Talk:Faroe Islands

msg:Europe box

My feeling is that it's not appropriate to have the msg:Europe box on here, when the Faroes aren't listed in that box. What does anyone else think?--ALargeElk 13:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

They are listed in that box in my browser. I have removed msg:amt because the faroe islands is not a countie of denmark.--Quackor 10:12, 28 May 2004 (UTC+1) ———————————————————————————————————

No one is going a mention anything about the case with the Risso's Dolphins in the Feroe Islands??? I thing that is a fact and should be add.

http://www.dogguie.com/brutal-matanza-de-calderones-en-dinamarca/

Please.

Sports of the Faeroe Islands

What are the most popular and/or national sports of the Faeroe Islands?

The national sport must be soccer (football). There are many popular sports including but not limited to football, rowing, handball, badminton and swimming. SverriMO 05:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The national sport is rowing with Faroese boats (Kappróður). Soccer is probably the most popular sport, though, both in terms of performers and spectators.Vuzman (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The governing of the Faroe Islands prior to 1948

I have updated the main article to include more information on the relationship between the Faroe Islands and Denmark, particularly the governing of Faroe Islands prior to 1948, including bits on the referendum on Sep. 14 1946. The previous version did not include much information on this. I have tried my best to keep this NPOV. --Mecil 06:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dependency?

Are the Faroe Islands a Danish dependency? If the islands are a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, how can they be regarded as a dependendy which have to be bodies formally not a part of the motherland? Jakro64 16:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hm, maybe my English is to worse, so I don't know the exact meaning of a "dependency", but the Faroes are one of te three countries within the Danish Kingdom: Denmark, Greenland and the Faroes. Denmark is not the "motherland" of the Faroes, for the Faroese are no Danes, but form an own nation. Ofcourse there are about 5% Danish speaking people living in the Faroes, and ofcourse, the Faroese learn Danish up from the 3rd class as second language... However, the Faroes are NOT a colony of Denmark (eventhough some nationalists and people from abroad think so), but a European and Scandinavian nation. They are just not fully souvereign and no republic, for ca. 50 % of the Faroese don't want it. If they would want it, Denmark will not stop them in building an own state with full souvereignity. But before this happens (a majority for this way), I guess, they'd to explore their oil and/or merge with Iceland and Greenland. (But this is my private oppinion). Arne List 14:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Faroes are not a danish dependency. The Faroes are not and have never been incorporated properly into the danish kingdom altough many people think they have. The danish constitution has never been properly established as the constitution of Faroe. It would be more precise to say that the Faroes are crown possession like Isle of Man. But the fact is that the Faroes are not an internationally recognized state, so to the international community they are part of the danish state, although this is not reality. The Home Rule act of 1948 is by some experts regarded as a treaty between two independent states with one king and some political cooperation. The first words in the Home Rule Act are, my translation:"The Faroes are an independent nation within the danish kingdom accordig to this law". Meaning two independent nations or states with one king. But only one is internationally recognized. You might call the Faroes a pre-state, a word used about countries on the brink of becoming fully independent. --JJ-Hammer 16:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Faroe Islands are a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. They aren't a dependency, but rather are a self-governing overseas administrative division of Denmark (since 1948). Before this I believe that they were indeed a dependency/colony? The official governing constitution is the Danish constitution of 5 June 1953.

I think you are confusing the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Iceland. The three communites had different relations to metropolitan Denmark.

Iceland: From 1918-1944 Iceland was a kingdom in union with the Kingdom of Denmark. In 1944 Iceland declared itself an independent republic and remains so to this day with no connection to Denmark.

Faroe Islands: Before 1948 the Faroe Islands were governed as a "normal" Danish county ("Amt") and were an integrated province of the Kingdom of Denmark. An example of this status can be seen in the fact that in 1940, following the German occupation of Denmark, the local administration on the Faroe Islands had all bank notes used on the islands stamped with the words "Færø Amt" to distinguish them from the currency of occupied Denmark. In 1948, the Faroe Islands were granted extensive home rule and still enjoy these rights. The Faroe Islands use this own bank notes issued by the National Bank of Denmark (but uses Danish coins.) The notes are in fact the standard Danish notes with a different print, and are officially considered to be standard Danish bank notes (although few Danes realise this.) Faroese bank notes can be exchanged 1:1 to standard Danish bank notes in Danish banks.

Greenland: Before 1953, Greenland was considered to be a colony of Denmark. In 1953 it was annexed to Denmark proper and became an integrated part of Denmark. In 1979, home rule was introduced in Greenland, with the home rule enjoyed by the Faroe Islands as inspiration. Greenland uses both Danish coins and bank notes. Unless specifically stated, laws passed by the Danish parliament the Folketing do not apply to the Faroe Islands and Greenland. I hope this clears things up. --Valentinian 29 June 2005 01:04 (UTC)

Thats very interesting, and sounds very similar to the policital arrangements in the United Kingdom (Iceland-Denmark relationship is similar to Scotland-England and previously Ireland-England). Is there a name for this type of political arrangement? Its quite different from federalism or the French and Portugese system (Where many colonies such as French Guiana or (previously) Brazil were considered completely part of the home nation). I recently read a book which touched on the brief federalist movement in Britian in the 1920's (It was proposed to reform the UK into a proper federation, with regional parliaments, as a solution to Irish demands for independence. These ideas are sometimes mentioned today in relation to the new Scottish and Welch assemblies) Was there any such movement in Denmark? Seabhcán 29 June 2005 12:49 (UTC)

I agree there are similarities, but the Danish construction is very different from a federal state. Iceland was granted independence (in union with Denmark) in 1918 following years and years of Danish neglect of the island and increasing demands for home rule or outright independence (the results somewhat resembled the Irish Free State.) The arrangement was never a success, and Iceland didn't have an independent foreign policy. It was conducted by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Copenhagen, and was, in reality, little more than promoting the interests of Icelandic fish exports and replacing the line "the King of Denmark" with "the King of Denmark and Iceland".

Home rule for the Faroe Islands was introduced in 1948 as a response to increased calls for independence there as well (though several Danish politicians opposed this, fearing the dissolution of the nation. Ultimately, they decided to consider home rule to be a lesser evil than outright Faroese independence.) Besides, the separation from Denmark proper during World War II had clearly proven that the Faroese people were capable of managing more of its own affairs than had previously been believed in Denmark. When similar wishes were expressed by Greenland in the 1970s, the issue had become less controversial and home rule was accepted by the leading political parties in Denmark.

But back to your questions (I use the Danish terms.) 1) The present construction is known as Rigsfællesskabet (literally, the Community of the Realm) and is virtually synonomous with Det Danske Rige (The Danish Realm, thus avoiding the name "Denmark".) Det Danske Rige is ruled by Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II (her title Danmarks Dronning - literally Denmark's Queen is, however, considered to comprise all three territories / nations / countries depending on your point-of-view.) Internationally speaking, the word "Denmark" is usually used both regarding the territory of Denmark proper as well as the entire realm/kingdom, although several Greenlanders and Faroese resent this. It is, however, rather understandable given that the Realm comprises 5,4 million Danes, 48,000 Faroese, and 56,000 Greenlanders. An example of the relations of the three nations is the fact that Danish law allocates the Faroe Islands and Greenland two seats each in the Danish Parliament Folketinget. On the other hand, Denmark is not represented in neither the Faroese Lagting nor the Greenlandic Landsting (again, I use the Danish names).

