Talk:Norway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norway is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Norway, Six Times Olympic Medal Count Winner Despite its Tiny Size 2 Opening sentence / Country name 3 Template:Infobox Country 4 Population 4.1 Census 4.2 Source of population estimates 5 English Wikipedia and Norway 6 Better map? 7 How does one define early? 8 Human Rights in Norway 9 Oslo not closer to Rome 10 Hi! 11 Bohuslän, Jämtland, and Härjedalen 12 Food 13 The Church of Norway ( den norske kirke) 14 A Theocracy? 15 editing the talk page 16 Climate data 17 Culture of Norway 18 Counties of Norway 19 Norwegians can´t spell 20 This research 21 Rollo was NOT from Norway 22 Norwegians founded Dublin? 23 Bunad 24 inconsistency 25 Finnish speakers in the North 26 vandalism 27 Date of Seperation from Sweden ... 28 The royal motto 29 Whaling 30 Geography section seems to have gone out of the window 31 Looking for Home 32 Geirangerfjorden & Nærøyfjorden

[edit] Norway, Six Times Olympic Medal Count Winner Despite its Tiny Size

Could this be of interest to members of this forum? I created a table for all the Olympic medal count winners including Norway. It also includes per capita data, where Norway excels. The original article is here: Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. Recently, however, someone nominated this article for deletion. If you want to comment on whether it really should be deleted, go to this article's entry. Thanks! Medalstats 14:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening sentence / Country name

"The Kingdom of Norway (Nynorsk: Kongeriket Noreg; Bokmål: Kongeriket Norge) is a Nordic country west of Sweden on the Scandinavian Peninsula."

It's a bit long. Aren't there better ways of describing the "Norge/Noreg" situation? Besides, the links to Nynorsk and Bokmål are both redirects to Norwegian language, and it is a bit misleading to give impression of two separate articles, when there's only one. 14:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about deleting the parentheses, like it was before: "The Kingdom of Norway is a Nordic country west of Sweden on the Scandinavian Peninsula."   The Norwegian versions of the country name are listed in the infobox anyway and, as long as Bokmål/Nynorsk are stated as official languages, it may not be necessary to explain the Norge/Noreg situation any further. --Eddi 01:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's what I wanted, but it was reverted. 10:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The opinions could be polled here and, if conclusive, support one or the other version. --Eddi 20:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My take is rephrasing the "west of Sweden" statement. While factually true, the same could be said if we wrote "west of China" or "east of Greenland". Using "bordering Russia, Finland and Sweden, with territorial waters bordering Danish and Brtish" would be less patronizing of Norway. As it is, enough people think Norway is the capital of Sweden, and using a "Sweden is a point of reference that more people know of" as an argument would be odd - considering how Russia is also immideately east of Norway, and, I should think, rather well known. I know it doesen't exactly shorten the opening sentece, but this is a hot point for me. --TVPR 09:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Country

I don't understand what's the big deal. Could someone please start discussing here instead of in the history? If this is part of a bigger discussion please insert a link to that discussion. Thanks. --Eddi 00:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[1]. Gzornenplatz 01:00, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll follow the discussion at the Village Pump. --Eddi 01:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Judging from discussions here and there, the Template:Infobox Country seems to be most popular. I'm now testing it on Norway. Please have a look and return with your thoughts.
The template has many variables that may be used plainly or manipulated, see for example the Area Total, Constitution / Independence, and Internet TLD rows – with a slightly unelegant solution for the TLDs. --Eddi 23:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There hasn't been much editing lately, so I wonder: Is the layout acceptable? If all details are copied correctly, we should perhaps delete Template:Norway infobox. --Eddi 19:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Population

[edit] Census

Does Norway have census? The infobox indicates a census of 2001, but Norwegian authorities keeps a continuous count (from births and deaths), and does not hold census in the manner of other some other countries, as far as I know. 06:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The last Norwegian census was held in 2001. Although it focused on standard of living, employment, education, standard of residences, size of households, temporary location of residents etc., it was indeed a census counting the population. It was proposed to be the last Norwegian census ever, and so far it has been... See http://www.ssb.no/fob/ --Eddi (Talk) 23:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source of population estimates

It has been argued to use the population from the list of countries by population. Why should it be used, if it isn't the most recent estimate? The first list on that page is taken from the 2003 edition of the CIA World Factbook, and even if it was taken from the 2004 edition it would be far from updated. The second list is dated January 2005, but the source is not stated. By the way, the recently reverted population estimate did not use the population from the list at all. In my opinion the best source for the article on Norway would be the official Statistics Norway. For the complete list, the CIA World Factbook or something else could be used. --Eddi (Talk) 13:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English Wikipedia and Norway

It is so much strange things written about Norway on English Wikipedia that the articles cannot be taken very seriously. E.g. is Svalbard and Jan Mayen listed as dependencies and the coat of arm pictured has even never been the coat of arm of the kingdom (only used by the king before WW II). When I am trying to correct these mistakes the corrections are being reversed by people who does not have the simplest understanding about what they are talking about. Therefore I am giving up this project. My suggestion to those of you who will use English Wikipedia, check the sources or try Norwegian Wikipedia - it is at least written by natives!

