Talk:Iceland/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Celtic"

Included in the Demographics section is: "One such genetics study has indicated that the majority of the male settlers were of Nordic origin while the majority of the women were of Celtic origin"

What does the word "Celtic" mean in this sense? Does it mean Irish/Scottish/Manx/Welsh/Cornish? Does it mean the original Celts of Roman times?

It is my understanding that it is incorrect to call Irish/Scots/Manx/Welsh/Cornish "celtic" as only their language is "celtic". Tribally, they are either Gaels (Irish/Manx/parts of Scotland) or Brythons (Wales/Cornwall/parts of Scotland). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.40.18 (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Celtic is *only* a linguistic category. The Gaels and the Brythons were Celtic by simple virtue of the fact that they spoke Celtic languages. It's a little more complex when talking about modern populations, large percentages of which have lost their Celtic languages, but they still have that Celtic linguistic heritage so it is still a valid category. --86.172.114.47 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A question on Subdivision maps

There are large white areas that don't seem to conform to any region. I can't see anything regarding them, are they simply uninhabitable areas? Thanks Hawkania (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

They are glaciers. 157.157.178.210 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

the month of Þorri?

hi! maybe there could be somewhere an info regarding the corresponding name in English, at least in which season this Þorri falls
-how is it possible that such a peaceful country needs a locked page? (I deal mostly in the Middle East sphere)
-this talk page seems to lack a conversational atmosphere... (questions remain mainly unanswered to); anyway if s.o. is kind enough to address my query I'll be the most honored, TY, Hope&Act3! (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

actually, remembering the way the lutherian church became THE main religion, I guess that the Icelanders are not so peaceful afterall (and riots too!)... funny that now there exists religious freedom after successfully eliminating the opposition, funny people they are, aren't they? liberal and hot tempered from a volcanic environment may be ... humourously with loads of wikilove, Hope&Act3! (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is locked because of excessive vandalism; unfortunately it only takes a few bored kids to ruin it for everyone. Also, please understand that talk pages are not to be used as a forum (regardless of whether that is humour, it is potentially inflammatory). The talk page is simply used to suggest improvements to the article. I have added the date for Þorri. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

National Parks in Iceland

Under Geography, it says that Iceland has 3 national parks. On Iceland's website, it lists 5 national parks. The website is [1]. 71.241.104.111 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There used to be 4—Jökulsárgljúfur, Skaftafell, Snæfellsjökull, and Þingvellir. However, the first two of those were merged into a new national park called Vatnajökull, in 2008. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad wording

Most Icelanders are descendants of Norwegians who came from Western Norway, but some of them are descendants of other Scandinavians and Celts. This sentence, which is in the intro, implies that each Icelander is either from Norway or from other countries. This is not correct; the Icelandic nation has long since mixed to form a homogenous mixture of these various ethnicities, so for most Icelanders, it's impossible to determine a specific ethnicity of decedance. How can this sentence be revised? 157.157.178.210 (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this article needs to be reworded. There are so many notes that have been placed randomly into the article, and do not fit in anywhere. It would be nice if a few other editors could jump in and help clean up the article, but currently there does not seem to be much interest. I have tried to reword the sentence in a way that does not suggest Iceland's population is either from one ancestral group or the other. Otherwise, you are free to suggest better wording here. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

when did hurricane ike hit iceland

Ike's remmants combinned with an unuseual disspression that effected southwestern Iceland

The storm produced 9 m (30ft)waves along the southwest coasts the Island! rainfall peaked neer 200 mm (7.9 in)close to reykjavik.wind gustes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.205.118 (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Republic of ..."

Cessator (talk · contribs) removed the formal name "[the] Republic of Iceland" (and the corresponding form in Icelandic) here, citing an Icelandic source. I have now restored the "Republic of"-part, because multiple reliable sources use it. See no:Diskusjon:Island#Navn for a discussion in English. As long as the U.S. government[2], the United Nations[3], Britannica[4], the Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs[5] etc. uses "[the] Republic of Iceland", so should Wikipedia. Kjetil_r 15:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Cessator is right, though. It's not the official name of the country. It is, on the other hand, a frequently encountered moniker so should appear somewhere in the article. Haukur (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Kjetil_r, the Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs is not using "[the] Republic of Iceland" as the country's formal name. That's the point that is unfortunately lost on you. What the source I have cited and which quotes the Office of the Prime Minister of Iceland verbatim explains is that the word "republic" is used descriptively only and is not a part of the actual name of the country. Perhaps you can answer me this question, though: The issue of whether or not Wikipedia should give "Republic of Iceland" as the country's formal name notwithstanding, can you honestly tell me that you believe that I am wrong about this? Yes, I know perfectly well that Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth but suspending that question for the moment, do you honestly believe that the official name of the country is "Republic of Iceland"? Because if you were to concede that despite issues of verification I am probably right about his, then the question arises why you believe me -- because I have shown you a verbatim quotation and even translated it for you and if you then go on to say that it's because of the source I gave you, then you've pretty much undermined your entire argument by taking that source to have shown that the others are incorrect. On the other hand you might tell me that you simply don't believe that I am right in which case I would just love to hear why on earth you think that the Office of the Prime Minister of Iceland might respond to an inquiry by a Professor at the Arni Magnusson Institute regarding the official name of the country saying that the name is simply "Iceland" and not "Republic of Iceland"; I would just love to hear you come up with a plausible explanation of this; perhaps you think the source is a fabrication... Of course you'd have a hard time finding even one Icelander who took you seriously. Anyway, please let me know, because I earnestly want to know what you think about this: the question of what the Wikipedia page should say aside, do you think that I am right or do you think that I am wrong? --Cessator (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there going to be a Viking fight, cause that would be awesome.... --Leodmacleod (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2010(UTC)

Sorry. All jokes aside, maybe it would be wise to take this to Project Iceland and get some kind of broader consensus on the issue. I would offer my own opinion but, I don't know one way or another myself. --Leodmacleod (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried submitting a question to why.is, Cessator? You mentioned it at no:Diskusjon:Island#Navn; it should be able to clarify this issue. Hayden120 (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why.is is already my source, it just happens to be in Icelandic. Anyone who can't read Icelandic should feel free to ask them in English. --Cessator (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't see the link the first time I read the discussion (I tend to skim when I'm tired). Anyone who can't read Icelandic can always seek Google Translate; it seems to offer a fairly decent translation. Indeed, the name is simply Iceland, as I suspected. I think the name 'Republic of Iceland' is common enough to warrant a mention somewhere—any ideas on how we can word the article to clarify that it is not official? Perhaps "sometimes referred to as the..."? Hayden120 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just say "..often, but not official, called The Rep. of Iceland...". That would be my vote. --Leodmacleod (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Haukur (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Or one could use a footnote to explain the misunderstanding. E.g. the three footnotes currently supporting the incorrect formal name could be combined into one, which also gave the source I have given and explained the misunderstanding. --Cessator (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, those footnotes supplied by Kjetil_r aren't there anymore, so nevermind using exactly those footnotes to explain it. Still a footnote might be in order. --Cessator (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest this footnote: "The country's official name is Iceland. Although many sources, including Enclyclopedia Britannica and the CIA World Factbook, give "Republic of Iceland" or in Icelandic "Lýðveldið Ísland" as the official name, this conventional long name is actually not the official name of the country. The word "republic" is used only descriptively of the country's form of government and is not part of the country's actual name, as has been explained in a letter from the the Office of the Prime Minister of Iceland to Ari Páll Kristinsson, Associate Professor at the Arni Magnusson Institute for Icelandic Studies concerning his inquiry regarding the country's official name. See Ari Páll Kristinsson. „Hvert er formlegt heiti landsins okkar?“. Vísindavefurinn 11.1.2010. http://visindavefur.is/?id=54970. (Viewed 21.2.2010)." --Cessator (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I've gone ahead and put it in (hope you don't mind) along with the references, and a few minor tweaks. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and discuss. Hayden120 (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

@Cessator: You ask if I "honestly believe that the official name of the country is 'Republic of Iceland'?" Well, I find it extremely hard to believe that the United Nations got it wrong when they admitted Iceland. Or that the European Free trade Association got it wrong in their convention. Or that the European Union got it wrong then they signed the Agreement on the European Economic Area. I assume that Icelandic diplomats were present in all these negotiations, and that the agreements were sent to and read by the Icelandic government before they were signed into law. Wouldn't somebody in the Icelandic diplomatic corps or government raise an eyebrow if the name of their country was wrong? I certainly think so.