When it comes to internal affairs, Greenland and the Faroe Islands are in effect independent nations, and Danish politicians accept this. What separates them from independent nations are two restrictions: 1) They both receive financial aid from Denmark and 2) They don't run an independent foreign policy. Recent developments indicate that the Faroe Islands and Greenland will be granted greater influence on matters regarding their own affairs, but according to the law, the final say ultimately lies in Copenhagen (in reality, Danish politicians will go to very great lengths to avoid overruling Greenland or the Faroe Islands.) If either the Faroe Islands or Greenland demand to conduct a completely independent foreign policy it will most likely mean the death of the Rigsfællesskab. Several Greenlandic and Faroese politicians have called for independence while expecting the territories to continue receiving substantial financial support from Denmark following independence (some suggesting a transition period of 25 years). This demand is refused by the vast majority of both Danes and Danish politicians. Greenlandic and Faroese politicians generally say that they wish to keep the Queen in case the two nations become independent, but many Danes consider this to be a contradiction in terms (independence = republic; the ultimate Icelandic solution.) It should also be noted that the Constitution of Denmark is not very keen on the King ruling other countries.

2) The independence granted to Iceland in 1918 was not an attempt to create a federation but more resembles the British experiment with "devolution" (in Denmark we'd probably say that the real issue was "trying keep the bits together"). There was never any talk of creating a new assembly like a senate with equal representation for the different nations, since it would mean that the three (or two) North Atlantic nations could outvote Denmark and make Danes pay through the nose. It would also be grossly unfair towards Denmark proper since Danes comprise the vast majority of the population of the Kingdom (pre-war figures including Iceland would be 94% Danes; 2005 figures excluding Iceland would be 98% Danes). Besides, before 1953 Denmark had a two-chamber parliament. The former upper house Landstinget (originally representing the Danish provinces) and the lower house Folketinget elected by proportional vote. This was considered to be a problematic construction and a third federal chamber would have made the situation even worse. --Valentinian 00:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Are the Faroe Islands a country or not? --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 01:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Say how you define "a country" then we can answer you.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I also do not understand if the Faroe Islands are a country or not. Many Danes, including one who identified himself as Faroese (I worked with him for a year) I have met will tell you yes, it is a separate independent country. However, when he was taking a vacation to the USA I saw him using a Danish passport. So whose definition of a country do we use? I offer the following evidence:

• According to the UN, the Faroe Islands are not a country; They do not have a seat; and are represented by Denmark.
• According to the IMF, the Faroe Islands are not a country; they do not have a distinct currency; note the chart shows N/A for the Faroe Islands.
• According to the CIA, the Faroe Islands are listed as a "country", but lists the Faroe Islands "constitution" as the Danish Constitution, and says that it is "part of the kingdom of Denmark".
• The List of sovereign states does not list the Faroe Islands as a country. This page has detailed descriptions of the criteria for inclusion ("What is a country?").

So my conclusion is that the Faroe Islands are NOT a country. Please offer any further evidence to clarify. Thanks! // Brick Thrower (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking whether the Faroe Islands is a country or whether it's independent? It isn't independent. A Dane who tells you it is, is mistaken.

• UN membership is irrelevant, since the UN doesn't decide whether one country is subject to the rules of another or not (except in the case of UN trusteeships) and, besides, in the past Ukraine, Belarus (then Byelorussia), the Philippines, and India were members of the UN without being independent, while until recently there were independent countries (such as, at different times, Switzerland, Vatican City, the Koreas, and Kiribati) that didn't belong to the UN.
• Currency is obviously irrelevant, since the likes of France, Germany, and Spain don't have their own currency either. Likewise, a number of countries, including El Salvador, Ecuador, and Timor-Leste, use the US dollar. In contrast, the Netherlands Antilles and Hong Kong, for example, have their own currencies. The East Caribbean dollar is shared by eight countries both independent (Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, etc.) and dependent (Anguilla, Montserrat).
• Inclusion in the CIA World Factbook doesn't answer the question of either independence or countryhood because it lists every separately administered territory in the world, including such non-countries as Akrotiri, Johnson Atoll, and Svalbard. What the Factbook says about the country is correct.
• The list of sovereign states doesn't list the Faroe Islands because it isn't a sovereign state; that doesn't mean it isn't a country. If the page describes the deciding question as "What is a country?" then whoever wrote that was confusing "sovereign state" with "country", as you seem to be doing.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to the question, "Are the Faroe Islands a country or not?", I presented the results from my research, all linked to authoritative sources. UN membership is definitely relevant; Citizens of a "country" should have passports issued by their "country". Currency is not relevant? Dude, please post your bank account number! :) You make a distinction between "sovereign state" and "country", however Wikipedia does not: list of countries redirects to list of sovereign states, which has its criteria posted, and the Faroe Islands are not listed. Even this FO article categorizes FO as a proposed country. The IOC does not include FO as a country. FO is not even listed as having a national bird. FIFA assigns FO the country code FRO, but I think you would find it hard to argue that a football association has more authoritative weight than sources such as the UN, the CIA, the IMF, Wikipedia, IOC. Please link in evidence which justify that the Faroe Islands are indeed a "country" instead of hand-waving away established and known reliables. What authoritative sources are you using? Thanks. // Brick Thrower (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No one can stop you from believing what you want despite facts to the contrary having been presented to you, such as the fact that I made obvious that UN membership is not the definition of "country", that having its own currency is not the definition of "country", etc. All I can do at this point is to note that you are insisting on approaching this question of whether the Faroes is a country without having articulated what you think the definition of "country" is, which makes it a vain exercise. I assure you that the concept of "country" existed long before any of these organizations and lists to which you refer existed. And now you're looking at whether or not it has an official bird? Please. Who's doing the hand-waving? —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please not so many links so fast! It's gonna take me forever to fact check them all. :P ha ha // Brick Thrower (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You still don't seem to have any definition of what a country is so there is still no basis for assessing whether or not a territory is one, ha ha. (Are you under the impression that these things are decided through battles of irrelevant links?) —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I have posted a link to the article containing the criteria for a country. It is you who have posted exactly ZERO links to support NONE of your assertions; saying something repeatedly doesn't make it so, and ignoring these criteria does not make them irrelevant. Links are mandatory, as prescribed by the Wikipedia's Five Pillars. Your very first talk page post described these rules to you: Articles on Wikipedia must cite references, be verifiable, and be reliable. External references ("links") ensure that Wikipedia remains a neutral community resource. When you edit an article, before you hit the SAVE PAGE button, you see the warning just below the edit box that states that encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I have posted 4 reliable, verifiable links to authoritative sources which assert that FO is NOT a country, and even one link that does. I have established enough references to begin revising the article based upon our discussion, so I encourage you and other editors to locate your verifiable, authoritative references so that together we can improve this article. // Brick Thrower (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been talking about whether a particular article is verifiable. I have been addressing your use of irrelevant considerations to decide whether the Faroes is a country. I was not relying repetition. I was relying on showing you why your criteria led to other undeniably erroneous conclusions (e.g., relying on UN membership would lead to the false conclusions that Ukraine and India were independent in 1945 and that Switzerland wasn't; relying on having a separate currency would lead to the false conclusions that Anguilla is a country while France and Ecuador aren't) to demonstrate they were bad criteria. —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You say that you posted the criterias used on the 'list of sovereign states', and therefor the Faroe Islands could not be a country. You are actually wrong; (a) a permanent population: This is correct, the Faroe Islands has a population that is living semi-permanently there; (b) a defined territory: The Faroe Islands has it's own defined land and sea-mark; (c) government: The Faroese 'Løgting' (not law assembly as it is posted in the article, but 'laug assembly', which was normally used in some old system where the city had a 'laug', which was basically a city council, but the danish law that allows them gives them a lot more permissions than the old 'laug's'); and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states: The faroese Lagting is allowed to enter into negotiations with other countries around Denmark, but this is generally not practised that much. The Faroe Islands do however have a free-trade treaty with Iceland, and there have been talks between the faroese foreign minister and foreign ministers of small nations of Europe, one of which is a member of the European Union, the others are not (countries like Luxemburgh, Liechtenstein and the likes of those). In international committees and unions, Denmark does infact represent the Faroe Islands, but the Faroe Islands have a great wish of entering the European Union and other unions on their own, but they want some exceptions, like in the European Union, the Faroe Islands would want some freedoms when it comes to the fishery policies and a few others, but the European Union would not accept the Faroe Islands as it is redundant with already having Denmark representing the Faroe Islands, and the Faroe Islands not being a 100% independant nation, this does not however mean they are not a country, it merely means that they are not recognized as an independant country by some, but if you look at the list you provided yourself, there are 10 'other' "countries" mentioned, like South Ossetia and Kosovo, which are only recognized by some, and even Nagorno-Karabakh which has not been recognized by any state at all, but claims to be one. The Faroe Islands claim to be a country within the 'Rigsfællesskab' (Translated to "Community of Realms", not "community of the realm" which has been pointed out earlier), a term which suggests that it is individual states within a community where all hold equal power. This is however not true though, as the Faroe Islands and Greenland are infact forced to follow danish law as it is if Denmark decides that it wants to force it upon them, but the Faroe Islands and Greenland can also decide if they want to pass a law that invalidates a danish law, but this then again has to be accepted by the danish parliament, which it generally is. In theory, it works like a 2 house system, where one of the houses has superior powers over the other, but doesn't enforce it and the inferior house does not have power over the bigger nation. This is a talk page and information shown could be subjective instead of neutral and not always 100% accurate, and I might be biased in my notes, but this is how I call it from living on the Faroe Islands. It has to be said though, that I am in fact highly interested in politics and am a republican, I do not care for not being recognized as a country, but I can accept that we are not independant. The Faroe Islands is not a colony of Denmark, it was a settlement of various vikings that was first annexed by Norway and later handed over to Denmark when the Norway-Denmark union ended in favor of the Kalmar union between Denmark and Sweden where Norway came under Swedish rule. I would view the settlement, which had it's own Thing (Parliament), and were independant of other nations, therefor being their own nation, and as such, now being a country that has been annexed into a kingdom, and works as a country inside a kingdom.

