Talk:Denmark/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Misleading information in the origin of the Denmark name

I would like to know where anybody would get the idea that Dacians were a "Greek people". Dacians, as I recall them, are a subgroup of the Thracians; Thracians were never so called Greek, but a separate identity with different traditions and so forth. The mistake is the same as saying that the German people are Slavic people. --Dacnuroman (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Information in the Religion article?

First of all, I'd like to complement on how well written this article is. Now my point, not to be a nitpick, but is there not an inaccuracy/misleading information in the religion article where it states that 83% of Denmark are members of the Danish Lutheran Church, but only 80% said that they believed in a god of any kind. How does this work? If you were a member would you also at least marginally believe in God even if you are not devout? I see that there are 2 correct sources for each one, but they contradict each other. Is this a problem, or is it so minor that we should not be concerned about it? Canutethegreat (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the information is sound enough. Here in Denmark, most people join the church at birth, they are "confirmed" (transitional rite) about age 14 (getting nice pesents at the party), and whether they are religious or not, never get around to leaving the church. Thus, they pay a small tax to the church all their lives - on top of the regular, quite high, taxes to the state and the local authorities. You often hear the argument that they pay this tax to conserve the church buildings as part of our cultural heritage.--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up for me. Anyways keep up the great work on the article! Canutethegreat (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported Claims

The article states: "In 2006 a survey found Denmark to be the happiest place in the world, based on standards of health, welfare, and education. In 2007 the country's capital is ranked the second most liveable city in the world by Monocle magazine [1] [...]" -- However, that source quotes something entirely different: it says that Denmark is number 3 in a list of the most peaceful nations. Can the author provide the correct source? --Gulliveig 04:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed by someone, now links as intended to FT.com. Other than it is actually number 1 not 2. My illusions are shattered; I was hoping it was number 2 so I could pretend I don't want to live there, where the immigration is too strict to get in. Anarchangel (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Here is what is left to be done from the automatic evaluation of the article:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2 metres, use 2 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 metres.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 27 additive terms, a bit too much.
• Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

I'll be working some more on this tonight. MartinDK 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of islands

Recently I added to the geography section that Denmark has 406 island, which is sourced from danmark.dk. Unfortunately a little earlier in that section it is mentioned that Denmark has 443 islands. Which claim is correct? --Peter Andersen 20:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Denmark has 406 named islands according to Store Danske Encyklopædi (Danmark har 406 navngivne øer, hvoraf 78 er beboede., entry: "Ø") I don't know the total number including skerries. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

American or British spelling

What kind of spelling is most logical? I just noticed that an editor had changed favourite to favorite, ie from British to American spelling. Neither seems more correct than the other, so I recommend that we reach a consensus and then try to maintain all spellings in the article as either British or American English, depending on which one we decide for. Lilac Soul 05:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

For an article about Denmark one is not better than the other. The important thing is just to be consistent. --Peter Andersen 21:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I think the editors of this article should attempt to reach a consensus here, so that we have a basis on which to be consistent. So let me be the first to cast my vote. I think we should try and stick to British English spelling, because we're a country in the European Union and because, in my own completely biased opinion, British English is prettier... Lilac Soul 05:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

While I don't quite understand your logic Lilac..., as an American I'll admit British English is prettier. I say lets just go with the British way, but it really doesn't matter. Canutethegreat (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Spellins should be the same!

Immigration, concerning the influx before and after the new immigration laws.

The overview shows a clear and significant rise in residence permits granted (from 36.354 in 2001 to 46.543 in 2006), it is not an exact measurement of individuals as the same person, over time, can be listed in more than one category. But that isn't the issue here, the specific numbers of immigrants isn't stated in my contribution nor in my reference. The official publication does, however, emphasise that although the numbers of individuals aren't entirely exact - these differences causes only minor displacements in the total sum and final disposition, furthermore the official publication shows a clear statistic trend with comparative data. Which entirely validate my, repeatingly deleted, contribution.

http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/86C56774-CAC9-42A5-BBC4-F28B3629078B/0/talfakta_uk.pdf - quick overview; page 3.

If we look at immigrants and second-generation immigrants as a section of the population, this segment has increased, both in absolutes and relative terms, since the new immigration laws and regulations has been implemented.

http://www.nyidanmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/AAAC9AB3-1EBA-4711-90F8-C4AB14483205/0/labour_market_integration_immigrants_denmark.pdf - quick, easy graphic overview; page 11.

I had imagined these facts might serve as indicator for the level of the anti-immigration sentiment in Danmark and it's political power and influences on legislation.

As to Lilac Souls reluctance to accept work-, study- and EU/EEA residence permits as immigration I disagree, as do Wikipedia:

"Immigration is the movement of people from one nation-state to another."

No matter the causes or motivation is labour-, education,- personal reasons,- health related reasons or escape from persecution or extreme poverty; is all immigration! But I'll happily accepted this current version if that ends this skirmish.

Sincerely David 82.143.196.86 05:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I think lots of this talkpage should be put in an archive. Do people agree? I'll do it if you want me to, but I'd like some consensus about it first. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving would be good.--Peter Andersen 20:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I Concur. Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have moved most of the existing discussions to the archive. I have left a few as being either ongoing or still important (i.e. the peer review one). If anyone thinks that I have moved an ongoing discussion erroneously, please go to the archive and copy-paste the discussion back to this page, leaving a note that you have done so. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

language

please i would love to know the language that is spoken im denmark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.214.231.141 (talk) 21:51, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

It says Danish in the bar on the right, though I agree the article could have a few more lines about the language. EBusiness 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Danish is right, although a (German) minority speaks German. People from the Faroe Islands speak Faroeish, the Greenlanders speak Inuit. Both of the latter are taught Danish in school and are usually fluent. Danish is a germannic language, specifically an East Scandinavian language, i.e. closely related to Norwegian and Swedish, and less so to the West Scandinavian languages of Faroeish and Icelandic, which are closer to ancient Norse. (Finnish is not a germannic language at all, related to, I believe, Hungarian.) /roger.duprat.copenhagen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.243.125.190 (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Denmark or Kingdom of Denmark?

In the infobox, which should we use? At least in the Danish language, the two are different; Denmark is the country located just North of Germany, whereas the Kingdom of Denmark incorporates this country as well as both Greenland and the Faroe Islands. An editor recently added the Greenlandic and Faroeic prime ministers to this infobox - this is not technically incorrect. However, the rest of the infobox pertains only to Denmark proper, i.e. the country, when dealing with area and population. What should we do? I don't think this is a trivial point, so I'm bringing it to the talkpage. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 07:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to Rigsfællesskabet is appropriate in the infobox. I think Greenlandic and Faroeic politicians and officials do not belong in an article about Denmark proper and vice versa. Philaweb T-C 10:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

well i believe that political and geographical information on Greenland and the Faero islands should be included in the Denmark page because of the simple fact that Greenland and the Faero islands are part of the Kingdom of Denmark as a whole.they use the same currency as the danish mainland the Danish krone. they both use danish law. They both send 2 representatives each to the Folketing. and the constitution of denmark extends to the kingdom as one sovereign state both Greenland and the Faroe islands as well as the mainland. plus both articles on Greenland and the faroe islands explicitly say in the side column state that they are autonomous provinces of the Kingdom of Denmark. ok theyre not part of the European union but thats because they both withdrew of their own acord because of their right to home rule. I believe excluding greenland and the Faroe islands from the main Denmark page is being ignorant to the fact that Denmark is more than just the jutland peninsula and its scatered islands. and is ignorant to danish history in which both provinces play a massive part. id also like to add that Greenland and the Faero islands are closer politicaly to Denmark than Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are to The netherlands. theyre not part of the Eu they dont have the same currency as the mainland netherlands yet they are included in an article kingdom of the netherlands because they are part of the netherlands as one sovereign state. thats why theyre included with the netherlands and thats why i believe Greenland and the Faroe islands should be included with the denmark page because they make up denmark as a whole soveregn state. Gr8opinionater friday 5th september 23:08 (Gmt)