The lion is the official coat of arms of the Norwegian State. Caplex, a Norwegian encyclopedia says so. For more evidence, just look at the logos at Odin(government website), the pages of the Norwegian military or the official information site of Norway.

Jakro64 08:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Information on the Coat of Arms can be found here: [2]. This is as official as it gets. --Cybbe 23:56, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Better map?

Does anyone have a map with a better projection? As it is, the "goathead"-part is completely squished and the entire thing looks slightly bizarre. --Kaleissin 13:09:53, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

You could have a look in the Image namespaces at commons (starting at "Norw"), en: (starting at "Norw"), no: (all) or nn: (all), or ask at the Norwegian village pumps no:Tinget or nn:Samfunnshuset. For the general geography there are at least en:Image:No-map.png and nn:Image:Noreg kart.jpg, and for an overview of the counties commons:Image:Norway counties.jpg and no:Image:Norgesfylker.png. By the way, which map are you referring to – the one in the infobox or that in the Counties section? --Eddi (Talk) 14:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The one in the infobox. I've lived up there so I'm a little protective of maps of the area, it so often get turned into a shapeless blob. Where would be a good place to discuss the reason for the russian wedge into eastern Finnmark? There are so many potential places it could go. Here, or an article on Finnmark, or czarist Russia, or the Russian orthodox church... --Kaleissin 11:57:48, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

Yes, maps viewed from the equator tend to be somewhat distorted that far north. For discussion of wedges I suggest no:Diskusjon:Norge, no:Diskusjon:Norges geografi, or no:Diskusjon:Finnmark. I notice there is a Russian church at Boris Gleb at the end of the wedge, east of Bjørnevatn. But isn't the Norwegian wedge between Russia and Finland really the peculiar one? --Eddi (Talk) 14:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Boris Gleb is the reason alright. The other wedge would have been a lot less wedgy if it weren't for that church. The big wedge follows a river southwards and iirc there were settlers from southern Norway living all along it. --Kaleissin 16:09:43, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

[edit] How does one define early?

As per a recent edit summary, how is "early in the century" defined? Ten first years? Twenty? --Kaleissin 11:57:48, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights in Norway

I've noticed there is no "Human Rights in Norway" article. The treatment of natives, racism and discrimination in today, and the controversy regarding Arne Treholdt and others might deserve a mentioning. NWOG 12:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Then be bold and add it - allthought considering the vast maajority of norwegians are natives, I'm not sure what you mean by that part of your comment (unless off course you mean the sami, who pretty much get treated like royaltiy these days). WegianWarrior 13:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ho hum, "royalty" is a bit of an overstatement. We are definately among the luckier minorities of the world today, but it took some fighting and a good deal of cruel discrimination before we got there. Anyhoo, the Treholt case is worthy of mention, though I'm not taking the time to read up and add today, it would be fun to do so later.

Also: Norway's treatment of refugees runs counter to UN regulations, though this is also true for many other Western countries (User: Misha BB)

I suppose this is a valid subject in present as well as the past, and should not be brushed off bluntly. Such an article or section could discuss the treatment of e.g. arrestees, children, disabled, elderly, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, immigrants, political and religious dissidents, poor people, prisoners, women, etc. through different periods in time. All of these and others were or are treated badly in various ways by the Norwegian state or significant portions of the public. However, this being a sensitive issue, any coverage of the subject needs substantial reference material. I can't provide any references and therefore I can't contribute to an article. --Eddi (Talk) 03:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

"The constitution forbids ..., and the use of torture." As I recall, the constitution says: "Pinligt Forhør maa ikke finde Sted (§96 http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-18140517-000-006.html)" = "torture should not be used during interrogation". AFAIK, the constitution does not forbid torture as a penalty.

The swastika is not forbidden directly. The law forbids hateful or discriminating statements made in public, either by words or symbols. The link refers to an article in a norwegian newspaper. It says that norwegian nazis have raised a nazi flag in some company's pole. I'm not sure you would get convicted after §135a for that.