Also, on another note, it was mentioned that the choice of Iceland to continue with the danish monarch after becoming independant was not keenly viewed in the danish constitution. This is not true. The danish constitution explicitly says that if another nation wishes to elect they king (or in the current situation, queen) of Denmark as their monarch, this can be done, but it does have to be passed in a peoples vote among the danish people aswell. Oragix (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Faroe or Faroe Islands?

Because some people love to use the imperialistic and incorrect Faroe Islands instead of the more accurate Faroe or Faroes, two geographical articles have been created for the same country.

I think that it would be apropriate to decide which one is to be used. I prefer Faroe og Faroes, no matter which. This because islands means excatly the same as oe in Faroe.

Also I think that a should be use instead of ae i.e. Faroe and not Faeroe, because it is the one used by faroese. Also this is english. The correct way to spell it would be Færøe, but no one seems to be doing that. And no one would know how to pronounce it anyway.

It seems to me that this issue must be resolved. --JJ-Hammer 19:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jogvanj, the full and official name (in English) is the Faroe Islands. In Faroese the name is Føroyar, where oyar is the part that means islands. I think that it is legitimate to refer to the islands officially as the Faroe Islands, which is their official name in English. Colloquially they are called the Faroes. This isn't uncommon, for example in English the name for Deutschland is Germany. Or the Netherlands (Nederland in Dutch) is often called Holland. Quirks of history, yes, but I think that we ought to use the official English name here in the English Wikipedia.

Actually, Faroe Islands is the official name in English, but however redundant, as explained above, cause oe (from Danish ø - Færø) already means island. For the same reason, we talk about the Orkneys, which have the same norse origin. The plural form Faroes should be the one, used within all the texts (because of better style), while the name of the article(s) have to be Faroe Islands due to the official name, we cannot ignore. The singular form Faroe makes only sense in compositions like Faroemen (while Faroese is the official word for both the people and the language), Faroe boat, Faroe run (ships on Faroe run), Faroe cap (part of the male costume), and so on. This corresponds with the Danish terminology like færøbåd, færøfart, færøhue... or as I use it in German: Färöboot, Färöfahrt, Färömütze.

By the way: If i could invent an English term (now I come centuries too late): Fareys, just because the first name on a map (the Hereford map) was farei (celtic) and we know the Orkneys as well. This would underline the same roots... :-) Arne List 14:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. One should be careful trying to adapt another language to English on the grounds of political correctness or well-intentioned respect. The name of the Orkney Islands also contains a pleonasm in that the last two letters in the first word, ey, has the same etymological meaning as the last word: Island. So, when an English speaker says "the Orkneys" instead of the full formal name found in maps and official documents, it's because that is the colloquial shortform. Compare "the Rockies" and "the Rocky Mountains" (or possibly even "the Aegean" and "the Aegean Sea"). See also talkpages on the names of East Timor, Côte d'Ivoire and Myanmar for further discussion. --Big Adamsky 13:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If this discussion is still live in any way, you might like to see the recent debate and renaming of the article Orkney Islands. Abtract 20:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If any of us wish to get rid of the "eys" or "oe" part of those names it should be done when talking to people, trying to make it more popular in use instead of in here. That is how languages normally change after all. I say, stick to the official name and perhaps have a mention of the alternative names somewhere. Luredreier 01:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luredreier (talk • contribs)

Sheep Islands?

A good old discussion is about the meaning of Faroes. Is it really "sheep islands"? I have my doubts, and don't feel me alone with that. There are linguists saying, it could also mean "far (away) islands". Of course, the Old Norse word fær means "(woolen) lifestock" and the Faroes are full of sheep since the very first days, but as mentioned in the section above, the Hereford map mentioned them as farei an this is celtic for "far away islands". This fits to the islands also very well, cause the are far away, so far away, that they are the last place in Europe, which was detected before finally Iceland. I think, both meanings should be explained and not always and only the popular one, each other copies from each other popular description. ;-) Arne List 14:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I also have doubts about the (Føroyar, meaning "Sheep Islands") ethimology. It's more likely that the name comes from Faerie, which is linked with "far away", of course. Erdelyiek 13:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

---

AFAIK there is also a possibility that the name Faroe Island could come from the Celtic Feharand which means something along 'land mass'. There are other names on the islands, which also have a distinct celtic flavour, i.e. Dímun (twins).

The trouble with Føroyar meaning Sheep Islands is, that in old norse the word for sheep is Sauðr. However the danish word for sheep (Får) has a resemblance to Før (first part of the name). Bearing in mind, that the island have been a part of Denmark for quiet a time, it could be argued, that the danish word for sheep (får), has had a disproportionated effect on the entymology. Bear in mind, that for the first 300 years, the Faroe Island had absolute nothing to do with Denmark, but where a part of Norway, where the word for sheep is Sauðr.

All this dosn't take into account, that the Faroe Islanders have their own language, which perhaps by then (8-900 CE) hadn't evolved into a distinct language. However, it is equally wrong to take a danish word (får) as a good reason for the original meaning of the name, since danish wasn't a part of the island for the first 3-400 years.

Ortind

Infobox_Country

Føroyar
Coat of arms of Faroe Islands Flag Coat of arms
Motto: ?
Anthem: Tú alfagra land mítt (My land, oh most beauteous)
Capital (and largest city)		Tórshavn 62°00′N 06°47′W
Official language(s)		Faroese
Government		Democratic
-	Monarch Prime Minister	Margrethe II Jóannes Eidesgaard
Independence
-	?	None1
Area
-	Total	1,399 km2 (189th)  sq mi
-	Water (%)	0.5
Population
-	2004 estimate	48,228 (211th)
-	? census	?
-	Density	33.1/km2 (138th) 85.7/sq mi
GDP (PPP)		1996 estimate
-	Total	$700 million (?)
-	Per capita	$16,000 (?)
Currency		Faroese króna2 (DKK)
Time zone		WET (UTC+0)
-	Summer (DST)	EST (UTC+1)
ISO 3166 code		FO
Internet TLD		.fo
Calling code		298
1Danish dependency. Self governing since 1948. 2Same value as Danish krone

I was thinking about inserting a Infobox_Country for the Faroe islands, but before it can be done there are a couple of question marks that need to be filled out first. Feel free to edit the infobox, when all the question marks have been replaced it can replace the table on Faroe Islands. ℚuackor 19:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Postal History

Could there be an article created on Faroese Postal History? I am a keen stamp collector of the Faroe Islands, and could probably put together an article off the top of my head and with some help from the Postverk Føroya magazine.

