Talk:Svalbard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Svalbard as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.
Wikipedia CD Selection Svalbard is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). 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

[edit] Svalbard article

Lots of standard-format stuff was copied in from the CIA World Factbook; I used some of it as the basis for the current article. I'm inclined to pick up a few more bits, then delete the subpages; they lack sufficient content to be worth moving to better names. Vicki Rosenzweig, Tuesday, June 18, 2002

I've folded in what's worth saving, but get a 404 error when I try deleting any of the subpages. Help? Vicki Rosenzweig, Saturday, June 22, 2002

The subpages have already been integrated; I get a 404 error every time I try to delete them.

[edit] Svalbard: Part of Norway?

I am not sure if Svalbard should have basically a "Norway" country entry. Svalbard is not a part of Norway, but due to the Svalbard Treaty, it has the authority on the islands. There is a public discussion about this issue going on right now (April 2004) in Longyearbyen, initiated by a TV series that repeatetly statet "Svalbard is not Norway". There also at least one juridical example for the non-equilvality was given: An Australian who has been living on Svalbard for several years the Norwegian citizenship is denied, whereas he would have been Norwegian citizen if he had been staying in Norway for the same period.

Epix, April 21, 2004

I am a Norwegian myself and would like to inform you that Svalbard and Jan Mayen Is. are integrated parts of the Kingdom of Norway and certainly no dependencies. It is correct that Svalbard is not a part of the Schengen area and anybody can come to the islands without a visa or any immigration formalities. Not even a permission of stay is required. Earlier only Norwegians, Soviet citizen and a few Poles came to Svalbard. Now people are coming from all over the World, and the situation has changed very much. Therefore this Australian citizen's case is very special and the Norwegian authorities are afraid a lot of people will enter Svalbard in order to get a Norwegian citizenship. Svalbard is administrated from Troms county and Jan Mayen from Nordland county. The coat of arms used next to the flag is belonging to the Svalbard sheriff, as it is no Svalbard coat of arms. --Jakro64 20:45, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

GKAN- International Law Expert, 02 October 2006

Regarding the comments above and apparent belief that Svalbard is part of Norway:

The Svalbard Treaty (in Norwegian, English, French, etc.) and the vast majority of international literature make clear that Svalbard is administered by Norway by agreement of all signing parties (and later acceding parties), including the US, France, Britain, Russia... Citizens from any signatory country have the absolute right of access to the islands, regardless of any Norwegian claims to the contrary.

Theoretically, if Norwegian authorities were actually forcing Americans, French, etc. off of the islands, the signitory countries could back up their rights with diplomatic pressure and eventually military force. That Norway attempts to ascribe more than an internationally agreed administrative right to the islands (which also included the right to exploit them and regain costs through mining and other trades), is part of a regional pattern which can be better understood by examining the East Greenland dispute between Denmark and Norway. There Norway attempted to claim sovereignty in northeastern Greenland simply for the fact that Danish nationals had not utilised the territory or "backed up their claim by a military or physical presence there". The courts ruled in favour of Denmark and Norway's claims were denied.

Anyone who is a citizen of a signatory country, who is properly equipped and with indepedendent means and despite this is denied access to Svalbard should report the issue to their country's diplomatic authorities and to the country's embassy in Norway for an official investigation and possible action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.76.54.253 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

