Talk:Iceland/Archive 2

Renewal Energy
The first part of it read: "Renewable energy provides over 70% of the nation's primary energy.[31] Over 99% of the country's electricity is produced from hydropower and geothermal energy, and the country expects to be energy-independent by 2050". Its confusing, it should say that 99% of the 70% renewal energy comes from ..., from what I read now, its contradicting. Brushed clean (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ð is not that exclusive
ð is used in both Icelandic, Faeroese, Northern Sámi, Inari Sámi and Skolt Sámi, so saying "Icelandic is the only language to use rune characters" is indeed incorrect. Please remove this. Rkarlsba 10:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This has since been fixed. -- Beland (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, ð is only used in Icelandic, Elfdalian and Faeroese. The đ is used in Sami and Vietnamese. Different minuscule, same majuscule. 83.109.103.193 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Stupid explanation...
...for low bio diversity! "Its geological age -- only a few tens of millions of years -- has provided relatively little time for plants and animals to immigrate from elsewhere or evolve locally." The islands geological age is totally irrelevant for this issue as Iceland and the surrounding seas has been totally iced over several times in the last 100 000 years, wiping out every trace of life in the process. I'm changing this to The short time since the last ice over, only about 10 000 years, has provided very little time for plants and animals to immigrate from elsewhere or evolve locally. 130.243.153.103 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

...Reverted? Mind telling why? I'll re-revert till someone come up with a good reason why not. 212.247.216.39 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

About change to ice age..... I wrote ice over  as, technically speaking, we're still in an ice time and has been so for a couple of 100 k years. But for the sake of simplicity maybe it is better with ice age. 212.247.216.39 12:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Population Census and estimates?
Why does the article Info box claim that censuses are still made in Iceland even though they and the estimates are long made obsolete as a result of the kennitölu system and the Þjóðskrá? If its a technical problem with the box it should be fixed nonetheless as its claiming absolote incorrectness. --130.208.189.147 00:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
Is it just me or are all the pictures in this article about its geography? Let's get more pictures of cities, people, etc.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.115.69 (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have detected a flawed picture. There is supposed to be a picture of the counties of Iceland but the picture is of some anti-spyware add and links to their home page. Please remove it!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.187.92 (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C'mon
//This page is about the country Republic of Iceland. For the chain of supermarkets in the United Kingdom and Ireland, see Iceland (supermarket).//

Is this some kind of joke? 172.141.116.152 20:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, it's legitimate.  Killfest2 — Daniel.Bryant  07:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a chain of supermarkets called "Iceland" in the UK. I'm as ashamed about it as any Icelander may be...its also quite a cheap (and therefore ****) shop, but Wikipedia isn't a place for personal views... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SKC (talk • contribs).


 * Well, it's not our fault if Icelandic cuisine consists of frozen potato croquettes and cheap Black Forest gateaus, is it? ;-)
 * Anyway, this is a non-issue now; the dab line at the start of the article links to Iceland (disambiguation). Fourohfour 15:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a Good Article
I failed Iceland as a GA due to the fact that there are no references in the "culture" section, in addition to few references throughout the article. (Working on it) Also, there is a lengthy Miscellany section which in my opinion violates section 3B of the good article criteria. (To be cleaned up) Some P. Erson 14:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Italics by me.  Daniel . Bryant  09:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete Miscellany section?
Let's move it here. The dishelved facts ruin the page. Agree?

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I find some of the facts interesting, and propose to let them be until they are included other places in the article. Mr. Carpenter 07:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Biekko was kind enough to do it for us - thanks!  Daniel . Bryant  11:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion
The statement: "Most Icelanders are either very liberal in their religious beliefs or uninterested in religious matters altogether, and predominantly do not attend church regularly or even at all." does not seem to be backed up by the reference cited. There is no "demographics" section at the supplied link.

Matt T. 198.203.192.166 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Iceland is a Lutheran country.210.213.194.46 (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Icelandic Christianity is slightly different from most christianity. You see, when Iceland first officially accepted christianity they did it under certain curcumsatces, such as Being allowed to eat horse meat and being allowed to warship pagan gods. - Hansihippi
 * And this differs from the spread of the Roman church in every northern & western European nation how? Most pagan gods throughout Europe were simply renamed as "saints" and worship continued pretty much unchanged. Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Climate
I'm curious about the climate of Iceland. Is it strange there's no mention of this? Renfield 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am curious myself about the climate. I've heard it is relatively moderate considering its proximaty to the Arctic. Why is their nary a mention of the climate ? Jcam 00:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because neither of you has bothered to research it elseware and add it to the article. --Sindri 12:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point- and I probably will get around to that, as well as most of the US state articles and many other nations. But just an observation... why is it that so many articles on nations/states/areas don't bother to mention this ? Jcam 15:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because interest in climate implies that you go outdoors, and wikipedia editors never leave their keyboards? - DavidWBrooks 18:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Climate section added. Various statistics from the Icelandic Meteorology Office are the source of this. --Bjarki 00:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice addition; not too long, not too vague. - DavidWBrooks 11:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

i was very surprised to not find even the slightest mention of the long summer days in iceland...ive heard that sun rises around 2 in the morning and sets late as well....and also no mention of the six month days and six month nights which i think exist in iceland...points like these ,if true ,should definately be included in the section as thy catch the attention of people...in fact i myself wanted to know more about this different than usual day and night timings and thats why i actually checked out the page.........sadly didnt find it ........the page definately needs some work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.47.206 (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In order to have six month days and nights, you'll either have to be situated on(or very close to) the North- or the Southpole. Because the sun is a disc(from our point of view)rather than a (small defined)point, the day on the poles will last slightly longer than six months, and the night will be slightly shorter. On the very poles, the day is probably as much as a couple of weeks longer.(speculating...)

The start of the day -- anywhere in the world-- is defined as the moment the upper rim(not the centre) of the sun rises above the horizon, while the end is when the upper rim disappears, hence making the day longer than the night all over the globe at the equinoxes in March and September, when the day and night are supposed to be of exact equal lengths.

I was looking for information about whether Iceland HAS got a midnight sun at mid-summer, but I couldn't find any information on this page. When looking at the map, I notice that the entire mainland is situated SOUTH of the arctic circle; a clear indication that it HASN'T got a midnight sun. But, as I stated earlier, the sun IS a 'disc'(no not really, but kind of...) as seen from the Earth, which makes it possible to see the upper rim of the sun at midnight(mid-summer), even when you're located quite a few kilometres SOUTH of the arctic circle. The norhternmost point of the Icelandic mainland is indeed VERY close to touching the arctic circle, so my guess is the it IS possible to see the midnight sun.

I also realize that Iceland, belonging to the same time-zone as Great Britain, even though its geographic location should make it one hour behind, COULD have visible sunlight at MIDNIGHT, but NOT when the sun is at its lowest in(or very close to)the NORTH. The question from me then is: Is there a single day(24 hour stretch) of the year on the Icelandic mainland where one(in theory, at least) can see the sun the entire time? --84.208.224.234 (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

History
Could someone add a history section (I was looking for Iceland's role in WWII). This seems to be the only section missing in this article about a country.--72.75.113.204 01:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends how long you want the history to go back for. As far as I could tell, I didn't think Iceland had any involvement in any proper war. Correct me if I am wrong there. Or you could mention the cod war... 85.12.80.128 11:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have lived i Iceland for some two years now and I have heard the stories about some allay ships hiding from german in Iceladic fjords. Iceladers told me the story but I couldn´t find anything concrete about the subject. If Bjarky can find something out... marijica 12:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote up a history section. It's not long, but I think it gives a decent overview of Icelandic history from the original Norse settlement to the present day.  Of course, if people want all the gory details, they can just read History of Iceland -- Palthrow 18:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The sentence, "Christianity was peacefully adopted in 1000," is in total contradiction to the link provided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Iceland). The king of Norway, Olaf Tryggvason, used coercion and torture to force the conversion of the Icelanders. This line should be struck12.171.191.132 (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrectly stated that Sveinn Björnsson who was elected regent in World War II was the prime minister. I deleted it since he was actually ambassador to Denmark at the time.Ormur (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

131.111.99.65 (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Age of Settlement presents the tradition of Ingólfur Arnarson as if it is fact. There were certainly people of Norse origin in Iceland before 874. And anyway, the date 874 was arrived at by extrapolation from Ari and 300 year old traditions and should not be taken at face value. Better to say that "Tradition has it that the first permanent settler was Ingólfur Arnason in the year 874" - and maybe go on to say that the date is probably not far from the truth.