I would have no idea where to put it though, so if people approve, where would it go? Sean Wood 16:16, 13 November 2005

Faroe or Faröe?

What's its name in English? Or both are correct? — Instantnood 19:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Faröe is probably incorrect in English. The name is Føroyar in Faroese and Færøerne in Danish, so it wouldn't be logical to introduce the letter "ö" in the English name, for it does not lead to pronouncing the "o" like Danish "ø". It's different in German where the umlauts ä and ö in "Färöer" help achieve a pronunciation similar to "Færøerne". In English, the trema in "ö" does not mark an umlaut, it would rather signify a diaeresis. Keeping the original umlauts in a name like Zürich in English is a different thing. But since the "ö" in "Faröe" is neither the original spelling nor does any good for pronunciation in English, using this spelling would be rather silly in my opinion. Gestumblindi 01:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the -'oe' itself a representation of the 'ö'? Faröe would be one character too many then. It would be like transliterating the eth character ð back from dh as ðh, when the 'h' was there to show it was originally ð, stand-alone, to begin with. Nagelfar 21:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Faroe Islands and the cartoon crisis?

Because the Faroe Islands are part of Denmark, I wonder, how was Faroe Islands affected by the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy? Were there any specific threats from muslim extremists against, for instance, the Faroese fishing industry? Is faroese cod or wool boycotted by Saudi Arabia for example? Cyrruss 14:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not that i know of. ℚuackor 10:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My guess would be that they probably don't even know about the place or if they do it's not exactly all that important to them... don't actually know though... Luredreier 01:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luredreier (talk • contribs)

Transportation section needs to be updated

In light of this new advancement: http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3705010/ I'm not sure what islands and such they are talking about in this section that are currently connected so I can't update this section to mention the new tunnel. Daniel 13:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at Norðoyatunnilin. ℚuackor 12:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

Could somebody please provide some historical information about the Faroese being of Celtic descent? Enzedbrit 05:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Dna analysis suggests that (male ) Vikings took slaves or wives from Scotland or Ireland probably by force in most cases. is that a suitable addition to the article? 145.253.108.22 14:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Too speculative IMO. Given the levels of depopulation and probable relative contact with communities in Scotland there would have to be more evidence citations etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.122.171 (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

External links

Wikipedia is not a link repository or travelguide, so per WP:EL I think it makes sense to first discuss links someone wishes to add to this article. User:212.55.60.242 recently added these:

• Faroenature.net - FaroeNature is primarily intended to help people communicate about the Faroese nature
• The Nordic House in the Faroe Islands - official site of the most important cultural institution in the Faroes Islands
• The Faroe Islands National Art Museum - official site

Do they make sense on the top level Faroes article, if they are suitable then surely it is on a sub-article... The article for the institution in question or the likes of Culture of the Faroe Islands, Geography of the Faroe Islands, etc /wangi 11:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I just finish to publish my Faroe photo gallery (61 photos of this beautiful islands). The link is: http://www.imagea.org/photos/europe/fo/faroe_islands/imagepages/image1.htm I like to say if you think that is possible to add this link to the link section ? I think that this photos give a complete outline (landscapes and animals) of the Faroe islands. But if you not like to add this link i not take offence :) Thank you. Fabrizio gealive

I don't think that there should be links to random pages on the net which have pictures of the subject, but if your images are under a GFDL license or public domain, then the images can be used in articles and credited to you. ℚuackor 18:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Is the edits by 86.141.193.186 vandalism or is it fact? The only other edit that was made by that IP address was obvious vandalism. Dark jedi requiem 23:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

origin of the islands?

How about something on the geologic origin of the Faroes? They're in a strange position in the middle of the ocean, with no volcanoes (that anyone's mentioned). KarlM 06:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made a Geology of the Faroe Islands stub article now. ℚuackor 22:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Education

Shouldn´t there be a section or an article conserning education in the Faroe Islands ? --Nua2 09:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC) indeed there should

Irish monks

Very little historical evidence indicates that Irish monks have ever settled in the Faroe Islands. In fact, the only source to the claim was written by Dicuil, and he only mentions some islands to the north. In fact, there is new historical research (by Arne Thorsteinsson) which proves that he never wrote about the Faroes, but instead at some point in time (I can’t remember when at the moment) someone made an error while making a transcript of Dicuil´s writings.--Nua2 10:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Question to Faroese people

I've read here pretty much about Faroe Islands, and I liked them very much, they sort of look "magical" as a bunch of pictures showed places surrounded by fogs.

However, isnt it a bit boring to live there? Or do you enjoy the quieter life? I'd certainly like to visit the islands one day but I can't imagine a person like me living there.

Cheers

The Faroe Islands are almost exactly like everywhere else. When a German traveller who visited the Faroe Islands in 1913 noticed some modern changes on the islands he wrote: "Und so wird diser typhische Menchenschlag dem Anthropologen ebenso uinteressand werden wie wir ubrigen Europaer".

Down South, in Denmark, there are plenty of jokes indicating that the Faroe Islands are an extremely boring place to live in, however, I always fail to see the point. I hope that answers your question.Nua2 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It does! The day I buy a sail boat, the first place to visit will be the islands. Congratulations for such a lovely place, and thank you very much for such a kind answer Mr. Nua2.

Can someone change the spelling of "defence" in the first paragraph to "defense?"

Can someone change the spelling of "defence" in the first paragraph to "defense?"

-- What on earth for? Have you read the guidelines on US/UK spelling. This is an article about a European country, and whoever started it used UK spellings. It should not be changed without good reason. Rat 01:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mis-translation?

The following sentence in the demographics section In the 20th Century Faroese became the host language; Danish only has the character of a traffic language. makes no sense in English. Can anyone improve it or explain it here?--JBellis 22:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It probably means Faroese is now the primary language spoken in homes, but Danish is used to communicate internationally, with outsiders, and via trade, imports/exports, the internet, etc. Just like 'English' is the international language in most the rest of the world. Nagelfar 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Faroese has always been the primary language spoken in homes.--Nua2 16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

Just did a couple of minor edits, most of the English here is top-class but there are a few bits that could be rephrased, have done my best. Ghostreveries 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

During the world war we were only allowed to speak danish in school and church. everywhere else, any time, we have always spoken Faroese, it is our primary and only language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.55.66.90 (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm also going to do some minor edits, concerned primarily with minor grammatical errors and to make the text flow more smoothly and naturally to a native English speaker. Feel free to correct and/or edit anything I change, I'm just trying to help. --Saukkomies ^talk 16:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

"Faroe Islands" or "The Faroe Islands"?

I dont know Faroese, but in Danish: Fær-ø-er-ne, ne=The Fær=Faroe ø=island er=s --Arigato1 11:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The title uses the English name therefore it follows the same convention as many place names or countries which take the definite artcile but it isn't used in the title e.g. the US, the UK, the USSR, the Seychelles etc.

The is some debate on the Netherlands talk page but see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Avoid the definite article ("the") and the indefinite article ("a"/"an") at the beginning of the page name for clarification . --JBellis 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is wise to suppress the definite article -- and the indefinite -- a much more controversial point -- in titles wherever possible.

