Talk:Hans Island/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Cavan van Ulft

The mentioning of this student seems very insignificiant, perhaps it should be removed?


  • I am a citizen of the Principality of Tartupaluk, the country set up by HSH Prince Cavan, and I would like to point out that he is not insignifigant. We are a real country with a real culture, and even if Wikipedia does not recognize that, mention of our nation should not be removed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.159.55 (talk • contribs)

Whatever. Students' pranks are not encyclopedic. I've removed the reference. Valentinian T / C 00:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates

I've added coordinates for the island via the {{coor title dms}}template, and changed the coordinates in the body of the article. Looking at Google Earth, there seem to be at least three locations plotted by the "Google Earth Community" for Hans Island. One is just to the west of the actual island, while the other is a much larger island to the southeast. I confirmed the actual location of Hans Island with the Canada Atlas website, providing the coordinates used in the article. They lined up correctly with the Google Earth imagery. If anyone has a bone to pick, do let me know. -Joshuapaquin 05:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious Google-earth blurring of Hans Island

I believe that this is due to the fact, that the EVIL Canadian military forces, are preparing a ruthles assault on Denmark. OMG! they PAY Google-Earth to hide the truth. It's the end of the world *running around the room, franticly waving my arms in panic*! Honest to god, there is PLENTY of space on either side of the "Kennedy kanal". And IF there are valuable minerals or vitamin C on that god-forsaken windblown barren rock, then so be it. I seriously doubt that the geological properties of Hans Island, are much different than those on either side of strait. So much fuss for so little (1.3km²), I mean come on! I'm a dane, and the resources spent on this "dispute" is just ridicilous, next to the negligable gains. Christ... just let it go, donate it to the seals, birds and/or ninjas! I myself am beginning to believe that this "dispute", only is kept alive to amuse both of our peoples. I know it amuses me, but the joke is getting old. The best news are they agreed to place an unmanned (probably needed due to the climate of hate between our peoples) weather station. I tried to make a joke, I'm sorry you missed it before it got deleted.

Best regards (esp. to our Canadian friends)

A "deeply concerned" Dane Zero2ninE 12:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

26 July 07 news report

I disagree with how the news of today (26 July, 07) has been portrayed on the site. Since the Government of Canada has not yet reacted, it cannot be said that Canada has revised its' claim in any way, only that they have recognized new images showing that the international line runs through the island. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/07/26/hans-technology.html This story is also fuller than the one linked on the site. P.S. to immediately reveal any bias, I am a Canadian.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.213.133.12 (talk • contribs).

Well, feel free to modify the section to make it more representative of the article. That's the great thing about Wikipedia, anyone can update it. --StuffOfInterest 20:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a fairly contentious issue, so I thought I would give an explanation first :)--Bren95 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quest for a new header image

Great, some admin apparently just delete the header image, presumably becomes he did not think it was ”fair use” enough, despite that both source and reason was applied (apparently not good enough). So here is the quest, find a new image of Hans Island that is free, - of the actual island, not some google overview/ map image. I know there is an image longer down the article, but that is bound to get the chopped too, since it cannot possible be more “fair use” then the recently chopped one. Twthmoses 10:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I once uploaded an image of one of al-Qa'ida's top nerds. I had stolen the photo from an al-Qa'ida website, figuring that al-Qa'ida is not likely to go to a civil court judge and complain. But alas, the photo was banished from Wiki on grounds of undocumented fair use. Today that very photo appears on this [1] hotsheet at the US State Department. LDH (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

'Welcome to the Danish island'

Shouldn't that be 'Velkommen til den danske øn' and the translation perhaps better rendered as: 'Welcome to this Danish island'?

Can any Danish speakers corroborate this? I'm extrapolating from Swedish..... 131.111.16.20 (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Velkommen til den danske ø" is correct Danish. If it should be translated into English as "Welcome to this Danish island" it should have read "Velkommen til denne danske ø". --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
That's correct. FunkMonk (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That double-definite construction is the norm in Swedish and Norwegian, but not in Danish. In fact, in (Danish-influenced) Bokmål, you can optionally omit the redundant definite suffix, which sounds old-fashioned to Norwegians. Also, the definite form of ø is øen. Correctrix (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

North Cypriot Claim

Why has North Cyprus' claim not been included on this article? I tried to add it but it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remdabest (talk • contribs) 12:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I have added the relevant information about the aforementioned subject. Please analyze and discuss it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remdabest (talk • contribs) 12:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding facebook jokes as genuine fact constitutes vandalism and will be removed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"1980s joint administration"

This section deals with events that took place in 1983 and 1984 and references locations in Nunavut, which did not exist as a political entity at the time. As I have observed on other Wikipedia pages when a place changes name and/or political jurisdiction, it is referenced as it was called at the time and in parentheses the current name is given. For example:

"In 1984, Kenn Harper, a historian from Frobisher Bay, Northwest Territories (now Iqaluit, Nunavut) . . ."

Thoughts?Djob (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for claim

One thing the article doesn't really go into is exactly why Canada and Denmark care about this place, as it's uninhabited, and there's no reference to there being any resources - though the Dome Petroleum survey one would assume would have kept an eye out. Is it just the principle of the thing, or has it been identified as a potential oil or mineral extraction site? Or am I missing something here and the whole thing is actually a friendly joke between Canada and Denmark? 68.146.81.123 (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The implications of Exclusive economic zones are taken very seriously by many governments (though I'm not sure that sovereignty over Hans Island would have great implications for EEZ boundaries in this case...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I will try to see if I can find some Danish sources elaborating on the matter (it is not actually something that has been widely reported in the Danish media), but I suspect it has something to do with the more recent dispute about the territorial claim to the Arctic, in which both Canada and Denmark participates. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It could be due to the Exclusive economic zone that stretches 200 nautical miles from shore. Of course, regardless of this island, 200 NM from Canada's shore overlaps Greenland territory, and 200NM from Greenland's shore overlaps Canada's territory. So, moving the EEZ some 11mi in one direction or another will probably not change a lot (agree with AnonMoos above). It could also simply be that both Canadian Inuit and Greenland Inuit have traditionally used the land. Denmmark does still take care of some international diplomacy etc on behalf of Greenland. clsc (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

explanation

I reverted this edit for two reasons.