To summarize my position: I find it more probable that a clerk at the prime minister's office got it wrong than that all of the international conventions are wrong. Regards, --Kjetil_r 07:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, no one disputes that 'Republic of Iceland' has been used by Icelandic authorities; it's just that when used this conventional longer form isn't intended to be the official name of the country; the word 'republic' being used descriptively only. So the thing to remember is that it is not the case that the official name of the country is 'Republic of Iceland' and 'Iceland' for short, but rather that the official name is just 'Iceland' but sometimes described as a republic (which it of course is) in official documents. --Cessator (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

From (1918-1944), the country's Name was Konungsríkið Ísland (Kingdom of Iceland)

After (1944), the country's Names was Lýðveldið Ísland (Republic of Iceland)

Why list its Name only as Ísland (Iceland)?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

German Reference

http://www.verfassungen.eu/is/bundesvertrag1918.htm

Refers to the Personal Union of Königreich Dänemark and Königreich Island (later to become Republik Island). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Google Translation of Icelandic to English text

"Icelandic Text"

http://visindavefur.is/svar.php?id=54970

Formlegt heiti er Ísland. Það er misskilningur ef menn halda að orðið lýðveldi sé hluti af nafninu.

Yfirskrift stjórnarskrárinnar er Stjórnarskrá lýðveldisins Íslands. Eins og sjá má er orðið lýðveldi haft með litlum staf. Margir hafa tekið eftir skjöldum við sendiráð Íslands erlendis þar sem stendur LÝÐVELDIÐ ÍSLAND og hér og þar í íslenskum textum af ýmsu tagi hefur mátt rekast á ritháttinn Lýðveldið Ísland. Margir virðast sem sé hafa talið það vera hið formlega nafn landsins. Sökum þessa ósamræmis leitaði ég eftir úrskurði í forsætisráðuneytinu fyrir nokkrum árum um formlegt heiti ríkisins. Niðurstaðan var Ísland. Um orðið lýðveldi, framan við Ísland, segir í bréfi forsætisráðuneytis til mín, dags. 30. september 2004, að það „lýsi eingöngu því stjórnarformi sem hér ríkir … og teljist því ekki vera hluti af sérnafni ríkisins“.

"English Translation"

Formal name is Iceland. There is misunderstanding if people continue to become a republic is part of the name.

Captions stjórnarskrárinnar the Constitution of the Republic of Iceland. As the word republic had a small letter. Many have noticed shields the Icelandic embassy abroad which is the Republic of Iceland and here and there in the Icelandic texts of various kinds may have come across Notation Republic of Iceland. Many seem to be have deemed it to be the formal name of the country. Due to these discrepancies, I sought the ruling in the Prime Minister's Office for several years about the formal name of the state. The result was Iceland. The word republic, in front of Iceland, Prime Minister's Office said in a letter to me dated. 30. September 2004, to "describe only the control form as rich ... and therefore not be considered part of the Proper noun state".

Analysis

(i). For over the last 60 years, the Republic of Iceland has been taken to be the country's long-form Name.

(ii). From (1918-1944), the Kingdom of Iceland was the long-form Name of the country, while it was in Personal Union with the Kingdom of Denmark.

(iii). Stjórnarskrá lýðveldisins Íslands translates as Constitution of the Republic of Iceland.

(iv). Lýðveldið Ísland translates as Republic of Iceland.

(v). Comparing the Icelandic text lýðveldisins Íslands and Lýðveldið Ísland ones sees the lower-case l appears-to-be-present in the first term, but that upper-case L appears-to-be-present in the second term.

(vi). Question 1: Is the letter-in-question lower-case l, or upper-case L ?

(vii). Question 2: Did the Parliament of Iceland believe they were voting on an upper-case L ... thus the long-form Name change to Lýðveldið Ísland?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I hate to get further involved in this, but you've answered your own question. "I sought the ruling in the Prime Minister's Office for several years about the formal name of the state. The result was Iceland." That's it. I doesn't matter if there was a uppercase or lowercase, as these probably don't even have the same significance in Icelandic. Or if they wrote it runes for that matter, because the name is Iceland. I know it's probably hard for you to deal with; you really like these long names, but there is no long-form or short-form. Just one form. Iceland. And that's what the entire above conversation established as well. A consensus was reached and a very well thought out compromise made with excellent citation. I'm sorry, but it needs be changed back to the way it was. Anyone else? --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To Leodmacleod.

There is very little that I can respond to you about. Your characterisation of me as crazy, and/or mentally-ill I would describe as most "un-charitble" on your part. Good day. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! the name of the country IS Iceland, NOT Republic of Iceland. It says so in the source your trying to analyze. As for the uppercase vs. lowercase l, the source you've just read points out, very clearly I might add, that in the Icelandic version of the Icelandic constitution the word is written with a lowercase l, which means that it cannot -- absolutely cannot under any interpretation of that title -- be taken to be a part of the proper name. The reason it is written with an uppercase R in English (in the word Republic) is simply that English often does that, i.e. capitalize the inital letters of important words in titles. But the point is that just because the word features in the title it does not follow that it is part of the proper name; rather it is used in the title only descriptively. So like Leodmacleod says, this needs to be changed back. --Cessator (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

To Cessator ... perhaps you may go, as well, to the Kingdom of Iceland article and remove the reference to country's Name as the Konungsríkið Ísland (i.e., Kingdom of Iceland), and change it to just Ísland.

By-the-way, what is your capital city of Reykjavík called? Is it City of Reykjavík, (i.e., Reykjavíkurborg)? Is it just Reykjavík? What? Good day ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Act no. 45 from 1998 speaks only of Reykjavík. Just because it is often described as a city doesn't mean that "city" is part of the name. In a perhaps similar way Barack Obama's name is not president, even though he is addressed as Mr. president every day! Cheers, --Cessator (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Icelandic text Reykjavíkurborg translates into English as what? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

City of Reykjavík. But, again, even though it is often so-called doesn't make it the city's formal name. So I don't see what you're trying to prove. Hafnarfjörður is also often called Hafnarfjarðarbær and the same goes for pretty much any town in Iceland. --Cessator (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cessator.

My point is there is a difference between City of Reykjavík (long-form Name), and "just" Reykjavík (short-form Name). Additionally, there is a difference in Feudal Rank, a City, a Borough, a Town, a Township, a Village, a Hamlet, (in order of decreasing size, and rank). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Reykjavíkurborg is not oficially a long-form name of the city. Is it longer that "Reykjavík"? Yes, obviously it is. Is it sometimes used? Yes, it sometimes is. Is it therefore an official name of the city? No, it isn't. --Cessator (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there is no such thing as a "long-form" and "short-form" of every name. So there is no point to this, that is to say, you have no point. The name of the country is Iceland and the city, though this is the Iceland page, so it doesn't matter, is Reykjavik. I think that if you have nothing else to say, and it seems as such, it would be appreciated if you'd accept the consensus as it stood. --Leodmacleod (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Leodmacleod.

