Talk:History of Iceland

Article text?
I don't know, maybe I'm just overcritical, but doesn't this read like an encyclopedia article, especially the top paragraph. Moquel 05:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Climatic changes
The article states that there were climatic changes for the worse. What kind of changes? This needs to be more specific.

Volcanic eruptions
Why is there nothing about the number of set-backs the population suffered becuase of the volcanic eruptions? --Red King 21:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naddoddr
The spelling barely exists in Google (most references are based on wikipedia copies too). Althoughthe alternative spelling is barely used too. Lotsofissues 11:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Irish slaves in Iceland
...the article somehow fails to mention them. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 18:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There were thralls all over Iceland and Scandinavia. They were one of the main "commodities" traded by the Vikings, but I don't know whether it is interesting enough be mentioned in the Scandinavian history articles.--Wiglaf 18:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There were undoubtably slaves in Iceland, but they never appear to have been numerous, and seem to have been pretty much gone altogether by the year 1262. Zoso 02:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The article could well do with being less dismissive of early Gaels in Iceland. At the moment, it is clearly biased, and does not conform to NPOV spirit. If no-one else does so, I will insert some of the arguments for early Gaelic presence and influence. Secondly, when Gaelic is meant, Gaelic should be used; not merely Irish, but both Irish and Scottish. If Irish has to be used to mean both Irish and Scottish, as it frequently is used, this should be made clear.  Calgacus 02:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see much "dismissive" attitude in it. The term Irish is being used as that is what is discussed up here, no one means scottish. There is still little hard evidence for the settlements of those before 874, including Gaelic, Irish or Scottish monks. I leave the discussion of that to the archealogists. --Stalfur 20:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You kinda missed the point. Irish is being used where Gaelic is far more justified historically, esp. given the orientation of Iceland in relation to the Gaels. Anyways, textual evidence for Gaelic monks in Iceland is overwhelming. Of course there's little no archaelogical evidence, what on earth would you expect from a few hundred monks living on such a large island for so little time?! Calgacus 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Many do not want to admit a Gaelic presence, though ample documentation exists; but they want to suggest the Gaels were slaves, though documentation does not exist for this notion. So people are simultaneously denying a Gaelic presence, whilst suggesting Gaels were slaves. This article is in dire need of a moderator to purge the bias.
 * There's plenty of documentation for Irish slaves, so that claim is not biased. --D. Webb 02:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But it is biased. Because of an "Islandic saga" and other literary artifacts, the article states flatly that Irish were slaves, as if this is factual. But the proof for the Irish preceding the Norse in Iceland also lies in "literary artifacts" and yet the article is adamant that no archaeological evidence exists to support the claim that the Irish precede the Norse, and hence the article strongly yearns to deny this notion. If one wishes to claim the Irish were slaves, one must equally claim that the Irish were the first inhabitants, because both claims are based on literary evidence. It is biased to suggest "the Irish were said to be the first inhabitants, but this is unlikely" while simulatenously postulating "the Irish were undisputably slaves" when working on literary artifacts in both scenarios. Celts were present in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons, so it's hardly strenous to imagine Celts preceding Norsemen in Iceland. (ag789)


