Talk:Denmark/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

About Greenland

The Greenland is a part of Denmark, isn't it? If so, why the area of Denmark 43,000 km²? It should be more than 2,000,000 km². And the island should be shown on the map as a part of Denmark. Rasim (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's kinda complicated, but no Greenland (and the Faeroe Islands for that matter) is not a part of Denmark. It's a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Kinda like the way Canada and Australia are under the the the British Crown. And then not quite anyways, because the Danish parliament still retains control over its finance, foreign and defense policy.

So I think it's the safest thing to do, to have them be separate. You can also see Greenland's sovereignty in that it is not a part of the EU while Denmark is.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Rasim (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Media

It would be really useful to have a Media section like in the Sweden entry. I wanted to find the major quality newspapers here. Anyone got the knowledge? Kyle Andrew Brown (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The major newspapers would be Politiken, Berlingske Tidende and Jyllands Posten with major tabloids being BT and Ekstrabladet. Publicly funded TV stations are DR and TV2. Also there is the issue of television licence paying for both DR, partly TV2 and public service stations P1 P2 P3 and P4 of DR Radio.--Thorseth (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Confederation, federation, federacy or what?

Could someone please clarify for me whether the Kingdom of Denmark is a sovereign state consisting of three legally equal countries (i.e. Denmark, Faroe Islands, Greenland) or is it just that the Faroe Islands and Greenland have autonomy within the state? The Rigsfællesskabet article clearly says "It is one state with two self-governing areas, and as such it can be referred to as a federacy.". However the Kingdom of Denmark article states that the Danish Realm consists of three autonomous parts, the Denmark article gives the definition "senior member of the Kingdom of Denmark" and also the fact that there are three prime ministers in the state seems to suggest a theoretical equality between the parts as if the Kingdom was the alliance of the three "countries". ZBukov (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands are one kingdom (or realm). However, Greenland and the Faroe Islands have extended selfgovernment meaning that they can make their own domestic laws etc. They are, however, subject to the Danish constitution - i.e. the entire Kingdom of Denmark is covered by the same constitution. This means that Denmark cares for the defence and diplomatic affairs of the entire realm. So no federation but one Kingdom.--Nwinther (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Frigate

There is a discussion on the Frigate article which editors here may be interested in. 88.106.86.183 (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The viking age history section is way to general

Especially when it comes to the vikings settling in Iceland and Greenland who was undisputely Norwegian and Icelandic. This should be more specific about Danish vikings which would mean almost only raids and conquests in England and France. Also it is false that the vikings were great shipbuilders, they stole or bought their ships from scandinavian shipbuilders. I'll let someone else fix this as they see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.241.52 (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to jump in and say that it is an anachronistic mistake to call any viking settlement "Norwegian" or "Icelandic" as none of these nations existed at the time of the early vikings. I also disagree with your claim that the vikings were not great shipbuilders. The viking ships were the first to traverse the atlantic. And most reliable sources seem to support this claim. Also you argument that the vikings 'bought their ships from scandinavian shipbuilders' seems to be build on some false premise that the vikings and the scandinavians are not the same, which they very much are.Averagejoedev (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the Viking section is just fine. It leads with telling who the Vikings were in general - including settlement of Iceland, Greenland and the journeys east, but then goes on to describe what the danish vikings specifically were up to. I'd leave it as it is.--Nwinther (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Good articles on da.wiki and no.wiki

The Danish and Norwegian article may be good inspirations to this article. --All N Ever (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Confusing use of names in Viking Age Section

In the Viking Age, Harald Bluetooth's son Sweyn is referred to as Sweyn Forkbeard abd then as Svend, as in Canute's father.

The paragraph about the martyrdom of Canute IV is confusing: who is Benedict? How did Canute IV come to be seen as a martyr: the first mention of him in a church is "He died at the base of the main altar 10 July 1086..." ? At least this paragraph (narrative) needs clean-up, as I (someone naive to the story) find it very confusing.Trashbird1240 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Percentage of ethnic Danes that are members of the national church

The present article states that 80,9 pct. of the ethnic Danes are members of the national church. This number is incorrect, and the article referenced actually says that 80,9 pct. of the entire population of Denmark (i.e. including foreigners) are members.

As the vast majority of foreigners belong to other churches or other religions, the correct percentage is higher, of course, and is approximately 88 pct. (low estimate). The number can be calculated from the official Danish bureau of statistics, Danmarks Statistik, at www.statistikbanken.dk.

This shows that by October 1, 2010, there were 4 997 899 ethnic Danes living in Denmark.

At the same time, the national church had 4 473 576 members.

The only foreigners who automatically become members of the national church upon moving to Denmark, are (roughly speaking) members of the Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish churches. As of October 1, 2010, there were 57552 of these ethnicities living in Denmark. If we asume (the real number is lower, of course), that all these Swedes, Norwegians, Icelandics and Finns were members of their national churches to begin with, and that all of these accepted membership of the Danish national church upon moving to Denmark, then the number of members of the national church who are ethnic Danes is 4 416 024 . This number is approximately 88 pct. of the number of ethnic Danes living in Denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.95.225.196 (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't make what is the article currently wrong. It just says that it's 80.9% of the population, and nothing about ethnicity. No reason to keep removing the figure. However, I don't see anything with wrong adding in the figure for only ethnic Danes too, if you just add in the appropriate references and a note about how it is calculated.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the current article is wrong. It says that 80,9 pct. of the ethnic Danes are members of the state church - and that is not correct. 80,9 pct. of the population of Denmark are members of the state church - the percentage of ethnic Danes is higher, approximately 88 pct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.255.119.70 (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed mention of the "% of ethnic Danes" that are members of the state church altogether. Since the source does not explicitly mention this figure, it would constitute synthesis to add this figure based on homemade calculations. Also, it is largely irrelevant in this connection. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Denmark

The opening sentence of this article is confusing. It says, "Denmark, officially The Kingdom of Denmark, together with Greenland and the Faroe Islands..." The sentence is not incorrect, but I feel it should be worded differently. Perhaps, "Denmark is a Scandanavian country in Northern Europe. The country of Denmark, together with Greenland and the Faroe Islands comprise The Kingdom of Denmark." I'm sure my suggestion is far from ideal, and hopefully someone will come up with a better one. But I still think that it's better than the current wording. The main issue is that Denmark is not officially The Kingdom of Denmark, but rather part of it. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a fair proposal. I think it would be fine to just go ahead and put it in. You just need an S on "comprise" as the subject is singular :).TheFreeloader (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. I am embarrassed. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope no one objects, but I'm actually going to revert this article to the way it read before the edit I proposed was added. Although I feel confident about my edits, this is a highly nuanced situation, and I'd prefer a version that is unclear but technically correct, to one that is entirely clear while erring even in the slightest. Once I can confirm with 100% accuracy that my proposed version is entirely correct I will return it. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Helle-Thorning-Schmidt.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Helle-Thorning-Schmidt.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal (or relocation) of gallery in history section

I've moved the gallery from the history section into the History of Denmark article. As highlighted, this article has too many images or, more to the point, too much image crowding. There's no benefit in having a gallery of pictures under what should be a brief outline of Danish history. I'm just explaining the removal in case most other people reject to the images being removed. Peter (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I've initiated a discussion about merging Kingdom of Denmark into this article at WikiProject Denmark. Please join if interested. Rennell435 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I've removed the parts of the lead which do not address Denmark as a whole, but only European Denmark. — kwami (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Kwami. If you have time, can you please take a look at what needs to be merged (I've posted it on the other talk page). Also, I don't know that all that content needs to be removed, since I think the primary focus still needs to stay on the European part. Rennell435 (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've worked mainly on the table. Gotta eat now.

