Talk:Iceland/Archive 1

Miscellaneous topics
The following subsections were added after the fact to better organize the discussions. The section headings were chosen by 69.3.70.60 and not by the original commentators.

Edits and travel/tourism proposal
I did some edits to this page and to the economics subpage. I noticed that there is nothing about travel/tourism in Iceland and was thinking about adding a short section about it and a subpage with links to official tourism sites, maps and such. I will not be plugging any specific firms but believe a lot of people could benefit from something like that. Does anyone object to such a section/article?

-- Torfason 16:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments moved from talk:Wikipedia category schemes
moved from talk:Wikipedia category schemes

I have a comment for your page on Iceland. Iceland does not have its own military and is not providing troops for the NATO mission in Bosnia. Iceland is providing doctors and nurses. The United States has a small military base in Keflavik and these personnel provide defense for Iceland.

While Iceland doesn't have an army, Iceland has sent the "Crisis Response Unit" which has military training and is armed and uniformed and does have military rank to command both KAIA withing ISAF, and Slatina in Kosovo within KFOR. These units, although not officially acnowledged to be military for domestic comsumption, have used military ID's and operate like a military unit. As for Bosnia, Iceland also sent police as well as these nurses. And the military base in Keflavik is currently barely capable of defending itself, as of now its a theatrical gesture, unarmed F-15s have no military power unless the pilots are willing to die for any effectm, unless they are only for reconaisence... -Kjallakr 16:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Date of independence
It's incorrect to say that Iceland became independent on 17 June 1944 - that's the date it became a republic, but it had become independent of Denmark in 1919 as a kingdom, retaining the same monarch as Denmark. Sveinn Björnsson was ambassador to Denmark 1919-1940, then became Regent of Iceland when the King was trapped in Copenhagen, and finally became the first President. - Arwel

-- Actually that was in 1918. -Ómar K.

It is, in fact, absolutely correct that Iceland gained independence from Denmark on 17th June 1944. It had since 1st December 1918 been a sovereign nation under the rule of the Danish monarch. Sovereignty is not quite the same as independence. - Stefán

I think Stefán may be incorrect and it's a mistake I have made myself in the context of Ireland. The Irish Free State gained home rule from the UK in 1921, which was not independence. Later, however, the UK offered independence in 1937, but retaining the link to the monarchy. Many believed that loyalty to the same King as the UK meant that it was not independence. In fact, Irish legislation was to be ratified by the King of Ireland while UK legislation was to be ratified by the King of the UK, although both roles were fulfilled by the same individual. While Ireland is now a Republic, legislation for Canada, New Zealand, Australia, etc is ratified by their respective monarchs, which happens to be Queen Elizabeth II. When legislation is enacted in, say New Zealand, the monarch is acting only in the interests of New Zealand and is not referencing the UK.Nelson50 22:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion
I'm reverting 80.213.8.14's edit, which is described as "removed irrelevant info". Apart from removing the disambiguation with the British supermarket chain "Iceland", he has replaced all the ð, Þ, and ý in the article by, and y´ -- which not only look terrible but have broken links to various other articles such as Davíð Oddsson and Siglufjörður. -- Arwel 01:21, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Another reversion
Removed "Electricity 230V, 50Hz" which was inserted at the bottom of the page by 130.226.80.139 -- it may well be correct, but it was in an inappropriate place on the page and I can't think of a good place to put it if we want to keep it! Arwel 20:41, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

More on independence
Icelands date of independence is indeed 1918. If not declared League of Nations mandate would had come into play. The British Monarch is still head of Australia, St Lucia, and so on. Those nations are still independent thought and the same could be said for protectorates... Vital component

Those nations are also sovereign in their foreign policy and defense which Iceland was not in 1918-1944, the highest court of the Icelandic judicial system was in Copenhagen as well... that's a lot of authority placed in a another country. Biekko


