Talk:Cod Wars

Is the name pun or what?
The sentence: "The term is probably a pun referring to the Cold War."

was removed. Maybe "The name is journalistic term getting popular because of alliteration with Cold War." would be better. Or was this term used in some official documents? Pavel Vozenilek 23:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The Icelandic name for these 'conflicts' is Þorskastríðin which translates into Cod Wars in English, however the Cold War is called Kalda stríðið in Icelandic. I'm not sure whether this term was first coined in Icelandic or English, if it was the former then it was probably just a coincidence that it resembles Cold War in English. --Bjarki 00:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe this explanation could make it into the article to avoid clueless questions repeated again. Pavel Vozenilek 00:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Surely the pun is on 'cod' meaning fake - the idea of a war between a two mis-matched opponents. Iceland had no military forces other than a coastguard.--JBellis 21:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The page name is singular but in Para 1 the phenomenon is described in the plural. Anybody got a solution? I don't know the subject. 203.220.140.92 00:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Some copyvio
There is some copy vio in this article in the descriptions of the Frist and Second Cod Wars. GraemeLeggett 12:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent fish warring in the Norwegian sea
1½ years ago there were also minor skirmishes between the fishing fleets of Norway and Iceland concerning maritime boundaries in the Norwegian Sea, which also led to a shortlived diplomatic strife. Should this be mentioned as trivia or as an extension of the Cod Wars? //Big Adamsky 19:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Role of the EEC/EU common fisheries policy
According to a documentary shown a few years ago on BBC television the third cod war came about because Britains entry into the common fisheries policy had opened her waters to fishing boats from elsewhere in Europe and the resultant competition for limited fish stocks had prompted British boats to move northwards in increacing numbers in turn antagonising Icelandic fishermen who succesfully lobbied their government to extend their fishing waters. The resultant conflict and Britains eventual capitulation effectively destroyed much of Britains fishing industry.

The Neutrality thing
I would like to know what excact parts are considered non-neutral. I also believe that people should put dates to incidents during these "wars" so they can be readily verifiable. If there are no parts that are considered non-neutral then the tag should be removed it would serve no purpose. -- Kjallakr 23:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I should perhaps add, that I did take a look at the "http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/lowes/lowest.htm" and discovered it doesn't describe any incident that has been written about here, as of now. Nowhere is it mentioned here that Þór may not have rammed Lowestoft. And it doesn't say anything that would make anyone think that the article is biased. Someone with easy access to Royal Navy accounts might do well to write about them here though. But since no one is willing to partake in a discussion about this, reasoning that this is a truly biased article, I will remove the tag. -- Kjallakr 22:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Article is extremely biased towards Icelandic accounts, represent them as fact and implying British accounts as fabrications. user:Capt Jack Doicy


 * I don't see that it implies that at all, it just states that the British accounts differed from the Icelandic ones. Why do you think it implies that they are fabrications? --D. Webb 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No reply, so I'm removing the tag. --D. Webb 05:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As for this "A second incident occurred in 1976, when HMS Andromeda was dented when Thor sailed close to her bow." I would like to know the exact date of this incident and more details and a source. --130.208.189.147 15:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, just because there's no source cited for a particular statement, that doesn't mean that the article is biased and implies that the British accounts are fabrications etc. --D. Webb 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that this is no fabrication. I am simply trying to get someone to find a source. --130.208.189.147 17:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is written as an Icelandic article, this clear from the fact that in has a politics of Iceland Info box for christ sake, its pervasive of the whole article from the implication that British accounts are false, to the frequently putting across that Iceland was in the right--Capt Jack Doicy
 * Again, you haven't told me what exactly in the article you think implies that the British accounts are false so I have little choice but to ignore that comment until you do. I can't see that the article says anywhere that Iceland was in the right to unilaterally expand its exclusive economic zone: it doesn't say so in the introduction, not in the chapter on the cod war of 1893, not in the chapter on the first cod war, not in the chapter on the second cod war, not in the chapter on the third cod war, not in the chapter on the last ramming and certainly not in the chapter on the source of the name. Could it be, then, that the article makes any claims about Iceland being in the right in any particular incident? Not explicitly, as far as I can see, but perhaps implicitly in some cases. However NPOV doesn't mean that we supress such information if Iceland really was in the right in those cases (please understand that I am not making that claim here). And to me, at least, it doesn't seem that the article actually fails to be neutral in any such case. The account of the ramming of V/s Þór in 1976, for example, is supported by citations to published works. Nor does NPOV require that we leave out such claims even if opposite claims were backed up by other published works; it would only require us to report both. So your claim that the article is biased just isn't enough. I wish you would point out specifics instead of generalizing about the article; it's imperative that you do so, in fact, since some of us, at least, don't see what you mean. Give us examples. And citing published works that make opposite claims would be extremely helpful. Regarding the infobox, I don't see that its presence makes the article biased; it would seem that the cod wars were in fact one of Icelands major political issues in the 20th century. I don't know what you mean by the article being written as an Icelandic article (are you implying that it's meant to be propaganda?), but we will assume good faith, of course. But clearly the infobox does in no way show that the article was written as an Icelandic article since the article was first created in February 2003 and the infobox wasn't added until January 2006, almost three years later. --D. Webb 20:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

