text:
Cod Wars

The Cod Wars (Þorskastríðin; also known as Landhelgisstríðin, lit. 'The Coastal Wars'; Kabeljaukriege) were a series of 20th-century confrontations between the United Kingdom (with aid from West Germany) and Iceland about fishing rights in the North Atlantic. Each of the disputes ended with an Icelandic victory.

Some Icelandic historians view the history of Iceland's struggle for control of its maritime resources in ten episodes, or ten cod wars. Fishing boats from Britain have been sailing to waters near Iceland in search of their catch since the 14th century. Agreements struck during the 15th century started a centuries-long series of intermittent disputes between the two countries. Demand for seafood and consequent competition for fish stocks grew rapidly in the 19th century.

The modern disputes or wars began in 1952 after Iceland expanded its territorial waters from 3 to 4 nmi based on a decision by the International Court of Justice. The United Kingdom responded by banning Icelandic ships landing their fish in British ports. In 1958, after a United Nations conference at which several countries sought to extend the limits of their territorial waters to 12 nmi at which no agreement was reached, Iceland unilaterally expanded its territorial waters to this limit and banned foreign fleets from fishing in these waters. Britain refused to accept this decision. This led to a modern series of confrontations with the United Kingdom and other western European countries that took place in three stages over 20 years: 1958–1961, 1972–73 and 1975–76. A threat of damage and danger to life was present, with British fishing boats escorted to the fishing grounds by the Royal Navy while the Icelandic Coast Guard attempted to chase them away and use long hawsers to cut nets from the British boats; ships from both sides suffered damage from ramming attacks.

Each confrontation concluded with an agreement favourable for Iceland. Iceland made threats it would withdraw from NATO, which would have forfeited NATO's access to most of the GIUK gap, a critical anti-submarine warfare chokepoint during the Cold War. In a NATO-brokered agreement in 1976, the United Kingdom accepted Iceland's establishment of a 12-nautical-mile (22 km) exclusive zone around its shores where only its own ships could fish and a 200 nmi Icelandic fishery zone where other nations' fishing fleets needed Iceland's permission. The agreement brought to an end more than 500 years of unrestricted British fishing in these waters. As a result, British fishing communities lost access to rich areas and were devastated, with thousands of jobs lost. The UK abandoned its "open seas" international fisheries policy and declared a similar 200-nautical-mile zone around its own waters. Since 1982, a 200 nmi exclusive economic zone has been the international standard under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The term "cod war" was coined by a British journalist in early September 1958. None of the Cod Wars meet any of the common thresholds for a conventional war, and they may more accurately be described as militarised interstate disputes. There is only one confirmed death during the Cod Wars: an Icelandic engineer, who was accidentally killed in the Second Cod War while he was repairing damage on the Icelandic patrol boat Ægir after a collision with the British frigate Apollo. They collided on 29 August 1973. A trawlerman from Grimsby was seriously wounded on 19 February 1976, hit by the loose cordage after an Icelandic gunboat cut his vessel's net.

Several explanations for the Cod Wars have been put forward. Recent studies have focused on the underlying economic, legal and strategic drivers for Iceland and the United Kingdom, as well as the domestic and international factors that contributed to the escalation of the dispute. Lessons drawn from the Cod Wars have been applied to international relations theory.

Background
Seafood has for centuries been a staple in the diet of inhabitants of the British Isles, Iceland and other Nordic countries, which are surrounded by some of the world's richest fisheries. Danish and Norse raiders came to Britain in the ninth century bringing one fish species in particular, the North Sea cod, into the national diet. Other whitefish like halibut, hake and pollock also became popular.

Until 1949

By the end of the 14th century, fishing boats from the east coast of England, then as now home to most of the English fishing fleet, were sailing to Icelandic waters in search of these catches; their landings grew so abundant as to cause political friction between England and Denmark, who ruled Iceland at the time. The Danish King Eric banned all Icelandic trade with England in 1414 and complained to his English counterpart, Henry V, about the depletion of fishing stocks off the island. Restrictions on British fishing passed by Parliament were generally ignored and unenforced, leading to violence and the Anglo-Hanseatic War (1469–1474). Diplomats resolved these disputes through agreements that allowed British ships to fish Icelandic waters with seven-year licences, a provision that was struck from the Treaty of Utrecht when it was presented to the Icelandic Althing for ratification in 1474. This started a centuries-long series of intermittent disputes between the two countries. From the early 16th century onward, English sailors and fishermen were a major presence in the waters off Iceland.

With the increases in range of fishing that were enabled by steam power in the late 19th century, boat owners and skippers felt pressure to exploit new grounds. Their large catches in Icelandic waters attracted more regular voyages across the North Atlantic. In 1893, the Danish government, which then governed Iceland and the Faroe Islands, claimed a fishing limit of 50 nmi around their shores. British trawler owners disputed the claim and continued to send their ships to the waters near Iceland. The British government did not recognise the Danish claim on the grounds that setting such a precedent would lead to similar claims by the nations around the North Sea, which would damage the British fishing industry.

In 1896, the United Kingdom made an agreement with Denmark for British vessels to use any Icelandic port for shelter if they stowed their gear and trawl nets. In return, British vessels were not to fish in Faxa Bay east of a line from Ílunýpa, a promontory near Keflavík to Þormóðssker (43.43° N, 22.30° W).

With many British trawlers being charged and fined by Danish gunboats for fishing illegally within the 13 nmi limit, which the British government refused to recognise, the British press began to enquire why the Danish action against British interests was allowed to continue without intervention by the Royal Navy. The British made a show of naval force (gunboat diplomacy) in 1896 and 1897.

In April 1899, the steam trawler Caspian was fishing off the Faroe Islands when a Danish gunboat tried to arrest her for allegedly fishing illegally inside the limits. The trawler refused to stop and was fired upon first with blank shells and then with live ammunition. Eventually, the trawler was caught, but before the skipper, Charles Henry Johnson, left his ship to go aboard the Danish gunboat, he ordered the mate to make a dash for it after he went on to the Danish ship. The Caspian set off at full speed. The gunboat fired several shots at the unarmed boat but could not catch up with the trawler, which returned, heavily damaged, to Grimsby, England. On board the Danish gunboat, the skipper of the Caspian was lashed to the mast. A court held at Thorshavn convicted him on several counts including illegal fishing and attempted assault, and he was jailed for 30 days.

The 'Anglo-Danish Territorial Waters Agreement' of 1901 set a 3 nmi territorial waters limit, measured narrowly, around each party's coastlines: this applied to Iceland as (at the time) part of Denmark and had a term of 50 years.

The Icelandic fisheries grew in importance for the British fishing industry around the end of the 19th century. The reduction in fishing activity brought about by the hostilities of the First World War effectively ended the dispute for a time.

While data is incomplete for the prewar period, one historian argues that the Icelandic fishing grounds were 'very important' to the British fishing industry as a whole. Data from 1919 to 1938 showed a significant increase in the British total catches in Icelandic waters. The British catches in Iceland were more than twice the combined catches of all other grounds of the British distant water fleet. Icelanders grew increasingly dismayed at the British presence.

1949–1958
In October 1949, Iceland initiated the two-year abrogation process of the agreement made between Denmark and the United Kingdom in 1901. The fishery limits to the north of Iceland were extended to 4 nmi. However, since the British trawling fleet did not use those grounds, the northern extension was not a source of significant contention between the two states. Initially planning to extend the rest of its fishery limits by the end of the two-year abrogation period, Iceland chose to postpone its extension to wait for the outcome of the UK–Norway fisheries case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which was decided in December 1951.

Icelanders were satisfied with the ICJ ruling, as they believed that Iceland's preferred extensions were similar to those afforded to Norway in the ICJ ruling. The UK and Iceland tried to negotiate a solution but were unable to reach agreement. The Icelandic government declared, on 19 March 1952, its intention to extend its fishery limits on 15 May 1952.

Iceland and the United Kingdom were involved in a dispute from May 1952 to November 1956 over Iceland's unilateral extension of its fishery limits from 3 to 4 nmi. Unlike in the Cod Wars, the Royal Navy was never sent into Icelandic waters. The British trawling industry, however, implemented costly sanctions on Iceland by imposing a landing ban on Icelandic fish in British ports. The landing ban was a major blow to the Icelandic fishing industry (the UK was Iceland's largest export market for fish) and caused consternation among Icelandic statesmen. The two sides decided to refer one part of the Icelandic extension to the ICJ in early 1953: the controversial Faxa Bay delimitation.

In May 1953, businessman George Dawson signed an agreement with the Icelandic trawler owners to buy fish landed in Britain. Seven landings were made but the merchants who bought from Dawson were blacklisted and he was unable to distribute the fish effectively himself.

Cold War politics proved favourable for Iceland, as the Soviet Union, seeking influence in Iceland, stepped in to purchase Icelandic fish. The United States, fearing greater Soviet influence in Iceland, also did so and persuaded Spain and Italy to do likewise.

Soviet and American involvement resulted in weakening the punitive effects of the British landing ban. Some scholars refer to the dispute of 1952 to 1956 as one of the Cod Wars, as the object of the dispute and its costs and risks were all similar to those in the other three Cod Wars.

