Talk:Hans Island/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Minor correction

Minor correction in a Danish translation. "Den" = "the", not "this" (that's "denne").

New pics

http://www.pbase.com/jevski/invasion_canada found these on some forum... --N0rton 13:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

split it in half

why not just split the damn thing in half? look at the two flags, wouldent that make sence? geeze, what kind of idiots do we have working in forigen affairs anyways.

Exactly what I thought. They can each have 0.6 km^2 a piece, for all the good it will do them :)

Splitting the island in half sounds like a good idea, but it is alot more complicated than that. It might seem like a very insignifigant piece of frozen rock, but it is precedent-setting, as this is not the only territorial despute in the arctic. Also, both countries are without a doubt quite interested in the potential resources located in the arctic region. There could be tremendous oil deposits, diamonds, and fish located under and around the island, and as mentioned in the article, the potential for international shipping could be quite lucrative. mylesmalley 18:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain this a bit more fully? Yes, Arctic real estate, and maritime economic zones, may have valuable deposits. But even if Canada were to yield, and the maritime border, which currently is right in the middle of the channel, were to bubble out from Hans Island, we are only talking about one hundred square kilometers.

As for international shipping -- this is important, because of the threat of pollution, in a fragile ecosystem. But it is an issue where Canada and Greenland's interests would be identical. Did you mean to suggest that whoever won the dispute would charge third party vessels some kind of passage toll?

People seem to be saying that an unsuccessful outcome for Canada would damage Canada's claims to call the Northwest Passage internal waters, not an international shipping channel. I don't really understand this. If Hans Island didn't exist the channel would be split between Canada and Greenland. And with Hans Island a narrower channel will be split between Canada and Greenland. Big deal. FWIW, I've always understood that the reason Canada wants to classify the Northwest Passage as internal waters, not an international shipping channel, is to regulate traffic to protect the environment -- not tolls.

Finally, if the Arctic Icecap melts enough to make it practical for vessels to use this passage, I suspect the marine environment would be too screwed up for there to be a reliable fishery. -- Geo Swan 20:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point(s) Geo Swan. I guess what i was getting at though, was primarily the precedence issue. If Canada (givs) Hans Island over to Denmark, it could be seen as a sign by others, notably the US, that Canada doesn't hold its northern territory very closely. The Danish might gain a hundred km^2, but the American's might take it as a sign that they could have the Beuofort Sea/Straight, which is in the neighborhood of 0.5 million km^2, and is thought to have large petroleum reserves.

On its own, I think the whole Hans Island issue has been blown out of control, and is realy a non-issue. I strongly doubt that Canada will ever drill for oil there, or that Denmark will build condos by the beaches. I guess one just has to look at the much bigger arctic picture. And is it even possible/feasable to charge tolls on a body of water other than a canal/river/lake? mylesmalley 12:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, IANAL. But I think a settlement between Canada and Greenland, that set the border down the middle of the Island sounds like a good solution. A week or two ago one of the Canadians interviewed on the CBC about Hans Island said that Iniut from Greenland had a historical tradition of visiting the Island, while Canadian Iniut, traditionally, never ventured that far north. It is a good point. One that should make Canadian negotiators show some flexibility. -- Geo Swan 15:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This direction seemed the most natural also to me. However, rather than saying that the "island should be split in half," a more supportable view might be to "accept the agreed treaty border." That some islands' positions were not exactly known was true at the time of the agreement and is still true today. Accepting the agreed border, regardless of where some small islands are later more precisely determined to lie, has the advantage that neither nation has to back down from a position that has other implications. If this creates an unguarded land border between Canada and Greenland/Denmark, then so be it. (The trivia buffs will love this.) -- SMWatt 15:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeing the map in this article (In the Swedish one there is none, though I intend to paste in this one) I do really agree. Actually there is a similar case between Sweden and Finland, where the border goes in the middle of the island Märket between Åland and the Swedish mainland. In addition, the border isn't stright, as Finnish board of Navigation maintains a lighthouse there, and the border makes a turn to keep it on the Finnish side, and then makes another turn mirroring that one, to give both countries equal amount of area. To me it would make sense to make a similar decision in this case. Islander(Scandinavia) 12:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the source for this:

2005 - July 28, Canada ignores the Letter of Protest, severely challenging Denmark's patience over the issue. At 15:13 local time, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen declares war upon Canada.

Denmark and Canada are really at war? Google knows nothing about this series occurrence! --Tofino 20:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Its just little boys inserting dumb things. Happens all the time with pages marked with the current events tag. Twthmoses 20:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I assumed as much, but still, that's too bad isn't it ;). --Tofino 21:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

that original post was by me at work Pellaken 01:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC) and I think it will end this way.

Just give it to Vatican, Nauru or Tuvalu :) I've never heard of this island before, it's one of the hard disputes around the world.Câmara 16:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

An anonymous editor added the following about the Danish flag-planting:

Canada answered the provocation by making the largest fleet manoevre in the history of Canada.

This seems dubious and none of the news articles about the episode seems to back it up. Rasmus (talk) 19:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I found some sources that back it up. Rasmus (talk) 09:53, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did a clean-up on this article today to fix some grammatical errors that likely came into the article through translation from Danish. I also removed some links to non-existent articles, and repeated links to the same articles. In a couple of places, I removed information that was repetitive. Kevintoronto 19:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you did a great job, tho I think the reason to bring up the Canadian budget has been lost a little now. Twthmoses 06:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yeah, good thing canada is negotiating now, because if they declared war on us, they would "clean our time measuring devices." -translation Russ 17:24, 04 Aug 2005 (UTC)

news story

maybe of some interest: http://www.canada.com/maritimes/news/story.html?id=8d00bf80-9d05-4877-95fc-ced24b1b43ce "Google war breaks out between Canada and Denmark over Hans island" 63.203.204.231 07:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice! (and nice image), btw this is actually the first time i've seen a date for the landing of the Canadian military on the Island. Twthmoses 08:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Map?

No good map showing the strait with the borders and Hans Island? I can't even find the island via Google maps.

There is one on the article page now :) Twthmoses 06:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I found it on Goggle Earth, which says "Hans Island, Greenland" Aleksei 00:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Canada, Denmark, Russia and Norway all share a common interest because they regard parts of the Arctic seas as "national waters". The United States and European Union countries, on the other hand, regard the region as international waters.

