Talk:Centre of Norway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norway Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.


[edit] Photo

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Norway may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

For Commons:Category:Geographical centre, it would be nice to have a picture of the Norwegian marker. -- User:Docu

There is a very good picture here ([1]). Perhaps the photographer, who is also the editor of that website, could be contacted about using it on Wikipedia? -- Nidator 14:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed."?

This header refers to the talk page, but there is no discussion here. So, I'm wondering what exactly is disputed... ? -- Nidator T / C 15:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote it in the editsummary, there are several places that claims to be the center of Norway (due to several diffrent way to control this, this article do just show one of the ways (and thous one of the places). Recomended reading Mvh Røed (talk · no) 16:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I still think though that the prime focus of the article should be the point in Ogndalsfjella, as this is the one reached with the method chosen by the Norwegian Mapping and Cadastre Authority ([2]). What if we add a second paragraph about the other places that claim to be the centre of Norway? Do you agree that this is a sensible approach? -- Nidator T / C 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have expanded the article and taken the liberty of removing the dispute tag. Feel free to improve on what I have written. -- Nidator T / C 01:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mission impossible!

First one has to define what is "Norway". According to the Norwegian government Svalbard and Jan Mayen have to be included, which leaves us with a midpoint somewhere in the Norwegian Sea. Should one also include All-Norway (including Queen Maud Land, Bouvet Island and Peter I Island, I would guess the Mid-Point is somewhere around the city of Mongo in Southern Chad ;-) In short: This question is is impossible to solve as Norway is not consisting from one piece of land. Jakro64 15:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is obviously about mainland Norway, not the whole Kingdom of Norway. To be honest I don't think this is very problematic, as the mainland is what I imagine the great majority of people will think of when they see this article, but maybe it could be specified in the article. Bouvet Island, Queen Maud Land and Peter I Island are Norwegian dependencies (biland), and not part of the Kingdom of Norway. -- Nidator T / C 15:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not obviously about mainland Norway as Mr Stavestrand of Norwegian Mapping and Cadastre Authority has claimed the point in Steinkjer as the "geographical centre of Norway" (not of mainland-Norway). How can one estimate a geographical centre of a country consisting from houndreds of islands? One has to count sea as land in order to make an estimate, and how close do you get then? Svalbard and Jan Mayen are parts of the kingdom and Queen Maud Land is also Norway (although not part of the kingdom). After my opinion this Steinkjer point is a pure touristic issue. Jakro64 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean the first sentence quite the way you understood it. I was merely stating a fact. I still think though that a great majority of people will think of mainland Norway when they see the name "Norway", but I will add to the article that Svalbard and Jan Mayen are not included. You are mistaken about the islands off mainland Norway. They are included in the calculation, while the sea area in-between is not weighted.[3] Bouvet Island, Queen Maud Land and Peter I Island are not "also Norway", but rather "underlagt norsk statshøyhet som biland".[4] The Norwegian term "biland" is very intuitive and underlines that we are talking about something separate from, but connected to, Norway. -- Nidator T / C 21:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, first of all we agree that this point is NOT the geographical centre of Norway as stated on the plate. The land of mainland Norway is as I understand all ground and sea areas inside her baseline (because this is counted to Norway's geographical area), but not territorial waters. The counted point of Mr Stavestrand is NOT the geographical centre of mainland Norway inside the baseline, but a balansing point of all dry areas of mainland Norway, wet areas usually counted excluded. I do not agree with your understanding of "biland". Bouvet Island is Norway (Norwegian land) (as it does not belong to any other country). But otherlike with e.g. Jan Mayen Island, Bouvet Island may be handed over to any other state without violating the Constitution of Norway, as it would if the island was part of the kingdom. In short, the Steinkjer centre is just as much the geographical centre of Norway as North Cape is the northernmost point of Europe. Jakro64 07:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a big problem with this article as it stands. It states the criteria used to find the point. If they could be found and properly referenced the alternative points including Svalbard etc. should also be mentioned, but they are in my opinion not neccesery.Inge 13:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I still think that whether or not one considers this to be the geographical centre of Norway comes down to the level of pedantry one wishes to indulge in, but what you have added to the article is obviously correct and has a place there. That is the method chosen by the Norwegian Mapping and Cadastre Authority. I will allow myself to divide it into two sentences, as I think that will be more lucid, and maybe do some slight changes to avoid giving the impression that areas with fresh water bodies have been excluded. I have to admit that I'm struggling to understand your argumentation with regards to the dependencies. How are areas that are not part of the Kingdom of Norway, but dependencies of it, regardless of this "Norway"? I have been looking at different laws and official documents and the usage of the term "Norge"/"Noreg" (Noway) I have found doesn't even include Svalbard and Jan Mayen, let alone the dependencies. In for example "Folketrygdloven" there are separate paragraphs for "Norway" on the one side and Svalbard, Jan Mayen and the dependencies on the other. In several taxation conventions, for example the one with Canada in 2002, the use of the term "Norway" is explicitly stated as excluding; "Svalbard, Jan Mayen and the Norwegian dependencies ("biland")". There are countless other examples. In short, these areas are irrelevant to this article, but, as you have chosen to leave them out of your editing, the point seems to be moot. -- Nidator T / C 23:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)