I think the lead needs to be first about the kingdom, and only address the country in as much as it addresses the other countries. That is, I have no problem with the stuff I removed being restored, as long as it's balanced with comparable info for the other two. (But "comparable" I don't mean of equal length, as there isn't as much to say, but NPOV considering WEIGHT.) Once we get into the text, however, I agree that we can concentrate on the country of Denmark, but IMO we should be obvious about this: each section should have at least a lead that covers all three, plus 'see also' links for comparable info on Greenland and the Faroes. So this would be a hybrid kingdom/country article, and would inform the reader when it narrows from the former to the latter. With that, I think we can concentrate primarily on the country of Denmark, without violating NPOV re. Greenland and the Faroes.

Take the history section: that's already probably pretty good, but it only discusses Gr. & Fa. where they are relevant to Da. I'm not sure how best to handle this: change the 'main' link to a 'see also', and add the other two into it, maybe? Certainly the main history article can be just about Denmark proper, with perhaps a hatnote to dab? — kwami (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the best style would be to start each section broadly, and then focus the latter paragraphs specifically on Denmark. I left the rest of my opinion on the WikiProject talk page, but will continue here from now on. Rennell435 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Only known by Australians

"A number of smaller sports are also played in Denmark. E.g. the Danish Australian Football League is commonly known as the largest Australian Rules Football League outside the English-speaking world.[143] The national team; the Danish Vikings, became second in the first ever European Championship, losing the final to Ireland. Denmark was also co-hosts of the competition alongside Sweden."

Questions is, do people who are NOT Australians know about this? I can guarantee that a 95% of the Danes don't know what Australian football is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonyos (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of how popular (or rather, how 'well known' it is) it is, it is played in Denmark and has its own league and a fairly successful team (within international Australian Football), so it is notable enough to be included here.
Australian-rules football has caught on in several countries outside of Australia, and they have international games. Peter (Rebuke me) 17:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am from Denmark - and have never heard mention of any "Australian football" in any news/sports report ever. This includes the Danish Public TV (DR) and the other major channel TV2. It might very well be played in Denmark - but other sports games in Denmark is: Hockey, Horseriding, Shooting, Waterpolo, Volleyball, Sailing, Golf, Running, Surfing etc. Should we then include all sportsdisiplines in the general Denmark article? I don't think that this minor australian football sport (minor in a Danish context) should be mentioned what so ever. Not in the generel Denmark - and not even in the Sports in Denmark article. This is a very minor topic. 93.160.107.202 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Work this into a Good Article again

I've gathered a few books to help tweak and expand parts of this article. I would like to see it re-listed as a Good Article. As a frequent reviewers of GAs, I see two easily fixable "red flags" (no pun intended):

• Images - this article is plagued by image-spam. I think the active editors here can come to a consensus as to which images best represent the sections/content that are here, and delete the rest.
• Sports section - convert the trivia/list into prose, with supporting references.

I'll have more later as I take a closer look throughout. Anybody willing to collaborate with me on this? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why was the recent peer review page closed and archived? No review was given. AstroCog (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Still primarily the Denmark article

By 'merging' this article Kingdom of Denmark article, we weren't trying to create an enlarged KoD article. The agreement on the WikiProject Denmark discussion page was to include brief mentions of the Faroe Islands and Greenland but to continue to focus mostly on Denamrk as the centre of the article. I think the lead gives more than enough weight to Greenland and the Faroes, and we really shouldn't go down the road of including summaries of each territory, when they have their own perfectly good articles.

Similarly, the example on the France article shows a map of metropolitan France at the top of the infobox, with a map of the French Republic (including overseas territories) below it. This is how both this article and the infobox on this article should be structured (again, as agreed on the merge talks).

Denmark = main focus
Greenland and the Faroe Islands = secondary focus.
They do not all warrant the same amount of attention. We still have the Rigsfællesskabet article. Peter (Talk page) 23:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit: P.S. Hope this doesn't come off as mean-spirited or hostile. And this is directed at all editors to the article. Let's talk about this. Peter (Talk page) 23:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the country should be our main focus. But in the lead, infobox, and other introductory material, we need to introduce the kingdom. Once that is done, and we've directed the reader to those other articles, then we can focus on the country. It is incorrect, for example, to say that the demonym for the Kingdom of Denmark is "Dane". I imagine that residents of two of the three constituent countries would be rather insulted by that. AFAIK, there is no demonym, but we can at least give the demonyms for all three countries of the kingdom when the box is captioned "Kingdom of Denmark". At United Kingdom, we don't give the demonym as "English", and at Switzerland we don't give the demonym as "German". — kwami (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the lead adequately covers Greenland and the Faroe Island and makes it very clear for the reader that they are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. There are links to the articles too - and if the reader really wants to know more, they can find the information on the respective articles. But a reader coming to the Denmark article wants to know about *Denmark* and not be confused when they read an entire paragraph at the start, summarising Greenland or the Faroe Island. That would be bizarre.
As for the infobox, I kind of agree. But again, the focus should still be on Denmark. In the France article we don't see New Caledonian or Guadalupian. And I'm not sure how apt the comparison with the UK is (England is not an extant territory, it is a full sub-entity). Shall we compromise; should we add another footnote, pointing out that the Faroes and Greenland have different denomyns? (I am aware that the footnotes are building up, so perhaps we could move them to the bottom of the article too?) Peter (Talk page) 00:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Follow up: Let's not forget that this merge was done so that readers wouldn't be confused. What I'm arguing for here is what was set out arguing the merger discussions. The extent of the changes you're arguing for would confuse the reader - a lot. Greenland and the Faroe Islands are, for all practical purposes, tiny dependencies of Denmark. As I said, we should not give undue weight to Greenland and the Faroes; and that includes in the introduction. We need to stop right not and leave the balance how it is, and I'm sure others would agree. Peter (Talk page) 01:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Tiny dependencies or not, I think we need to be clear that, now we're speaking of the kingdom, now the country. Otherwise readers may certainly get confused. — kwami (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We're now speaking of the kingdom and the country of Denmark. This article still primarily covers mainland Denmark, as the Faroe Islands and Greenland have their own dedicated articles. When I restored some of the lead, I added the word "itself" to the second paragraph to make it clear that the following information was exclusively for the mainland. Hayden120 (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC) --Peter (Talk page) 17:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Danish science and scientists

I find it disturbing that given Denmark's prominence in the sciences no section on the topic exists. The topic could easily be its own page with a short summary on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.141.230.166 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the culture section. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 11:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this article merged with Kingdom of Denmark?

I noticed that the old "Denmark" article was merged with "Kingdom of Denmark" to form a new "Denmark" article. Guys, this is a very nude and unacceptable action. Wikipedia degrades dramatically with such an action. Please read the article dependent territory for the reason why there should be two separate articles for Denmark, one for the Constituent Country and another one for the Kingdom. Futhermore, the Dutch people have shown a good example. They did not merge the Netherlands with Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Can some one with power please revert this merge please. 2sc945 (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed any discussion either, but I can see above that it was done at Wikiproject Denmark. I am not quite sure what the rationale behind the merger was, since the Kingdom of Denmark and the country named Denmark is obviously not the same entities, but it does lead to silly problems such as this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(Sorry for the late reply.) There was a long discussion about this merger and the reason for the Kingdom of Denmark article being merged into this one is that they are one and the same. Any distinction between the "kingdom" and "Denmark" is incorrect. There is no difference in the Danish constitution between the Kingdom and the European territory of Denmark, and the so-called "dependent territories; arguably, Greenland and the Faroe Islands are not dependent territories in the same sense that Gibraltar is a dependency of the UK, and using another Wikipedia article to back up a stance is not very helpful. The Kingdom of Denmark is one whole unitary state and has been since the early/mid 20th century, but Greenland and the Faroe islands have devolved power. This is explained in the article.

