Talk:Jakobshavn Glacier

Naming
I believe the Jakobshavn Isbræ article should be moved to Sermeq Kujalleq. The latter is the Greenlandic name for the glacier, the former is the Danish name for said glacier. Local names should be given priority (as was the case with settlement names, as well as geographical names after Home Rule was granted to Greenland in 1979. This particularly in light of the positive result of the recent referendum which stipulates that Kalaallisut is to become the sole official language in Greenland. Both names should be used in the article, in the same fashion as dual naming is employed in Nuuk, Ilulissat, Qeqertarsuaq, to name but a few. There is contention as to how this change should proceed, hence this invitation to discussion. --Algkalv (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. I agree that this is an issue. It is particularly prominent when it comes to the naming of the Jakobshavn glacier because this is internationally known as Jakobshavn. I could pull out a vast list of international scientific papers to back this up. It really would not be helpful at this stage referring to this glacier primarily by it's Greenlandic name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polargeo (talk • contribs) 14:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The same could have been said about all names in countries governed for a significant amount of time by foreign powers, Greenland included. Note that there do exist geographical names in Greenland for which English/Danish names are appropriate in the context of primary use − this includes areas which have not been inhabited by the Inuit, and/or place names have not been preserved and are not in use (vide: naming of various geo features in the Northeast Greenland National Park). There is no confusion with respect to Nuuk or Kangerlussuaq, despite references to Godthåb or Søndre Strømfjord in scientific and popular literature of the last half century. Note, again, that dual naming would not go away, and that all proper redirects would be in place. Finally, peripheral articles could (and I think should) use both names when referring to this glacier. The main article though should bear the Greenlandic name, with dual-naming prominently featured, as in other Greenland articles. --Algkalv (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that dual naming should be in place and please feel free to add the local name but in cases where the world scientifc community uses a different name please do not over-ride this name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polargeo (talk • contribs) 15:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then there is no consensus for the moment. Repeating arguments that are not being heard is not going anywhere. We'll leave it as is until other editors, particularly from Greenland and Denmark, weigh in.--Algkalv (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 3rd opinion: Name states that because the readers are English readers, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity."  The opinions of Greenland and Danish readers are not the main issue for the name of the article.  Other popular names should be included in the first sentence.  NJGW (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This rules out the current name. According to the above, the article should be named 'Ilulissat Glacier'. The settlement from which it derives its name is Ilulissat, known in colonial times as Jakobshavn. It (Ilulissat) is an internationally recognized name, and has been for decades. I would accept a proposal to move the article to "Ilulissat Glacier". --Algkalv (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Google results: "Ilulissat Glacier" : 1840; "Jakobshavn Isbræ" : 8470
 * Google news: "Ilulissat Glacier": 31; "Jakobshavn Isbræ": 99
 * Google scholar: : 17; : 101
 * - NJGW (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)