The history sections states that Iceland "joined Denmark in asserting neutrality." Shouldn't this be "joined Sweden". Denmark wasn't neutral during WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.207.121 (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Volcanic island nation?
Hmmm.. In my mind, "Volcanic island nation" evaluates to (volcanic (island nation)), not ((volcanic island) nation), and thus, I believe that the attempt to compress that information into one sentence, though brave, has to be abandoned. This is a very minor issue, of course, and maybe that's why I didn't modify it. Jørgen 21:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject
It strikes me that the only way articles relating to Iceland are ever going to get any real attention and improvement is if it has its own project, as none of the continent or multi-country projects will necessarily think of including Iceland to any great degree. On that basis, there is a new proposed project on the Proposed WikiProjects page dealing with Iceland. Any parties interested in joining should add their names to the list, so that we can see if there actually is enough interest in such a project to make it viable. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. When you think of a country on the spot, Iceland doesn't normally come to mind. (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I can't find Iceland on the Proposed WikiProjects page. Has it been created or is it located at Portal:Iceland instead? Think outside the box 13:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Found it at WikiProject Iceland. Guess I didn't look properly the first time... Think outside the box 13:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Television
The Television page claims that television broadcast is suspended in Iceland on Thursdays and in July. If this is true, this is curious and probably unique and should certainly be mentioned here somewhere, in regards to culture I presume. --Zachbe 15:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's how it was before 1984 like it says in the television article. --Bjarki 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

External links needs trimming
This article seems to have collected a very large number of external links. It might be an idea if somebody went through them checking how many of them are actually needed. At the moment, the list is just too long.

For the time being, I've moved the latest addition here. They concern immigration to Iceland.


 * Alþjóðahús (International Centre) Residence and Work Permit Practical Information
 * Icelandic Directorate of Immigration
 * Icelandic Directorate of Labour
 * Icelandic Ministry of Foreign Affairs

--Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Any Icelandic user?
I just wanted to know if there is any Icelandi user who might want to chat with me. I am interested in the language and have some questions. If there is anyone, please leave me a message. --Dexter prog 14:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am Icelandic, feel free to leave a message on my talkpage anytime. Irrer 09:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

i am icelandic so i can answer almost all questions a involving Iceland and the language as long as they are not plan stubbed -    andri12


 * No offense, but I'm puzzled by those last two words: are they supposed to be "plain stupid"? (My Icelandic doesn't go beyond "tak", so I'm not criticizing anybody who's bilingual) - DavidWBrooks 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd jump in here; I've been trying to learn some Icelandic reciently but its really hard. I changed the my preferences language box to IS so some of the regular wiki links converted to the language. I now know: talk, edit, recient changes and log out. Think outside the box 13:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Animal and vegetal life, please.
Hello! Could someone add this, please, also the foreing species, grasses and invertebrates. Perhaps for someone in Iceland is not intersting, but is very few know in Europe. In European Guides few times appear Iceland. Anselmocisneros 14:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I vote for this too. Think outside the box 13:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added this under the imaginitively named section, Animal and Plant life Think outside the box 13:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article says that birch is the only native tree in Iceland. This is wrong, sice both (espessially) rowan, and also trembling aspen are native to Iceland. Even one willow is said to sometimes reach tree size? The history of trembling aspen is special, since the species for a time lived in the soil, but no mature trees existed, still it has survived till this day. Ingvar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.241.200 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It should also be mentioned that birch is also native to eastern, western and northern Iceland, and must be assumed to have formed forests in these areas by the time of settlement, as well as in South Iceland. The whole island was covered by forest from the shoreline to the mountains, the saga tells. (It is however believed the treeline was somewhat higher in South Iceland, than in the rest of Iceland.) Ingvar NB: Or one could say: "The only forest forming tree native to..."

Shorter Version?
It would be good if we could get a version a little more condensed - It takes too long to print. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.196.206.204 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
 * At what cost to the value of content? Think outside the box 12:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Translation of the motto
What does the motto "Með lögum skal land byggja" mean in English? It would be nice to add this to the infobox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.127.219.216 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC).
 * "Með lögum skal land byggja" means in direct translation "With laws the land shall be built". It is as far as I know the motto of the Icelandic Police, not the government or nation and has been added to the infobox as vandalism. I'll remove it right after I submit this comment. --Sindri 16:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that the motto now reads "In Cod We Trust." --Stormy 23:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No longer! (how embarrassing, if mildly humorous) - DavidWBrooks 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Með lögum skal land byggja" is also the adopted motto of the Shetlands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.241.157.246 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC).


 * And the Danish version "Med lov skal land bygges" was the first words of the Code of Jutland written by King Valdemar the Victorious in 1241. In the Icelandic case, the words are probably from Frostatingslova which is one of the oldest laws in Norway. Some rules are believed to be from the 900's, but the law itself is probably from Magnus the Good (1035-1047). Valentinian T / C 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do we think that "Með lögum skal land byggja" is the motto of the Icelandic state. I don't think that it is true. Stefán 19:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Icelandic only de facto ?
The sidebar says Icelandic is the de facto official language, implying that that is not legally true, but the article on Icelandic states it is coded into law. Which is it?
 * Icelandic is not explicitly declared an official language in the constitution, I don't think anyone considers it necessary since Icelandic is quite obviously the official language of Iceland by custom. Icelandic is however mentioned through Icelandic law, several statutes seem to assume the language's official status and others have the explicit goal of "enhancing and supporting the Icelandic language". I think it is correct to say that Icelandic is de facto the official language but it is not wrong either to say it is simply the official language, a de facto official language is still an official language and no less so than a de jure official language. --Bjarki 17:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why we should accept the unofficial demand that an official language must be specified in a constitution. In Denmark, it is required by law that all members of a jury must be able to speak Danish fluently, and the Danish language is also explicitly mentioned in the law about schools. Legislation also specifies that one can only expect to receive official communication with the state in Danish. This makes it "official" enough for me. Given the common history of our two countries, it would be my guess that Iceland had similar traditions. Valentinian T / C 00:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Valentinian, I couldn't agree more wit you. It is absurd to say if is not in the constitution, it is not official. If we accept this way of thinking most European countries woouldn't have an official language, which is not true. This demand, to write the official language in the constitution, comes from the English-only movement in the US, which wants to ban education and services for immigrants in any other language than English. --Michkalas 13:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a likely explanation. In any case, the U.S.-centric insistence on viewing this issue through U.S. glasses and U.S. legal tradition ignoring all other legal traditions is POV and not suitable for Wikipedia. (Continental) European legal traditions have as much right to be accepted as the English based "common law". Valentinian T / C 15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The European Library
I have added a link to the 'treasures of the national library of iceland' displayed via The European Library. hope this is okay. If not, please send me a message. Fleurstigter 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

An article on the Kingdom of Iceland?
Perhaps a separate article on the Kingdom of Iceland could be made, like the articles on, for example, the Kingdom of Portugal, the Kingdom of Finland and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia? What do the regular contributors here think? -- Nidator 16:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * hummm... that would make sense... IF ICELAND WAS A KINGDOM! --S.Örvarr.S 21:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You disagree that Iceland was a kingdom? Haukur 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the time when Iceland (by force) was part of the Danish kingdom then that hardly makes Iceland a kingdom of its own. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Iceland was a separate sovereign kingdom between 1918 and 1944. Haukur 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes -- the fact that the person who was king of Iceland 1918-1944 was also the king of Denmark makes no difference technically, no matter what the political realities were. --Palthrow 00:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And the political reality was that Iceland was as sovereign as it wanted to be between 1918 and 1944, foreign affairs and defences where left to Denmark as a part of a deal between two sovereign nations. Not because this was somehow forced. --Bjarki 02:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to Iceland between 1918 and 1944. -- Nidator 11:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of the Kingdom of Australia? Or Kingdom of Canada?  They exist!  The Queen of Canada and Queen of Australia happens to also be the Queen of the United Kingdom, but Australia and Canada are seperate and sovereign states!  This was Iceland's situation between 1918 and 1944 as explained by Bjarki.