most conflicts even minor ones carry the war infobox, unless it was a civil war. i come to this article because i was interested to know more, because i was looking up Icelandic EU relations, but the article has bias, V/s Þór in 1976 is a case in point it details the icelandic reports but doesn't say its the icelandic view it presents it as the definitive truth then say British reports differ considerably imply that they are lies. the article fells like it was written by icelanders for they're own history, which an iceland history box clearly backs up and your pedantic "it wasn't added till" is just a strawman.
 * Hold on, now! Be fair. I am exchanging views with you here in good faith, so don't say I'm being pedantic; concentrate on what has been said instead of attacking me. My "it wasn't added till"-comment (as you chose to call it) isn't a strawman argument at all: I didn't set anyone up as an easy target just to shoot them down. It really does make a difference that the infobox wasn't added until three years after the articel was first created - three years! Whoever added the infobox may have felt that this article belonged to Icelandic politics, but the infobox just doesn't show that the article (which first created three years earlier) was written as such an article. This conflict - despite its name - just wasn't a war and shouldn't have a war infobox; whatever it should have, it shouldn't be a war infobox. And saying that the British accounts differ does not imply that they are false, let alone lies (which is not even the same thing). Absolutely not. Moreover, neglecting to mention that British accounts differ on this would amount to suppressing information in favor of a particular POV. But the article does inform the reader of both accounts. --D. Webb 03:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

the style of writing presents the first account as the truth since it doesn't say the Icelandic account, then follow it with the british account, so it does portray the british accounts as differing from the truth. there is a war info box on the great pig war, it was a conflict, ships where attacked its even called a war. and the fact that the box is present is a sign of biased, i have seen many articles be dramatically rewritten over a few months let alone years so to claim the box doesn't represent bias is false.


 * I'd have to agree that the article is biased towards the Icelandic account, the whole wording of the article is fairly biased and is in need a re-write and improvements to the structure.
 * The "Cod Wars" are hardly frontline reading material but it was a bit painful to read such a poor account of the incident no matter how trivial. 80.189.249.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

Maps
This page would be improved with a map (or maps) showing both: the extents of the waters claimed by Iceland; and the location of the more significant incidents pcrtalk 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the map of Iceland's waters make no sense without the context of the UK and Ireland on the same map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.50.155 (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Who Rammed Whom? Sources:
IBiblio.org states that "Tartar was in the thick of it for much of the deployment, with a number of encounters with the notorious Icelandic gunboats, specifically with Tyr, who often got entangled with RN warships and British fishing trawlers during the Cod Wars. On the 1st April, Tartar was rammed twice by Tyr and in May, she further encounters with Iceland's Navy when she was rammed twice by another Icelandic gunboat Aegir."

A crew member's personal site shows a series of photographs, which states the following captions:
 * 1) Tyr begins to swing her stern into HMS Tartar's bow, Tartar tries to match the turn.
 * 2) Tyr stops turning, Tartar can't - single screw.
 * 3) Tartar and Tyr.
 * 4) Tyr slows down, but Tartar can't - more mass.
 * 5) Try and Tartar collide.
 * 6) Tyr's earlier attempt at swinging her stern- but she misses Tartar's bow.
 * 7) Tyr.
 * 8) Tyr turns her bow towards HMS Tartar in mock threat.

