Talk:Norway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Norway      (Rated B-Class) 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. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. WikiProject on Countries (Rated B-Class) This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Norway, or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on its quality.
This article has an assessment summary page.

Norway is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

[edit] Names for Norway in Various Languages

I've tried to edit this section, combining what seem to be several people's contributions.

I assume the longer forms (eg Norjan kuningaskunta) mean 'Kingdom of Norway', but I can't find anywhere to link to as a reference for this. Can anyone help? --Apeloverage (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Metal

I think something needs to be added about the norwegian black metal scene, you know some general info. It should be added to the culture section along with what sort of music Norway has (traditional folk, pop, metal etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.154.109 (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Image

I think this article needs a picture that describes how Norway is a modern conutry, just something that will show that Norway is a country of contrasts. A picture that will stick out from the rural landscape-pictures already in the article. Right now there's loads of pictures of rural Norway, I think i needs a image that shows preferrably Oslo, maybe Oslo downtown showing Oslo Plaza and Byporten. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what can be posted here concerning copyrights etc. 88.88.178.118 (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We can post a picture of the beggars and drug users in Oslo perhaps. --85.166.51.224 (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early history

There seems to be a clear POV in the history section when people refer to the people who tried to settle in L'Anse aux Meadows as Norwegians. The truth is we no nothing about where these people were from except that they were Norse (which is not the same as Norwegian). The same goes for the claims about Norwegians establishing Irish cities, we have no idea where the vikings who established these cities were from. There is no evidence to support the claim that Canada was Vinland and this is matter of great debate. It would be better to simply call it Vinland and refer to that article for further information. I would also say that the article puts to much emphasis on people being Norwegians. Icelanders would call a lot of these people Icelandic. (they lived in Iceland and are the forefathers of modern Icelanders). The NPOV term would be Norse. Also I would also say that the article seems to imply that most or all of the settlers of Iceland, Faroe Islands, Greenland and Vinland were from Norway which is not true at all. Also to say that "the Viking age (8th to 11th centuries) was one of unification and expansion" implies that the Iceland and Greenland were somehow became a part of Norway during that time. This is not true and in fact one the reasons given for people to emigrate to Iceland was to get away from the Norwegian king. They were not trying to expand Norway and Iceland didn't come under the Norwegian crown untill the thirteenth century.--Óli Gneisti (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Flower

Does this really need to be a separate section? --24.9.123.130 01:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I'll see if I can move that to some other section or article about Norwegian culture.--Húsönd 01:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Languages

"The official national language is Norwegian bokmål and nynorsk. Additionally Sami is a co-official language in six municipalities and Finnish in one other."

What is the municipality that has Finnish as official language? I was not able to find one by browsing articles here. Does it mean the variant of Finnish, kven language? --Pudeo (Talk) 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The municipality in question is Porsanger. Whether they use a Kven standard or the Finnish standard I do not know, but if I had to guess it would be the former. Nidator 14:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary to list all the third languages (C-språk) being taught in the language section. Maybe only the three third languages most taught should be mentioned here. (German, French and Spanish). Tridungvo 13:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this but know the area of Porsanger well. Road signs etc. are often in Norwegian, Sami and Kven. The Kven language is an old version of Finnish, and the Kven people live all over the north of Norway, Sweden and Finnland. In some schools in Porsanger, kids lear the Kven language as well as Norwegian and English. In 2005 the Kven language received status as a legal minority language in Norway (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kven_language for more information), the first book in Kven was published recently, and a Kven resource centre has been established in Borselv (Porsanger). Kven speakers can to a certain degree understand both modern Finnish and Estonian. -Liz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.236.246 (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sami isn't one language, the sami languages spoken in Norway is South Sami , Lule Sami and North Sami. its worth mentioning that also Skolt Sami was spoken in Norway until the 20th century.

Kven language should defenately be listed as it is an official minority language in Norway, only municipality using it at the moment is Porsanger. Kven was recognised as a national minority language in 2005 and the Kven Language board is working on a standarised Kven written language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.1.174 (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Area?

Why is Svalbard and Jan Mayen not included in the area in the infobox? This is an article about the Kingdom of Norway and Svalbard and Jan Mayen is part of the Kingdom of Norway. Even the UN includes them. The number for the mainland that is used is wrong in any case and looks like the number that excludes lakes. The total area is somewhat larger. Here are the correct numbers from Statistics Norway (in Norwegian): [[1]]. I will change the number and anyone who disagree can explain why here. (Nidator 09:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

I agree. This is also the number used in List of countries and outlying territories by total area ranking Norway 61st. Inge 10:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Good! I have used the UN number. The number from Statistics Norway is actually a little larger as Norway has grown. No doubt the UN will get the new number with time and I thought it would make sense to wait for that so the two pages stay in sync. Nidator 11:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. A sub-point: I feel like I've missed something critical here. I know the economic zone grew a bit last year. When, how and where did the land area of Norway grow? Inge 16:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw it in this article: [[2]] Nidator 18:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The same article, as evident for those who read Norwegian, defines the lower number as the area of Norway. Svalbard and Jan Mayen are not part of Norway in quite the same way as the rest of Norway is (see details of the Svalbard-treaty etc. in the article on Svalbard. Therefore, they are usually not included in the area of Norway in Norwegian reference works.--Barend 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That does however look to be a rather informal use of just the name Norway ("Norge"). The article from Statistics Norway ([3]) correctly includes Svalbard and Jan Mayen in the number for the Kingdom of Norway ("Kongeriket Noreg") and this is an article about the Kingdom of Norway. The Svalbard Treaty does contain certain stipulations with regards to the area, but beyond that the it recognises the "...full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over the Archipelago of Spitsbergen..." and Svalbard forms part of the Kingdom of Norway. Jan Mayen is not subject to the Svalbard Treaty and also forms part of the Kingdom of Norway. With regards to reference works I would also like to point you attention to the UN Demographic Yearbook ([4]) which includes Svalbard and Jan Mayen in addition to listing them separately. Nidator 10:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Most people in casual conversation uses the name Norway for Mainland Norway and Svalbard for Svalbard. But when it comes to what is and isn't Norway I think we should base that on more certain things. The number including Svalbard and Jan Mayen is the correct one for the Kingdom of Norway. It seems the small increase I was asking about is due to a new and updated measuring.Inge 11:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters which numbers are used. The main point is that a footnote specifies whether or not it includes Svalbard and Jan Mayen. This seems to be the approach in every atlas I have seen.CBadSurf 15:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why Norway is veery slowly growing in the total land area?