As Denmark is a member of the EU, these two sentences are contradictory. Loganberry (Talk) 13:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

They are only contradicting because you want it to be :) Alternative is to write up all countries (in the world) that do not respect whatever countries rights in the arctic. Another alternative is to write European Union countries minus Denmark - which not only sounds strange (to me), but it is automatically understood, cause of course Denmark is not violating its own arctic waters. Is that even possible? But by all means go ahead a reword it so its better. Twthmoses 14:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Or it can be written as "Other European Union countries and The United States..." -- Kmsiever 14:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but that implies that all the mentioned countries are European Union countries (by the use of the word other), and that sounds even worse I think. Twthmoses 14:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Why not just say _some_ or _most_ European Uniion countries... ? (Mukke / unregistered (how do you easily add time stamp? :))

Use four tilde signs (~). I agree with Mukke's suggestion to use 'some' or 'most'. -- Kmsiever 20:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't see the contradiction here. Can't the EU have a stand which Denmark doesn't share or agree with? 24.84.192.222 02:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Y'all are missing an important aspect - while Denmark is a member of the EU, Greenland is not, even though they are a territory of Denmark. Therefore, Denmark can use Greenland's boundaries to circumvent the EU, if slightly. --Golbez 21:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Now You are just talking silly...How can they possibly do that, The U.S. cant annex the Dominican Republic using Puerto Rican Historical Rights!!!! ik ben een Deen en trots van het!!

Russ 17:24, 04 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Danish and Canadian ice-strengthened Naval vessels

The article currently reads:

The Canadian Navy has occasionally used the dispute over Hans Island as an argument for investment in all-weather, ice-strengthened war ships, which Canada lacks. Denmark, on the other hand, has a long tradition of operating ice-strengthened patrol frigates in the Arctic.

This is not quite correct. Denmark does have ice-strengthened frigates. But they only pay the occasional visit to the Nares Strait. Denmark also has three smaller patrol vessels, the Agdlek class cutters whose sole task is to protect Greenland waters. But, at 330 tons, they are smaller than Frigates. They are smaller even than Corvettes.

Although CCG icebreakers are not armed, they are more ice-capable than the Danish vessels, and unlike the Agdleks, the larger icebreakers all carry a helicopter. Presumably they are as capable of performing the same kind of fishery protection roles the Agdleks perform. Is a visit from a CCG icebreaker as worthwhile for sovereignty assertion as a visit from a Canadian warship? -- Geo Swan 03:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect info in Short History

I removed a chuck of incorrect info from short history, which I can see is based on Poul E. D. Kristensen, Danish Ambassador in Canada, letter from July 28, 2005. Several things in the letter are not correct – and I am Danish too!

Kane’s map does not show a little Island in the middle of Kennedy channel. Kane however does talk about a “Hans island” that he named. This is one of a dozen smaller islands around Littleton Island about 1 km from Greenland’s coast right in Smith Sound. This is about 300km south of the Island we now know as Hans Island.

Elisha Kent Kane "Arctic Explorations (1856)" vol 1, page 317-319. This book is about Kane’s second Grinnell expedition (1853-1855) and he writes;

We now neared the Littleton Island of Captain Inglefield where a piece of good fortune awaited us. We saw a number of ducks, both eiders and hareldas; and it occurred to me that by tracking their flight we should reach their breeding-grounds. There was no trouble in doing so, for they flew in a bee-line to a group of rocky islets, [..snip..] A rugged little ledge, which I named Eider Island, was so thickly colonized that we could hardly walk without treading on a nest [..snip..] Nearby was a low and isolated rock-ledge, which we called Hans Island. The glaucous gulls, those cormorants of the Arctic seas, had made it their peculiar homestead.

This is not our Hans Island and second there is no such thing as an “agreement” of the Danish government to let Hans Hendrik or any other for that matter, go to the Arctic. They just went!

The first written record to our Hans Island is found in Charles Henry Davis's book "Narrative of the North Polar expedition (1876)", page 407. And that IS fact. This is also the first map that shows Hans Island. Hall’s ship doctor Emil Bessels wrote his own book, "Die amerikanische Nordpol-Expedition (1879 in German)". He mentions on page 124, that on august 29, 1871, on the voyage up north though the Kennedy channel, that the ship sailed between Grinell-land (Ellesmere Island) and an unknown little island, which they would later name Hans Island.

It is possible that both Kane and Hayes saw the island, but neither recorded it nor named it. It is also very doubtful that Kane would name two Islands “Hans Island”

Latest update to Google fight section

I think that the latest update to the Google fight section is a step backwards. Firstly because it is riddled with grammatical errors and is hard to understand. Secondly because it is quite POV in wanting to prove that the Google fight was an invention.

The Google fight was not an invention, or at least, there were ads put on Google, one pro-Canadian, one pro-Greenland, who put them there is up in the air, but they were there as I did a search on Google shortly after the story broke in the mainstream media and I saw them. It seems pretty likely that the private citizen(s) who put them up had not expected to get such a huge amount of media attention about his/her ads, and either he took them down so as to not have to pay the huge bill, or they reached their limit with Google. The only evidence that this story was an invention is that the ads weren't there after July 29. It doesn't seem likely that a newspaper would publish a story and not at least do a simple google search to verify the story was correct. So the ads were there on Google, who put them there, and what their intentions were can't really be known.Qutezuce 07:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

If you think it is riddled grammatical errors, then by all mean correct it. That would be nice. If you think part of the text is not true then please correct that too. The text is not in any way indented to be POV; it is simple reporting the story.

I did a little more editing to make it sound even more NPOV (I did not think it was POV in the first place). Please clean up any bad English you encounter. Twthmoses 09:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the Google fight section to what I think it should be. I mainly cut out a lot of stuff. The edits you made after I first posted about this issue mostly cleared up the problems. Thanks.

I took out the "overblown" part, because I think that saying that it is overblown would be POV. We could still say something like "Some people think it is overblown" and then link to one of the links you put in there before to that effect. But I don't think thats necessary because as the section currently stands, it presents the basics of what happened, the reader can judge for him/herself if the media attention is warranted.

I also removed the stuff about the other ads, commercial ones or funny ones. Thats really insignificant.

I removed some parts that described the media reaction as "excited", I think that is part of the "overblown" POV stuff.

I also removed the stuff about the name of the Danish ad having contradicting names. The person who placed the ad could have changed the text, or someone else could have placed another ad.

And finally I removed the part about the "spread" of the story. The "spread" of the story isn't relevant to the facts of what happened, unless one is making a case for the story being overblown in the media.