I personally think this articles portrays the Icelandic Coast Guard as a valiant defence force sallying forth to smite the evildoing fishermen from the wilds of Scotland - which is clearly not the case (Although I am not disputing the fact that the Royal navy was not free of blame either. The ramming incidents have hazy evidence, but seeing as I have presented a clear set of photographs showing the course of events, and no-one else has produced any references as of yet, I have tagged this article for neutrality. HawkerTyphoon 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This incident isn't discribed in the article. Please try to read sources of the ramming in question. --130.208.165.78 18:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also the book ISBN 9979-9569-6-8 has descriptions from crews and captains of both ships of the incident, which are completely out of line of your descriptions. What may have happened with the Tartar dosn't automatically apply to the Falmouth.--130.208.165.78 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Having check this newspaper article, as well as the rules of engagemnt issued to British forces at the time - and the blatantly photoshopped cover of the book you have quoted, I am inclined to believe that you are pushing a point of view. I quote from a british sailor on the ship - "“The whole front of the boat was taken off by Tyr, which was an Icelandic icebreaker. We lost several crew, we were taking in water badly and it took us 14 days to get back to a safe port. I count myself lucky to have survived.”". I will have more sources when the national archives get back to me. HawkerTyphoon 20:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "We lost several crew..." Is that some kind of sailor slang or does it mean what one would immediately think, that the British suffered casualties in the Cod Wars? If so, it is the first time I've ever heard about it. Furthermore Týr is not an icebreaker. This is a rather dubious source. --Bjarki 21:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what he said - although neither side lost any crewmen, although several were injured - in my experience, 'lost' does not always mean killed. And you're right, Tyr was not an icebreaker, but compared to the flimsy hull of the British ships (designed for ASW warfare), they could well have seemed as such to British crewmen. The source is a newspaper, and in my opinion no more iffy than the Icelandic book which shows Tyr at a 90 degree angle, lying in the water, with a British frigate three times her size riding over her... Such a collision would completely destroy Tyr, and most likely sink the frigate too. I've tried to find this book, but the onyl place I've managed to find it is an Icelandic online bookshop, where it is out-of-stock. Furthermore, my knowledge of Iceland (which stretches about as far as Sigur Rós) limits me as to what I could do with such a book. Judging by the front cover, and a rough translation (from my shoddy Norwegian) of what few phrases I can glean from the interweb, I think it's more of a dramatisation than a viable source. HawkerTyphoon 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The story goes that the angle was 70°, I haven't read the book myself but as I understand it is based on the accounts of sailors from both ships, I'll try to get my hands on it in the next days. The author is well respected for his previous books which have covered various dramatic disaster situations and rescue operations. Let's just remember that it is probably hard to find a single incident from the entire history of armed conflicts in which both sides agree completely on what exactly happened. As all Icelanders, I have been brought up to a certain undisputed version of the truth in which a tiny and just recently independent nation took on a greedy world empire (a declining empire maybe but still an empire) in a fight for its economic survival and prevailed in spite of the latter's infinitely superior naval power and bullying tactics. This article probably provides a more neutral and sober account of these happenings as it is, but is bound to offend Icelanders who stumble upon it and perceive it as trying to whitewash the British navy. It's not our job here to "discover the truth", if there are differing accounts of the same incident they should both be presented and cited properly in a neutral manner. That's what Wikipedia is for.--Bjarki 23:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with 95% of what you're saying. Seeing as we can't present every incident from a neutral side, so maybe we should present the two views of each. I've been brought up in the British Royal Naval perspective, so I'm not free of bias either - the general view here is that Iceland resented British 'interference' in 'her' North Atlantic, and so increased its waters by what - 60 times - illegally, attacking any ship that came into sight, armed or not. Feelings are still bitter in the North of England and in Scotland over the events, as lots of jobs were lost, as well as a denting of National Pride (We lost a war against Iceland?!). I find it hard to believe that the captain of tthe frigate intentionally rammed Tyr?, considering Tyr's previous history of incidents of this nature. That said, emotions were high on both sides, and my opinion is that the final ramming incident was down to close, heavy-handed manouvering on both sides, and with the disparity oin ship sizes and turn rates, an accident was only a matter of time. HawkerTyphoon 16:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * David Wines, an officer in Falmouths helicopter hangar at the time is pictured in Útkall: Týr er að sökkva showing with paper models how the ramming occured. Mark Masterman, chief of operations of Falmouth is also pictured showing the 70° angle and how Týrs aft end submerged. Also Gerald Plumer, Falmouths captain, said he was very happy not to be court-martialed after this incident. The Týr was trying to cut Charlisles nets off while pursued by Falmouth, the net cutter is connected by wire to Týrs aft end. Hitting the Falmouth intentionally, with Týrs back end would have been absurd if you wanted to cut a trawlers nets off. --130.208.189.147 00:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Any sinkings at all?
I found somewhere in the web that two trawlers from Hull were sunk by Icelandic coast guards on September 1972. Any facts about that?. DagosNavy 00:43, 5 February 2007
 * As far as I remember, the Icelandic Coast Guard only shot live rounds into one trawler, which incidentally wasn't sunk. Can you be more specific. It shouldn't be a problem finding their names and registration/pennant numbers for example, especially if they sunk. --130.208.189.147 01:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I only heard about their names: the Oberon and the Pearl. No other details available. DagosNavy 12:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen this comment before, and made strides to find out any factual information. I found no internet source that the Icelandic coast guard ever sunk any vessel, and that is in line with that there are no sources here in Iceland that claim so that I have found.
 * Btw, where can I find information and a source for the 1893 cod wars? I find it interesting that the Danes claimed 13 miles but the Icelanders negotiated about it to later claim 12 miles, anyone else have a problem with that?--Whatever70 05:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This source Þorskastríðin states that in 1903 the Danes and the British made an agreement on a 3 mile zone around Iceland.--Whatever70 05:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cod war 1893?
Reading the article, I stumbled upon this "Illunypa to Thornodesker Islet", I have a hard time finding them on the map, also, how in the world were Iceland able to negotiate about their foreign policies when the Danes had them in their hands at that time? I find this article very strange and not inline with what I have come to know, is there anyone here who can direct me in the right direction for a good source for this period? --Whatever70 04:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For some time before Iceland became a republic in the 1940s, Iceland and Denmark had been independent countries with the same king. I'd guess that this status was in place by 1893.  Nyttend 12:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Kingdom of Iceland (under King Christian X also of Denmark) did not exist until 1918. Iceland did, however, enjoy increasing levels of independence from Denmark before it became a separate kingdom. -- Technl75 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever70 23:17, 15 Mars 2008 (UTC) yes..kingdom if Iceland....Home rule 1904, Sovereignty 1918, Republic 1944, they must have had some special powers on the Danish to be able to do that deal...foreign relations and all...btw, since this timeline seems to be in the article, how about adding that little tid bit about Hannes Hafstein and his effort to fine a steam boat in a fjord in the west of Iceland? resulted in the only sinking of the "Cod wars", If I recall correctly, 3 or 4 men were killed. Think he was the only one who survived, he later became the first prime minister of Iceland.