Just as the other Cod Wars, the dispute ended with Iceland achieving its aims, as the Icelandic 4 nmi fishery limits were recognized by the United Kingdom, following a decision by the Organisation of European Economic Co-operation in 1956.

Two years later, in 1958, the United Nations convened the first International Conference on the Law of the Sea, which was attended by 86 states. Several countries sought to extend the limits of their territorial waters to 12 nmi, but the conference did not reach any firm conclusions.

First Cod War (1958–1961)
The First Cod War lasted from 1 September 1958 to 11 March 1961. It began as soon as a new Icelandic law came into force and expanded the Icelandic fishery zone from 4 to 12 nmi at midnight on 1 September 1958.

All members of NATO opposed the unilateral Icelandic extension. The British declared that their trawlers would fish under protection from their warships in three areas: out of the Westfjords, north of Horn and southeast of Iceland. In all, twenty British trawlers, four warships and a supply vessel were inside the newly declared zones. The deployment was expensive; in February 1960, Lord Carrington, the First Lord of the Admiralty, responsible for the Royal Navy, stated that the ships near Iceland had expended half a million pounds sterling worth of oil since the new year and that a total of 53 British warships had taken part in the operations. Against that, Iceland could deploy seven patrol vessels and a single PBY-6A Catalina flying boat.

The deployment of the Royal Navy to contested waters led to protests in Iceland. Demonstrations against the British embassy were met with taunts by the British ambassador, Andrew Gilchrist, as he played bagpipe music and military marches on his gramophone. Many incidents followed. The Icelanders were, however, at a disadvantage in patrolling the contested waters because of the size of the area and the limited number of patrol ships. According to one historian, "only the flagship Þór could effectively arrest and, if necessary, tow a trawler to harbour".

On 4 September, ICGV Ægir, an Icelandic patrol vessel built in 1929, attempted to take a British trawler off the Westfjords, but was thwarted when HMS Russell intervened, and the two vessels collided. On 6 October, V/s María Júlía fired three shots at the trawler Kingston Emerald, forcing the trawler to escape to sea. On 12 November, V/s Þór encountered the trawler Hackness, which had not stowed its nets legally. Hackness did not stop until Þór had fired two blanks and one live shell off its bow. Once again, HMS Russell came to the rescue, and its shipmaster ordered the Icelandic captain to leave the trawler alone, as it was not within the 4 nmi limit recognised by the British government. The captain of Þór, Eiríkur Kristófersson, said that he would not do so and ordered his men to approach the trawler with the gun manned. In response, the Russell threatened to sink the Icelandic boat if it fired a shot at the Hackness. More British ships then arrived, and the Þór retreated.

Icelandic officials threatened to withdraw Iceland's membership of NATO and to expel US forces from Iceland unless a satisfactory conclusion could be reached to the dispute. Even the cabinet members who were pro-Western (proponents of NATO and the US Defence Agreement) were forced to resort to the threats, as that was Iceland's chief leverage, and it would have been political suicide not to use it. Thus, NATO engaged in formal and informal mediations to bring an end to the dispute.

Following the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea between 1960 and 1961, the UK and Iceland came to a settlement in late February 1961, which stipulated 12 nmi Icelandic fishery limits but that Britain would have fishing rights in allocated zones and under certain seasons in the outer 6 nmi for three years. The Icelandic Althing approved the agreement on 11 March 1961.

The deal was very similar to one that Iceland had offered in the weeks and days leading up to its unilateral extension in 1958. As part of the agreement, it was stipulated that any future disagreement between Iceland and Britain in the matter of fishery zones would be sent to the International Court of Justice, in the Hague.

Second Cod War (1972–1973)

The Second Cod War between the United Kingdom and Iceland lasted from September 1972 until the signing of a temporary agreement, in November 1973.

The Icelandic government again extended its fishing limits, now to 50 nmi. It had two goals in extending the limits: (1) to conserve fish stocks and (2) to increase its share of total catches. The reasons that Iceland pursued 50 nmi fishery limits, rather than the 200 nmi limits that they had also considered, were that the most fruitful fishing grounds were within the 50 nmi and that patrolling a 200 nmi limit would have been more difficult.

The British contested the Icelandic extension with two goals in mind: (1) to achieve the greatest possible catch quota for British fishermen in the contested waters and (2) to prevent a de facto recognition of a unilateral extension of a fishery jurisdiction, which would set a precedent for other extensions.

All Western European states and the Warsaw Pact opposed Iceland's unilateral extension. African states declared support for Iceland's extension after a meeting in 1971 where the Icelandic prime minister argued that the Icelandic cause was a part of a broader battle against colonialism and imperialism.

On 1 September 1972, the enforcement of the law that expanded the Icelandic fishery limits to 50 nmi began. Numerous British and West German trawlers continued fishing within the new zone on the first day. The Icelandic leftist coalition then governing ignored the treaty that stipulated the involvement of the International Court of Justice. It said that it was not bound by agreements made by the previous centre-right government, with Lúdvik Jósepsson, the fisheries minister, stating that "the basis for our independence is economic independence". The next day, the brand-new patrol ship ICGV Ægir, built in 1968, chased 16 trawlers, in waters east of the country, out of the 50 nmi zone. The Icelandic Coast Guard started to use net cutters to cut the trawling lines of non-Icelandic vessels fishing within the new exclusion zone.

On 5 September 1972, at 10:25, ICGV Ægir, under Guðmundur Kjærnested's command, encountered an unmarked trawler fishing northeast of Hornbanki. The master of the black-hulled trawler refused to divulge the trawler's name and number and, after being warned to follow the Coast Guard's orders, played Rule, Britannia! over the radio. At 10:40, the net cutter was deployed into the water for the first time, and Ægir sailed along the trawler's port side. The fishermen tossed a thick nylon rope into the water as the patrol ship closed in, attempting to disable its propeller. After passing the trawler, Ægir veered to the trawler's starboard side. The net cutter, 160 fathom behind the patrol vessel, sliced one of the trawling wires. As ICGV Ægir came about to circle the unidentified trawler, its angry crew threw coal as well as waste and a large fire axe at the Coast Guard vessel. A considerable amount of swearing and shouting came through the radio, which resulted in the trawler being identified as Peter Scott (H103).

On 25 November 1972, a crewman on the German trawler Erlangen suffered a head injury as an Icelandic patrol ship cut the trawler's trawling wire, which struck the crewman. On 18 January 1973, the nets of 18 trawlers were cut. That forced the British seamen to leave the Icelandic fishery zone unless they had the protection of the Royal Navy. The next day large, fast tugboats were sent to their defence, the first being the Statesman. The British considered that to be insufficient and formed a special group to defend the trawlers.

On 23 January 1973, the volcano Eldfell on Heimaey erupted, forcing the Coast Guard to divert its attention to rescuing the inhabitants of the small island.

On 17 May 1973, the British trawlers left the Icelandic waters, only to return two days later when they were escorted by British frigates. The naval deployment was codenamed Operation Dewey. Hawker Siddeley Nimrod jets flew over the contested waters and notified British frigates and trawlers of the whereabouts of Icelandic patrol ships. Icelandic statesmen were infuriated by the entry of the Royal Navy and considered to appeal to the UN Security Council or call for Article 5 of the NATO Charter to be implemented. According to Frederick Irving, US ambassador to Iceland at the time, Icelandic prime minister Ólafur Jóhannesson demanded that the US send jets to bomb the British frigates. There were major protests in Reykjavík on 24 May 1973. All the windows of the British embassy in Reykjavík were broken.

On 26 May, ICGV Ægir ordered the Grimsby trawler Everton to stop, but the captain of the fishing vessel refused to submit. The incident was followed by a protracted pursuit during which Ægir fired first blank warning shots, later live rounds in order to disable the trawler. Everton was hit on her bow by four 57 mm shells and water began to rush in, but managed to limp to the protection zone, where she was assisted by the frigate HMS Jupiter (F60). Emergency repairs were carried out by a naval team from Jupiter. Prime minister Ólafur Jóhannesson said about the incident that this was "a natural and inevitable law‐enforcement action".

The Icelandic lighthouse tender V/s Árvakur collided with four British vessels on 1 June, and six days later, on 7 June, ICGV Ægir collided with HMS Scylla (F71), when the former was reconnoitring for icebergs off the Westfjords, near the edge of the Greenland ice sheet. The Icelandic Coast Guard reported that Scylla had been "shadowing and harassing" the Icelandic patrol boat. The British Ministry of Defense claimed that the gunboat intentionally rammed the British frigate.

On 29 August the Icelandic Coast Guard suffered the only confirmed fatality of the conflict, when ICGV Ægir collided with HMS Apollo (F70). Halldór Hallfreðsson, an engineer on board the Icelandic vessel, died by electrocution from his welding equipment after sea water flooded the compartment in which he was making hull repairs.

On 16 September 1973, Joseph Luns, Secretary-General of NATO, arrived in Reykjavík to talk with Icelandic ministers, who had been pressed to leave NATO, as it had been of no help to Iceland in the conflict. Britain and Iceland were both NATO members. The Royal Navy made use of bases in Iceland during the Cold War to fulfill its primary NATO duty, guarding the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap.

