Talk:2010 Icelandic loan guarantees referendum

Result not mentioned in lead section

I am simply taken aback by the fact that the result of the referendum isn't mentioned in the lead section. It's been two days since the referendum and this article is featured on Wikpedia's front page! __meco (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Translation

My understanding is that this is the English language version of Wikipedia, which means that names of entities that are descriptive in their native languages are translated throughout the article. For this reason I translated "Tryggingarsjóður innstæðueigenda og fjárfesta" into "Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund" consistently throughout this article. The name of this entity is descriptive in Icelandic and is essential to understanding the issue at stake.

Nick Beeson (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did all the money go?

If €3.8 billion was lost, where did it go? Was it collected by stockholders in companies of the OMX Iceland 15 during the period of expansion, or by private bank owners? Were these people native to Iceland or a group of global speculators? Wnt (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Go to Iceland, look around, and ask yourself how come everyone gets to drive a £50,000 4x4 in an empty country that produces only fish and lava. Ericoides (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

First, the production is a bit more varied than that. Second, if you have been to Iceland recently, you will have noticed a large drop in £50,000 4x4's. By the way, the "only fish and lava" comment is either a stylistic trick (which is inappropriate here) or an indication of ignorance. All the best 157.157.235.141 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Re your first point, not much more varied (40 % of exports = fish; financial services = (!)?). Re your second, that rather proves my point. Apologies about being inappropriate; it's nice to receive an admonition from an anonymous user. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This would be the poisoned well fallacy. Since the admonition is anonymous, it must be false. OK, you may not have meant that, but corrections, proofs, admonitions etc. stand or fall by themselves. A bit more varied was what I said and that I stand by. Read before you write. As for the "debt" the governments of the UK and the Netherlands took it up on themselves to reimburse depositors to a far higher degree than the legal limit, called it a "loan" (never asked for by Iceland, hence not a loan) and now want the Icelandic taxpayer to cough up for that extravaganza. That, for instance, amounts to me, who never took part in any of this, to reimburse a British family for their dubious investments. Fair? Enjoy your day. 157.157.235.141 (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to present myself, I am Árni beiskur (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, but I'm especially ignorant. How did the money get from the foreign bank accounts to "everyone in Iceland"? I assume you're not talking about loans because if it were loaned money they'd get the money back without a referendum, wouldn't they? Wnt (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

By 100% house loans (which were immensely popular since there has never been a strong tradition for house renting in Iceland), by 100% car loans (which were immensely popular since there has never been a strong tradition for public transport in Iceland) and by huge loans to stupid and even badly run companies. Also, the car loans were in Euros, making them impossible to pay now, resulting in people giving up, deciding not to pay back the ridiculous sums, and nothing diminishes in value as fast as a new car so nobody is getting this money back.

So the money went to those stupid enough to take those loans and to stupid companies, but of course the bank owners (mostly Icelanders (some even former criminals, like one of Landsbanki's CEOs)) must have huge sums on their Luxemburg and Tortola accounts.

Now, the reason Icelanders are voting no is that it doesn't make any sense that the Icelandic state should be responsible for those private banks' failure. However, it must be stressed that this vote was NOT about whether the state should pay or not, but HOW. This dept will be paid, another payment plan has already been accepted by the Althingi, so it's out of the question, but with 5% interest rates? Iceland voted NO on that. 82.169.155.175 (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

For a start, the black hole in the old banks' balance sheets is more than €3.8bn, but let's just look at Landsbanki, the bank behind Icesave. A lot of the money was lent to UK companies (especially several high-street chains) as part of leveraged takeover deals: that money is still in the UK, and would probably cover the deposit insurace claims if they were the only claims being allowed. Another big chunk of the money was taken back to Iceland and lent to individuals and (especially) companies there: what those people spent it on is their business, but (on average) Icelanders were incredibly indebted to their banks when the bubble burst. Physchim62 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Something which needs to be understood

This referendum was the end of the Icesave matter, there isn't going to be any extortion or blackmailing now, sure there will be negotiations and such for the sake of appearances but this matter is now over. The people of Iceland won, crooked politicians and foreigners lost, it's as simple as that.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As the referendum does not have a direct impact on the legal obligations of the Icelandic government to repay the loans it resolved nothing except that they need to renegotiate with the Dutch and British governments to find a way to resolve the issue. Jarkeld (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Name of the article

I don't think that the name of this article is neutral or correct to be quite honest. Here in Iceland we have always refered to these elections as the Icesave kosningarnar, the translation for those words would be The Icesave referendum. I do know that the world media has attempted to degrade and downplay these elections calling them by the name of debt repayment referendum but given all the coverage that this matter has received the majority of it has still occured in Iceland and therefor the mainstream name for these elections were The Icesave referendum. The current name of the article smells of propaganda, bias and politics to me so I hereby suggest that we change the articles name and seek a consensus for that matter. I ask that those who oppose such a change state their opposition and their reasons for it and that those who approve of such a change also state their support for the change, as the score stands now it is 1 for 0 against, lets see if that changes in the next couple of days or weeks.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The title is maybe not perfect, but it hardly "smells of propaganda, bias and politics" (unlike a certain comment just above this section). For a start, it was an Icelandic referendum, and that has to be reflected in the title. We have an article entitled Icesave dispute, and it takes two sides to make a dispute, but the referendum was purely Icelandic and should be distinguished from the several other referendums for which we have articles.

Secondly, the referendum was about debt repayment, even if the Icelandic government made it clear that the debt would be repaid regardless of the result. The Icesave dispute article, in its current "August 2009 Althing bill" section illustrates the propaganda of certain Icelandic political forces quite nicely. It states "Under the amended bill, up to 4% of Iceland's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would be paid to Britain, in sterling terms, from 2017-2023 while the Netherlands would receive up to 2% of Iceland's GDP, in euro terms, for the same period. Remaining debts after this period would be cancelled." Neither of those statements are correct. The repayment limits (accepted by the British and Dutch governments) are 4% and 2% of the growth in GDP over the 2008 figure, which, for any country in the world, will be rather less than 6% of total GDP. The debt will not be "cancelled" unlaterally in 2023, even if the current Icelandic legislation (from last August) says that the state guarantee will expire then: either the debt is repaid, or Iceland is in default. There's no point in Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn sobbing about "bullying" from the British and Dutch governments if what it is actually proposing is to keep the money and run. The December bill proposed to abolish this ridiculous unilateral renunciation of the debt, and it is that bill that was rejected in the referendum. Physchim62 (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and count your response as "The title isn't perfect" but since you admit to the title being imperfect but you offer no suggestion for a better title then no real opposition has been voiced and the count stands at 1 for and 0 against.