Maybe becauce sections of the costal areas still rise from the ocean at an average of 1-4mm a year, and will continue to do so in the next 6.10.000 years due to the released down-pressure from the weight of the ice during the last ice age? ES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.74.97 (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics

There have been numerous edits of the demographics section lately. These edits have shortened the section, but the English constructs have not been entirely clear. I have reworked it in what I consider clearer English. This is longer than the previous edit, but more accurate English. For example, I changed

Baptism, marriage and burial are rites where the state church have strong traditions, and many are members only to use these ceremonies. Moreover, many have found themselves being counted in the members registry even after manually withdrawing their membership.

back to

The Christian rites of passage such as baptism, marriage and burial have a strong traditional standing in Norway, and many people are members to be able to use these ceremonies in spite of not being regular churchgoers or believing in the teachings of the church. It is possible to withdraw from the Church of Norway, however, a number of Norwegians have found themselves still being counted as members even after officially disassociating with the church.

The second is longer, but much clearer. Especially the fragment "...and many are members only to use these ceremonies" has to be read several times to get its intended meaning. "are members" could possibly be changed to "remain in the Church" and give clearing meaning.

The sentence "Moreover, many have found themselves being counted in the members registry even after manually withdrawing their membership." is also problematic. Most readers will not be aware that there is a "members registry" and thus not understand the context. Also, you cannot "manually withdraw your membership." You can cancel membership, but that would not be the normal construct in this case. It would be either to "disassociate" or to "leave."

Any comments? CBadSurf 08:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity of most your edits. The previous version was shorter and therefore faster to grasp the meaning from. Can you explain why you think the sentence with Baptism, etc. is clearer now? If "...and many are members only to use these ceremonies" are the only passage you have trouble with, you should instead rewrite that exact passage, and not change everything back to previous version.

Regarding the membership sentence, you changed it into a monster. I guess you have a point, but your version should be rewritten. I'll look at it later.

And finally, I wonder what was the point of reinserting the word "Norwegian"/"Norwegians" everywhere, when its obvious from the context that we are talking about norwegians? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.203.78.199 (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

There are many ways this could be written, but my point was I changed it because the English didn't flow well. This was the reason that Norway and Norwegian were added. It sounded like it was written by a non-native speaker. And this is fine, but we have to be open to constructive criticism and updates. In terms of it being faster to grasp the meaning just because it is shorter, I don't agree with you. I found it very difficult to understand as it was written. CBadSurf 18:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the section. What do you think of this? CBadSurf 18:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Norway also has a small Finnish community originally from Finland, like the Sami the Finns speak a native Finno-Ugric language in addition to Norwegian, but Finland is culturally a Scandinavian country like Norway, which in the northern part of Norway are called Kven." What relevant information is given by the bold sentence? Is it to distinguish the cultural ties between Norwegians and Finns from the relations to the Sami people? The latter have in fact a much older history. Suggest to remove this part!--Eivindghoel 12:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In the religion section, this sentence has an issue with inconsistent parentheses: "Other religions comprise less than 1% each, including Judaism (see Jews in Norway), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Jehovah's Witnesses)." 66.227.157.119 10:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks.Labongo 13:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The map in the infobox makes Norway look enormous even though it's actually smaller than e.g. France. I realize this is a problem with the projection, but doesn't anyone have a map with more reasonable proportions? 130.64.224.93 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the map does definitely seem to distort Norway's size in relation to other European countries, it appears almost magnified in every direction. The resolution is about right I think, it's just that not so much of Europe should also be visible. Canderra 06:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asatru

Asatru is legally defined as a religious movement in Norway, I had edited the page stating this, but was quickly reverted back to it's previous form. Will someone who actually knows how to use Wikipedia please insert? One of the sources I have is Asatru, and a quick Google search will give you many pages about it. Unconscious 11:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian gold during WWII

What did Norway do with their gold during WWII? As a child, I read a book that was probably at least partly a work of fiction which had the Norwegians smuggling their gold to the US. How much truth was there to that? Could it be added to the WWII part of the history section? Will (Talk - contribs) 06:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Norwegian government was able to take the gold from the national bank with it, as it fled out of Oslo in 1940. It was shipped to the U.K. During the preceding months, the gold from the national bank of Denmark, had been secretly transferred to Norway, where it was shipped to the United States with help from the bank's Norwegian colleagues. The Norwegian gold was later transported from the U.K. to the United States as well. {Source: Lidegaard, Bo: Dansk Udenrigspolitisk Historie, vol. IV, 356-7). Both countries had empty vaults when the German troops arrived to inspect them. As I heard the story years ago, the Norwegian crown jewels were forgot during the evacuation but they were never seized by the Germans and survived the war. An evacuation of the Danish regalia were never attempted and they too survived the war. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[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.

