Jump to content

Talk:Norway/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

lack of information on jewish people in norway

there a number of jewish people in norway. the exact number isnt know to me though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.209 (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific exactly how and where this information should be added to the article? Arnoutf (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I have added numbers in the section on religion in Norway. As of 2009, there were 802 adherents of Judaism. There is no form of official registration of Jewish ethnicity in Norway, so the only number available is that of members of the Jewish religious community. The number of secular Jews is thus unknown, although I'm sure estimates exist.--Barend (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The article Judaism in Norway claims there are 1500 jews in Norway. Proportionally, it's a lot less than Sweden, for instance. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Might partly be due to Sweden's neutrality during World War 2, as well. The Norwegian Jewish population was severely struck by the holocaust. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Lysse

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.113.4 (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

New Prime minister of Norway

Until the King appoints a new prime minister, the old one remains the prime minister. This will normally takes place some weeks after the election.

Norway now has a new prime minister, Erna Solberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.46.149 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sufferage

The page says "Norway was the first independent country to introduce women's suffrage in 1913."

However that does not tally with the page Women's Suffrage.

I think it relies on some debatable definitions of "independent", that exclude post-federation Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Franceville and possibly Corsican Republic.

I suggest replace with "Norway was one of the first countries to introduce women's suffrage, in 1913."

Rick Jelliffe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.205.11 (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Rick's idea is reasonable. It seems trivial to try and designate a first country.Jcmiller1215-"tomorrow we will run faster..." (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

A fairly large portion of the lead is copyvio. It's copied from the information on the U.S. CIA's page: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html (On that page, choose "Introduction"). There's been some discussion about the last sentence here:

"Two centuries of Viking raids into Europe tapered off following the adoption of Christianity by King Olav TRYGGVASON in 994. Conversion of the Norwegian kingdom occurred over the next several decades. In 1397, Norway was absorbed into a union with Denmark that lasted more than four centuries. In 1814, Norwegians resisted the cession of their country to Sweden and adopted a new constitution. Sweden then invaded Norway but agreed to let Norway keep its constitution in return for accepting the union under a Swedish king. Rising nationalism throughout the 19th century led to a 1905 referendum granting Norway independence. Although Norway remained neutral in World War I, it suffered heavy losses to its shipping. Norway proclaimed its neutrality at the outset of World War II, but was nonetheless occupied for five years by Nazi Germany (1940-45). In 1949, neutrality was abandoned and Norway became a member of NATO. Discovery of oil and gas in adjacent waters in the late 1960s boosted Norway's economic fortunes. In referenda held in 1972 and 1994, Norway rejected joining the EU. Key domestic issues include immigration and integration of ethnic minorities, maintaining the country's extensive social safety net with an aging population, and preserving economic competitiveness."

Hordaland (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I was wrong. It is not a copyvio as the CIA copyright notice says:
"Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the Central Intelligence Agency Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Central Intelligence Agency's permission. We request only that the Central Intelligence Agency be cited as the source of the information...",
so we can use the text as is and our reference gives them credit.
--Hordaland (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I moved a phrase

as suggested on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway; see section "A great article about Norway, but..". --Hordaland (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I did a Google search on Norway "Key domestic issues include immigration and integration of ethnic minorities" and found that exact text on many, many web pages. Some detective work showed that it comes from the U.S. government (see the refs for "key domestic issues" in the article Norway, presently #2 and 11), notably the CIA. Unless a Norwegian source is found for this claim, it shouldn't be in the article. Removing it. --Hordaland (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Population projections

For 2013 says 5,9 million, clearly it should be 4,9. I would fix it myself, but I'm not entirely sure I'd know what I was doing :] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.228.155 (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

New image available.

File:Pulpit Rock Preikestolen Norway.jpeg
Pulpit Rock Preikestolen Norway

Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Error grammar?

Hi,

Not an native English speaker ... the following sentence seemed a bit odd: ("Migration Age":) "The destruction of the Western Roman Empire by the Germanic tribes (5th century) is characterised by rich finds, including chieftains' graves containing magnificent weapons and gold objects." Can a destruction be characterized by rich finds?