The Kingdom of Norway seems to disagree:
'consists of the western and northern parts of the Scandinavian peninsula as well as the northern territories of Jan Mayen and the Svalbard archipelago'
Pædia 05:43, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
The word "territory" does not have to imply that the area is a dependency (which is not the case for neither Jan Mayen nor Svalbard.) The word can merely refer to a "distinct geographical region". This is the case here. --Valentinian 22:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) (from Denmark)
I second the user above's remarks: Svalbard is under the county of Troms. It does have a governor, however, appointed from Oslo. The use of "territory" is correct here.--Mike 07:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (from Tórshavn, the Faroes)
Actually, the archipelago is an external territory (i.e. a dependancy), unlike Jan Mayen which is an integral part part of Nordland, and therefore is Norway itself. This has only minor implications on matters of legal jurisdiction and diplomacy, however. You are right about the phrase "a territory of" could technically be intended to mean either an external "appendix" to a state or an constituent part of the the body of land that makes up that state. Let's rephrase in order to avoid misunderstandings. =J //Big Adamsky 13:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Both Jan Mayen and Svalbard are a part of Norway proper. Feel free to compare the laws for Svalbard[1] and Jan Mayen[2] vs the one for Bouvet Island, Peter I's Island and Queen Maud Land[3] (Norwegian links). --Cybbe 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Article 1 of (what is now known as) the Svalbard Treaty of 1920 reads: The High Contracting Parties undertake to recognise, subject to the stipulations of the present Treaty, the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over the Archipelago of Spitsbergen ... This is clear: Norway has sovereignty over Svalbard, but its exercise of this sovereignty is severely limited. Whether Svalbard is "part of" Norway seems to depend on whether one interprets "sovereignty over" and "part of" as synonymous, upon which point only the opinion of an expert in international law would appear to hold any value. One's nationality, in particular, does not lend credence to one's opinion on this matter.

Now, while I am not an expert in international law, Norway does not appear to have any legitimate claim over Svalbard other than that granted by the treaty. Prior to the treaty, Svalbard was (without any shadow of a doubt) a no man's land.

I suspect that, prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, the Norwegians would not have indulged in the kind of integrationist propaganda that has marked more recent pronouncements on, and dealings with, the archipelago --- how often did the Susselmann visit Barentsburg, other than as a guest, prior to 1991? I doubt he would have dared to march into Barentsburg as "the law" in the way he does now. If Longyearbyen airport has radar, it is a new addition: the Soviets had previously prohibited it, and the Russians sustained the objection long after 1991. If Svalbard was "part of Norway", would the Norwegians have tolerated such interference in an internal matter of air safety? The status of Svalbard is at least ambiguous: the assertion that Svalbard is an integrated part of the Kingdom of Norway is not supported unambiguously by the treaty, and certainly not by history.

-- EmmetCaulfield 16:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The international treaty determines that other nations (which had interests in the area before the sovereignty issue was settled) also have the right to exploit the ressources there. The islands were awarded to Norway by an international treaty in 1920 and the territory was annexed to Norway in 1925. This is not disputed by other nations so the legal situation is pretty simple. The Åland islands were awarded to Finland in the same way by the League of Nations, but nobody questions Finland's sovereignty over them. Did the Soviets maintain a presence for other reasons than purely economical? This is likely, but the Soviet Union did not try to annex the islands, so there is no reason to question the territorial integrity of Norway. 40 nations have signed the Svalbard Treaty including the Soviet Union, so the issue is pretty settled. Among the signatories are: The US, the UK (+ dominions), France, Italy, Japan, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, the USSR and Germany. Btw, the Russian Wikipedia mentions the area as Norwegian. Valentinian (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archipelago or island query

As far as some maps go, they note the archipelago as being the Spitsbergan archipelago, with the largest island being Svalbard.

Is this incorrect?

A recent BBC news article [4] also seemed to have the two names that way round.

Is the information here and on Spitsbergen correct?

zoney ♣ talk 12:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes the articles here on wikipedia are correct. Spitsbergen is the name of the largest Island in the Svalbard archipelago.
Here are a few external links confirming it [5], [6] and [7]. Shanes 12:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map

It's so far north -- shouldn't the map be polar? Tlogmer 22:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] .sj

Google gives back several sites with the .sj root...what is going on? Ejrrjs | What? 00:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

But none of them work?--ZorroIII 21:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asking for help / review with Bjørnøya article

Hi everybody, I am currently requesting review for the Bjørnøya article. If you are are knowledgeable in the field you might like to look into it. Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bjørnøya, any constructive criticism would be much appreciated. Thanks. Kosebamse 22:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Language(s) of Svalbard

I have no expertise in the subject of Svalbard or of the surrounding regions. I'm interested in this island group because of it's geographic location, it's very far north. (I have more expertise in other areas so I contribute more to those articles on Wikipedia.) I contribute what I can to the editing of Svalbard, spelling and grammar. There is a recent edit to this article about the languages of Svalbard. Here is the current edit of the relevant part of the article:

The official language of Svalbard is Norwegian. Russian is used in the Russian settlements, but formerly, Russenorsk was the lingua franca of the entire Barents Sea region.