 * The links above are broken. 'Isbræ' is not an English word. 'Jakobshavn Glacier' yields 8710 results. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Jakobshavn+Glacier%22&btnG=Search . Is this all about quantity? --Algkalv (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Sermeq Kujalleq" yields 4440 results. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Sermeq+Kujalleq%22&btnG=Search --Algkalv (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The quantity of occurrence is a good indication of "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". NJGW (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think 'Isbræ' is a recognizable word to English-speaking people not familiar with Scandinavian languages. Regarding quantity − 'Sermeq Kujalleq' is not an unheard of term. The fact that the population of Greenland is very small (~57,000). Quantitatively, native names are bound to be on the losing side. Always. --Algkalv (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Naming principles from Naming_conflict: 1) "If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence." In this case, the English equivalent would be 'Ilulissat Glacier'. − Ergo, this name should have priority. 2) "If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved and there is no common English equivalent, use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself." − This is an inanimate object (glacier), hence this doesn't apply. 3) "If the name is that of an inanimate or non-human entity, there is no common English equivalent and no dispute over the entity's name, use the official designation (or an English translation thereof) applied by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the entity is predominately found" − The governing body (Greenlanders) named this glacier Sermeq Kujalleq. Second piority. Therefore, per the above, I believe the first choice should be "Ilulissat Glacier". The second choice should be "Sermeq Kujalleq". --Algkalv (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Corollary − I see no justification for naming the article 'Jakobshavn Isbræ'. First and foremost, it doesn't meet the first top criteria from naming policies page, it uses a settlement name that has gone out of use decades ago, and finally it includes a non-English word. --Algkalv (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally − Ilulissat is the town name. We have an article on Ilulissat. In said article, there is reference to UNESCO World Heritage Site, the Ilulissat Icefjord. It's not Jakobshavnfjorden. It's not Ilulissat Kangerlua. It is Ilulissat Icefjord. By the same token, in addition to all the above, the glacier should be referred to as Ilulissat Glacier. --Algkalv (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Reference: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list --Algkalv (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Quoting from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1149: "Located on the west coast of Greenland, 250 km north of the Arctic Circle, Greenland’s Ilulissat Icefjord (40,240 ha) is the sea mouth of Sermeq Kujalleq, one of the few glaciers through which the Greenland ice cap reaches the sea. Sermeq Kujalleq is one of the fastest (19 m per day) and most active glaciers in the world. It annually calves over 35 km3 of ice, i.e. 10% of the production of all Greenland calf ice and more than any other glacier outside Antarctica. Studied for over 250 years, it has helped to develop our understanding of climate change and icecap glaciology. The combination of a huge ice-sheet and the dramatic sounds of a fast-moving glacial ice-stream calving into a fjord covered by icebergs makes for a dramatic and awe-inspiring natural phenomenon."  Notice the reference to "Sermeq Kujalleq". Why should we contradict Unesco? I also cannot help but notice that entire passage in the aforementioned citation shares wording with |the first edit of the WP article, which post-dates Unesco inscription by 2 years (2006 vs 2004).  I actually haven't read the Unesco original until now, but I cannot imagine keeping Jakobshavn Isbræ. I cannot think of a better reference than Unesco for the name of the *glacier*. It fills the #1 requirement on our policy page (naming conflicts). To repeat − the glacier is referred to as Sermeq Kujalleq. Can we settle the matter now, please? --Algkalv (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The most common recognisable name used for this glacier internationally is Jakobshavn, the Greenlandic name is almost never used. For every UNESCO reference you are able to find I can find 10 internationally equal references to back this up. This is the English version of Wikipedia not the Greenlandic version. If you wish to go around wikipedia changing 'Greenland Ice Sheet' to 'Kalaallisut Sermersuaq' then please do and see how far you get. I quote your own case back "If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence." When the Greenlandic name is adopted as the standard name to use internationally by English speakers then this should be used. At present the standard name used for this glacier is its Danish name Polargeo (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While I don't agree with all of Algkalv's reasoning, I looked more into this and found pages like this which explain the naming issue very clearly (see the bottom of the link). I'm not so sure that Jakobshavn is the "English version", and as you point out it more accurate to consider it the Danish version.  Since the name of the location has actually changed (in 1976), I think the best course would be to name the article Ilulissat glacier, list Sermeq Kujalleq as another term for it, and explain that Jakobshavn is the former and still popular name (outside of Greenland).  All possible search terms would be redirected here, and listed clearly in the lead.  NJGW (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How common a name is on Google scholar is okay and does back up my argument. You will find many of the instances of the name Kujalleq will be 'this glacier is also called Sermeq Kujalleq'.Anyway go to the two most highly rated English language science journals and do a search for both terms [] []. You will quickly see that Jakobshavn Isbrae is the name used. Then go to any other international science journal you care to choose and do a similar search. I know this is the Danish name but International English is quirky like that. Je suis Anglais Polargeo (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You might consider indenting replies with colons, so that the thread is easier to follow for us as well as uninvolved parties. --Algkalv (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am willing to agree with this resolution. I also volunteer to do the necessary edits. --Algkalv (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It cannot be called Ilulissat Glacier. That is not the international name used for the glacier. That is the name used for the town. This is crazy. We are not talking about the town or the Ice Fjord we are talking about the glacier. The international name is Jakobshavn Isbrae or Jakobshavn Glacier but the international scientific community more commonly use Isbrae Polargeo (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Try doing a search on the BBC website [] They refer to the glacier as Jakobshavn


