This is an archive of past discussions about Iceland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
That is also true for Denmark, Norway, Finland and the United Kingdom; they are all considered to be parliamentary. I think that whether a country is considered semi-presidential or parliamentary is in some ways determined by the traditions of that country and so the head of state of Iceland and of the abovementioned countries are typically not politically active when they take office and in some cases have never been so. The President of France is for example a lot more politically involved than the heads of states of the abovementioned countries since he or she is the Commander-in-Chief, receives foreign ambassadors and participates in the national politics on a daily basis. Although the President of Iceland has some powers the position has always been regarded as being ceremonial and the current president is the only one to have ever used the power to veto legislation for example. The lines between the two systems seem to be quite blurry to me since so many heads of states of parliamentary countries have powers as defined in their respective constitutions – perhaps it’s largely about historical and contemporary perception of the office-holder. It looks like if the heads of states are perceived as being mostly ceremonial then their countries are considered parliamentary but if they are perceived as being politically involved then their countries are otherwise considered semi-presidential. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
A parliamentary republic is one where the "executive branch" derives its legitimacy from and is accountable to the parliament.
A presidential republic is one where the executive branch is led by a person who is both head of state and government. In presidential systems, the executive branch is independent from and not accountable to parliament. The president cannot normally dissolve parliament.
A semi-presidential government has a popularly elected president in addition to a prime minister, but the main difference between this and a parliamentary system is that the president is more than a ceremonial figurehead. —Sowlos 08:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
We get that. In the case of Iceland the president is elected and ultimately the holder of executive power which he or she then almost entirely delegates to his or her ministers when parliament is in session, so we have a bit of both there but I don't want to argue with what seems to be the officially recognised form of government in Iceland and in the other countries. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure everyone's on the same page. It seems to me that even though the Icelandic president is directly elected, Iceland is still under a parliamentary system. The president is largely ceremonial. In a semi-presidential system, the president and parliament seem to be more co-equal. —Sowlos 16:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Here are some points about the President of Iceland, from the Icelandic constitution:
The President bears no responsibility for executive acts.
The President can not be prosecuted unless Parliament consents.
The President delegates his or her authority to Ministers. (So the President is the executive branch but delegates the power to the cabinet of ministers when there is a functional government.)
The President appoints Ministers and discharges them. (In practise though the President simply appoint those chosen by the party or parties which won the election.)
Let's keep in mind that when Iceland gained full independence, went from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional republic, the word "King" was simply replaced by the word "President" in the constitution and not much else changed at that time. Hopefully this information is helpful to the original poster. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The article should probably have a small section on 'etymology' which explains the origins of the name Iceland. As presumably many people find Iceland interesting because of it's name. Mar4d (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Counties do not exist in Iceland as an administrative division since act no. 8/1986 and act no. 92/1989 were passed by the parliament. They live on in the memories of older generations which colloquially use them to refer to the geographic areas the once defined. I chose to update the article and replace the counties with municipalities, which are the only local governments in Iceland, in the Administrative divisions section of this article to reflect reality but the user Hopper1010 (talk) insists upon reverting my edits providing little explanation as to why. I contacted said user on the user's talk page but have not received a reply. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
In the lead it says it's Ingolfr Arnarson. In the Settlement and Commonwealth section directly below it, it's Nattfari. If there is a discrepancy between Icelandic sagas regarding this, should it at least not be said rather than giving 2 different names? I don't know enough about it to pick one, but if anyone does, a correction should be made. ScarletRibbons (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Iceland's name, official and otherwise is just Iceland
What moron inserted the sentence "officially the Republic of Iceland"? It's not and has never been.
This has been the subject of an edit war before but only one side has any sources and that's a letter from the University of Iceland to the prime minister's office asking about the official name. The answer was that "The republic of" is written with a lowercase "l" ("lýðveldi" in Icelandic) on the constitution because it's merely descriptive, not a part of the actual name. The damn source for this is still referenced as note five (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#cite_note-5) in the very first line.
Needless to say I changed it back and I would appreciate it if no one would screw it up again.