  1. It broke templates
  2. It removed the well documented info that sovereignty over the Island is disputed. Geo Swan (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Its all Norwegian

Denmark dealt away Norway in 1814 to Sweden, but kept the sub-territories: Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Shetland, the Orkeneys and the isle of Man. They were all Norwegian territories before the greedy Danes and Swedes interferred with our country. Our neighbouring country, Russia, has never stolen a single bit of land from us Norwegians, but the Swedes and the Danes have stolen a lot... (Sweden: Jämtland, Idre - Särna, Bohuslen. The Danish theft is obvious). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.152.190 (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not a place to rant and rage about your own nationalistic frustrations, it serves no purpose in a civil discourse on this site. You should read up on the conduct/and guidlines of Wikipedia. Besides most of what you said was plain wrong. 81.161.157.240 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Denmark did not "deal away" Norway, it was lost in war; and the various Norwegian dependencies in the North Atlantic had long since stopped being considered part of Norway at that point. In 1536 Norway was formally incorporated into Denmark, and while that was never implemented and ignored again from around 1550 (its a very complex topic because there was one version for internal use and one for external use due to political expediency related to the claims made by Christian II and his heirs) it is doubtful whether there is a continuous existence of Norway as a legal entity from the Middle Ages to 1814. Anyway, it has no relevance to the article since Northern Greenland was not colonized pre-1814.--Batmacumba (talk),~

Siorapaluk closer than Qaanaaq

Isn't Siorapaluk closer to Hans Island than Qaanaaq? --PWNGWN (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'll add this place.--BIL (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Area calculation

The area calculation appears to be significantly off. I've checked the math twice, using two different converters, each one arriving at the same numbers. The given length and width of 1290m x 199m = 1,546,710 sq meters. Reducing that number to sq km = 1.553993; converting this to sq mi = .97 sm. The result is almost twice the size shown in the article (round-offs do not account for the size of the error--if anything, rounding the number according to standard mathematical practice only makes the error worse). It appears the mechanism used to arrive at the area, used in the shortcut, has a "break in the syntax", somewhere in its code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchitek (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: 1.55 km² = 0.59 mi² [2] (although 1.55 km = 0.96 mi)--BIL (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

... dozens of tiny Islands ...

The part on Kane's 1850s Hans Island (islet, really) near Littleton Island may be slightly inaccurate.

Google Earth actually shows only 2 - one larger (tho still "small" compared to Littleton) and "rugged" (with 2 hills and a central valley of sorts), running some distance along the NW coast of Littleton Island like a "ledge", and a very small one W of the former, more "isolated" from Littleton Island and little more than one single large and "low" "rock". Since the islands named by Kane were large enough to hold a notable amount of birds (and at least in case of the eiders, a breeding colony), any tiny rocks not obvious on satellite imagery can be disregarded, and thus it is almost certain there are only 2 islets off Littleton, Eider being the larger and Hans the smaller. The Google Earth coordinates of the latter are 78°22'18.54"N 72°53'15.38"W

Not having any actual records from either islet, all that can be said is that the smaller one's position on the Atlantic side of the larger islet and its size (~50 m across) make it well suited for a Glaucous Gull colony, which tend to number a few dozen pairs and be on the southern or warmer side of a larger landmass which usually holds an eider or similar seabird colony. Usually, this species prefers cliffs, but there do not seem to be any cliffs of sufficient heigth in the Littleton group (the elevation is hard to tell on Google Earth - Littleton, let alone its islets, are too small for their altitude to register properly - but apparently less than 50 meters, and the coast descends more or less gradually, in contrast with the adjacent Greenland mainland which does have some sheer cliffs up to 100 m high). In the absence of cliffs, Glaucous Gulls will nest on predator-free islets. So not only do the descriptions of Kane match the two islets better than any other feature in the area, the distribution of birdlife is also consistent.

If this is clarified in the text, please make sure the info is also updated in Littleton Island. 78.35.65.51 (talk) 06:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

explanation

An external link to a Globe and Mail article went 404 because the day after it was published they republished it, with a different title. That version is not 404.

The archived version of the original was behind a paywall. But the first two paragraphs are identical to the later version... Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Île Hans pronounced [il ɑ̃]

Source? Would expect [il ɑ̃s] or [il ɑ̃ns]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.175.59 (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Canada and Denmark reach settlement over disputed Arctic island

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-and-denmark-reach-settlement-over-disputed-arctic-island/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerrySkyJack (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Long quote removed for WP:COPYVIO reasons, converted to just link. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreement for Hans Island to be unveiled soon

The Globe and Mail is reporting that Canada and Denmark are about to unveil a settlement agreement for Hans Island on June 14, 2022. Article will likely need to be updated soon, so putting this out there as a heads up: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-and-denmark-reach-settlement-over-disputed-arctic-island/ Cyali (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Article had been updated, but I just added Denmark to the list of portals. The order of portals is alphabetical.142.163.146.171 (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Flags should be put back in the data box

Put the flags back in the data box 2600:1017:B4AB:1A3B:B46F:8D88:CBAE:9B8 (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG says no they should not. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hans_Island/Archive_2&oldid=1157647461"