[edit] Oslo not closer to Rome

Unless we include Svalbard, which is a special case which does not qualify as "northern regions" (what regions?). Take a close look at a map. From Oslo, Rome is farther away than any point on mainland Norway -by a clear margin. Therefore, I suggest this: Oslo in fact being closer to Paris than to Vardø. Because that is actually a correct statement. Orcaborealis 22:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if your statement is actually correct, I see no problem with it. Is Vardø Norwegian for Svalbard (I'm American, the only link I have to Norway being that my girlfriend is Norwegian)?Tommstein 00:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind that stupid question, I looked at the article and now see what Vardø is. I don't think being closer to Paris is all that impressive though, so maybe the sentence should just be completely removed.Tommstein 00:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the statement is a misrepresentation of what we learned in school, i.e. if one were to turn Norway around its southern point, then the farthest point would almost reach Rome. The southern point is Lindesnes (not Oslo), and the farthest point from Lindesnes is close to Vardø. To check our school lesson quickly and crudely we may first calculate only the differences in latitude (north-south) by simple subtraction, which gives a distance from Lindesnes to Vardø of 12.23° and from Lindesnes to Rome of 16.20°, i.e. quite different (see data below). If we calculate great-circle distances instead, counting longitude as well as latitude using non-Euclidean geometry, the distances are 15.75° or 1752 km Lindesnes-Vardø, and 16.53° or 1838 km Lindesnes-Rome, i.e. quite similar. This may or may not be worth mentioning in the article. --Eddi (Talk) 06:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC) / 18:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Item	Location	Lat. (° N)	Long. (° E)	Angular distance (°) to						Great-circle distance (km) to
				NC	V	O	L	P	R	NC	V	O	L	P	R
NC	North Cape	71.17	25.79	--	1.87	12.77	15.14	24.82	30.02	--	208	1420	1684	2760	3339
V	Vardø	70.33	30.85	1.87	--	13.27	15.75	25.34	29.93	208	--	1476	1752	2818	3329
O	Oslo	59.93	10.75	12.77	13.27	--	2.56	12.08	18.06	1420	1476	--	284	1343	2009
L	Lindesnes	58.10	7.28	15.14	15.75	2.56	--	9.68	16.53	1684	1752	284	--	1077	1838
P	Paris	48.87	2.33	24.82	25.34	12.08	9.68	--	9.95	2760	2818	1343	1077	--	1107
R	Rome	41.90	12.48	30.02	29.93	18.06	16.53	9.95	--	3339	3329	2009	1838	1107	--

lat.=latitude; long.=longitude

Exactly. So the statement "Oslo being closer to Rome" is false, by a good margin. Even if we use Lindesnes, the statement is false. This is the free encyclopedia - false statements are of course unacceptable. If anyting, one of it's purposes is to falsify myths. Here is a suggestion that might underline the elongated shape: Vardø is the easternmost town in Western Europe and is in fact east of Istanbul. This is correct, if we use the standard definitions of western Europe. Or, we could just mention the distance from north to south (1770 km, isn't it?). Or, we could just drop it and delete the sentence. And Tommstein, as I see it, where we happen to live is of no importance. Orcaborealis 15:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just saying, my expertise on this probably pales badly compared to that of an actual Norwegian. I say, whip out the most impressive fact(s) that can be found, and stick it/them in. If none are too impressive, then we might as well not bother. Although that 'east of Istanbul' fact is impressive to me (what comes after Turkey, Iraq?). Saying that the southernmost point as almost as close to Rome than Vardø is also impressive, even if that southermost point isn't anything special and Vardø isn't a straight shot north; that highlights how long the country is.Tommstein 06:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

In your article you mention: "The Kingdom of Norway also includes the arctic island territories of Svalbard and Jan Mayen." Shouldn't you also mentionate the Norwegian part of Antartica: Dronning Mauds Land (Queen Maud's Land)? It is just as much a part of the Norwegian territory. Vemund 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. While Jan Mayen, Svalbard, Peter I's Island and Bouvet Island are Norwegian territory, Queen Maud's Land is just claimed - like all (I think) other nations with claims in the Antartic, Norway has decided not to persue the claim, but abide with international treaties (making Antartica pretty much a free for all (as long as you don't pollute). WegianWarrior 18:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The antarctic territories are not part of the Kingdom and they have no permanent population. //Big Adamsky 18:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I briefly read through parts of the article, and under the sub-topic counties: hedmark, I discovered a dreadful and very suprising mistake. I assume that you are Norwegian, so you should know (but even though you are not): you wrote "logs are floated down Glomma to the coast." Are you honestly not aware of that floating of timber down the Glomma quitted in the 70ties?! Everyone should now by now...

PS! (General info.) You can see tools which was used to transportation and treatment of the log (while the process was still ongoing) in the coat of arms of Hedmark Fylkeskommune and Åsnes Kommune.