Iceland was actually a kingdom separate from the Danish Crown for a few weeks in 1809 aftur Jörundur hundadagakonungur seized power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.164.173 (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Military
I have brought this up once before here on the talk without any feedback at all. Being bold, I've now removed the section 'Military of Iceland'. I do feel that this is totally unneeded in a general article about Iceland, the biggest reason for that being that Iceland does not maintain a military and never has. Accordingly, this section actually had nothing to do with a military. Instead it was about the police force and the coast guard, every nation on the planet operates such bodies (except Somalia maybe). It also made clear that there is a SWAT-like team in Iceland, which every nation has that can afford such things. It also mentioned the civilian peacekeeping service which has nothing to do with defence. In any case, I believe nothing of this is a defining characteristic of Iceland that should be dealt with in a general article about the country. --Bjarki 22:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise, good call -- Palthrow 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. And what you have written there is mostly incorrect. --Kjallakr 23:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And to explain: 1. Iceland operates an Air defence radar network and Command Center as part of the IADS. Before 2006 the Icelandic part could have been considered civilan, but since the American withdrawal the Icelandic personnel have taken over the Air defence Intercept command center and such personnel are according to international law military personnel. Thus since 2006 the IADS is an Icelandic military unit or operation. 2. The Icelandic Crisis Response Unit peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan were military operations. 3. Icelandic Coast Guard operations in Iraq were military operations and the Icelandic Coast Guard operates as Icelands Navy in Dimplomatic protocols as well. As for the "never has maintaned military force" part, you have clearly not read the part about Icelandic Military history here on wikipedia. --Kjallakr
 * He's right, guys. Much as I hate to admit it. Haukur 23:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and, as Iceland is known for not having a military, a section of this development is fitting. -- Nidator 17:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay. I did not know about this status of IADS, could you possibly elaborate on the sources of international law thar define it as an military organization? Also what distinguishes civilian operations military ones regarding the ICRU? It is true that the coast guard can be defined as a military in certain capacities and its vessels might be considered "warships" in accordance with art. 29 of UNCLOS. One should keep in mind that strict legal definitions of what constitutes "military" may not fit with the definitions used in common speech and that an encyclopedia focused not on international lawyers but ordinary humans should probably give more weight to the latter definition. I am still of the opinion that a dedicated section to the "military" of Iceland is not justified. That does not mean this stuff shouldn't be mentioned at all but that a proper place for it would be in the politics section, possibly as a subsection there. See the following country articles for examples: Belgium, Finland, Luxembourg, Mexico and Estonia. --Bjarki 22:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The matter with the IADS rests with the question weather the personell who are charged with guiding interceptors to their targets in combat are military personell or unpriviliged combatants. Assuming that Iceland is abiding with the Geneva convention, which in the first place is the thing that originally divides between civilans and military, these personell must be military. As these personell are considered combatants because they are actively controlling or in charge of a military operation on a tactical scale (guiding interceptors to targets and such) and there have been no precedents considering such personell as civilians anywhere in the world. As for the ICRU military operations, you could simply take a good look at the picture of Colonel Lárus Atlason and his ID badge. [] On the top right corner you will see the following letters: "military". --Kjallakr 23:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone can see that the ICRU is (or at the very least was) a military unit - but as far as I know the people in charge steadfastly deny it. See here, for example:  Apparently those are people in military uniforms, with military ranks, organized as a military unit, carrying weapons, working with the militaries of other nations, carrying out NATO missions as armed peacekeepers in a war zone - and it's all totally civilian. Haukur 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no denials in these links and if some politicians claim that the ICRU is a totally civilian operations they are basically lying. Peacekeeping is by definition a military operation, and currently there are 9 Icelandic peacekeepers in Afghanistan for example operating at KIA. There are also a few more Icelanders on the behalf of ICRU in Afghanistan, but they are as far as I know, all civilians unlike the peacekeepers who are armed and wear Norwegian "Ørkenkamo" with Icelandic insignia. --Kjallakr 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The law says: "Utanríkisráðuneytinu er heimilt að taka þátt í alþjóðlegri friðargæslu og senda borgaralega sérfræðinga til starfa við friðargæsluverkefni í því skyni." 'Borgaralega' is 'civilian', right? During the discussion in parliament one member said: "Þær breytingar ganga út á að taka af allan vafa að um er að ræða borgaralega skilgreinda starfsemi". Haukur 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Borgaralega" does indeed mean "civilian" of that there is no doubt. "Friðargæsla" on the otherhand means "peacekeeping" and that is by definition a military operation that may or may not be augmented with civilian operations. This member of parliament on other hand is clearly mistaken in his opinion. 2.gr 2.mgr states: "Íslenskir friðargæsluliðar skulu bera einkennisklæðnað þar sem við á, með hliðsjón af skipulagi og eðli þess verkefnis sem sinnt er. Jafnframt skal utanríkisráðuneytið ákveða þeim tignargráðu innan skipulags viðkomandi alþjóðastofnunar þegar þörf krefur." In effect this gr. has permitted by law an expiditionary military force operated by the Ministry for foreign affairs. Also 3.gr has permitted the minister to make regulations regarding the duties of the armed portion of the ICRU, which are potentially far more thorough than the law itself and might perhaps involve domestic operations depending on how openly this permission is understood. And even still, according to the widely achnowledged legal practice, how the law works in effect is more relevant than how the text may potentially be understood. Since in reality there are a number of people working for the ICRU as an expiditionary military force. --Kjallakr 13:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I totally agree with your reasoning. The problem is that I can't find any place where the Icelandic authorities have admitted this. When the politicians are asked, like they were in the link I gave above, they reply like this:


 * "Við álítum að herleysi og vopnlaus lögregla séu mikilvæg sérstaða Íslands" - We believe that the lack of a military and an unarmed police force are important special characteristics of Iceland


 * "Íslensku friðargæslunnar sem tekur einungis að sér borgaraleg verkefni" - The ICRU which only accepts civilian assignments


 * "friðargæsla á Íslandi sýni skýrt í störfum sínum að þar fari ekki herlið heldur borgaralegir starfsmenn" - Icelandic peacekeepers should demonstrate in their work that they are not a military force but civilian workers.