Furhter more I want to relay my objection to your talk of "Debt". The people of Iceland owe nothing to the UK or the Netherlands.

I also want to object to responses to my simply conses establishing such as the one that Physchim62 just made but mentioning %'s isn't at all neccesary when commenting on the talk regarding the name of this article.

Physchim62 mentiones that this was an "Icelandic referendum" and says that it has to be stated in the title, he also says that referendum was purely Icelandic. I want to respond to these statements: Icesave is an Icelandic matter so I do not think that we need to Iceland label this referendum any at all really, if we were to change the name to "The Icelandic Icesave referendum" then that would simply be excessive and also rather lame really. As for this being a purely Icelandic referendum then the answer to that is no, this referendum was regarding a matter which involves three nations, the european union, the international monetary fund and nations who have promised Iceland loans based on the resolution of the Icesave matter so it was not purely Icelandic in any way. This event also deserves its place in the worlds history but never before has a nation voted on its sovereign debt, imagine if other countries follow Icelands example.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I object to changing the name of the article without a consensus as to what the new title should be. The current title is accurate and neutral, but others might be able to come up with an even better wording. Physchim62 (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I took a brief look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_guidelines and while I did not dig too deep into the thing it looks to me as if having the name anything else than "The Icesave referendum" simply isn't according to policy. Now while reaching a consensus would be nice consensus isn't king here on wikipedia. The very least we can all reach the consensus that policy mandates that the name of the article be "The Icesave referendum".--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The current title is fine for the time being, let's see what the negotiators come up with. Physchim62 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see what reason you would have for repeating that opinion of yours but according to policy the name most certainly isn't fine. What negotiators will come up with is irrelevant to that fact.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is as good as yours, and so there is no consensus for changing the article title for the moment. Physchim62 (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

More strange remarks, it does indeed look as if you have to spell it out cause repeating yourself isn't really doing anything but clogging up this page. Our opinions simply do not matter all that much policy isn't about opinions, it is about facts and policy dictates that this is not the proper name for this article.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the title is a bit long; and in fact not accurate as it was not about whether the "debt" should be repaid, but about a specific proposal for payment.

On the other hand, I do agree with Physchim62 that a reference to Iceland should be reflected in the title.

Suggestions: "Icelandic Referendum 2010" - Neutral but no reference to content; "Icelandic Icesave Referendum 2010" Still neutral, but not much content wise (and the 2 Ice-xxx words is not the best of style). Other suggestion are also welcome.

Arnoutf (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please consider the article names for the previous Icelandic referendums, e.g. Icelandic prohibition referendum, 1933, Icelandic republic referendum, 1944. The name of this article should conform with them. Hayden120 (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with user Icelandic Viking POWER (IVP). The title of this article sounds like something the British government would have wanted it called. I don't see much reason to debate here what the intensions of the Icelandic government are and who is to blame etc. It is obvious to all who care to listen that the Icelandic government has no intensions to not strike a deal with the UK and the Netherlands on this matter. I also agree with what IVP said about calling this debt. It is wrong and - to me and probably a lot of other people here in Iceland - offensive. It implies that the UK and the Netherlands gathered a bunch of money and sent it to Iceland. Whereas the UK and the Netherlands participated in shady business with a bank in the UK, which just happened to be owned by corrupt Icelandic businessmen. This is not a debt but a claim. And you can't repay money you've never received. I favour "Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010". Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, "never received"? Let's take a look at Landsbaki's second quarter financial statements for 2008. On page 22 of the PDF file (page 20 of the printed document), you will find a breakdown of assets (loans) and liabilities (deposits and other borrowings) by currency. You will see that, on 30 June 2008, Landsbanki had loaned out 550.588bn krónur in ISK to customers (presumably to Icelanders) on the face of 345.190bn krónur in ISK deposits from customers (presumably from Icelanders). So where did this difference of 200bn krónur come from? Or we can look at the figures across all currencies compiled by the IMF in November 2008 although based on earlier figures: Icelandic corporate debt in 2007 was 307% of GDP (c.f., United States at 73% of GDP); Icelandic household debt in 2006 was 225% of disposable income (DI, c.f., United States at 134% of DI). Or we can even look at the figure released by the Central Bank of Iceland itself: the following are taken from its Economic Indicators, comparing January 2003 and September 2008

• Bank lending to the domestic sector: 698.3bn ISK → 4827.4bn ISK (+1226.5%)
• Krónur money supply (M3): 393.6bn → 1230.3bn ISK (+312.6%)
• Labour force (est.): 154,600 → 148,600 (−3.9%)
• Wage index: 228.7 → 350.4 (+153.2%)
• Consumer price index: 224.7 → 315.5 (+140.4%)

And what about the declared value of goods and services produced in Iceland? +26.8% from end-2002 to end-2007 in krónur terms, far less than the rise in consumer prices paid in Iceland. You'd have to be the editor of Morgunblaðið to pretend that Iceland as a group of people doesn't have a debt somewhere! Physchim62 (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt in my mind that some of the money ended up in Iceland, not that Icelanders - who had never heard of Icesave before 2008 - knew much where it was coming from. I personally don't feel like I owe the UK and the Netherlands anything. And a lot of it stayed in the UK and was loaned to British companies. But you make it sound just like the British government; Icelanders came (and not a handfull of corrupt bankers), took a huge loan (not deposits) and spent it. That's too simplified for me. If I put my money into risky bank X and bank X then loans it to random party Y, you can't argue that party Y owes you money, it doesn't somehow become a debt, but you can try to claim it back. A failed bank is what it is. But I'm not against the Icelandic state paying the money. It's not that much anyway. I just don't like the tone you use and the tone of the article and its title. It's too biased. This whole thing is far more complicated that the word "debt" and "repayment" can describe. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be renamed, because (1) the current title is (a) misleading, and (b) potentially entails POV; (2) a more neutral and less misleading option is available; (3) the current title does not seem to be the most commonly used way of referring to this referendum, whereas the alternative suggestion seems to be exactly that; and (4) Wikipedia policy would seem to imply that considerations (1b), (2) and (3) require a name change. I say move the article to either "Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010" or "The Icesave referendum, 2010". --Cessator (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Even the very first source given in the article to establish the fact of the referendum, a BBC article, uses "Icesave referendum", see here. --Cessator (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

just chiming in in the title. the referendum was the icesave referendum and thus the title should reflect this. i´m going to change the title to what seems to be general concensus - Icelandic Icesave referendum of 2010--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

a summary for any doubt:
for the debated title, Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010:
-Physchim62

for a modified title, eg Icelandic Icesave referendum of 2010:
-Icelandic Viking POWER
-Arnoutf
-Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson
-Cessator
-Lotsofmagnets

expressed no opinion:
-Hayden120

also, the facts and figures are great, but completely irrelevant. the section is about what the title of the article should be inreference to a referendum that was held and not whether iceland has a debt, to whom iceland may have a debt to and how much it is. please use people´s own talk pages for discussions of this irrelevant nature.--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Name of the article Google Results