Vemund 15:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The last timber was floated in Glomma in '85, but still there is floating going on in Skienselva acording to: [3]--Njård 23:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I seriously didn't know! Strange that they are still doing that old-fassion stuff... My apologizes, but you should switch Glomma out with Skienselva, to not give the wrong impression to the readers.

Vemund 16:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bohuslän, Jämtland, and Härjedalen

The article's historical section states that "Norway saw its land area decrease in the 17th century with the loss of the provinces Båhuslen, Jemtland, and Herjedalen to Sweden." I wonder why we can't use the proper Swedish names Bohuslän, Jämtland, and Härjedalen, which are also the article names. --Eddi (Talk) 16:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's beacuse in Norwegian they are historicly known as Båhuslen, Jemtland and Herjedalen... the present day names of Bohuslän, Jämtland, and Härjedalen is the Swedish spelling. It makes sence, at least to me, to use the Norwegian spelling in an article about Norway.

Your milage may wary, off course, and if concenious is to use the Swedish spelling I won't revert.

WegianWarrior 16:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If it is the proper Norwegian spelling you wish to use, then you have to write Bohuslen instead of Båhuslen...

Vemund 15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedian practice is using either native or local names, or using names in the language of the relevant Wikipedia. Since these provinces are Swedish and the language of the Wikipedia is English, we should use Swedish or English names. In this case I suggest we use Swedish names. --Eddi (Talk) 17:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree! The Norwegian (the original) names of the places haven't been used since they belonged to Norway. In Norway, we also pronounce the names of the places as in Swedish. Use the Swedish names! Vemund 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to use the names of that historical time and place when the names are used in such a context, in the same way we use the name Christiania or Kristiania when talking about Oslo in a historical context in which those where the names at that time. -Kvaks 18:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway naming section quoted below:

BEGIN QUOTE

== Naming ==

For administrative units and geographical entities, the official Norwegian name [4] is used for the article, with redirects for English names when known. There is no reason to invent new English names, and it is undesirable as it introduces confusion.

===Historical names===

The many variations in rendering Norwegian names into English in histories and older literature should be honored when quoting or using original sources. Within the text of an article, historical names may be used if followed by the official Norwegian name in parentheses (e.g., “King Olaf (A.D. 1015-1021) summoned the people of the districts of Lesjar (Lesja) and Vagar (Vågå) to a Thing.”). If the modern name is unknown, the historical name alone may be used.

===Conflicting guidance among Scandinavian countries===

The Norwegian naming convention should be followed for discussions of Norway and Norwegian geography.

When Scandinavian history conflicts occur, the list of European regions with alternative names should be consulted, and for Norwegian topics the Norwegian convention followed. For example, the list indicates that Jemptia is the preferred form for the province that Sweden now calls Jämtland. In Norwegian history this is likely to appear by its former Norwegian name, Jemtland. Within the text of an article, historical names should be used if followed by alternative forms of the name in parentheses (e.g., “Sweden occupied the undefended Norwegian province of Jemtland (now Jämtland).”).

===Sub-municipality names===

If no official Norwegian name is available, follow the guidance of ISO 3166-2:NO, which is an ISO standard which defines geocodes: it is the subset of ISO 3166-2 which applies to Norway. For locales not covered by the standard, the form in Veiatlas Norge published by Statens Kartverk should be used.

===Other geographic features===

If no commonly accepted English form exists, the form in Veiatlas Norge should be used. A commonly accepted form exists if, and only if, a substantial majority (>75%) of published literature in English uses that form.

===Avoid clumsy wording===

It should be attempted to avoid wording that appear clumsy for readers that are fluent in both English and Norwegian.

Instead of The Nidelv river flows... or The river Nidelv flows...., use the Nidelv is a river that flows... to avoid the equivalent words (elv in Norwegian, river in English) appearing next to each other.

END QUOTE

Of course, if any of the above can be improved, we should. Williamborg

Thank you for the reference. (I should of course have consulted the project first.) Do piped wikilinks count as statement of current names, or should they be spelled out? If piped links are acceptable, the paragraph is all right now. If not, should we write "...the provinces Båhuslen (Bohuslän), Jemtland (Jämtland), and Herjedalen (Härjedalen)..." or "...the provinces Båhuslen, Jemtland, and Herjedalen (Bohuslän, Jämtland, and Härjedalen)..."? --Eddi (Talk) 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. I recommend we go with "...the provinces Båhuslen, Jemtland, and Herjedalen (currently Bohuslän, Jämtland, and Härjedalen)..." Williamborg 02:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But when I try to articulate the logic, I must confess it is just that that way of phrasing it ‘feels’ slightly better. But I’m an engineer, so what do I know about it; I’ll try to remember to ask one of the technical editors tomorrow to see if there is an underlying logic for one approach rather than another.