The only party to deviate from this line are the Left-Greens who offer a somewhat confused critique. Haukur 13:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes this is a very fascinating rethoric offered by Icelandic governments and politicians. However as Foreign Minister Davíð Oddson explained in 2004, the Icelandic peacekeepers are considered military by NATO and all others, while the Icelandic government believes they are still civilian enough because of their belief that the training of the ICRU troops isn't very thourough, and then also because of the expiditionary nature (medieval style leiðangr) of these military operations, the ICRU personell revert back to civilian when they return to Iceland. There are of course some other indirect admittals as well, such as those made by Halldór Ásgrímsson about the Icelandic operations to prepare Pristina Airport for civilian control, during which time the said Airport was under Icelandic command (and thus non-civilian command). That said, the Left-Greens are obviously correct in their claims of the ICRU being a military unit. --Kjallakr 15:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there actually anyone in the IADS "charged with guiding interceptors to their targets in combat"? As I remember there was a short-lived media flurry surrounding the operation of IADS in 2006 when the Americans left, see: IADS's own website is horribly outdated but this news piece states that the Radar agency would assume the role of monitoring unknown aircraft and "notifying the proper authorities", does that mean that the person looking at the screen at any given time forms an Icelandic military? I wonder if he or she knows about it... --Bjarki 01:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes there are people in the IADS responsible for "guiding interceptors to their targets in combat" and you can be sure that they know of their status and what their job entails. The Icelandic defence contractor Kögun made the software currently used by the US forces for this job (and the IADS) and thus many Icelanders are skilled in this department of warfare. --Kjallakr 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The ISAF article says: "The International Security Assistance Force (10) (ISAF) is an international military force in Afghanistan led by NATO and consisting of about 35,500 personnel from 37 nations as of May 31, 2007." I mean, clearly, we need to update this to say: The ISAF is an international military force&mdash;except for the Icelandic part which is totally civilian and not a military unit at all&mdash;in Afghanistan led by NATO etc." Haukur 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To turn this around a bit, can anyone find any instance of Icelandic authorities referring to the ICRU as a military unit or its personnel as military personnel? Haukur 17:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been going through the official website of the Norwegian Defence Forces for an article I remembered about the ICRU medal and I also found a picture which illustrates the difficulties of this debate excellently. Who are Norwegian soldiers and who are Icelandic civilians? -- Nidator 17:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Article candidate again
I've nominated Iceland as a good article candidate again. -- Palthrow 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

GA

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Back things like this up:


 * Some are examining the possibility of introducing other crops from South America, where the potato is native. Given that summers in Iceland are not hot enough to produce some other types of food, those plants that are from the same ecological range as the potato (those from a similar climate to Iceland), may very probably be adaptable to Iceland.  Those of interest include the quinoa, a pseudocereal; beach strawberry, a fruit; calafate, a fruit; and the Monkey-puzzle araucaria, a tree that produces edible nuts. Those crops would help the country to reduce imports of food like cereals, fruits, and nuts.

¿SFGi Д nts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed this passage, it's speculative. --Bjarki 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Flying
When flying is iceland counted as europe?
 * Iceland is a part of the Schengen zone, thus forming a part of a common European border towards the outside world. If that was what you where asking about? --Bjarki 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That would belong in the article IMHO.--85.179.54.20 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Link
How about including a link to the article New Iceland somewhere in this article, (if it's not already there)? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Firing blanks
The links to the two climactic [sic] means charts in the references section don't work. What's the procedure? Just delete them? (I assume that they were actually climatic means charts, but perhaps that's just because I'm a typically anti-climactic Englishman.) Vinny Burgoo 23:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, just complain and somebody will fix them (and perhaps take three attemps to do so). Stefán 23:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three attempts or not, that was very quick. Thanks. Vinny Burgoo 00:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Stupid Question, probably
What does the name Iceland actually mean? Does it mean 'land of ice' or 'island' or what? Svyatoslav 23:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the word Iceland is a calque of the Icelandic word Ísland which- yes, does mean "ice" (ís) + "land" (land). So the Icelandic name for Iceland was merely translated verbatim into English. --BiT 01:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the answer. Svyatoslav 00:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, in most North Germanic languages, land means country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, as in for example England / Ireland / Netherlands etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yggdrasil13 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Language section
I think the section "Language" isn't 100% accurate, the last part I mean. I added that English and Danish are mandatory part of the compulsory school curriculum since one need not study neither in non-compulsory education. This sentence: Danish is mostly spoken in a way largely comprehensible to Swedes and Norwegians – it is often referred to as "Scandinavian" in Iceland. doesn't make any sense to me so I'll just ignore it. As far as I know pupils can only study Norwegian or Swedish if they already have some understanding of either, possible having lived in either language's country, or if they attend a school which teaches either language, but I don't think many, if any, schools teach Norwegian nor Swedish to pupils genarally speaking (see my sources). Also, more pupils study French than German, and more pupils study Danish than Norwegian and Swedish together so I think it would be more logical to change the sentence: Other commonly spoken languages are Swedish, Norwegian and German. to Other commonly spoken languages are French, German and Norwegian. I am referring to compulsory education. In gymnasia Japanese and Spanish are quite popular to study. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 02:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence "Danish is mostly spoken in a way largely comprehensible to Swedes and Norwegians – it is often referred to as "Scandinavian" in Iceland." is quite easy to understand, it's not of the formal education either as you refer to in your source, but you can mention how many study each language if you want to I think. /Danog-76 16:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did some changes to this section. As far as I know Swedish is not commonly spoken here in Iceland but I'll leave it there. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 03:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Recently French was removed by the IP 216.191.4.43 and not comment left. So I ask, vandalism? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 07:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand very well what that sentence is referring to. Danish spoken by Icelandic and Faroese people is much easier to understand for me as a Norwegian than when spoken by a Dane. It sounds quite a bit like "spoken bokmål", which is logical when you think about it as its roots lie in Danish spoken by Norwegians. -- Nidator T / C 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

131.111.99.65 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC) I love the bit about English being widely spoken, "and many Icelanders speak it at an almost native level". Any chance of someone changing this to "many Icelanders think they speak it at [?to] an almost native level"?

Coastline Length
I've removed the given coastline length, as all coastline's are fractal and thus infinite. Larklight (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I get the point? A coastline is a physical object which can be measured... What does abstract math have to do with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.37.254 (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. Coastlines are what one might call rough... If you are going to measure something like this, you have to decide that you are going to ignore irregularities which are smaller than a certain amount (e.g. 1000 metres). That will give a figure. However, if you decide to be "more accurate" and go for a limit of (say) 100 metres, you get a different, larger result. And if you repeat the process, it gets bigger again. And, it goes on happening. If the sequence of coastline "lengths" tended to some sort of limit, you could argue that the coastline had a length. But it doesn't. Counter-intuitive, I know. Kiwi137 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Stupid Question, properly
Iceland is not much bigger than Ireland. It is about an area the size of Wales bigger. Why then does it always look so enormous on Maps compared to Ireland?! It looks almost as big as Great Britian but less than half the size of that. Explanation anyone?


 * It depends on the map projection. You may be interested in looking at some of the equal-area projections. Haukur (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Iceland is actually about three times the size of Wales and twice the size of Ireland.

Economy
Palthrow, you undit my edits without offering any justification.

I maintain that Iceland's current policies are generally neo-liberal, or at least those mentioned. to quote the neo-liberalism article, the list of neo-liberal policies are:
 * maintaining a budget surplus,
 * governments accepting market-determined exchange rates,
 * Free trade,
 * Privatisation,
 * Undistorted market prices, meaning that governments would refrain from policies that would alter market prices.
 * Limited intervention, with the exception of intervention designed to promote exports, some kinds of education or infrastructural development

To quote the article, it's current government aims to reduce 'the budget and current account deficits', which is the first of the neoliberal buttletpoints. They are raising interest rates to try to keep inflation in check, and privitising lots of industry. The Economy of Iceland calls their trading policy relatively liberal, and their intervention, mainly in agriculture, fits with the 6th point.

As such, I will revert your undo, and would request you do not undo my edit again without discussing it here first. Thankyou Larklight (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide verifiable third-party sources that substantiate your claims. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As Closedmouth pointed out, you need to source this. I think only the opponents of the current government would go so far as to call their policies "neoliberal".  While the current government's policy is to liberalise certain aspects of the economy, I wouldn't go so far as to describe their policies as neo-liberal -- certainly not all the points you raise are applicable, either in whole or even partially.-- Palthrow (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all of the bullet points are aplicable, but from that paragraph, most of the policies fit with one of the bullet points.


 * The article on Milton Friedman holds that the current Pruime minister and leader of the indpendance party follows largely the policies he espouced. I suppose you could use the same source that is used there, http://courses.wcupa.edu/rbove/eco343/040Compecon/Scand/Iceland/040129prosper.htm.