The problem, however, is that Denmark is a country, as are both Greenland and the Faroe Islands. There are a lot of differences, but you could compare it to "England" and the "United Kingdom", with the UK equivalent being Rigsfællesskabet, aka the Kingdom of Denmark. The problem, however, is, that while the names "England" and "United Kingdom" are not easily confused, the names "Denmark" and "Kingdom of Denmark" are. I'm unsure what to do. One thing is for sure, though - if the infobox says "Kingdom of Denmark", then it would be incorrect to exclude Greenland and the Faroe Islands. So perhaps the options should be: 1) include the two self-governing regions, or 2) exclude them, and rename the infobox to "Denmark" rather than "Kingdom of Denmark". Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} - Review me! 07:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously we need to articles. One for the Kingdom of Denmark and one for the country of Denmark. Carewolf 09:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree if there cannot be any agreement to keep or to erase the information i added about Greenland and the Faroes then there should be a new article about the Danish mainland, Greenland and the Faero islands as the one sovereign state and the current article could be renamed to just Denmark. It could be like the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands articles one which talks about the mainland and one which talks about the state as a whole. or we could just keep the information i added on the article about Greenland and the Faero islands either way id seriously consider one or the other because i added the information because i believe it is ignorant to to ignore the fact that both Greenland and the Faeroes make up along with the Danish mainland the one sovereign country of the Kingdom of Denmark, not just the mainland. and i believe information about the relationship between the Danish mainland, Greenland and the Faeroes should be added either way new article or added to the current article because i dont think it should be ignored. user : Gr8opinionater Thursday September 6th 21:19 (GMT)

Unfortunately it is not that simple (actually its pretty danm complicated). Kingdom of Denmark (Kongeriget Danmark) is the official name of Denmark proper, meaning Zealand, Funen and Jutland (plus many other islands).

It is used in laws and some laws even expressly specify that the usages of the term do not include Greenland and the Faroe Islands. In other laws you will see expressions like “Kingdom of Denmark together with the Greenland home rule…………”, an expression containing irrelevant information if “Kingdom of Denmark” was the de facto term for Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. You would not need to add Greenland home rule, if they already is a part of “Kingdom of Denmark”.

But Kingdom of Denmark does include Greenland and the Faeroe Islands, because these are not sovereign states, nor is it some form of commonwealth, were “Kingdom of Denmark” is the name of the union (Denmark, Greenland, Faeroe Islands). Greenland and the Faroe Islands are special societies within the “Danish Realm”.

And here is the fundamental of the problem; Denmark is missing a term and a crystal clear definition of the exact status of Greenland and the Faeroe Islands within the “Kingdom of Denmark”. It simply does not exist. The constitution of 1953 does not explains in clear terms what the exact relationship of the different parts of the ‘Kingdom of Denmark’ is. Note that the constitution of 1953, does not specify that this constitution applies to the ‘Kingdom of Denmark’, but rather the “Realm of Denmark”, maybe hinting that the “Kingdom of Denmark”, is just a part of the “Realm of Denmark”. Greenland’s home rule law (1978) does also not use the term “Kingdom of Denmark”, but rather makes Greenland a special society within the “Danish Realm”. A similar expression is used for the Faeroe Islands (1948).

Even more interesting it gets, reading the 2005 Greenland home rule law that grant Greenland (and the Faeroe Islands) the right to conduct certain foreign relation with States and organizations, though not on behalf of “Denmark” (where the deal includes Denmark proper), in so far as that it is not counterproductive, to “Kingdom of Denmark”’s sphere of interest. They must sign such docs with the “Kingdom of Denmark”. That is the case with Faeroe Islands also. Together they can also make deals, still signing with “Kingdom of Denmark".

Confused? Greenland can conduct certain foreign relations, but not on behalf of “Denmark” (proper), yet they must sign with “Kingdom of Denmark”. Here is the very essence of the “Kingdom of Denmark” problem. How can Greenland sign deals with the “Kingdom of Denmark” signature, yet they can’t make then apply to Denmark proper? Obviously “Kingdom of Denmark” is not a union nominator.

This is because it is not a commonwealth union sort of thing. “Kingdom of Denmark” is Denmark proper, in foreign policy; “Kingdom of Denmark” is also Greenland and the Faeroe Islands. In absolute terms Greenland and the Faeroe Islands are special societies within the “Danish Realm” (or “Realm of Denmark”).

I took a look at the Danish wiki, and they split it into Denmark and Kingdom of Denmark. Convenient and maybe we should do it like that, but unfortunately it is not entirely correct. I rather use the unofficial term “Rigsfællesskabet”, or much more correct “Danish realm”, ”Denmarks realm”, “realm of Denmark” Twthmoses 14:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an academical discussion. The Kingdom of Denmark includes the Faeroe Islands and Greenland through the "Rigsfælleskabet". Historically the two islands didn't belong to the Crown of Denmark, but to the Crown of Norway, but after the congrees of Vienna in which our brothers, the english, apparently forgot about the islands and forgot to stipulate that they too was to be handed over to Sweden as part of Norway. Defacto the two islands became part of the Kingdom of Denmark, eventhough they were never annexed as lands of the Crown of denmark. They were colonies of Denmark, when that became old fachioned, they became special administration areas or "Amter" with limited homerule. From 1953 the relationship is handed through rigsfællesskabet which is a constitutional matter. Now since Rigsfælleskabet is a constitutional matter and that denmark is a constitutional kingdom, it's pretty clear that they belong to the entity which is known as The Kingdom of Denmark. F.ex. should the Rigsfællesskabet be fundamentally changed it would be a constitutional matter for Her Majesty the Queen and the parliament "Folketinget" - not, strictly speaking, a matter for the Homerules on the Islands (eventhough we must admit that they would be interested...). All Greenlandics and Faeroe-islanders are citizens of the Kingdom of Denmark and there exists no Greenlandic or Faeroe citizenship (they do have "Hjemmehørende" status on greenland, which denotes people with a special relationship to Greenland). Ofcourse they/we belong in the article on the Kingdom of Denmark. Jomsviking (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentally correct, however there do not exist anything called “Rigsfællesskabet”, it is a purely unofficial term, (invented within the last 25 years), thus nothing is “handled” though Rigsfællesskabet, as there is not such thing. It is however a term widely used, even by politicians, to describe the Danish realm. It exists solely because Greenland’s and the Faeroe Islands exact status within the Kingdom of Denmark are lacking a crystal clear definition.

I don’t think anybody disputes that Greenland’s and the Faeroe Islands is part of Kingdom of Denmark, and this is also not what the discussion is about. As you state it’s an academic discussion about terms and definitions. The only truly term (and official) that comprises Denmark, Greenland and the Faeroe Islands in all matters is “Realm of Denmark”, “Denmark’s Realm” or “Danish Realm”,- it is the one used in laws. Twthmoses (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

FA Status?

Will Denmark be ready for FA status anytime soon? Can/should I nominate it? Laleena 12:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not even close to being ready for FA. All sections basically need to be rewritten from scratch and have citations added.--Peter Andersen 16:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Denmark, the name and etymology

Recently, someone has added that Denmark is short for "Marshes of the Danes". I seriously doubt this, living here, the story I have heard is that it is "Dan's Mark", the field of Dan (a supposed King). Marsh (Danish: marsk) is something else, I have never heard it related to the Danish word for field (mark), although I am not saying there could not be a connection. I know that king Dan is probably an invention of Saxo or some other "historian" and not counted as a historical person.

