Talk:Norway/Archive 5

[[Media:]]

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

this be of interest to members of this forum? I created a table for all the Olympic medal count winners including Norway. It also includes per capita data, where Norway excels. The original article is here: Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. Recently, however, someone nominated this article for deletion. If you want to comment on whether it really should be deleted, go to this article's entry. Thanks! Medalstats 14:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

in this article

"The Kingdom of Norway also includes the arctic island territories of Svalbard and Jan Mayen." Shouldn't you also mentionate the Norwegian part of Antartica: Dronning Mauds Land (Queen Maud's Land)? It is just as much a part of the Norwegian territory.

Vemund 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. While Jan Mayen, Svalbard, Peter I's Island and Bouvet Island are Norwegian territory, Queen Maud's Land is just claimed - like all (I think) other nations with claims in the Antartic, Norway has decided not to persue the claim, but abide with international treaties (making Antartica pretty much a free for all (as long as you don't pollute). WegianWarrior 18:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The antarctic territories are not part of the Kingdom and they have no permanent population. //Big Adamsky 18:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I briefly read through parts of the article, and under the sub-topic counties: hedmark, I discovered a dreadful and very suprising mistake. I assume that you are Norwegian, so you should know (but even though you are not): you wrote "logs are floated down Glomma to the coast." Are you honestly not aware of that floating of timber down the Glomma quitted in the 70ties?! Everyone should now by now...

PS! (General info.) You can see tools which was used to transportation and treatment of the log (while the process was still ongoing) in the coat of arms of Hedmark Fylkeskommune and Åsnes Kommune.

Vemund 15:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The last timber was floated in Glomma in '85, but still there is floating going on in Skienselva acording to: [1]--Njård 23:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I seriously didn't know! Strange that they are still doing that old-fassion stuff... My apologizes, but you should switch Glomma out with Skienselva, to not give the wrong impression to the readers.

Vemund 16:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bohuslän, Jämtland, and Härjedalen

The article's historical section states that "Norway saw its land area decrease in the 17th century with the loss of the provinces Båhuslen, Jemtland, and Herjedalen to Sweden." I wonder why we can't use the proper Swedish names Bohuslän, Jämtland, and Härjedalen, which are also the article names. --Eddi (Talk) 16:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's beacuse in Norwegian they are historicly known as Båhuslen, Jemtland and Herjedalen... the present day names of Bohuslän, Jämtland, and Härjedalen is the Swedish spelling. It makes sence, at least to me, to use the Norwegian spelling in an article about Norway.

Your milage may wary, off course, and if concenious is to use the Swedish spelling I won't revert.

WegianWarrior 16:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If it is the proper Norwegian spelling you wish to use, then you have to write Bohuslen instead of Båhuslen...

Vemund 15:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedian practice is using either native or local names, or using names in the language of the relevant Wikipedia. Since these provinces are Swedish and the language of the Wikipedia is English, we should use Swedish or English names. In this case I suggest we use Swedish names. --Eddi (Talk) 17:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree! The Norwegian (the original) names of the places haven't been used since they belonged to Norway. In Norway, we also pronounce the names of the places as in Swedish. Use the Swedish names! Vemund 18:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense to use the names of that historical time and place when the names are used in such a context, in the same way we use the name Christiania or Kristiania when talking about Oslo in a historical context in which those where the names at that time. -Kvaks 18:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway naming section quoted below:

BEGIN QUOTE

== Naming ==

For administrative units and geographical entities, the official Norwegian name [2] is used for the article, with redirects for English names when known. There is no reason to invent new English names, and it is undesirable as it introduces confusion.

===Historical names===

The many variations in rendering Norwegian names into English in histories and older literature should be honored when quoting or using original sources. Within the text of an article, historical names may be used if followed by the official Norwegian name in parentheses (e.g., “King Olaf (A.D. 1015-1021) summoned the people of the districts of Lesjar (Lesja) and Vagar (Vågå) to a Thing.”). If the modern name is unknown, the historical name alone may be used.

===Conflicting guidance among Scandinavian countries===

The Norwegian naming convention should be followed for discussions of Norway and Norwegian geography.

When Scandinavian history conflicts occur, the list of European regions with alternative names should be consulted, and for Norwegian topics the Norwegian convention followed. For example, the list indicates that Jemptia is the preferred form for the province that Sweden now calls Jämtland. In Norwegian history this is likely to appear by its former Norwegian name, Jemtland. Within the text of an article, historical names should be used if followed by alternative forms of the name in parentheses (e.g., “Sweden occupied the undefended Norwegian province of Jemtland (now Jämtland).”).