War not declared?
As I recall, none of the three "cod wars" was actually "officially" a war -- i.e. neither side declared war on the other. Assuming this is correct, I think it should be explicitly stated in the article. KarenSutherland (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That‘s right they were a series of disputes/clashes, not wars. Neither nation declared war on each other.--Jóhann Heiðar Árnason (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although it must be said that most modern wars are undeclared. When was the last time a country formally declared war on another? The USA, for instance, has not formally declared war since 1942. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This makes no sense
has anyone else noticed but under the heading Results two contradictory statements are being made in the same sentence

firstly... Britain won the war and the agreements did slow the decline of the British fisheries, well according to the last sentences of the preceding section the UK didn't win as it lost the rights to 200nm of fishing grounds after Iceland threatened to withdraw from NATO.

Then the second half the sentence says severely affecting the economies of northern fishing ports in the UK, such as Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood.

Which put together.... Britain won the war and the agreements did slow the decline of the British fisheries, severely affecting the economies of northern fishing ports in the UK, such as Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood.

which says to me the result was: the UK won, decline slowed and the economies of the several fishing ports were affected

sorry you got me     \O/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.139.234 (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that too, this amusing edit is the culprit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cod_Wars&diff=next&oldid=244156795 Probably best to remove any reference to the "winner".

Jonbeckham (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia
Possibly too trivial to mention, but I might amuse here. At the time (1970s) the Cod Wars were a pretty big cultural phenomenon. It gripped the nation rather like the World Cup or the Olympics. I was in the scouts at the time and we played a game called 'Cod War' where one side was Iceland, the other Great Britain. We had a huge map with all the weather areas on it and card trawlers and gunboats. Each side chose a new area (up to two areas away) for each of their vessels to move to in secret. If your gunboat landed in the same area as one of the others trawlers you 'sank' the trawler!

Anyway, the Icelanders got the Cod, but the Brits have got their assets - I hope we can stay friend now! The Yowser (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Minesweeping?

 * As reported by Iceland, V/s Þór, under the command of Helgi Hallvarðsson, was leaving port at Seyðisfjörður, where it had been minesweeping, 

Surely this means to say it had been doing minesweeping training? Tempshill (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mines weren't laid during the cod wars to my knowledge, it was probably leftovers from the WWII, I think they were doing sweeping for them well after it, they are though still creeping up even today.--212.30.223.74 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

15th century
I read somewhere that there had been disputes in the 15th century and Iceland effectively closed its fisheries to boats from Britain and Brittany. This may have lead to the pre-Cabot discovery of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland so that foreigners were not interested when the Icelandic fisheries were reopened. --Rumping (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also, Great Britain wasn't a country or unitary state until the 18th century, so the phrasing "between the two countries" is ahistorical unless the agreement in the 15th century held without dispute until after that point, in which case it's just slightly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.177.201 (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Confusing transition
I'm not sure I understand how at the end of the "Background" section the fishing limits are at 13 nm, then right at the beginning of the next section (First Cod War) the boundary is being increased from 4 nm to 12 nm. Could someone who knows about this topic (i.e., not me) please clarify as to what this is specifically supposed to mean? Thanks,
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 20:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sub Text
This article doesn't mention the reason why the UK "allowed" Iceland to carry out these actions. Which was clearly the Icelandic threat of closing the NATO naval base which was so critical to this stage of the cold war. It was this threat that allowed Iceland to extend it's waters to 200 miles well over 10 years before this was codified into international law. Without this theme, the article is a nonsense as it overlooks the realpolitik behind what is otherwise an indecipherable "war" where a major power rolls over to a small republic. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.15.32 (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My recent edit to the article
I recently edited out from the first lines of the article that the war had ended with some sort of a compromise cause that's simply just bull really, a couple of months of limited fishing for one side 200 nauticle miles for the other, doesn't sound much like a compromise to me but I do think however that we can find some better way to describe events so if anyone has any ideas then please lets see them.--Here2Disrupt (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've given it a shot. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert of edit by 140.180.4.137
The guy was asked for a reference for his edit but has not supplied one. Knowing where such information is to be found I hereby supply the asked for information http://www.hagstofa.is/?PageID=622&src=/temp/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=MAN00000%26ti=Lykilt%F6lur+mannfj%F6ldans+1703%2D2009++%26path=../Database/mannfjoldi/Yfirlit/%26lang=3%26units=Fj%F6ldi