 * The article on neoliberalism holds that it's success was built on Milton Friedman's works, and the interlectual victories of the chicago school, thus equating Milton Friedman with neoliberalism. The article on Milton Friedman himself, and the link I provided, equates the current PM with Milton Friedman, and thus, by extention, neoliberalism.
 * I wouldn't count myself an opponent of them, but I would call them neo-liberal, and I expect neo-liberals would do the same. Larklight (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's debatable whether Geir Haarde is really going to follow through with the same aggressive liberalisation policies as his predecessor Davíð Oddsson-- he certainly hasn't, so far. In any case, using the branding "neo-liberal" in the article adds very little information.  I'd much rather the policies of the government be explained thoroughly, leaving it up to the reader what "isms" they want to attribute to the bundle of policies in question.  Your eagerness place this adjective in the article makes it sound like you have a political agenda... -- Palthrow (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the other article says he does have a similar agenda, so if you disagree, I suggest you take it up on that page.
 * We can't explain their policies thoroughly- policies are released in massive releases, each one longer than this article. To thoroughly explain would mean to at least that extent, plus comments, effects, etc. Clearly we cannot do so, and need to simplify, for ease of reading. Giving it a label, as the other article shows to be applicable, is the ultimate expression of this. One label is much easier to understand and compare than a mash of policies, and this is the way the rest of wikipedia acts. That's why it's dotted with hyperlinks, rather than explaining every concept in full every time. A short summary, followed by a link, is how wikipedia operates.
 * Equally, I could call your eagerness to defend the status quo a result of an agenda. But what you call my eagerness is simply the result of my belief that this is an approreot place for it combined with your opposition. If soemone had reverted my deletion of the data about coastline length I would have argued for that. This does not make me an agenda-pusher: it makes me someone who is willing to debate what they believe in. To paraphrase Mill, to hold a belief is to hate all those who oppose it. I don't hate you, but I do consider the defence of truth a worthy subject for terifialy. If fighting for what one considers truth is agenda-pushing, then guilty as charged. But if we were to use that definition, every wikipedian would be guilty. Larklight (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are still no references to a source outside Wikipedia for the neo-liberal thing. Also if such a source is found we can never ever describe the economy of a nation in such terms as if it were an absolute truth, only that it is the view of some specific notable group of people. --Bjarki (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also guys, we can have both a detailed description of the economic policies and how they have been carried out AND a reference to how this conforms to an specific -ism according to some (like Friedman). It's funny though how it would be hard to get the power-people in the Independence Party to admit that Neo-Liberalism has been a major influence on the party in the last two decades while all of their opponent would happily describe them as such, neo-liberalism (frjálshyggja/nýfrjálshyggja) is a scare word in Icelandic politics that nobody wants to be associated with. --Bjarki (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of the debate over at flat tax. In Icelandic political discourse a flat tax is a rather far-out idea sometimes discussed by right-wing commentators and ideologues. Over on Wikipedia, Iceland already has a flat tax. So there! Haukur (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Before you attach the adjective "neo-liberal" to the policies of the Icelandic government in this article, I would like to see good sources to this effect, qualified, as Bjarki suggested, by statements to the effect that this is the view of a specific group of people. Political categorisation is a notoriously difficult and delicate business -- political categories are vague and remain the subject of seemingly endless pedantic academic dispute.  They also raise underlying methodological problems, no resolution of which commands no broad concensus, such as whether parties should be categorised according to overtly proclaimed policies, the realisation of intended results, unintended end results, etc.  The frankly awful state of articles on political categories on Wikipedia is a testament to this.  I'd much rather we leave out labelling. -- Palthrow (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to put such an emphasis on getting more 3rd party sources? The fact that their policies are generally neo-lierbal can be derived from the other pages. If you deny that they are accurate, you should change them. If not, and since you haven't said anything to this effect, I'll presume this is the case, we can use those articles as our assumptions. Which leads to the fact that they are generally neo-liberal. The need for a 3rd party source here is exactly the same as on those articles: if they need one, presumably they have one (if not, you should be there). If they don't need one, neither does this. The other source I mentioned earlyer shows the strong effect Friedman had: if you're reverting my becuase I didn't intergrate the reference, that's becuase I don't know how, and would appreciate your help.
 * Of course it's the view of a certain group of people: it's the view of those who, like Bjarki, can recognise that the independance party is heavily influenced by neo-liberalism, as is shown elsewhere on wikipedia, and who can understand the progression from 'Friedman is a neo-liberal' and 'Friedman influenced Iceland' to 'neo-liberalism inflencing Iceland'. If political catagorisation is subject to endless dispute, this is an issue for those pages. Here, however, it is clear that neo-liberalism is a major factor. And how else are you going to catagorise parties but by how they act? Iceland has acted in a neo-liberal way, hense, acts neo-liberally. Larklight (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You still have to be careful of WP:SYN issues. Source X gives you fact A and source Y gives you fact B but you may still need source Z to connect the dots between A and B. Haukur (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that applies here- nothing aditionally has been added, like in that example. Rather, I've simply joined up the two sources, and come to a conclusion that isn't contrary to anyone's experience or instincts.Larklight (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You've joined up two sources and reached a conclusion, perhaps a reasonable one. This seems exactly like that WP:SYN example to me. Haukur (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have joined up two sources, but I think that my conclusion is entirely contained in the sources- the conclusion is part of the inferances (making it an analytic proposition, possibly a tautology). Additionally, WP:SYN describes putting together A and B to make C- what I have done is to find that A=B and that B=C, and derive A=C. Law of identity holds, and nothing, not even any new connections, are on my behalf. I simply noticed the tautology involved. Larklight (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In the economy section it is stated that Iceland has progressive taxation but that's not quite true. The income tax is proportional with only a single tax bracket.Ormur (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It says that Iceland currently has a wealth tax. However, if you read the article on wealth tax, it states that Iceland abolished this tax in 2006. My name is harry (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Social structure

 * Iceland is not a very class-separated society, and most of the population belong to a large middle class. Not many Icelanders are very rich, and there are also not many who are significantly poor. Like in other Western societies, a traditional nuclear family consists of a husband, a wife, and their children, usually in the range of one to three. However, this is very different between families, and like in other Western societies, divorce is rather common.

I removed this section because these facts are rather subjective and unreferenced. It would be better to show rather than tell. For example, income quintiles and household census statistics would tell a more accurate and objective story. -- Beland (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Location of the Fischer-Spassky Chess Match?
Where was the match held?

I think if the Reagan-Gorby summit's location is noted, the chess match likely also ranks up there historically as well. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Laugardalshöll. --Bjarki (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination?
This article’s come a long way recently, I think it could be ready for GA soon with a few tweaks. What do you guys think? Max Naylor (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to get rid of the weasel words. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any weasel words. I personally think that this is a good article. What do you guys think? 85.220.53.151 (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What did the foxes eat?
The article says that the Arctic Fox was the only land mammal in Iceland when humans arrived. If this is true, what did they eat? Birds and fish exclusively? 70.243.223.32 (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably. -- Palthrow (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the Artic fox's own page, "lemmings, Arctic Hare, reptiles and amphibians, eggs and carrion". So indeed a very hungry fox, eating just eggs! This surely can't be right. GM Pink Elephant (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that there actually were foxes in Icalnd before human settlement. - Hansihippi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansihippi (talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction to flora and fauna?
The section states that Iceland resumed scientific whaling but has no commercial whaling fleet. This is disingenuous - Iceland resumed commercial whaling in 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6059564.stm.217.225.233.188 (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction to economy?
While we're about it: The article Whaling in Iceland indicates that whaling has been a historically important part of the Icelandic economy. I think it merits a mention (as used to be present) in the Economy section.217.225.233.188 (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC) commercial fishing fleet or not, the one fishing for the japanese has been tied up since forever(the stem boat ones), only one of them to be commisioned last year to take those 5 fin's out of several thousands. The minke whale fleet consists of small boats, family owned, and meat goes to dominestic use. Minke whale is NOT ENDANGERED AS IS THE FIN. There are a lot of whale species, some are endangered, others are not, it will be nice when people start to realize that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.30.223.74 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Rímur.ogg
The sound quality of that performance is terrible and personally I don't understand much of the old man's mumbling. Can it be repalced by a clearer one or just removed? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine
The article speak of Icelanders eating "pickled scrota". This, as it were, is bollocks - or should be. 131.111.99.68 (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Flora and Fauna
I find it hard to believe that the arctic fox could be the ONLY native mammal to Iceland when it was discovered by humans. They had to eat something, like mice? insects? did they cannibalize each other? Sixer Fixer (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Birds and bird eggs, of which there were and are many. There were no mice and few insects, and to my knowledge foxes are not especially adept at catching fish. 130.208.164.173 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC) kría

