Talk:History of Iceland

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

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

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

message: ...the article somehow fails to mention them. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 18:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There were thralls all over Iceland and Scandinavia. They were one of the main "commodities" traded by the Vikings, but I don't know whether it is interesting enough be mentioned in the Scandinavian history articles.--Wiglaf 18:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The article could well do with being less dismissive of early Gaels in Iceland. At the moment, it is clearly biased, and does not conform to NPOV spirit. If no-one else does so, I will insert some of the arguments for early Gaelic presence and influence.  Secondly, when Gaelic is meant, Gaelic should be used; not merely Irish, but both Irish and Scottish. If Irish has to be used to mean both Irish and Scottish, as it frequently is used, this should be made clear.  Calgacus 02:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see much "dismissive" attitude in it. The term Irish is being used as that is what is discussed up here, no one means scottish. There is still little hard evidence for the settlements of those before 874, including Gaelic, Irish or Scottish monks. I leave the discussion of that to the archealogists. --Stalfur 20:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

text: There's plenty of documentation for Irish slaves, so that claim is not biased. --D. Webb 02:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I'm not discrediting Ari as an author, but rather doubting his puzzling statement, which is far from clear and indubitable. I'm not saying it's definitely false either. But the bottom line is that the article isn't biased. --D. Webb 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish slaves in Iceland 

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

message: Kristinsson, Axel; "Is there any tangible proof that there were Irish monks in Iceland before the time of the Viking settlements?" (2005)
Does this text exist in print? I cannot locate a copy anywhere other than on what appears to be a blog website. Since it deals with a minor subject of debate between scholars, I would prefer to have the listing of it here linked to an actual publication, if it exists. The author has a reputable position as a museum administration staffer, so  I would imagine that the text would be easier to locate. P.MacUidhir 16:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Vísindavefur (Science Web) is published by the University of Iceland. I don't think there's a print edition (yet?). - Haukurth 16:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be content with just the article itself found somewhere online and placed there by the author, if that is all we have to work with for the moment. I found copies of it, but they do not seem to have been emplaced by the author himself, so they are not quite as useful as a 'Reference' link. If you find the original copy put up somewhere online by Axel, please do add a link in the article, or mention the location here and I will do the editing for us. I appreciate the added information you just posted on the topic here. That helps a bit. P.MacUidhir 17:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure what you mean. The translated article's original publication place is the one we link to. The original Icelandic version is here: http://visindavefur.hi.is/svar.asp?id=1732 - Haukurth 19:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you much. P.MacUidhir 21:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: There is no mention anywhere in the article about the growing power of the church in Iceland following Gamli sáttmáli, or about the often colourful relations between the two bishops, in Hólar and Skálholt. 
Even more importantly, Iceland's somewhat bloody conversion to Protestantism is not mentioned.  - Zoso 19:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church power 

message: I added some images to spruce things up a bit.  It's a much more lively read now ;) Palthrow 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! Be careful with the licencing, though. Icelandic government publications are not in the public domain (except for the laws). - Haukur 22:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added images

message: Is it accurate to call the WWII occupation an "invasion and occupation of Iceland by Allied forces in violation of international law, which would last throughout the war" when the article goes on to say that a defense agreement was signed with Iceland in 1941? Presumedly it was no longer a violation of international law from that point on. MK2 05:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be fair the Icelandic constitution from 1918 declared Iceland a sovereign, eternally neutral country.  That neutrality was violated by the British.  In all likelihood most Icelanders would have preferred occupation by the British to occupation by the Germans, but that doesn't change the legal aspect.  The violation of Belgian neutrality by the Germans vs. occupation of Iceland by the British would, to my best knowledge, be legally equivalent -- although it must be noted that Allied treatment of the Icelandic population was commendable, and the Icelanders accepted the situation with grace, culminating in the signing of the defence agreement. -- Palthrow 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: Added Historiography --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: The article says:
Naddoddr shared the news with his fellow Vikings about this new land and how great the summer was, the news about the new land spread quickly to the other Scandinavians which lead to questions about this new land and where it was. The Vikings kept Iceland a secret and tricked the other Scandinavian people about a horrible, cold place, and unbearable winter this "Ice-land" place was.The Vikings then spoke to steer clear of the North-west and to sail much more South-west to "Green-land" where Naddoddr had came from had survived a bearable winter. Tricking all the Scandinavian people to keep this New Found land to themselves, thus how "Iceland" and "Greenland" both got their name. Shortly after the lies were spread the Scandinavians set sail to this Green-land and reached there around the time of year winter was, which the conditions were unbearable and most of the Scandinavians died at Green-land. 
This is a legend presented as fact but with no citations or evidence. Wikipedia's own Greenland page contradicts this, stating that 
In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that the Norwegian-born Icelander Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for manslaughter. Along with his extended family and his thralls, he set out in ships to explore icy land known to lie to the northwest. After finding a habitable area and settling there, he named it  (translated as "Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.How Greenland got its name. The Ancient Standard. Retrieved 2 January 2012.Grove, Jonathan. "The place of Greenland in medieval Icelandic saga narrative", in Norse Greenland: Selected Papers of the Hvalsey Conference 2008, Journal of the North Atlantic Special Volume 2 (2009), 30–51, at p. 30
Camerajohn (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend of how Iceland got its name 

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

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Iceland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120220165654/http://www.gestgjafinn.is/english/nr/349 to http://www.gestgjafinn.is/english/nr/349
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090926060453/http://www1.american.edu/TED/icefish.htm to http://www.american.edu/TED/icefish.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Iceland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102014336/http://www.statice.is/Pages/444?NewsID=9181 to http://www.statice.is/Pages/444?NewsID=9181
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150806081805/http://hurstpub.co.uk/ to http://www.hurstpub.co.uk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202122250/http://starfsfolk.khi.is/helgisk/ to http://starfsfolk.khi.is/helgisk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051129025406/http://www.iceland.or.jp/Files/iceland/his.htm to http://www.iceland.or.jp/Files/iceland/his.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Iceland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220165654/http://www.gestgjafinn.is/english/nr/349 to http://www.gestgjafinn.is/english/nr/349
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160119155935/http://www.sogufelag.is/ to http://www.sogufelag.is/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I made a (small) change. Someone reverted it. I reverted the reversion, requesting the reverter to explain and debate his reasons on the talk page first.  Someone again reverted, again without any comment here, claiming I have to seek permission here first before making any changes. 
So - is WP:BOLD abolished on this page? Do we need permission now to edit? Wefa (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  is WP:BOLD swuppended for this article?