and

http://www.hagstofa.is/?PageID=622&src=/temp/Dialog/varval.asp?ma=MAN00000%26ti=Lykilt%F6lur+mannfj%F6ldans+1703%2D2009++%26path=../Database/mannfjoldi/Yfirlit/%26lang=3%26units=Fj%F6ldi

Seeing as one number is 219.000 and the other 167.000 for the dates of 1972 and 1958 it seems that 140.180 was indeed correct to adjust the number but seeing as the article is about all the cod wars it is questionable if such a figure does indeed belong there.

For now I have removed the figure.

I have also removed the following text: As fish stocks diminish around the world, the scope for confrontation has increased. Throughout the world, examples exist of a nation's fishing fleets committing systematic incursions into fishing areas considered either "protected" or under the jurisdiction of another country.

That text seemed somewhat biased, miswritten or irrelevant. Who is supposed to have commited these incursions? Iceland by enlarging its protected fishing area or the other nations for having continued to fish where they were fishing before?

A good question is if some of that text can be salvaged and if some sort of a population figure can be put into place for the article. I may take a crack at it at a later date but if anyone else wants to do the honors in the meantime then by all means...

NPOV
As there was no ongoing discussion like the article said I decided to start it. I just made an edit to the article which I am not sure is correctly worded, true or beneficial in any way to be honest but I was attempting to deal with this NPOV claim by explaining how those waters could be considered Icelandic and the detriment of those towns therefor not Icelands fault. I would appreciate it if someone more knowledgable regarding the issue could weigh in on the discussion.

Did the trawlers of those towns mostly fish in Icelandic waters?

To be honest I don't think that this NPOV claim was called for and I can not see how we can include any information regarding the matters impact on Iceland. I therefor suggest that we remove the tag.

Like I said before I would appreciate it if more editors could weigh in on the discussion and the article.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Per lack of discussion I have reverted my own edit to the article as well as removed the POV claim left by another editor. I do not believe that the Results section is POV or needs further special attention for such reasons.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Question
Were there any deaths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.211.252 (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I know, no. 92.24.95.230 (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Point of view
There are several issues here, the article implies the use of military force and armed conflict led to the changes in territorial waters, which is misleading, and that the "victory" in changing the territorial waters was a military victory, thus the article is not written from a WP:NPOV. There is WP:Synthesis needed to get from the sources to the way the information is presented at several points throughout the article. There are aspects which are given insufficient weight- the UN conferences on the laws of the sea had a pre-existing mandate to define territorial waters, a process that was ongoing during this time at led to changes in territorial changes for many countries, and the Cold War raised the stakes and involved the US and Soviet Union, so there is WP:undue emphasis on certain aspects for an encyclopaedia article. Whizz40 (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a good number of sources that say the crisis ended in an Icelandic victory, maybe not forced by the Icelandic pressure at sea, but the outcome of a combat incident or a war is not necessary the consequence of the use of military force. The Vietnam war (saving the huge differences) ended in a Vietnamese victory from the political point of view, despite the US prevailing in the battlefield. The same case for the Algerian war, the French army were the masters of the field at the end, specially in Algiers, but the result was a victory for the FLN. I guess the intervention of the Icelandic Coast Guard was a factor in the British acceptance of the 200 miles, but it doesn't matter here. If enough sources claim an Icelandic victory, any other in-depth analysis is WP:OR.
 * The UN Convention of the Law of Sea was obviuosly challenged by Britain, which continued to exploit the fisheries within Iceland's Exclusive Zone, thus the pre-existing mandate is absolutely irrelevant. It's true that there was no territorial changes from a legal perspective; it was rather a British acknowledgment of the statu quo ante.--Darius (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Darius, no issue with saying there was an Icelandic victory, agree with that per sources. The UN conferences are cited in sources on this topic which gives topical relevance for this article, see for example, which is cited in the article, and , , .Whizz40 (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed some of the issues and will remove the tag. Whizz40 (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