I hope we can come to an agreement about this section. I think it's great that people from all over the world, including Canada and Denmark, can work together to create a factual and unbiased article about Hans Island. Qutezuce 09:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Military Assistance in Support of the Danish Claim to Hans Island and Danish Espionage at CFS Alert

In August 1983 a Danish ship was berthed in Thule. The mission was to sail to Hans Island to assert Danish sovereignty. There had been reports of Canadians landing on the island and the word oil was mentioned several times. Unsure of ice conditions from Thule to Hans Island, the Captain of the Danish ship requested assistance from the Canadian military . There was a contingent of Canadians in Thule at the time conducting Operation Boxtop- the resupply of Alert using C-130 Hercules from 436 and 435 Transport Squadrons. On August 19th 1983, the Captain and Executive Officer of the Danish ship were flown to Hans Island via Alert. Returning southbound,the Canadian C-130 circled Hans Island twice as the Captain of the Danish ship took photographs from the cockpit of the C-130. The return to Thule from Hans Island was conducted at low level to check out the ice conditions. The Captain of the Danish ship stated that ice conditions were too thick for a safe voyage to Hans Island that summer but that they would return earlier the next summer in 1984. I added the 1983 attempt to land at Hans Island as well as the cooperation provided by the Canadian military to the Danish government in their attempt to claim Hans Island for themselves to the dateline summary in the article.There is more, let me know if you need more info. Namsham

That sounds very interesting. Can you give something so we can try and confirm this? A link maybe? The ships name?, the captain’s name? The Executive Officer’s name? I’m most interested if this is an official Danish “mission”. Operation Boxtop does not really say anything, as it is a recurring event and has been for many years. Sounds more like a “can I tag along on your flight you have to do anyway“ thingy?? I’m very interested in more info! Twthmoses 23:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The record that I have is Canadian Armed Forces C-130 Hercules serial number 130317 Aircraft Commander Captain K. Musson 436 Sqn, co-pilot Captain J. Olson 435 Sqn - 19 August 1983 - departed BGTL to CYLT and return CYLT to BGTL, with the Captain and Executive Officer of the Danish ship sitting in the cockpit for the trip and to Alert and back via Hans Island.The names of the Danish Captain and Executive Officer were written on the CF1017 manifest.I witnessed the Danish Captain and Executive Officer writing their names on the Canadian 1017 flight manifest before the flight.

It is unlikely that that record still exists. Suggest a check somewhere of Danish ship movements visiting Thule in August of 1983 to find the name of the ship and the Danish crew. It was a very large ship,frigate sized, possibly Danish Coast Guard and had a very large gun on the foredeck, as I recall. The Danish goverment would be a good place to start especially if they have a freedom of information act like the USA or Canada.

It would appear to be a spur of the moment request to use the Canadian C-130 by the Danish Captain.The ship was already berthed in Thule when the Canadians arrived for aproximately a week to 10 days of Boxtop flying- resupplying CFS Alert from the Danish Base of Thule.An opportunity thus presented itself to the Danish Captain. A request to the Minister of National Defence of Canada for more info about this flight and any other flights conducted by Canada for the Danes in support of their claim to Hans Island may produce a result.

The Canadian C-130s were in the habit of taking Danish civilians working at Thule to CFS Alert and back on their days off space and cargo permitting as a goodwill gesture. These Danes did not have any Canadian security clearance to visit Alert. It is quite impossible for a Canadian civilian to hop on a joyride to Alert as it was and probably remains a classified closed base. A handful of Arctic explorers and researchers have been given clearance to visit Alert over the years. Some of these Arctic adventurers have been covered in National Geographic. Not sure what sort of security clearance they must get to go to Alert. About 99 per cent of the base personnel working in Thule were Danish civilians with a handful of Americans in Base Operation, the control tower and the radar sites. The civilians worked for DAC- Danish Arctic Contractors. At the very least there were several hundred Danish civilians employed in Thule at the time. Further, Canadians- military and civilian were prohibited by the Danes from visiting their equivilent site at Station Nord, located on the northeastern tip of Greenland, where the Danes conducted their own communication intelligence operation. No idea if the practice of flying Danish civilians to CFS Alert and back on their days off continues today.

As this was the first response of Dennmark to reported incursions on Hans Island, it is probable that Danish ships made an attempt every summer thereafter. Some of the successful landings on Hans Island have been documented already. It is highly unlikely that any Danish ship would have tried to sail up to Hans Island without the benefit of an aerial survey. And it is very possible that in some years the ice cover was too thick to proceed. As there would have been a Boxtop presence in Thule every summer in addition to regular twice a week flights to Alert from CFB Trenton routing thru Thule, because Canada lacks any facility that rivals anything that the Danes have in the far north, the possiblity exists that the Danes caught on to a good thing and requested additional Hans Island flights from the Canadians in the spirit of cooperation between allies and friends. How many flights the Canadians may have provided to the Danes, if any, after 1983 is not known.

Several of the female members of the Canadian contingent were quite taken with the Danish ships officers and several of them accepted dates from the Danish sailors. There was no lack of bars to go to as there were at least 23 official and unofficial drinking-entertainment venues on Thule Air Base at the time. Considering that half of the civilians working at Thule were ladies and most of the Danish men were gay, the single male personnel of the Canadian contingent had a very good time collaborating with the Danish ladies. I myself had a wonderful affair with very beautiful Danish lady who was the secretary to the American Base Operations Officer. She came to visit me in Canada later,and unnannouced to me, courtesy of a Canadian C-130 flight to CFB Trenton and then a train trip across Canada to Edmonton.

In August 1983,when the Canadian contingent arrived, everyone asked what the Danish ship was doing in Thule. The Thule base weatherman was an American civilian who was aware that the mission of the Danish ship was to go to Hans Island and in his words- invade Canada. The American weatherman stated that an oil expedition party from Canada landed in Thule earlier in the year and that they were going to Hans Island. He stated that the aircraft used belonged to Bradley Air Services Ltd but he did not mention the aircraft type or whether it was ski or float equipped. He would have given the Bradley Air Services crew a met briefing to Hans Island.Input should be requested from Bradley Air Services and Dome Petroleum who would have contracted the flight. Also- the Danish Airport Manager at the time - Eric- no last name,sorry - introduced the Captain and Executive Officer of the Danish ship to the Canadians and requested that the Canadians assist the Danish Captain in checking out Hans island and the ice conditions from Hans Island back to Thule. Approval was given to fly the Danes over Hans Island on a return trip to CFS Alert.

It was common knowlege at Thule AB in the summer of 1983 that the mission of the Danish ship in Thule was to plant the Danish flag on Hans Island. Reports in the Canadian media that a newspaper article written by Ken Harper in 1984 and published later in Thule spured the Minister of Greenland affairs to fly by helicopter to Hans Island are fanciful thoughts and stuff that legends are made of, and become self propagating after a while if repeated often enough in the media. The Danish government was on to the Hans Island situation as soon as they received word that Canadians were "exploring for oil", probably as a result of the Bradley Air Services flight into Thule earlier in 1983.