T

85.166.162.202 (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I'm not sure just what is meant by that sentence. Worse, that entire section has no references at all. It's tagged "Main article: Migration Age" but the information here does not come from that article, where Norway isn't mentioned and the mention of "Scandinavia" tells very little. By Wikipedia's rules that entire section could be deleted today. This makes me wonder about the rest of this article; have the editors been as lax in the other sections, too? --Hordaland (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The sentence is still not fixed and the section is still un-referenced. I've added some "citation needed" tags and done some other small corrections. --Hordaland (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Arctic demarcation line text removed as "irrelevant" -- to be replaced

Delelinjen is part of the maritime border with Russia.[1]

At this demarcation line's South end, Norway borders the Fedynsky natural resources field.[1] To its North lies the Central Barents field.[1] To its North lies the Perseevsky field.[1]

  1. ^ a b c d Alf Ole Ask (2014-03-20). "Advarer mot Putin i nord". Aftenposten. p. 13.
  • The above text was recently removed (diff) from the article's lead (which is too long IMO) with the edit summary: "Natural resources field summary removed because it was irrelevant and cited with a broken link.".
  • The paragraph isn't pretty with its redlinks, and I see no reason at all to include the Norwegian word "delelinjen". It's true that the Aftenposten link is dead.
  • Although I agree that the information needn't be in the lead, it is not irrelevant; it is important. I intend to use this article from Dagbladet and a couple of references from Norway–Russia border to write a new paragraph about the agreement. (Soonish?) --Hordaland (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2014

In the fact box it is noted that Norway has a "patron saint", is this an determined and sourced fact, or even noteworthy? I think it fails on both counts, and should be removed. A more fitting article might be Christianity in Norway. 81.129.27.174 (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: "Patron Saint" is a standard, optional, parameter of Template:Infobox country - if it wasn't, it wouldn't appear in the info-box, parameters can't be added at will.
Patron Saints appear in the info-boxes of many countries e.g. England, but an info-box parameter will only show if text has been included - we don't show blank parameters.
As for referencing it, this would be unusual, but a reference can be found at Patron saints of places which also gives Magnus of Orkney as another patron saint of Norway - perhaps he should be added?
Arjayay (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Source this please.

"officially the Kingdom of Norway (de jure Kongeriget Norge (Danish), de facto Kongeriket Norge in Bokmål and Kongeriket Noreg in Nynorsk"

Can someone source the information that states Norway's legal name to still be "Kongeriget Norge"? I am very sure this was changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.83.79 (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Section 1 of the Constitution: 'Kongeriget Norge er [...]' Link This is the supreme determination of Norway's forfatning, including the official name. No More 18 (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Section 1 was changed today. It now says 'Kongeriket Norge er [...]'. No More 18 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

chess world champion

I think it would be nice to add to this page that the current chess world champion (Magnus Carlsen) and current world number 1 and highest rated player of all time is Norwegian. I do not have permission to edit this page so I cannot do it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thing50 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

SURFACE

Norway has a surface of 323,790km², not 385,178km²... 323,790km² can be found all over the internet (even the Norwegian wikipedia page says 323,790 km²). With Svalbard included, it has a surface of 382,178km², but that's like saying Denmark has a surface of 2.000.000 km² (Greenland) when it's only 40.000km². Maybe the surface of Norway, Svalbard and Jan Mayen can be mentioned separately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaroV (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Enig og tro til Dovre faller

We've had a bit of edit-warring slow "edit-warring" about the correct translation of this motto, which appears in the article's infobox. These two versions have been argued for:

  • "United and loyal 'til [the mountain range of] Dovre crumbles"
  • "United and loyal 'til [the mountain range of] Dovre falls [into others' hands]"

FYI: I've just written to Språknytt, the magazine published by Språkrådet (The National Language Council under Kulturdepartementet, The Culture Department) asking which of the two is the correct translation. I've asked for the answer to appear in Språknytt, as I reckon it is a reliable source.