New York City is officially The City of New York, and my employer The City University of New York.

There will be a cold wind blowing across the River Styx before they get me to write The City University.

Your analysis of is good -- I do read Danish, speak Swedish fluently and Norwegian not so fluently -- save that Fær = Far (it should be Faer but isn't.)

The oe is a convention among Scandinavians for typing ø on a keyboard that only has the letters a through z (and ae for æ; aa is å.)

None of which amounts to a difference that anybody there would worry about (life's short; let's have another beer!)

And let us hope that somebody doesn't insist upon Faroe Islands, The as the title for this article.

Getting back to the indefinite article, I've never accepted the rationale for alphabetizing A Bridge Too Far under A but The Bridge over the River Kwai under B as is almost universally the case.

answering your question. Føroyar is how we say it in Faroese, means no "The" before "Faroe Islands". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.55.66.90 (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Native Military?

I read in the article: (they have a small organized native military in Mjørkadalur, including a small police force and coast guard). This cannot be true, for the Faroese have NO military. The Mjørkadalur base is Danish on behalf the NATO. The Faroese were never asked about that. The police is Danish too (though locals serving in it, ofcourse), and the coast guard is both Danish (navy) and Faroese (fishery control). Anyone out there, who would correct me? -- Arne List 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:22 (UTC)

Faroese government

I can not seem to finde anything about the faroese government (landstýrið). Is this just because the article has'nt been created yet, or is there something i have missed. ℚuackor 10:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Can anyone clarify why these references are under references ? ℚuackor 15:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Irvine, D.E.G. 1982. Seaweeds of the Faroes 1: The flora. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Bot.) 10: 109 - 131.
• Tittley, I., Farnham, W.F. and Gray, P.W.G. 1982. Seaweeds of the Faroes 2: Sheltered fjords and sounds. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Bot.) 10: 133 - 151.
• Irvine, David Edward Guthrie. 1982. Seaweed of the Faroes 1: The flora. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Bot.) 10(3): 109 - 131.

Norway and World War II

Some years ago a Faroese reader, who seemed very pro-Norwegian, got a letter printed in the Norwegian history magazine Levende Historie. He wrote that during the war the Norwegian government (Trygve Lie IIRC) had approached the British government about transferring the Faroes to Norwegian sovereignty as compensation for the lack of a Danish war effort. Does anyone know if this actually happened, or if it's just an urban legend? -- Nidator 23:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've rechecked Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie Vol IV "Overleveren 1914-1945", and it mentions such an attempt by Trygve Lie. Given the content, it must have happened in 1940. The relevant paragraph reads as follows (quote, loose translation): "Pressure on the "ownerless" Danish colony [Greenland] intensified, including from Norwegian side, as the foreign minister in the exiled [Norwegian] government, Trygve Lie, worked actively from London to gather support for a plan that Norway should lead an initiative for a grand-scale strategic cooperation in the Atlantic, which - apart from Norway - would also include the U.K., Canada and the U.S. - plus Iceland, Greenland and the Faroes. The idea was to entrench Norway in an Atlantic alliance, and it was part of the plan that Norway should create close bonds to Denmark's North Atlantic possessions, among other things by taking over the Faroes and possibly also Greenland. However, this project got a somewhat rough reception in Washington where it had still not been entirely forgotten that the United States had recognized Danish sovereignty [over Greenland] as part of the sales agreement concerning the Danish West Indies. The American Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, wrote a bluntly phrased letter to Trygve Lie informing the latter that the U.S. government "would not tolerate any political, military or naval steps resulting in a lasting occupation of Greenland or a change in the status of this country." [Den amerikanske udenrigsminister, Cordell Hull gjorde i et kontant formuleret brev Trygve Lie klart, at den amerikanske regering "ikke agtede at finde sig i noget politisk, militært eller flådemæssigt skridt, som resulterede i en vedvarende besættelse af Grønland eller i en ændring af landets status."] The Hands Off policy remained in force. If anybody were to establish a precence in Greenland, it was to be the United States itself. (unquote). (Bo Lidegaard: "Dansk Undenrigspolitiks Historie", vol. IV, p. 454). Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As usual your post is very interesting. It is also good to get the story verified. This is subject matter that could, and maybe should, be included in the History of the Faroe Islands, History of Greenland and Trygve Lie articles. The Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie book series seems very rich in information. -- Nidator 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

They are, and I can warmly recommend them. The series is published by Gyldendal and I think the initiative is somehow connected to the publishing of Den Store Danske Encyklopædi. The series is the first attempt to write a comprehensive history of the foreign policy of the Danish state from "time immemorial" till today. There is a little more information on Gyldendal's webpage here. I've so far only read vol.s 3 and 4 and both were very good reads. See e.g. a little more information about vol. 4 here. I believe Bo Lidegaard does a good job describing a very problematic part of Danish history. Wasn't a similar series of books about your country's foreign policy published in Norway a few years earlier? Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there was ([1]). -- Nidator 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the tip. And yes, it would probably be relevant to include material like this. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't bought them yet myself though, as I'm afraid my book budget is strained enough as it is. I will see if I can get the information worked into the relevant articles. -- Nidator 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Human Development Index

In the infobox, the HDI is mentioned, and the Faroes ranked on place 15. But this refers to Denmark and not the Faroes! -- Arne List 13:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Union with Scotland?

Any movement or sentiment for the idea that the faroes should become a United Kingdom territory? They are only 149 miles from the UK, there nearest neighbor and i'm sure they share much in common with them. It makes sense that the faroes become a UK territory! I also want to know are they part of the British Isles or not?

I think that is extremely unlikely. The Faroese are (predominately at least) a Scandinavian people speaking a (West) Scandinavian language. If they are to move away from Denmark then it will be for independence, not for another union. In the unlikely event that they wanted to enter another union then both Iceland and Norway would be much more natural candidates than the United Kingdom, due to historical, cultural and linguistic (Icelandic and Modern Norwegian/High Norwegian being the closest relatives) ties. If anything it is Orkney and Shetland that are marking their ties with Norway/Scandinavia (see the new Orkney flag). That said, I don't think they are going to leave the UK either, at least as long as Scotland doesn't. I would find it very unnatural to refer to the Faroes as a part of the British Isles. In fact, I think it is enough of a stretch referring to Shetland as a part of the British Isle. These definitions are seldom agreed upon and absolute though. -- Nidator 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Of course you are entitled to your oppinion Nidator regarding the soverenty of Orkney and Shetland stating that "it is enough of a stretch referring to Shetland as a part of the British Isle". Shetland was part of the British isles just like any other island off these coast Arran, Outer-Hebridies and Inner Hebridies all were a part of the celtic culture of Britain with Pictish settlements on all these islands. Likwise it was no fault of their own that hoarding Norsemen killed, raped and took slaves and the islands off the aboriginal inhabitants. Also the Kingdom of Scotland took all these islands back into the 13th century (as the sucessor to the Pictish nations and people) and saw both Orkney and Shetland as unfinished business till they were handed over in the 14th century. So no its not a stretch of the imagenation to think Shetland is a part of the British Isles. It always has been part of the British isles. Just because Norsemen killed and plunderd does not give you an exclusive right to both these islands. Also you mention the Shetland and Orkney flags as being closer to Norway. Well the flags of both islands was designed in the 1960s to commemorate the 500th year of the islands being in both Norwegian then Scottish hands. Likwise the islands were in aboriginal celtic hands for thousands of years before the Norsemen thought it was their pagan right to steal. Shetland is no more norwegian or anyother Scandinavian countries property than Arran is off the west coast of Scotland. Krásné nápady (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Has a Faroese/Icelandic merger or union ever been proposed? Funkynusayri 22:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that has ever been seriously proposed. As Nidator said above, any change of status for the Faroes would most likely be a move towards independence. However, it should be noted that the limited foreign relations that the Faroes carry out in their own capacity have largely involved Iceland. The nations have exchanged consuls and signed an extensive free trade agreement (see: Hoyvík Agreement). --Bjarki 23:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that the Faroes has shown interest in joining EFTA, which would bring them closer to Norway and Iceland. This would require some sort of change in the relationship with the EU member state Denmark and/or the EFTA Convention though.[2][3][4] This could perhaps be added to the article. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 07:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agrarian society

The Faroe Islands are not an agrerian society. There is no agrerian economy in the faroes. Nua2 (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Brendan

It´s most likely just a story that st. Brendan ever visited the Faroes. A lot of the historical information is very dubious.Nua2 (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom?