This is still a bit awkward, but I decided to discuss it here before making the edit to the main page.

  1. I think that we can agree that if "lingua franca" remains in the article, it should be linked to the appropriate article.
  2. There are many languages that get mixed on the borders of countries, so I don't think that "lingua franca" would be appropriate for this usage. "Lingua franca" is for a language that gets used widely beyond the borders of the country of native speakers. (e.g.: English is the lingua franca of the Internet.)
  3. There is some (minor) ambiguity in the way that this is currently written. Here is my proposed rewrite, based on what I think is meant:
The official language of Svalbard is Norwegian. However, in the Russian settlements (<insert list if it is small>) Russian is currently used, but Russenorsk was used up until <XXXX-year> because of its usage in the entire Barents Sea region.

There are two places in this text where information needs to be filled in, but I think that this reads better. I hope I conveyed the right information. Val42 00:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Russenorsk, like Chinook, is an extinct trading language, classified as a pidgin, i.e. with no native speakers. I appreciate what you've done as regards fine-tuning the English. B-] //Big Adamsky 00:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Bit puzzled by the "part of the kingdom of Norway" part and have toned it down. Last time I was in Svalbard it was clearly explained as "governed but not owned" hence the Russians were taking out vast amounts of Coal etc. also ref voting, citizenship etc. BozMo

[edit] Discuss instead of deletinge

Tskoge, please try harder to contribute to this project in a good spirit. Try discussing any changes you feel are warranted, rather than forcing your personal version on the rest of the community here. //Big Adamsky 16:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You add nonsense, I remove nonsense. There is not much to discuss. Wikipedia is supposedly an encyclopedia, not a place where people add their random nonsense. (And it is difficult to take very seriously anyone who relies on worldstatesmen.org.) Tskoge 17:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, this is not your personal blog and consequently you do not get the prerogative of unilaterally passing verdict on what is "nonsense". If you find it difficult to take other contributors seriously, then you have a problem. Tug-of-war style editing is hardly the solution to that problem. //Big Adamsky 18:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
What is a "special entity" and how is Svalbard a special entity (or even an entity)? How is Svalbard a special territory? Svalbard is a part of Norway. Shouldn't every single US state be in that category, aren't they all "special"? Tskoge 08:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Good start. Well, if you would take the time to read the article that you have been purging from the text, you will discover how those four named entities (= bodies of land; territories) occupy an ambiguous position in international law in that they are in some respects external. The category of special status entities was presumably created in order to lump together articles that all have this feature in common in some way or other. //Big Adamsky 09:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Then Svalbard obvously does not belong on such a list. I do not understand why you say that entity = body of land. Tskoge 17:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Please check sources before making statements of personal beleif (if that's the case here). WP:NPOV might contain relevant information. --Nordby73 01:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
What are you saying? One is not allowed for clarification of what another person has said? Tskoge 15:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm stating that discussion (which should occur on talk pages) by pointing to verifiable sources and assuming good faith is a good thing. I see you have added such information to this talk page now, and that's great! --Nordby73 14:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the caterogy "Special territories"

Yes, the link you provided there contains much relevant information. Now, as for the "special status" referred to (by me at least), it arises from several facts:

  1. Svalbard is administered differently from other parts of the Kingdom; it is neither a county nor a municipality of Norway, and is also not part of any mainland county or municipality (unlike Jan Mayen, q.v.). In this respect, Svalbard resembles Hong Kong and Macau, whose administrative status is also unique. (The Finnish administrative reorganization of 1997 effectively elevated the new provinces to a status equal to that already enjoyed by Åland).
  2. The situation of foreigners there also differs from those in metropolitan Norway. Citizens of a large number of states may freely enter and take up permanent residence in the archipelago at their own leisure. In metropolitan Norway (Fastlands-Norge), this applies only to citizens of states signatory to the Schengen Agreement (since 1996; and from 1954 to its Nordic predecessor). In this respect, the Svalbard Treaty is somewhat similar to the Antarctic Treaty. The demilitarization stipulated in the Treaty bears resemblence with the Treaty of Åland. The various nationalities residing within the jurisdiction of the Longyearbyen Local Government (≈city council of Longyearbyen) constitute a demographic minority, whereas in the archipelago as a whole, foreign nationals formed the majority until a few years ago.
  3. The .sj country code top-level domain is another factor that sets the islands apart (cf. .ax, .hk and .mo).