 * I have now added important scientific citations and facts to article. Note that the name used in each reference is Jakobshavn, this is what the glacier is internationally known as, while the town is rightly now known as Ilulissat Polargeo (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * [International Glaciological Society] Search results:
 * "Ilulissat Glacier" 0
 * "Jakobshavn Glacier" 0
 * "Jakobshavn Isbrae" 32
 * "Sermeq Kujalleq" 0
 * I hope this can put the present debate to rest Polargeo (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like this issue has no clear-cut solution. I notice that UNESCO calls it Sermeq Kujalleq (as part of the Ilulissat Icefjord) and National Geographic calls it the Ilulissat Glacier.  Neither mention "Jakobshavn", though the UNESCO nomination forms makes it very clear that S.K. is the new name, J.I. is the old name... and then uses I.G. a bit as well.  I don't have the background needed to say which authority should be used in naming this (IGSOC?  UNESCO?  National Geographic?).  I think the RFC may be prudent, but the input of a glaciologist would probably be a very good idea.  One or both of you should email one or a few to get their input (asking "what would the greatest number of English speakers most easily recognize as the name for Sermeq Kujalleq").  NJGW (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but this is wrong, if you go to www.nationalgeographic.com and do a search for "Ilulissat Glacier" you will get 1 archive hit from the year 2000. If you search for "Jakobshavn Glacier" you get 36 hits including right up to 2008. It is quite obvious that the decision at National Geographic is that it is not correct to call it Ilulissat Glacier. Of course UNESCO will call the heritage site by its local name because the applications for its status as a heritage site come from the local governments. Polargeo (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Google searches
 * "jakobshavn glacier" site:nationalgeographic.com Result 47 hits
 * "jakobshavn isbrae" site:nationalgeographic.com 2 hits
 * "sermeq kujalleq" site:nationalgeographic.com 2 hits
 * "ilulissat glacier" site:nationalgeographic.com Result 0 hits
 * Polargeo (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You will notice that nobody has missed a wikipedia page or redirect entitled Ilulissat glacier thus far. The wikipedia guidance on naming conventions Naming conventions states as follows
 * Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail.Polargeo (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I only just noticed NJGW asking for the input of a glaciologist. I am a glaciologist who has worked on the Greenland Ice Sheet. I have flown over Jakobshavn Isbrae, walked to it from Ilulissat and been to the Ilulissat Ice Fjord in a boat. If I mentioned Sermeq Kujalleq at an international conference of glaciologists most would not know what I was talking about. If I mentioned Jakobshavn Isbrae the entire room would instantly know I meant the most important glacier in the northern hemisphere. Polargeo (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Polargeo is entirely correct. Ilulissat is now the official name for the town that used to be Jakovshavn. However, the glacier name has never changed. The glacier is simply never referred to as Ilulissat a bit north of Jakobshavn is a glacier named sermeq Kujatdleq, it is not the same glacier, and I have never seen Kujalleq used. Likewise I worked in the area in the mi-1980's and am a glaciologist. I am adding some glacier dyamics to the page as well. At this point the references I have added are not incorporated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peltoms (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Peltoms and Polargeo. I think that settles the question quite clearly. I would still like to see "Ilulissat glacier" listed as a colloquial term, given these results:
 * Google results: "Ilulissat Glacier" : 1840; "Jakobshavn Isbræ" : 8470
 * Google news: "Ilulissat Glacier": 31; "Jakobshavn Isbræ": 99
 * Google scholar: : 17; : 101
 * My main concern is how to explain why/when this alternative term is used, and by whom. Any insights into this?  NJGW (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have added in a Name section trying to explain some of the names for the glacier as this is obviously quite an issue. Maybe this doesn't resolve it yet but others might expand on this. I have also added a new redirect page for Ilulissat Glacier because of the large number of references to the glacier by this name. Polargeo (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Video of Calving events
http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/14/video-time-lapse-photography-proof-extreme-ice-loss-james-balon-ted-conference/

The above link mentions the glacier and has some very cool video. I think it would fit into the article somehow, just not exactly sure.Matthias5 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jakobshavn Glacier. 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/20100627071506/https://www.cresis.ku.edu/~plummer/jakob.html to https://www.cresis.ku.edu/~plummer/jakob.html

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) 07:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jakobshavn Glacier. 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/20060622031330/http://www.ilumus.gl/sermermiut_historie_uk.htm to http://www.ilumus.gl/sermermiut_historie_uk.htm
 * Added tag to http://rcswww.urz.tu-dresden.de/~isprs/proceedings/paper/MAAS_606.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.igsoc.org/journal.old/42/141/igs_journal_vol42_issue141_pg219-232.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209142252/http://www.chasingice.com/reviews/media-reviews/ to http://www.chasingice.com/reviews/media-reviews/

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) 03:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

suggested changes to inforgraphic on the right on the article page
The band to the right on the article page toward the bottom should read "status: re-advancing" instead of "status: retreating" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja07041976 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)