First, sorry if I'm doing this 'talk' thing wrong. That said, I agree with Whizz40. The article, as it is, overemphasizes the clashes at sea and omits important factors that explain why the disputes occurred in the first place and were resolved in favor of Iceland. Like Whizz40 mentions, the broader legal developments are key, both as a motivation for Icelandic extensions and as an influence on the resolution of the disputes (especially the Third Cod War). More text should also focus on domestic politics in both countries (especially Iceland), the Icelandic threats to expel US forces and quit NATO, and pressure on the UK to settle. I was considering re-organizing the text and adding in the aspects that are currently not covered but I haven't had the time. I agree with DagosNavy that each Cod War should be seen as an Icelandic victory and is often described as such in the academic literature. The outcome of each dispute reflected Iceland's pre-extension demands/offers much more than British pre-extension demands/offers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snooganssnoogans (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's assume good faith and be bold in improving the article. Between the three of us and other editors we will hopefully come out with good, and balanced, progress. Whizz40 (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Militarized interstate dispute?
While I personally agree on the description of the Cod wars as "militarized interstate disputes", only one of the five cited sources reaches that conclusion, and none says that the conflict doesn't "meet any of the common thresholds for war". I think that the statement should be rewording to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE.--Darius (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Darius, here are a few sources which support the current wording


 * The Cod wars are classified as military interstate disputes (MID) by the Correlates of War Project, data table extract pasted below, the 4s and 3s bolded (in the penultimate column in the cdv file at the link at the end of this bullet) are 'display of force' and 'use of force' respectively (none are hostility level 5 which is 'war'. definitions are in the pdf file at the link)
 * They meet the definition of MID in Introduction to International Relations but not the definition of interstate war page 141 which says many scholars use the thresholds proposed by correlates of war project.
 * some other sources


 * Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean pg 210
 * Beyond Territorial Contiguity: Issues at Stake in Democratic Militarized Interstate Disputes pg 177
 * The Cod wars are cited in Media Openness, Democracy and Militarized Interstate Disputes pg 27
 * Democratic Peace and Militarized Interstate Disputes in the Transatlantic Community pg 2

DispNum	IncidNum	StAbb1	StAbb2	ccode1	ccode2	StDay	StMon	StYear	MID30ActLvl	MID30HostLvl	Version 2865	2865001	ICE	UKG	395	200	27	8	1958	15	4	2.1E 2865	2865002	UKG	ICE	200	395	29	8	1958	7	3	2.1E 2865	2865003	UKG	ICE	200	395	2	9	1958	16	4	2.1E 2875	2875001	ICE	UKG	395	200	28	2	1960	16	4	2.1E 2875	2875002	UKG	ICE	200	395	29	6	1960	16	4	2.1E 354	354001	ICE	UKG	395	200	1	9	1972	7	3	2.1E 354	354002	ICE	UKG	395	200	5	9	1972	16	4	2.1E 354	354003	UKG	ICE	200	395	6	9	1972	7	3	2.1E 354	354004	UKG	ICE	200	395	7	6	1973	16	4	2.1E 619	619001	ICE	UKG	395	200	15	11	1975	7	3	2.1E 619	619002	UKG	ICE	200	395	15	11	1975	16	4	2.1E 619	619003	ICE	UKG	395	200	15	11	1975	16	4	2.1E 619	619004	UKG	ICE	200	395	17	11	1975	7	3	2.1E Whizz40 (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

[This paragraph is by SnoogansSnoogans] For the MID reference, the Wikipedia article should definitely just cite the COW project. I think it's fairly uncontroversial that the Cod Wars weren't a 'war' by any common political science standard but it would possible to cite COW or Uppsala to show that Iceland hasn't been involved in any actual wars.

[This paragraph is by SnoogansSnoogans] As for the current references that I added: - Hellmann and Herborth call the Cod Wars a MID in the title. - Prins and Sprecher argue that the seizure of foreign ships should count as a MID, and they refer to Iceland specifically on that. (footnote 21). They are effectively responding to those who think the Cod Wars are insufficient enough to warrant a MID label. - Ireland and Gartner identify the Cod Wars as a MID on page 555. - The forthcoming (or 2015) study by Metzger doesn't refer to the Cod Wars explicitly as a MID but she seems to imply it. You can delete that reference. - That MA thesis also opts to call it a MID but it's just an MA thesis, so you could delete that reference.