124.000 "The Icesave referendum"

118.000 "Icesave referendum"

15.100 "Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010"

439 "Icelandic debt repayment referendum"

This matter is known by a certain name and that is "The Icesave referendum". The only reason to call it by another name is political motivation.

The name "Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010" is completely biased and wrong since Iceland owes no debt to be paid and it is impossible to repay something which you have never recieved.

Further more the laws which was voted on was called "Lög um breytingu á lögum nr. 96/2009, um heimild til handa fjármálaráðherra, fyrir hönd ríkissjóðs, til að ábyrgjast lán Tryggingarsjóðs innstæðueigenda og fjárfesta frá breska og hollenska ríkinu til að standa straum af greiðslum til innstæðueigenda hjá Landsbanka Íslands hf." Now it is obvious that we are not going to call the article a translation of the name of the law, if we were however to choose a "technical" name for this article then we would have to consider the name and purpose of the law. The Icelandic name of the law states that the laws are for a state guarantee of a loan for the Insurance fund of account holders, NOT! debt repayment.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the name of the article is a matter of semantics. The only editor bringing politics in here is yourself. Icesave doesn't exist anymore, the referendum was not about whether it should exist or whether it should be closed down. The referendum was about the terms of the repayment of a small part the debt that Icesave created, namely that covered by the deposit insurance scheme. "debt repayment" is a perfectly neutral term: without the state guarantee, there is no reason to believe that the deposit insurance obligations which Iceland signed up to will be fully respected. Physchim62 (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: Article titles

"Common names Policy shortcuts: WP:UCN WP:NCCN WP:COMMONNAME

Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article.

Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic. Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name."

I'm going to leave this matter be now for the time being, lets see if some support doesn't gather up for changing the name of the article to "The Icesave referendum" as it's supposed to be.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Attacks against me for my involvment in this article

I want to tell the readers of this talkpage about the recent attacks agents me for my efforts in trying to get this article a better name. Physchim62 posted today on a administrators complaint board a complaint regarding me calling me a pov pusher and asking that I'd be banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#new_editor_who_seems_like_a_PoV_pusher_and_is_escalating . It is obviously not enough for this Dutch editor that we Icelanders be condemned to a lifetime of debt slavery for funds that we never borrowed but we also do not deserve to participate in creations of online encyclopedias.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Twitter... Physchim62 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Article title change proposal

Unchanged

Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010

• The current title is biased and does not accord with the traditional naming convention for referendums. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Icesave referendum

There has only been one referendum regarding this matter and it was an Icelandic one so mentioning the "nationality" of the event is not neccesary. This is a recent event so mentioning the year it took place isn't neccesary either even though it will be in lets say 5 years or so, the argument that there has only been one referendum and that the referendum took place in 2010 while there is no icesave referendum 2008 or 2012 yet in existance also applies to an opposition to mentioning the year. Another thing worth noting is that google results show without question that "The Icesave referendum" is the common name for this event.

I also want to point out WP:COMMONNAME but it states:

Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 10:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Stefán's proposal because it retains the format of the other Icelandic referendum articles, such as Icelandic prohibition referendum, 1933 and Icelandic republic referendum, 1944. Either that, or these should be renamed as well. Admittedly there were two prohibition referendums (having the date in the title would therefore be necessary), but I would like to see some consistency with the titles, regardless. Hayden120 (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Prohibition is a phenomenon which many countries have gone through, so is republic and sovereignity while Icesave isn't something that they're ever going to have in the US for example so mentioning Iceland for this article isn't neccesary. There are also only 5 Icelandic referendum articles in existence so I don't think that we really need to have them all that consistant in their names.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposal to change the title to "The Icesave referendium". This is really one of a kind referendium. Also it is quit biased and misleading to have in the title "debt repayment" as the referendum was a statement about whether private debts of risk taking investors are not public liability of a society. --Salvor (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 01:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010 → The Icesave referendum — Conforms with common name policy and there is a consensus on this talkpage for the renaming of the article but not an exact consensus to what the new name should be. Most either favour "The Icesave referendum" or want to add Icelandic or 2010 to the title, neither is however neccesary since there has only been one Icesave referendum in one country on one date. Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Object as above. Proposed title is uninformative and does not conform to WP:NC. Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Physchim62 has not demonstrated that proposed title does not confrom to WP:NC. Also I do not think that the opinion of someone who has demonstrated such inappropriate behavior as Physchim62 has can really be taken into accounbt. example of Physchim62 inappropriate behavior. --Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the proposed name is the common name as PROVED! by Google search engiene results beyond the shadow of a doubt with 124.000 "The Icesave referendum" results forthcoming compared to much lower numbers for other names: See google results here.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept the argument that the present title is problematic. I have no preference among the proposed alternatives. Haukur (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Article title format states that definite and indefinite articles should not be placed at the beginning of the title (this is not a work or an official name), therefore Icesave referendum would be more appropriate. See also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). Hayden120 (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And then then there is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Elections, which states that the format should be "Icelandic XXX referendum, 2010". You can see the reason behind this when you look at the categories to which the article belongs, such as Category:2010 elections in Europe and Category:2010 referendums: the title "Icesave referendum" does not supply the reader with the essential information of where and when.

The debate should be about what the XXX says. At the moment XXX is "debt repayment", which is not perfect, but not inaccurate either. Some might prefer to describe it as an "anti-extorsion referendum", while others might prefer to qualify it as a "sovereign fraud referendum"... "deposit insurance referendum" is a more neutral possibility. Physchim62 (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, interesting, so there is a policy to support that format. I suggested it above, but the other editors apparently weren't too keen on it. So what exactly is wrong with Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010? It seems like a reasonable compromise; it's both neutral and consistent with the other articles. Hayden120 (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There are several arguments against "Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010" above. I'd prefer something more generic (rather than a tradename that many will have forgotten in a few years time). How about "Icelandic loan agreements referendum, 2010": that seems both neutral and a concise summary of the legal issues involved. Physchim62 (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A very quick summary of the objections to Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010, given that it's taken me long enough to find them!