 * Icelanders were keen enough to claim descent from Kjarvalr Írakonungr when the Landnámabók was being made up/collated/whatever. That rather speaks against any popular conception of the Irish as second class people in C11th Iceland. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's true, Irish probably weren't considered second class people in the 11th century. There also was no slavery in Iceland in the 11th century. Slavery was earlier, from the first settlement in 874 to the end of the 10th century (and even then the Irish slaves probably weren't considered second class in virtue of being Irish). And Icelanders were, to be sure, ready enough to recognize their descendace from anyone of noble birth. It should, however, be mentioned that not all literary evidence is equally good. Landnámabook is thought to be a reliable document. We know of almost no indipendent Irish settlers. The settlers certainly had slaves and at least some slaves were Irish. That much is indisputable. Furthermore, there is no archaeological evidence for earlier Irish settlement, i.e. before Norse settlement in Iceland. As for the claim that if one wants to maintain that the Irish were slaves then one is also committed to saying that the Irish were the first inhabitants because both claims rest on literary evidence, that's a blatant logical fallacy. (a) Not all literary sources are equally reliable, one may choose to rely on one source rather than another - perhaps even with good reason. But the sources must be evaluated on a case by case basis. (b) We have (rather reliable) sources claiming that the settlers brought Irish slaves along with them, and so there's no need assume solely on the basis of the fact that there were Irish slaves that they must have been there earlier. So, what is needed is either archaeological evidence, but there is none, or reliable written documents, but such written documents are scarce and none are unambiguous, explicit and undisputable. Even if they were, they would then conflict with a strange silence about these inhabitants in our other sources. Therefore, it seems only right to not make too big a deal of this in the article or to draw any conclusions from this. The article seems fine the way it is and not at all biased (refraining from drawing shaky conclusions from disputed evidence is not POV, especially since the article does mention the evidence rather than suppress it). --D. Webb 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly true that not all pieces of literary evidence are equally credible. However, in the present case, you can hardly suggest Landnámabók is more credible than the work of Ari Þorgilsson -- the latter probably influenced the former greatly. Further, one could add the claim of descent from Kjarvalr Írakonungr found in the Landnámabók as further backing of the Irish origin theory. (ag789)
 * I'm not discrediting Ari as an author, but rather doubting his puzzling statement, which is far from clear and indubitable. I'm not saying it's definitely false either. But the bottom line is that the article isn't biased. --D. Webb 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Some changes
This article has been annoying me since I saw it first and now I have finally decided to go wiki on it and make it less annoying. The things I changed include: The article bugs me less now although it can be improved drastically still. The WWII section and the post-WWII section especially need drastic changes as they are seemingly written mostly from the American perspective that Iceland is essentially a giant aircraft carrier. It's strange that all the emphasis is on defense matters when we are dealing with a country that does not even have an army. A lot more needs to be said on this period with regard to the dramatic social, cultural, political and economic changes. --Bjarki 23:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Dividing section on settlement into one section about the age of settlement and one about the commonwealth period, this distinction is the usual practice of Icelandic historians.
 * Removed several incorrect references to Vikings (plunderers) where it should correctly refer to the Norse people in general. A Viking is not a ethnicity, it's a uhm... profession.
 * Mentioned the Irish slaves.
 * Expanded the early history section.
 * Removed odd notice from the top.

Irish monks in Iceland.
"There is some literary evidence that Irish monks had settled in Iceland before the arrival of the Norse. However, there is no archaeological evidence to support such settlement. The 12th century scholar Ari Þorgilsson wrote in his book, Íslendingabók, that small bells, corresponding to those used by Irish monks, were found by the settlers. No such artifacts have been discovered by archaeologists, however."

This paragraph is a problem. It reflects a very small minority opinion, and in fact is not really supportable with citations except from a few secondary source texts. The authors of such opinions vary widely in being qualified to comment on the subject. The one source provided within the History of Iceland article itself is by a reputable scholar, but his views do not reflect the prevailing acamdemic conclusions at this time, or even what is considered factual in general reference texts (Encyclopaedia Britannica and similar publications).

Need I justify a re-write of the paragraph here, or do those of you who are interested in this topic want me to just go ahead and do it? I have no problem presenting both sides of the topic if that is what is desired.

