Talk:Cod Wars

message: The sentence:
"The term is probably a pun referring to the Cold War."
was removed. Maybe "The name is journalistic term getting popular because of alliteration with Cold War." would be better. Or was this term used in some official documents? Pavel Vozenilek 23:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Icelandic name for these 'conflicts' is Þorskastríðin which translates into Cod Wars in English, however the Cold War is called Kalda stríðið in Icelandic. I'm not sure whether this term was first coined in Icelandic or English, if it was the former then it was probably just a coincidence that it resembles Cold War in English. --Bjarki 00:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this explanation could make it into the article to avoid clueless questions repeated again. Pavel Vozenilek 00:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: This page would be improved with a map (or maps) showing both: the extents of the waters claimed by Iceland; and the location of the more significant incidents pcrtalk 20:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, the map of Iceland's waters make no sense without the context of the UK and Ireland on the same map.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.50.155 (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: IBiblio.org states that "Tartar was in the thick of it for much of the deployment, with a number of encounters with the notorious Icelandic gunboats, specifically with Tyr, who often got entangled with RN warships and British fishing trawlers during the Cod Wars. On the 1st April, Tartar was rammed twice by Tyr and in May, she further encounters with Iceland's Navy when she was rammed twice by another Icelandic gunboat Aegir."
A crew member's personal site shows a series of photographs, which states the following captions:
#Tyr begins to swing her stern into HMS Tartar's bow, Tartar tries to match the turn.
#Tyr stops turning, Tartar can't - single screw.
#Tartar and Tyr.
#Tyr slows down, but Tartar can't - more mass.
#Try and Tartar collide. 
#Tyr's earlier attempt at swinging her stern- but she misses Tartar's bow. 
#Tyr.
#Tyr turns her bow towards HMS Tartar in mock threat. 
I personally think this articles portrays the Icelandic Coast Guard as a valiant defence force sallying forth to smite the evildoing fishermen from the wilds of Scotland - which is clearly not the case (Although I am not disputing the fact that the Royal navy was not free of blame either. The ramming incidents have hazy evidence, but seeing as I have presented a clear set of photographs showing the course of events, and no-one else has produced any references as of yet, I have tagged this article for neutrality. HawkerTyphoon 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This incident isn't discribed in the article. Please try to read sources of the ramming in question. --130.208.165.78 18:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Also the book  has descriptions from crews and captains of both ships of the incident, which are completely out of line of your descriptions. What may have happened with the Tartar dosn't automatically apply to the Falmouth.--130.208.165.78 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having check this newspaper article, as well as the rules of engagemnt issued to British forces at the time - and the blatantly photoshopped cover of the book you have quoted, I am inclined to believe that you are pushing a point of view. I quote from a british sailor on the ship - "“The whole front of the boat was taken off by Tyr, which was an Icelandic icebreaker. We lost several crew, we were taking in water badly and it took us 14 days to get back to a safe port. I count myself lucky to have survived.”". I will have more sources when the national archives get back to me. HawkerTyphoon 20:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "We lost several crew..." Is that some kind of sailor slang or does it mean what one would immediately think, that the British suffered casualties in the Cod Wars? If so, it is the first time I've ever heard about it. Furthermore Týr is not an icebreaker. This is a rather dubious source. --Bjarki 21:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's what he said - although neither side lost any crewmen, although several were injured - in my experience, 'lost' does not always mean killed. And you're right, Tyr was not an icebreaker, but compared to the flimsy hull of the British ships (designed for ASW warfare), they could well have seemed as such to British crewmen. The source is a newspaper, and in my opinion no more iffy than the Icelandic book which shows Tyr at a 90 degree angle, lying in the water, with a British frigate three times her size riding over her... Such a collision would completely destroy Tyr, and most likely sink the frigate too. I've tried to find this book, but the onyl place I've managed to find it is an Icelandic online bookshop, where it is out-of-stock. Furthermore, my knowledge of Iceland (which stretches about as far as Sigur Rós) limits me as to what I could do with such a book. Judging by the front cover, and a rough translation (from my shoddy Norwegian) of what few phrases I can glean from the interweb, I think it's more of a dramatisation than a viable source. HawkerTyphoon 22:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The story goes that the angle was 70°, I haven't read the book myself but as I understand it is based on the accounts of sailors from both ships, I'll try to get my hands on it in the next days. The author is well respected for his previous books which have covered various dramatic disaster situations and rescue operations. Let's just remember that it is probably hard to find a single incident from the entire history of armed conflicts in which both sides agree completely on what exactly happened. As all Icelanders, I have been brought up to a certain undisputed version of the truth in which a tiny and just recently independent nation took on a greedy world empire (a declining empire maybe but still an empire) in a fight for its economic survival and prevailed in spite of the latter's infinitely superior naval power and bullying tactics. This article probably provides a more neutral and sober account of these happenings as it is, but is bound to offend Icelanders who stumble upon it and perceive it as trying to whitewash the British navy. It's not our job here to "discover the truth", if there are differing accounts of the same incident they should both be presented and cited properly in a neutral manner. That's what Wikipedia is for.--Bjarki 23:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with 95% of what you're saying. Seeing as we can't present every incident from a neutral side, so maybe we should present the two views of each. I've been brought up in the British Royal Naval perspective, so I'm not free of bias either - the general view here is that Iceland resented British 'interference' in 'her' North Atlantic, and so increased its waters by what - 60 times - illegally, attacking any ship that came into sight, armed or not. Feelings are still bitter in the North of England and in Scotland over the events, as lots of jobs were lost, as well as a denting of National Pride (We lost a war against Iceland?!). I find it hard to believe that the captain of tthe frigate intentionally rammed Tyr?, considering Tyr's previous history of incidents of this nature. That said, emotions were high on both sides, and my opinion is that the final ramming incident was down to close, heavy-handed manouvering on both sides, and with the disparity oin ship sizes and turn rates, an accident was only a matter of time. HawkerTyphoon 16:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  David Wines, an officer in Falmouths helicopter hangar at the time is pictured in Útkall: Týr er að sökkva showing with paper models how the ramming occured. Mark Masterman, chief of operations of Falmouth is also pictured showing the 70° angle and how Týrs aft end submerged. Also Gerald Plumer, Falmouths captain, said he was very happy not to be court-martialed after this incident. The Týr was trying to cut Charlisles nets off while pursued by Falmouth, the net cutter is connected by wire to Týrs aft end. Hitting the Falmouth intentionally, with Týrs back end would have been absurd if you wanted to cut a trawlers nets off. --130.208.189.147 00:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Rammed Whom? Sources: 

