Jump to content

Talk:Aristocracy of Norway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time/date problems

[edit]

I noted this:

> One of the earliest known letters patent is from 1458, given to Sjøfar and Nils Sigurdssøner by King Eric III.

Seems very dubious. King Eric III was deposed, and was not king of Norway after 1442. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.110.153 (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

[edit]
  • ancestrylink of one of Romer children of Gro & Mads
  • link to Erling Vidkunsonn - descendants, as soon as it ready
  • link to Jon Raud's descendants

--- Suedois 23:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign nobility in Norway

[edit]

I have now removed the following list containing families that are or were not of the Norwegian nobility.

Foreign noble families without recognition as Dano-Norwegian nobility

  • von Bülow (German.)
  • de Coucheron (Dutch.) (French?)
  • de Créqui dit la Roche (French.)
  • von Ditten (From Mecklenburg.)
  • von Haffner (German.)
  • Kaltenborn (German.)
  • von Koss (German.)
  • von Krogh (German.)
  • Michelet (French.)
  • Paus (Pauss, de Paus) (Norwegian family, whereof one branch ennobled as counts by the Pope.)
  • Rokling (Roclenge) (French.)
  • Rughaaz (German. The name is Norwegianised into Rugaas.)
  • Scheel (Skeel) (German. Allegedly unproven.)
  • Schlanbusch (German.)
  • Scheufel (Suffel, von Schuffelli) (German.)
  • de Seue (French.)
  • Stibolt (Danish.)
  • Tillisch
  • Weltzin (Allegedly unproven.)
  • Zernichow

— Breadbasket 19:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits: Complete lack of referencing

[edit]

I have noticed that this article has been expanded greatly lately. While it is nice to see editors willing to work on an article, there is a rather serious issue with the recent edits; namely that the article doesn't have a single direct reference, despite its length. I know that there is often a great lack of general referencing on the Norwegian Wikipedia, but it is not acceptable here at least. If information is not directly referenced and sourced, it is actually eligible for deletion (in extreme cases), all-together. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources (or look at other articles) if needed, and provide direct referencing for this article. If you don't want to do so, you should at least not add any more unsourced content to the article. Regards, – Bellatores (t.) 23:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting good info for lack of citation (outside of biographies of living persons) is incredibly WP:POINTy.
That said, citations are nice but (a) English sources are better; (b) non-English sources should have the language noted, pref. using one of the {{X-icon}} templates; (c) – and this really should go without saying – the citations themselves should be written using English. Right now there's a horde of paginaes at the bottom of the page. ^.^ — LlywelynII 12:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neologisms as title translations

[edit]

Terms being given, without citation to reliable sources, as translations of Norwegian titles into English, e.g. "Fief count", "Fief baron" and "National baron" are not prevalent in English. They should not be used, per Neologisms. Not every non-English title has an English version that is used prevalently as a translation and when not, neologisms may not be substituted as though they are in standard English use. Variations on countly and baronial titles may simply be left as "Count" or "Baron" or can be left untranslated. That's better than making up a translation and using it as a neologism in the article. FactStraight (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the neologism is gaining currency, it's fine. That said, unsourced/unsourceable WP:OR is bad, sure. — LlywelynII 12:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign nobility in Norway (2)

[edit]

Since the site contains "old danish nobility in Norway", still not "norwegian nobility", I find it important to informate that there are still some (proved) foreign noble names, that has been in Norway for centuries, and by a fault or misstake, plased on H. J. Huitfeldt-Kaas' list in 1886; "Foreign noble families without recognition as Dano-Norwegian nobility", today even when they are able to give a prove on the naturalisation; e.g. When the danish-norwegian Kings entitled some of the familymembers by titles and used Wohlgeboren, Welb.("Velbyrdig", "oss elskelige", "vår mann og tjener") etc before their names, which is equal to naturalisation!