I hope someone can answer this. --Tannkremen 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "All for Norway" is used on www.kongehuset.no but - sorry to say it - the English version of the King's official bio is so poorly translated that I'm not sure if the English translation of the motto has any recognized standing. It might simply be an error in translation. Valentinian ^{T / C} 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope someone whose mother tongue is English will comment on this. Personally, I think "All for Norway" sounds like the best translation. "Alt for Norge" is, as I read it, a shortened version of the statement, "Jeg vil gi alt for Norge", which I think translates best as "I will give all for Norway". But my mother tongue is Norwegian. Any native English speakers out there with an opinion?--Barend 19:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker of English and I think "All for Norway" sounds just fine and has a nicer ring than 'everything', it's also the most common version you will find on the vast majority of websites and also on memorials that have both Norwegian and English on them. Additionally, if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_mottos_of_Norwegian_monarchs you will also finded it listed as "All for Norway"

Therefore I believe "All for Norway" is the official translation, it's also shown as "All for Norway" on other wikipedia sites as well, thus it is silly to have it translated as "Everything for Norway" on just this one entry.

Though "All for Norway" sounds closer to "Alt for Norge" and is the official translation (is it really?), it is a poor translation. It sounds closer, but does not convey the meaning "alt" conveys. "All" in English generally conveys a meaning in terms of completeness in quantity (Are you all going to the cinema?), where in Norwegian "alt" conveys a meaning of completeness in quality and effort (I would give everything for you). This is best translated "everything." CBadSurf 15:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"All for Norway" is a better line. But it is a terrible translation, and CbadSurf explains very well why. "All for Norway" makes me think "everyone for Norway", while "alt for Norge" really means "everything for Norway". Literally. If there really is an official translation, then so be it. If not, this little piece of information is actually false, and should be corrected. Which sentence has the nicest ring, is irrelevant. --Tannkremen 17:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree! As a native speaker of English, "All for Norway" is far better than "Everything for Norway". A commen phrase in English is "all or nothing", not "everything or nothing" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.110.197 (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Native speakers seem to prefer "All for Norway" and the official version is "All for Norway". I will change it to "All for Norway" - again. If there is very much disagreement, please do the discussion here before reverting.--Barend 16:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, "All for Norway" is better. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 16:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Im a native speaker of English and I feel the "everything for Norway" better conveys the meaning, and asthetically sounds just as nice to me...Odin1 05:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to raise the question in regards to the Motto itself, Alt For Norge (all for Norway). It is the Royal motto and not the national motto. If you look on the Norwegian wiki page they use, Evig og Tro til Dovrefjell faller, I belive we need to have a rulling on the use of the royal motto, being used as the national motto, granted the last three monarchs have used it but it still is not in my opinion considered the national motto, infact if you think about it its more a promise from the monarchs to the Norwegian people that they would and will do everything in their power for Norway. On the other side of the discussion is the royal motto of the UK, Dieu et mon droit, which also has become their national motto. As we stand now the English page is at odds with the Norwegian page and this at least needs to be fixed. I would very much like to hear suggestions and oppinions form others on this subject. 0331marine

[edit] Oil exports

Citation from the article: " Only OPEC members Saudi Arabia and Russia ..."

This is factually incorrect? as Russia is not an OPEC member. InArm 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the error and reworded it to make it less confusing. If anyone sees need to edit it further be my guest.

Shogyou Mujou 00:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

[edit] "the King's political influence is real"

The Politics section claims the King actually has influence when there is no clear majority in Stortinget. This is very far from the truth for all following Norwegian politics closely. What happens in such occations, is that the leaders of each Party represented at the Stortinget get together for discussions, leading into a suggestion formally handed over by the President of the Stortinget. Since 1905 the proposals have always been accepted by the King, and any other outcome will most likely lead to constitutional crisis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.196.214.14 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

It's an interesting subject: we are getting into politicial research here though, and we are not supposed to. Also, I'm not the man for it. :-) But I'm often surprised by the eagerness poltical books claims the king has _no_ power. He has got a "being there" kind of power, as advisor to the (formal) advisors, and some legal books accepts this. Hence, his influence makes the polticians play nice. Also, if the politicians stopped agreeing about the rules, the power would easely end up with the king. Historically, Haakon the 7ents intervention in 1927 when he gave power to the labour party may have been the king using power in such a situation. OK, this being very possibly OT... Greswik 15:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the king of Norway has the right to appoint the prime minister. Stortinget (the parlament) can only reject the prime minister and his government, and has no right to appoint them. Formally, the king decides who will be prime minister, when the former prime minister resigns or is thrown down by Stortinget. The king also has a veto right, which Haakon VII used once, during WWII. So the king has his formal power, whether he finds it necessary to use it or not. I agree with Greswik. --Tannkremen 16:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This eagerness is because, really, monarchy is an anachronism on a ton of levels in modern Norway. Most Norwegians still accept it precisely *because* the king has no significant real influence. The moment the king actually tried to significantly influence decisions made by the elected part of the government, the result would very likely not be a changed policy, but instead a changed constitution inwhich there's no longer room for a king. It's one of theses "it's really wrong to have a king, but we don't care aslong as he doesn't actually try to *do* anything". --Eivind Kjørstad 09:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The King didn't use a veto during WWII? krikkert (Talk) 11:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The King made it clear he could not sanction any German demands. He stated he would abdicate if the Nygaardsvold government wanted to give in to the Germans. It is not known what stance the government would have taken had the King not made this clear. No veto was made by the King as the government never proposed to give in.

Thank you for making my point, User:Inge. :-) krikkert (Talk) 12:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very funny...

OK, some smeghead has erased the entire article and replaced it with the single word "poop". I'll see if I can revert it or something (I'm kinda new at this). And if this jerk's identity is ever revealed, please ban him/her. Omega Man 23:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

-- and I see that this idiot has done the same to other articles. Think you're anonymous ? Your IP address is listed in the page history, idiot!