It goes without saying, I suppose, that I also consider the Papar article to need similar attention... but one task at a time. :) P.MacUidhir 00:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean, what exactly is the opinion reflected in this passage? Is the lack of archaeological evidence subject to debate? --Bjarki 00:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The minority opinion expressed in the paragraph (and the source cited for it in the article) is an implied one- that the Irish monks likely were not in fact present in Iceland before the Scandinavian settlers arrived. This opinion does not reflect general or academic views, and that is why I have a problem with it as it is currently written in the History of Iceland article. The opinion also is contrary to logic, but that is another matter entirely. P.MacUidhir 01:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * All I see in this paragraph are facts, no one can know anything about this for sure. But feel free to add the educated opinion of these historians. I am interested in how they argue for that point. --Bjarki 02:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, mostly- the statements in the paragraph are all seemingly accurate, as far as they go, except that they leave out so much data that they almost appear to be written to serve a particular agenda rather than reporting simple factual data.


 * As for the historians to mention, naturally the ones I would (and will, for the most part) utilise are Icelanders themselves: "Þa vóro her menn Cristner þeir es Norðmenn calla Papa." Give me a few days to make digital copies of the relevant sources and we shall then have what is necessary to support a re-write of the paragraph dealing with Irish monks who are reported in sources but seemingly disappeared without a trace.

Church power
There is no mention anywhere in the article about the growing power of the church in Iceland following Gamli sáttmáli, or about the often colourful relations between the two bishops, in Hólar and Skálholt.

Even more importantly, Iceland's somewhat bloody conversion to Protestantism is not mentioned. - Zoso 19:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Added images
I added some images to spruce things up a bit. It's a much more lively read now ;) Palthrow 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice! Be careful with the licencing, though. Icelandic government publications are not in the public domain (except for the laws). - Haukur 22:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

World War II occupation
Is it accurate to call the WWII occupation an "invasion and occupation of Iceland by Allied forces in violation of international law, which would last throughout the war" when the article goes on to say that a defense agreement was signed with Iceland in 1941? Presumedly it was no longer a violation of international law from that point on. MK2 05:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC) --- I'd like to add my reservations. The piece reads too much as if there was some sort of equivalent between the Nazi occupation of Denmark and the Allied occupation of Iceland, which is nonsense.


 * Well, to be fair the Icelandic constitution from 1918 declared Iceland a sovereign, eternally neutral country. That neutrality was violated by the British.  In all likelihood most Icelanders would have preferred occupation by the British to occupation by the Germans, but that doesn't change the legal aspect.  The violation of Belgian neutrality by the Germans vs. occupation of Iceland by the British would, to my best knowledge, be legally equivalent -- although it must be noted that Allied treatment of the Icelandic population was commendable, and the Icelanders accepted the situation with grace, culminating in the signing of the defence agreement. -- Palthrow 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The early part of the German occupation of Denmark and the early part of the British occupation of Iceland were quite similar. Both governments cooperated with the occupying forces and were in turn largely allowed to run business as usual. There is no moral condemnation implicit in this. Drawing this parallel in the article isn't strictly necessary but it isn't entirely out of place either to put the events in Iceland in context with what was happening in Christian X's other kingdom. Haukur 15:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

EEA membership and economic reform (changes
I took the liberty of changing the present nouns to past and I also erased the following sentence;"and Iceland is now one of the wealthiest countries in the world according to OECD statistics" I just can't see the truth in that sentence at this time!

Quality
This page has the potential to be a Good Article, if careful attention is paid to the French, Norwegian, and Icelandic versions all of which have achieved this status. I started this improvement by adding a rudimentary Navbox.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Added brief lead --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Added Historiography --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Sverrir Jakobsson
Downloadable papers

Legend of how Iceland got its name
The article says:

Naddoddr ''shared the news with his fellow Vikings about this new land and how great the summer was, the news about the new land spread quickly to the other Scandinavians which lead to questions about this new land and where it was. The Vikings kept Iceland a secret and tricked the other Scandinavian people about a horrible, cold place, and unbearable winter this "Ice-land" place was.The Vikings then spoke to steer clear of the North-west and to sail much more South-west to "Green-land" where Naddoddr had came from had survived a bearable winter. Tricking all the Scandinavian people to keep this New Found land to themselves, thus how "Iceland" and "Greenland" both got their name. Shortly after the lies were spread the Scandinavians set sail to this Green-land and reached there around the time of year winter was, which the conditions were unbearable and most of the Scandinavians died at Green-land. ''

