Talk:Icelanders
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
*#1 (October 2004 – present) |
Contents |
[edit] Naming
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)
- 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)
[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox
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)
[edit] Isolation - a myth?
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)
- 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)
-
- The homogeneous nature of a group of people is naturally relative to levels everywhere else. Daniel 07:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The homogeneous nature of a group of people is naturally relative to levels everywhere else. Daniel 07:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- 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)
[edit] Sources for population
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)
- 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)