On the contrary, there is a difference between long-form Name and short-form Name. For instance, New Orleans is a short-form Name. Its legal Name (i.e., long-form Name) is the City of New Orleans (i.e., English: City of New Orleans, French: Ville de La Nouvelle-Orléans, Orleans Parish). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there can be a difference. However, that doesn't mean that there exists a long and a short official name for every damn thing. --Cessator (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I get that. It's not really true, since you don't have to write-out "City of New Orleans" on legal documents. And I'm sure if you contacted the Office of the Mayor, his staff would tell you "City of" is just a phrase used to distinguish it from other legal entities, like that of parishes, and not actually part of the name. But riddle me this; is New Orleans another name for Iceland? What does that have to do with this subject? See, you're not really addressing the article at hand anymore. I take it you have nothing else to say about Iceland? --Leodmacleod (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Leodmacleod.

If you go to the City Hall, of the City of New Orleans and sign a legal document (e.g., an affidavit) you will actually have to write out ... City of New Orleans , in the State of Louisiana .... in full. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

But not so in Reykjavík, so the point is moot. --Cessator (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this reply meant for me? --Cessator (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No sir. You don't. I've been there. Filled out forms. Didn't do it. Sorry. Plus, it still doesn't have anything to do with the name of Iceland. And, since you don't have anything to say about that subject, I guess we can assume that you've conceded the point. Honestly, I don't know why you think you know more about the places we live in than we do, but hey, I guess some people have to have something to do.

However, please know this: if you choose to revert back to your edits or otherwise interject your opinion into the text, those edits will be considered disruptive, as was established by the warning you recieved three days ago (16 March 2010.) Myself or one of the other editors who work-on and patrol this article regularly will have to remove them and reinsert the cited, consensus-agreed upon information. At that time, the editor making the changes could choose to report the continued distruption to the administration. That being said, if you can find other reliable sources to back-up your claim, the one about Iceland, then I'm sure anyone here would be happy to discuss it with you and work out a new consensus. --Leodmacleod (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

editing iceland

i just wanted to add that we are not 319 thousund we are 360 thousand i just researched it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnidrop (talk • contribs) 12:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Researched where? 319,368 is sourced from Statistics Iceland, which is the most authoritative source. 360,000 sounds highly dubious. Edit: the most recent figures actually show the population has dropped slightly since early 2009, and is now 317,593. Hayden120 (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Iceland .... Island of Iceland

The country Name: Republic of Iceland

The island Name: Island of Iceland

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ic.html

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional Reference

The Constitution of the Republic of Iceland

http://www.government.is/constitution/

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to the very long conversation above. Consensus on the topic has only recently been reached. It might be advisable to discuss this change before moving forward, as this is liable to cause conflict. --Leodmacleod (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Leodmacleod.

I have read the above conversation. The Lydveldid Island (Republic of Iceland) is the long-form Name of the country. Many sources cite this. Why suppress the Lydveldid Island long-form Name?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Lýðveldið Ísland (Lydveldid Island).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's cool. Hey, I see from your talk page you have some fixation on these "long form names", and that's cool. Everybody's got something they're into. I just think, and this is me, that rather then come in after consensus on a touchy issue has just been reached, and then change it back to what was decided against, you might, just maybe, want to write something about why you disagree in that conversation section. The one about why those editors didn't want it used. Just as a matter of courtesy and good faith. It would probably help avoid what seems to be certain conflict. --Leodmacleod (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Leodmacleod.

I'm into long-form Name(s), and the International Phonetic Alphabet. For instance, the declared country (1861-1865) of the Confederate States of America has the short-form Name(s) of.... the Confederacy, Confederate States, ... The South. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From (1918-1944) the country's Name was the Kingdom of Iceland.

After (1944) the country's Name was the Republic of Iceland.

http://www.althingi.is/lagasofn/nuna/1944033.html

The Icelandic Language Constitution is referenced above, and yes it only mentions "... Iceland will be a Republic with a Parliamentary Democracy,..." however, Kingdom of Iceland to Republic of Iceland is clearly the Name change. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I've gone ahead and reported this to the administrator's notice board, as I'm sure an edit war will probably ensue over this. Once again to avoid that, you may want to go to the relevant section of this talk page and discuss your changes with the editors who made the decision you disagree with rather than tell me about it. As you see above, I didn't have an opinion. Thanks and take care. --Leodmacleod (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Leodmacleod.

Thank you for you kind advice. I do not want an edit-war. The long-form Name of the country is Lýðveldið Ísland, and I will go to the section above. Take care, and best wishes ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! you're wrong, the name of the country since 1944 has been Iceland (Ísland) NOT Republic of Iceland (Lýðveldið Ísland). See my answer to you in the discussion above. regarding your question here as to why supress "Lýðveldið Ísland", that is an absurd accusation, nobody is tryting to suppress anything. On the contrary, a footnote was supplied precisely in order to explain the matter. --Cessator (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cessator.

There is an additionally problem by not using the Republic of Iceland, (i.e., using "just" Iceland), the reader can not immediately tell if we are talking about the Republic of Iceland (a State), or the Island of Iceland (an island, a geographical feature).

So with using "just" Ísland, are we talking about Lýðveldið Ísland, or Eyjunni Ísland which is it ? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes words are ambiguous. Even if I were to agree that it were desirable to avoid ambiguity and that in order to do that it would be best to have another term for the Icelandic state, that does still not prove in any way whatsoever that there is an official long-form name for the Icelandic state and much less that this long-form name is Republic of Iceland. Thus I don't think your worry wrrants consideration. --Cessator (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Lýðveldið breakdown into Lýð-veldið?

Does Lýðveldið breakdown into Lýð-veldið? In other words are the components of lýðveldið that of lýð and veldið?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It does. Why does that matter? --Cessator (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cessator.

When comparing the terms Konungsríkið Ísland and Lýðveldið Ísland the difference is the usage of Konungsríkið versus Lýðveldið. The term Konungsríkið (Icelandic) is clearly Königreich (German), and Kingdom (English).

However, the Lýðveldið term does not go directly to Republik (or Freistaat), and Republic (or Free State), does it. Could you please tell me what the word Lýðveldið means when you break it down? In other words, what do lýð and veldið mean on their own?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The word "lýður" means people. The word "veldi" in this context means state or a type of rule (corresponds to the Greek -kratia in words like "aristokratia" and "demokratia"). Thus, quite literally, the word "lýðveldi" is coined in a way not unlike the word "democracy" (or the Greek "demokratia"). However, etymology doesn't determine a words meaning, but its use does. The word "lýðveldi" means republic, it is the ordinary word for that concept in Icelandic and really the only word for it. (Democracy, on the other hand, is "lýðræði"). Having said that I feel compelled to remind you that the meaning of this word makes absolutely no difference whatsoever for the formal name of the country, whis is Iceland and not Republic of Iceland (or Ísland and not Lýðveldið Ísland). --Cessator (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cessator.

Do you agree that from 1918-1944 the Icelandic state Konungsríkið Ísland was its Name? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't, but even if I did, that would not prove that the current name is Republic of Iceland as opposed to just Iceland. --Cessator (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Cessator.