 * Ideas of sovereignty and independence in the early part of the last century were a bit different from today. Although Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc were independent in the 19th century it's arguable that they weren't fully independent until 1931; the Royal New Zealand Navy wasn't created until 1937, previously it was the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy; until the introduction of Canadian citizenship in 1947 triggered a review of citizenship laws, all Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and others were British subjects, etc. Arwel 11:38, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Highest court of the Icelandic judicial system was only in Copenhagen until 1920, when Hæstiréttur was founded. As for the defence of Iceland, according to the Constitution at the time, every able bodied Icelander was supposed to be conscriptable and the various gun clubs (skotfélög) did train for such an event. Current defence situation fo Iceland is similar still. It could be said that the Icelandic situation of the time, is like the situation of the current members of EU, who have relinquished parts of the sovereignty to EU institutions, yet are supposedly able to take it back. - 130.208.165.5 01:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for Celtic immigrants?
Iceland was first settled by Norwegians and Celtic (Scottish and Irish) immigrants during the late 9th and 10th century.

Is there any evidence for Celtic immigrants? The article History of Iceland does not mention them. --zeno 10:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's always been known that a sizable proportion of the settling population was of celtic origin, however the size of this celtic population is not agreed upon. Latest studies using genetic diognosis of the modern Iceland population suggest that up to 50% of the original Icelanders may have been of celtic origin and the other half of nordic origin. This celtic population does not play a big role in ancient manuscripts though, most likely because these people were of the lowest social classes, slaves even. They were brought to Iceland from Britain and Ireland by Viking warlords as servants and poor peasants. There is a disputed theory as well that suggest that a permanent settlements of Celtic people existed in Iceland before the arrival of the Norse, that theory is mainly based on the assumptions that 60 years (870-930) are not enough time for the population of Iceland going from zero to 50,000 and that someone must have been there before.

I might try and add this information to the articles in question sometime this week or someone else could do it of course. --Biekko 11:15, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why its true that Iceland and Denmark shared the same monarch from 1918 until 1944 Iceland's date of independence is still 1918. The Danish Monarch was more like King Charles II who was king of an independent Scotland and England then Ferdinand's Austro-Hungarian Empire which was one country as opposed to England and Scotland which were two separate kingdoms.


 * like I've stressed before... the relationship between Denmark and Icleand was much much deeper than just sharing a monarch! The highest authority of the judicial branch was in Copenhagen as well as authority over defense and foreign relations, I can not accept that to be 'independence'. --Biekko 13:17, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I bet you list 1989 as half of Europe's independence too... --Vital component Feb 29 2004 11:24 am

1918 is the year of sovereignty, that's how we recognize it who live in this country. Biekko 16:49, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oldest parliament
Althing: The oldest parliament of the world was in Grece, in Athens. --Reykholt 21:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * ssh!! dont tell any icelander that, and yes, dont dispute that they found america either;=) --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:34, 2004 May 20 (UTC)


 * Lol, Althingi is the oldest something... It's the oldest legislative assembly still in existence. Perhaps we should rephrase this tourist ad. --Biekko 12:15, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