They brought animals with them. Óli Gneisti (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Icelandic fox mainly eats birds and fish. Occasionally a dead seal (which is a mammal, of course, but does not count as a land animal). --Birnuson (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

least populous, second smallest ????
"It is the least populous of the Nordic countries and the second smallest;" Faroe Islands is the least populous of the nordic countries with 48,317 inhabitants. it is actualy the third smallest after, denmark and Farose Islands whom are smaller!! so someone fix this error.. Bambinn (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Faroe Islands aren't independent, they usually don't count. In fact, I'm not sure if the Faroes can be called an actual country. Same for the Åland. Hús  ö  nd  00:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Official Name
Is "Iceland" really the official name for this country? I found also "Republic of Iceland (Lýðveldið Ísland)". Which one is correct one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.245.248 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The correct one is "Iceland". There has been some confusion regarding this, as even the Icelandic Government used "Republic of Iceland" in international treaties and other official documents until only a few years ago. However, both the Prime Minister's Office and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs have now confirmed that the official name is simply "Ísland" in Icelandic and "Iceland" in English. This usage can be witnessed in recent agreements entered into with the European Union. (Ireland is another European republic that does not include "Republic" in its official name.) --Birnuson (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Source? --Bjarki (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See here: Constitution of the Republic of Iceland. The constitution is named in English "Constitution of the Republic of Iceland". The first article says: "Iceland is a Republic with a parliamentary government". There is no article in the constitution that states an official name. Later in the constitution, when discussing the role of the president, that position is either referred to as "The President of Iceland" or "The President of the Republic". I browsed for news from the Prime Ministry and found no confirmation on the name. I also searched the database for regulations about the country's official name and found no regulation, but I did find, among others, documents published by the office of the president referring to the country as "The Icelandic Republic", further adding to the confusion. Despite that confusion, I firmly believe that the official name, if there is one in the first place, is "Lýðveldið Ísland" or "The Republic of Iceland", because that is the name given in the title of the constitution, instead of "Constitution of Iceland". As a native speaker of Icelandic it seems to me that the constitution implies the official name, so to speak, to be "Lýðveldið Ísland", instead of "Ísland". I'm not, however, convinced that Iceland has an official name at all, having no clear regulation or law on it. The United States of America is similar example I think, not being given an official name by constitution, if I know right. 85.220.55.52 (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is some of the information that I intended to provide myself. Until the name of the country is stated explicitly in an official document, the best solution seems to be to refer to the text of the Constitution as published by the Althing (the Icelandic text; not the English translation, which is not authoritative). The link is here. While the official name is not stated in the actual text of the Constitution, the title given is "Stjórnarskrá lýðveldisins Íslands". Since "lýðveldisins" (the Republic) is written with a lower case "l", that seems to be a fairly clear indication that the official name of the country in Icelandic is simply "Ísland", and so the English equivalent should reasonably be simply "Iceland". As I have already mentioned, this was confirmed to me by the Prime Minister's Office and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. I pointed out to them that a statement to this effect would be useful, but nothing of the sort seems to have been issued. --Birnuson (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion list
I have decided to re-order the list of religions by percent and nto arbitrally. (eg 5.5% was below 2.4% while 82.1% is at the top.) I think that to some one who is not paying clsoe attation may belive that the item at the top of the list is the most predominant and the bottom much less. --Bob12321 (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Map
I've noticed that every map I can find of iceland seems to have large blank spots all over it. Why is that? Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article, these areas don't even appear to be included in subdivisions, I think this would be the only country to do that. Zazaban (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These are glaciers. They are divided between the respective subdivisions, but the boundaries are often not drawn. Maps of other countries with glaciers often display them as white spots, but Iceland is pretty much the only landmass in the world that is not either mostly covered with glaciers or ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctica), or has small glaciers or no glaciers at all. This can be confusing to people not used to this. Indeed, we should mention this in the description section of the maps. 66.117.142.197 (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Greenland maps I've seen show borders going over the glaciers. Zazaban (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Iceland's forests
The history section does not mention that when the first settlers arrived in Iceland, it was mostly covered by forest, and had been subject to major de-forestation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