After a series of talks within NATO, British warships were recalled on 3 October. Trawlermen played Rule Britannia! over their radios, as they had done when the Royal Navy entered the waters. They also played "The Party's Over". An agreement was signed on 8 November to limit British fishing activities to certain areas inside the 50 nmi limit. The agreement, resolving the dispute, was approved by the Althing on 13 November 1973. The agreement was based on the premise that British trawlers would limit their annual catch to no more than 130,000 tons. The Icelanders were reportedly prepared to settle for 156,000 tons in July 1972 but had increased their demands by spring of 1973 and coffered 117,000 tons (the British demanded 145,000 tons in spring 1973). The agreement expired in November 1975, and the third "Cod War" began.

The Second Cod War threatened Iceland's membership in NATO and the US military presence in Iceland. It was the closest that Iceland has come to canceling its bilateral Defence Agreement with the US.

Icelandic NATO membership and hosting of US military had considerable importance to Cold War strategy because of Iceland's location in the middle of the GIUK gap.

After the entry of the Royal Navy into the contested waters, at any given time, four frigates and an assortment of tugboats would generally protect the British trawling fleet. Over the course of this Cod War, a total of 32 British frigates had entered the contested waters.

C. S. Forester incident
On 19 July 1974, more than nine months after the signing of the agreement, one of the largest wet fish stern trawlers in the British fleet, C. S. Forester, which had been fishing inside the 12 nmi limit, was shelled and captured by the Icelandic gunboat V/s Þór after a 100 nmi pursuit. C. S. Forester was shelled with non-explosive ammunition after repeated warnings. The trawler was hit by at least two rounds, which damaged the engine room and a water tank. She was later boarded and towed to Iceland. Skipper Richard Taylor was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment and fined £5,000. He was released on bail after the owners paid £2,232. Her owners additionally paid a total of £26,300 for the release of the ship. The trawler was allowed to depart with a catch of 200 tons of fish.

Third Cod War (1975–1976)
At the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1973, several countries supported a 100 nmi limit to territorial waters. On 15 July 1975, the Icelandic government announced its intention to extend its fishery limits. The Third Cod War (November 1975 – June 1976) began after Iceland again extended its fishing limits, now to 200 nmi from its coast. The British government did not recognise the large increase to the exclusion zone and so an issue occurred with British fishermen and their activity in the disputed zone. The conflict, which was the most hard-fought of the Cod Wars, saw British fishing trawlers have their nets cut by the Icelandic Coast Guard, and there were several incidents of ramming by Icelandic ships and British trawlers, frigates and tugboats.

One of the most serious incidents occurred on 11 December 1975. As reported by Iceland, V/s Þór, under the command of Helgi Hallvarðsson, was leaving port at Seyðisfjörður, where it had been minesweeping, when orders were received to investigate the presence of unidentified foreign vessels at the mouth of the fjord. The vessels were identified as three British ships: Lloydsman, an oceangoing tug three times bigger than V/s Þór; Star Aquarius, an oil rig supply vessel of British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and the latter's sister ship, Star Polaris. They were sheltering from a force nine gale within Iceland's 12 nmi territorial waters. In the Icelandic account, when ordered to leave Icelandic territorial waters by the commander of Þór, the three tugboats initially complied. However, around 2 nmi from the coast, Star Aquarius allegedly veered to starboard and hit Þór port side as the Coast Guards attempted to overtake her. Even as Þór increased speed, Lloydsman again collided with its port side. Þór had suffered considerable damage by these hits and so when Star Aquarius came about, a blank round was fired from Þór. That did not deter Star Aquarius, as it hit Þór a second time. Another shot was fired from Þór as a result, this time a live round that hit the bow of Star Aquarius. Then, the tugboats retreated. V/s Þór, which was close to sinking after the confrontation, sailed to Loðmundarfjörður for temporary repairs.

The British reports of the incident differ considerably and maintain that Þór attempted to board one of the tugboats, and as Þór broke away, Lloydsman surged forward to protect Star Aquarius. Captain Albert MacKenzie of Star Aquarius said that Þór approached from the stern and hit the support vessel before it veered off and fired a shot from a range of about 100 yd. Niels Sigurdsson, the Icelandic Ambassador in London, said that Þór had been firing in self-defence after it had been rammed by British vessels. Iceland consulted the UN Security Council over the incident, which declined to intervene.

The immediate Royal Navy response was to dispatch a large frigate force, which was already well on the way to Icelandic waters, before the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, or the Foreign Secretary, Anthony Crosland, were informed. The Royal Navy saw the opportunity to demonstrate the capabilities of its older Type 12 and Type 81 frigates for sustained deployment in the area of the Denmark Strait, where they were expected to deter the passage of Soviet submarines while the Royal Navy was threatened by further serious defence and naval cuts by the Royal Navy's chief bête noire, the Chancellor of Exchequer and former Minister of Defence, Denis Healey. The Royal Navy saw its strategic aim at the time to be as much fighting Healey as the Soviet Navy. The Second and Third Cod Wars were seen as necessary conflicts by the Royal Navy, like the Falklands War, six years later. To Crosland, also MP for the trawler port of Grimsby, the third war was a more serious threat to the Western Alliance than was the Middle East.

Another incident occurred in January 1976, when HMS Andromeda (F57) collided with Þór, which sustained a hole in its hull; the hull of Andromeda was dented. The British Ministry of Defence said that the collision represented a "deliberate attack" on the British warship "without regard for life". The Icelandic Coast Guard, on the other hand, insisted that Andromeda had rammed Þór by "overtaking the boat and then swiftly changing course". After the incident and facing a growing number of ships enduring dockyard repairs, the Royal Navy ordered a "more cautious approach" in dealing with "the enemy cutting the trawlers' warps".

On 19 February 1976, the British Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Fred Preat, announced that a fisherman from Grimsby had become the first British casualty of the Third Cod War, when a hawser hit and seriously injured him after Icelandic vessels cut a trawl. While a British parliamentary source reported in a 1993 debate that a British trawlerman was accidentally killed by a solid shot fired by an Icelandic patrol boat, this suggestion has not been corroborated by any other historical source.

Britain deployed a total of 22 frigates and ordered the reactivation from reserve of the Type 41 frigate HMS Jaguar (F37) and Type 61 HMS Lincoln (F99), refitting them as specialist ramming craft with reinforced wooden bows. In addition to the frigates, the British also deployed a total of seven supply ships, nine tugboats and three support ships to protect its fishing trawlers, but only six to nine of the vessels were on deployment at any one time. The Royal Navy was prepared to accept serious damage to its Cold War frigate fleet, costing millions and disabling part of its North Atlantic capacity for more than a year. HMS Yarmouth (F101) had its bow torn off, HMS Diomede (F16) had a 40 ft gash ripped through her hull, and HMS Eastbourne (F73) suffered such structural damage from ramming by Icelandic gunboats that it had to be reduced to a moored operational training frigate. Iceland deployed four patrol vessels (V/s Óðinn, V/s Þór, V/s Týr, and V/s Ægir) and two armed trawlers (V/s Baldur and V/s Ver). The Icelandic government tried to acquire US Asheville-class gunboats and when it was denied by Henry Kissinger, it tried to acquire Soviet Mirka-class frigates instead.

A more serious turn of events came when Iceland threatened closure of the NATO base at Keflavík, which would have severely impaired NATO's ability to deny access to the Atlantic Ocean to the Soviet Union. As a result, the British government agreed to have its fishermen stay outside Iceland's 200 nmi exclusion zone without a specific agreement.

On the evening of 6 May 1976, after the outcome of the Third Cod War had already been decided, V/s Týr was trying to cut the nets of the trawler Carlisle when Captain Gerald Plumer of HMS Falmouth (F113) ordered it rammed. Falmouth, at a speed of more than 22 kn, rammed Týr, almost capsizing her. Týr did not sink and managed to cut the nets of Carlisle, and Falmouth rammed it again. Týr was heavily damaged and found herself propelled by only a single screw and pursued by the tugboat Statesman. In the dire situation, Captain Guðmundur Kjærnested gave orders to man the guns, in spite of the overwhelming superiority of firepower HMS Falmouth enjoyed, to deter any further ramming. In return, Falmouth suffered heavy bow damage. The Third Cod War saw 55 ramming incidents altogether.

In NATO-mediated sessions, an agreement was reached between Iceland and the UK on 1 June 1976. The British were allowed to keep 24 trawlers within the 200 nmi limit and fish a total of 30,000 tons.

While Iceland came closest to withdrawing from NATO and expelling US forces in the Second Cod War, Iceland actually took the most serious action in all of the Cod Wars in the Third Cod War by ending diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom on 19 February 1976. Although the Icelandic government was firmly pro-Western, the government linked Iceland's NATO membership with the outcomes of the fishery dispute. If a favourable outcome could not be reached, Iceland implied that it would withdraw from NATO. However, the government never explicitly linked the US Defence Agreement to the outcome of the dispute.

Results
Iceland achieved its overall aims. As a result, the already-declining British fisheries were hit hard by being excluded from historical prime fishing grounds and the economies of the large northern fishing ports in the United Kingdom, such as Grimsby, Hull, and Fleetwood, were severely affected, with thousands of skilled fishermen and people in related trades being put out of work. The cost for repairing the damaged Royal Navy frigates was probably over £1 million at the time.