The adding of the words "Kingdom of" in the fact-box in the articles about the Faroe Islands and Greenland is very problematic. The Danish Realm is not a "united kingdom" with three constituent kingdoms in the same sense as the UK. No authorities within the realm, neither in Denmark, the Faroes, or Greenland, operate with notions such as "Kingdom of the Faroe Islands" or "Kingdom of Greenland" and neither does the Royal House. It is a sympathetic thought, but not in accordance with the facts: The Realm is a single kingdom. I propose to revert this change unless it is sourced within a week. --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Official Languages

Can someone explain why Danish is listed as an official language? Tinakj (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This may not be very precise; The Faroes were just a region of Denmark until 1948, when they gained home-rule. The Danish monarch is still the highest authority, though they have a prime minister, just as Queen Elizabeth is still the queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.. Hope that helped a bit? - If anyone, feel free to correct me. Zeroy777 (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your explanation is good enough except for the comparison with the UK and Canada etc. These are sovereign monarchies independent of each other, but share the same person as monarch. Faroe is not a separate kingdom, independent or sovereign from Denmark at present.Inge (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

2 Million People

I don't know who thinks there are 2 million people living on these islands. Would make it quite crowded. I think around 48000 is closer to the actual figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.129.115 (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Whale meat

Without wanting to get into a long discussion about whaling, I think that the current content is rather badly written. For example, "This tradition is part of these people's culture who need the whale meat to survive." I can understand that the Faroese might consider consumption of whale meat part of their culture, but I don't accept that they "need it to survive". From other photographs in the article I would suggest that they are doing quite well with importing brass instruments, cars, fuel, building materials etc. Whatever the whales provide them with in terms of nutrition and/or materials, couldn't it be sourced from elsewhere?Jimjamjak (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It think the sentence was meant to convey that whale meat was historically a crucial part of the Faroese diet, and has become a part of the culture. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 12:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, are you aware of how expensive it sometimes is to import things to islands? Importing a car is more or less a one time investment, importing food would be something you'd have to do again and again and again. With that in mind it makes sense to use all sources of food that you can get your hands on locally. That said I agree with the though that whaling isn't a good idea, at least not for bigger nations or in commercial sense like Norway and Japan is doing. And myself I've chosen to be a vegetarian because of animal rights questions, smaller ethnic groups tend to live a bit closer to the edge of what's possible then bigger civilizations do and with that in mind I feel that I for one can't blame them. Luredreier 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luredreier (talk • contribs)

Second University

I just was told that there exists two universities on the Islands. The second university is called Eysturoy College and it is in a town called Kambsdal. However, I have not found an article about Kambsdal or Eysturoy College. --72.71.171.87 (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Kambsdalur & High School. --194.94.134.90 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Three closest cities

For some strange reason, my correction was undone and the faulty information restored. The heading says "Distances to the nearest cities with over 100 000 inhabitants". Those three cities are Aberdeen, Bergen and Glasgow. All three of them are cities with over 100 000 inhabitants and all three of them are closer than Reykjavik, so Reykjavik should not be in the list.Jeppiz (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I undid it because I mistakenly interpreted the two sections as nearest cities with 100-250k and nearest over 250k, but I now see that Bergen also has over 250k, so your interpretation was correct.StephenHudson (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It does raise the question though of whether all the "distances to" are really needed. It especially seems that the two cities sections could be trimmed to one Distances to Cities over 100k section since Glasgow and Bergen are currently two thirds of both sections. I would also suggest the Distances to nearest countries and islands section could be cut significantly, perhaps to include only the nearest island, nearest inhabited island, and mainland Scotland. To me, the remoteness is better represented graphically, in the form of the map, than through a long list. Articles for other island nations don't seem to commonly include such lists. Any objections to such changes? StephenHudson (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No objections at all, I also think it would make more sense.Jeppiz (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. StephenHudson (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The list doesn't currently show the closest cities with over 100,000 inhabitants - it shows the top 5 and then two random Danish cities thrown in for good measure, which makes the headline misleading. Trondheim, Stavanger, Oslo, Belfast, pretty much every major city in Ireland and the UK, Amsterdam and Gothenburg are all closer than Copenhagen.85.167.172.32 (talk)

Faroe Islands: Euro

(Moved from User talk:Maunus) The linked PDF is not an application. It’s just a write-up of what the parliament has had on the table a few days ago.

A basic outline of the document is as follows:

- trade and export neccesitates co-operation with the EU — which is where the Euro comes into the picture.

- countries not part of the EU use the Euro, suggesting the Faroes could, too.

- negotiations with the EU and the ECB is a goal of the parliament.

- the issue will be put to a public vote.

That is just the first four paragraphs. The rest of the document is just commentary and notes, elaborating on the topic.

Do you really think that they send an aplication on "Faroese language" to the European Central Bank. Faroe islands' currency is bound to Denmark's. When Denmark voted for the Euro, that included Faroe Islands too, and the Faroese also voted of course. --JHF1000 (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Distances to nearest countries.