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

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

message: has anyone else noticed but under the heading Results two contradictory statements are being made in the same sentence
firstly...
Britain won the war and the agreements did slow the decline of the British fisheries, 
well according to the last sentences of the preceding section the UK didn't win as it lost the rights to 200nm of fishing grounds after Iceland threatened to withdraw from NATO.
Then the second half the sentence says 
severely affecting the economies of northern fishing ports in the UK, such as Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood.
Which put together....
Britain won the war and the agreements did slow the decline of the British fisheries, severely affecting the economies of northern fishing ports in the UK, such as Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood.
which says to me the result was: the UK won, decline slowed and the economies of the several fishing ports were affected
sorry you got me      \O/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.139.234 (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed that too, this amusing edit is the culprit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cod_Wars&diff=next&oldid=244156795  Probably best to remove any reference to the "winner".
Jonbeckham (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This makes no sense 

message: Possibly too trivial to mention, but I might amuse here. At the time (1970s) the Cod Wars were a pretty big cultural phenomenon. It gripped the nation rather like the World Cup or the Olympics. I was in the scouts at the time and we played a game called 'Cod War' where one side was Iceland, the other Great Britain. We had a huge map with all the weather areas on it and card trawlers and gunboats. Each side chose a new area (up to two areas away) for each of their vessels to move to in secret. If your gunboat landed in the same area as one of the others trawlers you 'sank' the trawler!
Anyway, the Icelanders got the Cod, but the Brits have got their assets -  I hope we can stay friend now!
The Yowser (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: :As reported by Iceland, V/s Þór, under the command of Helgi Hallvarðsson, was leaving port at Seyðisfjörður, where it had been minesweeping, 
Surely this means to say it had been doing minesweeping training?  Tempshill (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mines weren't laid during the cod wars to my knowledge, it was probably leftovers from the WWII, I think they were doing sweeping for them well after it, they are though still creeping up even today.--212.30.223.74 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minesweeping? 