Below is some "food-for-thought" for you to consider on the Kingdom of Iceland long-form Name thing.

German Version of Act of Union 1918 between Denmark and Iceland

http://www.verfassungen.eu/is/bundesvertrag1918.htm

(English Version -- Google Translation)

20 This Federal Law shall enter into force on 1 December 1918 into force.

[The above law was a Danish law, a part of Danish territory, the island of Iceland, which already since 1874 a limited internal autonomy enjoyed by Denmark and severed an independent sovereign state, the Kingdom of Iceland created. An internationally legitimate secession.]

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. But this is all beside the popint and nothing new has really emerged concerning the current name of the country. And it doesn't seem you have very much else to offer. So since you've already taken up more of our time than necessary I bid you farewell. --Cessator (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

copyedit issues

I have made a start trying to copyedit this article, to make it easier to get the task done, I ask anyone that has issues with the quality of the editing to identify the sections by using {{copyedit-section}} as appropriate so that the task is made a little easier. --Matt (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo positioning please

In the cuisine section there is a photo that was positioned in such a way as to interfere with the alignment of the header in the next section Sports, I have fixed it using whitespace could someone please do a proper fix, Thanks --Matt (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected it with {{clear}}, a template that makes the next section wait until the existing content is finished. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that I knew there was a simple way to do it, I also appreciate your keeping an eye on the work I am doing on the article as a whole it was just screaming out for cleaning up. I am surprised you are from Australia, so am I, your knowledge of Iceland seems exellent --Matt (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Yeah, this article has been needing some help for a while; it's great to see another editor getting involved. It is not particularly common to see two Australians editing an article about a small country on the other side of the world, haha. Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cuisine

Hayden120 thanks for picking up that misreading of mine of the composite dishes of Þorramatur, I would still like to alter this sentence "Þorramatur is a national food consisting of many dishes and is usually consumed around the month of Þorri, which begins on the first Friday after 19 January." because in English it reads strangely. Perhaps an alternate phrasing of 'national food'. --Matt (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you think this is better? Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that looks great, it is an easier read that makes sense.--Matt (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

volcano 2010

please add to article a section on iceland and its volcanoes , esp as this april 14, 2010 eruption is disrupting substantially for an indefinite period travel across northern europe and between europe and americas. See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iceland_volcano ka hit girl chloe jr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The current eruption is mentioned under the section "Geological activity". Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Unclear references

Footnotes 24 (Id. at p.48) and 100 (Cronshaw, pgs. 168–169) are unclear. Does anyone know which reference the former is referring to? Presumably the latter is a book, but I am unable to find it; if anyone knows which book it is, could they please add it to the 'bibliography' section (in alphabetical order by the author's last name)? Thanks, Hayden120 (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Iceland–Mexico relations

Some help can be used on the article Iceland–Mexico relations to find Icelandic language references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceland is not in Europe

The map and the text give the wrong impression. Iceland is closer to the North American island of Greenland than Europe. The map cuts off Greenland, and shows Iceland only in the context of Europe. Why does the map not show the nearest landmass to Iceland? It's absurd.

Would it make sense to include New Jersey in Europe simply because most of the people are European-derived? Would it make sense to show a map Sicily with the whole of Africa in the Sicily article and cut out European continent? -Flybyright (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For all of geographical, political, economic, and historic reasons, Iceland is part of Europe. At least half of the island lies on the European plate. The country is poised to become an EU member-state. Most of its trade is with European states. Historically, it has always been referred to as being in Europe: Reykjavík is often noted as Europe's westernmost capital city, not the Americas' easternmost.

Proximity to Greenland means nothing. E.g. Cyprus is closer to Asian countries, but it is considered part of Europe.

I actually can't believe somebody is touting this; never before have I seen Iceland's "Europeanness" questioned. ConorBrady^.ie (caint) 09:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Iceland poised to become an EU member state? In that case Guadeloupe has a greater claim to being in Europe, since it is already in the EU. Shall we include Guadaloupe in the Europe map?

Anyone with eyes can see that Iceland is closer to N. America. Indeed, the first google image results for 'North America' include Iceland - http://www.reisenett.no/map_collection/americas/NorthAmerica.jpg - Flybyright (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Conorbrady, proximity means nothing in the context of the many many European attributes of Iceland; it is European. Malta is closer to Africa than to Europe, indeed Alaska is closer to Asia than to the other United States..... or following your map, a large chunk of Russia is in America. Arnoutf (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Then should Greenland be part of Europe due to it's historic connection to Denmark? - Flybyright (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The right way to argue this issue would be to impress us with a number of highly reliable sources that consider Iceland a part of some other continent than Europe. Sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Icelanders have Native American genes - http://www.sikunews.com/News/Iceland/Icelanders-have-Native-American-genes,-says-study-8250 - is there any other European people who have North American genes? It's clearly closer to North America, look at a map. If Iceland is really part of Europe then so is Greenland- Flybyright (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You need a reliable (preferably academic) source that explicitly states Iceland (the country) is part of America. Your source does not say that, only that Iceland has more than average native American genes compared to other European countries. On your second point - clearly closer - here you need a reliable source that says that belonging to a continent is based on proximity to the closest major landmass otherwise the proximity is your own idea for what should be and that is no good. (PS I am not sure that Sikunews.com is a reliable source, as it appears to be a hobby project of two journalists) Arnoutf (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea extends rights across ocean using a 200 mile limit. Iceland is 180 miles from North American Greenland, while over 500 miles from Scotland, meaning that the continent of North America has more right to Iceland than Europe. - Flybyright (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This argument is flawed because (a) law of sea is about countries not continents (b) Law of the sea applies to seas, not landmasses. Arnoutf (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Another source for the Native American gene story is here - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.21419/abstract and here - http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2033038,00.html . You might have heard of Time magazine. - Flybyright (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from the Am Jrnl of Phys Antro article abstract "Although most mtDNA lineages observed in contemporary Icelanders can be traced to neighboring populations in the British Isles and Scandinavia, one may have a more distant origin. This lineage belongs to haplogroup C1, one of a handful that was involved in the settlement of the Americas around 14,000 years ago.". Most lineages are British/Scandinavian, i.e. European. Seems rather conclusive. Arnoutf (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Most lineages in Ohio are from Europe. We must put Ohio in Europe article. Case closed. - Flybyright (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That is another case and should be discussed on the Ohio talk page. Unless you imply by your remark that genetic data has limited to no relevance in this discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Recap

1. Iceland is described misleadingly as a European island throughout the article.
2. Anyone can see that it is closer to the North American continent.
3. Icelanders has Native American genes - http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2033038,00.html ... Arnoutf believes the sources for this are not reliable. Has anyone else heard of Time magazine?
4. The map has Iceland located in a corner of the map, without even showing its closest neighbor Greenland. The map is therefore biased and possibly politically motivated.
5. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea extends rights across ocean using a 200 mile limit. Iceland is 180 miles from North American Greenland, while over 500 miles from Scotland. Arnoutf does not regard the United Nations as significant or a reliable source. Has anyone else heard of the United Nations?
6. Arnoutf is open to the idea of Ohio being in Europe. But not Iceland.
7. Iceland applied to UNESCO (anyone heard of it?) in order to make Reykjavik a UNESCO city of literature, with the region stated as 'Europe and North America' - http://www.unesco.org/nac/geoportal.php?country=IS&language=E
8. A book was published in 1945 called, Iceland, the First American Republic, and was endorsed in the Preface by someone called Theodore Rooselvelt - http://www.amazon.com/Iceland-American-Republic-Vilhjalmur-Stefansson/dp/B0007HE66U http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?view=image;id=inu.32000001823329;size=75;page=root;seq=17;num=ix . Does anyone know who Theodore Roosevelt is, and would he be considered a reliable source as to what is American? - Flybyright (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