If he didnt site refrences, I would agree with the revert. As for the ban, I think, to mantain a NPOV, you need to get their side of the story first. Crakker (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peacekeeping

Ought include information regarding Norway's infolvement in peake brokering and peacekeeping missions. There already exist articles concerning the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission...a Norwegian project. The Norwegians have also been involved in the Middle East, Guatemala, Colombia, Ethiopia, etc. --King ravana 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag (History section)

Explanation is here: Talk:History_of_Norway#NPOV tag. The discussion should probably continue there.Labongo 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Norway has officially recognised Sami people as the indigenious people (read the Sami article). Also, it sounds ridiculous to speculate people from Northern Germany would have come 12,000 years ago, when it was still Ice Age in Norway. --Pudeo⺮ 15:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the Sami are indigenous in the legal (ILO-169) definition in the word, not indigenous as in the first settlers. Thanks for pointing out the "Northern Germany" problem. I did a quick cleanup, but a lot more needs to be written about the cultures that were in Norway before the Sami and Norwegian (Komsa etc).Labongo 12:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

no:Steinalderen i Norge seems to be a good article about the stone age in Norway. Perhaps someone could translate that article?Labongo 15:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The religion section has the same problem, so it has also been tagged.Labongo 07:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavians are of Finnish oragin and are thus not 'North Germans'.--86.25.55.29 18:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, that's rubbish! Scandinavians are NOT of Finnish origin, in fact Finns are NOT Scandinavians but Nordic.

[edit] name of the country, and official languages

The article now reads Norway, officially the Kingdom of Norway (Norwegian: Kongeriket Norge (bokmål), Kongeriket Noreg (nynorsk); Northern Sami: Norga; Lule Sami: Vuodna; Southern Sami: Nøørje),

This is very messy, and gives the impression the Sami-languages has the same status as Bokmål and Nynorsk. I grant you, as a footnote says: Northern Sami is used in the municipal administration of seven municipalities, and Finnish/Kven in one.

a) I don't see why the editors add Lule Sami or Southern Sami based on this: they are not even mentioned. Anyhow, and

b): there are no more than two official languages in Norway. You will not find Norga on the passports anytime soon. They will go on with the text "Norge Noreg". In other words, this should be reverted, but as the editors allready are editwarring over the use of the character "ø" or "õ", I feel it's time for a little talkpage action. Greswik 17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that Lule and Southern Sami were spoken in Norway long before it become a country. But as you correctly point out neither of the languages are mentioned at all in the Norway articles. This is not something we should be very proud of.

It is therefore very sad, and not very productive, to start removing content added by someone who obviously belongs to the very few (less than 1000 people) who actually understands one of the languages. Instead I think the community should encourage everyone with an interest and even a small knowledge to contribute about these languages and cultures, and the other small monitories in Norway (such as the Kvens or Skolt Sami). Even if adding the content makes the articles look “ugly”, and regardless of what the official policy of Norway with regards to the value of these languages has been, is currently, and is speculated to be.

Btw. There is no revert war, I simply made a mistake reverting something which turned out to be correct. Also Lule Sami is “official” in Tysfjord municipality, and Souther Sami will become “official” in Snaasa in 2008.Labongo 10:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding the Sami and Kven of the official names also, made the intro too long, so I moved these to the new "Name" section. This section should also include the content in the "Landets Navn" section in no:Norge. I hope someone have the time to translate this section.Labongo 09:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The wealthiest country

Anonymous users keeps removing "and is now the wealthiest country in the world [citation needed]" from the introduction. I can understand why someone could consider this to be un-encylopedic. But I keep reverting these edits since they don't comment the edit, and it could hence be vandalism. So the question is how much of the "Norway is on top of various lists" information should we keep? Is this just bragging or has it some factual value? The History of Norway has the same problem, but there the information seems even more out of place. Labongo 07:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Most would consider the country with the highest GDP per capita to be the wealthiest country. According to List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita that is Luxembourg with Norway second. When using GDP PPP Norway is third according to IMF and fourth according to CIA. GDP/capita isn't the only way and might not be the best way to measure wealth or level of economic development. One could for instance also consider the balance of national debt to be a measure of national wealth. Here Norway is sixth. By these measures alone Norway is not the wealthiest country in the world. However it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world which is worth noting in the article. The fact that Norway is first on the Human Development Index and has been so the past six years is notable and should also be included. Inge 11:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've removed it once, and I'll do it again. As Inge states, Norway is not on top on any of these statistics, so how can you say it's the wealthiest country in the world? It just isn't true.--Barend 15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For the time being, until research allows, I couldnt see any objection to "amongst the wealthiest countries in the world", n'est-ce pas?  Exemplar Sententia. 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is quite safe to say Norway is amongst the wealthiest coutries in the world. :)Inge 10:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved.--Barend 14:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

removed 'to live' one thing is that norway and iceland are the wealthiest or whatever in any economic data book, but life and money is not the same. It is subjective, materialistic zeitgeist to equal both. I truly doubt that in any poll made to the humankind 'iceland' is chosen the '#1' place to live, how many immigrants you have guys? (-: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.106.180 (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 50000 Islands

I changed 'thousands of islands' into 50000 witch is the official number according to the government http://www.nav.no/page?id=1015 Nastykermit —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This article don't excist? Greswik (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It went away for some reason. Anyhow heres another source http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106219/Norway Nastykermit (talk)

[edit] "History section"

Its written :

"However, it must be said that the common people of Norway had more freedom and paid lower taxes than the Danish people because it was difficult for royal bureaucracy to have strict control over its distant Norwegian provinces"

It must be said? What sources sy they had it any better than in Denmark? Norwegians had to finance Danish wars all the time, as well as the construction of palaces in Copenhagen. the common people of Norway was also hit by starvation due to English blockades thanks to danish agression. The claim that Norwegians had it better is in my opinion blatanly false.Nastykermit

Well, than you are in disagreement with the Norwegian historians who write about this period. Norwegians paid less tax than Danes. Norwegian farmers owned their own land to a much greater extent than the Danes. Calling the Napoleonic wars "Danish aggression" is just strange.