When the C-130 landed in Alert, the Danish Captain asked if he could go somewhere and have a cigarette while the plane was being unloaded. He was directed to go to an out of site location from the ramp area, across to the other side of a building facing the ramp area. A short time later, perhaps 5 minutes, the co-pilot went in the same direction to have a cigarette as well. The copilot went along the northside of a building and emerged on the side facing the base of Alert. He observed the Danish Captain on the same side facing the base of Alert but on the southern end of the building . The Danish Captain had his back to the copilot. The Danish Captain was observed by the copilot looking up at the building of the main Alert site frequently as he scribbled something in a palm sized notebook. After 2 or 3 minutes of this, the Danish Captain put his pen and notebook into his pocket and returned to the C-130 via the southside of the building. The Canadian co-pilot was not seen by the Danish Captain.

It was the copilots turn to fly back to Thule via Hans Island. As is customary in the C-130, the flying pilot sits in the left hand seat, so the pilots swapped seats with the copilot flying from the left and the aircraft commander sitting in the right seat .The flight to Hans Island took place at about 7 to 8000 feet and followed the Nares Straight from Alert southbound to Hans island. Approaching Hans Island, the C-130 began a slow descent and slowed up to a comfortable circling speed with flaps set to 50 to improve manouveribilty.

While the C-130 was circling Hans Island counter clockwise at 1000 to 1500 feet,the Danish Captain lowered his camera after taking numerous photographs and the Danish Executive Officer yelled at his Captain above the noise in the cockpit.The Captain immediately began taking more photographs. How do you say "take more photos" in Danish...There was evidence that someone had been to Hans Island, there were what appeared to be a few oil drums that were tipped over and wooden planks scattered about, near the oil drums and other man made debris. Visibility was excellent on that day- crystal clear- and the return flight was conducted at around 5000 feet down the middle of the Nares Straight, giving the Danish Captain a superb view of ice conditions from the Canada to Greenland coast. There were numerous packs of ice down the Nares Straight which the Danish Captain said prevented him from attempting to sail up to Hans Island from Thule. Where the Nares Straight widens out to Baffin Bay, there was a significant reduction in the ice packs. It was obvious that his ship could go up to the start of the Nares Straight, but it would have been unsafe for him to take his ship further north to Hans Island.

We know that the Minister of Greenland Affairs from Dennmark landed on Hans Island in the summer 1984. It is not known whether a Danish ship went to Hans Island as well.The Danish Minister apparently arrived on Hans Island by helicopter. It is likely that a Danish ship arrived in Thule in the summer of 1984 as promised by the Danish Captain in 1983.It is possible that it went to Hans Island as well, ice conditions permitting. It is also not known if the Danish captain took clandestine photos of the main site of Alert- you can tell a lot about what kind of equipment that you have by your antennas-but considering that he took numerous photos of Hans Island and of ice conditions down the Nares Straight, it is highly likely that he snapped photos of Alert as soon as he made his way to the far side of the building on the ramp area and then followed up with written notes. It is highly likely that any photos he may have taken of CFS Alert ended up with the Danish Government in Copenhagen. The possiblity remains that some other country may have received copies. There was a cold war in progress at the time.

Reports of the Danish Minister landing in 1984 was made by the CBC across Canada and the matter was discussed briefly in the Canadian parliament. Apparently, an article appeared in the Toronto Daily Star about the Danish Minister landing on Hans Island as well. Significantly, there was no other reaction by the Canadian news media, Canadian news commentators or the Canadian public.Nothing. Listening to my radio In 1986, it was the same time as Chernobyl, a prof from... Laurentian University? in Canada.. was interviewed on a syndicated Canadan radio show... I believe it was called "News Radio"?.. which was broadcast across all of Canada. The prof had researched the Danish landings on Hans Island that occurred in the summer of 1984 and provided excellent detail about what the Danes were up to with regard to Hans Island . He stated that an attempt was made by the Danes to land on Hans Island in the summer of 1983, but he didn't have any details about what happened then. You now have those details. Once again, and very significantly, there was absolutely no reaction from the Canadian news media, Canadian news commentators or the Canadian public. I also have no record of any statement from the Canadian government about this radio broadcast which told all Canadians that the Danes had taken Hans Island. That was in 1986.

Only in the last couple years has there been a rise in Canadian interest in Hans Island and the Danish claim to it, culminating with the visit to Hans Island recently by the Canadian Minister of National Defence, which has generated global coverage. Once again, and quite significantly, it has taken a Canadian Cabinet Minister 21 years to respond to the landing on Hans Island of a Danish Minister and comes 22 years after the first attempt was made to plant the Danish flag on Hans Island. Well done. The Danes, in contrast have taken their Arctic sovereignty seriously since they first became aware of Canadian incursions on Hans Island in 1983 and reacted immediately.

One other thing worth checking out is - despite the Canadian Government claiming sovereignty over Hans Island as well as the other Arctic Islands like Ellesmere, shown on a map as being part of Canada - the Government of Canada considers that a traveller, military or civilian, that goes to the this part of the Canadian Arctic has actually left Canadian territory.On return to the south, you will be subjected to Canadian Customs and Immigration inspection and clearance. If you return via Resolute Bay, you will be cleared initially by an RCMP officer who doubles as a Customs and Immigration Officer, but you will still receive the full clearance and inspection when you land back in southern Canada.In fact,the Canadian Department of National Defence has been fined by Canada Customs for failing to follow proper procedure in getting the RCMP officer on duty to give an onward clearance even though the aircraft never left Canadian airspace or territory. That's like saying,this land belongs to us but if you go we consider that you have actually gone to another country, like Denmark. Check it out with Canada Customs.

Another important factor, which the Canadian media,public and government has forgotten recently,is that a permanent Canadian presence at CFS Alert- the symbol of a Canadian presence and Canadian sovereignty in the high Arctic- has been facilitated by the cooperation and goodwill of other nations over the years. Firstly the United States of America,who built and operated Thule Airbase in the 50's and 60's and secondly, the Danes who have run Thule since. Canada doesn't have any airfield/port facilities in the Arctic that even come close to matching what is available in Thule.Why bother when Thule is only an hour and half by C-130 from CFS Alert,Canadian supply ships can offload cargo for Alert all summer in Thule whereas the passage to Alert is icebound all year round (actually ice free maybe 1 week a year),and Thule's the airfield and support facilities are world class.Canada could resupply from existing airfields in Canada but that would be extremely inefficient, difficult and prohibitively expensive- for the Canadian taxpayer. The Danish airfield at Thule AB has been used very extensively over the years to support a Canadian presence in the Arctic that Canada it claims for itself. It is a typically Canadian solution to asserting Canadian sovereignty.

Further, I was briefed in the mid 1980's by a senior Canadian civil servant that the only reason that Canada undertook once a week Argus and then Aurora flights- so-called sovereignty flights- and undertook annual Arctic exercises with a couple hundred troops - was solely to satisfy noisey critics in the south of Canada. We see the same reaction today with Canadian warships excercising in the north and accompanying political bluster.