Altered the distances to the nearest countries because of the following calculations: Method. Used memory-map 1:25 000 for Cape Wrath & 1:50 000 for Foula, Ordnance Survey 1:25 000 Explorer 460 paper map for North Rona and the KMS Foroyar 1:20 000 510 Sumba map. With the paper maps, used a ruler to measure the grid references of the closest points. Inputed the grid references into the OS coordinate transformer, to obtain the latitudes-longitudes. With the Faroese grid references, I imputed them into my GPS to obtain the latitude-longitudes. Though this may not result in a precise conversion. Since inputing British grid references into a GPS, to obtain WGS84 latitude-longitudes, can result in the WGS84 latitude-longitudes being up to about 20 metres from the correct points. Calculated the distances by using the Geosceince Australia website. The closest point of Suduroy to Foula, North Rona and Cape Wrath is Akraberg-Hovdin at approximately UTM ED50 29 V 0624170,6808880 = WGS84 61°23’30.7”N 6°40’38.1”W. There is Fixpunkt 11508, very close to the Akraberg lighthouse. Which has been precisely surveyed at ETRS89 61°23’38.47492”N 6°40’45.18593”W. Akraberg-Hovdin to: North Rona MHWS HW81285,33643 = ETRS89/WGS84 59°7'59.2”N 5°49’28.8”W = 256044 metres. Foula MHWS HT93860,40140 = ETRS89/WGS84 60°8’44.6”N 2°6’44.5”W = 284823 metres. Cape Wrath MHWS NC25748,74921 = ETRS89/WGS84 58°37’37.4’N 5’0’10.4”W = 321856 metres. Fixpunkt 11508 to: North Rona MHWS 256300 metres, Foula MHWS 285027 metres, Cape Wrath MHWS 322117 metres. There are skerries to the south of Suduroy. The furthest south skerry that is probably always above sea level is Sumbiarsteinur at approximately UTM ED50 29 V 0624710,6802900 = WGS84 61°20’17.0”N 6°40’16.1”W, having a height of 12 metres. The closest point of the North Rona archipelago above Mean High Water Springs and which is a skerry at MHWS (connected to North Rona at least at Mean Low Water Springs) HW81206,33750 = ETRS89/WGS84 59°8’2.5”N 5°49’34.1”W to Sumbiarsteinur 249981 metres. Sulasgeir (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but you might want to read WP:OR. I reverted your edit as it violated this core principle.Jeppiz (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no references for these distances. The distance between the Faroe Islands and North Rona at 260km, was added by an unsigned; without any reason been given. It was previously 256km. Even if anyone succeeds in finding a reference and the reference disagrees with mine to the nearest kilometre. It will be incorrect. Since in the past, I have compared my distance measurements with those of the National Land Survey of Iceland. Having sent them coordinates, for Scotland. Which they accepted. With those they sent me distance calculations Iceland-Scotland. Their distance calculator calculates distances, to precisely the same distances as the Geoscience Australia website. You will find that my latitudes-longitudes approximately agree with those shown by Google Earth for Akraberg-Hovdin, Sumbiarsteinur, Foula and Cape Wrath. North Rona being too blurred. In my opinion, the distances now in the article have also been calculated by those editors, rather than being from a reference. Though I have actually stated the methods, I use. It seems to be alright to enter distances, without explanation, but not if you actually explain your method. In other words, not keeping a low profile. Sulasgeir (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, both are wrong. Having unexplained distances is of course not a good idea, nor should we calcultate the distances ourselves. If a source cannot be found for the distances, they should be removed. I'm not saying your calculations are wrong, it's very likely that they are correct, but it doesn't matter much as Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, WP:V.Jeppiz (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A book used as a reference in this article; states that "The nearest land is Shetland" "300 kilometres" "away". So it would be alright to put factually incorrect information in this article, because it is from a source. Sulasgeir (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Sumbiarsteinur article in German states, dry skerry Sumbiarsteinur 61°10’30.85”N 6°40’23.77”W. There are two errors: 1. Sumbiarsteinur and dry skerry, are actually separate skerries. The relevant sentence from the source, was translated by the Danish Cultural Institute, Edinburgh. "It means a dry skerry south-west of Sumbiarsteinur. A separate thing in other words." http://forum.faroe-islands.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=8605 has photos. In the first one, the nearest skerry shown is possibly the dry skerry. It is south-west of Sumbiarsteinur. The photo only names the skerry, as skerry. With next nearest being Sumbiarsteinur. The reason I only say that it might possibly be the one mentioned in the source; is that the dry skerry may possibly be a micro skerry, very close to the south-west of the nearest skerry in the photo. Since in my opinion, the coordinates do not quite match. The coordinates stated in the source, are approximately 200 metres from Sumbiarsteinur. 2. The coordinates in the article are incorrect, about 18 kilometres too far south. They are actually 61°20’10.85”N 6°40’23.77”W. Sulasgeir (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Languages

As a Faroese person myself, i would like the article to be corrected a bit. Danish is not an official language! the only official language we have is Faroese.

Vit tosa ikki Dansk sum høvus mal, gera vit? Nei vit tosa bara Føroykst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.55.66.90 (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As already cited in the article, the Faroese Prime Minister's Office states that Danish is an official language, so you'd perhaps better take it up with them. Acasson (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Think of it this way, most norwegians don't understand the language of the Sami population nor that of the Kven population, but both those languages are official languages here. And you do have danes living on the islands, don't you? So think about it as a minority language ;-) Luredreier (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

LGBTQ rights/ debate.

I love Faroese music, especially contemporary music. There is something nice about being able to glimpse into such a small world with such a dynamic people, whom I love. However for a Nordic country, they are seriously lacking in LGBTQ rights. There is no discussion of it in the article so I added some, can we come together please to go into more detail. It's like this article just glosses over it.Ritta Margot Clantagenet (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were totally inappropriate and encyclopedic and have been reverted. Please read WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:SOAPBOX. You can not call an entire region homophobic without citing sources for the information. Even if properly sourced it is highly questionable as to whether or not such statements belong here Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. Ridernyc (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You should familiarise yourself with the literature regarding the culture of masculinity and youth there, because it is so clear that this is the case if you did more research. None of the section containing what I wrote complied with those rules before, and what I wrote does! I'm sorry I didn't include sources at the time, but I can recommend a few for you to read so that you can help me in bringing about constructive change. It is a fascinating but little-known topic. So much of the Faroes is not known to outsiders. Improvement is the name of the game, so please take a closer look and have a nice day! :)Ritta Margot Clantagenet (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ridernyc, I think you will find the following information very interesting:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z5jH_6qlyOIC&pg=PA43&dq=masculinity+in+the+faroe+islands&hl=en&ei=vllcTMuuMIP68Aav1dy-Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=masculinity%20in%20the%20faroe%20islands&f=false

http://www.monocle.com/sections/affairs/Magazine-Articles/Faroe-tales---Torshavn/

http://thebiggerissueorg.blogspot.com/2007/08/havnar-kirkja-of-faroes-is-cathedral-of.html

http://tglrg.org/more/235_0_1_0_M/

http://www.fridarbogin.com/pdf_files/Program_Canaries_In_Coalmines_21-28aug.pdf

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-2955.html/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritta Margot Clantagenet (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Ridernyc's problem with the material was probably two-fold – the phrasing was not very neutral, and no refs were given. The links you give above do suggest that there's an unpleasantly homophobic atmosphere in the Faroes, but most are not suitable as refs (for example, it could be that the Faroes have a widely-held but unjust reputation for homophobia). We need academic papers or textbooks, based on neutral, scientific research, showing that the Faroes are really different in this respect from other places. We also need the phrasing to be neutral (for example "research has shown that homophobia is more widespread in the Faroes than in ..."). Richard New Forest (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The animosity this has inculcated has me in a bit of a tizzy, perhaps if someone more "neutral" undertakes this area of inclusion we can all come to an agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritta Margot Clantagenet (talk • contribs) 10:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This topic has been blown way out of proportion in foreign (Danish) media. Its both rude, arrogant and bigoted to think that any of those links can paint a full true picture of the Faroes. Perhaps you should do some proper research, instead of giving a whole nationality a bad name. Middelbart Svogerskab (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion

So the Christian church came to the islands in 999 or 150 years earlier. The suggestion is that this is the inhabitants' first contact with religion. Why is there no discussion here of the rich and full spiritual life the inhabitants must had before that? Why is there no discussion of the methods used by the church to introduce the religion into the islands? Was there resistance to abandoning the old ways? Indeed, what were the old ways?

In England, the first church missionaries were given a welcome into the country and were told they were free to preach and make such arguments as they saw fit. They chose not to preach to the populace but, instead, sought to convert the leaders. One argument they made to the king of Kent, Athelbert, was that he would be a more powerful king if he allied to continental kings by adopting their religion. Once Athelbert had done so - and only he knew if it was for political or spiritual reasons - the church persuaded him to adopt laws outlawing the old religious practices with terrible punishments for people who would not abandon their religion. The church-written history portrays this as the population accepting Yeshua (called Christ by the church) into their hearts. The history that comes to us from non-church sources portrays the matter differently. So, what is the truth of the transition of the Faroes from a non-Christian society to one where the church is central to governance with laws in place to protect its position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.161.18 (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Christianity in Britain predated Augustine's mission to Kent, even a cursory reading of Bede makes that very clear. I'm not sure what that has to do with Christianity in the Faroes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.124.47 (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Immunology/Epidemiology

I am an immunology student and recently found a reference to a measles study conducted by Dr. Peter Ludvig Panum in the Faroe Islands.

P.L. Panum, Beobachtungen uber das Maserncontagium, Virchows Arch. 1, 492-512 (1847); reprinted in Med Classics 3, 829 (1939).

The study is special because it gave immunologists a first hint of how immunity works and that a single exposure is sufficient to form life-long immunological memory.--Due to the remoteness of the Faroe Islands, there were 65 years between two isolated outbreaks. Dr. Panum was observant enough to also include the control population, making this report a "natural experiment" rather than just an anecdote.

