There is no evidence that the 2019 interest is motivated by Greenland's strategic importance, as claimed by the text.
 * As such I will remove it. Kahastok talk 09:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Good analysis, thank you. Haukur (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

North and South Greenland
According to some sources on Wikipedia the colony of Greenland was split into two colonies, North Greenland and South Greenland untill 1950. But there seems to be very little information on this subject anywhere on the internet really. Should it be added or is this info too unreliable? M.c de Jong, 16:44, 30 August 2019 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.c de Jong (talk • contribs)

Photographs from the Danish National Museum
I just became aware that the Danish National Museum has released a whole lot of interesting images under a free license, including photographs and sketches of historical artifacts found in Greenland. Note for example the Inuit-carved figures showing people with a Norse style of clothing. Could come in use. Haukur (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

please review
"that the colony, towards the end, was healthier than Diamond and others have thought" - but "Diamond" is not mentioned before, this sudden appearance of this surname needs to be explained!

Why was Greenland's population bigger in 1500 than when it was in 1400?
Please help 2A00:23C8:5B83:CC00:DCC4:2FD9:4AAF:87A5 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)