Talk:Defence of Iceland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconIceland C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Additional information:
 
Associated task forces (general topics):
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
National militaries task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
Nordic military history task force

The Military of Iceland does not exist[edit]

This whole article is a joke. It is not the opinion of a single Icelandic citizen (except maybe those who wrote this article) that there is a military in Iceland.

There isn't a article about the "Military of Iceland" on the Icelandic wikiproject. Do you think that is a coincidence?


To back this up:
CIA - The World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ic.html)
Iceland has no standing military force; under a 1951 bilateral agreement - still valid - its defense was provided by the US-manned Icelandic Defense Force (IDF) headquartered at Keflavik; however, all US military forces in Iceland were withdrawn as of October 2006; although wartime defense of Iceland remains a NATO commitment, in April 2007, Iceland and Norway signed a bilateral agreement providing for Norwegian aerial surveillance and defense of Icelandic airspace (2008)

CIA - The World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ic.html)
Military expenditures: 0% of GDP (2005 est.)

Iceland.is (http://www.iceland.is/iceland-abroad/nato/iceland-and-nato/)
Iceland has been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) since its foundation in 1949. Membership of the Alliance and the Defence Agreement with the United States of America has been the two main pillars of Iceland's security policy. With the changing security environment and the transformation of NATO, the contribution of Iceland to the Alliance has undergone major change. While having no standing army, Iceland contributes to NATO operations with both financial contributions and civil personnel.


You should now have the sources to remove this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Þorkell Einarsson (talkcontribs) 01:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a rather POV opinion of your behalf to insist on deleting this article which is quite old on basis of your sources. They do for example contradict a number of other sources such as Fjárlagafrumvarp 2011 Seinni hluti: Lagagreinar og athugasemdir regarding military defence expendidures which do exist but the CIA world factbook gets wrong unlike SIPRI for example. Additionally there is the legal framework regarding the defences of Iceland and how they operate as of now which can be seen in various sources many of which are available in the article. You might do well reading them. It seems however quite correct that Iceland doesn't maintain a standing army, which is indeed mentioned in this article good sir. As a matter of fact it may be the case that your selection of sources may be the joke in question. -130.208.165.5 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sæl/l. Ef þú tekur þig nú saman í andlitinu og lest í raun og veru fjárlagafrumvarpið þá sérðu að 0 krónum er eytt í varanarmál, rétt eins og á árinu 2010. Þar með hljóta allar forsendur fyrir því að tala um varnir íslenska ríkisins í þessari grein, óháð afskræmdum "heimildum" á síðu landhelgisgæslunnar, að vera brostnar.

Þau lagaákvæði sem þú talar um eru einnig efni sem þú ættir að skoða gaumgæfilega áður en þú fullyrðir að þau séu tilvist greinarinnar til rökstuðnings. Í fyrsta lagi, er Varnarmálastofnun (ásamt löggjöf um hana) ekki lengur með í spilinu, þótt að greinin fullyrði um annað. Í öðru lagi er tæplegast hægt að nota Varnarmálalög nr. 34/2008, sem heimild fyrir "lagagrundvelli hernaðar íslendinga". Í frumvarpi, nefndarálitum (minnihluta og meirihluta), ásamt umræðum er dregin upp skýr munur á framtaki Íslendinga í að uppfylla skilyrði NATO sáttmálns og á framtaki Íslendinga í að starfrækja her.

Þessi grein gerir fátt annað en að taka hlutina úr samhengi og mála stofnanir eins og Landhelgisgæsluna, Sérsveit Ríkislögreglustjóra og Friðargæsluna sem eitthvað hernaðarlegt tæki til að stimpla á Her Íslendinga. Það er ekkert í þessari grein sem að færir raunverulegar sannanir fyrir því að starfræktur sé her á Íslandi.

Mikilvægasta heimildin fyrir því að ekki sé her á Íslandi (að fráskildum engum útlögðum kostnaði til málaflokksins) er svo almannaálit Íslendinga á málefninu. Þú veist það vel sjálf/ur að það er almennt viðurkennt af Íslendingum, hvort sem um ræðir ráðmenn þjóðarinnar eða almenning, að ekki sé starfræktur her hér á landi.

Það má vel vera að þú hafir áhuga á að skrifa um byssur og víkingasveitina en vinsamlegast gættu þess að mála það ekki allt á "Her Íslendinga". --Þorkell Einarsson (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am afraid that you are somewhat mistaken. For the first part there are 889 million ISK being spent on Defences this year according to the document which I hope you read. Also your view on the legal framework of Icelandic defences is somewhat skewed in the wrong direction as the lack of standing army doesn't mean that Iceland maintains no defences. The article indeed mentions that Iceland has no standing army and that the country's defences rest with civil or para-military organizations, not a fully fledged military organizations. The fact that Icelandic para-military organizations take on many roles that traditionally are carried out by standing armies in other countries should not be ignored.-130.208.165.5 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I propose we rename the article "Paramilitary of Iceland" since that is literally what Iceland has. Unfortunately, English at least (if not other languages) contains little distinction between defensive/minimalist and offensive/defensively-superfluous uses of violence, but at least there is the word "paramilitary" that could be used. Using that name would be more accurate, and less politically charged regarding the disconnect between the English-speaking world's general view of violence and military operations and the view of the people the article is about. (But again, also more encyclopedically accurate) --RProgrammer (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agnar Kofoed-Hansen was a Nazi and possible a German spy[edit]

