Talk:Military of Iceland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NPOV dispute
See discussion on Talk:Military of France. Anothername 14:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Is this really an NPOV dispute? From the Talk:Military of France dicussion, it isn't that bad. It seems to be a matter of a minor dispute. --Mtnerd 02:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- The nPOV tag has been dropped from Military of France without changing the data, so I'm going to drop it from here too. If anyone disagrees, let's discuss it here. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] IDF
FYI, IDF stands for "Iceland Defense Force", not "Icelandic Defense Force" as it's defined in this article. You can verify this by visiting their web page at http://www.nctskef.navy.mil/IDF/.
[edit] Title
Perhaps a more appropriate title for this article would be Defence of Iceland, for the obvious reason that Iceland has no military. --Bjarki 09:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Might be a waste of time if it will have a military by next autumn? -Kjallakr 15:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Are these photos jokes? Showing single-man islandic submarines, supposedly...
Are these photos jokes? Single-man islandic submarines, supposedly...
http://forum.index.hu/Article/viewArticle?a=60435343&t=9010902
- If I remember correctly these pictures are from an art show of sorts that traveled between European cities recently. Iceland has no submarines. :) --Bjarki 15:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed but Iceland has a few submersibles. Including a remote controlled minehunting submarine designed by the University of Iceland and even bought by the US Navy. These look like normal torpedoes and nothing like these photos. --130.208.189.147 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Maybe re-word this bit?
...withdrawn by the end of September 2006, drastically reducing U.S. presence at the Keflavík base. The last American troops left on September 30...
If the last troops left at the end of September, then its quite obviously a drastic reduction in their presence, this makes the first statement totally pointless. JonEastham 01:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wording
Did the UK "invade" Iceland? I thought it was more like "move in to protect" it. I'm not suggesting that the woding be changed, but I always thought that the UK sent troops in 1940 to protect Iceland from a German invasion since Denmark had fallen. In any case, US troops took up positions there to relieve the British, didn't they?
- The UK did invade Iceland. The Icelandic government declined to invite the British to come to protect Iceland during the war as Iceland was neutral. So they invaded Iceland. The invasion was very friendly nonetheless and even before the invasion Icelandic members of parliament provided intelligence on german submarine movements around Iceland and the Icelandic coast guard was transporting British troops around already on the second day under an Icelandic flag. The British then asked Iceland to get the Americans to come protect Iceland, as the US weren't in the war as of that time and Britain needed its troops elsewhere. --130.208.165.78 00:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Military History of Iceland
I'm not completely sure, but since this article is related to the "Military of Iceland", it should probably only have a brief one to two paragraph summary of what it currently has. What is on the page right now should be moved to a more relevant and convenient location, such as "Military History of Iceland". I'm asking people's opinion on this one before I or anyone else makes a major edit on this page.
Thanks. Weatherguy1033 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Take a look at Military of Hungary. They have a extensive section on military history there. -130.208.189.147 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Defence cooperation with Norway
A quite wide reaching defence agreement between Iceland and Norway will be signed in Oslo on Thursday ([1][2]). Perhaps one of the regular contributors here could work this into the article? -- Nidator 12:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see that this has now been added to the article. I think it should also mention that Norwegian fighters will be in Icelandic airspace and on Keflavik from time to time though. To quote from the Norwegian-Icelandic MoU ([3]):
-
- "On the basis of common needs, the Parties will promote opportunities for visits, exercises and other defence activities, including with the participation of special forces, naval and coast guard vessels and Norwegian fighter and reconnaissance planes in Iceland and in Icelandic airspace."
- I will change the paragraph, but this subject should perhaps get a separate section in the article where the cooperation with Norway and to a lesser degree Denmark can be treated separately for greater clarity. Any opinions? -- Nidator 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Icelanders serving in the Norwegian military
As this article ([4]) shows there is an arrangement between Iceland and Norway so that Icelanders can, and do, serve in the Norwegian Defence Forces. Is that relevant and should it be included in the article? -- Nidator 18:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Icelandic army.jpg
Image:Icelandic army.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)