But don't take my word for it. Ståle Dyrvik (Grunntrekk i norsk historie, (Oslo, 1991), p. 164): "I tidsrommet 1676-99 stod Noreg for 21 prosent av statens samla inntekter, Danmark (kongeriket) for 54 prosent. Resten kom frå hertugdøma og dei andre riksdelane. (...) årsgjennomsnittet for perioden 1676-99 (vert) under ein riksdalar pr. person i Noreg og over to riksdalar i Danmark. (...)Indisia peikar såleis i retning av at staten drog mindre inntekter av sine norske enn sine danske undersåttar."

Translated: "In the time from 1676-99, Norway provided 21 % of the total income of the state, Denmark (the kingdom) 54 %. The rest came from the duchies and the other parts of the realm. (...) The annual average for the time 1676-99 is less than 1 riksdaler in Norway and more over 2 riksdaler in Denmark (...) The indications are that the state had less income from its Norwegian than from its Danish subjects." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barend (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that Norway was more sparsely populated compared to Denmark, so from a financial POV, Denmark and the duchies were far more important to the administration in Copenhagen. The centre of gravity in the late Oldenburg state was the connection between Copenhagen and Holstein. And when it comes to the allegation that Denmark ignored Norway, the same allegation could be said from Jutland, Funen, Bornholm, Lolland etc since Copenhagen ignored most parts of Denmark as well. The division wasn't between Dane, Norwegian, and Holsteiner but between Copenhagen and all other parts of the monarchy. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is pretty silly reasoning. First of all Barend when I talk about Danish agression I mean that Denmark wanted to be a super power like Sweden and comitted attacks/offenses and Norway had to provide with its share of manpower. To say that Norweay contributed less than 'x' is just silly as Norwegians were FORCED to fight in wars they had no interest in. DO I really have to explain to you all the grief Norwegians had because of Copenhagen politics? and to use the logic 'better of then..' is like arguing that the French were better of than the Germans in Nazi occupied FranceNastykermit —Preceding comment was added at 13:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

1) And what proof do you have that the people of Jutland or Funen had any more interest in wars with Sweden than the average Norwegian had? None. 2) The army was primarily drafted in Denmark and the duchies, not in Norway. That country supplied the navy. You obviously wish to present Denmark and Danes as the abusers of Norway. In that case, better begin citing respectable sources to back up that portrayal of history. Otherwise, such statements will be merely WP:OR and chauvinist propaganda. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ehh? I'm sorry, as Norway was the supressed part of the union the burden is on you to proove that Norway was not abused. Do you honestly think Ibsen would have named the time of the union as the '400 year night'? No. This is just a classical example of how Danes and Norwegians have different views on the union. I find it hillarious that you talk about chauvinist propaganda. Get off your high horse already. Edit : And do I really have to remind you that anyone that spoke against the dictator king in copenhagen was jailed, tortured and killed? The only ones here with chauvinist propaganda is the Dane trying to make the consequences of the union irrelevant Nastykermit —Preceding comment was added at 15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

If that interpretation of history is so widespread in modern Norwegian historiography then you'll surely have no difficulty in citing some recent publications that prove this? Ibsen's hate towards Denmark is irrelevant. And while you're at it, cite some credible sources to back up your other allegations as well. So far, all I see is some nationalist trolling. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to say that Ibsen hated Denmark. And I don't think there is any point in wasting time on this discussion. As long as Nastykermit can not discuss in a sensible manner, we should ignore him, and edit the article accordingly.--Barend 22:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoah!! Come on "hate", "nationalist trolling", "chauvinism" and ww2. This debate seems to have unconstructive bits from both sides. I think it would be a far strech to demand someone to differentiate the different parts of Denmark in this context. We all know that the union was ruled from Copenhagen and that farmers in Funen had little to do with the administrive apparatus. It is fair enough to just use Denmark as a general term. Even if, in a more detailed account, Copenhagen would of course be more correct. When it comes to the merits of the Union I also believe it is fair to say that Norway in general got the short end of the stick. Most Norwegians have this view and see the Union as a negative part of Norwegian history. Most historic accounts I have read support this view. I have also read the tax statistics and they were discussed further in the book. I'll just say that in the end the picture just isn't as simple as described by using the quote above. However the Union wasn't all bad and very few of the Danish administrators were "evil". When dealing with sensitive topics like this one we should all strive to keep a cool head. This is just an example of Norwegians feeling their blood boil when they feel the wrong doings of the union is underreported and of Danes feeling their blood boil when they feel accused of being opressors. (I would include refs and quotes here, but my home computer i dead at the moment)Inge 09:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should all take this course: HIS2154 :). Some further reading I found on the web: An account of research and historiographic debate on the Union. This rapport also gives a detailed account of the power structures regarding Norway. An aftenposten article on some views on the Union. This article is a Danish web encyclopedia which I want to include as it struck me to be an obvious example of how this history is portrayed slightly different in the two countries. The word "dansketiden" is itself described as "tendentiøs". I also though this part was amusing in a shocking way: "Ifht. sproget er det klart, at dansk blev skriftsprog fra 1500-tallet. Da forstod folk i Norge ikke længere det middelalderlige sprog - i modsætning til på Island. Derfor måtte der under alle omstændigheder være sket en ændring af skriftsproget. Skriftlig dansk var let at anvende for nordmændene, og det påvirkede ikke talesproget i bygderne-ikke engang i sydøst." "Danish became the written language of Norway[...], but Norway would have had to change its written language anyway." Not the way most Norwegians would describe it. Inge 09:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume the POV-check tag was added to the article due to this discussion. But is it reason to believe that there is a POV problem with the entire article, just the history section, or just this "Dannish" statement? If so perhaps a more specific tag should be used.Labongo 10:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the POV-check tag is explained under the heading "NPOV tag" above, and has nothing to do with this discussion - it was added by someone who feels that the Norwegian government is editing this article to remove all negative content about Norway (I'm not kidding). Anyway, thanks to Inge for adding a voice of sanity - now we have something to work with. Incidentally, the bit saying that Norway would have had to change its written language is perfectly reasonable - written Norwegian at the end of the 15th century was probably very archaic, and it is correct that most Norwegians would no longer have understood medieval Old Norse. Saying that written Danish was closer to the spoken Norwegian at the time, however, is totally unreasonable. Danish took over because of the power structures. The average Norwegian would have had to learn it as a foreign language to be able to use it (ref. Dyrvik for this as well).