- Flybyright (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Unesco source does not support you - it says "Europe and North America" for every European country, not just Iceland. Your interpretation of sea rights is irrelevant - the boundary starts 200 miles off of the icelandic coast. Your opinions of what to make of the distance and genetic composition of icelanders is also irrelevant: show a source that supports your claim. Also the genetic claim is ridiculous - it says that 350 living icelanders have 1 native american gene and it show sthat that gene came from 1 (one - a single) woman abducted by Norse vikings around 1000 years ago. It is interesting but it does nothing to support your thesis. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Geologically speaking, Iceland lies on the plate boundary between the Eurasian and North American plates; one half is on one plate, the other half on the other plate. Culturally speaking, however, Iceland is unquestionably European, Teddy Roosevelt be damned. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So is the Falkland Islands. That doesn't make it Europe though. - Flybyright (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, they aren't. Your argument is invalid. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I must say, this is one of the more entertaining trolls I've seen in a while. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk: Spelling of some words

Hey guys,

in this “talk”-area, it’s stated that this article is written in British English. Spelling wise, it’s not stated whether the Oxford (-ize, -iza) versions or the “normal” (-ise, -isa) versions should be used. Apparently, there are more words with the “normal” spelling, so should we try to standardize the words in the article? Whichever spelling doesn’t matter, but I think changing to the -ise spelling would be less time consuming.

Anyways, I was simply wondering.

Thanks for reading, Somebody

Spelling .. British vs. British Oxford

Talk: Spelling of some words

Hey guys,

in this “talk”-area, it’s stated that this article is written in British English. Spelling wise, it’s not stated whether the Oxford (-ize, -iza) versions or the “normal” (-ise, -isa) versions should be used. Apparently, there are more words with the “normal” spelling, so should we try to standardize the words in the article? Whichever spelling doesn’t matter, but I think changing to the -ise spelling would be less time consuming.

Anyways, I was simply wondering.

Thanks for reading, Somebody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.228.151.245 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, WP:ENGVAR is a good starting point for handling national varieties of English. Don't worry about using Oxford's -ize form: I checked it out for the "Organisation" section of "University of Oxford" a couple of years ago (see this discussion) and it seems that the Oxford spelling is rarely used at the university nowadays. If no one wants to use -ize in the university's own article, it's hard to argue that it should be used in any other article that uses British spelling. - Pointillist (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, interesting to hear, Pointillist — I still want somebody higher ranked in WP to change standardize the spelling. I am not highly ranked and I neeed to search for my password for my own account. Anyways…

Regards Aero145

Apparently, I was lucky enough to retrieve my password so here we go again. Aero145

Witchcraft section removed

Without any disrespect to the author, this section is not especially encyclopedic in its writing style, and the citations are 1) a link in a tour site to a museum, and 2) essentially an advertisement for the same museum on a web page of unknown/questionably reputable status. I think it's an interesting topic, but probably should be melded into existing culture topics (religion, etc), and cited to better sources. It could also use a going over. If Icelandic architecture only gets a single line, it seems quite a bit of text to be spent on one small fraction of icelandic culture (witchcraft, that is). Honestly, it reads like a tourist ad for this museum rather than an encyclopedic entry. Here is the text for future reference.

"===Sorcery & Witchcraft=== In Iceland, traces of sorcery date back to 1654: this is when witch hunting began in the country and continued for about 30 years. Today, tourists and local natives can visit The Museum of Sorcery & Witchcraft in the Hólmavík village of Strandir (which opened in 2000). Visitors of the museum have a chance to learn about the people involved in the witch-hunts during the 17th century. The museum also touches upon the magical folklore: such as ghosts and “spells” that range from invisibility to fiscal issues.

The most popular exhibit in the museum is the Necropants exhibit. Necropants were used for gaining money in advanced areas of sorcery. For someone to obtain the pants, they had to dig up a corpse that died from “natural causes,” and skin it below the waist and wear the corpse’s skin as pants. The owner of the Necropants had to “steal money from a poor widow and draw a magical symbol on a piece of parchment;” then the items were placed in a “pouch” within the pants. After this procedure was done, the owner of the Necropants “magically came into possession of money.”"

Jbower47 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Republic of Iceland"

Doesn't the information on the first paragraph and on the country info box, about the country being (or not) officially called the Republic of Iceland, contradict the information on note 1? Faunas (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed the same thing. Assuming the note is reliable (as the line in the lede is apparently unsourced), this presumably needs correcting. weriov (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am an Icelander and I just sent a letter to WolframAlpha about the very same thing. The official name is Iceland, and I am going to change it. Klandri (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why was this change reverted? if the editor has a reliable source then please share it. The name is Iceland as shown in note 1. Klandri (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

National Anthem of Iceland... performed by the US Navy Band.

Looking at the info for the national anthem file, I couldn't help but chuckle, really:

"National Anthem of Iceland, instrumental recording. Performed by the United States Navy Band."

Would an Icelandic version not be more suitable? If anyone hears of an Icel. public domain version available, I say we swap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hthth (talk • contribs) 06:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:SculpturSeltrjarnarnes1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:SculpturSeltrjarnarnes1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd phrasing

To me, the phrase "described as the Republic of Iceland" in the opening sentence seems vague and odd. Described where and by whom? 109.153.232.146 (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume it's addressing the common misconception that it's the formal name, which it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.52.208 (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

The Iceland page needs a section on its relations with Bobby Fischer. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Snæfellsjökull

Addendum to last note: Also suggest you add volcanology and especially a reference to Snæfellsjökull for literary points (Verne). 143.232.210.150 (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

On Iceland and the monarchy

On the lead, it reads: "From 1262 to 1918 Iceland was part of the Norwegian and later the Danish monarchies." Shouldn't it read "From 1262 to 1944...", since Christian X, the King of Denmark, was also the holder of the title of KIng of Iceland? Faunas (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

From 1918 to 1944 Iceland was an independent Kingdom, but with the same king as Denmark (Personalunion)94.145.236.194 (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Icelandic time

Could we have two lines on Icelandic time? Is it correct that iceland uses Western European Time but not Western European Summer Time? --Red King (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's in the infobox under "Time Zone", although not in the most user-friendly of formats. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Iceland the country vs. Iceland the island

The geography section of this article begins

Iceland is located in the North Atlantic Ocean, mostly south of the Arctic Circle, which passes through the small island of Grímsey off Iceland's northern coast.

This says that Grimsey is both in Iceland (hence most of Iceland is below the Arctic Circle) and off the coast of Iceland. I think the wording (both in the geography section and in the lede) needs to distinguish between Iceland in the sense of the country and Iceland in the sense of the main island. This is important because the question "Is Iceland partly in the Arctic?" has an affirmative answer for the country but a negative answer for the main island. Note also that, while the lede of this article Iceland defines Iceland as the country (Iceland...is a Nordic and European island country), the lede of the article Geography of Iceland defines Iceland as the island (Iceland is a medium-sized island....). I think both these quotes should be augmented to recognize an alternative usage of "Iceland".Duoduoduo (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point - go ahead. It will be hard not to make it slightly awkward, but that's better than confusing/misleading.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

the Revolution?