Språknytt comes out only a few times a year, so we may have to wait a while for an official answer. --Hordaland (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Dovrefjell.
There hasn't been a recent edit war, the way I see it; an edit war requires the violation of the WP:3RR. If one also respects the inserted maintenance tag, I am sure this case may be solved peacefully.
It is not logical that a relatively flat mountain like Dovre may crumble or that the crumbling of this mountain would mean the end of a political agreement. This phrase was used in 1814 (see below) but is probably older, perhaps a military slogan originating from the many wars between Denmark–Norway and our archenemy Sweden, like when the latter occupied Trøndelag. If Dovre—the mountain dividing Norway into a Southern part (søndenfjelske), a Western part (vestenfjelske), and a Northern part (nordenfjelske)—had fallen to Sweden, the Kingdom would abstractly and to a lesser extent physically and communicationally have been separated into three parts, hence: South, West, and North are united and loyal to each other until Dovre falls, but after that we'll have to survive on our own.
The oath should be considered and interpreted within its context: the Constitutional Assembly had just adopted the Constitution as an attempt to avoid a union with Sweden, and likewise, it had elected Prince Christian Frederik of Denmark as King of Norway. Whilst supporters of a Swedish-Norwegian union were present there, the Assembly was mainly anti-Swedish, and they were also under the supervision of King Christian Frederick. Using a traditional, anti-Swedish slogan seems to fit in with this situation.
I applaud your choice to contact the Language Council, and it'll be interesting to read their answer. No More 18 (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't really understand your argument. It seems to me that the whole point of the oath is that, as you say, Dovre is not likely to crumble any time soon. My reading has always been that "'til Dovre crumbles" is a poetic way of saying "forever". Or, to quote lokalhistoriewiki.no (translated from Norwegian by me): "Dovre has long been a symbol of eternal and unchanging nature in the consciousness of Norwegians". In other words, the oath is basically "United and loyal until the end of time" (when everything, presumably, will crumble). It seems highly unlikely to me that men in a nationalistic mood and seeking independence (as the overwhelming majority of representatives at Eidsvoll did) would swear the kind of wishy-washy, conditional oath you're suggesting, which is basically "loyal, unless the Swedes kick our asses". In any case, though, I guess we might as well wait for the Language Council. Maitreya (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I should report that I got an e-mail from Språkrådet thanking me for my question and politely informing me that people "generally" can't order (bestille) an answer in the magazine. I'm quite sure that they will answer, and I'm still hoping it will be in the magazine. --Hordaland (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if it is a coincidence or if some people in NRK reads the talk page too, but they have attempted at an answer here: http://www.nrk.no/ho/dovrefjell-som-nasjonalt-symbol-1.11721954 -Hekseuret (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Hekseuret, for the link to that article (dated yesterday) and video! Very interesting -- is the lady right?
Somehow Dovre "falling" doesn't work in English, nor does Dovre "crumbling". But a mountain (range) does stand. Would this work? I think it might:
"United and loyal as long as [the mountain range of] Dovre stands"
--Hordaland (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly more in line with my thinking on this and probably the closest we can get to an accurate translation, so I say yes. Maitreya (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I read the same article, and I could not find any (scientific or other) foundation for verifying whether 'crumble' is the real meaning. And to Hordaland above: When one needs to change 'Dovre falls' to 'Dovre stands' in order to back one's claims and theories, it might be an indication of that something is wrong. I do not know, and we shall remain respectfully disagreeing until Wikipedia falls. No More 18 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add (and I see that someone else has written it too) that in the Norwegian language, and probably also in English, it is semantically impossible that a mountain faller. It may rase sammen or even synke, but not falle. A fall requires a height between the object concerned and something else.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that 18th/early 19th-century Norwegians had a mutually known and used motto of this kind. They had no common arenas of meeting, but were more or less limited to their respective local communities. The only common national arena for farmers before 1814 was the Royal Army. This strengthens my suggestion that this motto has its origin in the Army and–more precisely–in the several wars where Sweden sought to capture Norway. No More 18 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone has removed the sentence from the page anyway so it doesn't really matter unless it should be added back. But... [1] While a lot of these search hits are people falling off mountain cliffs, several are not. [2] says: "Dovrefjell har ofte vært brukt som symbol på det grunnfestede, urokkelige («enig og tro til Dovre faller», «så lenge Dovre står») [...]" So while saying "faller" about a mountain in the sense that it falls apart is not exactly common in Norwegian, it is also not unheard of. -Hekseuret (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The phrase 'så lenge Dovre står' gives five Google hits, while "så lenge Dovre består" gives three. One of these is SNL, which you are linking to above. In this case, I consider 'så lenge Dovre står' as an author-created example or explanation (rather than a real expression). Furthermore, a few things need to be investigated. SNL says: 'Dovrefjell has often been used as a symbol of [the permanent]'. It does not say when or since when it has been used as such. Was it before romantic nationalism, or was it during or after? In 1814, romantic nationalism had not evolved. The 'Constitutional Fathers' could impossibly have been using the motto within a romantic national context. The SNL article is too inaccurate, as it seems (alike other proponents of the 'crumble' theory) to mix several different centuries. To me, it is irrealistic that there, in 18th-century Norway or earlier, would arise any expression that was known/used by all Norwegians and that had a (romantic) national content. A Northern or Southern Norwegian farmer, for example, had never visited Dovrefjell in his whole life (with military service as a possible exception). They did not travel, at least not via Dovrefjell, but rather along the coast. Their literature was mainly religious, but in the 18th century some history books and geography books were popular, for example Gerhard Schøning's Norges gamle Geographie (1751), but also books about Alexander the Great and foreign objects. When considering Norway before 1814 (infrastructure, economy, and so on), I see no potential of growth (vekstvilkår, -forutsetning) for this expression. Except in the national Royal Army (est. 1628), as mentioned. No More 18 (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR & EngvarB (US or British English?)