In 2012, the British government offered a multimillion-pound compensation deal and apology to fishermen who lost their livelihoods in the 1970s. More than 35 years after the workers lost their jobs, the £1,000 compensation offered to 2,500 fishermen was criticised for being insufficient and excessively delayed.

Scholarship
A 2016 review article finds that the underlying drivers behind the desire to extend fishery limits were economic and legal for Iceland, but they were economic and strategic for the United Kingdom. It, however, argues that "these underlying causes account for the tensions but are not enough to explain why bargaining failure occurred". After all, the outbreak of each Cod War was costly and risky for both sides.

Several factors are mentioned to explain why bargaining failure occurred. The nature of nationalism and party competition for Iceland and pressure from the trawling industry for Britain are reasons that both sides took actions that were of noticeable risk to their broader security interests. Interdepartmental competition and unilateral behaviour by individual diplomats were also factors, with the British Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries influencing the British government's decision "more than the Foreign Office".

A 2017 study argues that both a combination of powerful domestic pressures on statesmen to escalate and miscalculation by those statesmen contributed to the outbreak of the Cod Wars. The study argues that Iceland won each of the Cod Wars because Icelandic statesmen were too greatly constrained by domestic politics to offer compromises to the British, but British statesmen were not as constrained by public opinion at home.

Lessons drawn for international relations
International relations scholars such as Robert Keohane, Joseph Nye, Hans Morgenthau, Henry Kissinger and Ned Lebow have written on the Cod Wars.

The 2016 review article finds that lessons from the Cod Wars have most commonly been applied to liberal and realist schools of international relations theory and theories on asymmetric bargaining. It claims that the Cod Wars are widely seen as inconsistent with the precepts of the liberal peace, since democracy, trade and institutions are supposed to pacify interstate behaviour. A 2017 study argues that the "supposedly pacifying factors of the liberal peace – democracy, trade and institutional ties – effectively made the disputes more contentious". The Cod Wars are also held up as an example of the decreasing salience of hard power in international relations, with implications for realist theory which emphasizes the importance of hard power. Theorists on asymmetric bargaining have emphasized how Iceland, lacking structural power, can still have an issue power advantage, with its greater commitment to the cause.

Legacy
The 1976 agreement at the end of the Third Cod War forced the UK to abandon the "open seas" international fisheries policy it had previously promoted. The British Parliament passed the Fishery Limits Act 1976, declaring a similar 200-nautical-mile zone around its own shores, a practice later codified into the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which provided similar rights to every sovereign nation.

The victories in the Cod Wars may have strengthened Icelandic nationalism and boosted the perception that Iceland can succeed through unilateral or bilateral means rather than compromise in multilateral frameworks, such as membership of the European Union.

The Cod Wars are often mentioned in Icelandic and British news reporting when either state is involved in a fishery dispute or when there are disputes of some sort between the two countries. The Cod Wars were extensively covered by media during the Icesave dispute between Iceland and the UK,  and in preparation for the Iceland–England match at the round of 16 in Euro 2016.

In February 2017, the crews of two ships involved in the Cod Wars, the Hull trawler Arctic Corsair and the Icelandic patrol ship ICGV Óðinn, exchanged bells in a gesture of goodwill and sign of friendship between the cities of Hull and Reykjavík. The event was part of a project by Hull Museums on the history between Iceland and the United Kingdom during and after the Cod Wars.

title: Cod Wars


text:
Euskirchen (district)

Euskirchen is a Kreis (district) in the south-west of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Neighboring districts are Aachen, Düren, Rhein-Erft-Kreis, Rhein-Sieg, Ahrweiler, Daun, Bitburg-Prüm, and the Liège province (Belgium).

History
In 1827 a first district around the city of Euskirchen was created, however much smaller than today. In 1932 the district of Rheinbach was dissolved, whereby the Euskirchen district gained its southern part. In 1972 the Euskirchen district grew again by the inclusion of the Schleiden district.

Geography
Geographically, the south-western half of the district is inside the Eifel hill chain. This land is hardly suitable for agriculture, and therefore in historical times the region was rather poor. Areas further to the north-east are more flat and have historically been used to grow a variety of crops, most notably sugar beets. The only other source of wealth was the iron ore, but today the many forests there make the area interesting for tourists.

Coat of arms
The coat of arms shows the four signs of the main historical territories or rulers of the district. Top-left are the roses of the counts of Arenberg, top-right the lion of Jülich, bottom-right the wave-line of the counts of Manderscheid-Blankenheim, and bottom-left the Cologne cross. The coat of arms was granted in 1973.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Euskirchen (district)


text:
Sedation

Sedation is the reduction of irritability or agitation by administration of sedative drugs, generally to facilitate a medical procedure or diagnostic procedure. Examples of drugs which can be used for sedation include isoflurane, diethyl ether, propofol, etomidate, ketamine, pentobarbital, lorazepam and midazolam.

Medical uses
Sedation is typically used in minor surgical procedures such as endoscopy, vasectomy, or dentistry and for reconstructive surgery, some cosmetic surgeries, removal of wisdom teeth, or for high-anxiety patients. Sedation methods in dentistry include inhalation sedation (using nitrous oxide), oral sedation, and intravenous (IV) sedation. Inhalation sedation is also sometimes referred to as "relative analgesia".

Sedation is also used extensively in the intensive care unit so that patients who are being ventilated tolerate having an endotracheal tube in their trachea. It can also be used during a long term brain EEG to help patient relax.

Risks
There are studies claiming that sedation accounts for 40 percent to 50 percent procedure-related complications. Airway obstruction, apnea, and hypotension are not uncommon during sedation and require the presence of health professionals who are suitably trained to detect and manage these problems. Aside from the respiratory depression, risks also include unintended levels of sedation, postoperative somnolence, aspiration, and adverse reactions to sedation medications. Complications could also include perforation, bleeding, and the stimulation of vasovagal reflexes. To avoid sedation risks, care providers conduct a thorough pre-sedation evaluation and this process includes pre-sedation history and physicals with emphasis on the determining characteristics that indicate potential risks to the patient and potential difficult airway management. This process can also reveal if the sedation period needs to be prolonged or additional therapeutic procedures are required.

Levels of sedation
Sedation scales are used in medical situations in conjunction with a medical history in assessing the applicable degree of sedation in patients in order to avoid under-sedation (the patient risks experiencing pain or distress) and over-sedation (the patient risks side effects such as suppression of breathing, which might lead to death).

Examples of sedation scales include MSAT (Minnesota Sedation Assessment Tool), UMSS (University of Michigan Sedation Scale), the Ramsay Scale (Ramsay, et al. 1974) and the RASS (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale).

The American Society of Anesthesiologists defines the continuum of sedation as follows:

 * Minimal sedation – normal response to verbal stimuli.
 * Moderate sedation – purposeful response to verbal/tactile stimulation. (This is usually referred to as "conscious sedation")
 * Deep sedation – purposeful response to repeated or painful stimulation.
 * General anesthesia – unarousable even with painful stimulus.

In the United Kingdom, deep sedation is considered to be a part of the spectrum of general anesthesia, as opposed to conscious sedation.

In addition to the aforementioned precautions, patients should be interviewed to determine if they have any other condition that may lead to complications while undergoing treatment. Any head, neck, or spinal cord injuries should be noted as well as any diagnosis of osteoporosis.

Intravenous sedation
The most common standard conscious sedation technique for adults is intravenous sedation using Midazolam. This requires a needle to be put into a vein to deliver the medication; this is known as an IV cannula.

Indications:
 * Reduced dental anxiety and phobia
 * Traumatic or prolonged dental procedures
 * Patients with gag reflex
 * Medical conditions potentially aggravated by the stress of dental treatment
 * Special care (mild intellectual or physical disability)
 * Some disorders involving its spasticity due to its muscle relaxant properties

Contraindications:
 * Uncooperative patient
 * Psychologically immature individuals
 * Patients unable to provide a suitable escort
 * Difficult oral surgery or prolonged surgical procedure
 * Muscle diseases or diseases which cause muscle wastage
 * ASA III or above
 * Allergy or hypersensitivity to benzodiazepines
 * Pregnancy and breast feeding
 * History of psychiatric disorders
 * Kidney or liver dysfunction
 * Acute pulmonary insufficiency
 * Preexisting respiratory conditions as patients are susceptible to respiratory depression
 * Alcohol or drug addiction
 * Lack of visible superficial veins

Sedation for pediatric patients
Present drugs commonly used to sedate children: Methohexital; Thiopental; Benzodiazepines; Diazepam; Midazolam; Ketamine; Opioids; Morphine; Meperidine; Fentanyl.

Whenever it is necessary to sedate a child, one must consider the type of procedure planned (painful or nonpainful), the duration of the procedure (important in choosing the appropriate sedative), the underlying medical condition of the patient (proper fasting, contracted blood volume, interaction with other medications, and intact mechanisms of drug elimination), the need for anxiolysis or narcosis, and experience with alternative techniques or routes of administration.