Other, fairly credible sources seem to agree that this categorization is apt. And, while the Factbook may not be entirely accurate/neutral, the comparison with Åland, Hong Kong and Macau (and possibly also Sinŭiju, Guantánamo Bay and Akrotiri and Dhekelia) is called for, as is the descriptor "special territory". That category is intended to help the reader understand, and should not be censored with no justification given other than "nonsense". Instead, please explain why you feel that something is nonsense. //Big Adamsky 15:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Add the category then. Tskoge 15:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The CIA factbook is obviously wrong on this issue, neither Svalbard nor Jan Mayan are dependent areas. --Cybbe 18:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You have yet to show that Svalbard is an entity. There is no way that worldstatesmen.org is going to be added, Wikipedia is not a link repository, and the external links section is more than full. Worldstatesmen.org can also not be added since it is completely unreliable, it contains factually inaccurate material (just like the CIA World Factbook). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tskoge (talk • contribs).
And you have yet to show that you really genuinely want to be a part of this whole process, Tskoge. I even added a direct link to the wiktionary entry for "entity" further up, to descretely explain to you what the word means, but it appears that you never took the time to click on it or to look it up elsewhere. Instead, you stubbornly maintain the position that the linked-to article is somehow misplaced or irrelevant to the article, while generously allowing the similar category to stay put. My reasoning was that it is clearly relevant in that it puts the islands status and position into perspective, so the reader can appreciate why they are not listed under counties of Norway article, &c. Why not just cooperate with others, consult others, try to convince others and strive to build consensus? Calling other users "sneaky little bastard" and aggressively edit-warring are not really viable strategies in the long run. //Big Adamsky 23:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Have you read (or been able to comprehend) the pages you are referring to? The Wikipedia on "entity" begins with "An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence". Is this a description of Svalbard? Tskoge 10:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Svalbard is unique due to the Svalbard Treaty, this deserves a mention in the article. Orcaborealis 09:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Svalbard

I'm posting this as some people just seem to be making up facts, and then I'm having to run around removing all sorts of false information. (I previously posted this to my talk page.) Tskoge 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In Report No. 9 to the Storting (1999-2000) the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police writes that:

Norway's full and absolute sovereignty over Svalbard under international law also applies to military activity and presence. However, Article 9 of the Svalbard Treaty imposes clear limits on the military activity Norway may engage in on the archipelago.
...
Article 9 does not entail an absolute prohibition against Norwegian military activity on Svalbard. Norwegian naval vessels and coast guard vessels calling at ports, military aircraft landing and the presence of Norwegian military personnel in uniform are not violations of the Treaty. Naval vessels have been calling at Svalbard ever since Norwegian administration was established on the archipelago. Nor is calling up conscripts for military service a violation of the provisions of the Treaty. Norway is not precluded from implementing defence measures in time of war. Moreover, the principle of Norway's full and absolute sovereignty over Svalbard applies to foreign military activity on Svalbard, cf. Article 1.
...

(chapter 4)

An older report, number 40 (1985-86), states that:

Det grunnleggende innhold i artikkel 9 er at Svalbard aldri må utnyttes i krigsøyemed. Denne innebærer imidlertid ikke at Norge er avskåret fra å iverksette forsvarstiltak under krig, slik som skjedde under annen verdenskrig.
Utover dette fastsetter traktaten konkret forbud mot anlegg av flåtebaser og befestninger. Noe generelt forbud mot enhver militær virksomhet foreligger ikke. Det er derfor i fullt samsvar med traktaten når norske marinefartøy og norske militærfly anløper Svalbard. Slike anløp har vært foretatt siden norsk administrasjon ble etablert på øygruppen. Norge har siden siste krig ikke hatt noen fast militær styrke på Svalbard.
Utenlandske militære enheter kan ikke uten særskilt tillatelse komme til Svalbard. Dette følger av alminnelige folkerettsregler og er ikke særskilt omtalt i Svalbard-traktaten.

