The article on Denmark says "Denmark is the smallest country in Scandinavia." This would be true if two points were accepted:

* Iceland is not in Scandinavia; some would agree but others wouldn't and under NPOV that should be recognised.
* Greenland is not part of Denmark. That indeed seems to be the Wikipedia mythology. They draw a non-existent distinction between Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark.

In people's experience, do I stand a fart's chance in hell of being allowed to sort that out?

Don't care.

The categorization of Iceland is irrelevant as it is not a contender for "smallest country in Scandinavia", being 6–7× larger than Denmark.


Was Australia physically "part of" Britain? Is the unqualified term "Britain" synonymous with "British Empire" or "all territory administered by the UK", rather than meaning a clearly defined place in Europe?

How far would you take this reasoning?


If you would seriously have the article instead read "Denmark is the third-largest country in Europe, after Russia and Kazakhstan", I'd say forget it. That would be wrong on several levels.

This would be akin to having a debate as to whether France is the third largest country in North America.

It's fourth by my count. Fifth if you count Denmark.

{{mergeto|Neo-colonial hypocrisy}}

CharlotteWebb

"The categorization of Iceland is irrelevant as it is not a contender for "smallest country in Scandinavia", being 6–7× larger than Denmark."

Iceland is 103,000 sq km. Denmark, even excluding greenland, is 43,100 sq km. How do you get 6-7x?

"Was Australia physically "part of" Britain? Is the unqualified term "Britain" synonymous with "British Empire" or "all territory administered by the UK", rather than meaning a clearly defined place in Europe?"

Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and subject, for many purposes, to the control of the Danish Parliament. It has considerable internal autonomy, but so does Alaska. I doubt that that is the same relationship as Australia now has to Britain. The area of Britain before Australian independence is surely not of current relevance.

I'm talking about Scandinavia,, not Europe. You know full well that most of Russia and nearly all of Kazakhstan aren't in Europe.

Exactly. Neither is Greenland.

Actually, there has been extensive discussion on Wikipedia of the current constitutional relationship between Denmark and Greenland. You can take a look at the relevant talkpages as a starting point. These would be [[Talk:Denmark]] and [[Talk:Kingdom of Denmark]] and [[Talk:Greenland]], as a starting point.

As I understand it, particularly in light of recent constitutional developments including the recent Greenlandic autonomy referendum, it would be a substantial oversimplification to say today that Greenland (or the Faroe Islands, for that matter) is "part of Denmark." Even before the referendum, they were not always treated as the same country; metropolitan Denmark is part of the European Union and Greenland is not, for example.

The designation "Kingdom of Denmark" is being used to comprise Denmark proper, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland, in much the same way (though the constitutional arrangements are not identical) as the Kingdom of the Netherlands comprises constituent countries of the Netherlands in Europe, the Netherlands Antilles, and Aruba. Whether the terminology on the Denmark articles is precise is something I will leave to the Danish and Faroese and Greenlandic editors. (I gather there are also issues as to precisely how the relevant Danish terms and usages are best translated into English, and some domestic issues of Danish and Greenlandic politics may be involved.) But certainly there needs to be some way to distinguish between Denmark in Europe and the entire Kingdom.

Moreover, even if formerly Greenland had been regarded as "part of Denmark" for constitutional purposes, this does not negate the ability to refer to Denmark as the country in Europe, so long as the context makes it clear that it is that which is being referred to. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, under the French Constitution all of the overseas departments and territories are regarded as "part of France," and yet we would feel comfortable in saying "France is a country in Europe" rather than "France is a country in Europe, North and South America, and other places." Similarly, if one looked for a "map of France," one would not necessarily expect to find insets for French Guiana and St. Pierre and Miquelon. Yet the constitutional ties between France and its overseas region have always been at least as close as, and arguably closer than, those between Denmark and Greenland.

(As a historical matter, the contention that overseas regions are "part of" the European country arose as part of an effort to avoid the taint of of "colonialism," and also assisted in avoiding or terminating the designation of certain areas as "non-self-governing territories" triggering international responsibilities on the part of the administering Powers under Article 73(e) of the U.N. Charter. (See e.g. General Assembly resolution 849 (IX) in the case of Denmark and Greenland.) But I digress.)

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, all this discussion really belongs on Wikipedia rather than here. (It is not doing any harm here, I suppose, but it's a digression from the purpose of Wikipedia Review.) If your point is to ask whether issues such as the ones discussed here are open to discussion on Wikipedia, it turns out the answer is yes, and in fact that the issues have been discussed there robustly. On the other hand, if your point is to identify a mistake on Wikipedia, as part of an effort at criticism of Wikipedia's reliability, you've picked a rather odd place to start.