The politics section
I merged the list of political parties that was in the politics section with the list that was already on List of political parties in Iceland. --Biekko 09:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Official language
Regarding Io's last edit claiming that Iceland has no official language. I wonder what exactly is needed for a language to be considered an official language in a country. There is no clause in the laws of Iceland stating that Icelandic is the official language but it seems to be assumed. Icelandic is defined as the language to be used in the court system though by laws 91/1991 and various laws refer to "foreign languages" regarding obligations to translate certain documents into Icelandic. Laws about RUV (state broadcasting company) also state that one of the main objectives of RUV is to protect Icelandic language, history and cultural heritage. And then there are the laws about personal names which prohibit people to carry names that don't fit into the grammars of Icelandic. --Biekko 14:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The gist of the above is what I meant by de facto. Every society has one or more assumed languages, but not all assign offical status to any particular language. Io 14:38, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * He might be right, it is strongly implied but does it actually say that it is anywhere? -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   17:53, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not a major point. There are no laws proclaiming Icelandic to be an official language, but Icelandic is certainly the main language of communication. If it came to that, the Alþingi would probably not have any qualms about making it so. The issue has simply not arisen. But there is, still, a difference between having a universal accepted language, and having the constitution claim sole status for any one language. South Africa and India, for example, probably need to list their official languages. Then we have the French, who have decided, that only French is constitutional - leading to problems for Basques, Bretons and other minorities. All in all, I think it is relevant, that you don't need any particular exemptions for the use of other languages in schools, court etc. Cheers Io 17:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The fact is that there is no such thing as a globally accepted definition of an official language and the claim that a official language needs to be declared as such in a written constution is simply not correct. It ignores other sources of law such as legislation, administrative law, custom and precedence which may very well designate one language as official in a state just like a constitutional text can. Indeed the constitution of Iceland is much more than just the written document. No one would suggest that German isn't the official language of Germany despite not being defined as such in the written constitution and the same goes for Iceland. --Bjarki 01:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually there is an Icelandic law which states that all laws must be in Icelandic, except if those laws are very specialized and few people will have to obey them, in which case it is not illegal to write them in globally accepted language in the field. In addition to this there are many other laws which state that Icelandic must be used. The fact that no laws state to the letter that Icelandic is an official language, is because there is no legal need to. Unneeded laws waste pages (and thus money) in the Lawbook. It is thus "Accustomed" (or as in Icelandic legal talk: Venja) that Icelandic is the official language. -Kjallakr 04:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Z
Ekki nema rúmlega tvítugur og skrifar zetu! Skál fyrir þér. :-) (Apologies to any non-natives who might be reading this - I just had to). Cheers Io 18:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand this bit:


 * Only when the party leaders are unable to reach a conclusion by themselves in reasonable time does the president exercise this power and appoint the cabinet himself. This has only happened once, in 1942, and that was actually before the republic was founded, although the regent, Sveinn Björnsson, who had been appointed in 1941, later went on to become the country's first president.

The president has only appointed the cabinet once, and someone later went on to become the first president? So who was doing the appointing of the cabinet? *confused* 66.92.237.111 02:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The office of the regent that Sveinn Björnsson held at that time was in most ways like that of the President after the republic was founded, the regent appointed the government, not the president as that office did not exist yet. It is true, this is rather unclear. --Biekko 14:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I rephrased the offending bit a little for clarity. I hope it makes more sense now Io 20:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Celtic settlement
"Many of the Scots and Irish were female captives... It is thought that Irish monks had come to Iceland some thirty years before the first viking came to Iceland, but they left before the vikings came to settle the country."