===Sub-municipality names===

If no official Norwegian name is available, follow the guidance of ISO 3166-2:NO, which is an ISO standard which defines geocodes: it is the subset of ISO 3166-2 which applies to Norway. For locales not covered by the standard, the form in Veiatlas Norge published by Statens Kartverk should be used.

===Other geographic features===

If no commonly accepted English form exists, the form in Veiatlas Norge should be used. A commonly accepted form exists if, and only if, a substantial majority (>75%) of published literature in English uses that form.

===Avoid clumsy wording===

It should be attempted to avoid wording that appear clumsy for readers that are fluent in both English and Norwegian.

Instead of The Nidelv river flows... or The river Nidelv flows...., use the Nidelv is a river that flows... to avoid the equivalent words (elv in Norwegian, river in English) appearing next to each other.

END QUOTE

Of course, if any of the above can be improved, we should. Williamborg

Thank you for the reference. (I should of course have consulted the project first.) Do piped wikilinks count as statement of current names, or should they be spelled out? If piped links are acceptable, the paragraph is all right now. If not, should we write "...the provinces Båhuslen (Bohuslän), Jemtland (Jämtland), and Herjedalen (Härjedalen)..." or "...the provinces Båhuslen, Jemtland, and Herjedalen (Bohuslän, Jämtland, and Härjedalen)..."? --Eddi (Talk) 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. I recommend we go with "...the provinces Båhuslen, Jemtland, and Herjedalen (currently Bohuslän, Jämtland, and Härjedalen)..." Williamborg 02:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But when I try to articulate the logic, I must confess it is just that that way of phrasing it ‘feels’ slightly better. But I’m an engineer, so what do I know about it; I’ll try to remember to ask one of the technical editors tomorrow to see if there is an underlying logic for one approach rather than another.

Williamborg 02:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Food

Anyone know anything about Norwegian food? I'm thinking of those delicious marzipan specialities and that variety of rice pudding. Springald 19:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of kransekake and riskrem? WegianWarrior 11:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

02:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Maroder

Norwegian food is fish.

The Church of Norway ( den norske kirke)

It is unfortunately not true that you have to be baptized to be counted as a mnmber of the State Church. it is not even true what the previous version said that both parents have to be memberers. The official version is that one parent has to bea member, for yothe child to be included in the chriuch membertship, but many people find themselve son the rolls even if noen of their parents were mebers, and they have never been baptized. The practice seems to vary from place to place, but in many instances being born is enough to become a member. --Vindheim 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This may or may not be the case, but I think references are needed. --Eddi (Talk) 01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

What Vindheim writes is not correct. The only way you become a member of the Church is when you are baptized as there is 'official paper work' invovled.

-It is true to some extent. I was never baptized, and only my father (and not my mother) was a member of the State Church. Still I found myself a member of it, and asked to be removed. -- Maroder

- I do belive you automaticly become a member of the norwegian church when you are born, or even get you citizenship, I remember a few years ago when there was some hard feelings in muslim imigrants becoming "christians" when they got their norwegian citizenship..... -- unregistred....

- You automatically become a member at birth if at least one of your parents is member. http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19960607-031.html#391.149.14.138 12:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

- The Church of Norway have had lots of problems with their records for some years. Personally I was born Catholic, both my parents are Catholics, and I've never wanted to be a member of the Church. Even thoug my uncle, who's also a Catholic of birth, found both him and me on the member list. About two years ago, the CHurch decided to get their list straight, and found all the members they had that also were members of other religions, philosophys of life ("livssyn", I can't fin a better word in english..). When doing this, the Catholic bishop of Oslo was discovered as a member of the State Church. Letters was sent to all dual-members, asking them to reply if they still wanted to be members of the Church of Norway. Now its supposed to be no dual memberships in Norway, but who is not member of other communities, but don't want to be a member of the State Church, might still be. (And the reason for the Bishop being a member is probably that when he moved back from Austria to Norway, the State Church saw that he had been a member, and he's parents are Norwegians and members of the Church)

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1316112.ece - Article in Norwegian from Aftenposten, 13.05.2006 HeleneGombos 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A Theocracy?

From the article:

"In order to form a government, more than half (currently at least 10 out of 19 members) of the Council of State are required to belong to the Church of Norway."