date formatting
It was mixed; I've gone with international. Please inform me if there is no consensus for this. Tony  (talk)  12:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Bananas
I've heard it said in trivia quizzes that Iceland is Europe's largest exporter of bananas. It was also mentioned on BBC TV's QI programme. It is explained as being possible due to the geothermic heating. Is this a myth? TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Ireland is the biggest exporter of Bananas in Europe.Fyffes is one of the world's leading brands of bananas,and Fyffes is a fruit and fresh produce company in Dublin 7, Ireland.Fyffes became an Irish company following takeover by the Irish group FII plc in 1986.217.83.168.191 (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Likely a myth, and a not very convincing one. My shot would be that Europe's largest exporters of bananas might be Madeira and Canary Islands. Hús  ö  nd  21:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A myth, and a very irritating one. (I also noticed this on QI: proof that they don't get everything right.) Iceland is certainly not an exporter of bananas. A few banana plants exist in greenhouses, but the yield is very small, and production is not commercially viable. --Birnuson (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough the English language version of Wikipedia has an article on Banana production in Iceland,but there is no translation into any other language.Banana are grown for research purposes in Iceland ,but the only bananas exported are those given away for curiosity value.You can reaD WHERE THE JOKE CAME FROM IN THIS ARTICLE Europe’s leading exporter of bananas
 * Not exporter, but producer! It's true. There was someting about this on the Icelandic tv earlier this year. --140.180.14.7 (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Arctic Fox
It says in this article that the Arctic Fox was the only mammal native to Iceland when Humans arrived. It then says that there were no native reptiles and amphibians. According to Arctic Fox, these creatures only eat meat. So, how did they survive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.233.100 (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See explanation under "Flora and Fauna" above. --Birnuson (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Autumn 2008 financial crisis
There are reports of a financial crisis in Iceland - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/05/iceland.creditcrunch - its banks are in trouble - http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/iceland-talks-rescue-plan-troubled/story.aspx?guid=%7BB5535F67-14A9-4EE6-BC37-EDAE6368AAB5%7D&dist=msr_1 - the krona has gone from 123 to the euro to 155 in the last month. This needs to be brought into the article. -- Beardo (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Some wiseguy is selling Iceland on eBay, according to a swedish economy news site: http://www.e24.se/samhallsekonomi/varlden/artikel_778643.e24 90.227.54.4 (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article does seem to say very little about what seems to me a fairly relevant and important part of the economy section. TastyCakes (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please replace map with better topographic projection
Can someone please replace the map with one that has Iceland in the centre? The current map has a topographic projection that distorts distances significantly at this latitude. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That someone was myself. See Image:Iceland-globe-map.jpg created using NASA's World Wind application. Image added to Geography section. I believe this image more clearly demonstrates the closer distances between Iceland, Norway, Canada and Russia. In particular it shows that the distance to Norway and to the UK are roughly the same (whereas on a flat map, the UK looks a lot closer, which is wrong). Andrew Oakley (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also like your Iceland centered map better. TastyCakes (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of NPOV
The Icelandic banking system is indeed having some terminal difficulties these days. But as most economists would tell after examining the circumstances, the Icelandic state is far from going into bankruptcy, and neither is the Icelandic public. I think we need more information from the Icelandic POV. Currently, the section is too concentrated on the POV of foreign investors and individuals who have money on fx. Icesave. I don't have any sources, though 66.117.142.241 (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It may or it may not actually go bankrupt, but it isn't far.  The person to publically introduce the possibility of bankruptcy was Icelandic Prime Minister Haarde himself; he said "There is a very real danger, fellow citizens, that the Icelandic economy, in the worst case, could be sucked with the banks into the whirlpool and the result could be national bankruptcy.".  I found a English transcript, which I'll add to the article. Superm401 - Talk 04:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As an Icelander I have noticed that this speech, particularly this paragraph, has been somewhat misinterpreted. What the PM is referring to is the scenario where the Icelandic state would take over the banks' debts, like most people expected Iceland to do. That would have resulted in decades of huge debt loads and restraints on Icelandic taxpayers, you could call that a national bankruptcy. Later in the speech he implies that the state does not intend to do so, which was the real news for a lot of people, especially foreign investors. By rejecting responsibility for the debt, the actions of the Icelandic government are indeed intended to eliminate the extraordinarily high national debt, for which the banks were almost solely responsible. As a matter of fact, the state treasury of Iceland is currently almost debt free, and the majority of the Icelandic population remains relatively wealthy compared to these extraordinary circumstances. But anyway, I'll add some more information. 66.117.142.241 (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's simply not what "bankruptcy" means. You're twisting his words to fit your viewpoint.  A bankruptcy is a inability to pay all one's debts, not a taking on of someone else's debts. Superm401 - Talk 05:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right and there was a danger of 'national bankruptcy' (not that that term has any specific meaning in economics) if the state took on the debts of the nanks. But it was absolutely clear from the words of the PM which he reiterated earlier tonight, that it was not the intention of the government to do that. I don't think that user 66.117.142.241 is twisting words, this is what the PM said. --140.180.14.7 (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand. What I mean is that the banks are going bankrupt (unable to pay their debts), not the nation. Hence, it's not a national bankruptcy. Anyways, I suggest we leave the NPOV tag for now since there are lots of sides on this issue and it's just been breaking through the media for the last couple of days.66.117.142.219 (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To allow this banks to operate in Europe the Iceland government had to guarantee a certain level of savings safety. By failing to honour these agreement the Iceland government is failing its financial obligations. Basically this is what banktruptcy is, failing to meet your legal financial obligations. The UK has started to seize icelandig property in the UK to cover the debts. Again something close to banktruptcy.
 * Finally the report about banktruptcy of Iceland is not that of Wikipedia but a statement by the Icelandic premier, which is sourced. Wikipedia is not about the truth, but about verifiability and reliable sources. Arnoutf (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, the point of view is neutral. The tag may be more reasonable here. Arnoutf (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've consumed every morsel of news about this and Geir Haarde has consistently said that national bankruptcy is not going to happen. When he mentioned this possibility in his address to the nation it was to reject it. He said that if the Icelandic government would do certain things then such a risk was real and that's why they were not going to do them. Haukur (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so basically Haarde stated that either Iceland goes banktrupt or it violates some essential international treaties. Nice dilemma; but nothing to discuss here. I am fine with your removal of the misquote. That means NPOV is solved. I replaced it with a current event tag, as this will develop in the days to come. Arnoutf (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In Geir Haarde's view Iceland is not violating any treaties. The current event tag is fine. Haukur (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Both the UK and the Dutch government seem to have a different view, but as I said, nothing to discuss here, lets wait for some reliable 3rd party sources to speak out on this issue. Arnoutf (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Haukur (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a disagreement on whether the Icelandic authorities ever actually declared that they would not honor the obligations they have towards the Icesave account holders. It is said that statements to that effect originated with Alistair Darling apparently after he misunderstood some unidentified Icelandic official (most like the finance minister). Geir Haarde has repeatedly stated that any obligations towards personal depositors on Icesave accounts would be honored. --Bjarki (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Geir Haarde has been making the point that Landsbanki has assets that very well could be used to meet the claims of depositors so the obligation of the Icelandic government to compensate the depositors may actually never arise. This has apparently been hard to get through to the British media which acts as if all this money is lost. --Bjarki (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True. The Icelandic government has been ineffective in proclaiming this and the media has not yet picked it up. 66.117.142.241 (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Culture section: Age of sagas and eddas
I have changed the statement that the sagas and eddas were written "around the time of the settlement", which is false, to "during the High and Late Middle Ages". Sagas were written from about 1150-1350, if I remember right; eddas in the 13th century; Icelandic historiography starts at about 1100; all long enough after the Age of Settlement (870-930). Maybe the old version actually wanted to indicate that the sagas tell much about the age of Settlement and the early period of the Icelandic Commonwealth. That link to "age of settlement" is now gone, but I think it is unnecessary anyway because the sagas are by far not exclusively about the age of settlement. I guess it is enough to have more information under the articles for "sagas" and "Icelandic culture". -Unregistered User. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.120.185 (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Maybe the old version actually wanted to indicate that the sages tell much about the age of settlement and the early period of the Icelandic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.42.178 (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine Section
In the cuisine section, I would like to add the following sentance:

"For the adventurers, Iceland also offers many delicacies such as Whale, Deer, Kangaroo and Puffins" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.97.7.224 (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad grammar
"Icelandic women are surprisingly good at football compared to the size of the country." This should be "relative to the size"; sizes do not play football! 86.140.69.123 (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Inuits?
I was surprised that the article has no mention of inuit people in Iceland. By reading "Collapse" by Jared Diamaond and other web pages, it doesn't seem controversial that Inuits lived in Iceland with sizable settlements. As written, the article implies that the *only* human inhabitants have been Norwegian. wanderingstan (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Diamond was discussing Greenland, not Iceland in relation to Inuit in his book. So I think you are probably mistaken. Arnoutf (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be mistaken to think that Inuits or even Sami have lived in Iceland considering geographics, but there definitly are no known records of it or any other evidence.

Jan 2009 - Recent crisis - Iceland in the news
For info on recent problems/unrest in Iceland, see 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis and 2009 Icelandic financial crisis protests. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this should be added to the history section - It's now being called a revolution. Zazaban (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

World's first openly gay Prime-Minister?

 * Icelandic Social Affairs Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir would be the world's first openly gay leader Пипумбрик (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm this also from danish news, and i agree it should be in the article (it is world history my folks!). - Luise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.173.177 (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since January 29, 2009, she is already the prime-minister. It's time to update the article.Пипумбрик (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the most reliable source i can find on this matter http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/01/29/iceland.pm/?iref=hpmostpop According to that talks are still on going so she isnt offically the PM yet. How ever i dont know how much we should trust that source as its totally inaccurate in its claim theres only 1 openly gay British parliament member, theres actually quite a few. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Jóhanna Sigurðar isn't PM yet, and according to latest news she'll have to wait until next Monday 2nd Feb at least while the Progressive party reviews the intentions of the Alliance party and the Left Greens. It's far from guaranteed she'll be the PM (although probably likely). Currently there is an interim government consisting of the former government and it will continue until there is a majority for a new one. --Kjallakr (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the EU
On the third paragraph, there is an interestingly phrased line towards the end; listing organisations to which Iceland belongs (such as NATO). After mentioning EFTA, it goes on to say "...but not the EU." I feel inclined to remove that remark if nobody responds to this message, as being a member of EFTA indicates that it cannot be a part of another European trade bloc; after all, no country is a part of two, the EEA is as close as they get. I recall a time when the EFTA was far larger and when many of today's EU members belonged to it; I speak of Portugal, Sweden, Austria and others. The Baltic countries no longer operate the BAFTA, and if the Balkan countries (and those surrounding them) should join the EU, then the CEFTA too will be discontinued. But as long as there is a link to EFTA, there should no more be a note that Iceland is non-EU that there should that Iceland is not in the Commonwealth, and is not a member of OPEC; let alone the African Union!!!! Evlekis (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * True. However, many readers will probably not know that EFTA membership means non-EU membership, and might find the remark about Iceland not being a part of the EU as important info. Just my 2 cents. Hús  ö  nd  18:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. That is people's general ignorance. Maybe a rephrasal could be better (eg. remove EFTA from the chain, and in a seperate line write Iceland is not a member of the [EU] at present, it is however a surviving member of separate European trade bloc [EFTA], with the possibility of a brief note as to the time it has spent in EFTA and with which other states. To go on too long would send the reader onto an off-topic lane, and I realise that all these details are mentioned farther down the article. I'd keep it brief if you are in favour... Evlekis (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks well structured and adequate. Hús  ö  nd  21:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is better and it does need to be clear it isn't in the EU. dougweller (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's better for EU.It's best way writing Iceland is out;no Iceland debts in charge at EU.I agree.