Iceland is undergoing a revolution why isn't there anything here regarding the subject? I'd say its rather important as they are rewriting the constitution. A simple "See kitchenware revolution" doesn't quite cut it IMO. We should integrate the general facts surrounding what's going on without going in dept. Mighty.Yggdrasil (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Biodiversity

In the late 12th-century Íslendingabók, Ari the Wise described it as "forested from mountain to sea shore", but does this mean that it was covered by woodland? In the middle ages, "forest" could mean land unsuitable for agriculture or an area set aside for hunting. Although forests were often wooded (and so unsuitable for agriculture or good habitat for wild animals to be hunted) they could equally be mountain or moorland - the word forest didn't mean woodland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasty swimmer (talk • contribs) 22:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What probably covered the coastal areas of Iceland at that time was birch shrubbery. Any place where there is no major erosion and no sheep, that's what eventually grows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.19.70 (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

File:SculpturSeltrjarnarnes1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SculpturSeltrjarnarnes1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SculpturSeltrjarnarnes1.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"described as the Republic of Iceland" - where? when? by whom?

I've put a 'citation needed' against the text is also described as the Republic of Iceland, because there is nothing in the text to support this statement nor anything about it in the Names of Iceland article. The article says that, in 1944, Iceland declared itself to be a Republic and someone has given that section the title "Republic of Iceland" without justifying it. Was there a law that put the declaration into effect that used the words [in Icelandic, obviously] 'The Republic of Iceland' or did it merely say 'Iceland is a republic'. What I have in mind here is something analogous to the Republic of Ireland Act 1948.

So who uses that term to describe Iceland? where? when? why? with what authority?--Red King (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added the refs here. See also notes aa and ab in the info box (at the bottom of it) and refs 7 and 8 (referenced after the first word of the article. StephenHudson (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ta. I hadn't noticed note AA, which clears it up. All this arose because an anon IP deleted 'Republic of' from the 'conventional long form' in the infobox and I couldn't find any evidence that she/he was wrong in law. I also found the Constitution of Iceland (at http://www.government.is/constitution/ ) which merely says that "Iceland is a republic". So the anon IP is right and the external sources are wrong, although verifiable. --Red King (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm the original editor. I changed it from The Republic of Iceland to Iceland. Someone then decided to say "described as the Republic of Iceland" and I didn't change it back because I thought he was most assuredly correct. Many sources are very wrong on this issue. Note that the "L" in "Stjórnarskra lýðveldisins Íslands" is NOT capitalized. In addition the University of Iceland sent a letter to the Prime ministry and they confirmed that the word "republic/lýðveldi" is merely descriptive and NOT a part of the name. This was Note no. 1. I don't know why it was changed. Changing it back now, and adding the note again.

Update: It is done. After a few edits including a single disastrous one it's correct now. Klandri (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Isl 500 Kroner.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Isl 500 Kroner.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Isl 500 Kroner.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Polar bears

When polar bears visit there would be no way off the island. What happens to them? WikiParker (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read, they visit when some ice bridges bring them closer to Iceland, since it's northernmost point is only a few miles from the arctic circle.User:Zurkhardo

Thank you but I was wondering how they find their way off the island. Or are they hunted? Sedated and moved? Or are they just left to fend for themselves? It isn't really important to the article but since they are mentioned it gets one curious. WikiParker (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

They normally come on icebergs or drift ice from the north late in the winter or in spring. They are normally shot when they are found.Einar Steinsson (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

PISA Score

I noticed that the Education and Science section mentions that Iceland's PISA score is low. However, the citation links to an older report from 2006. The latest report from 2010 - http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf - shows Iceland to be one of the top performers in the OECD. We should update it. May I take a crack at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurkhardo (talk • contribs) 22:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Be Bold! Please do update it. Klandri (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it's done! 00:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Zurkhardo (talk)

Update on Iceland's Economic Outlook

There's a recent report by the OECD that we should integrate, especially as it pertains to the Icelandic financial crisis. http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,3746,en_2649_34569_43946384_1_1_1_1,00.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurkhardo (talk • contribs) 00:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Intro and Iceland's Name

The clarification concerning Iceland's correct name that occurs at the beginning seems convoluted. Can we just link it to a footnote (particularly this part: "in the Constitution of Iceland it says Stjórnarskrá lýðveldisins Íslands but note that the "l" is not capitalized")?--Zurkhardo (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

True, I'm the editor. I did this because the misunderstanding is so extremely widespread and if you look at earlier edits they referenced the contistution to support their wrong belief that the name is Iceland. This was despite the footnote links. I encourage you to simplify it without losing the meaning. 82.148.70.66 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it need to be in the introductory sentence? Normally we do describe names in the intro sentence, but this one is go convoluted that it bogs the reader down; maybe it could be turned into a couple of standalone sentences placed lower down in the introductory section? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that. It doesn't matter to me either way, personally. I think we can all agree it's important, it just needs to be placed somewhere else.--Zurkhardo (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree but I'm not the best stylist so I would love to see you guys go at it. (IP:82.148.70.66|82.148.70.66 editor) Klandri (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. Improvements welcome! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Great! I just fixed some spelling (THe => The) and closed the first parenthesis and removed the open latter one. It served no purpose, really, since it's now in its own paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klandri (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sub-Sections

I think we should make a sub-section for Law and another for Healthcare, as I've seen in other country profiles. Thoughts?--Zurkhardo (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right, provided you actually have sourced material to put in said sections. Otherwise it's redundant. Klandri (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I do. I'll get to it and keep you all posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurkhardo (talk • contribs) 00:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

My Template for the Health section

I wanted you all to look it over before I post it. The brackets are where I intend to place references.

Iceland has a universal health care system that is administered by The Ministry of Welfare (Icelandic: Velferðarráðuneytið)[1] and paid for mostly by taxes (85%) and to a lesser extent by service fees (15%).Unlike most developed nations, there are no private hospitals, and private insurance is practically nonexistent; this is largely due to the small size of the population, which makes a competitive market both unnecessary and impractical.[]

A considerable portion of the government budget is assigned to health care, [2] and Iceland ranks as having one of the highest health care expenditures both as a percentage of GDP [] and on a per capita basis.[] Overall, Iceland’s health care system is one of the best performing in the world [], although the returns aren’t high relative to the cost []. The country is ranked ## in the ratio of doctors-to-population. In a 2000 World Health Organization report, it was ranked ## overall and ## in quality of services.[]

Icelanders are among the world’s healthiest people, with one of the highest perceptions of good health in the OECD, at ## (compared to an average of ##). The prevalence of obesity is well below the average for most industrialized nations, [] infant mortality is one the lowest in the world, [] and maternal health is among the highest. [] The people of Iceland are especially well-known for their longevity, [] which may be attributed partly to the healthiness of their diet (particularly the abundance of seafood). [] Average life expectancy is ## (## for men and ## for women), significantly above the OECD average of 79.5, and the ## highest in the world.

Additionally, Iceland has a negligible rate of pollution, thanks to an overwhelming reliance on cleaner geothermal energy, a low population density, and a high level of environmental consciousness among citizens. [] According to an OECD assessment, the amount of toxic material in the atmosphere is far lower than any other industrialized country measured. []

--Zurkhardo (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but I'm far from being an authority on this topic. This sentence here I found a little odd, though.

"Unlike most developed nations, there are no private hospitals, and private insurance is practically nonexistent; this is largely due to the small size of the population, which makes a competitive market both unnecessary and impractical."