Williamborg 02:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Food

Anyone know anything about Norwegian food? I'm thinking of those delicious marzipan specialities and that variety of rice pudding. Springald 19:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of kransekake and riskrem? WegianWarrior 11:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Church of Norway ( den norske kirke)

It is unfortunately not true that you have to be baptized to be counted as a mnmber of the State Church. it is not even true what the previous version said that both parents have to be memberers. The official version is that one parent has to bea member, for yothe child to be included in the chriuch membertship, but many people find themselve son the rolls even if noen of their parents were mebers, and they have never been baptized. The practice seems to vary from place to place, but in many instances being born is enough to become a member. --Vindheim 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This may or may not be the case, but I think references are needed. --Eddi (Talk) 01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

What Vindheim writes is not correct. The only way you become a member of the Church is when you are baptized as there is 'official paper work' invovled.

[edit] A Theocracy?

From the article:

"In order to form a government, more than half (currently at least 10 out of 19 members) of the Council of State are required to belong to the Church of Norway."

Not quite like Iran, but that is surprising is it not, nowadays, in Europe? So it would improve the article to add a little explanation of how that arose, and why it persists. Midgley 22:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article on the Church of Norway and Constitution of Norway for more explanation. It is equivalent to the Church of England, except that Norway has a constitution. In this case, it is bounded in paragraph 12 of the constitution. Interesting that you should be so interested in Norwegian politics and society. Lots of controversies here, but it would probably be a good idea that you read up about them before editing. --Leifern 00:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So does England - well, the UK - have a constitution, and since around the penultimate Elizabeth R there has not been a requirement for the government to be of a particular faith or any. (E2R has to be in order to be head of the Established church. And reading about it is a good idea. What shall I read? Oh I know, an encyclopaedia. Which is usefully cross-referenced on such matters. Midgley 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

First, do not edit my entries on this discussion page. The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. There are many source documents in English about Norway. In addition to various books, the Norwegian departments publish a lot of content in English, as do many Norwegian newspapers. --Leifern 11:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Re editing, see below. --Eddi (Talk) 13:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear. Eddi..'s edits were of course an improvement. Midgley 01:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not consistent, from the referneces given. Interesting the proportions, and the statmeent that the majority of government support disestablishment. If i have to give any excuses for reading a page of WP, and expressing an opinion (!), then let it be known that I have lived in a state where the Parliament is a Thing and meets on a hill, and I know where it comes from. Midgley 13:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the reason is that the members of government who are not members of the church are not permitted to take part in decisions concerning the church. So you have to have a sufficient amount of members of goverment who are members of the church in order to make decicions. In practical terms this is not very problematic as 86% of Norwegians are members of the church and so far the number of members of government who are members of the church have alwas well exceded half. In principle it is more problematic, but it seems stranger than it is when it is pulled out of its contecst. The intent isn't to keep members of other religions out of government. Inge 13:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (Nor is its intent to exclude atheists or syncretists, for that matter, one might add. =J // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 13:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

Thank you. That makes sense. The Established Church in the UK has tended to count its membership higher than a more detailed enquiry arrives at but I expect that is unavoidable. The move to disestablishment would presumably, as in the UK, cause constitutional changes and losing that provision might be one of them. Is Norway the only country in Europe/N. Europe that still has such a provision in its (written, as one document) constitution? If so that might be worth bringing out as a difference, which is encyclopaedic, for anyone who tries to learn about the country by reading this article rather than the many other things written about it. Midgley 01:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Norway is, as far as I know, the only country with such a demand of its cabinet. krikkert (Talk) 06:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone could verify this for certain. If Norway is the only country in the world with this demand I will be very surprised. Inge 13:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I know countries like Lebanon and others demand certain percentages of different religions in their parliament or equivalent to avoid sectarian conflict. Other than that, I can't think of anything. Either way, this is hardly a controversial issue, and anyone I ask seem to be ignorant of it. Joffeloff 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] editing the talk page

eddideigel writes: (→A Theocracy? - clarify context + rm some irrelevant and indiscreet remarks - feel free to revert, but this does not belong here) Please do not edit the talk page! Change the articvle itself, but DO NOT edit the talk page --Vindheim 17:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well. But I would like to add: Please keep indiscretions and personal conflicts out of the article talk pages. This is seriously disturbing. Even this thread does not belong here but at my user talk page. Not that I don't like public criticism, but it is not relevant to the article at hand. I would like to ask you to move this thread to my talk page. Thank you. --Eddi (Talk) 13:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Climate data