I'm going to propose a rewritten lead that will address the common understanding of "Denmark"; that is, the country in Europe that most people expect to read about when they look up "Denmark", whilst also explaining that the sovereign state contains Greenland and the Faroe Islands also. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Language

There is no section on language(s) spoken in Denmark. This seems to be an omission that ought to be easy to remedy. It may be that most educated Danes speak English and perhaps German as well as Danish, but there is not indication of whether this is the case or not. FreeFlow99 (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There's an unsourced sentence in the demographics section. CMD (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed new lead

As I don't want to dump four paragraphs of text directly on to this talk page, I've pasted a rewritten lead on a sub page here: Talk:Denmark/lead, but this can be moved if necessary.

I think it's clear to most people that whilst the current lead (in particular, the first paragraph) is accurate and covers the four "constituent countries" of the kingdom equally, it is confusing for the average reader who expects to read about Denmark in Europe, and not about the legal and political arrangement of the Danish Realm in the first paragraph. Introducing the state as the "Kingdom of Denmark" from the start-off isn't particularly helpful, and the manual of style also recommends that introductions on country articles start with the same name as the title (with exceptions being the United Kingdom and United States), e.g. France instead of French Republic.

You'll see in the proposed changes that Denmark is treated as the common name, which is clearer for readers. But the second paragraph makes it clear that the state is unitary and that power is simply devolved away from the central government. (I've also added a bit of new information, which can probably be added sooner to the article.) The user of "Denmark proper" is also used twice, but only for clarity when contrasting with Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

The rewritten lead certainly isn't perfect and the wording could perhaps be improved - by moving it to a sub-page of this talk page we can directly correct and further reword it there before moving it to the main article. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 22:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good switch to me. Makes the paragraphs slightly more evenly sized at the least! CMD (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought there was an undue emphasis on Greenland and the Faroe Islands, given the title of this article and they have their own. I'm going to go ahead and implement the changes, since there's no objections. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 19:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic groups and immigration?

In e.g. the Norway and Sweden articles, there are information on immigration and ethnic groups. Wouldn't it be natural to have similar information in the Denmark article? 87.57.143.170 (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality - Constitutional monarchy

In the first paragraph of Constitutional Monarchy, it ends with "After these events, Denmark returned to its traditional policy of neutrality." - rightly followed by a "citation needed" remark. Until the defeat in 1864, the Danish stand was largely activistic. Denmark had participated in or contributed to a vast number of wars and conflicts with its neighbours and beyond. Thus, Denmark could not "return" to a policy of neutrality, but "turn" to it, and this position was, by definition, not "traditional" either. After 1864, it is true, Denmark held a neutral stance towards european or world conflicts. But this position, while spanning the 1st and 2nd world wars, only stood some 130 years, until Denmark participated in the first Gulf War and since in a number of conflicts, including Former Yugoslavia, US invasion of Afghanistan, US invasion of Iraq (second Gulf War) and most recently in Lybia - all in all in an increasingly active and non-neutral way. So, in short, saying that the Danish "neutrality" is a tradition, it is a complete disregard of history. Quite the opposite - Danish neutrality was a quirky, if necessary, stand that only lasted a little over a century. I will rewrite the sentence if noone objects.--Nwinther (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's right to be removed. This may have been added during a trim down of the section a few months ago. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 15:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to a rewrite of that sentence, I just have a couple of comments to your summary. Basically neutral is not quite the opposite of activistic. Although the participation in the first Gulf War and later events mark the return to an activistic policy, we stopped being neutral long before that by joining NATO, so the period of neutrality lasted less than a century. And don't forget that Denmark was officially neutral until a point in time during the Napoleonic Wars, although that period of neutrality also goes less than a century further back. 90.184.205.91 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Denmark also had peace-keeping troops on Cypruss and in Sinai back in the day when UN kept forces there. But I still think there's a difference between being a member of NATO and going to war. I'll edit now.--Nwinther (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Post-WW2 German Refugees

It is undoubtedly true and a very sad event, but it does not belong in this article which is not an article about Denmark in WW2, but a general article about the history of Denmark. In the literature about Denmark in WW2 the occupation, resistance and the rescue of the Danish Jews are the major topics, and the ill treatment of the German refugees is at most a footnote. It is simply undue weight to include the sentence, and particularly based on a single Der Spiegel article. The correct place for this material to go is here Occupation_of_Denmark#German_refugees, where it is already mentioned.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe that your opinion is biased in order to protect the nationalistic pride of Danish citizens. The fact that the rescue of Danish Jews are major topics in books, doesn't mean it has higher or lower significance than any other facts, because it portrays unbalanced picture of Danish mindset towards Nazi regime during the World War II. If there's a mention of rescue of Danish Jews, there should be also a mention of both Occupation_of_Denmark#German_refugees and Frikorps Danmark to draw a full picture.

Stop hiding historical facts, just because you are reluctant to admit the crimes. Also, the story of German refugees is not based on a single Der Spiegel article, but on the documentary made by Danish director, called "Kun en tysker" by Søren Lindbjerg. I think this further proves my point that you are trying to hide facts instead of informing people.

Just to explain my interest in this topic, I have to say I'm not a symphatisant of Neo-Nazis and I have found the reference to German refugess after I have looked up "Danish doctors refuse to treat the foreigners", which happened to me and my friend in present time. It's maybe hard to believe, but it still happens today. 212.130.22.252 (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The way that wikipedia works is that we summarize what sources about the topic of the article say, and we give weiht according to how the sources do. I doubt that you can find any single source about the general topic of Denmark that mentions the ill-treatment of German refugees after the war. Books specifically about Denmark in WW2 may mention it though most probably don't. Your speculations about my biases and what I may be trying to hide are ridiculous and irrelevant. The article about the US also doesn't mention the Guantanmo base or the Iran-Contra scandal and it shouldn't. General articles should give a general treatment not delve into details that some editor happen to find particularly interesting.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

health care section is confusing

Either the organization of funding and responsibilities among the municipalities, counties, regions, and central government is very complicated, or not well explained here, or both. The explanation is not clear. Since there is a link to a separate article specifically about Danish health care, perhaps the text here could be simplified or eliminated. I would take a stab at simplifying it myself, but I don't understand it, so I would probably not improve things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.170.225 (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Official languages in Denmark.

Dear whoever,

German is not and will not be an official language in Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.145.119.41 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You should probably read the note. It is an officially protected minority language in southern Jutland. Just like Danish is one in Northern Germany.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear whoever: Henrik Sorensen

You've got the PM of Denmark linked to a Norwegian painter who died back in the 1960s. Could someone correct, please?--JJMarkin (didn't sign in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.159.204 (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Maritime borders

What about a map showing the maritime borders of Denmark?== 212.99.225.66 (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Maps that show the maritime borders of the Kingdom of Denmark (with Greenland and Faroe Islands) seem sparse, but one already exists here on Wikipedia. Aside from that, the Danish Maritime Authority hosts a map on their website. NarfArf (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Denmark or Danmark?