Music section
Just adding that if somebody knows enough to make a paragraph on classical music (of which there is no mention in the article), then Jón Leifs would be the first name to be added. The Icelandic Symphony Orchestra is also quite notable, having made some acclaimed recordings on the Naxos label. Leth esl  19:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Signatory
In the fourth paragraph the word signatury shows up. As far as I know that isn't a word and it should be replaced by signatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.128.173 (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OFFICIAL FIXING
The currency of Iceland hasn't an official daily ECB fixing since last falls(check ECB official fixings).

Bias
I personally think that this article is biased (Remember, it's my opinion). When I read the article South Korea, on the discussion were numerous comments about how much the South Korean article is biased. This Iceland article states that Iceland is most developed country, and it goes on to tell about the country's work in egalitarianism and others. Similar things are written on the South Korea article, but that is the only article that was scorned about its biases. Please someone get a good look at both of these two articles. Jonathansuh 19:37 PM, April 16th, 2009  —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
 * This is not a bad criticism of your part. However both claims can be based on either statistics or evaluation by foreign bodies. According to the EuroStat Iceland is one of the most or the most egalitarian in Europe, and according the the UN Iceland is the most developed country in the world. -Kjallakr (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Europe of North America
In the article Age of Consent there is a map that shows Iceland with the same color as North America. Is there an issue with what continent Iceland belongs? --Gbleem 12:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The map dividing countries by continents has it the same color as Europe. The top map colors countries by the legal age of consent, not geography. Geographically it could belong to either (the tectonic plate border goes right through it); historically it's European. - DavidWBrooks 12:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's worse than that. I was confusing Iceland and Greenland. I have shingles and I think it is affecting my brain. --Gbleem 12:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strange considering most of the Icelandic people don't consider themselves european, at least they didn't until they went bankrupt.. but of course that is neither here or there and I am merely wasting bits and bytes by being delicously POV on the matter. Sorry.Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noserider (talk • contribs) 10:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly above assertion is wrong, Icelanders have considered themself's to be more European, even more than in some case as can be argued about another island - the UK, which has strong anglo relationship with North-America. But Icelanders generally could be said to be more anglophile than nordic last recent decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yggdrasil13 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I for one Icelander don't consider myself as a "European" European, as in slavish follower of the EU. It is almost amusing how totalitarians such as the EU-philes take these words and twist them to their gain. Continental Europeans are perhaps even less "European" than either the UK or Iceland in someones mind. Though it can be added that some Icelanders such as the poet Stephan G. Stephansson have called Iceland the first American Republic. We can also question whether the Nordic countries are as "Nordic" as Iceland just as much as the other way around. -Kjallakr (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation of Lýðveldið Ísland
I've noticed that the pronunciation of Lýðveldið Ísland doesn't match the orthography, because d is always a [t] sound, never a [d] sound, because it doesn't exist in Icelandic, so can somebody explain what's happening here?

RJL 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Corrected. I also removed the markers under the ð's which are not really needed. Stefán 19:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Íslenska lýðveldið? (The Icelandic republic) I've never heard anybody say 'Lýðveldið Ísland' (The Republic Iceland). --Non-user Boðflenna 194.144.16.171 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The title of the constitution is "Stjórnarskrá lýðveldisins Íslands" (The Constitution of the Republic of Iceland) so the correct formal name is 'lýðveldið Ísland' (The Republic of Iceland), with a lower-case 'l' in 'lýðveldi' unless at the beginning of a sentence. --Erlendur 194.144.43.164 (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

wording in intro
it has to be changed in light of the last 12 months Today, Iceland has some of the world's highest levels of economic and civil freedoms.[5] In 2007, Iceland was ranked as the most developed country in the world by the United Nations' Human Development Index.[6] It was also the fourth most productive country per capita, and one of the most egalitarian, as rated by the Gini coefficient.[7][8] Icelanders  LibStar (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of the intro also has to be changed, it suggests that a minority government is still in office, which is not true. I'm going to merge the 2 last paragraphs and clean up some factual errors. Please review and improve if needed. 66.117.142.207 (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Liberal ideologies
In the intro, isn't this rather awkward? "Modern Icelandic culture, such as the nation's music scene and cinema, is influenced by the nation’s generally liberal ideologies." Apart from the fact that only people, not nations as such, have ideology (or ideologies, for that matter), it's a bit broad to make this connection to Icelandic music and cinema. In any case, what the hell is "liberal music" or "liberal cinema"? -- Palthrow (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Change request on fundamental misunderstanding of Iceland's history
Dear sirs,

Kindly correct a fundamental flaw/misunderstanding on this page regarding Iceland's history. Iceland became fully and unconditionally independent on 1 December 1918, as correctly implied in the text, but not clearly stated. The flaw pertains to the history chapter copied below. See comments in brackets:

In 1874, Denmark granted Iceland a constitution and home rule, which was expanded in 1904. The Act of Union, an agreement with Denmark signed on 1 December 1918, recognized Iceland as a fully sovereign state under the Danish king.

During World War II, Iceland joined Denmark in asserting neutrality. After the German occupation of Denmark on 9 April 1940, the Icelandic parliament declared that the Icelandic government should assume the Danish king's duties and take control over foreign affairs and other matters previously handled by Denmark on behalf of Iceland. [This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Iceland had full and unconditional control over foreign affairs from 1 December 1918. It established and Embassy in Copenhagen. Denmark acted as its agent, acting on Iceland´s behalf in foreign affairs, with our any control whatsoever.] A month later, British Armed Forces occupied Iceland, violating Icelandic neutrality. In 1941, responsibility for the occupation was taken over by the United States. Allied occupation of Iceland lasted throughout the war.

On 31 December 1943, the Act of Union agreement expired after 25 years. Beginning on 20 May 1944, Icelanders voted in a four-day plebiscite on whether to terminate the union with Denmark [This is not correct, the union was a personal one with the Danish King] and establish a republic.[26] The vote was 97% in favour of ending the union and 95% in favour of the new republican constitution. Iceland formally became an independent republic on 17 June 1944, with Sveinn Björnsson as the first president. [A fundamental misconception, Iceland became fully independent on 1 December 1918. Iceland's position 1918-1944 was the same as Canada´s now, its sovereign is the Queen of England. Canada is fully independent nevertheless. Iceland only became a republic in 1944.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonjensjonsson (talk • contribs) 19:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As Wikipedia is open to edit to anyone, please make the changes yourself as you evidently know a lot of this. Try to provide relevant sources. (PS dear sirs is a bit gender specific, there are also ladies involved). Arnoutf (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He can`t do it. The article is locked. --93.130.217.174 (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)