I'd say that this box should be removed in favour of a) Climate of Norway or b) shorter notes on average temperatures. Ehjort 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The complete lack of response inspires me to do what is consider the best solution (something along the lines of removing most of the climate facts from the geogrpahy section and link to Climate of Norway) in about a week's time. Ehjort 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Or just link to climate, with more extensive data coverage. Orcaborealis 16:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Norway

I will work on a better entry for Culture of Norway in the Norway article; one with less links and more text and not only a listing of famous norwegians but hopefully something about Norwegian culture.Ehjort 16:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counties of Norway

Is is necessary to list all 19 counties in the Norway article? Not even the Subdivisions of Norway article includes the whole list. The Norway article should be as much text and as less tables and lists as possible. Ehjort 16:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, I can't see USA without its list of states. It would just look silly without the counties. Henning 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think the listing of the ten argest municipalities is necessary in the main article. There's already enough listings. (please sign, use four ~)Ehjort 19:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot the signing. ;) In any case, if not to include the ten largest municipialities, there needs to be a link to the Municipalities of Norway, which I took the liberty of including on the bottom of that section (in about the same manner as with the counties-section, where in the end it links to the Regions of Norway). I must say, I was amazed to find that more or less every single municipiality has an article! Henning 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we merge the list in question into the Municipalities of Norway article. The main article shall of course include a link to Municipalities of Norway. )It is fascinating to see the coverage for our municipalities, I think Norwegians feel alot for their hometown however small it is) Ehjort 14:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea, will you do that? I should get about to update some of the Finnmark municipalities sometime. First I shall translate no:Eina as requested. :) Henning 12:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is done. Thumbs up Ehjort 18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems we willl have to get used to just that, Henning - USA without its list of states. It is gone by now. Ehjort 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like the list of fylker (counties) to be set in two columns but I ain't got the know-how. Ehjort 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegians can´t spell

Why do Norwegian banknotes say NORGES BANK on one side and NOREGS BANK on the other? Is this a subtle Nordic-type joke, or can´t Nowegian central bankers spell? Adam 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

we can spell, but we can't agree on how our language should be. There are two official forms of written Norwegian, Bokmål and nynorsk. The banknotes have different versions on the two sides. (I never noticed that before).--Vindheim 20:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Which version do they use in Bergen, where I just was? Adam 20:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Although the prevalence of Nynorsk is higher in the western parts of the country, it's not possible to say that they only use Nynorsk or Bokmål in any one place. Which one you use can often be a political statement. I recommend reading the Nynorsk and Bokmål articles if you're interested. --Nnp 20:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Bergen is 95% bokmål, maybe more. Kjetil_r 00:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't easy to get it right everytime, though. I think the Nynorsk in my father's passport was misspelled. ;) 惑乱 分からん 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This research

"This research was done by graduate students of NTNU and researchers at SINTEF in Trondheim [7]."

i think this should be deleted. Ehjort 09:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rollo was NOT from Norway

Norway wasn't even in Normandy in the viking period. Norwegians were only settlers on north England, Ireland and Iceland.

Rollo was from Denmark - Zealand. He was a son of the danish king. And became the first king of Normandy after the Invasion of the land.

Well there are differing sources on that subject. Many support Rollo being from Norway and Norwegians being present in Normandy and it seems that is a prevalent view among scholars Inge 16:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What are these sources??? There is no sources, only a man from Iceland who had a name likely Hrolf. with was a common Nordic name that time. The Sourches only come from iceland/norway because they want to claim as much fake history as they can. Norway didnt conquered England either. It was King Canute from Denmark. Where do you else think Danevirke and Danelaw is from?

"Dudo states that Rollo was born of the proud blood of dukes and kings, and that his father was a mighty man in Denmark whose sons Rollo (Hrolf) and Gurim (Gorm) inherited his lands after him. As the King of Denmark at that time wanted to evict a portion of the youth of the country owing to overpopulation, many sought refuge with Rollo and Gurim. The King marched against them with an army and killed Gurim, while Rollo fled to Skaane. From there he sailed to England to King Athelstan, by whom is meant the Danish King Guthrum (Gorm) in East Anglia who, at his baptism, had been christened Athelstan. He supported Rollo and it is not unlikely that kinship existed between them. Later Rollo sailed to Walcheren and fought for many years in the great army in Friesland and northern France until he subdued Normandy in 911. That Rollo was the head of this undertaking also supports the theory that he was a man of noble birth.

Norwegians was just a bunch of setlers in the viking age. Who peacefully setled in Iceland, North England and Ireland.

Saying that makes it obvious that you are pushing a subjective POV. See for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge

Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge. 1066? Result: Decisive English victory.

I think you misunderstand. It was ment as a (well known) example as to how Norwegian vikings were not just peaceful setlers. Which they certainly were not. Though many were, of course.