Belgium and West Germany
Someone needs to clarify in what way these two countries can be considered as combatants. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. As far as I know, Belgium and W-Germany never sent warships to the Icelandic waters. There were on the other hand clashes at sea between Icelandic patrolships and fishermen from Belgium and W-Germany. So if the Cod Wars are understood as a set of militarized interstate disputes (which include at a minimum the use of force by the Icelandic Coastguard against trawlers) that were the result of Iceland's unilateral extensions, then Belgium and W-Germany should be considered 'combatants' along with the UK. If the Cod Wars are understood as a set of MIDs where (i) the Icelandic Coastguard and (ii) warships clashed as a result of Iceland's unilateral extension, then only the UK should be considered as a combatant. Personally, I think Belgium and W-Germany should be included (they also get considerable attention in historical narratives of the Cod Wars, e.g. Guðni Th. Jóhannesson 2004, 2007). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Including Belgium and W-Germany in the article makes sense to me. Agree clarification is needed as to the different roles/levels of involvement. I think the specific issue may be arising from their being included in the Infobox as "Belligerents". They could be omitted from the box and included only in the article, but that somewhat defeats the purpose of summarizing the information in a template. Changing the header "Belligerents" may help, e.g. to "States involved" or "Militarized Interstate Dispute between", with the parameter "| combatants_header = States involved" per Template:Infobox military conflict. The parameter "| notes = " can also be used for clarification, as is used currently in the template for the First cod war. Whizz40 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed re: changing the term 'belligerents' in the Infobox and clarifying differences between British involvement (warships) and W-German and Belgian involvement (trawlers) if its possible. If the focus of the Wikipedia article also shifts from the warship involvement, the page should also include the Dispute of 1952-56 as a Cod War (as some historians and poli scientists already do) because it is categorized as a MID (if I recall correctly) and the Icelanders went after 'violating trawlers'.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 review trim
I've given a fairly harsh trim to the recent additions by Snooganssnoogans all based on one very new article. With the massive amount of detail already in the article I think we do really need only a summary. Snori (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Illunypa and Thornodesker Islet locations
Looking about, the issue appears to be a disagreement about fishing in Faxa Bay, I have been unable to find the locations named in the article, Thornodesker Islet could possibly be a misspelling of Thormod(h)ssker Lighthouse? (43.43° N, 22.30° W) (large image from here http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/tpc/txu-pclmaps-oclc-22834566_c-1d.jpg ) Illunypa is still a mystery.Lacunae (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Þormóðssker is an actual location in Iceland (you can find more info by using the Icelandic spelling), it's in Faxa Bay. I have zero clue what Illunypa is (sounds Greenlandic?). I didn't write that section so I'm not sure if it's accurate. The writer of this section seems to say that the British agreed not to fish deep within Faxa Bay (Illunypa must be a location in Northern or Southern edges of Faxa Bay?). I think we might have to read up on the 1896 agreement and rewrite that bit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Ílunýpa is a promontory "located 1 mile SE of Holmsberg, is a point which forms the N extremity of a small cove, at the head of which lies Keflavik. A conspicuous church, with a spire, stands in the middle of the town. It is reported that mooring buoys, for use by fishing craft, are situated in the cove." according to -http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/SD/Pub181/Pub181bk.pdf

As for a reference for the content, this might be applicable http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?issId=274417 but my Icelandic isn't up to it.Lacunae (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Can someone add this video to the 2nd Cod War section?
It's a contemporary AP reel on Kissinger talking about the Cod Wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0mcvA0XaTM

Not a big thing, but it'd make a good complement, I think. I have no experience with editing in video-content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree. As a start, I've added it as an external link per Video links. Agree it could be a good improvement to incorporate this as a media image in the section on the second Cod War but I'm also not sure how to do this. Whizz40 (talk)

Shipmaster?
Isn't the captain of a naval vessel a commanding officer? Creuzbourg (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cod Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525023712/http://www1.american.edu/TED/icefish.htm to http://www1.american.edu/ted/icefish.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120416045447/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/CodWar.htm to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/CodWar.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

DISABLING OF GUN BOAT ODIN
WHY IS THERE NO MENTION OF THE DISABLING OF THE GUN BOAT ODIN IN 1973 BY MY VESSEL WYRE VICTORY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:EC11:3600:521:559D:7B74:F1F9 (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Cod War - HMS EXMOUTH
To set the record straight I can tell you that in 1975 HMS Exmouth was a type 14 frigate. She had been fitted with 3 gas turbine engines. 2 Proteus and 1 Olympus. She sailed into the war and immediately encountered the gunboat Baldour. The gunboats had massive steel prongs welded to each side of their stern and they would turn the boat quickly to tear a hole in the British warships. Baldour tried in vain but couldn't out maneuver the Exmouth even though she was much smaller. The Exmouth had several encounters with the gunboats but none were able to damage the Exmouth.