I am not saying this could not be right, and I do not have the sources at hand for adding "fields of Dan". Also, as I stated, this is not exactly accurate information and it is quite possibly that we simply do not know the etymology. Lundse 21:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I corrected that posting from "Marches of the Danes" to "Marshes of the Danes". But maybe I'm the gullable victim of a joke or something. Anyway, I've posted a query on this page User talk:64.131.180.206 asking if the contributor has a source. --RenniePet 22:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is a joke, it is a well-chosen word for seeming like a fair misunderstanding :-) Lets see what he says and consider it... Lundse 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea if the story sticks or not, but it has nothing to do with a "marsk" (either the officeholder of the type of territory). The relevant word "Mark" is related to "Ostmark", "Mark Brandenburg", "Mark Lausitz" etc, in other words; this theory claims that the word is inspired by German and the territorial organization covered in the Marches article. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Finnmark in Norway, created in same way Finn(Sami people)+mark. see also Mercia.Håbet 08:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs)

The German use of the word marsk was unknown in Scandinavia at that era then the Denmark first is mentioned.Håbet 09:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haabet (talk • contribs)

On User talk:64.131.180.206 the person who changed the meaning of Denmark to "Marches of the Danes" has explained what this means. It was not vandalism or a joke. "March" actually means "border" or "borderland" in old English.

Here are some references from Dictionary.com:

march –noun

1. a tract of land along a border of a country; frontier.

2. marches, the border districts between England and Scotland, or England and Wales.

–verb (used without object)

3. to touch at the border; border.

Origin: 1250–1300; ME marche < AF, OF < Gmc; cf. OE gemearc, Goth marka boundary; see mark

American Heritage Dictionary

march n.

The border or boundary of a country or an area of land; a frontier.

A tract of land bordering on two countries and claimed by both.

intr.v. marched, march·ing, march·es

To have a common boundary: England marches with Scotland.

Middle English, from Old French marche, of Germanic origin; see merg- in Indo-European roots.

I'm a native English speaker with a better-than-average vocabulary, but was totally unaware of that meaning of the word "march". Maybe British people would be more likely to understand it, but my guess is that almost zero Americans would understand it.

I happen to have an Icelandic friend, and he says that "mark" in Icelandic means "forest", and he assumes this is from the old Nordic language.

My apologies for misunderstanding 64.131.180.206 and going off on a tangent with "marshes". --RenniePet 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is perfectly understandable. I didn't know about "marches" either, nor had I ever considered another root for "-mark" than, well, "mark" (Danish for field). This new interpretation does make sense, although I am beginning to become curious about whether the Danish "mark" originally meant what "march" does. Also, although I am not saying the current version is wrong, sources would be nice as this is bound to come up again and I would personally really like to know this for sure :-) Lundse 10:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"-Mark" is the same North-east germanic word as the above middle english "march" coming from french "Marche" which is the same as german (North-Central germanic) "Mark".

It denotes a borderland or Border-field. You see it in the german "Grenz-mark" which was a "karolingischen Grafschaft" (Caroline Countship??, Karolinsk grevskab) which was ruled by a :"Mark-graf". Now we are close to the meaning of "Denmark", The Caroline emperors established "Grenz-mark"s or "borderfields" near troublesome barbarians, one of these barbaric people :was danes and the borderfield to them was hence "Dane-mark". In modern Danish "Mark" more precissly has the meaning of a Farmer's field, I don't know whether this meaning existed in :old times - regardless both the germans and danes apparently accepted the term.

Jomsviking (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just added a large chuck of etymology-like info. I’ll appreciate some copyediting as well as what needs specified sourcing, in that I’m unsure what lines needs specified sourcing, in that most sources are in the text itself. Twthmoses (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple of comments on what you added. I have not added any fact tags, basically because I would add a lot and it doesn't exactly look great. Especially the beginning of the section, where you claim that people are debating, needs source. Also you need contemporary sources to confirm what the medieval sources say. Also I feel the section is too long as it stands now. Maybe it would be better to make a separate article called "Etymology of Denmark" or something like that, and then cut the section down here.--Peter Andersen (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw that Lilac Soul slapped an OR tag on. Not very helpful in that you actually need to address what parts you consider OR. But luckily you Peter added some comments. A separate article might be the way to go, my only concern would be how to summarise this down for a short intro in the Denmark article. What I have added is already a summarise of much more complicate threads linking together when some writers make their case. I just added base info. Debating is easy. Pickup any Danish lexicon or history book written within the last 200 years and you will see different opinions to the etymology, uniting of Denmark and the approach to legendary Danish kings (which sequel is used to explain the uniting and etymology, - sort of circular logic in some cases). Of the shelf, Mentor Westermanns Leksikon (1950), Illustreret Konversations Leksikon (1907), Lademanns Store Leksikon (1991) and Norden I Tusinde aar (1951). Online there are several very good sources, like; Kristian Andersen Nyrup's Middelalderstudier, BOG IX. Kong Gorms Saga (most relevant Kapitel 2. Danernes lande, but the whole book is very good) [2], Asernes Æt (several extreme informing pages here, here, here and many more, all well researched), Navneforskning at KBH uni [3], and heimskringla [4] with an large amount of information on many Nordic texts and subjects, including them being available (translated) online. As for contemporary sources to confirm what the medieval sources says, is a very strange requirement. I must misunderstand what you mean. A source is a source regardless of its age, in fact the more close in age to an event it is, the better. There is no contemporary source for say Gesta Danorum. Sure there is many books dealing with Gesta Danorum, but the ultimate source is to Gesta Danorum is Gesta Danorum itself. As said I must not understand what you mean. Twthmoses (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to remove it all again, but I would like to see if anyone really has a good argument for keeping it. It is way way too much text describing a subject of little relevance and with no verifiable references or facts. It is my belief that if this subject is encyclopedic at all, it belongs in a separate article with only a very short concise text here. I do not like to see this much space in the top of the Denmark article wasted on urban legends and idle speculation Carewolf (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat surprising comment, that you don’t consider the very origin of the country you live in encyclopaedic. Luckily some do. The very funny thing is that just about any information about Denmark before the year 1000, including much of the Viking age, is nothing but urban legends and speculation, that scholar, interested in these things, try to string together, with just about no verifiable references or facts. In fact that goes for much of world history. Example, if I remember correct the entire chronology of Ancient Egypt is based on 2 or 3 solid dates, with 200 some pharaohs aligned into that over 3000 years. Can you imagine the scope of error that is available here, yet I would be terrible sad if someone suggested deleting Ancient Egypt on account of no verifiable references or facts. What I have added is what various Danish scholars has arrived at, in summarises form already. Too much text is not an argument; this is how the case is and the etymology of Denmark does not come pre-packed in a nice little cube to select bits from, unfortunately. Twthmoses (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There certainly isn't enough sources to create a fork nor is the amount of text in the section a sufficient reason to do so. Sources would be a good thing but just as the example with ancient Egypt uncertainty does not imply original research. In addition to this NPOV does require us to present all sourced viewpoints. As pointed out above those sources aren't hard to find - it's just a matter of getting them in there. Unless someone has a compelling argument against replacing the OR tag with the more specific unreferenced tag I'll do so. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: The etymology of Denmark is very clear: Denmark is derived from danish Danmark or Danemark, whether Danmark (the 'some kind of' land of Dan) or Danemark (the 'some kind of' land of the Danes) is the original, is unknown. More is not known, and just ends up as original research. The Denmark article is quite long and has to cover a lot of subjects, we can't go into details on all kinds of research theories for each subject. Carewolf (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Being Danish myself I naturally understand that. However, although the section may be too detailed it does not draw its own conclusions. Clearly this isn't as simple as you claim and omitting information is as misleading as including it. It could be rewritten but there are no grounds for calling it original research. It sums up what others have said about a subject that neither you nor I know the definitive truth about. Your logic is flawed as demonstrated by the ancient Egypt example. I suggest you reread WP:OR. It is not original research to sum up what others have said - regardless of any uncertainty. We are not here to judge what is right or wrong - we are here to sum up what others have concluded. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It may not be original research, but without any stated sources, it's impossible to know which parts are facts, which are opinions held by some/many researcher, and which if any are your own conclusions or research. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, which is why I just retagged it as lacking references. It also needs copyediting. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Made some changes to the Etymology section. Sourced what I thought needed sourcing (much of it is self sourcing in the very text) and removed things I could find no sourcing for (even talking about it), like “Denmark, is derived from Danish Danmark”. Not only could I not find anybody talking about this, it also seems dubious at best, since the earliest source using the word, not only are English in origin, but also uses Den… rather than Dan… My own best guess, and I did not include any of that, so don’t worry, is that “Denmark” and “Danmark” are probably equal old and does not derived from each other. If more sourcing is needed, please specify where and I will add it. Twthmoses (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Etymology section is stupid. The language of that age is unknown. The first description of Denmark is from about 1074. The name is used before 900 and Denmark exist about 800, probable about 700, perhaps earlier 400 or 200.Haabet 20:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Stupid? Strange wording, and a little cheap don’t you think? As always a little correction to your input. The first description of the territory now called Denmark is much older than 1074 (Adam of Bremen's "Descriptio insularum Aquilonis" I believe you refer to), and appears in a dozen or more Greek and Roman works. When Denmark first “exists” is of course pure speculation, and no one knows. Not dealing with the very issue of when to count from (when does “exist” starts?), no one knows de facto, when the word “Denmark” comprises all of current territory of Denmark, when the word was first used, why it became the word Denmark, when the first united Kingdom of Denmark was, who the people where that “made” Denmark, and when from a foreign point of view all of it was known as Denmark, etc... There are some good candidate answers to some of these questions, yet for most of them it remains in a state of unsolved / unknown. Twthmoses (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Motto?