Always wondered by what logic the English name of this country is "Denmark" instead of Danmark? There's no logical meaning to this. The people are DANES, the language is DANISH, so how can the country be called "DENMARK"? The same weird logic as for many other things in the orthographic jungle, called "English language". It's final time for it to be FIXED and be based on PHONETICAL orthographic rules, like in all other European languages. Greetings; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.115.112 (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In old english text, danes were called denes. See Beowulf for instance. Carewolf (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that the orthography of English is as fucked up as it is, it is a little weird to start by demanding phonetic spellings in this particular case.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Confusing and unclear tag

It is really difficult to know when this article is talking about Denmark as the Kingdom of Denmark or its talking about just Denmark. Christian75 (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't share your confusion. You're going to need to be more specific about where in the article you are getting confused. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "confusing" tag, because I don't think the issue warrant that the whole article be tagged as confusing; the tag itself may be more confusing for readers. Better to specify with inline tag; or raise the specific issues and suggestion about what should be done with it here at the talk page. Iselilja (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late answer. Some examples. The lead is about the kingdom of Denmark, and says "Denmark [...], officially the Kingdom of Denmark", as if it was synonyms. But in the main text "Denmark" is used mostly for the geographic Denmark (minus Greenland etc.), e.g. the section Denmark#Geography_of_Denmark says "Located in Northern Europe, Denmark consists of the peninsula of Jutland and 443 named islands (1,419 islands above 100 square metres (1,100 sq ft) in total). Of these, 72 are inhabited, with the largest being Zealand and Funen. " (I thought Greenland was the largest island in the world). The same goes for Denmark#Administrative divisions: "Denmark proper is divided into five regions [..."]. And another example: "The Kingdom of Denmark does not have a single unified judicial system – Denmark proper has one system, Greenland another, and the Faroe Islands a third." Some places Denmark is used as Kingdom of Denmark, but you have to know when. Christian75 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

When "Denmark proper" is referred to, this is without the Faroes or Greenland. Perhaps bits of the main text should be adjusted with this in mind. If the text is complicated, that's because the situation isn't simple. CMD (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the situation is not that simple. I.e. Denmark, that is proper Denmark, not the kingdom, (as member of the EU) at the moment boycotts Faroese ships with mackerel or herring (the Faroe Islands are not member of the EU), these ships can not enter Danish harbours. Regarding geography of Denmark, this article mostly describes the geography of Denmark proper and not of the Faroe Islands nor of Greenland. The Faroe Islands and Greenland have quite different history, culture, geography, language etc. from proper Denmark, I find it quite difficult to merge it in here. Should we have links to Greenland and the Faroes under the headlines, where it now only refers to proper Denmark? Shouldn't it also refer to Greenland and the Faroes, now that this article is not only about Denmark proper? I have added links to the culture of the Faroe Islands and to the culture of Greenland under the headline Culture, is that the best way to do it? Should it be done under all headlines where Greenland and/or the Faroes have articles about the subject? EileenSanda (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I also find this article confusing. I came here looking for the geography information on the Kingdom of Denmark and it doesn't seem to be shown on the page (although I could calculate it, of course). Why not have separate articles for Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark, similar to what's been done with England and the U.K.? In each article, we could have a sentence describing the naming ambiguity, but otherwise be consistent throughout each article. Nearwater (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Other states in the European Union include the area of inland water as a percentage. While the inland water is only 700 square km (as the article states), it should be included as 0.01% in the panel on the right. 94.175.75.132 (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Does ice count as inland water? In that case most of Denmark is covered in water. Christian75 (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Denmark does not have a history for being neutral in war

The idea that Denmark has a long histroy for being neutral is a romantic idea which is not based on real life events. The only wars where Denmark can be said to have been neutral is the first world war and that's open to debate imho. Denmark cannot be said to have been neutral in the second world war, since the country was occupied by German forces -- much like France can't be said to be neutral after being defeated by Germany. I have no knowledge of any other, relevant, wars since the 8th century where Denmark can be said to have been neutral; even if an attempt was made during the Napoleon wars, Denmark was forced to join France after the defeat in the battle for copenhagen -- there is evidence to support that Denmark was about to join the English against Napoleon though; I don't think you can claim that Denmark would have remained neutral if England hadn't attacked, based on that.

Because of this, I will delete the mentioning of "historical neutrality" from the article. If you feel that this is wrong, please provide som real evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.94.189.58 (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you search the article for the word "neutrality" before you do anything. You'll see that it has changed its position more than once, and since the second World War it has not been neutral: "Following World War II, Denmark ended its two-hundred year long policy of neutrality." -- Brangifer (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but the IP is correct, Denmark was not neutral in the Napeoleonic wars either (which cost the coyntry dearly), which were only 150 years before the WWII. Basically it was only in WWI that Denmark officially claimed neutrality.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

During the Napeoleonic wars Frederick VI, king of Denmark and Norway sided with France while Sweden and the United Kingdom were part of the anti-French camp. In 1814, however, Frederick VI of Denmark changed sides and joined the anti-French alliance in the Treaty of Kiel, ceding Heligoland to George III of the United Kingdom, and further ceding most of the Kingdom of Norway to Charles XIII of Sweden.

So, in my opinion, rather the opposite of neutrality.--93.193.13.43 (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Immigrants

"Of the 10.4%, approximately 200,000 (34%) are of a Western background, and approx. 390,000 (66%) have a non-Western background." This passage is problematic. What exactly is a "Western" background. If one is a Muslim from Bosnia and ethnically European, does that make that person "Western"? What about a Turkish person who is white in appearance and has blonde hair? Could the person who wrote this section please find a better way to capture this... Colipon+(Talk) 21:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Flag?

Isn't the flag in the info-box wrong for 'The Kingdom of Danmark'? It should be a split flag for the kingdom, and the square flag for the nation. Carewolf (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

North pole

there should be something about the claim of the north pole in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.95.149 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Country vs kingdom

I edited this article some time ago to give better balance to all of the kingdom. Currently, however, Netherlands and New Zealand are about the constituent countries. For consistency, I wouldn't object to the same here, as long as we have an equivalent hat note such as

This page is about the constituent country within the Kingdom of Denmark. For other uses, see Denmark/Archive 3 (disambiguation).

— kwami (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Tycho Brahe?

Tycho Brahe was a well known danish noblemen and made theories similar to Copernicus, so would'nt a entry in the Technologies section be neccesary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.69.99 (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Tycho was born in an area that has been in Denmark and Sweden at different times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by White373737 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It was Danish at the time of Tycho Braha, and he was a scientist in Copenhagen for the Danish king and later a Danish nobel.Carewolf (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

He was a member of the nobility from birth. Favonian (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://cphpost.dk//culture/through-looking-glass/traitor-danes-most-soldiers-return-heroes-lot-came-home-total-zeroes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120531230744/http://www.skm.dk/tal_statistik/skatter_og_afgifter/510.html to http://www.skm.dk/tal_statistik/skatter_og_afgifter/510.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.visitdenmark.dk/danmark/da-dk/menu/turist/inspiration/aktivferie/cykel/cykel-ruter-og-regioner.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130418012953/http://www.johanneslarsenmuseet.dk:80/page.asp?sideid=2301&zcs=2200 to http://www.johanneslarsenmuseet.dk/page.asp?sideid=2301&zcs=2200
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131126122330/http://www.roughguides.com/travel/europe/denmark/introduction-to-denmark.aspx to http://www.roughguides.com/travel/europe/denmark/introduction-to-denmark.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120707000845/http://www.photography-now.com/popup_ausst_5.php?id_ausstellungen=T50624 to http://www.photography-now.com/popup_ausst_5.php?id_ausstellungen=T50624
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.camdenartscentre.org/exhibitions/?id=100436

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Meat consumption

I removed the bit about meat consumption which was based on 2002 figures, but contradicted by 2007 figures [1].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I was also about to write something here on the talk page about "meat consumption", as it appears that this figure has gotten a somewhat distorted meaning in the public at large. I might as well insert my note of caution here. I put it in the now deleted ref-note. Here goes:

"Note: Meat consumption was calculated using a trade balance approach - total production plus imports, minus exports. Because of the method of calculation, the meat consumption per capita, does not equate the human meat consumption per capita. In addition, consumption in a trade context does not equate diet. Denmark process a large portion of the domestic meat production and it is unclear if the exports used in the calculation includes all kinds of processed meat products. Meat products are also consumed by domestic cattle, livestock, pets and production animals (mink, chickens, farmed fish, etc.) and not all are related to human diet. It is also unclear if meat includes fish and seafood. The large seafood harvest of Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands) is often processed and used in a variety of products, clouding the meaning of "meat consumption"."