These two statements are inaccurate (the first) and probably untrue (the latter). Many of the first settlers came from Viking settlements in the British isles, such as Dublin, with an ethnically and religiously mixed entourage and slaves (including slaves of Scandinavian origin - as slavery was not limited to "others") but it is a gross oversimplification to sum this up as "female captives", as they were equally male and female, according to all written sources - there is no evidence whatsoever that they were predominantly female, that is none except one recent research comparing the genes of modern Icelanders with modern Irish, which should be considered highly dubious for obvious reasons. As for the latter assumption, it comes from one medieval source and is thought by most modern scholars to be simply wrong. Although it could be put in the article History_of_Iceland it should be omitted here. --213.220.103.152 14:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not editing this in the article for now, as there seems to be the shadow of an edit war going on around this theme...--213.220.103.152 14:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hvamm of Aud the Deep-Minded
In the book Outrageous Women of the Middle Ages (Vicki León, ISBN 0-471-17004-6) and other sources, it is said that Aud the Deep-Minded founded Hvamm in the Dalir region of Iceland. León suggests that Icelanders still call it that today, but I can't find any trace of it on Expedia's world topographical maps, which are usually pretty good at locating non-U.S. geographical names. I suspect it may be Hvammur, near Hjaraðarholt and Buðardalur. Does anyone know a definitive location for this Hvamm? &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 19:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Auður "djúpúðga" Ketilsdóttir was the first settler in Hvammur in Skeggjadalur. Your problems googling this come from León's removing ending or article from Icelandic words and names (incorrect IMHO). -- Sindri 13:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * León isn't the only one. Expedia was the only place where I've seen "Hvamm" spelled "Hvammur", and you're the first source I have for "Auður". It looks like all the English translations of the various sagas drop those endings. IMHO, if one is going to use a name, one might as well get it right. (I'm sure typesetting issues have been involved in the past, but that's the beauty of modern typography and Unicode browsers.) I have three follow-on questions:
 * 1. What do those articles and endings imply? I'd like to know what's missing from "Auður" and "Hvammur".
 * For "Auður" it is simply the ending of the word, calling her "Auð" is like calling you "Je". "Hvammur" is the nominative, other cases are (about) "Hvamm", (from) "Hvammi", (to) "Hvamms".  Icelandic words should probably always be used in nominative in english sentences since english only has that case. --Sindri 18:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, English has several other cases &mdash; just not for nouns, except for possessive. But your point is well-taken. Jeff Q 23:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2. What cities or towns are near this Hvammur? Incredibly, Expedia can't find "Skeggjadalur", either, unless it's "Skeggjastaðir". (This clueless English speaker can't tell, but I know one cannot make this assumption with U.S. location names.) A few other town names might help me pinpoint it on a map. Jeff Q 23:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * this is Hvammur í Skeggjadal near Búðardalur. Skeggjadalur is the name of the valley Hvammur is in (Skeggis valley). --Sindri 18:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent. My guess was correct, but it was only a guess without your confirmation. I think Expedia needs more disambiguating geographical data on Iceland. Jeff Q 23:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3. What does "djúpúðga" mean? Is it not a name?
 * Djúpúðga is her nickname and means "Deep-Minded" (it was common for vikings to have nicknames describing their virtues). --Sindri 18:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah! I see why León included it; I just wish she'd made the explicit connection. Jeff Q 23:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your help! &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 15:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, Sindri, I really appreciate your assistance! &mdash; Jeff Q (talk) 23:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tourism numbers
I was just wondering where the tourism numbers came from, because I find it hard to believe that Britons and Americans make up the two largest groups of tourists in Iceland. Having lived in an area of Reykjavik full of "sights" and hotels I always got the impression that at least half of all the tourists were German, and indeed it's very common to joke about the abundance of German tourists (as well as their... eccentricities) among members of the hospitality industry.


 * See this document. The largest tourist groups in 2004 were:


 * 1) UK 60.375
 * 2) USA 48.700
 * 3) Germany 38.726
 * 4) Denmark 32.932
 * 5) Sweden 26.993
 * 6) Norway 26.815
 * 7) France 21.600
 * --Bjarki 16:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did France try to exchange Louisiana for Iceland in the 18th Century?
I've found this story on a German website (www.radiomultikulti.de). Is it true??? (For those who can't read German, it says that in the 18th Century, France contemplated with Denmark exchaging Louisiana for Iceland, in order to challenge Britain's naval forces).

"Reykjavik heißt übersetzt rauchende Bucht. Es hat nicht viel gefehlt und Reykjavik würde heute Baie de Fumée heißen.

''Denn historische Dokumente belegen: Frankreich hatte im 18. Jahrhundert Dänemark den heutigen US-Bundesstaat Louisiana als Tauschobjekt für Island angeboten.''