Agnar Kofoed-Hansen the chief of police was a proponent of Nazism who recived training in policing in Germany in 1939 and is thought by some historians to have spied on the British occupation for the Germans. Strange that none of this is mentioned. He also founded the directorate of immigration to keep Iceland "aryan".

Which historians? You should give some sources because modern Icelandic historians such as Þór Whitehead have dismissed similar claims as slander originating from Icelandic communists employed by British military intelligence services after the invasion of the Soviet Union. These spies also implicated a number of conservative politicians, such as Bjarni Benediktsson who later were major proponents of establishing NATO. -130.208.165.5 (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV dispute[edit]

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)

IDF[edit]

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/.

Title[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Might be a waste of time if it will have a military by next autumn? -Kjallakr 15:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are these photos jokes? Showing single-man islandic submarines, supposedly...[edit]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Maybe re-word this bit?[edit]

...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)Reply[reply]

Wording[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Military History of Iceland[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Defence cooperation with Norway[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Icelanders serving in the Norwegian military[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Icelandic army.jpg[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:LHG skjöldur opinber 2005.jpg[edit]

The image Image:LHG skjöldur opinber 2005.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Service branches[edit]

The template gives the following as service branches of the "Military of Iceland": Iceland Crisis Response Unit, Icelandic National Police, Icelandic Coast Guard, Iceland Air Defence System, Vikingasveitin.

OK, so first, nowhere in the world are national police forces considered military forces. Or to put it another way, countries where military forces are police forces are usually always dictatorships. The fact is that (a) Iceland has no military: No army, no navy, and no air force. (b) Its police forces are civilian institutions and are not "branches" of a military. And that includes Vikingasveitin, which is a non-military special police force under the command of a civilian police. (c) The Coast Guard is also a non-military institution, whose task it is (according to its website) to police Icelandic waters and serve as a search and rescue force in Icelandic waters. (d) the Iceland Crisis Response Unit is a peace keeping unit. And (e) Iceland Air Defence System is a surveilance agency only. --Cessator (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, then we'd better remove the whole infobox. Listing Össur Skarphéðinsson as Minister of Defense also doesn't make much sense. Haukur (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, there is no such ministry. --Cessator (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incorrect guys. The Ministry for Foreign affairs handles defence. Össur is the minister of defence.-130.208.183.161 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the Minister of Justice decides how many officiants Ásatrúarfélagið can have[5] but that doesn't mean we can refer to Ragna Árnadóttir as High Priestess. Haukur (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you trying to be amusing? Ragna Árnadóttir's official title is the minister of justice and human rights currently, yet she also remains the minister of ecclesiastical affairs and police. If we were to ask who is the minister of police, then its Ragna Árnadóttir. According to the most recently made regulation about the stjórnarráð, its the ministry for foreign affairs that is in charge of the military.-01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The point is that we can't just make up titles. We can't style Össur "Minister of Defence" because no-one ever calls him that. Sure, he may be the minister who has the most to do with defence but that's not the same thing. If you can cite a couple of reliable sources calling Össur varnarmálaráðherra then we can talk. Haukur (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a "made up" title, just email the ministry for foreign affairs and ask them whether defence is part of the minstry's portfolio. -130.208.183.161 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not the same question. If reliable sources talk about an Icelandic MoD then that's great and we can use that terminology too. But Wikipedia is heavily depended on secondary sources and avoids innovation in terminology and other areas WP:NOR etc.) Haukur (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The United States do not have a "Minister of Defence" for example. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs is the ministry which is in charge of defence since the 1951 defence treaty. It is quoted a few times in Laws from the parliament and so forth.-Kjallakr (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few excerps from laws, "Utanríkisráðherra fer með yfirstjórn varnarmála " from the laws "2008 nr. 34 29. apríl" 12. gr. Utanríkisráðuneyti fer með mál, er varða: 10. Varnarmál, aðild að Atlantshafsbandalaginu (NATO), varnarsamning Íslands og Bandaríkjanna, samskipti og samstarf við erlend ríki, hermálayfirvöld og alþjóðastofnanir á sviði öryggis- og varnarmála, varnarsvæði, öryggissvæðið á Keflavíkurflugvelli og önnur öryggissvæði, rekstur mannvirkja og eigna Atlantshafsbandalagsins á Íslandi, þ.m.t. íslenska ratsjár- og loftvarnakerfið (IADS).from regulation 2007 nr. 177 31. desember. -Kjallakr (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The United States has a "Secretary of Defense". No-one here doubts that the Icelandic foreign minister has defence affairs on his table, I'm only saying that we shouldn't style Össur Skarphéðinsson MoD because no-one else does that. And, by the way, I don't think any recent edits to this article have been "vandalism" to be reverted with some automatic tool. Haukur (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Haukur on this. And even if I were wrong in my edit - which I am not admitting - I am certainly not a vandal and I find it a bit annoying to have my edit reverted qua vandalism. By the way, Kjallakr and 130.208.183.161 (in case that's not the same person) are now committed to saying that Ragna Árnadóttir is Minister of Coast Guard Affairs (or "landhelgisgæslumálaráðherra") in Iceland, since she is the minister responsible for the Icelandic Coast Guard. To me this observation of their committment amounts to a reductio ad absurdum of their contention. --Cessator (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not certain what you are implying Cessator and quite frankly I have yet to see an insightful prose from you on this topic. Apparently you incorrectly believed that there is no such minister in Iceland and decided to remove the information at the time. Incidentally I can qoute NATO "Össur Skarphédinsson, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Defence of Iceland"[6]. It appears that I am more correct than both of you believed.-Kjallakr (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Military of Iceland does not exist![edit]