As for the union being a negative part of Norwegian history - I don't think it's fair to say that this is the historical consensus today. Partly because historians of today tend to shy away from moral judgments about the past more than their predecessors (fortunately). But mostly from a recognition that there were both positive and negative sides to the story. Norwegian farmers paid much less tax than their Danish counterparts. If, hypothetically, there had been a separate Norwegian kingdom, with Norwegian state structures to finance, they would have had to pay a great deal more to finance these structures. They would probably have had to perform more military service, in wars that would inevitably have occurred against Sweden and Denmark. In return, there would probably have been more separate development of Norwegian trade, more development in terms of culture, obviously the preservation of Norwegian language, and a greater urban development of Oslo as the nation's capital. Iceland would have gained independence from us, rather than from Denmark, in 1944. Maybe we wouldn't have lost Bohuslen and Jemtland, or then again, maybe would also have lost Trøndelag and Østfold as well. Maybe we would have been Catholics. All this is hypothetical. That the tax-burden was less in Norway than in Denmark is, however, factual. --Barend 13:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that most Norwegians see the Union as a negative part of Norwegian history. (I don't always articulate myself as well in english so maybe I got lucky on that one ;)) Most historians today tend to give pros and cons and shy away from normative conclutions yes. However it also seems to me that many Norwegian scholars in general today adhere to the self beating strategy. Where you find a way to critique your country, established theories or common beliefs in a spectacular way. This seems to increase sales...and might be a way to create a name for oneself in a field were most of the discoveries have been made. (Im speculating here of course).

As to the language there are plenty of examples of languages that retain archaic written languages (arabic, english for two) and plenty of those that reform archaic languages. That doesn't mean that Norway would have had to adopt a new written language and it has nothing at all to do with the implementation of Danish as you rightly point out. It is in itself a speculation and there is no connection. That is why it shouldn't be there, but I hope this is an example of a bad danish encyclopedia:) In addition the enc. quote states that Danish was easy for Norwegians to learn and thet it didn't effect the language- not even in the south east. Which I leave to others to make their own thoughts about

Like I said I have also read the tax statistics (but I didn't want to comment further as I dont have the book right now) and I believe the picture should be moderated and (if my memory is correct) it was moderated by Dyrvik in that taxes were for the most part sent to Copenhagen. The taxes that were spent on the Norwegian government system (Norway had a full government system minus the top, remember) were most often used as salaries to Danish administrators who most often invested it in Denmark. Large estates were most often owned by Danes who most often invested the revenue in Denmark. My point is that even if less tax was paid Norway benefited far less from what was paid. If I'm not mistaken he also dealt with the corn/iron monopolies which some historians have said favoured Norway, but where Dyrvik disagreed.

As for the military burden it would be interesting to investigate further as I think there is some guestimating going on there. I do know that thousands of Norwegians were conscripted from their farms and sent to partake in the wars on the Danish southern border. Where most of the deaths were not due to bullets. The lands we lost to Sweden were also for the most part not eventually lost on the battlefield, but in peace negotiations were Danish holdings were given the priority.

In addition one could see that two levels of observations are materialising here. To which some arguments fit to a different degree. State level and the level of small farmers. I hope I will have few objections when I say that the Union proved to be a disaster for Norway as a state. It was supposed to be an equal union but came very close to whiping Norway off the map. As for the farmers, life was hard for most of them in those days. I don't know the spesifics here but I speculate that there were more freeholders in Norway than in Denmark? Might the lesser degree of exploitation of Norwegian farmers be explained more accurately through the mecanisms of feudalism in Denmark?Inge 15:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it hillarious that Valentinian of all people accuse me of nationalistic trolling. Please Valentinian, instead of using cheap shots post something constructive. To use taxation as an argument for 'things not being to bad' is plain rubbish. I would encourage you to use some logic for once. You do know what that means right?

Norway was in pretty much a broken state the way Somalia is today and had to provide Denmark with money and manpower for its agression towards Sweden. Somehow you seam to argue that tax>lives witch is absurd. Norwegians didnt want to have anything to do with Copenhagen politics as it ment Swedish generals crossing the border burning down Norwegian cities. But no, you have the nerve to call this observation trolling. If you want to have a reasonable debate then good on you, but if you dont have anything to say besides petty name calling, just log off. So lets just get this straight, you think Norwegians were better off because we payd less tax while being invaded by the greatest Scandinavian power compared to the poor Danes that had to pay so much more tax? Nastykermit —Preceding comment was added at 16:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take five! Just let any person related stuff go. I know its difficult, but just try. I have provided some related info for constructive debate. Plenty of stuff to gnaw at, criticize or work more on. Inge 10:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I apolagize for taking the bait Inge. I will refrain from commenting more on it. The UIO links were most interesting, and I will certainly dig deeper into it when I get the time to visit Deichmanske bibliotek sometime next week. I suggest all the abusive replies by Valentinian are to be deleted as well as my replies to him to keep this page a bit more tidy. Nastykermit 11:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well this is a difficult topic so I think it is natural for tempers to rise on both sides of the Skagerrak. As long as it is kept cool this is an interesting debate. As a former student of history I believe history should be the same no matter where you live, but our basic sources (levn) can be interpreted differently of course. I suppose I knew different traditions of interpretations existed in the two countries, but I wasn't really aware of them untill I read the Danish article I linked to above. It agrees on the bare facts, but presents them in a different way. Inge 11:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If anything, this article should state that both countries have very different perception about the era.Nastykermit 12:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

