Talk:Faroe Islands/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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:

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

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)

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)

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

Côte d'Ivoire and Myanmar for further discussion. --Big Adamsky

13:16, 16 November 2005 (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)

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

Ortind — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortind (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 February 2007‎

Føroyar
Flag Coat of arms of Faroe Islands Coat of arms
Motto: ?
Anthem:  Margrethe II Jóannes Eidesgaard
Independence
• ?	None1
Calling code		298
ISO 3166 code	FO
Internet TLD	.fo
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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia is not a link repository or travelguide, so per

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Further to this,"heremitae ex nostra Scotia" as quoted in the article to mean Monks of Ireland, that would read," Heremitae ex nostra Hibernia" the former is of Scotland( Scotia )....not Ireland!! I picked up on it because I am from Nova Scotia, the only latin name place in the world> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.225.199 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.13.243 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 September 2006‎

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.255.83 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 21 September 2006‎

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I can not seem to finde anything about the

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.

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)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.122.44 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 18 July 2007‎

I think that is extremely unlikely. 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
  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)

• • • Apart from the inhabitants of Shetland and Orkney are descendants of Norsemen now, and not in fact Pictish Celts. This and their culture means they have more in common with the Faroe Islands and Scandinavia than mainland Scotland,
      British land by force to form Scotland. Kentynet (talk) — Preceding undated
      comment added 19:46, 23 May 2014 (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)

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)

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)

Just for the record, it's spelled "Faroe", not "Faeroe". The Pokémon Fan (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)