[edit] Norwegians founded Dublin?

Although there was a Norse settlement in the area which nowadays is Dublin it would be wrong to state that the Norwegians (or any Northmen) founded the city as such. They did have their own settlement - from which the English name is taken, however there was a celtic settlement there beforehand - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Dublin for more details. The same is true for Cork. In fact one could say that the vikings destroyed more of this city than built it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cork Limerick is said to have had a celtic settlement before the vikings, though most accept it is a viking city and Waterford was indeed founded by the vikings.

I propose we reword the history of Norway section pertaining to the viking age. Bikerams 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the history seems like a long Pro Norwegian POV. At least the edit's from user:Inge. --Comanche cph 10:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comanche cph: Please don't spread slander on wikipedia. Your history here speaks for itself. Inge 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like allot of your edits here has been reverted, not only about me. So come with your sources now about this, instend start spreding a flame war to camoflage your wrong edit's. --Comanche cph 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is taken out of thin air. I am willing to give any editor the benefit of doubt. I will however expect an improvement in behaviour if I am to take someone seriously. You have been here for some time now and I have seen slim and temporary if any improvement in you. Myself and several other editors have tried to guide you towards what is axceptable behaviour. In stead you have carried on in the same track on article after article. You know what you have to do and I hope you are aware of the actions you take. If you want to be taken seriously and want other editors to spend their time answering your "questions" you will have to comply to wikipedia policies. I have also answered you on your talk page. Inge 18:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is amazing. Where is the sources for what User:Bikerams wrote? Behaivor is one thing, rewrite of history pages is anorther thing. --Comanche cph 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bunad

Could somebody help me understand why a bunad "may be traditional or not traditional costumes". I'm a tad confused by the opposition.Bikerams 08:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, only traditional costumes are granted status as bunad. Ehjort 18:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, present day bunader were reconstructed from traditional elements from the 1920s on. A semiofficial committee, Bunad- og folkedraktrådet,[[5]] has the power to accept new designs for bunader. However many traditional style costumes which are not officially classed as bunader, are used as if they were such. --Vindheim 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand it somewhat better now, only I'm left with the question how that section of the article can be re-worded because, as it stands now, it's not logical - "traditional or not traditional", doesn't really work. Bikerams 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] inconsistency

Religion claims 89% are members of the protestantic church. Demographics claim 86%. Both numbers cannot be rigth. Any number is suspect anyway, because the protestantic church of Norway has been counting by starting at 100% and subtracting known members of other churches. This obviously gives over-reporting. Eivind 13:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The number tells nothing about what people believe in, and should be removed. I don't think giving an explanation about the high number would gain anything either, except that that it could be useful to show how much power the state church has. (No user name) 02:02, 29 October 2006 (+1)

Well, I added an explanation anyway. Hopefully, no one just removes it. Seems like some people here have an agenda to make norway seems less secular than it actually is... [User:(No user name)|(No user name)]] 17:30, 1 November 2006 (+1)

[edit] Finnish speakers in the North

During the nineteenth century considerable numbers of people from Finland moved into Norway, especially in the North , but also in southern areas ("Finnskogen"). There have also historically been considerable intercourse between the "three tribes": Finns (Kven), Saami and Norwegian in this area. Some communitites in eastern Finnmark (Vadsø, Bugøynes etc.), have until recently had a majority of Finnish speakers.--Vindheim 14:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

Because the page is more or less vandalized on a daily basis, is it not an idea to protect it in the same way as the page about the Swedish language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_language) is? Bikerams 14:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I almost think it's a good idea. Is there no way to blovk the vandals? and, is the article vandalized by one or many IPs? Ehjort 18:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalised enough to warrant protection really, but you can ask for it to be protected at WP:RFP. Only administrators can protect pages. HawkerTyphoon 12:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date of Seperation from Sweden ...

The current article reads "the peaceful separation of Norway from Sweden on June 7, 1905." The September 23 article lists 9/23 as the date the two countries were officially seperated. I believe one or the other should be clarrified. Can anyone speak to which one?

The Norwegians declared themselves independent of Sweden on June 7, and the Swedes, slow as always, recognized it on September 23.

[edit] The royal motto

Is "all for Norway" a good translation for "alt for Norge"? Shouldn't it rather be "everything for Norway"? In any case, that's what it really means, but "all for Norway" might be an official translation for all I know.

"Alt for Norge" means that the king (who has selected his motto) will be prepared to do anything and sacrifice everything for his country.