A child undergoing a procedure that is nonpainful (e.g., CT scan or small laceration infiltrated with local anesthetic) does not require a narcotic. Conversely, a child undergoing a painful procedure may require an opioid.

title: Sedation


text:
Drooling

Drooling, or slobbering, is the flow of saliva outside the mouth. Drooling can be caused by excess production of saliva, inability to retain saliva within the mouth (incontinence of saliva), or problems with swallowing (dysphagia or odynophagia).

There are some frequent and harmless cases of drooling – for instance, a numbed mouth from either benzocaine, or when going to the dentist's office.

Isolated drooling in healthy infants and toddlers is normal and may be associated with teething. It is unlikely to be a sign of disease or complications. Drooling in infants and young children may be exacerbated by upper respiratory infections and nasal allergies.

Some people with drooling problems are at increased risk of inhaling saliva, food, or fluids into the lungs, especially if drooling is secondary to a neurological problem. However, if the body's normal reflex mechanisms (such as gagging and coughing) are not impaired, this is not life-threatening.

Causes
Drooling or sialorrhea can occur during sleep. It is often the result of open-mouth posture from CNS depressants intake or sleeping on one's side. Sometimes while sleeping, saliva does not build up at the back of the throat and does not trigger the normal swallow reflex, leading to the condition. Freud conjectured that drooling occurs during deep sleep, and within the first few hours of falling asleep, since those who are affected by the symptom experience the most severe harm while napping, rather than during overnight sleep.

A sudden onset of drooling may indicate poisoning – especially by pesticides or mercury – or reaction to snake or insect venom. Excess capsaicin can cause drooling as well, an example being the ingestion of particularly high Scoville Unit chili peppers. Some neurological problems cause drooling. Medication can cause drooling, either due to primary action or side-effects; for example the pain-relief medication Orajel can numb the mucosa.

Causes include:
 * exercise, especially cardiovascular exercise
 * stroke and other neurological pathologies
 * intellectual disability
 * adenoid hypertrophy
 * cerebral palsy
 * amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
 * tumors of the upper aerodigestive tract
 * Parkinson's disease
 * rabies
 * mercury poisoning

Drooling associated with fever or trouble swallowing may be a sign of an infectious disease including:
 * retropharyngeal abscess
 * peritonsillar abscess
 * tonsilitis
 * mononucleosis
 * strep throat
 * obstructive diseases (tumors, stenosis)
 * inability to swallow due to neurodegenerative diseases (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis)

Treatment
A comprehensive treatment plan depends on the cause and incorporates several stages of care: Correction of reversible causes, behavior modification, medical treatment, and surgical procedures.

Atropine sulfate tablets are used in some circumstances to reduce salivation. The same for anticholinergic drugs which can be also a benefit because they decrease the activity of the acetylcholine muscarinic receptors and can result in decreased salivation. They may be prescribed by doctors in conjunction with behavior modification strategies. Other drugs used are glycopyrrolate and botulinum toxin A – botox injection in salivary glands to diminish saliva production.

In general, surgical procedures are considered after clear diagnosis of the cause and evaluation of non-invasive treatment options. Severe cases can be sometimes be treated by surgical intervention – salivary duct relocalization, or in extreme cases resection of salivary glands.

Popular culture
The scope of the meaning of the term drool in popular use has expanded to include any occasion wherein someone highly desires something.

title: Drooling


text:
Agranulocytosis

Agranulocytosis, also known as agranulosis or granulopenia, is an acute condition involving a severe and dangerous lowered white blood cell count (leukopenia, most commonly of neutrophils) and thus causing neutropenia in the circulating blood. It is a severe lack of one major class of infection-fighting white blood cells. People with this condition are at very high risk of serious infections due to their suppressed immune system.

In agranulocytosis, the concentration of granulocytes (a major class of white blood cells that includes neutrophils, basophils, and eosinophils) drops below 200 cells/mm3 of blood.

Signs and symptoms
Agranulocytosis may be asymptomatic, or may clinically present with sudden fever, rigors and sore throat. Infection of any organ may be rapidly progressive (e.g., pneumonia, urinary tract infection). Sepsis may also progress rapidly.

Causes
A large number of drugs have been associated with agranulocytosis, including antiepileptics (such as carbamazepine and valproate), antithyroid drugs (carbimazole, thiamazole, and propylthiouracil), antibiotics (penicillin, chloramphenicol and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole), H2 blockers (cimetidine, famotidine, nizatidine, ranitidine), ACE inhibitors (benazepril), cytotoxic drugs, gold salts, analgesics (aminophenazone, indomethacin, naproxen, phenylbutazone, metamizole), mebendazole, allopurinol, the antidepressants mianserin and mirtazapine, and some antipsychotics. The atypical antipsychotic clozapine in particular is largely restricted to treatment-resistant cases and mandatory blood count monitoring in most countries.

Although the reaction is generally idiosyncratic rather than proportional, experts recommend that patients using these drugs be told about the symptoms of agranulocytosis-related infection, such as a sore throat and a fever.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traced outbreaks of agranulocytosis among cocaine users, in the US and Canada between March 2008 and November 2009, to the presence of levamisole in the drug supply. The Drug Enforcement Administration reported that, as of February 2010, 71% of seized cocaine lots coming into the US contained levamisole as a cutting agent. Levamisole is an antihelminthic (i.e. deworming) drug used in animals. The reason for adding levamisole to cocaine hydrochloride is unknown, although it is likely due to their similar melting points, solubilities, and appearance.

Diagnosis
The diagnosis is made after a complete blood count, a routine blood test. The absolute neutrophil count in this test will be below 500, and can reach 0 cells/mm3. Other kinds of blood cells are typically present in normal numbers. To formally diagnose agranulocytosis, other pathologies with a similar presentation must be excluded, such as aplastic anemia, paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, myelodysplasia and leukemias. This requires a bone marrow examination that shows normocellular (normal amounts and types of cells) blood marrow with underdeveloped promyelocytes. These underdeveloped promyelocytes, if fully matured, would have been the missing granulocytes.

Classification
The term "agranulocytosis" derives from the Greek: a, meaning without; granulocyte, a particular kind of white blood cell (containing granules in its cytoplasm); and osis, meaning condition [esp. disorder]. Consequently, agranulocytosis is sometimes described as "no granulocytes", but a total absence is not required for diagnosis. However, "-osis" is commonly used in blood disorders to imply cell proliferation (such as in "leukocytosis"), while "-penia" to imply reduced cell numbers (as in "leukopenia"); for these reasons, granulocytopenia is a more etymologically consistent term, and as such, is sometimes preferred to "agranulocytosis" (which can be misinterpreted as "agranulocyt-osis", meaning proliferation of agranulocytes (i.e. lymphocytes and monocytes). Despite this, "agranulocytosis" remains the most widely used term for the condition.

The terms agranulocytosis, granulocytopenia and neutropenia are sometimes used interchangeably. Agranulocytosis implies a more severe deficiency than granulocytopenia. Neutropenia indicates a deficiency of neutrophils (the most common granulocyte cell) only.

To be precise, neutropenia is the term normally used to describe absolute neutrophil counts (ANCs) of less than 500 cells per microlitre, whereas agranulocytosis is reserved for cases with ANCs of less than 100 cells per microlitre.

The following terms can be used to specify the type of granulocyte referenced:
 * Inadequate numbers of neutrophils: neutropenia (most common)
 * Inadequate numbers of eosinophils: eosinopenia (uncommon)
 * Inadequate numbers of basophils: basopenia (very rare)

In a general sense the pathogenesis of neutropenia can be divided into two categories;
 * Inadequate or ineffective formation of granulocytes. This can be due to bone marrow failure associated with aplastic anemia, leukemia, or chemotherapeutic agents. There can also be isolated neutropenias where only differentiated granulocyte precursors are affected as in the case of neoplastic proliferation of cytotoxic T cells or NK cells
 * Accelerated destruction of neutrophils. Immune-mediated reactions to neutrophils which can be caused by drugs. An enlarged spleen can lead to splenic sequestration and accelerated removal of neutrophils. Utilization of neutrophils can occur in infections

Treatment
In patients that have no symptoms of infection, management consists of close monitoring with serial blood counts, withdrawal of the offending agent (e.g., medication), and general advice on the significance of fever. Transfusion of granulocytes would be a solution to the problem. However, granulocytes live only ~10 hours in the circulation (for days in spleen or other tissue), which gives a very short-lasting effect. In addition, there are many complications of such a procedure.

title: Agranulocytosis


text:
User talk:Mintguy/archive 1

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hi. Thanks Maverick. I can see this becoming a bit addictive!!

