Talk:Icelanders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleIcelanders has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 16, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 20, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that somewhere between a quarter and a third of Icelanders living in Iceland died due to the 1783 eruption of Laki, and the subsequent famine?
Current status: Good article

The image[edit]

I replaced the previous collection of pictures of Ólafur Ragnar, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, Jón Sigurðsson and the beauty queen, with the current composite picture, which is based i style on what is practiced on the other related ethnicity pages. Compared to what was previously displayed I believe this is a more diverse and fuller display of the Icelanders within the constrains of what images are available on wikipedia. Not only do we now have people with other haircolours than white, but also not predominantly current politicians. -Kjallakr (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is more diverse, I suppose. But last time I checked, there were pictures of Baltasar Kormákur and Eiður Smári Guðjónsen. It would be more diverse if there were still pictures of them. (seeing that there are curently no pictures of directors or athletes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.179.234 (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with whoever made that comment above me. A different photo would be nice. -MrGulli (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some suggested people to be put on a possible new photo:
Jón Sigurðsson, Björk, Egill Skallagrímsson, Jónsas Hallgrímsson, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, Eríkur Rauði, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, Leifur Eiríksson, Halldór Laxness, Emilíana Torrini and Eiður Smári Guðjohnsen.
Only the latter five are not there already. More suggestions? MrGulli (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are fair points. The last edit (incidentally by a person now banned from wikipedia) added two beauty-queens to the picture, which I'm not certain should belong in this picture. We really should try only to add people who have been historically significant to the country and world. From these newer suggestions I only see Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, Leifur Eiríksson and Halldór Laxness fitting that description. Another person I believe might be quite appropriate and being an athlete is Jón Páll Sigmarsson. If I go over the current selection, Jón Sigurðsson, Egill Skallagrímsson, Davíð Oddsson, Jón Hallgrímsson, Björk, Arngrímur Jónsson and Eiríkur Rauði are the only undisputable historically important persons on the picture (in my opinion of course). Ólafur Ragnar is probably also very historically important, considering his "vetoes". The current prime minister is maybe also important historically for LGB peoples. I believe the three other women, despite all their qualities are on the pictures merely for reasons of "gender-equality" and feminizm, although possibly Jóhanna G. Jónsdóttir may well become historically significant in the future. We should probably replace some of these women with Bríet Bjarnhéðinsdóttir or other important women. The history of Icelanders didn't all happen in the last 10 years either, and there are pictures of older heroes of the Icelandic civilization. -Kjallakr (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've have the same thoughts about the image, there are two beauty queens still there that I hadn't even heard of, so my feelings are that they should not be representative of Icelanders. I have thought about a solution, and it's inevitable that the choice of people will be somewhat controversial. I thought of a list with 12 people, 6 women and 6 men, from different fields and eras. I have compiled a little image myself with the following people (I'll try to justify the choice in brackets):
1 Jón Sigurðsson (Historical. Important in Icelanders' struggle for independence)
2 Bríet Bjarnhéðinsdóttir (Historical. Important in the women's rights movement)
3 Egill Skallagrímsson (Historical. A prominent man from the Icelandic Sagas)
4 Hallgerður langbrók (Historical. A prominent woman from the Icelandic Sagas. The problem here is that I'm not sure of the origin of the image. If anyone knows or has a different image it would be very nice. I read that the image might be from the Byggðasafnið á Skógum).
5 Jón Páll Sigmarsson (Sports. Four times World's strongest man, and generally revered person)
6 Vala Flosadóttir (Sports. One of Iceland's most successful female athletes to date, Olympic medallist in 2000)
7 Snorri Sturluson (Historical and cultural significance, for Iceland and the whole Nordic)
8 Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir (Historical significance (I would have liked to have Auður Djúpúðga here, but I don't think there exists a picture of her. If anyone could suggest a woman who is more historically/culturally significant, scientist or anything that has been left out, please suggest it))
9 Sveinn Björnsson (Politics and history. Iceland's first president)
10 Vigdís Finnbogadóttir (Politics and history. The world's first elected female head of state)
11 Halldór Laxness (Culture and arts. Iceland's only Nobel Prize winner.)
12 Björk (Culture and arts. Maybe the most famous Icelander ever.)
Please suggest changes in the list if you don't agree with something. My general guidelines were to have people representing history, the sagas, politics, sports and arts, and to have equal amount of men and women. Here [1] you can see my image if you're interested. If there are no objections, I might just upload the thing in a few days. --Dr. Schnellkopf (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see there is a new image up already. Nicely done. --Dr. Schnellkopf (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