And that's the main point to be made here. Aside from all the legal wonking (which I personally found interesting, but I'm weird that way), this is a legitimate debate over semantics, legalisms, and common understanding that is entirely part and parcel of the encyclopedia authoring experience.

What we here at Wikipedia Review should look at regarding this issue is the process Wikipedia uses to resolve this issue. Do they empanel a group of historians, legal scholars, geographers, ethnographers, and other qualified and competent individuals to examine the issue, come to a reasoned conclusion, and issue a policy paper that then acts as a definitive guide to be applied consistently across all relevant and related articles? Or do they have a free-for-all on each semi-relevant talk page, resulting in incoherent and inconsistent handling of the issue, with different articles written from different interpretations of the circumstances? (I'm not sufficiently interested to see how self-consistent Wikipedia is here.)

Finally, what steps is Wikipedia taking to insulate itself from the ongoing domestic and international disputes and disagreements over the status of Greenland? I know Canada and Denmark are currently involved in a border dispute over some islands off the Greenland coast, and of course there has been for many years now an ongoing "discussion" regarding the status and autonomy of Greenland with respect to Denmark, the EU, and the global community generally (including the UN). I imagine there are not a few people who would not be above attempting to manipulate opinion in that discussion by way of Wikipedia.

Moderator note: child protection related posts split to new thread in Bureaucracy.

Um, who's going to pay for the empanelment of said experts, when free-for-all bickering is, well, free?

I hear the Foundation is supposed to have $7.5M to play with next year. Surely they can pay for a panel or two out of that.

Yes but 7 mil only takes you so far.

Their first priority should be to pay for a focus group to weigh the pros and cons of the inclusion of a portrait of the prophet in the Mohammed article.

Yes but really. Do we have eight thousand years to debate it?
Hey that gives me an idea.

Take the most obnoxiously pro-portrait and the most obnoxiously anti-portrait and put them on the panel. And require they meet face-to-face and then lock them in, with only food and water and writing tablets, no computers, for say... two days. Anyone left alive, decides the outcome.

So, to summarise:

This issue, no doubt like many other such on Wikipedia, shows that a compromise was hammered out among three groups:

1. Those who know what they are talking about and are reasonably NPOV
2. Those with a POV to grind
3. Those who have no notion what they are talking about

Is not that the problem with WP in a nut-shell? It should only be those in group 1 making the decisions but they are too often overwhelmed by the others.

Kelly is quite right; it is the Danish Government that is in discussion with the Canadian one, because what is in dispute is the boundary between Denmark and Canada. Greenland was in the EU for some years; was it then in Europe and did it cease to be in Europe when it left? And who says that the whole of Scandinavia has to be in Europe?

After this thread, I also question the value of discussing individual articles in detail here because too often there will not be sufficient expertise. That's no disrespect to the many valued people here whom I respect jointly and severally.

MBisanz could turn this into a torts joke, but the punchline evades me tight now.

lulz

It's fairly obvious that you're seeking to forward a particular point of view on Wikipedia; to that end your efforts to discuss this article here are not really consistent with Wikipedia Review's purpose.

Deciding whether Greenland is in Europe is a question that an encyclopedia author will need to settle in order to deal with categorization. I think Newyorkbrad did a good job of briefing the issue above, and his statement, to me, would be a good starting point for a policy paper on such matters. But such discussions, as Newyorkbrad notes, belong on Wikipedia, not here. Here we evaluate whether Wikipedia deals with such matters in a reasonable way.

I'm not well-enough informed on Greenlandic politics to even begin to understand what axe you are trying to grind here, but it's fairly clear that you are, in fact, trying to grind some axe. You've chosen the wrong set of sharpening stones, I'm afraid.

What she said. I think you have us confused with these guys, who do not look like they're having all that much fun. YMMV.

I've had naive stamped on my forehead for a long time, But to me, to be considered a physical part of Europe, a piece of land would have to be on the Eur side of the Eurasian tectonic plate (I confess I don't know if that is the case with Greenland or not). For pieces of land to be considered a part of Europe because of political reasons doesn't make historical sense. Take for instance India, Canada and Australia in the British Empire days. In my (admittedly amateurish) readings of the history, these territories were never considered to be a part of Europe.

The North American and Eurasian Plates meet at Iceland, and divide the island roughly in half. That's why Iceland has so much volcanic activity. Greenland is on the North American Plate. I thought that was fairly common knowledge.

Nor were they part of Britain, only of its outlying colonial empire. Cf. the Danish Empire (sounds like a pastry shop eh) which WP seems to call "Kingdom of Denmark" (based on the most common translation of Kongeriget Danmark) to distinguish.