Not quite like Iran, but that is surprising is it not, nowadays, in Europe? So it would improve the article to add a little explanation of how that arose, and why it persists. Midgley 22:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article on the Church of Norway and Constitution of Norway for more explanation. It is equivalent to the Church of England, except that Norway has a constitution. In this case, it is bounded in paragraph 12 of the constitution. Interesting that you should be so interested in Norwegian politics and society. Lots of controversies here, but it would probably be a good idea that you read up about them before editing. --Leifern 00:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So does England - well, the UK - have a constitution, and since around the penultimate Elizabeth R there has not been a requirement for the government to be of a particular faith or any. (E2R has to be in order to be head of the Established church. And reading about it is a good idea. What shall I read? Oh I know, an encyclopaedia. Which is usefully cross-referenced on such matters. Midgley 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

First, do not edit my entries on this discussion page. The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. There are many source documents in English about Norway. In addition to various books, the Norwegian departments publish a lot of content in English, as do many Norwegian newspapers. --Leifern 11:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Re editing, see below. --Eddi (Talk) 13:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear. Eddi..'s edits were of course an improvement. Midgley 01:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not consistent, from the referneces given. Interesting the proportions, and the statmeent that the majority of government support disestablishment. If i have to give any excuses for reading a page of WP, and expressing an opinion (!), then let it be known that I have lived in a state where the Parliament is a Thing and meets on a hill, and I know where it comes from. Midgley 13:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the reason is that the members of government who are not members of the church are not permitted to take part in decisions concerning the church. So you have to have a sufficient amount of members of goverment who are members of the church in order to make decicions. In practical terms this is not very problematic as 86% of Norwegians are members of the church and so far the number of members of government who are members of the church have alwas well exceded half. In principle it is more problematic, but it seems stranger than it is when it is pulled out of its contecst. The intent isn't to keep members of other religions out of government. Inge 13:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC) (Nor is its intent to exclude atheists or syncretists, for that matter, one might add. =J // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 13:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

Thank you. That makes sense. The Established Church in the UK has tended to count its membership higher than a more detailed enquiry arrives at but I expect that is unavoidable. The move to disestablishment would presumably, as in the UK, cause constitutional changes and losing that provision might be one of them. Is Norway the only country in Europe/N. Europe that still has such a provision in its (written, as one document) constitution? If so that might be worth bringing out as a difference, which is encyclopaedic, for anyone who tries to learn about the country by reading this article rather than the many other things written about it. Midgley 01:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Norway is, as far as I know, the only country with such a demand of its cabinet. krikkert (Talk) 06:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone could verify this for certain. If Norway is the only country in the world with this demand I will be very surprised. Inge 13:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I know countries like Lebanon and others demand certain percentages of different religions in their parliament or equivalent to avoid sectarian conflict. Other than that, I can't think of anything. Either way, this is hardly a controversial issue, and anyone I ask seem to be ignorant of it. Joffeloff 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

editing the talk page

eddideigel writes: (→A Theocracy? - clarify context + rm some irrelevant and indiscreet remarks - feel free to revert, but this does not belong here) Please do not edit the talk page! Change the articvle itself, but DO NOT edit the talk page --Vindheim 17:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well. But I would like to add: Please keep indiscretions and personal conflicts out of the article talk pages. This is seriously disturbing. Even this thread does not belong here but at my user talk page. Not that I don't like public criticism, but it is not relevant to the article at hand. I would like to ask you to move this thread to my talk page. Thank you. --Eddi (Talk) 13:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Climate data

I'd say that this box should be removed in favour of a) Climate of Norway or b) shorter notes on average temperatures. Ehjort 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The complete lack of response inspires me to do what is consider the best solution (something along the lines of removing most of the climate facts from the geogrpahy section and link to Climate of Norway) in about a week's time. Ehjort 16:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Or just link to climate, with more extensive data coverage. Orcaborealis 16:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Culture of Norway

I will work on a better entry for Culture of Norway in the Norway article; one with less links and more text and not only a listing of famous norwegians but hopefully something about Norwegian culture.Ehjort 16:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah and where the hell is the info on Black Metal? 144.131.139.111 05:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Black metal really part of Norway's culture? 218.186.10.12 10:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Counties of Norway