Neuesten Forschungsergebnissen zufolge, plante Frankreich auf Island einen Flottenstützpunkt zu errichten, um den Schiffsverkehr des damaligen Erzfeindes England zu stören."--62.6.139.12 10:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If this is true (I think not), it is far from common knowledge and you need much better sources than radio multikulti before putting this into the article. --Sindri 16:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually think this is true, there was a lengthy piece about this in Morgunblaðið just some weeks ago, that is a fairly reliable source I would say. --Bjarki 20:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * See:, and . It appears that this was never anything but a far-fetched dream on the behalf of the French, they never actually offered the trade to to Denmark. I don't think this is significant enough to be included in a short summary of Icelandic history but perhaps these facts could be worked into the History of Iceland article. --Bjarki 20:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Religion in Iceland
This morning User:194.144.20.165 made a number of sensible edits to this article, which generally gave the impression that they had local knowledge. One of those edits was to remove references to minority religions, but that was reverted by User:Sindri with the suggestion that this was a strange edit trying to suppress information.

Now in general a country based article should explain the broad characteristics of a country and most include a section discussioning the religious make up of the country. However, it is a distortion and POV to mention every religion represented in a country no matter how small. In the UK, the official statistics include a 0.7% proportion of the parody religion Jedi. In this case, it looks like the primary list of religions is based on census statistics and is truncated at the 1 - 2% level. Any religion with <1% representation can hardly be said to be characteristic of Iceland and I can't see any reason to mention them here.

Rather than trying to suggest that there is a non-Christian mix in Iceland, it would be more appropriate to say that Iceland has a remarkably low proportion of Buddhists and Muslims compared to other European countries.

Is there some reason to suggest that Jehovah's Witnesses and Bahá'í are particularly well represented in Iceland? If so, then those reasons should be discussed. If not, it seems odd to mention these religions at all. -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, this is correct and undisputed information... and Wiki is not paper. --Bjarki 7 July 2005 14:47 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are some Bahá'í in the UK, but they are not mentioned in the Religion in the United Kingdom article and they barely show up in the national census. To mention them would be POV as it would suggest that they have some relevance to the religious makeup of the UK and they don't.
 * The same is probably true of Iceland. Unless there is some reason to suspect there is an unusually large number of Bahá'í in Iceland, there is no reason to mention it and it is POV to do so.
 * To put it another way, why are these four religions being singled out for mention in the 6% Others group, rather than for example Jews, Moonies, and Sikhs. -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)


 * In the case of UK, there is no way to know the excact number of people in each religious group and there are probably thousands of distinct groups present there. In Iceland, there are 29 registered groups. The count in the article does not include Jews, Sikhs or Moonies simply because there aren't any of those to count, there may be a few Jews or Sikhs but those have not bothered to create a registered religious group. This fetish that Icelanders have for keeping accurate records about these things can be used to make this article more accurate than the average country article and we should use that chance. --Bjarki 7 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)


 * The source for this information is the Icelandic national registry numbers for 2004 and are exact, the registry keeps a record of religious group membership for every Icelandic citisen. We could list every one of the 29 registered religious groups in Iceland.
 * It seems all the non christian groups are listed (there is no organized Jewish,, Moonies or Sikhs group) I asume if there are any they are in the outside religious group category. --Sindri 7 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)

Here are the exact numbers for 2004 for those interested (names of groups in Icelandic): 2004 	 ...
 * Þjóðkirkjan 	250.661
 * Fríkirkjan í Reykjavík 	6.202
 * Óháði söfnuðurinn 	2.588
 * Fríkirkjan í Hafnarfirði 	4.365
 * Kaþólska kirkjan 	5.775
 * Önnur trúfélög og ótilgreint 	8.733
 * Utan trúfélaga 	7.144

Here you can get this info in english


 * Thanks - that's the nice thing about Iceland - you know where everyone lives :)
 * Excuse me if I truncate that list and replace it with a reordered list in English.