Is there any particular reason this is at "Icelanders", and not Icelandic people? The latter seems to be the usual name for such articles... Shimgray | talk | 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was the original title. As Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups says, "As of January 2006, there is no strong consensus on naming of articles about ethnic groups". Interestingly, reading this list, it seems that there is an even spread (ie. x people to xians/ers). Daniel Bryant 01:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics[edit]

I removed a phrase which insisted that "in the contrary of other Europeans, the Icelanders are genetically highly homegenous. This utter false, and on the contrary Iceland is genetically one of the most heterogenous ethnicities in Europe. This despite the geographical isolation. I will add sources later.Podomi (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course, everyone's Celtic if they're from Europe. As per Bryan Sykes' research Icelanders are of half Gaelic ancestry. 188.124.93.223 (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. As this will almost certainly result in the removal of the "genetics" section from this article, I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"related groups" info removed from infobox[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isolation - a myth?[edit]

In the article History of Iceland we find this: "Though geographically removed from Europe, Iceland was never isolated. Mariners from many nations (though mostly from Scandinavia, France, Germany and England) came to call and trade at Iceland's ports throughout the Middle Ages and early modern period."

And in this article we find this: "Due to the isolated location of Iceland, the immigration and genetic inflow was limited in its indigenous population for hundreds of years; thus the population was considered to be highly homogeneous in terms of its genes."

Isn't this rather contradictory? Plus the was in that last sentence - if that was the view, what is then the current view? --85.220.81.19 23:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is a myth, although I'm sorry to say I have no works at hand to quote from. But there was always a strong economic bond between Iceland and the rest of Europe. There was (quoting from memory, fairly reliable in this case) of Norwegians and others, and the Hansa and the English were more or less permanent fixtures of the landscape. In addition to that, everyone who could sent his sons to Denmark or Germany for education. (Poor or not, when a talent was discovered, there are numerous examples of well-wishers pooling to see that talent grow and sending him away to Copenhagen - probably a result of the enormous prestige learning has always had in the country.) Some (and now I'm trying to remember), brought back wives. In addition to that, there were of course numerous "bastards" born as a result of the continuning presence of Norwegians, Germans, Englishmen and Danes. In any case, regardless of genetics, Iceland was never culturally isolated from Europe. Cheers Io 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The homogeneous nature of a group of people is naturally relative to levels everywhere else. Daniel 07:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously... do you have a source for the proposition that Icelanders are more homogeneous than everywhere else? --157.157.230.253 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the article itself contradicts this view, citing Árnason et al. Therefore it is strange to see this in the introduction.. --157.157.230.253 (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be obviously lacking ... To which listed group (Norwegians, Germans, Englishmen and Danes, and Hansa) do we owe the almond eyes? Greenland Inuit, perhaps?166.128.175.20 (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking me as an example, I'm supposedly as "pure" an Icelander as you can be; that is, records show that every one of my recorded ancestors (which there are records of centuries into the past, with gaps only starting to appear in 17th century records) are Icelandic, without any foreign influences. Yet I've often (well, at least three times I recall) been mistaken as a foreigner here in Iceland due to my "dark" skin (I'm very white, it's not that, my skin just has Spanish or French tones as opposed to Nordic). My father is even darker, with my mother more obviously Nordic/Irish. I am simply too dark for the records to be 100% correct, and the records are probably skewing things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.76.92 (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for population[edit]

I would like to see some sources for the number of Icelanders cited -- e.g. 75 thous in Canada, 50 thous. in the US, 15 thous. in Denmark etc. -- Palthrow 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find which book I got this out of at home. Please bear with me. Daniel 07:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs inline citations:

  1. "Through this time, Iceland had relatively few contacts with the outside world."
    Referenced to L&P(5). Daniel (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "They are considered to be the best known pieces of Icelandic literature."
    Referenced to NatGeo. Daniel (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "At the same time, it also led to a boom in printing, and Iceland today is one of the most literate societies in the world."
    Done - both parts are referenced to different sources. Daniel (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "There are very few (about 30) Jews in Iceland."
    Referenced/qualified to RCD. Daniel (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "It was only in the nineteenth century that the first pipe organs, prevalent in European religious music, first appeared on the island."
    Done - the whole section was referenced to Fiske p.9, but I've added two footnotes to clarify this. Daniel (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues:

  1. Image:Icelanders (ethnic group).jpg is tagged with a non-free and public domain template. If it has a non-free template, it needs a detailed fair use rationale on the image's page.
    I have restored the original image used (see below). Daniel (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The lead needs to be expanded to two or three paragraphs to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
  3. "Fish from Iceland is considered to be some of the highest quality and best tasting in the world." Although this is sourced, this is close to POV. Specify who considers this if the source states it.
    The source appears to be a quote from a local fisherman - COI anyone? :) - so I've removed that sentence. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The "Sports" section reads kind of choppy. Add any other relevant information and list the most common sports. Also using "legend" in "Valdimar Snær is a legend of Icelandic sports." is considered POV, so consider rewording, unless it is a specific quote (if it is a quote, specify who said it).
  5. If possible see if any related external links can be added that focus on the material.

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The infobox image is most likely going to get deleted, since compilations of fair use images aren't permitted here, as far as I remember. Such compilations should consist solely of free images. FunkMonk (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have restored the original image used. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been on hold for a week, are editors planning on addressing the above issues? If not, I will have to delist the article. I'll check again tomorrow. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've barely had a chance to edit this week, unfortunately. Please do not delist this just yet. Daniel (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Please contact me on my talk page when you are finished and I will re-review the article. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the issues are continuing to be addressed. I will re-review the article in a week if the issues are all addressed. If you finish sooner, please contact me on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Progress was being made, but what happened? There are only a few more points left, which shouldn't be too difficult to fix. If you fix all of the remaining issues in the "other issues" section, and can't find sources for the remaining issues, remove them from the article and then readd them once a source is found. I'm going to leave this article on hold until 7/18, and will delist it if the issues are not addressed. If you need help with any of these, please let me know on my talk page, I'm here to help and don't want to have to delist it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I forgot all about this :) Doing some now, I've gotta go in 30mins so I'll do as much in this period as I can. Daniel (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had an exceptionally busy weekened (see my contribs, I've barely edited), so I'll see what I can do over the next 28-or-so hours. Daniel (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass[edit]

I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have added some external links myself and attempted to expand the lead a bit. Please go through and review my edits and correct/expand as necessary. I'd still also recommend working on the sports section as well. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Iceland section[edit]

The section About Iceland is quite seriously flawed, in my opinion. For the first thing it's about history, which is covered specially in the following section, secondly (and more seriously) it puts forward a very strange and controversial understanding of that history, extremely critical of foreign rule and representative of public opinion in the years following independence but not generally accepted by modern scholarship. If nobody objects I'll remove the section. --Sterio (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost story of an Icelander "Exodus"?[edit]

Except for Ireland, no other European country lost over half its population in one single period of time than Iceland when the volcanic eruptions of 1783 devastated the island's agricultural food supply and caused a famine to wiped out nearly a third to a half (100,000?) of the Icelandic population. As a result, about 100,000 Icelanders fled the famine and in destitution relocated to the European continent (esp. Scandinavia and the Netherlands) and the British Isles, but myth has it a sizable percentage were invited to settle in the American colonies (the USA and Canada), Portuguese colonies like the Azores, and Spanish territories of Argentina. It took 150-160 years (until 1944?) for Iceland to recover its' pre-1783 population and their demand for autonomy from Swedish or Danish authorities whom neglected them for so long is no wonder the Icelander exodus had taken place. + 71.102.11.193 (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the census shortly after 1700 there were about 50.000 inhabitants. After the eruption, the population had dropped to around 33.000. So 100.000 is incorrect and so is "over half". Cheers 85.220.126.72 (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Literature[edit]