I think consensus on this matter should involve as many editors as possible. So I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway (at least, I've tried to start one) with the above section title. --Hordaland (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see this discussion

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Health in Norway deals with a draft which is a marginally modified copy and paste from this article. Your comments are welcome. Fiddle Faddle 17:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The article was closed as kept and split into Health in Norway. I believe contents should be merged there and shortened to summaries here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Article on Norway

I read the article regarding Norway. It included Norwegian entertainers, the arts, etc. I was surprised that no one has written a few lines about the incredible Ylvis Brothers . . . . . you know, the guys who host the Tonight Show there and who did The Fox. 


                    FATTY  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.164.79 (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Replacing deleted text

Today, in this edit, the text below was deleted from the article’s lead by user The White Hart of Wikiwood with edit summary “Removing too detailed info…”. I agree that this text may be too detailed to be included in the long lead. However, I think that it would be a shame to lose this overview.

I’ve added it to the section ‘‘History’’ as sub-section ‘’Summary, 793 to the 1960s’’ preceding the sub-topic ‘’Viking Age’’. I realize that this is untraditional, but the section ‘’History’’ is so long and detailed that I’m sure that many readers don’t read it all. I’m also aware of the history section in the info-box and will wager that many readers never look there.

The text referred to, lightly edited, is:

  • Around the year 1000 A.D., two centuries of Viking raids to southern and western areas of Europe tapered off following the adoption of Christianity. Norway then expanded its overseas territories to parts of Great Britain, Ireland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland. Norwegian power peaked in 1265 before competition from the Hanseatic League and the spread of the Black Death weakened the country. In 1397, Norway became part of the Kalmar Union with Denmark and Sweden. The Union lasted until Sweden left in 1523. The remaining union with Denmark lasted nearly three centuries.
In 1814, Norwegians adopted a constitution before being forced into a personal union with Sweden. In 1905, Norway ended the union, confirmed in a referendum, ending over 500 years of monarchs residing outside the country. In the same year, the country confirmed the election of its own king. Despite its declaration of neutrality in World War II, Norway was occupied for 5 years by forces of Nazi Germany. In 1949 it abandoned neutrality, becoming a founding member of NATO. Discovery of oil in adjacent waters in the late 1960s boosted Norway's economic fortunes.