Wasn't it a stalemate?
There was killing and all, but there is no definitive victory in this 'war' since well... This isn't really a war. It's more of a skirmish. (LockyHimself (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC))
 * Iceland negotiated the expansion of its territorial waters and exclusive fishery zones. These agreements were all in Icelands's favour but starting from a position that was disproportionately in the United Kingdom's favour and the agreements did not go beyond what was later agreed as international standards. This should not be conflated with military victory. These distinctions could be better articulated in the article Whizz40 (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources are pretty clear, Iceland prevailed in a militarised interstate dispute, with a limited use of naval forces. The cited authors use explicitly the word "victory". Taking it otherwise would be original research.---Darius (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not my point, apologies if I wasn't clear. Yes, sources say it was a victory for Iceland, and it certainly wasn't a stalemate - no one is disputing that. What is unclear in the article is what was the victory? Iceland achieved earlier bilateral implementation of modern international standards for territorial waters and its exclusive economic zone through belligerent action with gun boats and aggressive-competitive diplomacy. The UK, and other western European countries, stood up to these actions but compromised each time since that was a reasonable action to take given the starting point was disproportionately in their favour compared to emerging international norms. As far as I am aware, nothing Iceland achieved goes beyond current international laws, so the victory was the earlier adoption achieved through these methods. I think the article could be clearer about these aspects in the lead and the body. Whizz40 (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅--Whizz40 (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Legacy
This section could be a bit broader in its coverage. The fishing industry remains important to Iceland's economy today (and fishing rights remain an issue in Brexit). There is a perception in Iceland that EU membership (and its Common Fisheries Policy) would have an adverse effect on the fishing industry (see Iceland–European_Union_relations). Do sources discuss the influence of the Cod Wars on public opinion in this regard? From a legal perspective, EU membership would bring fishing rights under EU law rather than international law so it would change the status quo achieved by Iceland during the Cod Wars. Again, do sources discuss this? Whizz40 (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅--Whizz40 (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead
There are currently too may inline references after the second sentence of the lead (see Citation overkill). Can we use only the best reference here and move the rest to relevant sections of the article or to a further reading section please? Whizz40 (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅--Whizz40 (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

ICGV Ægir
Within the section on the First Cod War, there is discussion of the actions of a ICGV Ægir. However, it is almost certain that this vessel—while having the same name as the ICGV Ægir that was commissioned in 1968 and served in the last two Cod Wars—was a vessel that does not currently have a Wiki page. For this reason, I would appreciate someone more well-read on the subject to confirm this, as well as a discussion of how to alter the text to distinguish the actions of one ICGV Ægir from the other. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅--Darius (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Background section, improvements needed (14th to 20th centuries)
Dropped this text and replaced with cited text from Fish for finance: "The first episode was a dispute between Norway and England in 1415 to 1425 over England's trading with Iceland in violation of Norway's monopoly on the Icelandic trade. The dispute ended when the English arrested Eric of Pomerania's officials in Iceland, effectively restoring the Anglo-Icelandic trade."

Whizz40 (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

NATO => Nato
@John Maynard Friedman has requested further elaboration for my edit changing `NATO` to `Nato`. What I provided (edit summary), "replaced all NATO with Nato, per en-GB" I will admit after submitting, does not give enough context. I wouldn't imagine it would be a particularly controversial edit. But here are my points.

Unless there is evidence that this is wrong or insufficient, I only see three options: Kindly, Akalendos (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:Manual of Style calls for a specific national variety for use in an article, for consistency (in variety).
 * This article's designated variety is the British spelling conventions (`en-GB`).
 * Nato is the common spelling for this term in the United Kingdom. It does not have much usage in North America, which could be why you are not familiar with the capitalisation.
 * For British news, the BBC and The Guardian style guides recommend this spelling's use for this class of words. (feel free to check other British style guides)
 * 1) The language tag is wrong being `en-GB`. (ridiculuous)
 * 2) (after seeing new evidence) British spelling is sufficiently ambivalent on the issue that `NATO` should be used for more international recognisability, like it is a colloquial regionalism.
 * 3) The spelling `Nato` should be used throughout this article.
 * Acronym is a related section on wp:acronym

Akalendos (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking this to the talk page:
 * Yes, to attach a language tag would be ridiculous and pedantic.
 * The Economist style guide says NATO – all caps –  throughout, for example: acroynym A pronunceable word, formed from the initials of other words, like radar, nimby or NATO. It is not a set of initials, like the BBC or the IMF. So 'Nato' is not indisputably "common practice in the UK".
 * Per wp:WORLDWIDE and WP:principle of least surprise, the style should be that recognised by the very large majority of readers. Including those from the UK.
 * The article is about a dispute between Iceland and the UK, so the article should respect both perspectives. A google search for "nato site:.is" give me a mix of responses but the caps form has a clear majority. Top of the list in English language comes Iceland and NATO (Government of Iceland) and first in Icelandic is NATO-þingið (Parliament of Iceland).
 * Sorry but this just reads like a case of WP:RGW, not WP:ENVAR. It is a substantial change and you don't have consensus as of now. But let's see what other editors have to say. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for pointing that out. Akalendos (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While your concern about capitalization (or not) of the acronym "NATO" is perfectly understandable, I agree with JMF regarding the huge consensus needed for changing to lower case when the article is written in British English. Personally I am for applying WP:PLA, since the all-capital acronym "NATO" is already widely used.
 * Darius (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with retaining the all caps NATO variation, per good points raised by JMF and Darius. TylerBurden (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)