Normally the motto of Denmark is Gud bevare Danmark (God preserve Denmark) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.200.107 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's just a phrase used by the Queen in her New Year Speeches.Jonaslind

Free education by law doubtful

This seems doubtful. I am quite certain that this law does not exsist. It was a major debate issue in the justheld elections. The leftwing wanted to current right government to pass it, but nothing promices have been made. Education is still free, but not by law. (It is in Norway however)

The Danish Constitution (Grundloven) reads in § 76: "All children in the age of education (undervisningspligtige alder) have the right to free education in the elementary school (Folkeskolen). Parents or legal guardians, who themselves provide the education of their children, which matches what is normally required in the elementary school do not have to let their children be educated in the elementary school. (My translation).

The Folketing has the right to decide what "the age of education" is, and it is currently free to attend elementary school, high school (gymnasielle uddannelser), and universities.

I saw political demonstrations by teenagers, but please provide a citation for just one political party actually suggesting to terminate free education. The government certainly didn't, and any such policy would have been contrary to decades of Venstre policy. Valentinian ^{T / C} 14:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the article currently doesn't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning sourcing. Although the article is well-sourced in some areas, other areas are lacking. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the article's status.Coloane 05:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Archaeology

Archaeology is the study of human cultures. The article states that the "earliest archaeological remains" in Denmark are from 110,000 to 130,000 years ago, and then it says that people have lived there since 12,500 BCE. What does this mean? Rossen3 (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Those two statements appear to contradict each other but they don't: Denmark became uninhabitable somewhere around 100,000 years ago because of the last ice age. (It's an important bit of information that the earlist remains are from the Eem interglacial period.) Do you think this needs clarifying? Hemmingsen (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Denmark became uninhabitable..." - Wow, you had me scared there for a moment! :-) --RenniePet (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: I do not consider it to have remained uninhabitable. :-) Hemmingsen (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"The world is probably about only 9,000 years old so there couldn't be Archaeological Remains from 12,000 B.C. or what ever. Drop the conversation!

Dragonrider27 (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"The world is probably about only 9,000 years old" -How do you figure that exactly?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedmanToby (talk • contribs) 23:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

People, please do not start an Evolution vs. Creation argument here. This is a talk page about Denmark. If you want to argue about Creation and Evolution, a good place is this website. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, before this starts into some really big arguement, just tell me your an Evolutionist so I don't have to say "READ YOUR BIBLE". Just go on ahead and think the world is 153,0000 BILLION years old. Dragonrider27 (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not saying that that's the real age but just to give you an Idea that i's not a Billion years old and probably not more than 10,000. Dragonrider27 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Do I see a problem between European usage and American? American English sees a Billion as 1000 million (1.000.000.000), European usage sees a Billion as a million million (1.000.000.000.000). There are some Wiki-articles about it: Billion (word) and Long and short scales. Just putting my two cents worth in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.102.100 (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Expansions of the historical sections

I have taken the liberty to summerize some main points of danish history. Generally it's ot sourced a lot, because it's not controversial. With a few exceptions that I will note below. Jomsviking (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Viking ring fortress

In response, Harald Bluetooth built six fortresses around Denmark, collectively called trelleborge

I think this should be removed. Harald most likely builded the ring fortresses, since the dating corresponds to the later part of Harald's reign - Though it could also be Svend I Haraldson "Tveskæg". But it is not likely that they were builded as a response to a southern pressure. Their strategical position are not suited to counter a southern land invasion. Instead they control water ways: Aggersborg Limfjord+Skagerrak, Fyrkat, Nonnebakken: Kattegat. Trelleborg (Slagelse) Storebælt, Trelleborg (Sverige) the approch from the Baltic. The pattern is complete with the discovery of Borgeby in Skåne, which controls the sound. Now adding in how we know the "vikings" preferably fought - at sea - the Fortresses has probably not been intended to defeat invasions, rather they are builded of the same reasons that 99% of all other medival fortresses are builded: Inorder to fortify the king's internal position. That's why they are placed near the waterways that carried the trade and the toll which could be pressed - I believe the mafia in Itally call it "protection money". Jomsviking (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Section Tagged for CleanUp?

I came to this article via 'ariciles marked for cleanup', only to find substaintial, detailed article. It seems someone had marked demography section for clean-up, but does not seem to have given reasons. I adjusted the tag to read 'section' (rather than article) may need clean up, but, to be honest, I'm not really certain what the problem is??

I will move on to other page requiring more attention! Bruceanthro 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the Demography section - it's now somewhat more concise. Carltzau (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean up of sources

The selection of sources for this article also needs a clean up. For example, the use of the web site "Asernes Æt" as a source is problematic. The site does not meet WP's verifiability requirements for reliable sources as it is a self-published, private home page (see classification by Fagenes Infoguide, a site established by Undervisningsministeriet: "Privat hjemmeside der giver et bud på folkevandringerne"/"Private home page which gives a view of the migrations"), created by a former banker and amateur historian, i.e. without formal training (Jeg ikke professionel forsker / "I'm not a professional researcher"). The information presented on the site has not been peer reviewed and lacks references to scholarly sources at times (i.e. footnotes), and in addition, it occasionally provides rather controversial speculations. The site is used in this article as a reference to the sentence fragment "maybe similar to Finnmark, Telemark or Dithmarschen[6] (See Marches)." I find that fragment unnecessary. Similarities between the segment "mark" in Denmark and "mark" in other place names are surely not limited to the three names mentioned? I would instead suggest that Inge Skovgaard-Petersen [5], Niels Lund [6], Peter Sawyer or Ole Krumlin-Petersen are consulted for this section, as their contributions have been thoroughly vetted by the international research community and are often cited by other scholars. Sophiasghost (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Except for the source "Asernes Æt", which can easily be removed, along with the sentence belonging to it, I don't see any other source problems, don't you agree? Maybe it's time this article is relisted for promotion to good article status? Comments, please? --Thrane (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thane, there are still entire sections lacking sources (mainly the history sections), so maybe it would be better to wait a little to relist it, so that the sourcing can be fixed, especially since the lack of sources was one of the problems that got it delisted. Please give people time to cover the gaps first. In response to your question: I consider the below links questionable as sources as well.