Sorry I cant be of more help.The only other thing that I can tell you is that I was the co-pilot of the Canadian C-130 that flew the Danish Captain and Executive Officer on 19 August 1983. It was my sector from Alert back to Thule. It was a beautiful clear Arctic day and I remember it well. It was a wonderful day for flying. Namsham.

Wow wow , espionage, cold war etc.. Denmark and Canada was actually on the same side in the cold war! (of course that does not exclude espionage). It is a nice story, and I have no doubt about the flight (they still do them today I think) or that you were there, but it does not really help. The very flight is of little help or concern to this. I need a name, a ship name, something, some source that exist outside a limited circle (like a flight manifest). Don’t you have photos or something? Photo of the ship? With such, I near sure would find a name of a person or ship, shortly.

Suggesting that I check every ship in the navy is not plausible, the Danish navy got well over 50 ships alone, most capable of sailing to Thule (not Nares Strait), not to talk about 40+ for the Marine home guard. Not that many of them would every sail that north. It is after all your story, so its only fair you provide me with something so I have a given chance to find something to back the story.

However I did do a little research. A large ship in 1983, excludes the Thetis Class (1991) and Flyvefisken Class (1989). It also excludes the Agdlek Class (1974), which is not large, as well as the horde of minor mine clearance vessels and patrol cutters. It could technical be one of the ships in the Niels Juel Class (1980). They are large and a gun on the deck. Though they are not well suited for this kind of terrain. I think the best guess is on of the 4 ships in the Hvidbjørnen Class (1962), decommissioned 1991/92. They are large and with guns. They are specially built to sail in ice filled waters, and did sail a lot around in Greenland.

As this was the first response of Dennmark to reported incursions on Hans Island, it is probable that Danish ships made an attempt every summer thereafter. Some of the successful landings on Hans Island have been documented already. It is highly unlikely that any Danish ship would have tried to sail up to Hans Island without the benefit of an aerial survey. And it is very possible that in some years the ice cover was too thick to proceed. As there would have been a Boxtop presence in Thule every summer in addition to regular twice a week flights to Alert from CFB Trenton routing thru Thule, because Canada lacks any facility that rivals anything that the Danes have in the far north, the possiblity exists that the Danes caught on to a good thing and requested additional Hans Island flights from the Canadians in the spirit of cooperation between allies and friends. How many flights the Canadians may have provided to the Danes, if any, after 1983 is not known.

That seems to be a little doubtful theory, though it might be possible. The Danes does sail to these waters every year (or every year they can) and have done so before 1983. How long up Nares Strait they sailed prior to 1983 I don’t know. Probably not long. They do not sail specified for Hans Island only, even though the media like to state so, but general sovereignty and they visited many other islands too, like Isbjørne Ø or if the ice permits it Hannah Ø and Joe Ø. The also maintaining a horde a minor weather station (small unmanned) along the entire coast (not every year).

It was common knowlege at Thule AB in the summer of 1983 that the mission of the Danish ship in Thule was to plant the Danish flag on Hans Island. Reports in the Canadian media that a newspaper article written by Ken Harper in 1984 and published later in Thule spured the Minister of Greenland affairs to fly by helicopter to Hans Island are fanciful thoughts and stuff that legends are made of, and become self propagating after a while if repeated often enough in the media. The Danish government was on to the Hans Island situation as soon as they received word that Canadians were "exploring for oil", probably as a result of the Bradley Air Services flight into Thule earlier in 1983.

Common knowledge? hmm. That might be possible, but Canada was not "exploring for oil". It was a private company doing Ice research on the island. Actually the program was named Hans Island Ice Force Research Program (Dome Petroleum, 1984). 2nd received word is the key phrase here; when did they received word? And the "legend" is not self-propagating, because it does not exist. No newspaper is repeating it. All news articles I have seen is dated 1984; there is no news article from 1983 (at least I can not find them). This is why I’m very interested in this 1983 “mission”, because not only did it slip the news at that time, it also pre-dates the Marine Environment agreement, which makes it even more interesting. But again without a ship name or captain name it is just an opinion and hard to track down.

It is not that I doubt you, and I am actually interested in the event, but since you are a sole source for this (so far), I’m probably going to delete your entry on the article page, if I can’t find something to back it. It would help a GREAT deal with a name or ship name! Twthmoses 19:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply: Quite right about the espionage. It is very normal for friends and allies to collect intelligence or spy on each other. That's what military attachees do in friendly and unfreindly countries and has nothing to do with cloak and dagger stuff. You see something of interest and pass it on. Personnel on foreign exchange programs are often excluded from briefings which are considered sensitive in terms of national security even though the two countries may be allies. I would expect Canadian military visiting Station Nord to do the exactly same as the Danish Captain. I stand by my story.

Photos: I know what you want. I'll see whats in my photo box. I know that I have one photo from that summer in 83 but it is not of the ship. A squadron mate who was with me that summer in Thule, lives down the road from me. I'll check with him.Also - at least two ladies of the Canadian contingent who accepted dates from the Danish ships officers, were given a conducted tour of the ship and at least one of them took photos. I know because they were shown to me and these included photos were of the ship. Trying to track that down is pretty difficult, they leave the CF, get married, change names, dont want to get involved etc.

Time to take a pause. I appreciate the time youve taken, but my time and resources are limited. It is a good story and there are plenty of witnesses, but it's out of my league and now requires the attention of an investigative journalist. The fastest way to find out is to ask the Ministry of Greenland Affairs- what was the name of the ship, who was the Captain, what was the mission etc. The reponse would probably be no comment. Someone else has to follow up. Also understand your focus on the ship and not the flight in the C-130. I do however believe that the flight and what happened overall is important in the overall context of the story, it is an interesting twist.

Quite right, did the Danes go on any more C-130 flights? It's possible. There was no directive received banning the flights of Danes to Alert after 1983. Given the very close cooperation between the Danes and the Canadians, I would suggest that another request to visit Hans Island would probably be granted. Unless someone comes forward, we will never know. After the Danish landing on Hans Island in 1984 I ran across the Aircraft Commander Capt K. Musson. I told him that I read an article about Danes landing on Hans Island in the Toronto Star. He said- don't say a word. And I agreed. For 21 years. The chances of anyone else admitting to carrying a recce for the Danes over Hans Island is remote.