From Arnoutf (talk · contribs): "not much content wise"

Comment from Physchim62: agree: unless you already know what the Icesave dispute is about, the title does give any clues as to the issues involved.

From Arnoutf (talk · contribs): "2 Ice-xxx words is not the best of style"

Comment from Physchim62: agree: the two words together make me think of a song I used to try to dance to about 20 years ago

From Physchim62: "Icesave doesn't exist anymore, the referendum was not about whether it should exist or whether it should be closed down. The referendum was about the terms of the repayment of a small part the debt that Icesave created, namely that covered by the deposit insurance scheme."

Physchim62 (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The only possible title for this article is "The Icesave referendum". Given that the matter has a well known common name conventions for elections should be ignored. Also using "The" in the title is most apropriate since this is a one of a kind election that has never been held anywhere else in the world ever, truely a historic event in many ways. The conventions for article title naming format state: "Avoid definite and indefinite articles: Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or will otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown).". Using The in this case does change the meaning but without it we could be talking about a hypothetical referendum whilst using it we are discussing the one and only. We can not ignore the common name for this matter.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Yes we can!". Physchim62 (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh? The Icesave referendum is neither a work, or a proper title. It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter how epic or historic the event was. If it did, the article for the Vietnam War would be named The Vietnam War. Leaving 'the' out does not change the meaning, it is simply Wikipedia policy. The article's introduction will still say 'the', regardless. Hayden120 (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And the The Icesave referendum is not "the only possible title for this article": plenty of others have been suggested. To include the definite article would not only be to pander to one user's point of view about the historical significance of the referendum; it would also imply that we can only discuss this subject from an Icelandic point of view (blatant WP:POV violation) and even that we presume that there won't be another one (blatant WP:CRYSTAL violation). Physchim62 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about Icelandic loan agreements referendum, 2010, though. It doesn't really satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. Hayden120 (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, as it is written, applies mainly to topics that have been known for a long time before Wikipedia was created. It even contains a specific warning about this sort of situation: "However common sense can be applied – if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change." Icesave was never even an organization, simply a brand name of Landsbanki Islands h.f. (a corporation now in liquidation). Physchim62 (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. It doesn't say anything about a timeline in that policy. To deprive this article of its common name would be an attrocity. Since "The Icesave referendum" doesn't measure up to guidelines we can simply have it "Icesave referendum" but lets not waste any more time discussing the matter.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Or let's just ignore the troll in our midst... I know that it's bad luck to ignore the trolls in Icelandic culture, but this one just seems to be pretending. Physchim62 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I hereby make a complaint regarding the behavior of Physchim62, calling me a troll must be interpreted as a personal attack and I ask that his behavior be dealt with.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The (non)contributions of (so called) Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs) speak for themselves. Physchim62 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that this was some sort of a formal way to request that the page be moved but it's turning into one big attack against me. Is this the way things are done here on wikipedia?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to soapbox your political views: that much is non-negociable, and includes the various talk pages. You have brought a suggestion here, and we are discussing it, or at least trying to. By insisting on your political PoV concerning the referendum, you are hampering the discussion, in my opinion. Given that you have so few contributions apart from this page, and that you have shown a similarly beligerant attitude in your other "contributions", I believe that you are disrupting this discussion deliberately. You're habit of removing comments from your User talk page is another sign that you are not interested in discussion at all, simply argument: you will not allow this message to rest on your User talk apge, so I shall leave it here for all to see. Physchim62 (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Common name policy is not a political pov. There was no discussion until I brought this up so if I was hampering a discussion then it would be one that I started myself. As I understand it I have the right to remove comments from my user talk page and I do not see what business this is of yours. I think that it is you who is disrupting this discussion with your uncalled for and pointless attacks towards me, I ask kindly that you cease with this attitude of yours towards me or take it elsewhere since it is not having a positive effect on this discussion.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

please read through to the end and place your name under which proposal you support --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010 → Icesave referendum — Current title doesn't conform with common name policy. No better alternative has been proposed.Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

From the discussion above, there are Iceland loan agreements referendum, 2010 and Iceland deposit insurance referendum, 2010. To ignore such good faith proposals is simply inadmissable. Physchim62 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but we are not allowed to name something which has a common name. Go make your masterpiece elsewhere.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In which case, discussion is pointless, and this requested move is disruptive. If you are not willing to find a consensus name for this article then you should abstain from editing here. Physchim62 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked, at ANI, whether it's appropriate to re-post this move request only 5 days after it was rejected the last time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No in which case the common name should be used.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As there was no consensus last time around, I think it's not too problematic to try again to determine whether consensus exists now. Five days is a little quick, though. Ucucha 21:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In the news (New York Times, BBC, Herald Sun, CNN FOXNews) there is no clear majority for a Icesave referendum, so I think there is no real 100% common name yet for this event. The Naming conventions for elections seems the right way to chose a name for the article. --Stone (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As Stone mentions: no common name exists yet, so Icelandic Viking POWER has no grounds to re-request this move on the same grounds as he used in the previous discussion. Jarkeld (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Name_of_the_article_Google_Results to the two of you. A common name clearly excists.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Common Names has to follow the usage of reliable sources, so google is no a reliable source.--Stone (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Move it already. The title is wrong as it is. Baldur (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the fact that this is not in any way the debt of Iceland or the Icelandic government. It is a referendum to reimburse the UK and dutch states for their actions to cover the debt of a private, limited company. Baldur (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the ballot would have called it something. Does anyone know the wording of the ballot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems rather clear that "Icelandic debt repayment referendum" is far, far, far more uncommon than "Icesave referendum". --Cessator (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What was it called on the ballot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Lög um breytingu á lögum nr. 96/2009, um heimild til handa fjármálaráðherra, fyrir hönd ríkissjóðs, til að ábyrgjast lán Tryggingarsjóðs innstæðueigenda og fjárfesta frá breska og hollenska ríkinu til að standa straum af greiðslum til innstæðueigenda hjá Landsbanka Íslands hf." Physchim62 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Great. Now, in English, please? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