--Hordaland (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a span of 900 years between the Vikings and the oil era, while the text focusses on the 1000s, 1814, and the 1900s.
My opinion is that the four first paragraphs of the lead are nearly perfect. They present, respectively, political geography, natural geography, state organisation, and state subdivisions and relations, and they serve a well-meassured and well-written portion of facts. No. 5 and 6, however, could need a good scrubbing. We need one related to economy/democracy/bragging and one regarding history, and they should be as accurate, informative, and short as the others. We could even include a seventh: demographics/culture. No More 18 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality disputes

Please replace Nazi Germany by Germany, I seriously dislike the German habit to talk about "Nazis" as some kind of aliens who vanished in 1945 with an UFO, leaving millions of stunned resistance fighters in some state of "inner emigration" behind. While at it also add the finer points of Viking traditions and cuisine like the hunting and eating of whales. This article is in an unmitigated spam state with zero conflicts and zero criticism. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

About 43% voted for the Nazis in the last free election in Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelgeLund793 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
This was in the March of 1933. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelgeLund793 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

{unreferenced section}

The section "Sports" has no references at all. I've added the unreferenced section template to it. --Hordaland (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

All one has to do is complain - and refs appear. Thanks! --Hordaland (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


The article can be expanded by adding the country military size and its weapon production industry. Mikhail.bulgakov (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

More recent info

Here is more up-to-date info for what is now ref 146. --Hordaland (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 28 external links on Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Too long?

A template mentioning this article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably has been added. Should this article be splitted into sub-articles, or is condensing needed? — 37 (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Condensing certainly seems to be possible. Some info on religion and demographics could be left in the already existing sub articles. The lead should probably be shorter. I'll see if I can do some chopping. --Erp (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The lead is a bit long;

couldn't the (bragging) last paragraph be moved somewhere else? --Hordaland (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Independence?

Norway was in a personal union until 1907. It was politically and constitutionally independent. To refer to 1907 as independence rather than simply dissolution of the personal union - or more accurately change of royal dynasty - is wrong.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That's perhaps a matter of definition. After the dissolution of the union with Sweden, Norway was fully independent - also in international affairs. However, I changed the "Independence" header to "Dissolution of the union", which follows nicely in the Table of Contents. (That was BTW in 1905, not 1907.) --Hordaland (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Terror attacks perpotrated by Anders Breivik

Should the terror attack perpotrated by Anders Breivik be on this page? This attack had no effect on Norwegian policy or the country in general. Around 80 people died, less than a day in Chicago.

I don't think this is historically significant on a page about a whole country. 37.253.213.165 (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Taking up 8% of the prose of the entire "Post-World War II history" subsection seems much to me per WP:RECENT, but there appears to be consensus: Talk:Norway/Archive 7#2011 attacks. Gap9551 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I cannot agree that "less than a day in Chicago" is at all pertinent. The long (and effective) planning stage, the intent to cripple a major political party, the age of most of the victims, the extreme contrast to what's otherwise seen or expected in Norway and the ways the man regularly keeps himself in the news are all unique here and very rare anywhere. I also don't see how the verbiage (percentage of the section) could be reduced much.
Although one-sentence paragraphs should in general be avoided, I do not like seeing the Breivik sentence in the same paragraph as the election of "a more conservative government" two years later. It seems to suggest cause and effect. The Breivik sentence could possibly be moved to the section "Politics and government" but I don't see a logical place for it there. So I've divided the Breivik and more-conservative-government paragraph in two. --Hordaland (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Church of Norway

The issue concerning it being an official religion or not is still unresolved. Are you going to do something about this or what?Ernio48 (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