These warnings applies to the use of the figure "meat consumption", without regard of country. It appears that a lot of factors, some of which cannot be easily discerned, (potentially) subtracts from what is thought of as human diet. It is an unreliable and very murky figure in this regard, but probably not regarding trade and commerce.

RhinoMind (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141017041507/http://www.legatum.com/article/Legatum-Prosperity-Index-Global-prosperity-rising-while-US-and-UK-economies-decline to http://www.legatum.com/article/Legatum-Prosperity-Index-Global-prosperity-rising-while-US-and-UK-economies-decline
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150906062938/http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Bosnia-Herzegovina/Bosnia-Herzegovina.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Bosnia-Herzegovina/Bosnia-Herzegovina.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150830023312/http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-competitiveness to http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-competitiveness
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061116210231/http://nationalbanken.dk:80/DNUK/Euro.nsf/side/Denmark_and_the_euro!OpenDocument to http://www.nationalbanken.dk/DNUK/Euro.nsf/side/Denmark_and_the_euro!OpenDocument
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140413131909/http://www.ringtre.dk/fileadmin/filer/freesites/ringtre/filer/Letbane/Dokumenter/Resume_UK_final03.pdf to http://www.ringtre.dk/fileadmin/filer/freesites/ringtre/filer/Letbane/Dokumenter/Resume_UK_final03.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090309234926/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/world/europe/denmark-is-the-worlds-happiest-country--official-410075.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/denmark-is-the-worlds-happiest-country--official-410075.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140221221138/http://www.km.dk/kirke/kirkestatistik/folkekirkens-medlemstal/ to http://www.km.dk/kirke/kirkestatistik/folkekirkens-medlemstal/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140507235232/http://kglteater.dk:80/about-us/the-royal-danish-orchestra to http://kglteater.dk/about-us/the-royal-danish-orchestra

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Denmark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130418012953/http://www.johanneslarsenmuseet.dk/page.asp?sideid=2301&zcs=2200 to http://www.johanneslarsenmuseet.dk/page.asp?sideid=2301&zcs=2200
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126122330/http://www.roughguides.com/travel/europe/denmark/introduction-to-denmark.aspx to http://www.roughguides.com/travel/europe/denmark/introduction-to-denmark.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707000845/http://www.photography-now.com/popup_ausst_5.php?id_ausstellungen=T50624 to http://www.photography-now.com/popup_ausst_5.php?id_ausstellungen=T50624

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Health in Denmark

I suggest Health in Denmark to be deleted and/or merged into this article. The Health in Denmark article has little potential to become more than a few alinea, which are already present in this article.

Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't had a thorough look into the article Health in Denmark specifically, but the health care system in Denmark is unique and worth an article of its own. Also the health profile has some notable features. The cancer statistics is one example. RhinoMind (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The Danish Realm

The emphasis on The kingdom of Denmark should be diminished, to get this article in line with contemporary reality.

The official term for the Faroe islands, Greenland and Denmark proper, is Det danske rige or Rigsfællesskabet, usually translated as The Danish Realm. The Danish Crown does not own anything in the Faroese Islands or Greenland. They hardly own (or govern) anything in Denmark proper. The term The Kingdom of Denmark is outdated and should be replaced with the term The Danish Realm. Officially The Danish Realm is part of and geographically similar to The Kingdom of Denmark, but The Danish Realm is an actual governing institution, whereas the Danish Crown has very limited political power.

A source: Rigsfællesskabet

Feel free to discuss here, before I make the necessary changes.

RhinoMind (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The page Kingdom of Denmark redirects to Denmark page (current one) and not to the Danish Realm page. I think that #REDIRECT should be moved to Danish Realm from Denmark: do you agree? Filippo83 (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. In terms of geography I agree that the Kingdom of Denmark should redirect to The Danish Realm page. If we look closer at the two institutions however, I am not so sure. I am not aware that there is any affiliation bewtween the institutions of the Danish royalty and The Danish Realm. Perhaps more informed people has something to share in this regard. The redirect issue you raise does not have a high priority to me (no offence). RhinoMind (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem to contradict this in our conversation elsewhere. I believe that wp:commonname would suggest that the sovereign state, as an entity that encompasses three constituent countries, should be dealt with at Denmark, and that the information specific to the European constituent should be at Denmark (constituent country). We don't have articles on Federal Republic of Germany or Kingdom of Sweden (they are both redirects), because WP:Commonname trumps the full legal name: by the same token, Danish Realm is not a helpful name for an article about the sovereign state, and the current article of that title is very unclear as to whether it refers to the state or the legal arrangements by which that state is constituted. Kevin McE (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: I think it is most comprehensible if I squeeze in up here. This is an older thread and post you are responding to and as I have become wiser since then, I now (as on the page talk you refers to) propose to have three seperate articles and no redirects. That means articles on "The Kingdom of Denmark", "Denmark" (which is Denmark proper) and "The Danish Realm" (which is synonymous with "The Unity of The Realm"). I think the extended discussion below supports this approach greatly. There is a need for explaining the three concepts and their different histories thoroughly. And we require solid references for all of this, something the discussion below is lacking. RhinoMind (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a split then make a form proposal. Demolishing half of the lead is not constructive. Nobody is saying that "Denmark" includes territory in North America. Rather, the Kingdom of Denmark is a sovereign state (technically a unitary state with several autonomous areas) which includes Denmark. The first sentence of your revision is inaccurate. --Hazhk (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