In Polish official gazette the “Protocol between the Government of the Republic of Poland and the Government of the Republic of Iceland” has been published. In this trilingual document the long name of Iceland is used in all languages: Republika Islandii, Lýðveldið Ísland, and Republic of Iceland. Moreover, in Icelandic version of this document the word “lýðveldið” in formal name of Poland is written with a lowercase "l". So, lowercase "l" in Icelandic name has nothing with treating word “lýðveldið” as part of name or not. In Icelandic part of proper name could be written in lowercase. So, I’ll remove note #5 with false information, and add official Icelandic name of Iceland used by government – till today no official information (not interpretation by scholars) that Iceland hasn’t long name. Aotearoa (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Why on Earth do you think a Polish Gazette is a more reliable source than the Icelandic constitution, the University of Iceland, and The Icelandic Prime Minister's Office? And if you actually spoke Icelandic (which I do, and you apparently don't) you'd know that in Icelandic you'd capitalize the "l" (making at an "L") if it were a part of the name as it precedes Iceland. The first part of a name in Icelandic is capitalized as are all proper names within the name (in this case being "Iceland", if you were correct - which you are not) so it would say "Lýðveldið Ísland" and not "lýðveldið Ísland". What has happened here is that the translator (or whoever wrote the Icelandic part) screwed up Poland's name as it should say "Lýðveldið Pólland" and not "lýðveldið Pólland". In effect making the correct form: "Lýðveldið Pólland" and "lýðveldið Ísland".
Nevertheless, what that gazette says is completely irrelevant and does not in any shape, way or form, counter The Prime Minister's Office. Also, it should be noted that numerous sources have it wrong, incl. the CIA factbook and others but The Icelandic constitution is unambiguous, and the Icelandic government and the University of Iceland are unanimous in their interpretation. I reverted your edit and would like to see it remain correct. Klandri (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Official documents are more reliable sources than unofficial interpretations of any University nor private opinion of Prime Minister. International agreements signed by Government of Iceland and published in official Gazette stated that Iceland has long name (check, it should be also published in Icelandic Gazette). You can find more official documents with long name, such: [1] & [2] published by the Directorate of Internal Revue (Ríkisskattstjóri), [3] published on official web site of the MFA, [4] published on the web site of the Ministry of Finance, proposal for a new constitution for the Republic of Iceland, [5] in the Official Gazette (Stjórnartíðinda), and plenty of similar. The name “Republic of Iceland” (“Lýðveldið Ísland”) is country long name that is officially used by Icelandic government and other state offices. This name is also used in the title of the constitution. One or two private opinions are null and void. Aotearoa (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no law that explicitly states what the official name of the country is. The constitution is titled Stjórnarskrá lýðveldisins Íslands (English: Constitution of the republic of Iceland). When the constitution refers to the country by name, only Ísland is used. I have noticed that the government and its agencies do sometimes, not always, use "Republic of Iceland" and less frequently "Lýðveldið Ísland". Other countries, including Poland, then use whatever they think is right. I suspect that the government, when it uses "Republic of Iceland", is trying to be in line with other countries since most of them have official short form and long form names. This convention does not change the fact however that the word "Republic" is not part of the country's official name but simply an adjective. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The long name of country is not only the name stated by law. This is also the name that is used officially by the government. For example Nepal is only name by law, but government use the name “Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal” and this name is used in international communication (e.g. in the UN). The name Republic of Iceland has been reported by the Icelandic government to the UN as a official name of country. So, this name is treated by the Icelandic government as official name that should be used in international level. In my opinion there is a need to detailed describe the issue of long name of Iceland in this article. Aotearoa (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the extent of the authority of the University of Iceland. It's the only public university in the country and is the uncontested ultimate authority on all matters Icelandic. Also it was not an individual prime minister who gave his opinion but the official stance of the prime minister's office and hence the government of Iceland. The descriptory "lýðveldið" or "republic of" is sometimes used but it should not be taken as because it is not a part of the name. In my opinion there's no need to cover this in any detail, just leave the name as Iceland and keep the note which talks about it like it used to be. Klandri (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
While I tend to favor the local country's own choice of name style, and was ready to say as much here based on the arguments made, I checked the CIA factbook for Iceland, which gives it as Republic of, capitalized. This is by no means the end all and be all of sources, but it is used as a fairly reputable and authoritative source in other similar articles. Also, the english version of the constitution on Iceland's own website http://www.government.is/media/Skjol/constitution_of_iceland.pdf uses big R Republic throughout. However, as per the endless discussion over at the North Korea article, the local name is not always what the article gets names (North Korea vs. Democratic etc etc etc). So now I'm not sure what to say, other than COMMONNAME may be the arbiter?12.11.127.253 (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Religion
We seem to be having a bit of an argument about the religion. I'm insisting upon "Evangelical Lutheran Church (Church of Iceland)" rather than "Evangelical Lutheranism" because the latter is a far broader term than the former and the former is what the Constitution defines as the state church (there other evangelical lutheran churches in Iceland and elsewhere). The other option is to be purely descriptive in which case mostly Christian would fit with a link to Religion in Iceland article. Thoughts --Erp (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Use of British English