I made therefor this list:

Foreign old noblility in Norway (According to H. J. Huitfeldt-Kaas' list 1886)

H. J. Huitfeldt-Kaas' list; "Foreign noble families without recognition as Dano-Norwegian nobility" can not be seen as a correct and complete list in all ways. Some of these noble families have in later times uncovered documents and notes that is provable on naturalisation, (e.g. The danish-norwegian Kings entitled some of the familymembers by titles and used Wohlgeboren, Welb.("Velbyrdig", "oss elskelige", "vår mann og tjener") etc before their names)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bente1945 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
After ca. 1537 and especially after 1660, a Danish nobleman was also a Norwegian nobleman, vice versa. The two countries' nobilities were gradually merged into one under the kings in Copenhagen, and not separated until 1814.
The families which are listed above, have nothing to do in the article about Norwegian nobility. If one wishes, one may create an own article for them, e.g. Foreign nobility in Norway.
Citation: '(...) which is equal to naturalisation!'
I am afraid that it is not.
— Breadbasket 16:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for a good answer!
A good suggestion you came up with, this possible new Wikipedia-article. I have thought about something similar to this before.
I find it importent to write something about theese families, (without all the false names which have been added to the original list) since most of them are both mentioned in articles such as "Stifts-relationer" om Adelige i Danmark og Norge, Personalhistorisk tidsskrift 1.r.I (1881) - Klevenfeldts book and different other lexicas about nobility, in letters from the danish Kings etc. I find it although most important to only use names that can prove their nobility, and wich also can prove that they have a link to Norway (Been here for generations).
I will also say that the Wikipediasite, where you have written many of the articles are a really good site, and maybe we can link up the articles some days, since both themes only contains and are build on verified and documented names and material, and ommit all those added names in later times.
Of course, maybe I was a little quck, according to naturalisation; What I really ment was not all to lead to a naturalisation, but was in eralier times although a important pointer to who was naturalised (or noble in general)
Have a nice evening

Primeval aristocracy

[edit]

Interesting essay but part about "Primeval aristocracy" can be deleted or drastically shortened, as matter of this part is better covered in other articles and hardly is there direct connection between mediaeval or modern nobility and eg. "North Sea Land". Please read WP:CFORK, because this part is too long for accepted short summary introduction.--Yopie (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, don't be WP:POINTy. Blanking good info is almost always inappropriate, although you're right that hatnote links to better articles may serve the same function or that forking out articles on the subsections with quick glosses here might be appropriate as the article grows in length. — LlywelynII 12:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

[edit]

The article is lovely, but needs a pretty good scrubbing. The intro uses too many POVy, peacocking terms (i.e., "supreme social, political, military class" to refer to Viking warlords) without actually providing a quick overview – the whole point of an intro, remember – of the Norse versus Danish origins of the aristocracy or (even worse) clearly stating that the whole class no longer exists except via the Danish peerage.

Also, some editor forgot WP:ENGVAR and Briticized the page's American English. I'll fix something up over the next day or two and then we can debate anything too contentious. — LlywelynII 12:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove

[edit]

I've tagged this article with {{Refimprove}} today. Even though the article is well referenced for the parts up to the 18th century, there are very few general sources for the period after the new constitution of 1814. I can't find any sources for generalizing statements such as "several families maintained an aristocratic profile" nor "members of these families continued to play a significant rôle in the political and social life of the country" and neither for "Today this social class is a marginal factor in the community, culturally and socially as well as politically". Sources from modern history are most likely available, and should be added. Bw Orland (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aristocracy of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aristocracy of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Norse" does not mean "Norwegian"

[edit]

This is yet another article where the author(s) seem(s) to have erroneously believed that "Norse" means "Norwegian" (in English Norse refers to all Scandinavians, whether living in Scandinavia or elsewhere, speaking the Old Norse language, i.e. also Danes and Swedes), since it lists all kinds of places and things connected to the Norse as having been Norwegian, with the Kingdom of Dublin as a prime example. It was a Norse kingdom founded by Norse people, but it wasn't a Norwegian kingdom, and no-one knows where the original founder came from, all that is known about him is that he was Norse. Which means that the Kingdom of Dublin can't be listed as having been founded by a Norwegian aristocrat, and the same goes for all of the other places. In fact that entire section, which is totally unsourced, doesn't belong here at all since there was no such thing as a hereditary aristocracy back then, only titles directly connected to a specific function/office. Whoever had that function/office had the title connected to it, but it didn't automatically rub off on all their descendants, and thus has nothing to do with aristocracy ("The aristocracy is a social class ... with hereditary rank and titles"). And the rest of the article is equally off target, meaning that this article is in desperate need of a major cleanup... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aristocracy_of_Norway&oldid=1205327991"