Common knowlege. You are quite right- Canada was not exploring for oil on Hans Island. We know that now in 2005. Back in 1983- we did not know that, and neither did anyone else that I knew talking about what the ship was doing in Thule. I'm just passing on what I know, saw and was told. Thule is a small community, not much goes on there except airplanes come and go and supply ships come in the summer. Any news out of the ordinary is passed around rather quickly. The arrival of the Danish ship in Thule and what it was doing there was an item of conversation. In my 3 years of flying in and out of Thule, I had never seen such a large ship berthed there, and obviously neither had my comrades or a lot of Danes either.You had to be blind, not to know the ship was there,along with the ship's company who were allowed ashore. A typical conversation would be: What's the Danish ship doing in Thule? Oh, it's here to invade Canada (the inevitable answer) But why? Oh, there are reports of Canadians landing at Hans Island, or an oil expedition party from Canada is at an island up the coast that the Danes claim as there own or just oil. Response: oh, that's nice.. so what are you doing tonight? It wasn't a big deal at the time and that is the common knowlege that I am referring to. Not one person I talked to spoke of the 'Hans Island Ice Force Research program'. That's a mouthful. A plane carrying people who are in the oil business gets morphed into - Canadians on an island between Greenland and Canada-oil-Danish ship going to check it out. I fully understand Wikipedia is only interest in facts. Another example of morphing the facts is a statement by Brian Loghi of the Toronto Star who wrote on Sat 23 Jul 05 Canadian energy companies have also made surveys on and around the island Are we to assume that means Dome, Petro canada, Husky Oil and other biggies were on Hans island? That's what it sounds like. You and I know that it was only Dome and it was their sub-contracted company that went to Hans Island. Also morphed is the dates and number of times that Danish ships have called at Hans Island. The Canadian media can't seem to agree on the correct numbers and dates.

'Received word' Sorry that's my cut on it. Dome Pet is on the Island in 80 81 and 82 and there is no fuss. All I know is that the American met man says is Bradley Air Services lands at Thule with Canadian oil people on board,he doesn't say exactly when but says earlier in the year (1983) and that they went to Hans Island. The word on the street they were looking for oil and the met man says oil . The next thing, a large Danish ship arrives in Thule in August- ice free season in those waters, the Captain wants to take his ship to Hans Island, hops on a Canadian Herc to check out Hans Island, takes lots of photos of the Island, checks out Alert as a bonus, and then declares that the ice was too thick to take his ship to Hans Island, but that he would be back the next year. My point is that it is obvious somebody in Thule tipped off the Danish government and they took reacted accordingly. I understand that is not what you are looking for. We want facts. Tom Hoeyem would know.

'The legend 'I am refering to related to Kenn Harper's article published in the Thule newspaper in 1984 which is said to have motivated the Minister of Greenland Affairs, Mr. Tom Hoeyem to go to Hans Island in the summer of 1984. This legend exists and is 'probably' propagating extensively. This is what the South China Morning Post published in Hong Kong a couple weeks ago had to say. Window On The World: Vancouver: article by Mr. Claude Adams- (a respected Canadian freelance journalist) In 1983 Canadian historian Kenn Harper had a chance encounter with an oil company scientist near Resolute..(we know it was the fall of 1983)....Legend has it a Danish government official , Tom Hoyem, read the article, muttered angrily and promptly rented a helicopter. He flew to the Island. Mr. Adams is currently in the USA. I will track him down and ask him how many countries around the world his article has appeared.A fact has become a legend. That aside, it is my contention is that it was not the Kenn Harper article that caught the attention of the Danes. My contention is that they knew one year earlier that Canadians had gone to Hans Island and that they tried to land at Hans Island one year earlier and that a landing in 1984 was a direct result in the failure to land there in 1983.

Newspaper articles. I fully agree with you that there was no mention in the media about Hans Island in 1983. I also agree that the first public notice of Canadians on Hans Island, was Kenn Harper's article. And that nothing appeared in the Canadian media (south Canada at least) until Mr. Hoeyem landed in 1984. At least that confirms what I always believed.

Sorry I took so long. We are working to the same end. I will pass this info onto an investigative journalist. There are no lack of witnessess in this story: Dome Pet,the scientists, Bradley Air Services, the Bradley pilots,the met man who briefed the pilots, the entire Canadian contingent in Thule, all the Danish base personnel, Eric the Airport Manager, the USAF in Thule, the Canadian Detachment Commander, the C-130 Commander, Mr. Hoeyem, the Ministry of Greenland Affairs, the Danish government, the Danish Captain and the Danish Executive Officer, the Danish ship's crew, my Danish girlfriend. Excluded, of course, is the Canadian public, and the Canadian Government. I'll start with Mr. Claude Adams and see what he says.If he's too busy, he can refer me to someone else.

In the mean time, pls put me on holdand delete the entry if required. There is hope. I told you before that a Canadian professor from the Laurentian University was interviewed on a syndicated radio show in 1986 (prob 1987) broadcast across Canada. In that broadcast he had very detailed information about the landing in 1984. He also stated that the Danes attempted to land on Hans Island in 1983, were unsuccessful, and that he didn't have any more information about that episode in 1983. He mentioned that at the end of his interview. I think that I've found him. Go to the Laurentian University web-site and search for Hans Island there. Select Mr. Graeme Mount, Professor of History. On his bio page scroll down to--- Articles (in non-referred journals)- 'authored articles on Greenland, Hans Island etc in the Canadian Encyclopedia (Edmonton:Hurtig 1988 second edition)'---

Now go to the Canadian Encyclopedia Online web site. Type in Hans Island. The first article is his- select 'more'. The article is short and concise for the encyclopedia online. '....1983 Danish aircraft flew over Hans Island...' referring to the dispute over Hans Island. I'll call him on Monday. It's entirely possible that possible that the Danes did do a recce of Hans Island by air in a Danish aircraft and it also possible the Danish aircraft has been mistaken for a Canadian one as no one would expect that a Canadian C-130 to take Danes for a ride over an Island that they claim from Canada. We will find out.

On the same page select next at the bottom right hand of his Hans Island story. Select the story Canada' Arctic Sovereignty. This is the web site of CASR. There is excellent coverage of the Danes in Greenland and what they're up to. On the lead story check out GEUS and how seriously they take natural resources in particular- oil- around Greenland. I'll get back to you when I have more. Best . Namsham.

What ridicules claims, paranoid dellusions to say the least. You Canadians must have nothing to do when you're getting up in arms over virtually nothing, talking about cold war and espionage, give me a break. We ought to conquer you and impose Danegæld, THAT would give you something to babble about.