 * This table is mostly ordered by the number of people in each organisation, with the Christian organisations grouped at the top, the other religions starting at Asa Faith Society (many of these I don't recognise so there may still be some Christian groups here), and the two unclassified groupings at the bottom.
 * This shows there is no reason to single out Jehova's Witnesses over Seventh-day Adventists. There are fewer Bahá’i than Buddhists (the opposite of the impression given in the current text). But the total count of the non-Christian groups is just 2,395 or 0.82% of the population. This is much less than the unknown others, and hardly at a level that is worth mentioning. As you say, the Others could contain more Jews than there are Buddhists - at the tail end of the statistic you just don't know.
 * So I would again, suggest a more accurate wording would be
 * The remaining 6.5% is divided between several Christian sects, with less that 1% of the population in non-Christian religious organisations.
 * Possibly still mentioning the Ásatrú as the vestige of the original religion. -- Solipsist 7 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include the full table in the article, as Bjarki pointed out this is not a paper so it's not like we're running out of space. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:22, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I know this is an old discussion, but I've created a Religion in Iceland article. I did so due to delete discussions over the Islam in Iceland article, but either way I hope some of you check it out and improve any screw ups I made.--T. Anthony 04:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it would be a bit of a distortion on an article which is trying to give an overview of the country. However, it wouldn't be a problem to put the whole table in Religion in Iceland, which is more or less what is done in the United Kingdom and Religion in the United Kingdom articles. You could then give proper space to explaining how the table data is collected and why it might appear there are no Jews in Iceland. -- Solipsist 05:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Pictures
Is there any reason why the recent addition of a link to a page with Iceland photographs was reverted ? I know that adding one's one site is generally something that's frowned upon, but the photos are nice, and I don't see why they should be considered link spam, either. Don't bite the newcomers. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 9 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should have noticed this earlier. It is link spam when a user adds links to their own site to dozens of different articles, and especially when it is a professional photographer selling the images - that's commercial link spam just like linking a shopping site. Instead we should be encouraging such users to contribute photographs under a free license, which then allows a link back to their source website on the image description page.
 * But hey, we can't even keep good pictures already contributed to Wikipedia on the page . -- Solipsist 07:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should just reinstate those. I think having those maps of the counties etc. in the article is good, but having a few actual photos in there couldn't hurt, either. :) As for the links, OK - although I still think that it might be better to just remove the links with a neutral remark instead of calling them "spam". They may be (or not), but calling them that is not going to make it more likely that the contributor will release the pictures under a free license. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 13:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair point. -- Solipsist 00:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Number of hot springs
The article claimed that the number of hot springs in Iceland was 800 but no source was cited for this claim, I've removed it because of that, Its also most certainly incorrect as small hot springs with a flow of only a few litres per minute are very common geothermally active areas and it would be almost impossible to keep an accurate count of them all, it might be 800 notable hot springs however which is another issue altogether. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:11, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Holes?
What are those big holes in the maps? Glaciers? Lakes? I don't get it... from the space picture, they don't look any different...
 * The white spots are glaciers. --Bjarki 15:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted this edit from LesbianLatke for the following reasons: --Bjarki 16:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Borderless country is more accurate than island nation, Iceland does not have any maritime borders with its neighbours. A maritime (sea) border only exists where the territorial seas of two countries meet, that can only happen when there are less then 24 nautical miles between the countries as territorial seas only reach 12 miles. Iceland's EEZ does however meet other EEZ but these lines are not borders as countries do not hold sovereignty over their EEZ.
 * 2) The composition of the original Icelanders was not as black and white as indicated by this edit, there where also Celtic chiefs and Norse slaves. I don't understand the reasons behind the constant pushing of this agenda by LesbianLatke.
 * 3) Rampant alcoholism, and its effects on employment, toll on interpersonal relationships/violence, and marital/family issues, are continuing social problems. <- Are these bigger problems in Iceland than in other countries? If so, please cite reliable sources.


 * 1) 1 - then what was the Cod war about? - Iceland obviously has sea borders.
 * The right to exploit resources which is the only benefit a state has from an EEZ, states don't hold any kind of sovereignty over EEZ's beyond this and in no way does the limit of the EEZ constitute a border in the conventional sense.