• http://www.atlapedia.com/online/countries/denmark.htm (because it has no author. Where did they get their info from? Is it reliable?)
• http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/education/hojskole.htm (because Scandinavica is a shop that publishes unsourced material to attract customers)
• http://marriage.about.com/cs/samesexmarriage/a/samesex.htm (because about.com sites are produced by self-pronounced experts who often spam Wikipedia for link ratings)
• http://www.nyrups.dk/MitJob.htm. (...this link is borderline: Please verify that this person is an authoritative source in the subject he writes about, with published scholarship, and not just a provider of self-published work on a personal website.)
• http://www.copenhagen-walkingtours.dk/ (because this link is unnecessary and spammy: Why use a commercial link to a tour company in order to verify that "the capital city of Copenhagen includes the Tivoli gardens, the Amalienborg Palace and The Little Mermaid sculpture"?

Patience&Peace, Sophiasghost (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DanishKroners.jpg

Image:DanishKroners.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Kosovo

I'm resuming with the inclusion of an independent Kosovo in the maps of the countries that recognise it. Bardhylius (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Debt

In the article it is stated that Denmark has a foreign debt of zero, but in the list of countries by external debt, Denmark has a debt of 405 billion dollars. The statistic is from 2006, so it's obviously outdated. Could somebody please find some newer sources? --Mostar (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article says that it has zero net debt. There is a difference between that just debt. Denmark does have debt, but not net debt. --Maitch (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a English source, but during the 4th quarter of 2005, other countries owed Denmark 3,021 billion kr., while Denmark owed 2,985 in foreign debts. That was the first time since WWII that Denmark didn't have a net-debt (Danish source). Given the recent POV edit, I should probably also point out that most of the Danish foreign debt is held by companies, while the Danish state only owes just over 90.5 billion kr. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Did Denmark "acquire its sovereignty" in May 1945?

According to the List of countries by formation dates article, the "Date of acquisition of sovereignty" of Denmark was in May 1945. This is not reflected in the Denmark article. Which date is correct? --Mais oui! (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The dates in the list appear to be the most recent date of sovereignty, as in the date when the country was most recently freed from occupying forces. Due to WWII, many European countries will have a date listed as 1945. I think the date in the list is incorrect - it does not reflect that all these countries were sovereign countries before the Nazi invasion, and that the Nazi invasion breached the sovereignty of these countries. So the information in this article about Denmark should stay as it is. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 07:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you! I am not arguing that this article (the Denmark article) should change. However, I am extremely concerned that the List of countries by formation dates article is a massive pile of WP:OR and WP:UNVERIFIED, and it is important that concerned editors Watch and contribute to the List of countries by formation dates article. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, the list is WP:OR with, as far as I can tell, no sources to back up anything. Most lists on Wikipedia are, however, problematic when it comes to WP:OR, unless they have very clearly defined criteria for inclusion and either source everything or are just a list (e.g. List of hospitals in Denmark is easy as it is just a list). -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 07:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"...in the time of David..."? (Mythological Explanations)

Can someone explain to me what is meant by "in the time of David", in the same sentence at "Emperor Augustus" in the first sentence of the second paragraph in the "Mythological Explanations" section? The only "David" I know of is the king of ancient Israel, who ruled in like the 8th or 9th century B.C., whereas Emperor Augustus ruled right around the birth of Christ, i.e., a lot later.

Jlaramee (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a vagueness in the language in Chronicon Lethrense (which is from around 1150). It uses the phrase "In the beginning, when the emperor went against Denmark at the time of David, ..."[7], which is a reference to the king of ancient Israel, even though it couldn't possibly have happened in his life time. It shouldn't be interpreted to mean anything more accurate than "at least centuries ago". Hemmingsen 19:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It threw me too, it needs editing! I'll do it now... Nortonius (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Two map optional display

Hello Denmark!!! I have something that may interest contributers for this page. In a nut shell, it allows the option to display two maps in your info box, one could be a close up of Denmark, and another would be Denmark in a wider European or EU context. This is an example that was being discussed on Scotland's talk page (though I think they have rejected a two map option). Prior to now no one knew that you could have two maps displayed in the info box. For 'smallish' counties the benifits are easy to graps, an up-close view of the country, and a wider contextual visualisation of the country. Dydd da!!

PS: This is an example from the Scotland page, please do not be offended that I display the Scotland info box here. It is only ment as an example.

Scotland  (English / Scots) Alba  (Gaelic)
Flag Royal Coat of Arms
Motto: [Nemo me impune lacessit] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)  (Latin) "No one provokes me with impunity" "Cha togar m' fhearg gun dìoladh"   (Scottish Gaelic) '"Wha daur meddle wi me?"'  (Scots)1
Anthem: (Multiple unofficial anthems)
Location of Denmark/Archive 2 (orange) in the United Kingdom (camel)
Location of Denmark/Archive 2 (orange) in the European Union (camel)
Capital	Edinburgh 55°57′N 3°12′W
Largest city	Glasgow
Official languages	English
Recognised regional languages	Gaelic, Scots1
Demonym(s)	Scot, Scots and Scottish²
Government	Constitutional monarchy
ISO 3166 code	GB-SCT

23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)~

The pictures of the Queen and the Prime Minister are rather horrible... we should look for better photos to use for the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.251.80 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Queen IS quite horrible. /roger.duprat.denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.243.125.190 (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"All college education in Denmark is free"?

Isn't a more accurate statement, "There is no college tuition in Denmark, as all higher education is paid for with taxes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave148109 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tidied the sense and grammar of that passage, but I didn't change the sense of it. I'm not sure that it's necessarily true, but I don't really know. The point is, if it's paid for by taxation, then it's "free at point of use". Saying that it's paid for by the taxpayer would be redundant - if it's said to be "free", it certainly isn't going to be paid for by the Tooth Fairy lol! But if you or anyone else wants to go into the details of Danish funding for state education, that's another matter. Nortonius (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Like you say it's free at the point of use. Since government financing isn't entirely based on taxes the suggested rewording would be inaccurate. I suggest rewording it to reflect what is meant and like you say if anyone wants to write a referenced section about government financing and the origns of that financing they can do so in Education in Denmark. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "'" :
  • {{cite news | first=Jens | last=Nüchel | coauthors= Lars Erik Skovgaard | title=Danskere arbejder mere og mere | date=[[2006-12-13]] | publisher=[[Berlingske Tidende]] | url =http://www.business.dk/karriere/artikel:aid=2014652 | work =Business.dk | pages = | accessdate = 2007-02-03 | language = }}
  • {{cite news | first=Annette | last=Bonde | title= Virksomheder foretrækker tysk arbejdskraft | date=[[2007-09-24]] | publisher=[[Berlingske Tidende]] | url =http://www.business.dk/article/20070923/karriere/109231065/ | work=Business.dk | pages = | accessdate = 2007-09-23 | language = }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unreasonable population

The claims of how unreasonably large the danish population is must be revised. Although a swede, I have knowledge of my neighbouring countries. Denmarks population is about 5.4 million people, not some incredible 18 million! Someone please revise and review this. The numbers repeats themselves over the article and give some horrible statistics on population density etc. I also have a strong feeling that the proposed 3 million living on Faroe Island and 5 million on Greenland is way of the charts. The total of nearly 27 million in population of the whole "Kingdom of Denmark" is just ridicullous. Please fix it!