The Danish ship was most likely Hvidbjorenen Class. The golf ball on the mast was the giveaway. I won't try and guess which ship it was of that class. If my records are correct, the ship started engines on 24 August 1983. Black smoke wafted across the western approach end of the runway as the ship was parked down that way. I know because I landed thru it that day. It was not a problem as it was very thin by the time it got to the runway. The ship departed Thule heading southwest on 25 August 1983 just before I took off headed back to Canada. Wheels are in motion. Will update when I have news. Namsham

I deleted the entry today. We can re-add it when we find a name or ship name (I am still looking). In all fairness we can't have an entry on a wiki article about a disputed island that nobody can confirm, that does not seem right for an encyclopaedia. Twthmoses 10:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have been in contact with Dr. Mount, Canadian history professor who stated that Denmark made an attempt to take Hans Island in 1983 on a radio interview , which was broadcast across of all Canada in the winter of 87/88. He has been assisting me in unravelling this mystery .His comments and entry in the Canadian encyclopedia: ....the danes flew over Hans Island in 1983 .. is based on a newspaper article published in Le Monde on August 5-6 1984. The article is " Querelles pour un ilot desert au-dela du cercle polaire" by the Copenhagen correspondant for Le Monde- Mme Camille Olsen. Dr. Mount stated that he assumed that the aircraft was a Danish aircraft, which is a natural assumption to make in this case.

 Le Monde does not have online archives before 1987 and they no longer have a correspondant based in Copenhagen.

I will be visiting the offices of le Monde in Paris this week to track down the article and Camille Olsen, who has apparently retired. I have also been in touch with Bradley Air Sercives re the Hans Island flight that they did before August 1983, which I believe set off the chain of events which caused the Danes to send a frigate to take Hans Island in August 1983. I will pass on definative material from them when I get it.

 In the mean time, I would like to fax some material to you . Can you forward  a fax number to me at jmo800@yahoo.com

Also, do you know which government department or archive that I can I can approach in Copenhagen to find out which ship was in Thule harbour in August 1983? User: Namsham

25th aug Recent events entry removed

I removed the 25th august 2005 entry, in recent events, about the BBC report of Canadian ships going to the “area”. It is extreme bad journalism if you ask me! This is a primary example of the news smartly linking things, so that they sound better, and thus a bigger story, cashing in on the Hans Island fuzz.

Firstly those two Canadian ships are not going to the area! They are going to making port visits in remote parts of Labrador, Nunavut, Quebec and Manitoba, traveling through the Hudson Strait and into Hudson Bay. Now anybody smart enough to actually pickup a map, and look for him or herself, will quickly realize that none of these places lay even within 2000 km of Hans Island!!!! Yes that is right 2000Km!!!

The other ship, Fredericton is going on fishing patrol in David Strait, David Strait!!! Are you kidding me? 1500Km bird view from Hans Island. Hmm By that count any ship, ANY ship, civilian or military sailing from Denmark to Greenland (like 10 ships daily or something) is just in the “neighborhood” of Hans Island.

I do realize that these ships,- in sprite at least, have something to do with the Hans Island fuss, and thus the entry that already exist under The dispute hits the news, is a valid one. But please in recent events I do believe that entries should have directly something to do with Hans Island. Does that sound unfair? Twthmoses 21:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That report is also on Current events. Should it be removed from there as well? Zoe 21:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

No!, why that? Twthmoses 21:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes the ships are still very far away from the Island, but the Island is so remote that I doubt a port further to the North exists from which the Navy can launch from without the danger of ice. I think this does have something to do with the Island and it's territorial status. And because of this move I think the Canadian government is going to use its military presence of the area as an example of its desire and willingness to claim the island, if and when the case should be brought before the Hague. I'd like to see that story added back to this page, but I'll wait to hear what others think first. Malo 22:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I do understand this - and as I said in sprite this does have to do with Hans Island, because it comes from what happened a month ago (probably) - and there is an entry longer down on the page about it. But this page has to do with Hans Island and the Danish-Canadian dispute over Hans Island. Whatever Canada is doing to claim sovereignty in its arctic, write pages about it, link to it, but unless it happened in Nares strait or close, it got nothing to do with Hans Island. We could fill this page with useless info in a matter of days. Should we not concentrate on specified Hans Island subjects?

Should we write about the SIRUS patrol in recent events on a Hans Island page ever time they move? Because one:, technically they are closer then these Canadian ships (much closer), two: they are doing active Danish sovereignty in the arctic, constantly, three: they are military. Should we write any time a Danish military ship moves in the arctic, on a Hans Island page? Some of them are permanently stations in Greenland! Just sail from Nuuk to say Upernavik, and you are closer to Hans Island then any of these Canadian ships.

My point is this. This is about Hans Island, not the grant Canadian plan to assist sovereignty in arctic places, one: Denmark has no claims on, two: Denmark has never gone, and three: Denmark probably will never go. These two ships will NEVER EVER meet a Danish ship in the Arctic! They are a tenth of a planet apart! Denmark has national waters all the way to Hans Island, with or without the ownership of Hans Island, uncontested nor in dispute and agreed to by Canada (so does Canada btw)

What has ships in Hudson Bay/strait to do with an Island 2000km more Northern, unless they intent to go there or unless the Government directly says that this is our response to the Hans Dispute?? Twthmoses 22:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Danish Fighter Jets sent over Hans Island

According to an article in Le Monde published on 5 August 1984 in Paris, Denmark sent jet fighters over Hans Island in 1983 in order to reaffirm Danish sovereignty over Hans Island.The article was written by Camille Olsen, the Copenhagen correspondant of Le Monde. There were no other details given such as the number of fighter jets , the exact date in 1983 that the jet fighters flew over Hans Island or the flight details. The article mentions that Dome Petroleum went to Hans Island in 1980. The article also quoted a Canadian professor, Mr. Ken Harters who stated that any Danish claim to Hans Island had lapsed under international law due to Danish neligence in maintaining it's claim. The Danish government strongly rejected this argument and the Camille Olsen article uses the example of the jet fighters flying over Hans Island in 1983 to support the Danish claim on behalf of Margrethe II. Trying to track down Camille Olsen to find out more details and track down the name of the Hvidbjorenen Class frigate of the Royal Danish Navy which was berthed at Thule Airbase in August 1983 on a mission to land at Hans Island. Although not 100% sure, after due consideration I believe that the frigate was the F351 Fylla. Prior to embarking on a C-130 flight to check out ice conditions, courtesy of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Captain was asked in the operations room the name of his ship. His pronunciation of his ship's name was very similar to flya, the short form/slang for flyer ,which was what he and his Executive Officer were about to do on the Canadian Herc and this caused a few chuckles in the operations room.Something agitiated the Danes enough to to send a frigate and jet fighters to Hans Island in 1983, one year prior to Mr. Tom Hoyem setting foot there. My guess is it was the landing of the Bradley Air Services charter carrying scientists to Hans Island via Thule Airbase earlier in 1983, as described by the resident American met man.I suspect that Bradley Air services didn't land at Thule in previous years, hence no reaction earlier by Copenhagen. Further updates as I get them.Namsham 23:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The Ken Harters refered to in the Le Monde article is most likely Kenn Harper based on the similarity of name and associated comments. Namsham 14:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The article about Danish fighter jets published by Le Monde in 1984, was the basis of the entry in the Canadian Encyclopedia whichs states very concisely - 1983: Danish aircraft flew over Hans Island. The encyclopedia article was written by Dr. Graeme Mount, Professor of History of Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. Dr. Mount was interviewed by a syndicated radio show in the late 1980's which was broadcast across Canada. Dr. Mount described in detail the landing of the Danish Minister of Greenland Affairs, Mr. Tom Hoyem, on Hans Island in 1984. He also stated that the Danes tried to land on Hans Island in 1983, but that he didn't have any details of that attempt. There was no reaction to his comments about the Danish actions by the Canadian public, news media, news commentators or the Canadian Government. Namsham 15:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