An official translation: "Act No 96/2009 regarding authorisation for the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the State Treasury, to issue a state guarantee of the loans granted by the governments of the UK and the Netherlands to the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund of Iceland to enable it to cover payments to the depositors of Landsbanki Íslands hf." --BiT (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Stone google can tell what term is most commonly used in general and it makes it obvious that this matter is far most often refered to as the Icesave referendum, all google does is count how often those terms are refered to and it's statistics are reliable for that usage. Common name policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic_creation#Common_names even mentions that search engienes are often usefull in determining which alternative name is most commonly used.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it gives a number, but you have to give reliable sources which call the thing Icesave referendum. The reliable source have to be named and listed. A start would be 10 Newspaper headlines and 10 TV news lines calling that thing a cesave referendum --22:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Google counts really don't mean much except in their absence. If someone claims something is notable, but Google returns like 3 hits, it probably isn't. But high counts can be askew, due to the endless copycatting that occurs on the internet. I've seen specific phrases from wikipedia articles restated hundreds of times in Google, yet all those "sources" are simply wikipedia parrots. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Every Icelandic media outlet calls this thing the Icesave referendum. [1] Baldur (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

But we are not Icelandic Wikipedia... Physchim62 (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Baseball You should raise that discussion over at the Article titles talk page not here. It is stated "Search engine testing sometimes helps decide which of alternative names is more common. When searching, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia".". If search engienes are truely that useless then surely that wouldn't be mentioned there.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Close as premature. Noting has changed in the 5 days since since the last request, which was rejected. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose due to no clear COMMONNAME here. "Icesave referendum" - 512 unique Ghits [2]. "Iceland referendum" - 653 unique Ghits [3]. "Icesave debt"+referendum - 422 unique Ghits [4]. "Iceland debt"+referendum c/w "Icelandic debt"+referendum = 638 Ghits total ([5]+[6]). As far as COMMONNAME goes, this is distinctly dubious. Also, coming so quickly after the previous discussion, I would be tempted to close this as premature or until a common name emerges. Black Kite 23:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

517 of 138.000. It would obviously be better to move this to "Icesave referendum" than to close the discussion and keep it at this POV name which nobody supports.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Let me repeat myself The current name is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE we Icelanders have no debt to the UK or Holland and we can not REpay anything since we never recieved anything. As for extortions and blackmail those that would steal food out of the mouths of struggling Icelandic families have failed in their task.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I think you are unable to contribute to this discussion in from a neutral point of view. Jarkeld (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, although you know the old saying - and in this case, although the people making the strong accusations don't quite understand our guidelines, they do appear to be right on the facts. It would be impossible to hold a referendum on debt repayment when there's no debt to repay - a bank failed and this legislation was in effect a US-style bailout of a failed bank, but with a far, far smaller national accounts balance. If you read the referendum question, it mentions guaranteeing loans by the bank (under its official name, Landsbanka) and also releasing the balance of a government-held fund to do it. That's the definition of a bailout. "Debt repayment" would more correctly describe, for example, the issues we saw in Argentina a decade or so ago when they decided it was in their national interest to stop making repayments off their country's national debt. Orderinchaos 07:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone was asking for headlines from reputable sources:

• The Economist, "The Icesave referendum: No, thanks"
• Financial Times, "Icesave referendum to go ahead"
• BBC News, "Icesave referendum set for 6 March"
• The Guardian, "Iceland's bizarre Icesave referendum"
• Reuters, "Iceland to hold Icesave referendum by March 6"
• Reuters, "UPDATE 4-Iceland eyes Feb 20 for Icesave referendum"

Also, not in headline, but used in the text:

• 'Irish Times, "Icelandic protester finds parliament a cold place" ("[...] results of Saturday’s Icesave referendum.")
• Financial Times, "Iceland uses Arctic thaw to turn heat on UK" ("It was Mr Grímsson who triggered the Icesave referendum [...]")
• derstandard.at, "Auszahlung von IWF-Milliarden an Island weiter blockiert" ("[...] nach dem Icesave-Referendum")

--Cessator (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And how many sources DON'T use the the term? Physchim62 (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to count, obviously, just as it is impossible to count how many do use the term. However, the point is that "Icesave referendum" has vastly more Google hits than "Icelandic debt repayment referendum" and there ARE reputable sources that use that term, in addition to which it has been pointed out that it is less misleading and more a more neutral term. So why exactly is the suggested move a problem? --Cessator (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose this requested move. The "common name" suggested is not "common" enough, and the current name is descriptive and follows precedent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons stated just above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support a variant in line with guidelines Per Baldur and Icelandic Power (and I have independently verified this) "debt repayment" is POV, as it's more an issue of a national bailout than a national debt repayment - this is not, for example, the same situation as Argentina a number of years ago. I would argue the title should be Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010 in line with reliable sources, as referendums are named (at least anywhere I've seen) in terms of what is put to the people, which is usually framed by the government - e.g. "A national referendum on the so-called Icesave legislation will be held on 6 March 2010, as announced by the Icelandic Minister of Justice, Ragna Arnadottir, today." [7] "General information about the 6 March referendum on the Icesave issue from the Government of Iceland." [8] See also Reuters, European Commission, Times of India etc. Searching in Icelandic produces almost unanimous support for "Icesave" in the name - 26,200 vs just 334. Also, in my part of the world, we have Western Australian retail trading hours referendum, 2005 for example, as that is the correct name, rather than "shopping hours" even though the latter is the more commonly used name. The question put to voters did not mention "debt" or "repayment" - it mentions guaranteeing loans and investing a fund. Orderinchaos 07:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The question pout to the voters didn't mention Icesave either. Physchim62 (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Good point, although as I highlighted, the Icelandic government explicitly referred to it in such terms in their English-language communications. If a better name is found which is not POV / blatantly incorrect, I would support it, and if you have any ideas I'd be glad to hear them. Orderinchaos 11:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Icesave referendum.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• I Support the rename to Icesave referendum.--Hrafnkell (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current name's a good one IMO. I wouldn't have a clue what the proposed name refers to. Suspect many English speakers are in the same position. Andrewa (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support either Icesave referendum, or Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010 (if that is necessary to comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Elections). It appears the majority of sources have 'Icesave' somewhere in the title. The current article title is not neutral. Hayden120 (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose because to those readers unfamiliar with the Icesave dispute, the replacement title is fairly meaningless. Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010 is not very much better. I also agree with Guy and Black Kite: this is premature given that only 5 days have passed since the last RM. Pfainuk talk 09:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose anything with Icesave in the title as per Pfainuk and Andrewa. No objection to changing the "debt repayment" in the current title to something more accurate. Physchim62 (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- The current name is misleading and POV and has NO reputable source and is clearly NOT the most common. The suggested title, however, is clearly much more common, is used in reputable sources, is less misleading and more neutral. --Cessator (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose but supporting a variant in line with guidelines like Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010 or Icelandic loan agreements referendum, 2010. Jarkeld (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And I thought that iceland has no debt: Iceland owes money to Britain and the Netherlands after they compensated 400,000 savers in their countries who lost deposits in a failed Icelandic bank during the global financial meltdown in 2008.--Stone (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