Herrnilzzon (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Denmark vs the United Kingdom of Denmark

As I understand it, Denmark is one of three countries in the Kingdom of Denmark, the other two being the Faeroes and Greenland. (Or at least it will be three from June 2009.) Currently, Kingdom of Denmark is a redirect to Denmark, and the Denmark article is primarily about that one country, with the Faeroes and Greenland being afterthoughts.

Should we move Rigsfællesskabet to United Kingdom of Denmark, and dedicate this article more fully to Denmark, as we distinguish England from the United Kingdom, and Netherlands from Kingdom of the Netherlands? Normally we go by English names, and the ministry of foreign affairs translates Rigsfællesskabet as "United Kingdom of Denmark". I'd make the move myself, but I'm concerned I may be missing some reason why the United Kingdom of Denmark in not an appropriate name.

BTW, according to the BBC, if the referendum is implemented in June 2009, then Greenlanders will be considered a separate people from Danes under international law. kwami (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunately not that simple. Read the discussion on this page above, concerning this very matter. Denmark and Kingdom of Denmark is nothing like England and UK. Denmark and Kingdom of Denmark is one and the same thing, however in certain matters it comprises also Greenland and Faeroes.

There exist nothing called “Rigsfællesskabet”; it is a purely artificial term, created because Greenland and Faeroes lacks an exact status definition within the “Kingdom of Denmark”. It simply does not exist. Greenland and the Faeroe Islands are special societies within the “Danish Realm” (or “Realm of Denmark”). This very name just used, is the only official one that exist, comprising Denmark, Greenland and the Faeroes, in all terms. Twthmoses (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Should the article Rigsfællesskabet then be moved to "Realm of Denmark"? kwami (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I think United Kingdom of Denmark would be a better option. Rigsfællesskabet or United Kingdom of Denmark refers to the relations between Nuuk, Tórshavn and Copenhagen since Greenland got home-rule in 1979. The name of the state is given as "Danmarks Rige" in the constitution and the literal translation of that is "Realm of Denmark", however "Kingdom of Denmark" is also often used, for example in the English version of the constitution published by the Danish parliament.[8] And in addition to the fact that Kingdom of Denmark is a term that refers to the state, it also refers to the pre-1979 situation, which for example means that it included Iceland between 1814 and 1918. So in short, I think Kingdom of Denmark or Realm of Denmark should be a different article than Rigsfællesskabet (There is yet another term that should be distinguished from these: the Monarchy of Denmark which pre-1864 refers to the Kingdom of Denmark plus the duchies of Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg, but that's another thing.)

While I don't have any better translations, I am not quite satisfied with United Kingdom of Denmark, because that title doesn't seem to convey in any way that it isn't about the state but relations within that state. I have no idea how to fix that. Hemmingsen 10:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this article, primarily about Denmark (the European country), be kept at Denmark, and that Kingdom of Denmark be created to deal with the Kingdom that includes Denmark proper, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. The best analogy I can think of is to Kingdom of the Netherlands, where the Kingdom includes the Netherlands in Europe, Aruba, and the Netherlands Antilles. (The legal and political structure of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of course not identical to that of the Kingdom of Denmark, but there are analogies; I notice that this has been noted via a "see also" reference in the Rigsfællesskabet article.) The term "United Kingdom of Denmark" is not really used in English, so should not be the name of a main article, but could be a redirect to "Kingdom of Denmark," even though I do note the usage of this term in a Danish government site cited in Rigsfællesskabet. Compare for example the usage on the official Danish government website in English, for example here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to start writing a "Kingdom of Denmark"-article, that's perfectly fine with me. The main point I was trying to make is that Rigsfællesskabet is a seperate thing and therefore probably best kept in its own article. That also happens to match the solution used on Danish wikipedia with three different articles, da:Danmark about Denmark proper, da:Kongeriget Danmark about the Kingdom of Denmark and da:Rigsfællesskabet about the relations between Denmark proper and the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Hemmingsen 20:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-da says that 'Denmark, together with the Faroes and Greenland, is part of the Kingdom of Denmark'. Taking them at their word, that's close enough to the Netherlands vs. Kingdom of the Netherlands to make a similar distinction. Rigsfællesskabet does appear to be a matter of internal relations rather than a level of govt, and I agree that the translation "UK of D" is misleading and should be avoided. kwami (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I see someone has started working on the article Kingdom of Denmark. If that is correct just needing further work could some alterations be made to this article because at the moment its very confusing (I thought the UKs situation was complicated, this ones a headache). Could all the "kingdom of Denmark" and "commonly known as denmark" be removed from the introduction of this page and infobox and replaced with just "Denmark" then the bit about "The Faroe Islands and Greenland are equal countries with Denmark within the Kingdom" say within the Kingdom of Denmark.

I would do it myself but i am unsure whats correct so dont want to link it to something thats inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Greenland and The Faroe Islands are not seperate countries. They aren't recognized as such by the UN or any country in the world. They are self-govering parts of the Kingdom but have no independent military. To call them countries is original research. I fully support the creation of a Kingdom of Denmark article but to call them countries is simply wrong. There's a huge difference between being a country and being a self-govering part of a kingdom. The former implies constitutional independence which they do not have. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The term country means different things to different people. I must admit my original opinion and understanding of the word "country" was that it is about a sovereign state but others dont think feel that way and the term "country" has been used by governments to describe parts of what form their sovereign state. We have had this debate for the United Kingdom as four "countries" form part of the UK and the government has used that term.

I dont know how Denmark / Greenland etc deal with this issue which is why i made no changes because im unsure whats correct. But at the moment this seems very confusing to me because i originally believed Denmark (offically Kingdom of Denmark) was the sovereign state and Greenland / farore islands were simply territories or provinces of it but at the moment because of "The Faroe Islands and Greenland are equal countries with Denmark within the Kingdom, " it sounds like Denmark, Faroe Islands and Greenland all form part of the Kingdom of Denmark which is the sovereign state. It sounds like an identical situation to Kingdom of the Netherlands and Netherlands

If this is not the case maybe it could be reworded? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