Wouldn't this be considered biased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klandri (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the part about the small market? I pulled that from a source but I'm not sure if that still makes it permissible.--Zurkhardo (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually meant "which makes a competitive market both unnecessary and impractical." This is debated by, for example, the Libertarian Society of Iceland. I don't know if that counts. Klandri (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing Picture

There's a photo missing in the art section. I'm not quite sure how to fix it myself. Similarly, there is some text overlapping the chart on religious affiliation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zurkhardo (talk • contribs) 05:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC) --Zurkhardo (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing because it was deleted on Commons (easiest is to replace it with some other image). I have no overlap on 1024x768 or 1600x1200 screen resolution. Materialscientist (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

International Rankings Table

Should we add one at the end of the article, as I've seen in the Finland entry for example? (among others).--Zurkhardo (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

European?

The article describes Iceland as being part of Europe. Is that really correct? Iceland is an island nation in the middle of the North Atlantic far from the coastal waters of Europe. Thus it belongs to no continent and could just as easily by proximity and culture be assigned to North America (Canadian Maritimes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.64.158 (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the entire article? Geologically speaking, Iceland is part of both the N-American and European tectonic plates, with the larger part of the country located on the European plate. Also, historically and culturally, Iceland is a European country. It was settled by Europeans in the 9th century, speaks a European language, traded with European countries, adopted Europe's Christian religion and was part of the European Kingdom of Denmark for many centuries before Europeans established permanent settlements in the New World. Yeah, it's European. -- JuvenisUrsus (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Geologically, it does straddle two tectonic plates, but Iceland is unquestionably a European island. While closest to Greenland, it is closer to the European mainland than North American mainland and has shared history with other Nordic countries. Note that Iceland is invariably included in Europe in compendiums, like atlases, and in the UN geoscheme (Northern Europe). I have never seen it included in North Americe and, as someone from the Great White North, no one would ever place Iceland, Greenland, etc. in the Maritimes, which has a specific definition -- i.e., 3 particular provinces. Ubiquinoid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Prohibition

Beer was illegal in Iceland until 1989. Does anyone know why? It would be nice to add the reasons in the prohibition article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Prohibition in Iceland says it was a result of a national referendum.--Cymru123 (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The climate of Iceland

When first settled by Irish/Celtic monks and later Vikings the climate was much warmer, with very little sea ice. The fact that forests were well established in the 9th century suggests that the climate had been warm for a very very long time. Forests dont pop up overnight. It did not start to cool again till about 1250.It only started to get really cold with lots of ice about 1600. The extent of the ice grew to its maximum during the 19th century and since then it has been getting warmer again but not as warm as it was when settled in the 9th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is there such little discussion of the peaceful revolution in Iceland that happened in 2008?

They overthrew their government and did away with the corrupt bankers peacefully, for crying out loud! Isn't that an important event in their history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.116.254 (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I also think this should be added. It is shameful that the current constitution is not mentioned, and the article is thus 4 years outdated! If noone is more qualified, I may have to edit it.91.156.199.79 (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Shush! Citizens of other countries might find out. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there should be something mentioned about it. I believe the New York Times had a good piece on the subject. --Zurkhardo (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Official name

The CIA World Factbook lists the official, English-language name of the country as "Republic of Iceland." Is there a reason that isn't replicated here? Rhentzel (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Check older Talk items, on [[6]] - this was much discussed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A few sources are reporting that they're running a contest to change their name. However, the only website I've found looks a lot like a cheesy tourist marketing thing though. Too bad, I wanted to suggest Asgard. 97.100.133.125 (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The word "republic" in this context is only descriptive of the form of government and not actually part of the official name of the country. This has been explained (google translation) at the University of Iceland's Science Web, which is a project for public outreach at the University of Iceland. The author is a scholar at the Árni Magnússon institute for Icelandic Studies at the University of Iceland. He cites correspondence with the office of the Prime minister of Iceland. I'd say that merits consideration. (Actually, unless the Supreme court of Iceland says otherwise, I'd say that's definitive. What other authority could one ask for?) --Cessator (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• The “Republic of Iceland” is official long name of country used by government. Opinion of scholars is only opinion, and is contrary to facts. Otherwise the government of Iceland doesn’t know haw its country is named – as I see in the text of “Agreement on the European Economic Area” on page 325 is signature “Fyrir Lýðveldið Ísland” (for the “Republic of Iceland”), not “for Iceland” (compare with “for Ireland” on page 323). All official list of countries (eg. UN, EU, USA, UK etc) list name “Republic of Iceland”. Embassies in many countries are “Embassies of the Republic of Iceland”, and so on. Sources unambiguously confirm this long name as official name of Iceland. Aotearoa (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the point that you don't seem to get: While the description is sometimes used by Icelandic authorities, they nevertheless do not consider it an official name. And if you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would have seen that this isn't just the opinion of a scholar, but the opinion of the Prime Ministry of Iceland! That source unambiguously answers your question, but you choose to disregard it. --Cessator (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I see only opinion. And only words about alleged letter from the prime minister. This is not reliable source. In the case of Ireland, the government sometimes use name “Republic of Ireland”, but in all official lists of country names only name “Ireland” is listed as formal name. But in case of Iceland all lists of country names list name “Republic of Iceland” as formal name. So, all international institutions, al governments of many countries are wrong, because one scholar said otherwise. This is absolute nonsense. Aotearoa (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, alleged letter? Are you telling me that you seriously believe that a respected scholar at the Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies at the University of Iceland fabricated a letter from the Prime Ministry of Iceland? He just made that up, did he? Do you actually think that that is plausible? That would be an outrageous contention! But please do answer, because on your answer depends whether or not I can take you seriously. --Cessator (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, as it stands, you have sources, I have a source that explains a misunderstanding about those sources and cites the Prime Ministry of Iceland as its authority. Just so we're clear: no one is denying that the long form is often used, but what is misunderstood is that the long form isn't considered the official name. Now, my source calls your sources into question and advises how to interpret them, so in order for you to refute my source, you need to something else than just repete your sources and reiterate your interpretation of them. --Cessator (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE – one unoffcial source (one scholar said that few years earlier in one letter prime minister...) versus a lot of offcial sources eg. UN, EU, [ISO, USA, Australia, UK, Germany, France, Poland, and so on. Aotearoa (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, my source calls your sources into question and advises how to interpret them (not claiming that the longer form is never to be found, but claiming that it isn't considered the official name); so in order for you to refute my source, you need to something else than just repete your sources and reiterate your interpretation of them. --Cessator (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And you didn't answer my first question: Do you truly believe that the correspondece with the Prime Ministry is fabricated? --Cessator (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Another source: Official names of countries in Icelandic --Cessator (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

But I don’t see any correspondence with the Prime Ministry. I see only information that such correspondence was in 2004, noting more. And I’ve seen many scholars’ texts with false information, that why for me this is only opinion of one scholar, nothing more.