From the article:

Icelandic literature can be divided into three categories; Eddic poetry, skaldic poetry, and saga literature. Eddic poetry are heroic and mythological poems. Poetry that praises someone is considered skaldic poetry or court poetry. Finally Saga literature is prose that covers pure fiction to fairly factual history.[24]

The narrow-mindedness of this passage is almost impossible to fathom, begs description and is generally beyond understanding. If it is to believed, Icelandic literature ceased to exist in the 14. century. We fortunately have over 600 years of often great writing after that to prove otherwise. Would someone with time on their hands please add a few words? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.126.72 (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secular?[edit]

In the religious category of the infobox it mentions the word secular. What is meant by that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.50.21 (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Performance art[edit]

Silvia Night should be removed and Of Monsters and Men added. Silvia Night is long over and never really began. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.229.23 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to care or be reading this so I edited Silvía out and Of Monsters and Men in. As you said, Silvía is long over and the actress portraying her has moved on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifurf (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And even though this isn't necessarily about people "being someone" right now, I don't think she's qualified to be there. If someone disagrees they can edit her back in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leifurf (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

Should the article be moved to "Icelandic people"? This sounds like a less ambiguous title than the current one (Icelanders). Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 00:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups[edit]

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. TravisRade (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an RfC and it doesn't follow the RfC process. It's just a collection of opinions and has no authority. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was opened correctly. please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_for_the_deletion_of_all_the_galleries_of_personalities_from_the_infoboxes_of_articles_about_ethnic_groups. Dkfldlksdjaskd (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggerated total population in the infobox[edit]

Isn't 450,000 a bit of an exaggeration?? It is not corroborated anywhere else in the text and the number itself is not sourced. Adding all the numbers in the table up it comes out to a little over 330,000. 120,000 or more might not seem like a lot when we're talking Germans or Japanese, which number 10s of millions, but it is when it comes to Icelanders. 120,000 would be almost another Reykjavík. 141.138.38.105 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@141.138.38.1050: Addressed. ProKro (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Icelanders. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Icelanders. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Icelanders. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help request[edit]

Please can someone move the article to Icelandic (ethnic group) rather than Icelanders. Icelanders is not the official name for the ethnic group it’s just colloquial.

 Not done See WP:COMMONNAME: We use the name most commonly used in reliable sources. Skimming the article's sources shows that several explicitly refer to the ethnic group as "Icelanders", including peer-reviewed scientific papers. If there's a source confirming that the "official name" of the ethnic group is "Icelandic", I didn't see it; sources generally use "Icelandic" just as the adjective to "Iceland" (as in "Icelandic ambassador" or "Icelandic economy"). Huon (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few celtic couples greatly skew the genetics of icelanders?[edit]

It would only take one or two celtic couples to greatly skew the genetics of Icelanders toward celtic. In a place that does not have contraception, celtic women would keep on having kids and would not stop until they hit menopause. Germanic women are much less aggressive at having kids than celtic women. The amount of celtic people who ever lived in Iceland with Germanic people may have only been like four celtic people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.9.162 (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norn[edit]

@Rosenborg BK Fan: I removed the mention of Norn from the lead again for two reasons: According to MOS:LEAD the lead should summarize the article, and Norn is not mentioned in the body. Also: This is not the article about Icelandic language, so I think Norn is just not important enough for our article to be mentioned in the lead. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be ok to remove their little rant now, maybe this whole thing since it's over (they're blocked indef). I guess regular editing can resume. WanderingMorpheme 19:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having some experience with Rosenborg BK Fan, I took a look at their recent edits at other articles. I have the feeling that some of their edits are OK, but many are poorly done and that they changed things just for the sake of changing. Since this article has been a "good article" since 2008, I returned to the version before Rosenborg's first edit. But of course, other users are free to restore according to their own judgement. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsk6400 They had been spamming poor edits across numerous Nordic related articles for days, thank you for stepping in. TylerBurden (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Icelanders&oldid=1207689234"