I do not know if this has already been discussed but there is currently no explanation on why this article is written in British English. According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English particular dialects should be used if there are strong national ties to the topic otherwise international terms should be used where possible. As English is not a native language in Iceland it would not have its own dialect of it. If the topic is not strongly associated with the United Kingdom international English should be used. Tk420 (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the rationale so far has been that the Icelandic government considers British English to be the official dialect to be used in the public sector such as in the education system and by government agencies etc. I think the idea is to be more aligned with the United Kingdom as a European country than with the United States. Due to the influence of Hollywood, most Icelanders prefer to speak English closer to General American though. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Let's step back to the original post here. WP:MOS only supports the use of a specific style of English if there is a clear tie. However, it does not favour any local dialect over any other for those articles where no such tie exists. In fact, to my knowledge there is no such thing as an "international" English (and if there would be one, that should probably be English English as that is the mother dialect of them all). So I put the ball back to User talk:Tk420 to explain what is consistently and on a global scale meant with international English. Arnoutf (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
My suggestion is to not prefer any particular dialect but try to use terms common to all varieties of English according to the section Opportunities for commonality in the Manual of Style. Tk420 (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The differences include the spellings of many common words (color or colour, center or centre, defense or defence, ...). Dropping all those words would be problematic. --Erp (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
These words will cause no misunderstanding regardless of spelling so no loss of information will occur. That makes the whole issue not very urgent in my opinions.
The problem also remains that there is no international spelling. For example colour is spelled with a u in UK, Australia/New Zealand, Canada (so probably the more international version). Other issues like -ize vs -ise show mixed bags across the dialects.
The spellings are explicitly part of the style you quote. Keep as is, unless there is a compelling reason to change. In this case I would even say there is a slight preference for UK English as both Iceland and the UK are in Europe - but that is a very slight preference. Arnoutf (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I have just been checking the articles to the other countries surrounding the United Kingdom and have found a similar discussion in Talk:Belgium on whether British or American English should be used. I have also noticed that there is no dialect tag for the article on the Republic of Ireland although English is the dominant language there, the local dialect is closer to British than American English and it is in Europe. After reading the Belgium talk page I remain opposed to the blanket labeling of Europe related articles as British. I have conversed with second language speakers in Continental Europe and there is a slight preference for American over British English although the British flag is often used to represent the English language there. Tk420 (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I have been thinking and it appears the preference for British English is over spelling of common words. The closest we have to international English is Oxford spelling which originated in Britain but shares at least one element with American spelling. There is a tag for articles that use British English with Oxford spelling e.g. The Lord of the Rings. However this is a problem for articles without any strong national ties to any English speaking countries on the topic and there is currently no definition of strong national ties in the Wikipedia style guide. I have thought about suggesting a tag for these articles preferring Oxford spelling but otherwise not using British dialect preferring terms common to all varieties of English. If this is likely to be controversial I might consider calling for a dispute resolution. Tk420 (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Germanic or Norse
The second sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction is "Its original inhabitants may be descended from both Germanic and Norse ancestors.". This doesn't make sense considering the Norse were Germanic. It should be reworded to "Germanic", "Norse or other Germanic" or "Celtic and Norse" or whatever depending on what is meant with the sentence.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Iceland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps. As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:
whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option. There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman00:25, 19 February2007 (UTC)
Why does Iceland have so few weather stations?
Climate data is only available for a few communities in Iceland. Is the island so small that more than three weather stations is redundant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.62.214 (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I have just added archive links to 24 external links on Iceland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
In the History section there is a huge blank space between sub-sections. Page needs better formatting. Could anyone take care of this issue, please? --B.Lameira (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Iceland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Iceland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I find the description about the Middle Ages a little 'one-sided'. It's all about famines, and how mean the Danish king was to Iceland. In that respect, it would seem strange that the population can be reduced so massively so many times and still exist? I'm not saying the description here is wrong. But surely there must have been progress, too. I know for instance that many countries, not least Denmark, were interested in Iceland's raw materials.
I don't want to be rude, but could it be that it's the old story of the little, now independent, nation that has a need to define how awful it was to only be a part of a bigger power? I sometimes see the same phenomenon in Norwegian history writing.