Here is the relevant part (my brackets and strikethroughs to help you through the Google translation): "Due to these inconsistencies I sought a ruling from the Prime Minister a few years [ago regarding the] of formal name of the state. The result was Iceland. The word republic, in front of Iceland [i.e. in the constitution, where it is written with a lower case l], the prime minister said in a letter to me dated 30th September 2004, that it "describes only the [form of government in place] command format as there is ... and [is] therefore not considered to be part of [the proper name] sérnafni [of our] state"." Note the quotation marks? That's a direct quotation from a letter from the Prime Ministry. How can you say that you don’t see any correspondence with the Prime Ministry? --Cessator (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And yes, scholars have been mistaken before, but you're not suggesting, are you, that this direct quotation is a fabrication? That would amount to some kind of conspiracy theory level nonsense. --Cessator (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Official Gateway to Iceland: Official name: Republic of Iceland, Official Tourism Information Site: Official name: Republic of Iceland... Aotearoa (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My passport nowhere says Lýðveldið Ísland or Republic of Iceland. My constitution doesn't say that the name of the country is Lýðveldið Ísland. There is no act of Parliament (Althing) that ever changed the name into Lýðveldið Ísland. Scholars and the Prime Ministry of Iceland agree that the official name is just Ísland, and The University of Iceland has a list of official names of countries in Icelandic which specifically notes the official name is the same as the short form name, i.e. Iceland. Your sources are mistaken (even the Icelandic ones) as is explained in a source you choose to ignore. The long form is conventional only, it is not the official name. --Cessator (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Cessator is completely right on this. It is very common around the world that countries have two official names, the long form and short form. We do have two forms as well but only the short form is officially recognised by the constitution and it's like Cessator says, my passport doesn't say "Republic of Iceland". However, given how common it is that countries have two officially recognised forms and the fact that the long form is used during more formal settings, there has been a tendency mostly abroad but also within Iceland to some extend to use the long form (in English most often) but that does not change what the constitution says. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don’t see official name of state on Nepalese passports, Nepalese constitution (both use only short name), and no act of parliament about long name. But long name Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal has been adopted by Nepalese government. So, lack of long name in your passport or in the constitution is not argument. And you have one source which said that all international organizations and all other government were mistaken. Or maybe your source is mistaken, isn’t it (Occam's razor)? You haven’t got any official sources. List of country names by University is not official list of country names, as I see. The letter from Prime Minister... – we don’t know if it really exists, and if it exists we don’t know if it is official letter from Prime Minister (which copy is archived as official document in state archives) or just private letter from Halldór Ásgrímsson (in the text we have information “a letter to me dated 30th September 2004” – Halldór Ásgrímsson entered office on 15th September 2004, so letter to the scholar was really very important for the state if he found time for wrote it in the first two weeks of his cabinet...). Aotearoa (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously disputing a direct quotation in the source I cited? That's starting to smell like conspiracy theory stupidity. But in any case, seeking the original document would be something like original research, which we're not allowed to conduct: it suffices that a respectable and reliable secondary source tells us what's in the original document. By the way, the source cites a letter from the Prime Ministry (not the prime minister, although I wouldn't be surprised if the professor had got a letter from the minister... you understand how our country works, right? Ministers are listed in the phone book and can regularly be seen in the thermal pools etc. Access to them is easy.). Also, you don't have any official sources either, not ones from the Icelandic authorities; you have a tourist website (which is just wrong about the issue) and you have foreign lists of states. But those aren't official Icelandic documents. The only thing you can show is that the longer form has been in use, but it's your interpretation that by not minding its use the Icelandic authorities recognize it as the official name of the country. And that interpretation is wrong. --Cessator (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If I meet PM on a pool and ask about something it will be only his private opinion, not opinion of PM of the state. This is great difference. You said that I didn’t show official Icelandic sources but official sources from other countries only. So, you don’t show any official sources – Icelandic nor other. Aotearoa (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand the difference, the point was that you seemed sceptical about the probability of access to or response from the ministry. That's just not all that improbable. Now, you're asking me to prove a negative, which strictly speaking isn't possible. I have offered you the evidence of my constitution, the complete and absolute lack of any act of the Icelandic Parliament (Althing) regarding a change of the official name of the country, my passport, a respectable and reliable secondary source that gives an explanation of the state of affairs and cites correspondence with the Prime Ministry (the authenticity of which there is absolutely no reason to doubt despite your comments to that end) and a list of official spelling of country names in Icelandic from the Institute for Icelandic Language (now hosted at the Árni Magnússon institute). You choose to ignore all of these in favor of foreign lists of country names that have no official status vis a vis Iceland. Now, since I cannot prove a negative more conclusively, how about you prove the positive: give us an official Icelandic source (perhaps something from Parliament or in our constitution) that is explicit about the longer form being the official name. --Cessator (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson: In Icelandic constitution is nothing about country name. In many constitutions name of a country is not listed and in some countries different name is listed in a constitution and different name is used as official name. So, we can’t say that the name not used in the constitution is not official one. Official name of state is the name officially used by state government – if government accept this name, and use it in official purposes, especially in international relation, this name is official one. Same countries use two names, short and long one, as official (e.g. Australia). And this is case of Iceland. In Wikipedia both name should be listed, because both are officially recognized. Aotearoa (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's just not true. You've pretty much just invented a definition of an official name to suit your own purpose. Just because Icelandic authorities haven't minded the long form when it is used abroad, that doesn't mean it's now the offical name of our country. Perhaps you should distinguish between conventional and official name. In any case, what matters most is what's considered the official name in the original language (the rest is just a matter of more or less reliable translations). Can you show me a source that considers anything but Ísland to be the official name of the country, i.e. where "lýðveldið" is being used as something over and above a description that is sometimes used along with the name? (And note that the Icelandic language often uses such descriptive accompanying words, like "veitingastaðurinn Lækjarbrekka", meaning the "restaurant Lækjarbrekka" although "veitingastaðurinn" isn't considered part of the name. I could come up with dozens and dozens of examples of this). --Cessator (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know there's no article in the Icelandic constitution that says "the name of the country shall be…". But it only refers to the country as "Iceland" and the title is "Constitution of the republic of Iceland" not "Constitution of the Republic of Iceland". I consider it therefore the official name since it is the only way the constitution refers to the country. How things are translated into English and by who makes no difference. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Error in the Flag

Someone has apparently put the logo of the Iceland supermarket chain in place of the Icelandic flag. --Zurkhardo (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed --AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Economy: Poll ratings

A poll released on 5 March 2010 by Capacent Gallup showed that 31% of respondents were 
in favour of adopting the euro and 69% opposed.[88] Another Capacent Gallup poll conducted 
in February 2012 found that 67.4% of Icelanders would reject EU membership in a referendum.[89]

I'm wondering why exactly those figures were used. As Accession_of_Iceland_to_the_European_Union#Public_opinion shows a lot of polls have been taken on the public opinion with various results. The ones mentioned in this article are neither the latest nor the most important polls. They don't even show some kind of average result. But they were the ones with the most negative outcome regarding an EU accession (and the Euro) at the time of the edit. So I'm afraid this could have been a POV edit trying to influence the reader. --StYxXx (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Whaling

Somebody keeps reverting my change from reasonable numbers to lower numbers(of whales caught). The reasonable numbers imply that the IWC has all the truth on their side, and the IWC isn't a whale protection agency, it is per their own chapter an institution to manage whale hunting. The only number that can be considered rliable are those from the Icelandic Marine Institute. According to them, the catches are easily sustainable. So please stop letting ideology getting in your way. 85.220.22.139 (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The mandate to form a government

After every election, the former PM visits the President and gives his or her resignation. The President then asks the PM to head an acting government, and thus Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir is now acting PM. The President then usually consults with the leaders of the political parties and then gives one of them the mandate to form a government. Ususally the one to receive the mandate ends up becoming PM, but in the past Iceland has experienced long rounds of "musical chairs", with one leader after another holding the mandate until a coalition could be built. The best example is probably 1974, when Ólafur Jóhannesson held the mandate, but ended up with a coalition in which Geir Hallgrímsson was the PM. Another example is 1983, when the Independence Party held the mandate, but allowed Steingrímur Hermannsson to become PM in return for more ministerial seats.

So even though Sigmundur Davíð and Bjarni Benediktsson are now talking (and my personal guess is that Sigmundur Davíð will become our next PM), these formalities are not yet concluded. We might have to wait a week or so. All the best 85.220.22.139 (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)