Is is necessary to list all 19 counties in the Norway article? Not even the Subdivisions of Norway article includes the whole list. The Norway article should be as much text and as less tables and lists as possible. Ehjort 16:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, I can't see USA without its list of states. It would just look silly without the counties. Henning 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think the listing of the ten argest municipalities is necessary in the main article. There's already enough listings. (please sign, use four ~)Ehjort 19:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot the signing. ;) In any case, if not to include the ten largest municipialities, there needs to be a link to the Municipalities of Norway, which I took the liberty of including on the bottom of that section (in about the same manner as with the counties-section, where in the end it links to the Regions of Norway). I must say, I was amazed to find that more or less every single municipiality has an article! Henning 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we merge the list in question into the Municipalities of Norway article. The main article shall of course include a link to Municipalities of Norway. )It is fascinating to see the coverage for our municipalities, I think Norwegians feel alot for their hometown however small it is) Ehjort 14:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea, will you do that? I should get about to update some of the Finnmark municipalities sometime. First I shall translate no:Eina as requested. :) Henning 12:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is done. Thumbs up Ehjort 18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems we willl have to get used to just that, Henning - USA without its list of states. It is gone by now. Ehjort 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like the list of fylker (counties) to be set in two columns but I ain't got the know-how. Ehjort 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Norwegians can´t spell

Why do Norwegian banknotes say NORGES BANK on one side and NOREGS BANK on the other? Is this a subtle Nordic-type joke, or can´t Nowegian central bankers spell? Adam 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

we can spell, but we can't agree on how our language should be. There are two official forms of written Norwegian, Bokmål and nynorsk. The banknotes have different versions on the two sides. (I never noticed that before).--Vindheim 20:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Which version do they use in Bergen, where I just was? Adam 20:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Although the prevalence of Nynorsk is higher in the western parts of the country, it's not possible to say that they only use Nynorsk or Bokmål in any one place. Which one you use can often be a political statement. I recommend reading the Nynorsk and Bokmål articles if you're interested. --Nnp 20:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Bergen is 95% bokmål, maybe more. Kjetil_r 00:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It isn't easy to get it right everytime, though. I think the Nynorsk in my father's passport was misspelled. ;) 惑乱 分からん 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This research

"This research was done by graduate students of NTNU and researchers at SINTEF in Trondheim [7]."

i think this should be deleted. Ehjort 09:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Rollo was NOT from Norway

Norway wasn't even in Normandy in the viking period. Norwegians were only settlers on north England, Ireland and Iceland.

Rollo was from Denmark - Zealand. He was a son of the danish king. And became the first king of Normandy after the Invasion of the land.

Well there are differing sources on that subject. Many support Rollo being from Norway and Norwegians being present in Normandy and it seems that is a prevalent view among scholars Inge 16:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What are these sources??? There is no sources, only a man from Iceland who had a name likely Hrolf. with was a common Nordic name that time. The Sourches only come from iceland/norway because they want to claim as much fake history as they can. Norway didnt conquered England either. It was King Canute from Denmark. Where do you else think Danevirke and Danelaw is from?

"Dudo states that Rollo was born of the proud blood of dukes and kings, and that his father was a mighty man in Denmark whose sons Rollo (Hrolf) and Gurim (Gorm) inherited his lands after him. As the King of Denmark at that time wanted to evict a portion of the youth of the country owing to overpopulation, many sought refuge with Rollo and Gurim. The King marched against them with an army and killed Gurim, while Rollo fled to Skaane. From there he sailed to England to King Athelstan, by whom is meant the Danish King Guthrum (Gorm) in East Anglia who, at his baptism, had been christened Athelstan. He supported Rollo and it is not unlikely that kinship existed between them. Later Rollo sailed to Walcheren and fought for many years in the great army in Friesland and northern France until he subdued Normandy in 911. That Rollo was the head of this undertaking also supports the theory that he was a man of noble birth.

Norwegians was just a bunch of setlers in the viking age. Who peacefully setled in Iceland, North England and Ireland.

Saying that makes it obvious that you are pushing a subjective POV. See for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge

Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge. 1066? Result: Decisive English victory.

I think you misunderstand. It was ment as a (well known) example as to how Norwegian vikings were not just peaceful setlers. Which they certainly were not. Though many were, of course.

Norwegians founded Dublin?

Although there was a Norse settlement in the area which nowadays is Dublin it would be wrong to state that the Norwegians (or any Northmen) founded the city as such. They did have their own settlement - from which the English name is taken, however there was a celtic settlement there beforehand - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Dublin for more details. The same is true for Cork. In fact one could say that the vikings destroyed more of this city than built it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cork Limerick is said to have had a celtic settlement before the vikings, though most accept it is a viking city and Waterford was indeed founded by the vikings.