They aren't countries in the traditional sense of the word. They can't decide their own foreign policy and they are financially dependent on Denmark. They aren't members of the EU because they've been allowed not to be. They have what most people would consider an independent domestic policy. They are responsible for their own schools, hospitals, social care etc. and they collect their own taxes. If a person from Denmark calls a person from Greenland or The Faroe Islands a Dane it's usually considered at least mildy offensive. I'm fine with a seperate article about the Kingdom but it's important, at least in the context of this matter, that we do not call them countries as if they were independent. When they eventually gain full independence from Denmark (the country) we can call them countries. Until then they are self-ruling parts of the Kingdom with no independent foreign policy and a high degree of financial dependency on Denmark, at least in the case of Greenland. That may change soon but we don't know that yet. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Its the fact Kingdom of Denmark is used that is confusing me. "Denmark" is the sovereign state thats a member of the UN, EU etc, but i thought the full offical title of "Denmark" was the "Kingdom of Denmark". If that is Denmarks full title how can there be another article dealing the relationship between Denmark and its territories with the same name. Rigsfællesskabet explains this issue far more clearly with out the confusing use of the countries offical title. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree which is why it would probably have been better if Rigsfællesskabet had been moved rather than creating a new article. The Faroe Island and Greenland are members of the UN through Denmark's membership. The official name is Kingdom of Denmark, Denmark without Greenland and The Faroe Islands is called Denmark because we're used to thinking about it that way but the constitution does not make that distinction. That's why all Danish laws dealing with domestic matters say This law does not apply to Greenland and The Faroe Islands. They make their own domestic policy. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the detail on that article is far more useful than the contents of the Kingdom of Denmark However even with correct data it still gives rise to confusion between the two things. If the term was simply used as a translation based on that page why was "United" dropped which would atleast remove some confusion. It might also be worth taking a look again at the Greenland article, up until a month ago that use to say Greenland was a self governing Danish province, but now it says member country of the Kingdom of Denmark. I thought this change might be linked to the recent referendum there, but that sentence may be consufing if it was simply someones POV and not linked to any formal change. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The referendum was not legally binding. It did not grant them any status as an independent country within the kingdom. The article should not have been changed to say that. They are in the process of negotiating extended self-rule, possibly leading to some sort of status as an independent country at some point in time but this has not been decided yet. Independence would require a change in Danish law. They're still not an independent country. EconomicsGuy (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Economy

Under Economy it says: "Denmark has a GDP per capita higher than that of most European countries, and 15-20% higher than that of the United States".

This is simply not true. The US is ranked higher on per capita income both nominal and by PPP. By PPP the US is ranked 6th and Denmark 14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.163.90 (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm. Per the the IMF [9] its correct. And apparently also per the worldbank [10] (divide by population). I haven't checked the percentages - but Denmark according to those two rather reliable sources, have a GDP per capita quite abit over the US. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Kim, so I guess the same numbers from Wikipedia is faulty, even though the data seems to be from IMF too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.90.146.8 (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Its quite possible that the article you point out is wrong, take that up at the other article. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. But as i've just pointed out (with references), the 2 sources i linked (world bank and IMF) agree with the statement that the US has a lower per capita GDP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Kim, your sources are good, but you do not use them right. The most accurate way of determine a countrys wealth is not by GDP but by DGP PPP (Purchasing Power Pariaty). Take a look a this link and you'll see, that any clamis by Danes to be wealthier than Americans are wrong. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.163.90 (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The article does not say GDP PPP per capita it says GDP per capita. This page is not a forum about Danish economy or economics in general. If you have a reliable source that explicitly says what you want to be included then that can be added if there is consensus to do so. We do not judge what the truth is. We rely on reliable sources to verify what is included and we do so without engaging in original research which among other things includes not interpreting the sources. We report what is found in 3rd party reliable sources and that's it. Also, please read WP:NPOV if you haven't done so already. Ideally both data should be included along with reliable references. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Denmark and Nazi Germany

The entry does not mention the Danish Government signing a pact with the Nazis, in return Nazis would control Danish foreign policy.

Denmark coordinated its foreign policy with Germany, extending diplomatic recognition to Axis collaborator and puppet regimes and breaking diplomatic relations with the "governments-in-exile" formed by countries occupied by Germany. Denmark broke diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and signed the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1941.[31] In 1941, a Danish military corps, Frikorps Danmark was created at the initiative of the SS and the Danish Nazi Party, to fight alongside the Wehrmacht on Germany's Eastern Front. The government's following statement was widely interpreted as a sanctioning of the corps.[32] Frikorps Danmark was open to members of the Danish Royal Army and those who had completed their service within the last ten years.[33] Between 4,000 and 10,000 Danish citizens joined the Frikorps Danmark, including 77 officers of the Royal Danish Army. An estimated 3,900 of these soldiers died fighting for Germany during the Second World War. Denmark transferred six torpedo boats to Germany in 1941, although the bulk of its navy remained under Danish command until the declaration of martial law in 1943. Denmark supplied agricultural and industrial products to Germany as well as loans for armaments and fortifications. The German presence in Denmark, including the construction of the Danish part of the Atlantic Wall fortifications, was paid from an account in Denmark's central bank, Nationalbanken. The Danish government had been promised that these expenses would be repaid later, but this never happened. The construction of the Atlantic Wall fortifications in Jutland cost 5 billion Danish kroner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.86.235 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Vendsyssel-Thy

when did Vendsyssel-Thy become a island? I dont remember any earthquakes....? Rasmus1166 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmus1166 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's separated from the mainland by the Limfjord and seems to have been that way for some time (since 1825), to judge by the article. —Angr 15:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

North Jutlandic Island has information about this island, with a map. The map is not very good, in my opinion, but the article explains how the island has been a peninsula, and an island, at various historical times. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Errors in Economy section

The statement: "Neither does the Index account for the actions of governments to nurture business[61] in the manner of the Japanese Zaibatsus during the late 20th C, that helped lead to the Japanese economic miracle." is simply incorrect.

Zaibatsu where family run business conglomerates of the late 19th-early 20th centuries. Post-WWII the Americans believing the Zaibatsu to have played an important role in Japanese militarism stripped the Zaibatsu families of their assets, forced the firing of the top-management and split the Zaibatsu up. Later some of the pre-war Zaibatsu (E.g. Mitsubishi) member companies began to link themselves together again forming what are referred to in English as Keiretsu. In Japanese the 6 large Keiretsu are more commonly called 大企業集団 (Dai-Kigyou-Shuudan - Large Business Groups) and described as 横系列 (Yoko-Keiretsu - Horizontal-Keiretsu). Either way the post-war linkings between Keiretsu-member companies are much weaker than they were in the pre-war Zaibatsu.

Furthermore, the height of the Keiretsu-era was during 1960's post economic liberalisation, when fears of take-over by foreign corporations was high and the companies linked themselves together through mutual stock holdings. By the late 20th century especially after the collapse of the economic bubble, Keiretsu were already becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The Japanese government did however work closely with industry, especially during the high-growth era (1950's and 60's). However, there are just as many examples of failures of these policies as there are of success and the usefulness and effectiveness of these policies is under debate.

Anyway, in summary, this section is incorrect and doesn't have any places in a discussion about the Danish economy. I'm calling for its deletion.

--Jeeeb (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Viking Age

Why no Viking Age heading in the History section? Seems this most interesting and glorified part of Denmark's history deserves far more than an introductory paragraph under the Iron Age heading. A major expansion is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.127.118 (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have renamed the Iron Age section to the Viking Age. That title does seem more fitting fitting as it really only mentions the Viking Age and neither the Germanic or Roman Iron Age (in Danish history). As it is the section on Viking Age doesnt really seem to need expansion (a more detailed account is found in both History of Denmark and Viking Age), but perhaps the section on the earlier periods could. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"During the 8th–11th centuries, the Danes were known as Vikings, together with Norwegians, Swedes, Geats, Gotlanders and Goths. Viking explorers first discovered and settled Iceland in the 9th century, on their way toward the Faroe Islands. From there, Greenland and Vinland (probably Newfoundland) were also settled."