 * You got that right! --mav 16:59 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)

Yeah, welcome! There's no high quite like it... --GayCom

Is an Irish person only someone who is a citizen of the Republic (or N. Ireland)? This isn't how most people I knew growing up (in NY) saw it! As you may infer, I have no personal stake in the matter. But the heading of the article seemed to suggest that it would include people of Irish descent, and not just people born in Ireland ... Slrubenstein

Well. My parents are Irish, but I was born in England. I predominantly consider myself English, but I describe myself as Irish by heritage. Now in theory I could play for the Irish football team, and then perhaps I might be called a famous Irishman. However, if I became famous in some other field not directly linked to my parents nationality I would be surprised to find myself described as a famous Irishman. Mintguy

 * fair enough. Still, I wonder how Gene and Grace saw it.  Slrubenstein

Welcome. And on the "serious separation of powers" issues in Kyoto Protocol, I think that is someone's POV -- as opposed to general knowledge. In Wikipedia, advocacy positions are always attributed to their proponents. So if there is some organization or constitutional scholar who raised the "separation of powers" issues, we should mention them. --Ed Poor

nice work on speling of separate and separated. --Ed Poor

I'm beginning to think you found a "list of commonly misspelled words" and are on a vendetta. Good hunting! --Ed Poor

Hi there. Sorry for ranting about Worlds' / World's - i'm doing lots of work on the Sandman stuff, it was 2:30am, and it looked like you'd mucked up a bunch of links, when you actually hadn't :). I just added an entry to the talk page for Worlds' End, clarifying that it really, *REALLY* is Worlds', and explaining why. Since you found so many sources with the mistake, though, I don't blame you for "correcting" it. Cya! --AW

Thanks for the copy-editing on U.S. plan to invade Iraq, mint guy. I'm also anxious about whether I have introduced any bias into the article, either for against Iraq or the US. --Uncle Ed

Thanks for your comment. You're really funny. -- Sam

Hi. Just joined on 5 August 2002.

So far, I've made major changes to the entry on the light bulb and Joseph Swan. Minor additions to the entries of MUDs and corrected spellings in the entries about Edison and London.

Just made an entry for Lewes. the town where I've lived for the last 8 years. It probably needs some editing, as I've basically just gone on about the bonfire.

Harry Paget Flashman... yeah cool..

God. I've got to go to bed, I've been editing for hours.

Ok.. some major missing articles Exchequer, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Office, Home Secretary, Harrow School, Tom Brown's schooldays... loads more... but need sleep ...

Hi, Mintguy, thanks for the tip. The Sussex Ouse is on my waterways map, all alone and forlorn on the south coast...Have a look at Ouse, I've called it the River Ouse, Sussex. Let me know if this is not satisfactory. Do you fancy adding to the article? Renata 17:15 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

Bye

My students screwed up the James I page, and then we "fixed" it. Seems you managed to revert it exactly - but how did you do that? I'm still ignorant on these matters. David Martland 15:38 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

 * Hi. Go into older versions(it used to be called 'history', I dunno why they changed it) of the article you wish to change, select the version you wish to revert to, then edit it and hit save.

I take your point about GPO. Do you want to go ahead and fix the disambiguation? I'm logging off now for a while. David Martland 15:55 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

I apologise, but only because you live in Lewes, home of the Sussex Archaeological Society. See One-hit wonders in the UK --Deb

Thanks for putting up the Will Self picture... its suitably sinister. -- Greg Godwin

Plz do not erase a text like Neil Hamilton again. You have to move it elsewheres instead of erasing it. Vera Cruz 11:03 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)
 * It has been moved to Neil Hamilton (author) Mintguy 11:05 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)
 * see: Neil Hamilton

Hey, do you think you can add Moore's specific gun deaths/year numbers and the population figures you used to the Bowling for Columbine article? It's not that I disbelieve your analysis, but I think the argument would be more compelling with the figures included. --Ryguasu
 * Yeah I was thinking that myself recently. I didn't include it originally, because I thought it would look untidy and long winded. I'll hunt them down though. Mintguy

Constructive criticism involves suggesting how one's contributions might be more constructive, rather than merely asserting that one's contributions are not constructive. Vera Cruz
 * I'm sorry what is this in reference to? Mintguy

It's best to respond on the talk page of whom you are responding to. Re: User:Saprtacus

So explain to him why it's such a bad article. Otherwise it doesn't accomplish much except make him bitter. Vera Cruz
 * Gimme a break Mintguy
 * Give him a break. He is being friendly.Vera Cruz

Note:http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy

Mintguy: I'm noticing something of a pattern, where you back out my edits. Most of the time, you'd be well advised to raise your issue on a talk page first, since I usually know what I'm talking about, and practically always triple-check my facts. (The little incident of Ada "Babbage" being a counter-example I'd just as soon forget.) --Len
 * Look at my edits and you'll see this is what I tend to do mostly. You're not the only victim of my anal retention. Mintguy

 * No offense taken; I'm open to being shown wrong. This is a case where conventional wisdom is mistaken, but I sympathize: I too type words into google and use the hit-count to decide whether I spelled it right. :-)

3. is taken care of, I think, with the wonderful wiki redirect feature. I never would have found aluminium otherwise. ;)

Yeah I know. It's just a rant really. :-) But isn't there something about hits on google and common names for articles and all that stuff. Mintguy
 * of course now I find a perfect example on your user page; fiberglass, mentioned only once as fibreglass now that I've edited it, not many google points for someone searching for fibreglass. But what can you do - Ce La Vie.
 * Cape Guardafui also. Note the talk page.  Google's not perfect as a search engine, but I think it's valuable for the text it leads one to.  It's up to our minds to interpret the text.  ;)  Hephaestos

 * It is odd. Maybe it got deleted at some point in the past. Still Google only finds a couple of hundred hits for this. Fibreglass gets 125,000. As an aside why did you not redirect? Also is Len right?

 * Not redirecting, I plead ignorance. I'm still learning.  Len right, I'm leaving it up to the jury.  I have the impression that plenty of Wikipedians speak Esperanto. Hephaestos

Thanks for the tip on Laurence Binyon. I'm pretty sure about the spelling, because I normally check things like that before I write them. (Sorry, that wasn't a dig.) Anyhow, I think it's all okay now. Deb

Aha! That would seem to clear some things up (re agglutinative language). Thanks! Hephaestos

Hi, Mintguy, thanks for the message. I'm sure Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother/Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is up somewhere enjoying a G&T, watching two Irish guys disagreeing on what precisely she should be entered as in Wikipedia, with one almighty smile on her face. You know Wiki is worth it when we all take it so seriously we row over technical terms! I suppose that is Wiki is getting as good as it is. Thanks for the comments. Have a good christmas (I nearly wrote 'Xmas' but that wouldn't be right on Wiki? Oh, no, I feel another long argument involving people from all the world brewing. Coming up. The 'Xmas' vs 'Christmas' debate!!!) Enjoy the festive season. JTD 01:29 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments re Durham. The funny thing is I had got depressed and given up after the torrent of criticism of the idea, then some nice bloke stepped in and did it anyway! Ah well. It's not like it's a cure for cancer or anything but I did think that the previous situation was ... well, daft! Have a great Xmas etc. Nevilley 08:42 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

Is this google? Vera Cruz

--

Mintguy:
I do not apologize for removing the irrelevant, ideological-charged commentary.

I will even do it again.

I quote:

“Treating Wikipedia as a chat forum. On talk pages, it is all too easy to get involved in emotional, partisan debates about various topics. Unless this results in an improved article, which it often doesn't, for drawn-out, emotional squabbles, please just sit on your hands. There are many other places online where you can engage in debate and to try to persuade other people of your views. That's really not appropriate on Wikipedia, because we're trying to focus on the task of creating an encyclopedia. Please see What Wikipedia is not. “

if this is not an emotional, partisan debate, then I don’t know what an emotional, partisan debate would entail:
“The American conservatives were most sternly anti-Soviet, and the magniude of the Soviet's crimes against humanity show that in this they were in the right; the leftist media might downplay these crimes to avoid admitting their political enemies were right all along. Surely the media wasn't leftist during the cold war, when the government ended up instituting legislation against it being so? Huh! You learn something each day...as a technical note, do the crimes of the USSR end up being counted as genocide per se? I was under the impression that genocide referred to the targeting of a particular ethnic group, whereas Stalin pretty much killed people randomly. I think it might be better to use most murderous or some other superlative like that.”

By the way, do you think that that above partisan has a sophisticated, objective, scholarly understanding of Russian history? I know that that doesn't matter on the talk pages, but I'm kind of hinting that Wikipedia is not losing insightful dialogue due to my deletions. At least the out-of-place ideological debate could be a bit more elevated.

172

172 - This does not give you the right to delete the comments of others.

 * Cleaning up talk pages is a good idea, especially when the talk has turned unproductive. But if this is done in the middle of a debate, it will be taken as an action within that debate. Best to explain what you're trying to do, or ask first. Even better than deleting would be refactoring lengthy discussions into simple points. But that's hardly ever done. -- Tarquin 17:00 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

 * The information deleted included genocide figures from various sources along with comment. 172 was trying to excise this. One might say a 'Stalinist edit'. Mintguy

--

I will continue to delete that partisan debate. Don't slander me either. I don't appreciate being called a Stalinist.

I would delete Stalinist politicking if it were in the article as well. Why don’t you address this issue to me directly?

172

Slander is not cool. Vera Cruz

 * 172 - Why are you deleting estimates of genocide figures and their sources? Mintguy

-

Why not address my page directly. 172.

Those discussions do not pertain to the article. They’d be relevant if they were, for example, disputing some of the figures in the article. But they’re not. These partisans (the apt term in the Wikipedia lexicon) are merely illustrating how much they dislike the Soviet Union.

--

Not to divert attention from the dispute, but I have to criticize the kind of research evident in the deleted sections.