I propose we reword the history of Norway section pertaining to the viking age. Bikerams 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the history seems like a long Pro Norwegian POV. At least the edit's from user:Inge. --Comanche cph 10:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comanche cph: Please don't spread slander on wikipedia. Your history here speaks for itself. Inge 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems like allot of your edits here has been reverted, not only about me. So come with your sources now about this, instend start spreding a flame war to camoflage your wrong edit's. --Comanche cph 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is taken out of thin air. I am willing to give any editor the benefit of doubt. I will however expect an improvement in behaviour if I am to take someone seriously. You have been here for some time now and I have seen slim and temporary if any improvement in you. Myself and several other editors have tried to guide you towards what is axceptable behaviour. In stead you have carried on in the same track on article after article. You know what you have to do and I hope you are aware of the actions you take. If you want to be taken seriously and want other editors to spend their time answering your "questions" you will have to comply to wikipedia policies. I have also answered you on your talk page. Inge 18:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is amazing. Where is the sources for what User:Bikerams wrote? Behaivor is one thing, rewrite of history pages is anorther thing. --Comanche cph 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Did they even settel in Ierland for more than a few years?--86.25.53.90 00:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bunad

Could somebody help me understand why a bunad "may be traditional or not traditional costumes". I'm a tad confused by the opposition.Bikerams 08:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, only traditional costumes are granted status as bunad. Ehjort 18:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, present day bunader were reconstructed from traditional elements from the 1920s on. A semiofficial committee, Bunad- og folkedraktrådet,[[3]] has the power to accept new designs for bunader. However many traditional style costumes which are not officially classed as bunader, are used as if they were such. --Vindheim 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand it somewhat better now, only I'm left with the question how that section of the article can be re-worded because, as it stands now, it's not logical - "traditional or not traditional", doesn't really work. Bikerams 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

inconsistency

Religion claims 89% are members of the protestantic church. Demographics claim 86%. Both numbers cannot be rigth. Any number is suspect anyway, because the protestantic church of Norway has been counting by starting at 100% and subtracting known members of other churches. This obviously gives over-reporting. Eivind 13:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The number tells nothing about what people believe in, and should be removed. I don't think giving an explanation about the high number would gain anything either, except that that it could be useful to show how much power the state church has. (No user name) 02:02, 29 October 2006 (+1)

Well, I added an explanation anyway. Hopefully, no one just removes it. Seems like some people here have an agenda to make norway seems less secular than it actually is... [User:(No user name)|(No user name)]] 17:30, 1 November 2006 (+1)

The most recent statistics claim that 82,6% of Norwegians are members of the Church of Norway.

Finnish speakers in the North

During the nineteenth century considerable numbers of people from Finland moved into Norway, especially in the North , but also in southern areas ("Finnskogen"). There have also historically been considerable intercourse between the "three tribes": Finns (Kven), Saami and Norwegian in this area. Some communitites in eastern Finnmark (Vadsø, Bugøynes etc.), have until recently had a majority of Finnish speakers.--Vindheim 14:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

Because the page is more or less vandalized on a daily basis, is it not an idea to protect it in the same way as the page about the Swedish language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_language) is? Bikerams 14:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I almost think it's a good idea. Is there no way to blovk the vandals? and, is the article vandalized by one or many IPs? Ehjort 18:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalised enough to warrant protection really, but you can ask for it to be protected at WP:RFP. Only administrators can protect pages. HawkerTyphoon 12:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Date of Seperation from Sweden ...

The current article reads "the peaceful separation of Norway from Sweden on June 7, 1905." The September 23 article lists 9/23 as the date the two countries were officially seperated. I believe one or the other should be clarrified. Can anyone speak to which one?

The Norwegians declared themselves independent of Sweden on June 7, and the Swedes, slow as always, recognized it on September 23.