This is a legend presented as fact but with no citations or evidence. Wikipedia's own Greenland page contradicts this, stating that

In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that the Norwegian-born Icelander Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for manslaughter. Along with his extended family and his thralls, he set out in ships to explore icy land known to lie to the northwest. After finding a habitable area and settling there, he named it  (translated as "Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers. Camerajohn (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Gender bias section
I am a bit confused as to why this section is included in this article. I understand it is under 'Historiography' and is supposed to note the lack of females from the history books. However, my problem is that this statement is inherent to all histories. It is not by any stretch exclusive to Icelandic history, so should not all articles relating to history have a section about the lack of females represented in history? I also take issue with the title, "Gender bias". The cited article merely reveals facts about the lack of women from recorded history; nowhere does it prove causation of past human bias (bias meaning prejudice). The simple existence of a lack of females in Icelandic history does not inherently prove bias. I believe it should be removed or at least reworked. --Bathes (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let us keep it-- it is fully sourced and explicitly devoted to topics in Icelandic historiography. As far as other articles on other countries are concerned, this can be a model for them. Rjensen (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How about just changing the title then to something like "Female exclusion" or "Male proclivity" to avoid implying intent? Furthermore, the first two sentences are not sourced and the first sentence seems irrelevant. However, I do agree the cited article's information is interesting and important. --Bathes (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"Imprisoned by Hedge Funds"
I'm deleting that whole sentence ("Iceland, and its population, is imprisoned by hedge funds that bought depts for a penny and want to get some dollars out.")It's both badly written and obviously biased. If someone wants to put a more thoughtful version of that statement on the economy of iceland page go for it.71.59.154.114 (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wanted to add, I also cleaned up the language around the sentence I removed, but there really needs to be citations on a lot of that stuff in the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.154.114 (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on History of Iceland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120220165654/http://www.gestgjafinn.is/english/nr/349 to http://www.gestgjafinn.is/english/nr/349
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090926060453/http://www1.american.edu/TED/icefish.htm to http://www.american.edu/TED/icefish.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Iceland. 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/20121102014336/http://www.statice.is/Pages/444?NewsID=9181 to http://www.statice.is/Pages/444?NewsID=9181
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150806081805/http://hurstpub.co.uk/ to http://www.hurstpub.co.uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202122250/http://starfsfolk.khi.is/helgisk/ to http://starfsfolk.khi.is/helgisk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051129025406/http://www.iceland.or.jp/Files/iceland/his.htm to http://www.iceland.or.jp/Files/iceland/his.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) 07:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Iceland. 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/20120220165654/http://www.gestgjafinn.is/english/nr/349 to http://www.gestgjafinn.is/english/nr/349
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160119155935/http://www.sogufelag.is/ to http://www.sogufelag.is/

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) 04:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

is WP:BOLD swuppended for this article?
I made a (small) change. Someone reverted it. I reverted the reversion, requesting the reverter to explain and debate his reasons on the talk page first. Someone again reverted, again without any comment here, claiming I have to seek permission here first before making any changes.

So - is WP:BOLD abolished on this page? Do we need permission now to edit? Wefa (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(And I repeat my request to user:Ymblanter and user:Rjensen to explain their reasons for their reversion of my edit.) Wefa (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Invasion of Iceland

 * I provided a citation for a well known condition re 1940, replacing an uncourced claim that I think is false and POV. to be BOLD you need to provide a reliable source, otherwise it is below Wiki standards. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD applies. It does not say you can revert your opponents as long as you wish.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * this is baffling. I wrote that Britain invaded Iceland. I do not think there is any controversy about that. Furthermore, both this and other WP articles describe the invasion and the subsequent occupation in detail and are well sourced. It is amply clear that Britain invaded with military personnel equipped with lethal weapons and willing and able to use them should they find resistance.
 * To put it more bluntly, the British landed 400 trained military men armed to their teeth, who were destined and willing to murder any Icelandic man, woman or child who tried defend their country against the seizure by a foreibn power. The Icelandic government protested at every step.