Would one of you history buffs be able to find a copy of this classic work (any language) or direct me to a search engine for medical history? (ISI Web of Science only goes back to 1945, and google-books only displays the cover page.)

Thank you in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.146.111 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

See my answer on Talk:Peter Ludvig Panum. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.146.111 (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Queen Margrethe II of Denmark

Why is there a picture of Queen Margrethe? I have nothing against the Danish monarchy, but it seems absurd to me as a Faroese national to identify the Faroes Islands with something that is such a Danish institution. Yes, we are a part of the Danish kingdom and have been so for centuries, but still I just can´t connect the Queen with anything that represents the Faroes. Middelbart Svogerskab (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If it had been a picture of the Queen while on an official visit to the Faroe Islands then I would say it would have been appropriate, but this does indeed seem to be undue weight. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If no one objects is it OK, if I remove it?Middelbart Svogerskab (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Queen Margrethe II is head of state of the Faroe Islands; its quite simple - [[5]].

Sir Tanx (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No it isn´t. There is not a picture of the British monarch on the Australia wiki page. What do you know about the Faroes? Middelbart Svogerskab (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Middelbart Svogerskab

I think you're confusing head of state with head of government. Kaj Leo Johannesen is head of the Faroese government, whilst Queen Margrethe II is the Faroese head of state [6]. Perhaps there is no picture of Queen Elizabeth II on the Australia because less observant people like yourself removed it. Oh, and with respect to your question - I'm married to a Faroese and I have lived in the Faroe Islands on several occasions. I'm wondering what you know about the Faroe Islands?

Best wishes,

Sir Tanx (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood Middelbart Svogerskab. Noone disputes that she is the head of state of the Faroe Islands, but that is not what is being discussed here. The problem is that the picture seems to be undue weight in a section that is already bloated with images. As I said, if it had been a picture from an official visit to the islands by the queen, it would seem appropriate, but the current one is unnecessary, and it would help the cluttering up of the article if it was removed. She is already mentioned in the text, and that seems sufficient to me. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Saddhiyama

Thanks for your input. The present discussion indeed rests on Middelbart Svogerskab's initial claim that (quote) I just can´t connect the Queen with anything that represents the Faroes. (/end quote). Formally, which was the original premise of the discussion, the Queen does represent the Faroe Islands, although she is not necessarily regarded as a representative figure. Wrt to the layout of the article, we could opt for replacing the picture with one from an official visit as you suggest or consider its removal altogether if no official picture can be found?

Best,

Sir Tanx (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Saddhiyama. The picture seems confusing and it isn´t necessary. I guess I am the only one present who has lived an entire lifetime in the Faroes? The queen is an official figure, she might legally represent the Faroes but in most peoples minds she dosen´t. Furthermore, she represents Danish export, industry culture ect. Not Faroese fishing products. Therefore, the pictures only value to the article is to symbolize Danish government. Which is unnecessary.Middelbart Svogerskab (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi MB

Thanks for your comments. Firstly, a clarification, I don't think that Saddhiyama said that the picture is confusing or unnecessary; he said that a picture from an official visit would be more appropriate. Secondly, I don't think that the two of us are in complete disagreement, Middelbart Svogerskab. You are exactly spot on the money when you say that QMII is an official figure who represents the Faroe Islands 'legally'; and as you insightfully point out, people's feelings towards having her as head of state remain divided. That being said, and this is where we might be in disagreement, the question remains whether it is appropriate or not to have a picture of QMII on the main Faroe Islands page. My argument would be that it is not inappropriate to have her picture here. More specifically, the main Faroe Islands page, supposedly, should reflect information of the Faroe Islands in a neutral, non-political, non-biased manner. Removal of her picture would however be inappropriate wrt the arguments you've presented since they could be interpreted as biased. I suggest that we leave the discussion of pro-QMII and con-QMII to another place than the current article. Wouldn't you agree?

Btw., QMII is not symbolic of the Danish government; that would be Lars Løkke Rasmussen.

Best,

Sir Tanx (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Media Drive

Hello. I am starting a media drive for the article on Tórshavn. Please help by taking pictures, recording videos and upload any music that is related to the article. While I know only a limited selection will be used, my hope is the media drive will both inspire people to write something interesting and give the article a few gems if enough media is uploaded. --OO(talk)(useless text here) 01:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Climate Description

The term 'Subarctic' (which means 'continental climate') does not apply to the Faroese climate which in fact is an 'extremely oceanic climate'. (talk) 12 May 2011) —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

Distances to nearest countries (again).

Reading the article I notice that one user, AnFiann, edited the article about a month ago to add distances to Ireland and various cities in Ireland (these are this users' only edits so far). Forgive me for saying so, but the distances seem to be a bit persnickerty, and over-precise - Ireland 669.958 km? Between which points? and who's complaining about a missing 42 metres to make a nice round 670 km? Dublin 897.619 km?! What's wrong with 900 km? Back when I did A level Geography and Maths, several decades ago, I was warned against unnecessary over-precision. Measuring distances down to 1 metre in an article of this kind is completely unnecessary and probably misleading - we're getting to the scale where continental drift might start making a mockery of the figures within a reasonable timescale. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Old sentence fragment in Handicrafts?

I probably wouldn't even remember the Faroes if it weren't for knitting, but unfortunately I still don't actually know very much about their distinctive shawls, having never researched that particular knitting tradition. Still, this sentence from the description of said shawl seems to have an extraneous link to a type of knife (which I didn't examine and may or may not be relevant):

"Each shawl consists of two triangular side panels, a trapezoid-shaped back gusset, an edge treatment, and usually shoulder shaping and the Grindaknívur"

The logical thing to me seems to be to remove "and the Grindaknivur", but as I don't know anything about whatever that may be, and whether it should somehow be included or not. My only guess for how it got there is that some text was deleted and the deleter didn't catch the end of a sentence, but I could be wrong. Anyone know how relevant a Grindaknívur is? Ullpianissimo (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Grindaknívur. Obviously some sort of vandalism. Please do remove it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Trondur i gotu 1904.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Trondur i gotu 1904.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Faroe islands boat.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Faroe islands boat.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Danish Trade Monopoly discrepancy

In the introductory paragraph, it states that the Danish trade monopoly ended in 1814 (but isn't referenced). Later, under the section of History (in the 5th paragraph) it states that the trade monopoly ended in 1856. Again, this is not referenced, either. Which of these two claims is correct? And - there needs to be a reference to this. --Saukkomies ^talk 17:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Special User 178.132.225.226, whoever you are, I see that you corrected this date discrepancy. Thank you. :) --Saukkomies ^talk 00:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A note about grammar

I wanted to make a note about the grammar used in this article, specifically, in reference to the Faroe Islands as an entity. When refering to the political entity of the Faroe Islands, one should use the singular form of a verb. For example, in the lead paragraph, the singular has been is used:

The Faroe Islands has been a self-governing dependency of the Kingdom of Denmark since 1948.

However, there are times when one might refer to the Faroe Islands by using the plural form of a verb. Again, using an example from the lead paragraph, the plural were is used, since it is refering not to the singular political entity of the Faroe Islands, but as a plural collection of geographical islands, since the government that represents the islands was not always present throughout the entire period of history that is refered to in this sentence:

The Faroe Islands were associated with and taxed by Denmark and Norway up to 1814, when the Kalmar Union broke up.

The rule of thumb: compare it to The United States of America is ..., which takes a singular form, since it represents a single governing body. However, there are also times when the phrase These United States are ... might be used in refering to the various individual states not as a whole, but seperately, and which takes the plural form. Just my own take on things, feel free to contribute or post a rebuttal. --Saukkomies ^talk 17:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)