Talk:Faroe Islands/Archive 2

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.

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.44.197 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 18 September 2009‎

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)

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)

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)

High School. --194.94.134.90 (talk

) 14:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.172.32 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 28 May 2010‎

(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)

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)

I think that Sule Skerry (uninhabited) is closer to the Faroes than Westray. Jim Craigie (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

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: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)

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)

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)

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 - [[1]].

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.

Queen Margrethe II is the Faroese head of state [2]. 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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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 -- talk ) 18:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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 -- talk ) 23:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

According to their constitution:

Symbols and Language (1) The Faroe Islands have a Flag and other Symbols according to statute. (2) The official language is Faroese.

http://loegmansskrivstovan.fo.dynamicweb.eu/ew/media/the.faroese.constitution.pdf ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.205.121 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Typo in opening paragraph for population numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdnaltsemelddim (talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)