According to the Bokmål-Wikipedia article Norge (Norway): "Den 21. mai 2012 vedtok Stortinget med 162 mot 3 stemmer å ta begrepet statskirke ut av grunnloven. [21] Den norske Kirke velger nå selv sine ledere og er organisatorisk fristilt fra staten, men er fremdeles avhengig av økonomisk støtte over statsbudsjettet."
Translation: On the 21st of May 2012, parliament, with 162 against 3 votes, took the concept "State Church" out of the constitution. The Norwegian Church now chooses its own leaders and is organisationally free from the state, but it is still dependent on economical support from the state.
The church is more independent than it was before 2012. The formulation "Christian and humanistic values" is still in the constitution. There is no longer any requirement that a percentage of government ministers need be members of the church. The king is no longer the church's formal leader.
What is or is not a state church is relative on a sliding scale, subject to varying definitions. Our article State religion offers this definition: " In the case of a "state church", the state has absolute control over the church, but in the case of a "state religion", the church is ruled by an exterior body; ..." Thus, at least IMO, Norway has a state religion, not a state church. Your question is whether Norway has "an official religion". Personally, I'd say the answer to that must be yes.
--Hordaland (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
It should be restored in the infobox then. And the first sentence of "Religion" section somewhat transformed? And maybe some notes, to explain what happened in 2012?Ernio48 (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Good points, I think. I absolutely do not have time to work more on this at this time. Perhaps you or someone else will want to follow up (and point to this Talk page section in the edit summary/summaries). The Bokmål-Wikipedia article cannot, of course, be used as a reference. --Hordaland (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Oooops, my apologies! I should have checked whether you'd worked on the article before suggesting that you do so. You've done a lot! --Hordaland (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Dano-German

An anonymous user keeps chaning "Dano-German" for the House of Glücksburg to "German" for no reason. --— Erik Jr. 20:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

NATO and APEC in serious problem

The Norway gains loss against Singapore with a difference of more than $12,000. Both of the challenges that it need are in the last warning. KaplanAL (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC) SineBot is the corrector ever — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaplanAL (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This comment needs some explanation. Neither APEC nor Singapore is mentioned in the article. Does the above commenter assume that readers will know what s/he is talking about? What "last warning"? Please clarify. --Hordaland (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sami is an official language

Sami is an official language of Norway, along with Norwegian, it is not merely recognised as minority a language. It is for instance mention in the constitution. This is clear from the sources, please do not reverse. --— Erik Jr. 00:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, Sami is only official in a couple of municipalities called "samiske forvaltningsområdet". This is also stated by the Norwegian Wikipedia ("Innenfor forvaltingsområdet for samiske språk er samisk og norsk «likestilte språk». Samisk er offisielt språk kun i forvaltningsområdet for samisk språk; ikke nasjonalt"), and it is also the exact same status that Kven language has, so the Sami languages (it isn't really one language but a couple of distantly related languages that are not mutually intelligible) belong together with Kven under "regional languages", not with national-level official languages. The parameter official languages is for national-level official languages, languages with a geographically limited official status have their own separate parameter in this infobox. --Tataral (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Please read the sources (WP is not a source) and stop the edit war. SNL. This St.meld. states: "Her i landet blir dessutan samisk rekna som offisielt språk i kraft av den særskilde grunnlovsføresegna og gjennom føresegna i samelova som seier at samisk og norsk er likeverdige språk, og at dei skal vera likestilte språk etter dei nærare reglane i den same lova." ("In Norway Sami is regarded as an official language according to the special article in the Constitution ...") Sami is the only language mentioned in the constitution, so it is not merely "recognised regionally". Kven, Romani and Romanes are recognised. The official status of Sami and Kven are quite different. Norwegian is defacto official language. Nynorsk and bokmål are not languages but writing standards. --— Erik Jr. 11:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
St.meld. 23 (2007-2008) states: "Den språklige variasjonsbredden i Norge, med to offisielle målformer, samisk som offisielt språk, flere minoritetsspråk og stor toleranse for dialektvariasjon..." ("The variation in languages within Norway, including two writing standards for Norwegian, Sami as an official language, several minority languages....") (St.meld. is a white paper that the cabinet presents to the parliament.) --— Erik Jr. 11:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 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) 14:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