This whole article is a joke. It is not the opinion of a single Icelandic citizen (except maybe those who wrote this article) that there is a military in Iceland.

There isn't a article about the "Military of Iceland" on the Icelandic wikiproject. Do you think that is a coincidence?

This article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Þorkell Einarsson (talkcontribs) 01:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iceland had a defence force until 2007. It still has military elements, though they are somewhat fragmented and even disguised.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military of Iceland. 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) 00:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Military of Iceland. 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) 06:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 6 December 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus - No !votes in favour, but plenty of comments in different directions regarding the renaming. No sense in a relist given the lack of any movement since the last one. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Military of IcelandDefence forces of Iceland – Per the discussion in the short-lived AfD, Iceland officially has no "military", but it clearly has a defensive structure in place. BD2412 T 07:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook(talk) 05:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 00:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Question What's the term most commonly used in reliable sources? Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment as Nick-D, the first step in article moves is "What do the sources say". GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nathanielcwm (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC):Reply[reply]

  • ref 1 (deadlink): "The Icelandic Defence Agency (IDA) was abolished as of 1 January 2011...allocating the defence-related functions previously carried out by the IDA to the National Commissioner of the Icelandic Police and the Icelandic Coast Guard."
  • ref5: "The Radar Agency is under the auspices of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs."
  • ref 7: "iceland has no military... coast guard fulfills most military missions"
  • ref8: "2018 defence legislation...signed into law by president trump...$214 million to construct military installations in iceland"
  • ref9: "The purpose of this MOU is to confirm the political determination to broaden existing peacetime cooperation between the Icelandic and the Norwegian authorities on matters concerning security, defence, preparedness and rescue operations in the North Atlantic area."
  • ref 17: "as part of a plan that sees NATO members take it in turns to defend Iceland's airspace. The tiny island nation has no military force of its own."
  • ref 19: "Iceland has no army and does not plan to establish one. However, the nation has participated in military rehearsals in Iceland where militaries from various NATO countries have engaged in maneuvers with Icelandic civil forces."
  • ref 20: "Iceland has no army, so why are we trying to contribute to a military effort?"

Additional RSes not used as refs in article:

  • World Factbook places the defence forces under it's "Military" section, however it also states that Iceland has "no regular military" & "no standing military" in the body.
  • government.is simply states: "Iceland is a country without a military"
  • state.gov repeats what world factbook states unsurprisingly, but it also adds an additional paragraph stating that "U.S. military forces are no longer permanently stationed in Iceland."
  • worldbank states that military expenditure is unknown but that there were 0 armed forces in 2017

[7][8][9][10]

  • Comment In most countries, there is some kind of cabinet minister/secretary that is the top point person for the military on behalf of the head of state/government (i.e. - "Minister of War," "Secretary of Defense," etc.) Not seeing anything like that in the Icelandic articles here on Wikipedia. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Killuminator, Clarityfiend, Ljleppan, Mztourist, FiddleheadLady, and Degen Earthfast: Pinging remaining participants in the deletion discussion. BD2412 T 17:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Defense of Iceland or Defense structure of Iceland would be just as sufficient and wouldn't lead to confusion with the now defunct Iceland Defense Force. --Killuminator (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the ping! I think either of Killuminator's suggestions makes sense. There is already a Military History of Iceland article so that content really belongs there instead of here as well in my opinion. FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Note that if moved to anything with the word "defence" it should use the British spelling per WP:RETAIN and per the Icelandic government's own preference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Additional comment I feel that except in very unique circumstances, people and organizations should be referred to by the names they have selected for themselves. Here, "defence" is more apt than "military" by that standard. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: WikiProject Iceland has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ( ) 17:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.