@Inge: (I'd actually promised myself not to edit this page again, but I guess I'll make one last exception). Thanks for providing your interesting links, but what prompts me to write again is that the article you refer to on leksikon.org[5] does not represent a Danish POV on this era. If you click the link in the page's bottom-left corner, you'll see that the "Dansketiden" article was written by a Gudmund Sandvik. The only Google match I can find for this name is a professor emeritus from the University of Oslo specialising in Norwegian legal history. Both the author's insight in the economics of Norwegian districts and a - very surprising - level of knowledge regarding the differences in status between a Danish birkedommer and his Norwegian counterpart seems to suggest that the author indeed is a Norwegian scholar. In my book Sandvik's article and the insight provided by Barend above both indicate that at least two different schools exists in Norwegian historiography regarding this period, one of them being far closer to the average Danish portrayal of this era, the other being based on the "400-year night" interpretation. It would make sense to include somewhere that Norwegian historiography developed in more than one direction and it would be even better with a chronology of which scholar meant what and when. It might even merit its own article? But thanks for your links again, they were interesting reads.

@Nastykermit. I'm utterly disinterested in whether this page be archived or not. If consensus is for it, then fine by me, but I have no preference either way. What I'm not disinterested in is seing blunt and unsourced attacks on Danes and Denmark.[6] [7] If Denmark / Danes / Danish historians / Danish editors is going to be on trial, then we have the right to know on what grounds and for what we're attacked. In other words: proper sourcing.[8] And let this be my last edit to this page. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Valentinian. I'm sorry if you feel its an attack on Danes and Denmark...its not. I got a cousin that married to a Dane and we are good friends. However, I do have a huge issue when it comes to playing down the negative effects on the union. Norway was a broken state in the same way as Somalia is today with little or no infrastructure. On top of that tax money went to a black hole in Copenhagen, and side-effects of Denmarks war with Sweden hurt Norway a lot. After all, Denmark seeded Norway in order to not have Swedish troops in her main provinces. On top of that, we had to seed Greenland, The faroese island and Iceland to Denmark. English blockades on Norway caused starvation.(see Terje Vigen) The union between our two countries was a disaster for Norway...and Norwegians find it highly offensive when Danes claim otherwise. When it comes to nationalism, my experience on wikipedia is that Danes are quite nationalistic and borderline racist when it comes to Norwegian-Danish history.

And yes, Tordenskjold WAS Norwegian. Nastykermit 17:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Like Valentinian, I had more or less decided to let this lie for a while. But I have to add that Nastykermit's views on this period is not representative of the mainstream view of Norwegian scholars of this period. The "400-year-night"-view is totally outdated in Norwegian historiography. Also, as a Norwegian myself, I do not agree that Nastykermit's views are representative of Norwegian lay-people either. I certainly wouldn't be offended if someone said the union was not a disaster for Norway - I hold that view myself. I don't think that it was a fantastically great thing for Norway, but neither was it a disaster. Nastykermit is free to feel otherwise, but he is wrong to present this as the view of all Norwegians.--Barend 20:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the whole thread, so this is just a reply to a single point in Barend's post. I don't think is quite that simple with regards to Norwegian historiography. Øystein Rian, considered the foremost Norwegian expert on the period, held a very positive view some decades ago ("den norske allmuen burde være Gud takknemlig for at Norge (i dansketida) ikke var en selvstendig stat"), but has recently published the book Kleptokratiet, which is far from positive. There was an interesting article about the book in a recent editon of Dag og Tid.[9] -- Nidator ^{T / C} 16:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the debate on taxation of Norway: "Statsinntektene av Noreg var femdobla til 450.000 riksdalar i dei fire første tiåra av 1600-talet. I 1640-åra vart dei nær dobla ein gong til, til 800.000. Då betalte Noreg, med vel halve folketalet, like mykje skatt som Danmark med doble folketalet. Endå hadde nordmennene dryge særutgifter i tillegg, til hæren og anna. Som Hannibal uttrykkjeleg seier, gjekk dei norske statsinntektene i hovudsak til København." from that article. Inge 13:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the article is called Kleptokratiet, but the book is obviously called For Norge, kjempers fødeland. 12 portrett frå dansketida. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 16:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that link! Very interesting, and it seems I'll have to moderate my views somewhat. The article does state that it is the conventional wisdom of today that the union with Denmark was not a bad thing for the country. But when two historians like Øystein Rian and Kåre Lunden hold the opposite view, than it is clear that there are serious scholars on both sides. I stand corrected.--Barend 01:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Barend. Have you ever though about the fact that we have only had a bit more than 100 years to discuss this? While Denmark had 400 years to dictate our 'opinion' on the matter? Nastykermit 16:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I find your attitude to this baffling. I don't think I've ever encountered the level of national antagonism towards Denmark that you display in any other Norwegian. The rest of the wikipedia-community should be aware that the vast majority of Norwegians and Danes are able to discuss ths subject quite calmly and reasonably. The union ended 193 years ago, and Denmark and Norway have been close friends ever since then.

First of all, no one is saying Norway and Denmark doesnt enjoy good relations. STOP putting words in my mouth. On the otherhand we are talking abotu historical events as they are perceived today. You say you have never encountered anyone with the 'level of national antagonism towards Denmark' witch I find strange. I think you will find that this may vary depending on where you live. In the Arendal area people were FOR the union with Denmark. the fact that you have to mention that Norway and Denmark are close friends show just how little you understand about this argument. No one is saying we dont enjoy good relations. But there is a MAJOR difference in perception of the union years. Nastykermit 06:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV-check tag

It appears that anything critical of Norway is systematically removed, and replaced by exclusively positive advertisement. Is this work done by the Norwegian Government or are independent Norwegians this eager to cover up anything negative?