To say Iceland doesn't have a debt in this matter is clear PoV-pushing. The NPOV solution is to say that the Iceland does not formally acknowledge the deposit insurance obligations and reserves the right to take the matter to court (as is stated in both the laws passed by the Althing). Physchim62 (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect - an Icelandic bank (liquidated) owes the money. It more comes down to who to sue or who to claim from, and when a bank has been liquidated that is tricky. Under international law, Iceland (as a country) is actually under no obligation to pay the money from its national funds - it was a corporate collapse and the bank was not state-owned. The only reason it was ever proposed as such is that Iceland's future membership of the EU needs people in high places to support it (and more importantly, noone critical in high places to oppose it). Orderinchaos 19:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Iceland is obligated by European law (and specifically by EEA treaties) to provide deposit insurance of at least €20,000 for every European depositor in an Icelandic bank on the same basis as for Icelandic depositors. That's part of the deal by which Icelandic banks get access to the European market. The UK and the Netherlands argue that this obligation is not lifted by the fact that the Icelandic deposit insurance scheme didn't have enough money to cover the collapse of the country's banking system. Iceland disagrees. So, from a British or Dutch perspective - and one accepted by the EU - Iceland does owe those countries quite a lot of money in deposit insurance.

So, yes, to say that the Icelandic government does not owe any money is POV. Pfainuk talk 22:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, there are two sides to the argument and both need to be presented fairly. Physchim62 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Pfainuk talk 22:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

But to say that Iceland does owe the money is also POV, then, it's the POV of the British and the Dutch! You've pretty much conceded the argument now. --Cessator (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The common name is not mentioned in several articles of the above mentioned newspapers or news agencies. If this would be a common name I would think they would stick to that common name in all their articles. Not mentioned in Reuters: [9], [10], The Guardian [11] Huffington post [12] financial times [13] (there is another one calling it IR but three others do not mention that common name) irisch times [14] (there is a second article calling it IR, but only once) BBC [15] also uses it some times and not always.--Stone (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's right, not every article uses "Icesave referendum", though many do (examples provided above). However, the "counter-examples" you provide do not use anything else instead, no other competing term, and certainly not "Icelandic debt repayment referendum" or "Icelandic loan agreement referendum". Even you must admit as much. All those other articles use is "this Saturday's referendum", "the referendum" etc. --Cessator (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Icelandic loan agreements referendum" Returns 0 hits. "Icesave referendum" returns 118.000 hits. Reuters and many others clearly call this the Icesave referendum see here --Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Icelandic loan agreements referendum, 2010

This title sums up the subject matter of the referendum without referring to "debt", and without being so chauvinist as to pretend that this referendum is so unique that the article should go against the normal naming conventions for elections and referendums. The question of the state guarantee over the loans to Tryggingarsjóður was the central legal point in the December law that was rejected in the referendum: the previous law (currently in force) had unilaterally limited the state guarantee to six years, something which was rejected by the British and Dutch governments. One of the points of opposition raised during the referendum campaign was the rate of interest being charged on the loans (5%), which is also obviously a central part of the loan agreements (even if it wasn't specifically mentioned in the law). Physchim62 (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Violates common name policy.I've told you before that we are not allowed to "rename" the matter, it already has a common name and that name is the only one that can be used.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Gee, you know, your "telling" someone something doesn't carry the kind of weight you seem to think it does. It's hard to use the argument from authority when you have no authority, and even harder when you're wrong. Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus, so far, is that the "common name" which you are pushing isn't "common" enough to be useful. Further, if discussion among editors decides that the "common name" isn't the most useful one for the article, then that is a legitimate consensual decision. So please stop waving the paper in the air and declaring "peace in our time", WP:COMMONNAME is not argument stopper you are pushing it as being. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic Viking POWER, be civil. --BiT (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