(p. 10)

And an even older report, number 39 (1974-75), states that "Bestemmelsen [art. 9] er ellers bare til hinder for at opprettes faste flåtebaser eller befestninger. Under krigen var det en norsk garnison på Svalbard, uten at dette var i strid med traktatens forutsetninger. Garnisonen hadde som oppgave å forhindre at andre stater handlet i strid med forbudet mot at Svalbard nyttes i krigsøyemed. Etter krigen har norske krigsfartøyer og militærfly besøkt Svalbard, men det har ikke vært stasjonert noen fast militær styrke der."

Geir Ulfstein writes in The Svalbard Treaty: From Terra Nullius to Norwegian Soverignty (Scandinavian University Press [Universitetsforlaget], 1995):

... the question whether Svalbard is demilitarized.
Demilitarization has been defined as "the agreement of two or more States not to fortify, or station troops upon a particular zone of territory." ...
Svalbard is obviously demilitarized in the sense that the establishment of naval bases and fortifications is prohibited. But does the prohibition against using Svalbard for warlike purposes mean a complete demilitarization? (p. 374)

(pp. 375-78: he discusses the different wording in the French and English text)

page 376:

... there is all the more reason to apply a restrictive interpretation, i.e. that only war activities are prohibited.

page 377:

Other demilitarization treaties, entered into before and after the Svalbard Treaty contain a rather explicit wording when prohibiting military activities and installations. ... The wording of these treaties indicated that a more explicit wording should be required if art. 9 of the Svalbard Treaty were to prohibit military activities short of war and other military installations than fortifications and naval bases. ...

page 378:

As regards subsequent state practice, it has been stated above that the USSR claimed that the prohibition against using Svalbard for warlike purposes precludes all military activities, and that the USA has held that Svalbard is demilitarized. On the other hand, the Norwegian translation of art. 9 conforms with the French text in prohibiting the use of Svalbard for war purposes, as opposed to warlike purposes ["krigsøyemed]. Furthermore, Norway has never in response to the Soviet notes accepted that all military activities are precluded on Svalbard. ...
...
On the basis of a harmonisation of the precise French text and the ambiguous English text, the context, and the restrictive principle, it is thus concluded that the prohibition against using Svalbard for warlike purposes does not preclude military purposes short of war.

On p. 388 he states that "Svalbard is only partly demilitarized.", but also that Norwegian use of Svalbard has been ather limited. Perhaps a bit like art. 8: It prohibits Norway from profiting from taxation on Svalbard. However, "The Svalbard budget was balanced until the beginning of 1971, but since then a steady deficit has developed, which has been covered by the Norwegian government." (Ulfstein p. 297.) So in fact Svalbard causes Norway to lose money. Tskoge 14:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Employment on the archipelago

I brought this up in the Greenland discussion as well, but here goes... I am currently looking for a job in the far North, if possible even the arctic or sub-arctic regions. I am a native Belgian and currently work and live in Ireland, though after two years in ireland I feel like a bigger challenge and aiming for my big dream. I am trying to find information on employment in the far north, however unlike Iceland and Norway -who both have a public employment network and job listings- I found very little information on Svalbard and Greenland. Does anyone know off the situation there? As there are several institutions (such as scientific research, local university, ...) and growing tourism, I would guess that foreign people should have opportunities in going to Svalbard. Does anyone have some more detailed information? If you prefer email: gerrit.df @gmail.com (without the space) Nocturnal Me 22:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

http://forum.svalbard.com/index.php - this forum appears to have many non-norwegian people interested in living on Svalbard. Perhaps they can help you if you post there. Joffeloff 18:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Linked on SA

It may interest some of you that Svalbard is currently linked on Something Awful's front page (see here for further reference.)