21 or 31 years

I won't edit war over this, but when the article spends nine paragraphs explaining what happened in 1983-84, it seems exceedingly silly to follow up with "the dispute had received little attention for nearly 31 years". Except for some attention on the Internet, the 2005 dispute seems to be no greater than the 1983 one. Rasmus (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And in those three paragraphs it talks about 3 or 4 different news articles total that happened during that time and says "which gave Hans Island its first fleeting publicity". So it got some attention during that time, but I think that this attention would fall into the category of "little attention". The 2005 attention was picked up by many news sources and got more than one day coverage on some nightly newscasts. Sounds much bigger than what is described in the 3 paragraphs about the 1983 attention. Qutezuce 08:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't in the Economist World in 2006

This dispute did not appear anywhere that I saw in the Economist's World In 2006 review issue, which is a shame, as never has a disputed territory actually had enough words written about it to more than cover the territory.

Well, sure, the West Bank maybe, but it's not nearly as comical.

Spirit war

I seemed to remember that Canada and Denmark through the late 70s, 80s and 90s would take turns visiting the island, erecting their respective flags and placing a bottle of spirits in the flagbox at the foot of the flagpole as a present to the "opposing team". I didn't find any mention of this in the article so I figured it was probably just an urban legend of sorts - however, I found a reference to this in one of the satire links (only visited one external link) and found this:

"Before the recent resurgence in interest in Hans Island, Canada and Denmark fought to establish sovereignty by leaving bottles of their respective national spirits, Canadian rye whiskey and Danish aquavit, on the island."

So it would seem to be true. I have read it in a Danish newspaper and seen this reference on the net. Celcius 06:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! I hope a war doesn't break out. It would be a real clash of the titans.he he he

Interesting factoid . . .

• Hans Island - København (capital of Denmark): 3755 km
• Hans Island - Ottawa (capital of Canada): 3958 km

(measured with the distance tool on google earth)

No bearing on the dispute of course, but who is going to confess they just assumed Ottawa was the closer? :-) MPF 18:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

original research

"Research by Lasse Jensen" isn't that original research? there is no real source. --80.63.213.182 16:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Danish Flag Picture

The current picture is copyrighted; as such, I believe it should be replaced by a publically released picture. Alternatively, it should be paired with a similarly copyrighted Canadian flag picture (ie: http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/hansisland_cp_8139247.jpg), to address the inherent bias of having only one nation's flag represented. 72.139.184.107 06:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing bias of having a Danish flag in the article and not a Canadian. First the image was placed in the article months before the Canadian flag rising on the island and second had the Canadian never landed, so no image would exist of a Canadian flag rising, would it still be viewed as "bias" with only a Danish flag rising and no Canadian? Don’t let nationalism get in the way objectivity and the fact that this is an encyclopaedia meant to convey facts, not “level out” views at all cost.

The image is copyrighted, but it is a unique and very hard to find a complete free replacement for (read impossible), thus fair use is indeed very valid. More importantly maybe the doc resides on Forsvaret.dk, the officel Danish defence site, and their copyright 1 explicit state that it is allowed to reproduce any text, image or article from that site as long as it’s non-commercial and the source is identified.

Find a Canadian flag image, source it, and unless there is some major obstacle from that source I’m pretty sure fair use can be applied to the image here on wiki too. Twthmoses 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The flag is illustrating one of the events in the article, it is not placed in a significant place, so I don't think it effects any bias in the article. Carewolf 13:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A NEW COUNTRY

If you go to www.gov.tu.net, you will see that Hans Island has been claimed as a new country. When I put this in the article, it was deleted. I urge you to go to this website and stand behind the new independant nation!!!!

This is one of the cleverest and most extensive Web hoaxes I've seen. Not a real country, of course, but funny. How do you know it's claiming Hans Island, by the way - I can't find a "location" anywhere in the hoax. - DavidWBrooks 21:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not even a hoax, its just satire and never going to be anything else. Some student and his "project". Hans Island is claimed by Denmark and Canada, and just because they can’t agree to the border does not make Hans island a free grab, they are still claming it. Anybody can claim Hans Island if the want to, hell I could do it! I could even claim Manhattan, Falklands, or Africa, does not mean the claim it worth anything! and certainly does not mean my claim should be featured on Wiki as "fact"! Twthmoses 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this is a hoax. At first I did, but I don't see how it gets published on the front page of a major newspaper if it was a hoax. I have recently applied for Tartupalummiut nationality. Also, Tartupaluk was recently accepted into the Paris Convention. I do not see it being a real hoax if it was accepted under an international convention.

PS: I know it was Twthmoses who deleted my addition to the article, and I am interested: Just because I disagree with something you put, doesn't mean I'll delete it.

Of course it was me?!?!??! Its right there in the history log for all to see?!?! So? You and Tartupaluk are playing the multi confirming game. You don’t have to be a brain surgeon to see that Tartupaluk and Livingdone are one and the same person. Anyway I don’t mind. You put it on the page in the first place, I transported it to the section where it belongs “Satire”, because it is the only place it even has a chance to stay on this page. This is an encyclopaedia! not a placeholder for fun “projects”. Wiki should certainly not be used to establish some sort of legality to such “projects”. You have now entirely removed from the page, because you don’t feel the “Satire” section is right for you. That is fully fine with me. Twthmoses 18:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. :) HSH Prince Cavan has become aware of the Wikipedia situation. I just hope he doesn't mind.

The solution

They should resolve this the way New York and New Jersey determined ownership of Staten Island: have a boat race around the island, and whoever wins gets to keep it. Angr 12:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Flag

As island is under dispute it will be politically correct to add picture with Canadian flag or remove picture with Danish.

Look, the island belongs to Danmark, end of story. Norum 20 dec 2006

As far as I know, it's part of Canada, so there should be a picture of a hoisted Canadian flag in this article as well. --  Denelson83  10:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the Canadian government says so? When you think of it,t he island is closer to Grenland, not Canada.

Norum

I assume that there are two flags on the Islands, that the military visitors don't put down the opponents flag. That would create hot feelings, but if one country claims that they own the island, it would be the formally correct thing to do. -- 217.209.47.228 14:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)