Rather than trying to cite the most sensational figures from black books and Robert Conquest, readers should focus on trying to improve this terribly weak article. The History of the People's Republic of China,for instance, is a far more informative and illuminating article. I take credit for most on the post-Mao era. This article tells you little if anything about the Soviet economy, Soviet society, the Cold War, the origns of the Cold War, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the casuses of the breakup, Perestroika, Glasnost, the Brezhnev Era, the Sino-Soviet Split, Communist ideology. In short, it’s not really going to help people understand why Soviet history unfolded as it did. I look forward to revamping it.

Why not talk to me directly? 172

Hello. I hope you haven't gone away. I was tinkering with the Lewes article, and noticed that there is nothing there about the avalanche. Not many (if any) British towns have suffered from such a phenomenon, and I think it deserves a mention, but I don't know much about it. I can't even remember the year. Are you on for including it? --Deb

Why did you disambiguate Boom to Boom, Belgium? AFAIK, Boom is the only town currently having an article in Wikipedia, so there's no need to do that. Or are you planning to include some more Booms? :-) D.D. 14:24 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)

 * Move it back if you want. I just thought that in future someone might want to put more stuff at Boom. Was there a band called Boom? I dunno, maybe there's a comic called Boom? or a film. Mintguy

 * I've moved it back. Mintguy

Talk:Encapsulation (object-oriented programming)

improve the article

 * I have generally avoided writing about computer science topics and OOP in particular. It's my job, and for me Wikipedia is about things that are not my job. I tinkered with a few words on some articles in the last 24 hours, but I'm not really interested in making major edits to such topics. Mintguy

Yeah, you are right! God I am a glutton for punishment (to use an Irish phrase!). I'm heading off in a couple of minutes. And I won't even think of the Famine, let alone dream of it!!! :-) JTD 05:25 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Mintguy, both for moving Bodyline and for teaching me a little more about the technicalities here. Tannin

I think 172 has good constructive ideas but I think the original worked better. We just have to fight to make sure that changes are accurate and not agenda-loaded. That in trying for consensus, we don't look for the lowest common demoninator, with wacky theories being treated equally with accurate history. Please, please make your views known on the talk page. All too often, those happy keep quiet. It is just those who have complaints who complain (in this case, complain, complain, complain, complain . . . ). But I do really appreciate your comments. It is nice to know that not everyone thinks I'm a 'Tory tyrant' pushing a 'British point of view'! ;-) JTD 23:12 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)

Concerning your question: How big is Eastbourne, New Zealand? -> Pop. 4600 est. - Updated the page and added some links to local website.kiwiinapanic 08:34 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Hi mintguy. I like your pages. Please take a look at John Stark and Talk:Battle of Bennington and Talk:Edmund Burke when you get a chance. Seems like some of the articles you have edited have dealt with similar editorial issues and I'd appreciate your opinions.

I wish to apoligize for insinuating that you are not cool. As I would like to add some information on Salim I al Sabah, Kabbar, Abdul Aziz ibn Abdul Rahman ibn Saud, Najd, Faisal I, Political Titles of the Ottoman Empire, Warba, Abdulla II al Sabah, the First Kuwaiti Crisis, Abdullah ibn Hussein, Mashian, Failakah, Auhah, al Khalifa, al Jalahima, al Sabah, Abdul Karim Qasim, Jaber III al Ahmad al Sabah, Muhammad I al Sabah, the Second Kuwaiti Crisis, Zaki Arsuzi, Salah al Din Bitar, Ghazi ibn Faisal, Bakr Sidqi, Abdullah II al Sabah, Ahmad al Sabah, Abdul Ilah, and Percy Cox, as well as (obviously) the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of October 1922, the Turkish Petroleum Company, the Basra-Baghdad Highway, the Berlin-Baghdad Railroad, and the Abudllah Khor Waterway, Nuri al Said, Abdulla III al Sabah, Aramco, the Kuwait Oil Company, and the Anglo-Kuwaiti Treaty of 1899; I would like to inquire as to what objections you might have to my doing so? Vera Cruz

 * I never raised any objections to you. But from what I understand you've subverted a ban twice. It's not for me to judge whether this means you should be let back or not. Mintguy

But it is for you to judge! Because wikipedia is a democratic community and you are a registered voter! And i only subverted a ban once. Vera Cruz
 * I wasn't aware this was a democracy, and if there is some kind of ballot taking place I reserve the right to abstain. What was Lir II then? Mintguy

Never heard of Lir II. Vera Cruz
 * User:Lir II - perhaps an imposter.)

 * I'll cast a vote. ^_^  Lir/Vera Cruz/Adam Rinkleff, I wish you would go away.  Following that, I wish you would stay away.  Koyaanis Qatsi 00:49 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

Human Remains is not about WWII, it's about the personal lives of those individuals. Full of little-known biographical facts, mostly culled from quotations and personal correspondence - completely unique AFAIK. There is precedent for mentioning notable biographical movies and books in biographical articles. Hitler's article even mentions the forged diaries; how can that be relevant and a factual account of his personal life not? Mkweise 02:32 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)

 * A 30 minute short film about 5 individuals presumably only devotes about 6 minutes to each person. It can hardly be an in depth work. Mintguy

 * I'm guessing your NPOV must be in the laundry today? :-)
 * Seriously, if you live in the US and have cable, keep an eye out for it on IFC or the Sundance Channel (can't remember which.) Or have a look at the IMDB entry (http://us.imdb.com/Details?0164053, rated 8.6.) Mkweise 04:30 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)
 * I already had a look at IMDB. That's how I found out that it was only 30 minutes long. I also noted the 8.6 score it's got from the HUGE number of 46 people who voted for it. I don't live in the US. Mintguy

Hi Mintguy, Yup, Karen is correct: "chip" is standard Oz usage, and the Kiwi term too as I recall. You do hear them called "crisps" once in a while, but mostly only by expatriate Britons. Funny you should raise the matter here though - not so long ago, I wrote on it at some length, though without my usual NPOV over here - Tannin

Mintie, why didn't you just apologize to Isis? Now she's deleted herself -- and the way I had to hear about it was when Jimbo e-mailed me to block her account "at Isis's request". Guys like Sheldon Rampton can take care of themselves; he's not going to quit just because he thinks I called him disingenous -- he's a published author, runs his own website, has the world by the tail -- but sensitive folks like Isis need a little more tender concern and understanding.

All you had to do is say, "Sorry, I didn't mean to question your knowledege or competence. I must have misunderstood you." That would have smoothed it over nicely.

Please e-mail Isis privately, and try to patch things up. Would you do that, please? As a favor to me? ^_^ --Uncle Ed
 * I think you got the wrong end of the stick Ed. Please see the comment on your talk page. Mintguy

Hello. Just wanted to say that I think your slant on "Ironic" is hilarious, even if you did pinch the basic idea from Ed Byrne. (I think you now owe him a wikipedia article, don't you?) Deb 19:04 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks. Yeah you're right. He looks so different now that he's cut his hair. Mintguy

I'm going to have to start checking my facts more carefully and stop giving you opportunities to correct me. I really always believed that UC came before College Bowl (and I've been on it!) Which just goes to show how imperfect I am. Deb 00:03 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Hi,

Something seems to have gone a teensy bit wrong wrt this:

N 18:59 Talk:List of places in London, England (cur; hist). . Mintguy (Talk) (moved to "List_of_places_in_London")

In other words it seems as if you have accidentally moved a talk page to an article target page. Just hoped you were aware of this.

Regards, Nevilley 00:52 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * Bugger!!. I can't fix it as i'm not a sysop. Mintguy

 * I know the feeling, good luck! :) Nevilley 01:02 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)
 * Well I've fixed it, in as much as the talk page is moved back and List_of_places_in_London redirects to List_of_places_in_London, England. But obviously the former needs to be deleted before the later can be moved to it. Mintguy

 * Yep, & nice one for putting it right so fast! :) Nevilley
 * Goog luck and good night. I'm off to bed, you kept me up! Mintguy

Mintguy RE:line of sucession, ist no lonmger true that sons come before daughters, until recently yes it as true but now its equal, so if Prince william had a duaghter first then a son, the aughter would be heir to teh throne. -fonzy
 * I don't think you are right, and neither does Deb. AFAIK it requires an Act of Parliament to effect such a change in the rules of succession and there hasn't been one. Mintguy

 * Fonzy is definitely wrong. It depends on the country, and so far as I know, this is only true in Sweden and the Netherlands, although other Scandinavian countries may have done so, but it is definitely not true of the UK.  -- Zoe

Fonzy is 100% wrong. The Law of Succession has not been changed in the United Kingdom. If William has a daughter then it no doubt will be, but apart from an proposal from Geoffrey Archer (which was soon forgotten about) the law remains has it has remained for centuries. JTD 04:29 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Bloody vandals. We should let DW loose on them. (Naw. Maybe that's too cruel. We'll just let Two16 read some of his poetry to them and drive them to insanity!) JTD 04:46 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