Since some of the sources mentioned in the note that accompanied the lead fail to make the point, and the text of the note itself is OR and SYNTH, I changed the language in the lead. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Agree User: 45.72.228.176. It's official name is Iceland. Note: Interinstitutional Style Guide of the European Union guidance on Iceland reading "Do not use 'Republic of Iceland'. Although this name is found in some documents, it does not have official status." I've made the change on the article page. The EU guide can be read here: [6]. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The world cup was a year ago, can we take this off protected revisions. I'm seeing only fairly harmless stuff coming through. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
As far as I can tell Iceland has always been considered part of Europe, and I suspect that this recent trend of talking about Iceland as being on the boundary of two continents is something that's been spread by Iceland's tourist industry, which likes to make that claim for marketing purposes. Plate tectonics are not how continents are defined, e.g. nobody makes the claim that Japan is partly in North America because around half of it is on the NA plate, or that Italy is partly in Africa on the basis of being (according to some sources) partly on the African plate.
But obviously some of you disagree with that assessment. But I think we can all agree that it's better to get to the bottom of this here rather than continue this back and forth, and that whetever the article does say about what continent Iceland is in that should be sourced and not just be our respective opinions. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason19:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Iceland is a very big oceanic island, so strictly speaking is not actually "on" any continent (by normal definitions of what a continent is). But I think we can safely say it is a European island. It's not like Cyprus or Greenland which are actually geographically situated on the continental shelf of a different continent. Rob984 (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Having delved into this and read a few 10,000s of words on the subject, most of them by Icelanders or persons of Nordic descent, I get the impression that Icelanders themselves overwhelmingly consider themselves "European", with certain reservations, so I added some sources. Carlstak (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Politically and culturally Icelanders are European. Geologically it is split between the Eurasian and North American plate. Hmm, perhaps drop one of the two mentions of Europe in the first couple of sentence; Nordic is enough to imply Europe and then Europe is mentioned later when talking about its population density.
Iceland is a Nordic island country located in the the North Atlantic Ocean. It has a population of 332,529 and an area of 103,000 km2 (40,000 sq mi), making it the most sparsely populated country in Europe. The capital and largest city, Reykjavík, is in the southwest of the country and that region is home to over two-thirds of the population. Because of Iceland's location on the Mid-Atlantic ridge, the boundary between the Eurasian and North American plates, it is geologically active with much volcanic activity....
Saying "because <location on NA/EU plates> it's geologically active" is inaccurate. It's saying by proxy that just by being an island on a ridge boundary or that particular ridge boundary would make it volcanic. That's not the case, as can be seen in the relevant article e.g. the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago is not volcanic. Now, you might say that while it's on the same ridge it's on the SA/Africa plate boundary, not the NA/EU one, but from my (admittedly limited) understanding of geology that's just a coincidence. It's not a given that islands on any divergent plate boundary are volcanic, and thus this is overly verbose and misleads the reader.
I think that even if this were true it still shouldn't be included due to being overly verbose. The current article just leaves this at "Iceland is volcanically and geologically active" and discusses some of the details in the geology section. It seems that this whole thing started out of some mistaken assumption that only-recently (1960ish) plate boundaries had anything to do with what the established and historically agreed-upon definitions of continents, and now that that's shown not to be the case I don't see why some relative trivia about plate boundaries should be mentioned so prominently at all. I think it's about as interesting as the fact that Iceland is also on the north-south boundaries of two prevailing wind patterns, which is also something that probably should be discussed /somewhere/, but if it were discussed in the intro could be left at the equivalent of "Iceland is quite windy" --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason19:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
(short side track here) Isn't "volcanically and geologically active" a bit redundant? I also note that "volcanically" links to the article high island which seems to have little to do with Iceland. At a minimum drop "volcanically" (end side track). However Iceland is of particular interest to geologists and many others because of its location on the ridge; I note the Britannica article starts "Iceland, island country located in the North Atlantic Ocean. Lying on the constantly active geologic border between North America and Europe,..." so we aren't talking about something seen as minor. BTW the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago do get earthquakes so they are geologically active (just not volcanic). --Erp (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