[edit] Whaling

Whaling is mentioned in Economy section, but not in main article Economy of Norway. And maybe a seperate Whaling in Norway like Whaling in Iceland is needed? - Kristod (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geography section seems to have gone out of the window

Any reason for this or just vandalism?? Orcaborealis 11:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for Home

My family name was Andersen before my great grandfather and his brothers emigrated to the US where they took the name Molvik. Molvik was the name of the farm from where they came. My understanding is that the farm is on the west coast of Norway where the Arctic Circle intersects the mainland. Does anyone know of this area or know where I might find more information? The area is very rural, thus it had been difficult for me to find information. Most web searches point me to a Molvik that is at the northern most tip of Norway. Thanks in advance! Patris Magnus 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a particular farm you are asking for, it's hard for Norwegians who don't have specific knowledge of the place or farm in question to answer. I do wish you good luck, though, and hope that somebody comes up with anything.

As you might guess, the amount of farms and farmers in Norway can't even compare to back when your great grandfather left Norway. If I'm to be pessimistic, it might well be that your family farm is long deserted or merged together with another farm, it's name not in use anymore. I think your best chance is to look up Norwegians sharing your name of Molvik. Though they're likely to be unrelated, your family adopting the name in the US, it might just well be that they happen to take their name from the same farm. (According to Statistics Norway, there are 433 people with the surname of Molvik in Norway.)

In fear of having been to pessimistic and unhelpful, I tried some searching. Searching for Molvik gård (where gård is Norwegian for farm), returned Some pictures from farms in Rygge, where some of them depict one Molvik farm. Though this is in Rygge, which is not on the west coast nor anywhere close to the arctic circle, but rather slightly east of Oslo.

Do you know any further details about your home farm? In Norway, the arctic circle passes through the municipalities of Træna, Lurøy, Rødøy and Rana. Though I guess you probably should look in close by areas also.

You might also try the Wikipedia:Reference desk, where Wikipedians try to answer general knowledge questions. I hope others are able to help you more than I have. Delta Tango • Talk 05:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The "wrong" one for your purposes is mentioned in the Berlevåg article.

Your searches probably also would found "Mølvik" spellings, but what you are looking for might actually be "Målvik" or "Melvik" or some similar spelling.

Try Oluf Rygh's Norske Gaardnavne (Norwegian farm names) at http://www.dokpro.uio.no/rygh_ng/rygh_form.html where Molvik in the farm name turns up just one in Sondre Bergenhus amt (today's Hordaland) which is too far south for your description. The % sign is a wildcard in that search, and note that this is a fairly old book using "aa" spellings rather than å.

• Mølvik only finds one in the Oslo area, a couple of Melviks in Troms. Try Maalv% too, the "aa" as used in his book, now written as "å", is pronounced somewhat like an o, and was often spelled "o" by immigrants to English-speaking countries, these are probably more likely than the Melvik ones

Gårdsnr Gård Sogn Herred Amt

72 Maalvik Vassaas Bindalen Nordlands amt

• Wikipedia also has an article on a Vassås Bridge, matching that parish name. Keep in mind not only the possibility that your ancestors changed the aa to "o" in English, but also that many spellings in Norwegian have since your ancestors came over. Look for -vig rather than -vik in many earlier sources, etc. Mark the boxes in the Oluf Rygh database listing that you are interested in, then click the "Vise" box for more detailed quote for that farm (in Norwegian, of course), usually giving something about the meaning of the name, spelling variations over time, etc.

• Try your searches again for "Maalvik" or "Målvik". If you have names of ancestors living in Norway in 1801, 1865, 1875, or 1900 you might also be able to search for them in online census records, but the names will likely be just given name/patronymic, and the patronymics changed from generation to generation. Your "Anderson" immigrant ancestor and his siblings may have had a father named "Anders Larson", for example. Gene Nygaard 13:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking the name from the farm you lived on was very common in Norway. I also believe it wasn't uncommon to change the spelling of one's surname upon immigration to America. For what it's worth I have met people living in northern Hordaland with the Molvik surname and that fits in with the information on a Molvik farm there, but as stated above that is not in Northern Norway.Inge 13:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'm pretty sure that it is this one:

• Molvik (farm), Rødøy kommune[6]

My father, who has been there, described passing a mountain lake on the way down to the farm. I'm now sure that it is in Rødøy kommune. Thanks again Patris Magnus 21:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geirangerfjorden & Nærøyfjorden

Geirangerfjorden & Nærøyfjorden have been rated 1 and 2 in National geographics rankings for the most beautiful places on earth, shouldn't this be mentioned?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yakoob (talk • contribs) .

The Geography section is currently pretty short, and I don't this is what it needs the most right now. --Turbotape 22:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the name of Capital, Largest City, King and Prime Minister? The two first are wrong, while the two others are pure nonsense! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.109.149.26 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2006