 * 1) 2 - predominantly norse masters & celtics slaves and concubines - sure there were a very few exceptions, but that was the norm.
 * What is known for sure about this is that the present population of Iceland is of mixed Celtic/Norse origin, however the exact details of the ratio there between and the social background of the different nationalities are impossible to find out. Yes the highest chiefs were almost exclusively Norse and they brought over slaves both from Scandinavia and the British islands (the latter ones being known as Westmen), this is apparent from the written sources. However it would definately be wrong to assume that every settler of Iceland was either a slave or a master, most likely the vast majority of the settlers were somewhere in between, "free" people of lower social classes, people of Celtic, Norse and mixed origin.


 * 1) 3 - see this paper authored by an Icelander: http://www.euro.who.int/document/e82881.pdf --User:LesbianLatke 16:00, 8 August 2005
 * The word "alcoholism" appears once in this report, in the following paragraph:
 * Consumption of alcoholic beverages in litres of alcohol per inhabitant is lower than in the other Nordic countries, with the exception of Norway. During the 1990s, alcoholic consumption diminished until 1993, when it was 4.7 litres of alcohol per person aged l5 years and over, but since then it rose steadily, reaching 6.3 litres per person in 2002. In spite of the relatively low total alcohol consumption, alcoholism has been a major concern in Iceland because of the habit of binge drinking of hard liquor. However, there has been a more favourable drinking pattern in recent years. In 1993, hard liquor comprised half of the total alcohol consumed, but in 2002, only one fourth. Surveys among pupils in the 10th grade have also shown a reduction in the percentage of those who consumed any alcohol during the preceding 30 days, from 42% in 1998 to 26% in 2002.
 * I don't see in this any indication that alcoholism is a specifically Icelandic problem, a serious problem it is indeed but any more so than in the average western country? I am yet to see that. Diabetes, obesity, heart diseases, traffic accidents, sexual violence, lung cancer, drug addiction, alzheimer, sexually transmitted diseases, depression and stress are problems in Iceland just as well but to list all this and more in the country article wouldn't make any sense unless they relate to Iceland SPECIFICALLY over any other comparable nation in this part of the world. --Bjarki 22:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Administrative divisions
This section is horrible with the images. I have to move my eyes more than usual to read it. Something must be done because it is ridiculous. Any suggestions/solutions? It's... Thelb4! 18:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Something must be done to update this map to correctly state the "new" constituencies. I am in the Geography field and attempting to update country administrative levels, and this map stinks. Besides, you state there are 6 constituencies, and the map colors/definition only show 5 (Northeast, Northwest, South, Southwest, Reykjavik N+S). If Reykjavik is separated into N and S, can you please update to annotate this correctly (with the Icelandic names as well)? Especially since the map from the Land Survey site is unmarked! Until then, my map will have the 'old' 8 regions (landsvæðun). Thanks! Rarelibra 9:45 13JAN2005
 * Yes Reykjavík is divided into 2 constituencies, more detail here. Displaying this on the map would be hard though because it is too small, Reykjavík S would not be visible. In addition the border between Reykjavík S and N is not fixed like the borders between the other constituencies and are to be revised before every elections to reflect the changes in population. So before next elections some streets might switch sides or a wholly new division might be used e.g. east/west instead of north/south. --Bjarki 18:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Biekko! This is good enough for me. I will, as an expert cartographer, merely divide it right down the happy middle. :) Rarelibra 15:30 19JAN2006

Climate
What's the climate like in Iceland? 169.231.3.17 19:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oceanic climate, meaning cool summers and mild winters, small temperature range. --Bjarki 21:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think a section on climate should be added. 65.206.41.34 16:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

race/immigration
I just read this article http://www.military.com/Opinions/1,14790,Edwards_022805-P2,00.html

It's about a black American sailor during World War 2. Who thought he might be on the shores of Iceland and was worried about being lynched. I also read that that US Navy bases in Iceland were the last to finally allow blacks to be stationed there.

I am very curious about what racial and immigration policies were in Iceland. What they were, what they are now, how things changed. My intent is not to muckrack. My own country has it's share of ugly blemishes like this. It seems like a significant factor in the country's history and culture. I think it should at least be touched upon. The US has an entire article on immigration.