Examples: Any comment in economic section about state control is removed Comments on government blocking free speech on YouTube using DCMA takedown statement other —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikev (talk • contribs) 10:39, 20 October 2007

That is a pretty serious allegation - care to back it up with diff-links to prove your case here? Also bear in mind that additions to Wikipedia must be verifiable; is it possible that the additions you claim were censored were simply removed because they wasn't properly sourced and/or were original research? WegianWarrior 10:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the POV check will keep the 'sensors' at bay, and allow more points of view. This should only strengthen the quality alltogether Viking2000 06:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see some evidence...any form of 'evidence'. So far all we have a claim by one individual and doesnt qualify for a POV tag. Nastykermit 11:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find clean diffs, but it has not been easy, as the article has been heavily edited otherwise. Will update. Erikev 02:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you should come up with some type of documentation regarding youtube and removal in general, otherwise its just a claim comparable with the moon being made out of cheese. Until you got proof, the POV should be removed. Nastykermit 06:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal and Eidsvoll oaths

I have added the Royal and Eidsvoll oaths in Norwegian Nynorsk. Here is an example of official usage of the former ([10]), and if you are going to include the latter in bokmål you also have to include it in nynorsk as the original was in Danish ("Enige og troe, indtil Dovre falder!"). -- Nidator ^{T / C} 15:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology errors

The etymology section says Many etymologists believe the country's name comes from the North Germanic languages and that it means "the northward route" (the way north), which in Old Norse would be nor veg or *norð vegr. This is wrong. Norway used to be called Norvegr, a compound word made with 'norð' (north) and 'vegr' (way), the 'ð' disappearing (like in English 'Norway' and not 'Northway'). This is similar to modern Icelandic 'Norvegur' (-r turned to -ur at some time) Rkarlsba 16:40, 3 November CET —Preceding comment was added at 15:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Vandalism Requiring a Fix

There's one more minor item that was changed during the recent vandalism outbreak. Under section "Individual human rights", in the first sentence, "per capita" was changed to "per capital" by 61.25.125.194 on 7 November 2007. Larry 16:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have changed this. Greswik 17:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Norways shape

The article now reads "The distance between the northern and southern parts of Norway is considerable compared to east-west distances". I haven't got the numbers here, but this is actually not very accurate! However, the point is of course to make a point aout how "thin" parts of Norway is. Does anyone have a better way of putting this? Greswik 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The article Geography of Norway words it a little better, although in more detail than we'd want here. However, I kind of question whether this comment belongs in the main article at all, especially in the intro? If it stays, however, I'd steal/modify the wording in Geography of Norway: "Norway has a very elongated shape". --barneca (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Demography Point

I am intrigued by the motivation behind placing this sentence where it occurs within the article : "Ekhaugen’s study shows that 50% of the non-western immigrants who settled in Norway in the period from 1966 to 1975 were welfare dependent 25 years later."

I argue that this sentence does not seem to add relevant information concerning the actual demography of Norway and that, perhaps, the individual who wrote this sentence was attempting to bring undue weight to a fact which (even if it is, arguably, true) does seem not to be relevant within the article or demography section.

I suggest that it be removed (unless you can argue why it is as profoundly important as Norway's actual, say, demographic composition).

CountNihilismus (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed. We cannot have quotations from random studies in the article. If the article wants to discuss welfare dependcy of immigrants, and the non-immigrant population, it needs to be done properly (and proabaly in a seperate article).Labongo (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The inclusion of Kosovo

I'm resuming with the inclusion of independent Kosovo in the maps of the countries that have recognised it. Bardhylius (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal icon placement

FYI, you can add a link to Portal:Norway in this article, by placing {{Portal|Norway|Nuvola Norwegian flag.svg}} at the top of the see also section (or the external links section if the article has no see also section). This will display

Norway Portal

Cirt (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From the history section

"After Denmark–Norway was attacked by Great Britain, it entered into an alliance with Napoleon, and in 1814 found itself on the losing side in the Napoleonic Wars, resulting in dire conditions and mass starvation in 1812."

How does something that happened in 1814 cause something that happened in 1812? I don't know anything about the subject, so I don't know what to fix. Djk3 (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comma Splices

This article has more comma splices and sentence fragments than Norway has fjords. rowley (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian per capita personal fortune 200 000 USD

I removed the sentence "Norwegians per capita personal fortune is on average USD 200.000, making Norwegians the wealthiest people in the world." from the economics section because it had no source and because it can't possibly be true. please put it back in again if you can find a source for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.179.115 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the Economy of Norway article, Norway's per capita is $47,800. No country has $200,000. 85.217.48.8 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume it means the accumulated wealth, not the income per year. Don't have any numbers comfirming it though. 83.109.249.120 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appearing as saviours... NPOV?

Surely the bit about "The Germans managed to arrive first, most likely because France and Britain desired it" is not NPOV: the quote given from Reynaud in fact identifies this action as tactical - "One of the aims of the enterprise was to entrap the opponent" - and so nothing to do with anyone wanting to "appear as saviours themselves". This action might look arrogant, but it's the kind of thing that happens in war; and using the word "saviours" is itself a bit "Norway-centric". Nortonius (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok no-one's responded so I'm going to try a NPOV edit now. Please only change it again if you feel that some information has truly been lost, or if you think that there is truly something to add. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Done a NPOV edit, plus a minor tidy - more of that to be done! Nortonius (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Svalbard missing on the map

Why is Svalbard missing on the map? Isn't it a bit odd to use a map where 16% of the country is missing? Jakro64 (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I object to "best country in the world"

ON the frontpage, someone wrote that Norway is the best country in the world according to welfare and economic indices. I strongly disagree and believe that this is an unbalanced, unencyclopedic viewpoint that has no place on Wikipedia user:Elakhna

According to HDI, it's one of the best countries (along with Canada and Iceland). I wouldn't say the best country though. --85.166.51.224 (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)