But this is the article for Kingdom of Denmark. The lead paragraph must therefore reflect that. Kevin McE (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The primary topic of "Denmark" is the country, not the realm. We could have a section on definitions in which the difference between the realm and the kingdom and the state. You are both making this more complicated than it should be topics are not clear cut and this is a case where we just need the article to explain in relatively simple terms that there are a couple of specialized technical meanings of the term that compete with the ordinary term that refers to the country of Denmark proper.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make an article on Denmark proper, or European Denmark, feel free. I cannot accept that there is a sovereign state, recognised by every country in the world and an UN member, that does not have an article on Wikipedia: that is what you are trying to enforce here. This is the destination linked from articles on the Danish Constitution, the UN lists, the article Queen of Denmark and countless other links that treat of a sovereign state: every reader of Wikipedia is invited to read this if they want to read about the Kingdom of Denmark. It is a huge failure therefore if it does not present an adequate description of the Kingdom of Denmark. Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"Denmark" virtually always refers to the European country. The primary topic of this article should be the territory in Europe, per WP:COMMONNAME. This is why your revised lead was misguided and incorrect. Greenland and the Faroe Islands are not parts of Denmark. If you want to split up this article then the best solution is the re-creation of a Kingdom of Denmark article. This would be comparable to the Netherlands/Kingdom of the Netherlands situation. I think should make a formal proposal further down this page. I won't be supporting any separation; the entire issue seems pedantic to me . -- Hazhk (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Also to me. Denmark is Denmark - sometimes that means "realm" more often it means "country/nation". Both needs to be covered in the same article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Asserting the difference between a European territory with a temperate climate, smaller than the Dominican Republic, and a transcontinental sovereign state bigger than Mexico and the UK added incorporating vast areas of arctic wilderness, is far from pedantic. It is impossible to meaningfully discuss the geography, climate, fauna, constitution, monarchy or innumerable other aspects of Denmark, it is meaningless to do so without clarifying which meaning of Denmark is the scope of the article. Mnaus's comment casts doubt on your confidence about the primary meaning: establishing COMMONNAM E is likely to be contentious.Kevin McE (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it is in fact fairly simple: the scope is the realm/state but the focus is the country/nation. Any semi-competent wikieditor should be able to write the article without having to split the two or causing confusion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for changing the focus of this article from the European country. Denmark means Denmark, not a transcontinental state. Can you show otherwise? To reiterate, I think there's a possible case for renaming the Danish Realm article to Kingdom of Denmark, fleshing it out, and focusing on the Kingdom of Denmark as a sovereign state. However I don't fully support that move. Having reviewed the discussion in 2012 about merging the two articles, I am still convinced that the current situation is best. If you're trying to propose such a split of the article then you need to create a new section and get a wider response that three or four people. Until then I don't think there's anything further to discuss; there's no consensus for any change because you are the only one supporting it.--Hazhk (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Manaus' comment, "the scope is the realm/state" shows that Denmark does not clearly mean, exclusively and clearly, what you evidently think it means; "Denmark means Denmark", which is the name of a transcontinental state. If "the scope is the realm/state", then the lede must address that scope, and the current lede is inappropriate, and this discussion does not reflect consensus for your reverting of my edit. Kevin McE (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Clearly noone has been in agreement with your edit. So maybe you should switch strategy to try to build consensus instead of trying to deductively demonstrate that you are right and everyone else is wrong.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: I think your whole idea (which it is) that the country of Denmark comprise Denmark proper, the Faroe Islands and Greenland altogether, needs to be confronted in a seperate post here, as it is a singular issue that needs to be cleared up before any other consensus or progress can be made in other areas. What do you base your idea on? I can inform you that both the Faroese people and the Greenlanders would be very surprised to hear that they now live in Denmark and not ... The Faroe Islands and Greenland, respectively. But more importantly, do you automatically suggest that the Faroe Islands and Greenland is described in full detail in this article about "Denmark" too? i.e. that these articles are merged in to this one? Because that would be the consequence of your idea. RhinoMind (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether you are not intelligent enough to understand what I have written, or deliberately misinterpreting it. I have consistently distinguished between the state and the constituent country. According to our article, Faroese and Greenlanders will look at their passports and see that they are Danish, albeit with qualification: they live in what is commonly called Denmark, but but not within the constituent country that (confusingly) has the same name. I cannot for the life of me imagine why you think it is a bad idea for an encyclopaedia to have an article on a sovereign nation. The word 'country' is very poorly defined: in most countries of the world, there is not meaningful between country, nation and sovereign state: in some cases, including Denmark, Netherlands, France and the UK, that is not the case. I have been consistent in avoiding the word 'country' except in the phrase 'constituent country'; when referring to the sovereign state, I have not once used the word country, and I fail to see how you would justify saying otherwise.

If you object to this article being edited to reflect the reality of the sovereign state, sometimes known as the Kingdom of Denmark (although very rarely in the language of this encyclopaedia), which has every link relevant to it as a whole directed here, then you have no moral option other than to provide another article that such links should point to. Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record Faroese and Greenlandic people do not have the same passports as Danes from Denmark, though they have Danish nationality. The article however already clearly defines both the country and the state and describes the differences between them, and even the infoboxmap includes both a map of the realm and one of the country.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Links could point to a newly re-created Kingdom of Denmark article, or the existing Danish Realm? Perhaps we could reshape the Danish Realm article into a short article outlining the politics and legal reality of the sovereign state as opposed to the European country; however, any information about geography, history, culture, etc. must belong in the articles of the respective countries that make up the Realm. We can't duplicate information across three articles to such a large degree. I suggested a situation similar to Kingdom of the Netherlands - which describes the sovereign state, but not the Netherlands - but you apparently ignored that suggestion. Frankly, you're being obstinate and avoiding any suggestions or solutions for a way forward. You are the one who needs to come up with a proposal that doesn't change the topic of this article. -- Hazhk (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps have a skim through articles that link here and see which ones obviously refer to the European country and which refer to the sovereign state. Also see the links pointing to Kingdom of Denmark. You will see that the European country is the primary topic. Therefore your proposal needs to focus on creating a new article (or renaming Danish Realm) where technical matters relating to a sovereign state can be outlined. --Hazhk (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kevin McE I think you overlooked my previous comment on your previous entry above, so I have inserted a ping to notice you. As stated there I am convinced that three articles are needed. Namely article on "The Kingdom of Denmark", "Denmark" (which is Denmark proper) and "The Danish Realm" (which is synonymous with "The Unity of The Realm"). I am not entirely sure which one of these entities you are referring to as "the sovereign state", but I guess it must be The Danish Realm, if I take your geographical arguments into account. RhinoMind (talk) 09:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

And that is what I have been saying all along: there must be separate and distinct articles on the constituent country (Denmark proper/European Denmark) and the sovereign state (Kingdom of Denmark): I also believe that a wider survey might be needed to establish which of these is best placed at Denmark. It is probably indeed appropriate to have separate articles on the legal processes and documents (which is the way that the current article at Danish Realm is presented): it will definitely be appropriate to review, as Hazhk suggests, what links point where. What is definitely not appropriate, and the whole point of my intervention here, is having a unitary sovereign state made up of three constituent countries have any reference to it in this encyclopaedia directed to one of those countries, an article whose editors are resistant to making it be suitable as a redirect for those numerous links. Kevin McE (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, then some in-depth debate appears to be fruitful after all. As I see it, the most straight forward approach right now would be to initiate an article about "The Kingdom of Denmark". As it is, it just redirects (as you also points out) to this "Denmark (proper)" article, which is wrong for many reasons, including purely geographical reasons.

Another point I would like to stress in relation to this, is that "The Danish Realm" article messes up a bit with "The Kingdom of Denmark" and use it almost like a synonym to "The Danish Realm". There are some overlaps, especially when it comes to geography, but they are not synonymous terms. I tried to fix some of the mess-ups on that page earlier, even drawing from sources and references already in the article, but about 60% of my efforts was destroyed by other users subsequently. I don't know their reasons exactly, as I didn't had the energy and time to argue about it on the TalkPage there, but now you guys (and future editors) have been warned that attempts to seperate, filter out and elaborate on "The Kingdom of Denmark" in relation to "The Danish Realm" could be another "up-the-hill" task. RhinoMind (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The primary topic of Denmark is clearly and unequivocally the European country - the articlehowever of course needs to describe the fact that this country has overseas possessions that are part of the sovereign state by the same name. Perhaps a separate article on the "rigsfællesskab" is warranted, but it is by no means the primary topic of "Denmark" - neither in Danish nor in English and WP policy simply would not permit that. Personally I doubt very much that a separate article on the rigsfællesskab is useful - anything of relevance can easily be described within the article on "Denmark".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The rigsfællesskab is covered in Danish Realm. That article was formerly titled rigsfællesskabet. --Hazhk (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: Rigsfællessskabet translates as "The Unity of The Realm". It is synonymous with "The Danish Realm". RhinoMind (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Hi. This is for everybody reading this. I have collected some informative and useful links that I wanted to provide and share here too. This whole issue is lacking in sound basic references, so I hope to make up for this. Some are in English, but I hope you can read a bit of Danish too?

• Rigsfællesskabet Statsministeriet.

About The Unity of The Realm and The Danish Realm. Translated English version here.

• Rigsfællesskabet Udenrigsministeriet.

About The Unity of The Realm.

• Rigsfællesskabets Historie A six part tv-series about The Unity of The Realm by DR.