How exactly am I being uncivil, I am not the one speaking of authority with others? I am simply refering to the fact that I already mentioned this to him and he is repeating himself. As far as consensus goes I was under the impression that Wikipedia wasn't a democracy.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's right, Wikipedia is not a democracy as such and not just any old consensus is legitimate, even though Wikipedia "works by consensus" (which just means that we ought to reach a consensus when possible; it doesn't imply that this is always possible or even that any consensus, whatever it is that's agreed upon, is OK). --Cessator (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If there's no consensus for naming the article "Icesave referendum", then we either come up with another name or the article stays where it is. I would have thought you'd be a little more constructive in your comments, given as you object to the current title. Physchim62 (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't seen any good reason from the opposition for rejecting "Icesave referendum" and I'm still waiting. You're not denying, are you, that "Icesave referendum" has vastly more Google hits; you're not denying that there are reputable sources using "Icesave referendum" including BBC News, Financial Times, Irish Times, Reuters, The Guardian, and the Economist (because examples have been provided from all of these); and you're not claiming that there is any reputable source using "Icelandic debt repayment referendum" or any of the other suggestions you've come up with, are you? -- At least you've not bothered to find examples of it. And you acknowledge the fact that the Icelandic government doesn't recognize its legal obligation to repay this "debt". So I wonder, how can you not see that the current title is POV? And why would you think it is preferable to "Icesave referendum" given that there are reputable sources that have used that term but none that uses "Icelandic debt repayment referendum"? So, as for being constructive, I'm just still waiting on seeing your side of the argument being presented in a serious way. --Cessator (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, "Icesave referendum" actually has less unique Google hits than either "Iceland(ic) referendum" or "Iceland(ic) debt"+referendum. Yes, there are reliable sources using the Icesave term; there are equally many reliable sources that don't use the term. As an example, the first couple of pages from this search includes the BBC, The Times, Reuters, NPR, Yahoo News, The National Post, The Financial Post, Business Week and The Guardian. As such it is not helping anyone when editors are merely saying "This is obviously the common name - we must use it". Black Kite 20:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You can not be serious with these comparissons, there have been many Icelandic referendums, the Icesave referendum was one of them , how on earth is the Icesave referendum supposed to stand up to all the other Icelandic referendums alone? As for the other one "Iceland(ic) debt" plus referendum well that's also not fair unless you make that comparisson with "Iceland(ic) debt" plus Icesave. As for the number of equally reliable sources that don't use the Icesave term well if Icesave has half and large unsortable mix of others has the other half then there is an obvious common name.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look, you'll see that all those articles I mentioned in that linked search ARE referring to the referendum mentioned here (after all, how many other referendums on debt has Iceland held?). And the point I'm making is that Icesave doesn't make up half of the reliable references. It makes up a substantial minority, yes, but certainly not to any extent that COMMONNAME would apply. Note that I'm not saying that the current article name is correct, only that there doesn't appear to be a common name, and thus the article name should presumably follow naming guidelines. Black Kite 20:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I get 136 thousand hits for "icesave referendum", not 540! And yes, there are sources using other terms than "icesave referendum" but none of them using the current title of this article nor any of the titles suggested by the opposition. You admit this much, right? Also, a common name does not mean "the only name". The argument you ought to be seeking to refute is this: "Icesave referendum" is [not the only term, but certainly] more common than the current title and suggestions from the opposition and is better attested in reputable sources [though of course not the only term used in reputable sources]. Explain to me again, where do we disagree? --Cessator (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I'm using unique Ghits can be seen if you try this - 94,900 for Icesave referendum vs 353,000 for Icesave debt referendum. Of course, we could use that metric if you want, but I'd suggest that might not be to your liking... yes, the Icesave title is much more common than the current title. The point I'm making is that lots of other terms are also much more common. Thus, no common name can be asserted. Is this so difficult to understand? Black Kite 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite You're DEFINANTLY! on the wrong track with those Unique google hits. Microsoft only gets 247. The total google hits tell the story like it is, the referendum has an undisputable common name.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And I get 134,000 google hits for "Icelandic debt referendum", including several reliable sources on the first page. So, YET AGAIN, "Icesave referendum" is NOT an "undisputable common name". Physchim62 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

134.000 google hits you say??????? MORE LIKE 6!!!!!!!!. Care to try again?.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's try this again: I get 136 thousand for "Icesave referendum" [in quotation marks] (see here) but 6 for "Icelandic debt referendum" [in quotation marks] (see here). Without the quotation marks: 144 thousand for Icesave referendum, 122 thousand for Icelandic debt referendum --Cessator (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I think "guarantee(s)" might work better than "agreements" as the word appears in the referendum question and indicates fairly clearly the result of a "yes" vote had there been one - that Iceland (the nation) would be committed to guaranteeing the loans of the bank. I'm not averse to "agreements" though. (Note: this only occurred to me while I was out on a walk a couple of hours ago, hence why I didn't propose it earlier.) Orderinchaos 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Who will remember this referendum? Answer: The people of Iceland, Holland and the UK. And what will they remember it as? Why ofcourse by its common name: the Icesave referendum. But yet we should ofcourse name this article something else? Ok...... makes alot of sense.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And does the name "Icesave referendum" mean anything to anyone who doesn't already know what the Icesave dispute is about. No, not in the slightest. We already have an article entitled Icesave dispute, and a redirect to this article from Icesave referendum. This page should be named in the same way as every other election or referendum page. Physchim62 (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, then we can name it "Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010", right? Because how does the current title conform better to the normal way of naming articles on referendums? Also, I don't accept the argument that the article can't be names "Icesave referendum" (or "Icelandic Icesave referendum 2010") on account of nobody not already familiar with it knows what it is. After all anyone not already familiar with a graph invariant or Topological index or the peninsular war or the war of the Fourth Coalition is going to know what it is from the article's title alone. Well, for anyone not knowing what the thing in question is there is the first paragraph of each of the articles, right? --Cessator (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• To reply to Orderinchaos, I'm not averse to "guarantee(s)", but I think "agreements" is better, for two reasons. (1) If you look at the Law that was being voted on (English translation), in Art. 1, the guarantees are part of the agreements anyway. There are state guarantees in place under the previous law (and so still in force), but they expire in 2024. (2) The political debate leading up to the referendum covered other aspects of the loan agreements, particularly the interest rate. Physchim62 (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Orderinchaos 06:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

May I draw attention to this point which went unanswered: In the discussion above User:Pfainuk claimed: "to say that the Icelandic government does not owe any money is POV" and User:Physchim62 agreed. To me it seems they've pretty much conceded the argument here. Let's say I agree with them that to claim that the Icelandic government does not owe any money is POV. But, of course, to say that it is legally obliged to repay this money is also POV, it's the POV of the British and the Dutch governments and is contested by the Icelandic one. And Wikipedia should not be endorsing that POV any more than it ought to endorse the opposing one. Therefore there is need to find another title -- and User:Pfainuk and User:Physchim62 agree with this unless they wish to maintain that it is only POV to say that the Icelandic government does not owe money but not POV to say that it does and that would be an absurd thing to say; so I assume they've concedes this much. So if the current title cannot be used, then what title is neutral? Well, "Icesave referendum" or "Icelandic Icesave referendum" (with or without the year) ought to do, becuase there is nothing in that title that suggests either way that the Icelandic government does or does not owe money. --Cessator (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

At no point have I argued against a change on principle. I have only argued against the specific change outlined. I object to Icesave referendum and Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010 because to someone without prior knowledge of the Icesave dispute it is unclear from those titles whether the referendum was about banking or knitting. I feel that this lack of clarity is distinctly undesirable and easily avoidable. I do not accept the argument based on WP:COMMONNAME as overriding in this case because it is not clear that "Icesave referendum" is sufficiently common in English. I see no merit whatsoever in the argument that this referendum was so singular, historic and important in world history that it is instantly recognisable - and likely to remain instantly recognisable over the course of years - without noting the country and year as per most if not all other referendums covered on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I would support a move to Icelandic loan agreements referendum, 2010 as a neutral, informative and appropriate alternative to the existing title.