Granted Kongeriget is an obvious cognate of the German Königreich, where König means king and Reich is usually translated as "empire" to the extent that it implies subjugation of outlying territory and peoples. One might use Kongedømme (de:Königtum, en:Kingdom) to merely indicate monarchical government, however the connotations of these roots may be more ambiguous when they form compound words. I'm not sure whether the whole of it would be taken to literally mean "king-empire" (as opposed to empires of a more democratic or fascist flavor), or as to which translation if any would be ideal for the formal name of Denmark's government. Perhaps Ole could opine on this.

I did notice WP also has a page called Danish colonial empire, though I'm not quite sure all three are necessary.

And yes, Greenland is tectonically well within N. America, however in that sense so are certain parts of northeast Asia plus half of Iceland so that might not mean so much by itself.

As far as cultural ties go I would more readily associate Greenlanders with their neighbors and cousins the Inuits of Nunavut than with the North Germanic peoples of Scandinavia. Wouldn't you?

I didn't say the determination would be difficult. But it's still a determination that has to be made. In some cases, making that determination might require synthesis, which is something Wikipedia explicitly eschews, and because there are (apparently) a few nutjobs out there who think Greenland is in Europe (because it's part of Denmark, which is obviously in Europe, or for some other facetious reason), Wikipedia's NPOV policy would seem to require admitting that some people think Greenland is in Europe, or (equally stupidly) that some people think that Denmark is the largest country (by area) in Scandinavia.

Kelly, I know theres no WR:AGF but extraordinary are your comments. I have never edited any of these articles, have taken no part in grinding axes thereon. I started this thread to give an example of a stupid error, one that could be rebutted by many reliable sources that say Greenland is part of Denmark, something I think you don't deny. I realise now that it is not just an error but the result of a stupid compromise. Is it not a textbook example of what is wrong with Wikipedia? Is it not exactly what we should be discussing, that stupid controversies lead to stupid compromises and wrong facts?

Why do people keep going on about Europe? I talk about Scandinavia. Surely nobody here denies that Greenland is part of Scandinavia?


No, the Danish Empire was a series of colonies in Central America (including what's now the US Virgin Islands) ad Africa.


Of course, Greenland was in the European Union for some years, but then you'll tell me that everyone in the European Union is nuts. But I say again, that's an irrelevance. I talk about Scandinavia, not Europe.

Probably a majority of us actually.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/526461/Scandinavia


Greenland is not listed here, and I certainly would not extrapolate from the other possible parts of Scandinavia on any linguistic or geologic basis. Greenland's sole official language is now Kalaallisut (of Eskimo-Aleut origin), and the island wholly within the North American tectonic plate. Suggesting that economics alone are a sufficient condition would create a slope more slippery than… well… the ice sheet which covers most of Greenland.

Then again, some people here don't know the relative size of Denmark (excluding Greenland) and Iceland.

Scandinavia is not part of Europe? And Greenland is part of Scandinavia?

I learn something new everyday. But my mama always told me not to trust everything I read on the internet. Actually, that was for watching TV, when you got three channels on a good day.

I'm not commenting one way or the other on the first question.

What I inadvertently have illustrated here is to show what is wrong with Wikipedia. Whenever anything is or can be made to seem controversial, people who are not experts attack the editor who they disagree with ("It's fairly obvious that you're seeking to forward a particular point of view on Wikipedia; to that end your efforts to discuss this article here are not really consistent with Wikipedia Review's purpose" although I am pushing nothing on Wikipedia and have not edited the article), jump in with their own opinions, and cite vaguely appropriate sources as if that made them experts.

Anyway, in the interests of sweetness, harmony and brotherhood, I request this thread to be closed as it has served its purpose.

Ahhh, one of my favorite moves: "Close this thread, I'm ashamed of my stupidity now!"

That's a classic Wikipedian tactic.

Well done!

Yeah, visual mistake on my part but I have a convenient scapegoat:


I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. Nice cherry-picking by the way.

Nope. Greenland is no part of Scandinavia.

You must have mistaken it with Minnesota.

There's an incredible amount of cherrypicking in this thread is there not? I'm at a loss to understand why on the one hand people want to continue the thread and on the other pretend that it is not good criticism of Wikipedia.

Oh, there's a Dane here and I missed him?

Hej ven! Hvordan har du det i dag?

Jeg er godt. Jeg er i England med mine foraeldre men min Bedsteforaeldre er i Danmark.

What's particularly silly about all of this is that wherever Greenland may or may not be, and however big Iceland is, Denmark is not in Scandinavia anyway (and neither are Iceland, Finland, Greenland and the Faroes). Scandinavia is Norway and Sweden.

Wikipedia sounds about perfect for you.