Talk:Settlement 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.

Norse history and culture High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iceland Top‑importance

	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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urbanczyk archeological findings

Does anyone know anything more about archeological findings of Urbanczyk? I've read about three or four years ago about finding typical Slavic houses in Iceland from the time of settlement of Iceland.. Something new about it? I know he faced a lot of opposition from Scandinavian collegues.. Szopen 16:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference or not?

The following statement is apparently supported by reference; "The Íslendingabók of Ari Thorgilsson claims that the Norse settlers encountered Gael monks from a Hiberno-Scottish mission when they first arrived in Iceland. However there is no archaelogical evidence for a monastic settlement of Celtic monks." The reference given is from Herdsmen & hermits: Celtic seafarers in the northern seas By Thomas Charles Lethbridge. I've searched this book as best I can using Google Books and there seems to be no such reference, consequently I'm reverting the change that was introduced by an anti-British Isles ip editor. This is probably one that needs resolving - if it actually needs any resolution, which it probably doesn't - by someone who knows the subject, not by editors whose primary objective is to remove the phrase "British Isles". MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, monks from the "British Isles" is unsupported, while there is a chapter on "Celtic Monks". --HighKing (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, it's best resolved by someone who knows the subject. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, you've removed an edit without providing any references to refute the change, and the edit was made by in good faith and appears to be supported by the text. I'm reverting to the good faith edit. It's clear you only reverted because you didn't like the edit. Find something to back up the text before you edit. --HighKing (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did so because the original removal, here, was carried out without providing any references to refute the claim. You'll see it was carried out by yet another ip whose only edits- every one of them - are to remove British Isles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an *actual reason*, then lets hear it. Otherwise, this is clearly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --HighKing (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the onus is on the editor who removed it - why did he do so; no reason given, so until one is forthcoming I'm putting it back to how it was. MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norwegian diaspora