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

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

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

message: I recently edited out from the first lines of the article that the war had ended with some sort of a compromise cause that's simply just bull really, a couple of months of limited fishing for one side 200 nauticle miles for the other, doesn't sound much like a compromise to me but I do think however that we can find some better way to describe events so if anyone has any ideas then please lets see them.--Here2Disrupt (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given it a shot. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edit to the article 

message: As there was no ongoing discussion like the article said I decided to start it. I just made an edit to the article which I am not sure is correctly worded, true or beneficial in any way to be honest but I was attempting to deal with this NPOV claim by explaining how those waters could be considered Icelandic and the detriment of those towns therefor not Icelands fault. I would appreciate it if someone more knowledgable regarding the issue could weigh in on the discussion.
Did the trawlers of those towns mostly fish in Icelandic waters?
To be honest I don't think that this NPOV claim was called for and I can not see how we can include any information regarding the matters impact on Iceland. I therefor suggest that we remove the tag.
Like I said before I would appreciate it if more editors could weigh in on the discussion and the article.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

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

message: Someone needs to clarify in what way these two countries can be considered as combatants. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Including Belgium and W-Germany in the article makes sense to me. Agree clarification is needed as to the different roles/levels of involvement. I think the specific issue may be arising from their being included in the Infobox as "Belligerents". They could be omitted from the box and included only in the article, but that somewhat defeats the purpose of summarizing the information in a template. Changing the header "Belligerents" may help, e.g. to "States involved" or "Militarized Interstate Dispute between", with the parameter "| combatants_header = States involved" per :Template:Infobox military conflict. The parameter "| notes = " can also be used for clarification, as is used currently in the template for the First cod war. Whizz40 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed re: changing the term 'belligerents' in the Infobox and clarifying differences between British involvement (warships) and W-German and Belgian involvement (trawlers) if its possible. If the focus of the Wikipedia article also shifts from the warship involvement, the page should also include the Dispute of 1952-56 as a Cod War (as some historians and poli scientists already do) because it is categorized as a MID (if I recall correctly) and the Icelanders went after 'violating trawlers'.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgium and West Germany 

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

message: Looking about, the issue appears to be a disagreement about fishing in Faxa Bay, I have been unable to find the locations named in the article, Thornodesker Islet could possibly be a misspelling of Thormod(h)ssker Lighthouse? (43.43° N, 22.30° W) (large image from here http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/tpc/txu-pclmaps-oclc-22834566_c-1d.jpg ) Illunypa is still a mystery.Lacunae (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Þormóðssker is an actual location in Iceland (you can find more info by using the Icelandic spelling), it's in Faxa Bay. I have zero clue what Illunypa is (sounds Greenlandic?). I didn't write that section so I'm not sure if it's accurate. The writer of this section seems to say that the British agreed not to fish deep within Faxa Bay (Illunypa must be a location in Northern or Southern edges of Faxa Bay?). I think we might have to read up on the 1896 agreement and rewrite that bit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ílunýpa is a promontory "located 1 mile SE of Holmsberg, is a point which forms the N extremity of a small cove, at the head of which lies Keflavik. A conspicuous church, with a spire, stands in the middle of the town. It is reported that mooring buoys, for use by fishing craft, are situated in the cove." according to -http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/SD/Pub181/Pub181bk.pdf
As for a reference for the content, this might be applicable http://timarit.is/view_page_init.jsp?issId=274417 but my Icelandic isn't up to it.Lacunae (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illunypa and Thornodesker Islet locations 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cod Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525023712/http://www1.american.edu/TED/icefish.htm to http://www1.american.edu/ted/icefish.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120416045447/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/CodWar.htm to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/CodWar.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

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

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

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

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

message: Dropped this text and replaced with cited text from Fish for finance: 
Whizz40 (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background section, improvements needed (14th to 20th centuries)