--WorldsTallestMidget 21:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of archipelago

I was surprised to see this article under Svalbard, which I had never heard of before reading it. There is a strong case for saying that the English name of the archipelago is Spitzbergen which is much more familiar to me. Has anyone got any info on the relative popularity of the two names in English? Spitzbergen certainly ought to be in the lead as an alternative name, as it is still commonly used in English - see the BBC website for example.--Stonemad GB 10:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

See what on the BBC website? Perhaps if you were looking for "the" Spitsbergen archipelago, you should go to the Spitsbergen article.
The Svalbard archipelago consists of more islands than were generally thought of as belonging to the Spitsbergen archipelago, such as Bear Island, Hopen and Kong Karls Land, which I would think is the reason for calling all of the islands Svalbard and not Spitsbergen. Look at the map at the Bear Island page, Bear Island is rather far south of Spitsbergen. Look at the red on the map at the Spitsbergen page. The article on Spitsbergen also states that "Formerly, this name was also applied to the entire archipelago of Svalbard, and occasionally still is." Norway at least has used "Svalbard" for all of the islands covered by the treaty since 1925, when Svalbard was included as a part of Norway by an act of law (and not a dependency, which was proposed a few years before).
I've looked at a few English-language maps, and they all use Svalbard about the islands as a whole (and Spitsbergen about the largest island).
I don't think there is a specific island called Svalbard. The "Place Names of Svalbard" database states that Svalbard is a "group name":

"Group name of all the islands in the Arctic Ocean which were placed under the sovereignty of Norway by the Treaty of Paris of February 9, 1920."[8]

And on Spitsbergen:

"The largest of an Arctic group of islands ... Before 1925 the name Spitsbergen applied both to the largest island as well as to the archipelago. 1925-1969 the largest island was called Vestspitsbergen (West Spitsbergen) in order to distinguish it. The Spitsbergen part of Svalbard comprised the following islands: Vestspitsbergen, Nordaustlandet, Edgeøya, Barentsøya, Prins Karls Forland. Kvitøya, Kong Karls Land, Hopen and Bjørnøya did not then belong to Spitsbergen proper. Spitsbergen and these islands formed the Svalbard (q.v.) group of islands with a total area of 61 020 km². After 1969 the potential for confusion was reduced by using the name Spitsbergen only for the largest island."[9]

(It doesn't explain what happened in 1969.)
BTW, the article claims that Svalbard lies between "76° to 81° North, and 10° to 32° East". But the Svalbard treaty states that Norway has "the full and absolute sovereignty" of "all the islands situated between 10deg. and 35deg. longitude East of Greenwich and between 74deg. and 81deg. latitude North"[10]. When did Svalbard shrink? Dagnabit 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Climate vs. Geography vs. Global Warming Issues

I make a suggestion only, that the average temperature / weather information should be moved or duplicated from the "Geography" section to "Climate". If not, "Climate" should be changed to "Environmental Climate Concerns" or a subject title more in line with the content.

You're right; I'll look at it.--Glen Fergus 09:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Svalbard in relation to templates etc

Svalbard is and has since 1925 been an integral part of Norway. It is no more a dependancy than any other part of Norway. The same applies for Jan Mayen since 1922. Yet they continue to be mentioned in templates regarding countries of Europe. They are most often grouped under Dependencies and territories along with Åland, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man and Northern Cyprus. Even the template used in this article seems to indicate some sort of "country status". Svalbard is a bit special as Norwegian sovreignty was recognised by way of a treaty. To summarise the treaty recognises the Norwegian sovreignty while Norway promises not to discriminate the signatory countries. This does however not diminish it's status as an integral part of Norway. No such treaty applies to Jan Mayen. Immigration legislation could be passed, but as any immigration to the islands is seen as a good thing it hasn't been yet. This page is probably not the best place to bring this up as people involved with making templates most likely don't visit the Svalbard page that often, but I couldn't think of a better place. I suggest we discuss this issue here and propose the removal of Svalbard from such templates. Inge 11:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And the limitations placed by the treaty hardly mean anything compared with the EEA Treaty which has a far bigger impact on Norwegian "sovereignty on Norway", where the provisions on non-discrimination seriously mean something. Also, there must be loads of treaties where countries recognize each other. TexasWalkerRanger 12:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Tag

Since there has been no energy for merging (nothing written for or against for almost a month now) I'd propose removing the merger tag. There is merit to a properly linked history article (and this article does it properly). If anything we should work on improving the history article so that no one even has reason to question the need to merge it... Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/v/a/Talk%7ESvalbard_3edc.html"