I'm unclear why Frigatebirds has been moved to Frigatebird, which did not exist before. I named it as such because I wanted to deal with the group Frigata and link from that to the individual species accounts. To me, it seems bizarre that groups of birds at genera or higher taxonomic levels are described as eg vulture or duck. However, as a newcomer to the 'pedia, it may well be that there is some convention that overides normal ornithological  practice. If this is so, could you explain, otherwise can it be moved back. 195.93.51.168 14:50 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in before last diatribe. What about raptor/raptors or bird of prey/birds of prey jimfbleak 14:54 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC). Some 40 group monographs advertised in a birders' magazine used the plural invariablly for the title, eg Owls of the World. It is standard practice to use the plural for groups, eg woodpeckers, and capitalised singular for species, eg Great Spotted Woodpecker Jimfbleak

 * I didn't move it. I did make a link to frigatebird more direct, and remove a self-reference. It is standard practice in Encyclopaedias to name things in the singular and not the plural. Look at raptor in Encylopaedia Britannica . Mintguy

Only because I haven't made my way to Zevon's house yet... BWA-HAH-HAH! Seriously, some of the sites I used were obviously unreliable, so I did as much cross-checking as possible. I'm sure more than one slipped through. Tokerboy

Help. I've uploaded a picture Flanhinga2b which I've checked is viewable in the upload file. However, in the article Anhinga it only shows as a place marker. I've put pictures in Ibis and New World vulture without problems. Any ideas what's wrong? jimfbleak
 * Sorry to butt in, but have you cleared your browser's cache? the image on that page shows up on my browser.   Koyaanis Qatsi

 * I just fixed it. Mintguy

 * many thanks jimfbleak

Hi Mint, I notice you called a list of soccer players the List of Football players. Football means different things to different counties and different sportspeople. It could mean Soccer, rugby football, gaelic football, American football, Australian rules football, etc. It is not the right term to use in the context of that article because it has so many different meanings to different readers of wiki. It should be changed to a more clear term, and the obvious one is soccer. JTD 01:46 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

 * Absolutely not!

 * The aritcle resided quite happily under list of famous football players for quite some time until, User:MyRedDice decided to rationalise the list of occupations and move it about 2 hours ago. I moved it to list of football players. You can have list of American football players and list of Gaelic football players, but 95% of the world think football is what you're calling soccer and football players belong there. Mintguy

Oops, sorry, I didn't see who created the test page. -- Zoe

Until the page is finished, LEAVE IT where Maverick left then. I'm moving it back to where Maverick left it. JTD 21:28 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

 * No you leave it where it was until this time yesterday and for over 1 year previous to that. STOP moving it. Mintguy

If you read some of the FAI and links sites you'd see the use the word soccer. A lot. Look at the talk page right now for more information JTD 23:23 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mintguy/archive 1


text:
20th Annual Grammy Awards

The 20th Annual Grammy Awards were held February 23, 1978, and were broadcast live on American television. They were hosted by John Denver and recognized accomplishments by musicians from the year 1977.

Award winners

 * Record of the Year
 * Bill Szymczyk (producer) & The Eagles for "Hotel California"
 * Album of the Year
 * Ken Caillat, Richard Dashut (producers) & Fleetwood Mac (producers and artist) for Rumours
 * Song of the Year
 * Barbra Streisand & Paul Williams (songwriters) for "Evergreen (Love Theme from A Star Is Born)" performed by Barbra Streisand
 * Joe Brooks (songwriter) for "You Light Up My Life" performed by Debby Boone
 * Best New Artist
 * Debby Boone

Children's

 * Best Recording for Children
 * Christopher Cerf & Jim Timmens (producers) for Aren't You Glad You're You performed by various artists

Classical

 * Best Classical Orchestral Performance
 * Gunther Breest (producer), Carlo Maria Giulini (conductor) & the Chicago Symphony Orchestra for Mahler: Symphony No. 9 in D
 * Best Classical Vocal Soloist Performance
 * Neville Marriner (conductor), Janet Baker & the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields for Bach: Arias
 * Best Opera Recording
 * Thomas Z. Shepard (producer), John De Main (conductor), Donnie Albert, Carol Brice, Clamma Dale & the Houston Grand Opera Orchestra for Gershwin: Porgy and Bess
 * Best Choral Performance (other than opera)
 * Georg Solti (conductor), Margaret Hillis (choir director) & the Chicago Symphony Orchestra & Chorus for Verdi: Requiem
 * Best Classical Performance Instrumental Soloist or Soloists (with orchestra)
 * Itzhak Perlman & the London Philharmonic Orchestra for Vivaldi: The Four Seasons
 * Best Classical Performance Instrumental Soloist or Soloists (without orchestra)
 * Arthur Rubinstein for Beethoven: Piano Sonata No. 18 in E Flat/Schumann: Fantasiestücke, Op. 12
 * Best Chamber Music Performance
 * The Juilliard String Quartet for Schoenberg: Quartets for Strings (Complete)
 * Best Classical Album
 * Thomas Frost (producer), Leonard Bernstein (conductor), Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Vladimir Horowitz, Yehudi Menuhin, Mstislav Rostropovich, Isaac Stern, Lyndon Woodside & the New York Philharmonic for Concert of the Century

Comedy

 * Best Comedy Recording
 * Steve Martin for Let's Get Small

Composing and arranging

 * Best Instrumental Composition
 * John Williams (composer) for "Main Title From Star Wars"
 * Best Original Score Written for a Motion Picture or a Television Special
 * John Williams (composer) for Star Wars
 * Best Instrumental Arrangement
 * Harry Betts, Perry Botkin Jr. & Barry De Vorzon (arrangers) for "Nadia's Theme (The Young and the Restless)" performed by Barry De Vorzon
 * Best Arrangement Accompanying Vocalist(s)
 * Ian Freebairn-Smith (arranger) for "Love Theme From A Star Is Born (Evergreen)" performed by Barbra Streisand
 * Best Arrangement For Voices
 * The Eagles (arrangers) for "New Kid in Town"

Country

 * Best Country Vocal Performance, Female
 * Crystal Gayle for "Don't It Make My Brown Eyes Blue"
 * Best Country Vocal Performance, Male
 * Kenny Rogers for "Lucille"
 * Best Country Vocal Performance by a Duo or Group
 * The Kendalls for "Heaven's Just a Sin Away"
 * Best Country Instrumental Performance
 * Hargus "Pig" Robbins for Country Instrumentalist of the Year
 * Best Country Song
 * Richard Leigh (songwriter) for "Don't It Make My Brown Eyes Blue" performed by Crystal Gayle

Folk

 * Best Ethnic or Traditional Recording
 * Muddy Waters for Hard Again

Gospel

 * Best Gospel Performance, Traditional
 * The Oak Ridge Boys for "Just a Little Talk With Jesus"
 * Best Gospel Performance, Contemporary or Inspirational
 * The Imperials for Sail On
 * Best Soul Gospel Performance, Traditional
 * James Cleveland for James Cleveland Live at Carnegie Hall
 * Best Soul Gospel Performance, Contemporary
 * Edwin Hawkins for Wonderful!
 * Best Inspirational Performance
 * B. J. Thomas for Home Where I Belong

Jazz

 * Best Jazz Performance by a Soloist
 * Oscar Peterson for The Giants
 * Best Jazz Performance by a Group
 * Phil Woods for The Phil Woods Six - Live From the Showboat
 * Best Jazz Performance by a Big Band
 * Count Basie for Prime Time
 * Best Jazz Vocal Performance
 * Al Jarreau for Look to the Rainbow

Latin

 * Best Latin Recording
 * Mongo Santamaría for Dawn

Musical show

 * Best Cast Show Album
 * Martin Charnin (composer), Charles Strouse (composer & producer), Larry Morton (producer) & the original cast with Andrea McCardle & Dorothy Loudon for Annie

Packaging and notes

 * Best Album Package
 * John Kosh (art director) for Simple Dreams performed by Linda Ronstadt
 * Best Album Notes
 * George T. Simon (notes writer) for Bing Crosby - A Legendary Performer performed by Bing Crosby

Pop

 * Best Pop Vocal Performance, Female
 * Barbra Streisand for "Evergreen (Love Theme From A Star Is Born)"
 * Best Pop Vocal Performance, Male
 * James Taylor for "Handy Man"
 * Best Pop Performance by a Group
 * Bee Gees for "How Deep Is Your Love"
 * Best Pop Instrumental Performance
 * John Williams for Star Wars Soundtrack

Production and engineering

 * Best Engineered Recording, Non-Classical
 * Al Schmitt, Bill Schnee, Elliot Scheiner & Roger Nichols (engineers) for Aja performed by Steely Dan
 * Best Engineered Recording, Classical
 * Kenneth Wilkinson (engineer), Georg Solti (conductor) & the Chicago Symphony Orchestra for Maurice Ravel: Bolero
 * Producer of the Year
 * Peter Asher

R&B

 * Best R&B Vocal Performance, Female
 * Thelma Houston for "Don't Leave Me This Way"
 * Best R&B Vocal Performance, Male
 * Lou Rawls for Unmistakably Lou
 * Best R&B Vocal Performance by a Duo, Group or Chorus
 * The Emotions for "Best of My Love"
 * Best R&B Instrumental Performance
 * The Brothers Johnson for "Q"
 * Best Rhythm & Blues Song
 * Leo Sayer & Vini Poncia (songwriters) for "You Make Me Feel Like Dancing" performed by Leo Sayer

Spoken

 * Best Spoken Word Recording
 * Julie Harris for The Belle of Amherst

title: 20th Annual Grammy Awards