Talk:Christianization of Iceland

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Christianity

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Iceland

	Iceland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

In Bishop of Reykjavik (Catholic) there is also a part on the "Christianization of Iceland" - couldn't these two articles be combined or made to one article? Gecko78 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes!

That will do. Thank you. --VKokielov (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blood libel

I realize the whole article is almost unreferenced (well no inline refs anyway), but in particular the section of text about "the exposure of infants", is unacceptable because as it is it sounds to much like blood libel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.40.127 (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exposure of infants was common throughout large parts of Europe in pre-Christian times. I don't see the connection with blood libel, 'false and sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim the blood of victims is used in various rituals and/or acts of cannibalism.' Your point seems spurious. -- Palthrow (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of this before, and perhaps you are right. However until some references for this particular statement are provided it seems best left out, because its a fairly controversial thing to say. 119.224.40.127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Trigger happy

Akigka reverted all my recent changes saying I added a spam link? But the link is the same one from the main Iceland article. And if he though the link was spam, then just remove the link. For consistency sake, the text I added is the same as the main Iceland article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.169.231 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope we can have a discussion about this. The way i see it you are c/p-ing the same text across a number of pages who touch on the subject of the settlement of Iceland even where that text is obviously irrelevant, and using a timeline of medieval Greenland history as reference. I may have been rash in supposing that you were pushing that reference for strange purposes - it just seemed so obviously irrelevant and useless as reference (of the thousands that could be used: including online publications of Landnáma in various languages). It is, however, not good practice IMHO to simply copy-paste the same text to many articles (overwriting what was there before). Why do you think this particular person in Landnáma is so important that it needs be mentioned on every page that touches on the subject? --Akigka (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Papar?

Needs to be a nod to the possibility of the papar pre-dating settlement.Snori (talk)

Requested move 12 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 20:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christianization of Iceland → Christianisation of Iceland – WP:CONSISTENCY with - as subtopic of - Christianisation of the Germanic peoples. PPEMES (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:ENGVAR, consistency with Christianization, Christianization of Bohemia, Christianization of Bulgaria, Christianization of Iberia, Christianization of Poland, Christianization of the Slavs, Christianization of Lithuania, Christianization of Moravia, Christianization of Pomerania, Christianization of the Rus' Khaganate, Christianization of the Franks. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 'Christianization' is the most common spelling in titles overall (17 to 3). Also, Christianisation of the Germanic peoples uses the "Christianization" spelling throughout the body, so if you think it's important to be consistent on this across articles (I don't, but whatever), renaming Christianisation of the Germanic peoples is a much simpler path to achieving that. Colin M (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, comment @PPEMES: I think it would have been better to open a multi-RM, rather than individual RMs here and at Talk:Christianization of Scandinavia, Talk:Christianization of the Franks, Talk:Christianization of Bohemia, etc. Since the rationale for each move is identical, users will probably oppose them all or support them all (and have to copy-paste their reasoning into each RM). Colin M (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above rationale. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.