"Volcanically and geologically active" isn't redundant and only mentioning one would be less clear. Volcanism is just one aspect of geological activity. E.g. Iceland has regular earthquakes, hot springs and geysers etc. All of these are signs of geological activity that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with volcanism. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason13:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Volcanically active is a subset of geologically active so sayings something like "geologically active with multiple volcanoes, hot springs, geysers and regular earthquakes..." --Erp (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe:Reference.comsays: "Geographically, Iceland is split between the North American and European continents; politically, Iceland is a part of the European continent." I'm not sure which is more important here (geography or politics) but either way it is in Europe. FallingGravity07:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I reckon only part of Iceland is part of Europe, and that's a stretch. However, I don't want to dispute the categorisation, I think politics is very important, but did want to record it here in case others do, especially given the above thread. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The intro needs work in my opinion. For example, it mentions that about 1% of the population was Danish...in 1900! What is the relevance of that? What people would want to know (and I wanted to know) is the ethnic breakdown of the country now, not what it was in 1900. (One finds this later in the article.) The 1900 data is good info, but belongs deep in the body of the article. I hope that whoever maintains this page will consider fleshing out the intro paragraph with current, more relevant info, where relevance is with regard to the casual reader who may read only that paragraph and nothing more. Chafe66 (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Iceland Economic Data
It seems like inflation data hasn't been updated in awhile, nor unemployment. I updated the icelandic krona page with a new inflation rate as of May/June 2010. Asking for help on the main Iceland page seemed a better idea then requesting help finding reputable sources on the individual pages. --Anonymous User, Who has yet to make an account.
You may not know this but a portion of iceland belongs to the tip of greenland before it was flipped. Greenland extended into a point basically when it was in the north and westjfords belongs to that land, not to iceland. There is even geological proof near the region of asgard sund.
The numbers of the Demographics are too old. Because of tourism the % of Imigrants in Iceland is much higher than in the numbers above . Gusulfurka (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hm, I had assumed that "%" was more commonly used here and I found it more clear in this instance, but I don't have strong opinions on it and you're free to reinsert or standardize more. This article uses "%" 87 times and "percent" once, it's the same thing in articles like United States where "%" is used 251 times and "percent" is used 5 times. – Þjarkur(talk)22:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Þjarkur: Yeah, I can't really speak to what the status quo is in other country articles, just to what the central consensus is, which is documented in the MOS provision (cited in the edit summary). In this article, there are a number of instances where the symbol is more appropriate (e.g., the infobox), but beyond that, the MOS is quite explicit that we shouldn't be using the symbol. Accordingly, can I ask that you revert to the MOS-compliant revision? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOT the legal status of Iceland, correction: Religion: Church of Iceland (official), Irreligion, others
Some extreme rightist Christians, claim that Wikipedia itself is the Constitution of Iceland.
They are wrong. The legal status of Iceland isn't the tyrant ruler of Wikipedia. In encyclopedias we record facts. Write (official), but add all the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:A00:A4ED:9592:3CCB:E108 (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
This edit request to Iceland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The current text states: "Iceland has extensive genealogical records dating back to the late 17th century and fragmentary records extending back to the Age of Settlement. The biopharmaceutical company deCODE genetics has funded the creation of a genealogy database that is intended to cover all of Iceland's known inhabitants. It views the database, called Íslendingabók, as a valuable tool for conducting research on genetic diseases, given the relative isolation of Iceland's population." Please add the following: 'Íslendingabók is for the exclusive use of people born and living in Iceland. The years between 1870 and 1920 are recognized as an important period of emigration for Iceland because nearly 20% of the population moved to North America. Icelanders emigrated in smaller numbers in 1855-1892 to Utah and 1863-1873 to Brazil. Icelanders are still emigrating today. A nonprofit, all-volunteer organization, Icelandic Roots, documents back to the Viking age and through modern times of those who have left and their descendants. All proceeds are used for philanthropy. www.IcelandicRoots.com SunnaDakota (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
That was my recording, I was trying to speak slowly but speaking slowly causes the pronunciation to be [ˈiːslant] rather than the way it's pronounced normally [ˈistlant]. I've uploaded a new file which should hopefully be a little more clear. – Thjarkur(talk)15:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Edit request on 20/11/2019
Change name from Iceland to "Republic of Iceland" in the sidebar section. This has been done with other countries' pages which have an official name shown in the sidebar title but don't refer to themselves with the official name normally, example: Austria, Belgium, Germany.
Done. Thanks for the link. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Resolved I've removed the whole paragraph now as there were other problems with it. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Not done: this content appears to be promotional. The first part may be acceptable, but you must provide a reliable source to support it. Danski454 (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
