Talk:Gullfoss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Iceland. 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.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Average

It is incorrect in English to say, "the average flow is 100-180". An "average" is a single number, not a range. You can say, "the flow varies between a low of 100 and a high of 180", but that is not what this aritcle meant since it gives 2000 as the all-time high.

So I changed the article to correctly reflect the average by assuming it was the number half-way between the two given.

Nick Beeson 15:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding depth of waterfall

The article stated that the crevice was 35m deep which is 115 ft, not 105 as previously stated. [1] states that it is 32m, along with a booklet from the waterfall site itself

Chris, 22:41, 16th September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Sigríður Tómasdóttir and Tómas Tómasson

The article states that Tómas Tómasson and Sigríður Tómasdóttir (which was his daughter) saved the waterfall from being "commercially exploited". According to my sources, which is an article newly published in Skírnir, this is not true but a common belief.[2]

According to the article, Tómas actually rented the waterfall to some businessman, which re-rented it to some other man which intended to activate the waterfall. Sigríður apparantly did not like her father's intentions - and later tried to stop the waterfall from being activated. She did not succeed, there where other things which caused all attempts to halt.

This must be fixed, and all the translations must also be fixed.

If I end up fixing this, then at least this has been discussed.

P.S.: and if you wonder why the daughter and her father did not aggree (which is extremely normal), then you also might wonder why Sigríður and Einar Guðmundsson (which was the stepson of Tómas, which bought Sigríður's share of the waterfall when Sigríður got older) did not aggree on if the waterfall should be sold to the state (!). The article does not state anything on this issue, probably because there are no sources of information regarding this issue.

  • ^  Unnur Birna Karlsdóttir. 2005. Gulls ígildi. Skírnir - tímarit hins íslenska bókmenntafélags, Haust 2005. 179th year: 237-278.

---G. 00:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've now corrected the article, and am going to put notifications into the other wikipedias, where errors are.
---G. 13:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Activation

I'm sorry I have to ask a (silly?) question here, but what does "activation" in connection with Gullfoss mean? How do you "activate a waterfall"? I mean, it is already active :)

Perhaps this is a translation problem, but I see no sense in those paragraphs. I think Sigríður Tómasdóttir didn't "activate" Gullfoss, she rescued, saved, conserved it, prevented it from destruction, whatever. --Wirthi 14:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, this was my fault - translation problem. "Activation" here ment "to utilize to create electricity". I've changed to article so it uses "utilize" insted (with more changes than just search & replace, of course).
And on Sigríður and her resucation of the waterfall; this is a very common story, however, not true. She indeed was against the utilization, but her efforts did not lead it being saved - there where other reasons. This has been confirmed by at least two different historians, one some years ago, and the other one last December.
---G. 16:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
ok, thanks. Do you have any ideas what those other reasons are why the power plant was not built? I will then put this information into the german article. --Wirthi 16:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't commented until now. I'll look into this very soon and report here.
---G. 23:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I've now looked into this, and the only thing that's mentioned in the article, is that it is known that money did stop one of the parties involved. That might have been the problem in all cases (the waterfall was rented several times...), but the article does not state this. Also, the reason for why Hvítá was not utilizated (this was planned in the ~1960s-1970s), was probably because the people of the country disliked the idea.
---G. 20:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)