-- Yes, it's definitely worth mentioning. It is mentioned under Þór Whitehead, an Icelandic historian who has studied these matters. Palthrow 23:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No black/brown/yellow etc people were lynched in Iceland during WWII. It might not ever have happened, not even to Turks/muslims who were specifically legal to kill until 1994. Once even, a couple of black sailors went ashore in Iceland during WWII, and managed to get a picture taken of them before they were put back to their vessel, as they were forbidden by law to be there. This practises have been long abandoned though, since the ratification of the European treaty of human rights. - 130.208.165.5 01:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

--Hi there, This reminds me of a little story my grandfather told me recently. He is a WW2 Veteran from the USA. As you know, Keflavik was a stopping point for many American Aircraft. My grandfather was working in a particular plane a passenger of which was an african-american. When the plane landed and everyone deborded (is that the right word?), one of the Icelandic station workers scurried over to the American captain. The american captain then proceeded to tell the african american lieutenant to stay at the airplane with him during their stop. Kind of funny

demographics
Requesting a picture of what some of the people of Iceland look like

Military
It's kinda funny that the "Military" section in this article is longer than corresponding sections in country articles such as the United States, Israel and the People's Republic of China. And it isn't even about Iceland's military (well duh...) but the coast guard and police, stuff I don't feel is very important for an overview article of this sort. It should be moved to the main article Military of Iceland. --Bjarki 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Civil War
Does the Sturlungaöld merit the appellation of Civil War? According to the sources, the average casualties for the period, i. e. killed in battle or executed afterwards, were 7 (seven) a year, and that is according to fairly reliable sources. Wouldn't skirmishes be a better word? After all, for an estimated population of 60.000 - 70.000, the death toll is not far from the current homicide rate in the United States. Cheers Io 17:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing information on the executive branch?
I am unable to find where the various Ministries are described, for example the Ministry for the Environment (which as of this writing redirects to New Zealand Ministry for the Environment). Politics_of_Iceland for example, doesn't address the topic.

I'm assuming that at some point even the Umhverfisstofnun (or in English, the Environment and Food Agency of Iceland), would have its own article, correct? 69.3.70.60 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC).

See also sections
This article had too many "See also" subsections. I fixed a few of them just now. However, at many places, just because of the sheer number of the topics, it wasn't wise to put then in one line. However, since standardization should be made, I request any of the author to keep only the relevant topics (atmost 3 at a place) and standardize per the norms. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Prince Polo
I'd be grateful if one of you Icelanders or Icelandophiles would take a look at the article Prince Polo, about the Polish chocolate bar that is, or was, popular in Iceland. Please add info about the Icelandic connection to this, or add pictures of past or present Icelandic varieties. Thanks, ProhibitOnions 12:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Suspected vandalism: item food
Look at the list of ingredients for the national dish thoramatur: rotten shark, burned sheeps head... can't be right, can it?
 * Well it's technically correct, however the choice of words is misleading, "fermented shark, 'flamed' sheeps head" is probably better. --Sindri 10:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Islands of Europe
It is stated that "Iceland is the Europe´s 2st biggest island, the biggest one is UK or United Kingdom". While Iceland is the 2nd largest in Europe, the larger island is actually called Great Britain. United Kingdom refers to (as seen in its formal title) Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I have tweaked the article accordingly

Arctic fox trivia
If the arctic fox had been the only land mammal on Iceland for some time what was its prey? --Abdull 08:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Birds. --Bjarki 13:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

i need to know
'Dear readers,

i need to know everything about iceland, i am doing a school project called country study if you can help me and give me info about iceland that you cant find on the net email me at: vaughnt@cjcc.gaggle.net'

Coat of arms
Recently the picture of the coat of arms was replaced with a png version. The new picture is of terrible quality and the colors are somewhat wrong compared to the official info on the icelandic coat of arms. Any idea what happened to the old picture? --Sindri 15:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)