Whaling

Whaling is mentioned in Economy section, but not in main article Economy of Norway. And maybe a seperate Whaling in Norway like Whaling in Iceland is needed? - Kristod (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Geography section seems to have gone out of the window

Any reason for this or just vandalism?? Orcaborealis 11:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking for Home

My family name was Andersen before my great grandfather and his brothers emigrated to the US where they took the name Molvik. Molvik was the name of the farm from where they came. My understanding is that the farm is on the west coast of Norway where the Arctic Circle intersects the mainland. Does anyone know of this area or know where I might find more information? The area is very rural, thus it had been difficult for me to find information. Most web searches point me to a Molvik that is at the northern most tip of Norway. Thanks in advance! Patris Magnus 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a particular farm you are asking for, it's hard for Norwegians who don't have specific knowledge of the place or farm in question to answer. I do wish you good luck, though, and hope that somebody comes up with anything.

As you might guess, the amount of farms and farmers in Norway can't even compare to back when your great grandfather left Norway. If I'm to be pessimistic, it might well be that your family farm is long deserted or merged together with another farm, it's name not in use anymore. I think your best chance is to look up Norwegians sharing your name of Molvik. Though they're likely to be unrelated, your family adopting the name in the US, it might just well be that they happen to take their name from the same farm. (According to Statistics Norway, there are 433 people with the surname of Molvik in Norway.)

In fear of having been to pessimistic and unhelpful, I tried some searching. Searching for Molvik gård (where gård is Norwegian for farm), returned Some pictures from farms in Rygge, where some of them depict one Molvik farm. Though this is in Rygge, which is not on the west coast nor anywhere close to the arctic circle, but rather slightly east of Oslo.

Do you know any further details about your home farm? In Norway, the arctic circle passes through the municipalities of Træna, Lurøy, Rødøy and Rana. Though I guess you probably should look in close by areas also.

You might also try the Wikipedia:Reference desk, where Wikipedians try to answer general knowledge questions. I hope others are able to help you more than I have. Delta Tango • Talk 05:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The "wrong" one for your purposes is mentioned in the Berlevåg article.

Your searches probably also would found "Mølvik" spellings, but what you are looking for might actually be "Målvik" or "Melvik" or some similar spelling.

Try Oluf Rygh's Norske Gaardnavne (Norwegian farm names) at http://www.dokpro.uio.no/rygh_ng/rygh_form.html where Molvik in the farm name turns up just one in Sondre Bergenhus amt (today's Hordaland) which is too far south for your description. The % sign is a wildcard in that search, and note that this is a fairly old book using "aa" spellings rather than å.

• Mølvik only finds one in the Oslo area, a couple of Melviks in Troms. Try Maalv% too, the "aa" as used in his book, now written as "å", is pronounced somewhat like an o, and was often spelled "o" by immigrants to English-speaking countries, these are probably more likely than the Melvik ones

Gårdsnr Gård Sogn Herred Amt

72 Maalvik Vassaas Bindalen Nordlands amt

• Wikipedia also has an article on a Vassås Bridge, matching that parish name. Keep in mind not only the possibility that your ancestors changed the aa to "o" in English, but also that many spellings in Norwegian have since your ancestors came over. Look for -vig rather than -vik in many earlier sources, etc. Mark the boxes in the Oluf Rygh database listing that you are interested in, then click the "Vise" box for more detailed quote for that farm (in Norwegian, of course), usually giving something about the meaning of the name, spelling variations over time, etc.

• Try your searches again for "Maalvik" or "Målvik". If you have names of ancestors living in Norway in 1801, 1865, 1875, or 1900 you might also be able to search for them in online census records, but the names will likely be just given name/patronymic, and the patronymics changed from generation to generation. Your "Anderson" immigrant ancestor and his siblings may have had a father named "Anders Larson", for example. Gene Nygaard 13:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking the name from the farm you lived on was very common in Norway. I also believe it wasn't uncommon to change the spelling of one's surname upon immigration to America. For what it's worth I have met people living in northern Hordaland with the Molvik surname and that fits in with the information on a Molvik farm there, but as stated above that is not in Northern Norway.Inge 13:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'm pretty sure that it is this one:

• Molvik (farm), Rødøy kommune[4]

My father, who has been there, described passing a mountain lake on the way down to the farm. I'm now sure that it is in Rødøy kommune. Thanks again Patris Magnus 21:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Geirangerfjorden & Nærøyfjorden

Geirangerfjorden & Nærøyfjorden have been rated 1 and 2 in National geographics rankings for the most beautiful places on earth, shouldn't this be mentioned?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yakoob (talk • contribs) .

The Geography section is currently pretty short, and I don't this is what it needs the most right now. --Turbotape 22:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the name of Capital, Largest City, King and Prime Minister? The two first are wrong, while the two others are pure nonsense! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.109.149.26 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2006