It is currently being broadcast across The Danish Realm and I can highly recommend it. There is a summary in English here.

• The Danish Realm Claims Area Twice the Size of Denmark By the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science.

About the differencies between Denmark and The Danish Realm.

• Greenland, The Faroes & The German Minority Denmark.dk

About the meaning of Denmark and The Kingdom of Denmark.

RhinoMind (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Denmark. 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/20130328232058/http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/DNK.html to http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/DNK.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120161948/http://www.stm.dk/_p_10988.html to http://www.stm.dk/_p_10988.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516123405/http://news.yourolivebranch.org/2011/05/10/denmark-invests-the-most-in-clean-energy-per-gdp/ to http://news.yourolivebranch.org/2011/05/10/denmark-invests-the-most-in-clean-energy-per-gdp/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160318091325/http://5c28efcb768db11c7204-4ffd2ff276d22135df4d1a53ae141422.r82.cf5.rackcdn.com/HR-V1_web.pdf to http://5c28efcb768db11c7204-4ffd2ff276d22135df4d1a53ae141422.r82.cf5.rackcdn.com/HR-V1_web.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101215001129/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140219144649/http://tvm.gallup.dk:80/tvm/pm/default.htm to http://tvm.gallup.dk/tvm/pm/default.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130418012953/http://www.johanneslarsenmuseet.dk/page.asp?sideid=2301&zcs=2200 to http://www.johanneslarsenmuseet.dk/page.asp?sideid=2301&zcs=2200
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126122330/http://www.roughguides.com/travel/europe/denmark/introduction-to-denmark.aspx to http://www.roughguides.com/travel/europe/denmark/introduction-to-denmark.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707000845/http://www.photography-now.com/popup_ausst_5.php?id_ausstellungen=T50624 to http://www.photography-now.com/popup_ausst_5.php?id_ausstellungen=T50624
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005153127/http://kort.krak.dk:80/borgerdk.kortsoegning/imapDKbig.asp? to http://kort.krak.dk/borgerdk.kortsoegning/imapDKbig.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207061449/http://www.vifanord.de/index.php?id=1&L=1&rd=243343734 to http://www.vifanord.de/index.php?id=1&L=1&rd=243343734

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Greenland and the Faroe Islands are NOT part of Denmark

This is not disputable. They are part of the sovereign state called the 'Kingdom of Denmark' or Danish Realm. Consider the confusion when we state that Greenland is part of 'Denmark' and in the following sentence state "Denmark has a total area of 42,924 square kilometres (16,573 sq mi)". Which is it then? Does Denmark actually have a total area of over 1 million square kilometers? I think we know the answer. This is why I have reverted because the assertion is so ridiculous that it brings the entire article into disrepute. 81.141.245.199 (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The article Danish Realm states, "The term Danish Realm ... refers to the relationship between Denmark proper, the Faroe Islands and Greenland—'three countries constituting the Kingdom of Denmark." (my emphasis added). 81.141.245.199 (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The geography section reads, "Located in Northern Europe, Denmark consists of the peninsula of Jutland and 443 named islands (1,419 islands above 100 square metres (1,100 sq ft) in total)." This excludes Greenland and the Faroe Islands too. 81.141.245.199 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This has been an issue for this page for a long time. Just scroll up and read a few posts, a lot of them relate to this particular issue. Some people keeps changing things back and forth on and on. I am absolutely with you, even if this issue doesn't really need cheering, but only a simple basic implementation in line with reality (and the sources).

However, from the previous "debates" up above, I think I can now understand how the problem emerged in the first place (and keep emerging): In some constitutions and political associations, The Kingdom of Denmark (KoD) is mentioned as a sovereign state and country for some reason and not just "Denmark". This has spurred some editors to believe that this page should describe the entire "country" of KoD and not just Denmark (or Denmark proper as it is often called to avoid any ambiguity). But this page describes Denmark proper in every aspect and not KoD. Geographically, economically, culturally, politically, etc. this page discribes Denmark proper and not The KoD. Noone wanted to initiate a new and separate article on the KoD specifically and describe things there, but instead they keep redirecting KoD to either this page or the Danish Realm page, both of which are wrong solutions that doesn't fix anything.

I have been working a little bit on the Danish Realm page to describe The KoD there (loosely) and the similarites and differencies between the two as well, but there is much more to be done. I believe this is the way out of this long standing mess.

Just wanted to let you know. RhinoMind (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Assistance needed for adding Denmark's official name

I have been trying to add Denmark's official name, Kingdom of Denmark, but a user called Materialscientist keeps reverting it. I don't have administrative rights, so I cant block him from continuing doing this. I'm aware of the talks relating Denmark proper and Denmark (state), but this article is clearly about the independent country of Denmark (with the official name, Kingdom of Denmark) as there are references to military, politics and history etc. I know it can be difficult differentiating between Denmark and Denmark proper but this is seriously getting out of hand and its time to use facts and not personal beliefs --Kisualk (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Denmark comprise all of The Danish Realm, not just Denmark proper. For historical reasons. I think that explains your problem here. RhinoMind (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a quick reference that have been used previously on this TalkPage too: [2] RhinoMind (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that shows my point fairly well. Denmark normally refers to Denmark proper (Jutland, Funen, Zealand etc.) but formally also include Greenland and the Faroe Islands. I will add Denmark's official name then if there are no objections--Kisualk (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The official name has been added.--Kisualk (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do not make bold changes without establishing some kind of consensus on this page. You had the audacity to request I bring the matter to this page? I suggest you read previous discussions in the archives. -- Hazhk (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The changes were made by Norrild1 at 10:32, 5 February 2017. There have been no objections after RhinoMind provided a link to the official Danish website, denmark.dk, which states Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark are the same. There should be no difference between the Danish WP country page and the Norwegian or the Finnish country page etc. regarding the common and official country name.--Kisualk (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

"...which states Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark are the same." This is NOT what the page and link I provided says. The ref states that The Danish Realm and The Kingdom of Denmark is the same geographically speaking. Please read refs before citing or using them. Btw.: Generally speaking, denmark.dk is not a completely solid and thoroughly reliable source and a better one should be digged up when possible. Just noting, as it has been used in articles. RhinoMind (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I have indeed read the ref. The key words are "Yet", "also" and "belong". However I do have a question. As there are some that argue Denmark's official name is not the Kingdom of Denmark, it would be great to know, what these people think Denmark's official name then is? And what do they think the Kingdom of Denmark actually is?--Kisualk (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Denmark is the name of lots of stuff. A country for one thing, a kingdom for another, and also a town in the state of Georgia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the Netherlands versus the Kingdom of the Netherlands article gives some insight how to move forward; as that situation seems somewhat similar to the Danish situation. The current article appears somewhat ambiguous as at some places it is limited to Denmark proper (e.g. locator map) while at others it seems to refer to the entire Danish Realm. Perhaps splitting of some of the Danish Realm stuff into that article and clarify the difference might help? The Kingdom of Denmark would then obviously refer to the whole realm not the Denmark (proper) constituency alone. Arnoutf (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That a blatant error/nonsense went undetected for a period doesn't mean it stands. The current revision is correct and any reversion will make the article less accurate and intentionally mislead readers. The debate is not over the official name of the sovereign state, it's over the name of the European county, which does not include Greenland or the Faroes. -- Hazhk (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Kisualk are you completlely obtuse? If you acknowledge that Greenland and the Faroe Islands are part of a sovereign state called the "Kingdom of Denmark" then you must surely acknowledge that this sovereign state is not a European country? Please explain to my how the lead is/was inaccurate. The burden is entirely on you to explain what you want. I will continue to revert until the article is locked or I'm blocked. I refuse to see a gross inaccurate statement at the very top of an article I have contributed greatly too. --Hazhk (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Denmark is still an European and a Scandinavian country even though Greenland and the Faroe's are situated in the North Atlantic. USA is also a North American country even though the state of Hawaii is situated in the South West Pacific.