English version used

I have changed the English variant used, noted at the top of this talkpage, from British Oxford to British. This is because standard British spelling has been used throughout the article by many editors over time, so that version has become the norm. The talkpage template stating Oxford spelling was put in back in 2010 but seems to have been ignored. Changing it without waiting for consensus seems to be commonsense. If anyone disagrees please say so. Thanks to Pixelgraph for raising this.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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) 14:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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) 14:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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) 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Dumb English

"1814 Constitution" is dumb English. It should be "the Norwegian Constitution of 1814", just like "the Magna Carta of 1215", "the Japanese Constitution of 1947", "the French Constitution of 1958", "the American Constitution of 1787", "the Australian Constitution of 1901", "the Declaration of Independence of 1776", "the War of 1812", "the Treaty of Moscow of 1963", and "the two lunar landings of 1969".47.215.180.7 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Name

I removed the suggested relation between modern names and old norse: Noreg (Old Norse: Noregr) and Norge in Bokmål (Old Norse: Noregi, dative of Noregr). The claim is unsourced and not at all clear how these are related. --— Erik Jr. 14:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

"unsourced" - says who? There is such a thing as "common knowledge". You cannot demand a source for every sentence and every word, because otherwise the whole Wikipedia would collapse under its own weight.47.215.180.7 (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The above claim is not common knowledge and it is not obviously true, please see WP:V. --— Erik Jr. 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2017

i request the change the name of the national anthem of Norway to "Ja, vi elsker (dette landet)" and the english equivalent will be "yes, we love (this country)" the reason for this change is the the current name of the anthem on the page is false. the part "dette landet" or "this country" as it is in english should be moved inside a parenthesis because while it may not be a part of the name of the anthem it helps clear up and misunderstanding when it comes to the meaning behind the name of the anthem (might be misunderstood in a sexual way for some people). My knowledge of this subject comes from the fact that i'm a native Norwegian and highschool student. Keshio (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Population density

The population divided by the area is larger than the reported population density. Is certain area (not) included in the density or area variables, or are density and population observations from different times?

I have seen similar discrepancies for other countries, so there may be a generic reason. Hulten (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

National Motto

I'm Norwegian, and I know that Norway has a national motto(two actually), and I tried to add it to the article but it broke the infobox. Does anyone know how to add it? I couldn't find a template for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StellaRover27 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Famine

Famine of 1695–1696 -> relink to Great Famine of 1695–1697 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.120.38.253 (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks -- ChamithN (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2018

Skifte:

"Norway has a total area of 385,252 square kilometres (148,747 sq mi) and a population of 5,302,778 (as of April 2018).[12] The country shares a long eastern border with Sweden (1,619 km or 1,006 mi long). Norway is bordered by Finland and Russia to the north-east, and the Skagerrak strait to the south, with Denmark on the other side. Norway has an extensive coastline, facing the North Atlantic Ocean and the Barents Sea."

Til:

"Norway has a total area of 385,252 square kilometres (148,747 sq mi) and a population of 5,302,778 (as of April 2018).[12] The country shares a long eastern border with Sweden (1,619 km or 1,006 mi long). It is bordered by Finland and Russia to the north-east, with the Skagerrak strait and Denmark to the south. Its extensive coastline faces the North Atlantic Ocean and the Barents Sea." Hansen-mayne (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. - Dmezh (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think so, User:Dmezh. If you look at the article history, you'll see that the page will remain semiprotected till 26 August. I've reactivated the request. @Hansen-mayne: the change you ask for is stylistic, and looks pretty good to me, but hardly necessary. Let's wait and see if any of the regular editors on this page want to implement your changes. Feel free to argue for them here. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC).
This is incredibly strange, User:Bishonen. I could have sworn that I checked and saw that the protection was to expire on Aug. 20. My mistake, I suppose! - Dmezh (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norway/Archive_8&oldid=1027364471"