Who were these Danes exactly that settled Iceland? And is Denmark really to take credit for the discovery of Greenland and Newfoundland?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Civil rights passage

I find this passage rather weird. It only mentions internet, though the subject is of course quite large, and the section itself reads like a rant by a teenager. I reworded the most weasel-wordy passage (Denmark like China and Turkey...), but really, the entire section should perhaps be moved to the internet censorship article, with perhaps a link and a small passage like "Denmark, like many other countries, maintains a blacklist of hostnames which are filtered by most internet service providers". How does the crows feel about this? I cannot even claim that the blacklist is controversial, as most people seem not to care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esben (talk • contribs) 09:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Though the wording could be better, I think we should keep it. Just because we do not have anything on other civil rights, is no reason to delete what we do have! I would not be wholly opposed to moving the section, as long as the remaining text in this article makes it clear what the censorship is being used for (ie. not just websites being used to solicit child porn or other serious crimes). The issue for civil rights is that censorship occurs, not that crime is being fought on the net too. Lundse (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about this proposal? "Denmark, like many other countries, maintains a non-disclosed blacklist of hostnames which is used to censor DNS request by most internet service providers." I would rather not go into what is on the list, given that the list is secret, and thus it would be hard to document what sort of sites are on the list. Perhaps a sentence of about how easily circumventable the list is (by running your own DNS) would be appropriate: "The censorship is circumventable by choosing a ISP that does not censor or by choosing an alternative, uncensored DNS server". Esben (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks fair to me - depending on the internet censorship article, we might want a (anchor?) link. But the text is good! Lundse (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole section seems rather trivial to me. Internet censorship is an issue in many countries, including Australia, but it doesn't get a section in its main article. This article is supposed to be a general summary of Denmark, not a list of every single civil rights and political issue that is on the news. There are separate articles for that. Perhaps something similar to Internet censorship in Australia could be created for Denmark. Hayden120 (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the page as proposed above. I would not object to deleting the passage all together, but I think it would be better if this was the result of a vote or similar; otherwise I fear we'd get an edit war Esben (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The economy section is very wrong

Someone is using faulty numbers in the economy section about the tax rates. Their sources even contradict them. There's no 63% tax rate in Denmark. The minimum tax rate is also too high. Lord Chaos (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see [11] and [12], the income tax is around 54%-56% max (minimum, provided you are earning more than a small personal allowance, is 33-35% depending on municipality, excluding the optional church tax). But then there is the "AM-bidrag", which is 8% deducted from all pay. That gives from 41% to 64% tax on earnings. That must be the numbers you think are wrong? Of course, you could add the MOMS (sales) as well (25% additionally) which gives from about 50% to 75% tax. Giving a "tax" number that is really portable is hard, but I think most would agree with the 64% figure Esben (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the 64% is the marginal tax rate, meaning: The more money you earn the higher the tax rate--Thorseth (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, for sure. The article only mentions the numbers in passing: "(minimum tax rate for adults is 42% scaling to over 60%, except for the residents of Ertholmene". Technically, this is incorrect, as the initial rate is actually just 8% (the AM-bidrag) due to "personfradrag" and "beskæftigelsesfradrag", but ignoring this (small) error seems to be the norm. If earning more than 2 million kroners a year, the tax rate would get very close to the 60%, and I do believe there are some in this category in Denmark. All in all I'd say that the passage is fine, but would do better to be written out in a small section outlining the tax system in Denmark.Esben (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinema

Is the following supposed to on the cinema section as the most important contributions of Danish cinema?

   * The erotic melodrama of the silent era.
   * The increasingly explicit sex films of the 1960s and 1970s.
   * The Dogme95-movement of the late 1990s.

I dont know but if I was Danish i would prefer something a little more classy be listed as the most important contributions lol Zantorzi (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know anything about the silent era, but in 1964 pornography was effectively legalized in Denmark, these movies might have been a contributing factor. And I would think that the Dogme95 is "classy" enough.--Thorseth (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a publicity tool, Zantorzi, and history should not be falsified here to please users. Besides, many of those films actually were quite classy for their time. The accepted term "erotic melodrama" does not imply any kind of pornographic content. --Minutae (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Then I assume USA should have a very large section on pornography! I suggest you get too it Minutae. btw "explicit sex films of the 1960s and 1970s" dose imply pornographic content, also notice (since apparently you failed to before) I did not request nor am I requesting anything to be removed just curious if it was vandalized or not and expressing my right to have an opinion that if I was Danish that I would maybe want something with more class, and having your nations crowning cinema achievement being people filmed fucking each other, if that is what you wish so be it I am not arguing. And knowing some Danes I actually think it is pretty funny. Zantorzi (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You are making a good point; the article on United States and certainly the article on Cinema of the United States probably should mention that the world's majority of pornographic films are produced in the U.S. and outnumber all other forms of American filmmaking. I suspect it would be immediately censored away though, so I'm not going to waste time on it. --Minutae (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Since Denmark was the first country in the world to legalise pornography, hence the outpouring of sexually explicit films in the 1960s and 1970s, it is indeed something that is worth mentioning. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

pop. density

infobox doesn't match da list. what da deal? which is correct? n-dimensional §кakkl€ 16:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

the mysterious gini-coefficient

Denmark apparently has a gini-index of 21.7 according to this article. I've searched far and wide and have been unable to verify this. A change in economical equality would simply not go unnoticed by in this country, yet no article confirms this change.

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/161.html says it's at 24.7, so let's stick to that. :) 91.150.226.225 (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Science and technology

Surely science is one of the driving forces of history and as such is a good deal more important than e.g. Cinema or Food culture, yet although the article has sections on Denmark's contributions to the latter fields there is no section on science. Shouldn't there be a section mentioning scientists like:-

Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) Niels Steensen (1638-1686) Ole Rømer (1644-1710) Hans Christian Ørsted (1777-1851) Rasmus Rask (1787-1832) Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (1788-1865) Ludwig Lorens (1829-1891) Valdemar Poulsen (1869-1942) August Krogh (1874-1949) Niels Bohr (1885-1962) Inge Lehmann (1888-1993) Anders Hejlsberg (1950-) Bjarne Stroustrup (1950-) Jakob Nielsen (1957-) Lene Vestergaard Hau (1959-) Rasmus Lerdorf (1968-)

(and perhaps with all Danish Nobel laureates in the sciences thrown in)? Perhaps my list at http://blogs.chron.com/peep/2009/12/5_things_you_should_know_about_1.html could serve as a starting point. I would be glad to write the section, but I won't jump right in and do it in case somebody feels the entry on Denmark is his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.157.224.13 (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

By all means please proceed and create such a section. It would vastly improve the article, so I see no logical reason why anyone would object. Just remember to cite reliable sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A science section would be excellent, but just remember that self-published sources, such as blogs, cannot be used on Wikipedia. Hayden120 (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavia?

Is Denmark really Scandinavia? Sure, culturally and linguistically we connect it with Norway and Sweden, but geographically it's not located on the Scandinavian peninsula. 77.251.187.25 (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

According to wikipedia

Scandinavia is a historical and geographical region in northern Europe that includes, and is named after, the Scandinavian Peninsula. It consists of the kingdoms of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark ... which share a mutually intelligible language (a dialect continuum), ethnic composition and have close cultural and historic bonds, to a degree that Scandinavians may be considered one people

--Lasse E (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We can refer to Scandinavia, the geo-political region, that includes the geographic Scandinavia Peninsula and Denmark, because political alliances, in the form of councils, tightly bound the countries together, in the same manner one would refer to the western world, even though it does not describe a geographic feature. --OrbitOne (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

How stupid. It's like saying Australia is part of India because it's in the Indian Ocean. India and Indian Ocean is two different things. Scandinavia and Scandinavian Peninsula two different things. --JHF1000 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia as a source on which to base a wikipedia article, does anyone else see the problem here? Especially when every credible source in the world considers Denmark a part of Scandinavia. It is beyond discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.45.142 (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a geographic issue: If Denmark isn't Scandinavian, what's the alternative? Denmark is certainly not Celtic. It is Scandinavian for its cultural attributes, not least that a lot of vikings came from there, Danish is a North Germanic language, and the Danes' ancient kings were regarded as having descended from Skjold in the Poetic Edda -- which is about as Scandinavian as you can get. Rangergordon (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)