Please tone it done a notch, this is not a particularly important issue. It really just is about mentioning Denmark the country, and then noting the existence of a state/realm/kingdom with a few more constituent countries. The primary topic of the article called "Denmark" is the country, then we can have another article about the kingdom and give it a subsection in this one. Keep it simple.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There are already references to Greenland and the Faroe Islands as well as to the Unity of the Realm, where Greenland's and the Faroe's legal status in Denmark are explained. There is no reason to make people more confused by removing Denmark's official name. Finland's page is a good example. Perhaps we should insert an explanation, that Denmark is both the common name for the independent country of Denmark, including Greenland and the Faroe's, as well as it is used in daily parlance for the region of Denmark ("rigsdelen"), which does not include Greenland and the Faroe's.--Kisualk (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I have edited the lead now so it is less confusing. It still needs more details such as the total area but what do you think of this version?--Kisualk (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is wrong. "The Kingdom of Denmark" is the official name of the state, not the country.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Denmark is in fact the official name of Denmark as it is seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states. It would make no sense if Denmark had no official name. I have taken the liberty of writing to the Prime Minister's Office for confirmation of the following: Denmark is an independent country and a sovereign state, Denmark's official name is the Kingdom of Denmark and Denmark (common) and the Kingdom of Denmark (official) are the names of the Danish state.--Kisualk (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It would have made more sense if your question didn't already confuse the two entities in the way you phrased it. The correct question would be "What is the official name of the country Denmark, and is it different from the name of the sovereign state and Kingdom of Denmark?"·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Your comparison with Finland does not make sense as Finland (proper) is the only domain of the Republic of Finland, while Greenland and the Faroer are part of the Kingdom of Denmark, but not of Denmark proper. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Similar to Denmark, Finland does in fact include a self-governing country, the Åland Islands.--Kisualk (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

No it's not similar, at least not in the Wiki article as the Finland article AND locator maps is inclusive of the Aland Islands, while the Denmark article and locator maps puts Faroer and Greenland to the side. Either this article should be rewritten to be inclusive of Greenland and Faroer at all places, or there is a difference between Denmark and the Realm. Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The Åland Islands have the same status in Finland as the Faroe Islands and Greenland have in Denmark. That is why I think the Finnish country page is a good example on how to do it. It's clean and simple and not confusing. I totally agree with you that the map on the Danish country page should include the Faroe's and Greenland. However I don't think the change will be accepted before we get confirmation from the Prime Minister's Office that Denmark is the sovereign state. That is actually how it was before the Danish page started be such a mess. The page already includes Greenland and the Faore's in many places and have references to detailed descriptions of them as well as to the Unity of Realm, Danish: "Rigsfællesskabet", which further describes the devolution of powers from the parliament to the local elected assemblies on the Faroes Islands and Greenland. You can say the scope of the Danish page is Denmark but the focus is Denmark proper which is similar to the Finnish page. This is also in accordance with how Danes normally refer to Denmark. Formally speaking we know (or should know) that Denmark includes Greenland and the Faroe's but in line of respect for the Unity of Realm we don't say that in daily use. In other words the country of Denmark is both the common name for the Kingdom of Denmark (formally) and Denmark proper (daily use) which is why it is so important that this page is correct to avoid confusion.--Kisualk (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the type of status is the same actually - Greenland is an autonomous country within the Kingdom since 2009, it is no longer a self-governance area.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

And we come back again to my earlier suggestion that the Netherlands (proper) versus Kingdom of the Netherlands is very similar. As with Denmark most Dutch mean Netherlands proper when they refer to the Netherlands but the Kingdom also includes the overseas countries. The two different Wikipedia pages make that clear and make us avoid the mess the Denmark article is in right now. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

An area or region with a self-government is the same as an autonomous country. It's semantics. Greenland didn't change it's status from an "area" to a "country" in 2009. The Self-government Act of 2009 simply replaced Greenland's Home Rule Arrangement from 1979. The Åland Islands have a national football team same as Greenland. When I go to the Netherlands country page I'm left with the expression, that the Netherlands is a country but not a sovereign state. To my knowledge the Netherlands is indeed a sovereign state. The Netherlands as well as Denmark are members of the EU which is a confederation, an union of sovereign states. If you don't believe me, please look here: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries_en. In my opinion, if you find it meaningful to separate the Netherlands proper from the state of the Netherlands, I would have used France as an example. France exits as a common WP country page as well as a page describing the term metropolitan France. It works very well for Denmark to do the same. Keep the Danish country page in accordance with WP's common practice and the page, which needs to be renamed back to "the Unity of the Realm", with a description of the Unity of Realm.--Kisualk (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No it is not. Greenland worked for twenty years to become autonomous country instead of an self-governing region, and the 2009 change was a major political change for Greenland. The status of Ålandsøerne is very different and not comparable, even comparison with the Faroe islands may be unwarranted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do tell how you find the status of the Åland Islands differs from Greenland or the Faroe's? As I see it, the only difference is that EU law apply to Åland, although it is a separate customs area. People on Greenland would be very unhappy to hear you don't think of Greenland as a country prior to 2009. Greenland's national football team played their first match in 1980 so perhaps you could explain what you mean by "country" and "region" if Home Rule is not enough to be considered a country?--Kisualk (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Your comparison would work if, and only if, the Denmark article includes Greenland and Faroer in ALL its references (as the Finland article does with Aland). The simple fact that the locator map of Denmark does not colour Greenland already is irrefutable evidence the Wikipedia articles of Finland and Denmark take a different position. That simple fact makes your comparison fatally flawed. Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't understand you correctly, but the Danish page has many references to Greenland and The Faroe Islands in the relevant areas. It's quit evident when you search through the page for Greenland or the Faroe's. Actually the Danish page has more references to it's autonomous regions than Finland has to the Åland Islands. Even in the info box there are many notes detailing Greenland and the Faroe's. I agree that there should be included a map of the entire Danish state. I will try add this map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Realm#/media/File:Kingdom_of_Denmark_(orthographic_projection).svg in the same way Norway uses two maps. Kisualk (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Total area added. Map still needed to be added--Kisualk (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Geology

Hello. The article miss a section on Geology. What are the geology of Denmark today generally speaking? How and when was Denmark formed? Is Denmark an isolated entity geologically speaking? Stuff like that. RhinoMind (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Denmark. 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/20071011111014/http://smb.nu/svenskakrig/1611.asp to http://www.smb.nu/svenskakrig/1611.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.regioner.dk/in+english/regional+denmark/regional+tasks
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.business.dk/karriere/artikel%3Aaid%3D2014652
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.cph.dk/globalassets/om-cph/investor/publikationer/arsraporter_uk/cph_uk_ar_report_2015_03_18_final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120610114106/http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/denmark-country-profile.html to http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/denmark-country-profile.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaffa.com/festivalguide/dk
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.ddc.dk/denmarkbydesign
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kort.krak.dk/borgerdk.kortsoegning/imapDKbig.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Denmark. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www2.kms.dk/C1256AED004EA666/(AllDocsByDocId)/1D7EE8822587E667C1256AEF0030ABF6?open&page=strste&omr=KORT_DK_I_TAL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403235436/http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,520337&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL to http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,520337&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Egentlige Danmark

Note 2 in the article states that "Denmark Proper" in Danish is "Egentlig Danmark". It is, however, "Egentlige Danmark". Can someone with access please correct this? Thanks. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)