This category is not appropriate for this page. Please stop adding it back. The fact is that a scholar of Norse poetry used "Norwegian diaspora" once in a book to refer to viking era Norse expansion, but there are no other references.Griswaldo (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a reliable source, and you have only offered your opinion, not another reference, that contradicts it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a reliable source about this topic no. We don't need a reference to contradict it just like we don't need a reference that contradicts the idea that the earth is flat or that animated skeletons were involved in the conquest of England in 1066. Should we have include Australia, the US and Canada in the article English Diaspora?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to have the actual word "diaspora" in the sources to be considered a diaspora. This is clearly a diaspora. Dream Focus 07:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they were the Norse, not the Norwegians. By this logic, Normandy is population by Norwegians. Abductive (reasoning) 08:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Introduction to the Old Norse-Icelandic Saga By Margaret Clunies Ross [1] is published by Cambridge University. Is this used as a textbook in any of their classes? As I and I believe others have quoted from it before, it says "Iceland was just one of many, the last settled colony of the Norwegian diaspora." on page four. [2] Dream Focus 07:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last? That source cannot be said to be reliable in this regard. Abductive (reasoning) 08:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last "settled colony". Other migrations didn't involve them taking over a place from the natives and making their own nation. Dream Focus 09:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets end this please. There are literally thousands of sources discussing the settlement of Iceland, and only one source that uses this term. Let it go.Griswaldo (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name they call it by is irrelevant. Its the same thing by any name. Did most/all of the people that settled there come from Norway? Dream Focus 12:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not irrelevant at all. We try to adhere to what is mainstream in reliable sources. That's a very basic principle here backed by numerous core policies. The fact that only one source claims this as part of the "Norwegian diaspora" means it isn't mainstream at all to use that concept here. In case you were unaware, there are more sources that use, "Scandinavian diaspora", and "Norse diaspora", by the way, though even those usages are scant. Why do you think that might be though? Because the term "Norwegian" is not correct in this context? If you said yes you would have been correct.Griswaldo (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe the Norse are not Norwegians? Are the Britons not British? And yes, Norse diaspora does get a few more results in a book search, plus one news item reviewing a work of fiction that takes place during that period. [3] Same thing. Dream Focus 13:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely not the same. Norse refers to Norsemen, and not Norwegians. You'll find the term "Norwegian" used in this entry 0 times. You'll find a similar lack of usage in the sources that discuss the subject as well.Griswaldo (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Norse include Danes and Swedes as well as Norwegians all of whom shared the Old Norse language. IN Danish, Swedish and Norwegian the corresponding term is "Nordisk". ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the term for Norwegian is "Norsk".Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Anyway, the article mentions Norway in it several times. All the Norse involved in this came from Norway. Dream Focus 13:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Stop trying to rationalize the inaccurate category. Let it go. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a diaspora from Norway, so yes, it fits. I'm hoping more people chime in on their opinions on this. Dream Focus 13:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That response shows how completely you're missing the point about what a diaspora is. It is a social group tied together culturally, and not simply a collection of human beings who originated from a certain geographic area. If a group of Sámi transplanted themselves from Norwegian Sápmi to Russian Sápmi are they also part of the Norwegian diaspora? No hope here I'm afraid.Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to the definition found in dictionaries and encyclopedias, a diaspora is "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland". Its the same geographic location, and the same people. People in Norway are proud of their Vikings heritage, it taught in all of their schools. Dream Focus 14:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still fail to understand. This has nothing to do with the heritage of present day Norwegians. The point is that the Norsemen who left the geographic area of present day Norway for Iceland were not "Norwegian". They were not part of a larger nation called "Norway". They did not identify as Norwegian. In other words their was no "established or ancestral homeland" called "Norway". That those who stayed in the area are the ancestors of many modern Norwegians is without doubt, but it has no bearing on the social context of the time. As I've stated too many times already, and will not repeat again, there is a good reason why reliable sources refer to the settlers of Iceland as Norsemen and not Norwegians. That you refuse to take your cues from reliable sources I guess cannot be helped. Good luck with that.Griswaldo (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your constant rudeness, you still haven't made a convincing point. Hopefully others will chime in with their opinions and a proper consensus can be formed. Dream Focus 15:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the rudeness. There is no excuse for it, nor will I make one, but please understand that it is born out of frustration. Sorry about that, but please do go back and read the responses posted here. Maybe do so after realizing that I'm sorry for the tone. It really has been explained many times. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are taking the Essjay approach in that you are arguing that your personal knowledge trumps Wikipedia style and reliable sources and consensus, because you know the truth despite reliable sources saying otherwise. Wikipedia style as well as Encyclopedia Britannica use the modern political entity to name the entry then discuss the history of that geographical area back to prehistory. So we have the article on Iraq discussing 5,000 years of history before the modern country of Iraq was formed after World War I. We have 8,000 years of history at Egypt despite the modern state being formed after World War II. And yes Iraq is in Category:Mesopotamia even though as entities they are separated by thousands of years and have no continuity in government or religion or language. So if you want to start an RFC to move all 254 diaspora categories to "migration" please do that, but stop changing just the entries for Norway and Sweden, they are not exceptions to the Wikipedia style. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not having any of this Essjay nonsense. This is going to WQA. My position is based on reliable sources, and has been consistently argued in conjunction with what the sources actually do say. Reliable sources use "Noresemen" and not "Norwegians". That's been the point all along. The history of a geographical area is not the same as the history of a people. A diaspora refers to a people, not a geographical area. Anyway off to WQA.Griswaldo (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article topics and titles are governed by policy - policy says that to merit an article a topic needs substantial coverage in reliable sources. Maintaining that we need to follow policy and not let style issues trump core policies is not an essjay argument. Also there is nowhere taken an style decision that articles about migration myust be named foo diaspora - claiming there is simply false. You cannot even show that there is a precedent unless you show us which other of the 254 that use ther term diaspora inspite of that term not being supported by sources. We are exactly not arguing that we shouldn't have articles about diasporas - only that using the word diaspora shouldn't be used unless warranted by sources. This is standard and simple policy- the style argument is a red herring.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-historical settlement??

Is it known if Iceland was populated by humans in pre-historic times (say, >2,000 years ago) or not? It's hard to imagine that humans would not have managed to migrate there before 800 AD, when they had populated continental Europe, America and even Australia more than 10,000 years ago...--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]