 * That is not "peaceful". Calling this "peaceful" is a travesty of truth. It is like calling a bank robbery a "voluntary transfer of money." Yes, I am aware that this attribute has been used, both contemporary and currently, in an euphemistic manner. But this euphemism is far away from the truth, and not factually supported by any source. This was a violent military invasion - and the only thing that prevented major loss of life at the Beginning was Iceland's decision not to offer any resistance.


 * The existing sources document this extensively. I do not have to bring new ones. To the contrary. I object to a wording in the article that itself is not supported but contradicted by sources and that is a mockery of historical truth. Wefa (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * that's very heavy POV -- destined and willing to murder any Icelandic man, woman or child  as far as "defend their country" -- text says ". Denmark was to represent its foreign affairs and defense interests" --the defense and foreign policy was in the control of Denmark which had been taken over by Nazis, and Norway lacked any military resources to defend itself against German-controlled Denmark.  Rjensen (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense. Iceland was a sovereign state, at least since 1918, arguably longer. You might want to read the article we are debating. They shared the Danish crown as head of state. As for the troop's orders, I very much doubt they had any rules of engagement suggesting to withdraw should they encounter resistance. As I read it they had a robust mandate to destroy any armed resistance as they saw fit. Again, no source I know of claims otherwise. So my readiong is not POV, it is accurate. Yours is not. Wefa (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Iceland was not a sovereign state if its foreign & domestic policy was controlled by Denmark, which in turn was controlled by Germany. The Icelanders did not resist, the British did not rough anyone up.  Murder seems to be on your agenda but not that of any RS.  Rjensen (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense again. Iceland was a sovereign state, proclaimed by the 1918 Act of Union, and Denmark was not to control its foreign policy, it was to provide international representation and defense of Iceland's neutrality. The fact that Iceland subsequently lost most of this defense capability by Denmark being occupied does not remove its sovereignty. Wefa (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * please cite your sources for that speculation. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * what speculation? Wefa (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * your entire text--you have no sources.. You seem unaware the Iceland did not join the League of nations, was not recognized as independent, sent no ambassadors, and received no ambassadors from other countries. Rjensen (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A compromise could be "invaded and peacefully occupied". Regarding what has been argued here, I'd like to make the following points:
 * It was an unwelcomed invasion, peacefulness doesn't change that.
 * Iceland was a sovereign state at the time. It shared a monarch with Denmark and, for the time being, the Danish government took care of foreign policy and defence. This arrangement was such that Icelanders were free to make changes to it when they felt ready to move on.
 * There is no evidence suggesting that the British were particularly willing to use violence to achieve their means. If shot at, I have no doubt they would have shot back, but they restrained themselves considerably and were generally friendly, realising without a doubt that they were not occupying an enemy territory.
 * The invasion was obviously a violation of Iceland's sovereignty and the British did other things, such as disabling communications, which would count as violations. There is however no indication that they were willing to overthrow the government or meddle in local affairs.
 * Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with the language proposed by S.Örvarr.S Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Rjensen (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * well, it is at least better than what is there now. I still think "peaceful" should not be there (maybe "unbloody"), because the threat of violence was always there, and the allies forced Iceland to become participant in a war it did not want to join in the first place, and a few hundred of its citizens lost their lives over that, one way or the other. Wefa (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * will somebody make the change - or shall I do it? Wefa (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By the power invested in me by absolutely nobody, I hereby deputise you so that you may perform this task. With great power comes practically no responsibility. Now off you go. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)