Talk:Possessions of Norway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey why don't YOU explain your reasons for cluttering the article with excess categorising?

Orkney and Shetland are historically part of the same community(with the Southern Islands and Man) and are the same people, speaking the same language and all that. Learn about Somerled's annexation of the Isles and Argyll, from both Scotland and Norway.

Svalbard is one district, with a couple islands: Spitsbergen and the other one you mentioned are both included. They are not separate. Why do you insist on separating these things, so uselessly?

68.110.9.62 19:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello anon. What you consider to be "useless" "cluttering" is your own personal point of view, do not assume to role of censurship patroller. Please begin your Wikipedia career by adding rather than removing information. //Big Adamsky 20:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The Papar article already says that they are monks. The heading says these are Norwegian colonies, so it is redundant to say the Norwegians settled them. Iceland never had colonies. The Svalbard article already says that Bjørnøya is a subsidiary island of that archipelago. The Earldom of Orkney was never independent, unlike the Kingdom of Man and the Isles. Shetland has never been autonomous in any capacity, from Norway, Scotland or the Earldom of Orkney itself. The Swedes were involved in Norway's colonies, three of them even being ruled by the Swedes. Also, Iceland was first landed and wintered by a Swede. The Kingdom of Man and the Isles included all the lands I have included in my most recent edit. I rewrote it in political and economic terms, rather than purely ethnic context. 68.110.9.62 04:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymnous, while I do appreciate your effort (I really do), you will need to start leaving the contributions of others intact. Your version is by no means authoritative. Please try harder to cooperate and compromise in future and allow for more inclusiveness, especially when editing stubs. Happy editing. //Big Adamsky 11:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said I have a problem with you editing the article. I only have a problem with how sloppy you make it. We're supposed to do neat editing. 68.110.9.62 23:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Is the title misleading? Most of the article is rightfully about Norwegian possessions, with that meaning areas being under direct or indirect Norwegian rule. However, although they were under Norse rule at the time, the kingdoms of York and Dublin, as well as the mainland parts of Scotland were never a part of Norway. I would consider rephrase the article to "Possessions under Norse and Norwegian rule" --Eivindghoel 13:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I too was a bit conserned with the article title. But does something have to be a part of Norway to be a possession? I have for some time been annoyed with the use of Norse as a synonym for Norwegian in wikipedia articles. Norse is a common name for all things Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic (and so forth) of this period. If we know that it was Norwegian affiliated and not Swedish or Danish we should use Norwegian. Inge 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The title "Possessions of Norway" states being under the same rule as Norway proper, and the said British mainland territories were definately not. Whether they should be stated being under Norse or Norwegian rule, is questionable. The term Norse, is as Inge states, not necessarily limited to Norwegian and Icelandic - notably at Wikipedia. However, it seems that the term more often is understood as Norwegian or Icelandic (ref: Webster, Encyclopedia Britannica), so possibly the use at Wikipedia is somewhat incorrect. On the otherhand, the term Old-Norse is undoubtedly covering the peoples of all of Scandinavia. Furthermore, it should be noted that the first settlements of Norsemen in these areas took in fact place before the state of Norway was established and could per se not be called Norwegian. --Eivindghoel 14:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Norwegian possessions is a better title as it to a lesser degree implies they were all ruled by the "state" of Norway. I also thought that Norse was more connected with Norwegian/Icelandic when it came to the peoples, but my experience with the Norwegian/Norse problem in general here has led me to conclude that it would be best to keep those terms "separate" ie not use them interchangeably. I also think that because the term Norway seems to have been used earlier than the consolidation of the kingdom it won't be wrong to use the term Norwegian before that time as well. In any case that seems to be the practice when dealing with other peoples. That being said I think it would be prudent to give some more explanation to the individual points on the list as Eivind has done with Iceland, Greenland and Faeroe. The mainland Scotland, Dublin and Jorvik points are quite complicated. This was a problem before as seen in the above topic, but it seem the anon user objecting to changes was a sock of a blocked user. Inge 15:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to use the term "Norse" in this article, but feel it is too general, you could perhaps use "West Norse" instead. I think the title can be used as it is though. Just specify where needed. Nidator 17:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)