That said, I would remind editors on a procedural level that even if there is consensus for a move, we need consensus for a specific move target for a move to go ahead. Pfainuk talk 20:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there is any serious push for getting rid of the year or the word "Icelandic". But titles don't have to be so informative as to give the reader an immediate grasp of what the thing is. That's what the leading paragraph is supposed to do. I mean anyone not already familiar with the peninsular war, for example, has no idea from the title alone where in the world this war was fought, by whom, or when, let alone why and how and with what result. Again anyone not already knowing what a Hosoya index is has no idea from the title alone whether that article is about economics or sociology or mathematical chemistry. Again anyone not knowing what a Cricket test is might infer from the title that it had something to do with zoology. So if it isn't generally speaking a requirement that it be immediatly clear from the title alone what the article is about, then I don't see that this is a serious objection here. The leading paragraph defines what the thing is, that's what it is supposed to do, the title is not required to do so, although it ought not be misleading to anyone who does know the thing in question. So unless you're willing to argue that "Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010" would be perceived as misleading by anyone having read the article, then I reject that counter argument. --Cessator (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

IVP seems to be arguing, and you seemed to be arguing, that the date and country were not necessary. Certainly, they are.

There are distinctions between this case and the cases you name. Partly, those are far more clearly the most common names used in those contexts than "Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010" is in this one. That goes particularly in the case of Peninsular War and Hosoya index. Partly, it is because it is not particularly difficult to come up with a clear descriptive alternative in this case (such as the aforementioned Icelandic loan agreements referendum, 2010), whereas it is quite significantly harder in the three cases you name.

But in any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If there are misnamed articles elsewhere on Wikipedia - and I do not mean to imply that the three you mention are misnamed - then that doesn't mean that we should misname this article. Maybe in a few years' time it will become clear that Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010 is appropriate on WP:COMMONNAME grounds. If so, we can move it then. In the meanwhile, my view is that we should stick to a descriptive title. Incidentally, articles with descriptive titles should not feel the need to bold the title in the lede (or indeed use it word-for-word), and there is no particular reason why the words "Icesave referendum" should not be used in the lede. Pfainuk talk 20:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I realize that those cases I mentioned are more clearly the most common name for the thing in question. However, just because in this case there isn't any single clearly most common name, it doesn't follow that we're allowed to come up with just anything. And viewing it from the other side, just because we are more easily able to come up with a more descriptive title here, that doesn't mean we are allowed to; we must pick the best title of those that are at least potentially the WP:COMMONNAME winner. And, no, I don't mind the article being titled "Icelandic X, 2010", what I'm concerned with is what replaces the X. --Cessator (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we're allowed to pick a descriptive name. We have to be reasonable about it: common sense and consensus have to apply in choosing a name that is reasonably clear, accurate, neutral and brief - but there's no reason why we can't do that. There isn't always a clearly established common name for everything we want to cover, and in cases where there is no clearly established common name we not required to pick one from a list of bad options when we can use a better descriptive name instead. Pfainuk talk 19:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support "Icesave referendum". Per Cessator and Icelandic Viking Power.--157.157.192.35 (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is the third edit of this IP editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support "Icesave referendum". Per Cessator and Icelandic Viking Power.--200.115.144.153 (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is the first edit of this IP editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: icelandic icesave referendum, 2010

deciding article title:

• recognisable - the term "icesave" is definitely recogniseable and used within the common media as well as reputable media
• easy to find - users will eb looking for a referendum that happened in iceland in 2010 so this part is not in question.
• precise - "icesave referendum" would probably be the most precise but it doesn´t identify the country or the time.
• consistent - the wording is consistent with seveal, but not all similarly titled articles (an exception i found was the australian section that went by the format australian referendum, 19xx (item) )

Common names:

• reliable sources - previous examples have been given of it being referred to as the icesave referendum in reliable sources.
• vulgar, pedantic - one could argue this whle discussion is pedantic... certainly not vulgar.
• common names example - icesave is definitely the common name and this section (egs being bill clinton, hulk hogan etc) are very strong supporters of the icesave name.
• search engine testing - "icesave referendum" - 9600 results, "debt repayment referendum" - 1,730 results, "loan repayment referendum" - 2 results.
• wikipedia not being a crystal ball - the argument that icesave is a trademark that will fade in a few years is counter to this guideline
• "When there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best."
• inaccurate titles - this would support icesave as it refers to the specific referendum on the specific topic - debt repayment is not specific in this context.

descriptive titles and non-judgmentalism:

this section is surprisingly irrelevant as the referendum was not about whether there was a debt or not but the terms of the repayment. i do still feel the title *is* biased towards being judgemental and that icesave would be a better word in it´s place as it is more about what the referendum was about rather than the context that let to the referendum. this is only my opinion though so doesn´t count :)

foreign names and anglicization:

the term icesave was used both in icelandic and english as it *is* a trademark. this is neither a case for icesave or against debt repayment

national varieties of english: standard english and trademarks:

irrelevant

precision and disambiguation:

"icesave" is unambigiously connected with iceland, landsbanki and the economic collapse and in this context, the referendum was about *the* icesave agreement so this section supports the word "icesave" over "debt repayment" which is much more general.

explicit conventions:

i don´t think there is one for this kind of topic. someone who can show otherwise?

considering title changes:

an interesting section - due to the young age of the article it´s impossible to state that any title has been stable hence all this discussion...

treatment of alternative names:

i found this: "Main provisions in the Referendum:

Whether to adopt terms set by Parliament on the repayment of debt to Netherlands and the United Kingdom (the "Icesave bill"). Iceland incurred this debt when those governments insured their respective nationals' accounts in Icelandic banks that collapsed in 2008."

here: http://www.electionguide.org/election.php?ID=1833

which seems that both titles would be appropriate.

article title format:

• lower case, except for proper names: not being disputed
• Use the singular form: same
• Avoid abbreviations: same
• Avoid definite and indefinite articles: "icesave referendum", not "the icesave referendum"
• Use nouns: this section is a strong argument to use a noun like icesave over debt repayment which requires an adjective (this is really begining to sound pedantic :s )
• Do not enclose titles in quotes: irrelevant.
• Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another. - i think this is not being disputed.

Special characters and formatting: Titles containing "and":

irrelevant.

ok, sorry for being so long-winded but i´ve tried to cover the entire naming convention page found : <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles'>here</a> as comprehensively as possible. i hope this covers my rationale :) --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposals

Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010
supporters:

Icelandic loan agreements referendum, 2010
supporters:

Icesave referendum
supporters:

Icelandic Icesave referendum, 2010
supporters:
Lotsofmagnets