Talk:Norway/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The list of "largest cities" includes rather small places not even close to be worthy of being named a city. Translated to Norwegian, a City is a Storby. According to Thomas Hylland Eriksen, Norway has something like five cities, those being Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim, Stavanger and Tromsø. According to Eriksen, even though Tromsø is smaller than other places around, it's a regional centre, and therefore to be called a city. Places like Lillehammer is not a city, never mind how far you stretch its meaning Rkarlsba (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

All the time I agree with you here, this was previously discussed at

WP:Norway which is a more appropriate (and probably more watchlisted) than here, since this article is simply in line with the guides (that used to be stated on the main page) of WP:Norway. My initial concern is that one sociologist, no matter how important, cannot be used as a benchmark unless there is agreement among geographers about the issue. We tend to also put great weight to the policy of Statistics Norway. Arsenikk ^(talk)

23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick glance suggests it's not even on the top 20. Would make sense to remove that bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.221.105.197 (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Population of Norway: 4 845 932 (as of 20 October 2009, estimate). Members in Church of Norway: 3 874 823 = 79,96% (text claims nearly 83%) (1). Members in other religious and philosophical communities: 412 000 = 8,5% (2). Unaffiliated (Population substracted the two numbers above): 559 109 = 11,5% (text claims this number is 4,5%). Members of Human-Etisk Forbund: 80 000 = 1,65% (text claims its 1.5%).

(1) http://www.ssb.no/kirke_kostra_en/tab-2009-06-16-01-en.html (2) http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/07/02/10/trosamf_en/

84.202.65.184 (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just browsig this article, and I can't found geographical map!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.139.77 (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A request for comment related to this article has been opened here. Any thoughts are appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the picture of a musk ox, in the nature section, is a misrepresentation of Norway's ecology. In Norway it is a rather rare animal. Also, it is not indigenous, but has been imported. I suggest replacing the picture of the musk ox with something more iconic. The moose, which is far more common, and dare I say, a revered animal in Norwegian culture, would be much more fitting. The Bigbullmoose.jpg image in the Wikimedia Commons archive would be fitting, I think. --158.36.200.219 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Musk ox is very rare in Norway. Moose is common in pretty much all areas of the mainlaind. Other possibilites: sea eagle (white-tailed eagles), reindeer, killer whale, red fox, polar bear (only on Svalbard, though), puffins. Orcaborealis (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Rare as they may be. I believe they are nevertheless considered iconic to the Norwegian fauna, and as such I think the image can be defended. __

talk

) 11:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There should be a orthographic projection type map for Norway. 83.108.194.198 (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need that? __

talk

) 14:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it looks a lot better and will improve the article significantly. Besides, most articles about countries on WP uses it. 83.108.194.198 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Europe map is used in literally all articles on European countries other than Russia. I think Norway's article should be in line with this de facto practice. Moreover, I don't think Norway's geographical area is nearly big enough. -

SSJ ☎

00:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've made a few changes (please see the edit history) and it is now four paragraphs long, as suggested by

Wikipedia:Lead section#Length for an article of this length. Hayden120 (talk

) 04:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this article needs that huge block on the right in the economy section. The article that shares the name has that big block, and it really narrows that section of text along with all of the pictures, which also appear in the economy of Norway article.Rip-Saw (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an unnecessary duplication of the infobox on the main article, Economy of Norway. It's best to keep the detailed information on the specific articles, therefore I have removed it from this one. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the sources for the the clam to be the best country to live in, and no such ranking are referred to in the sources.

As for Norway being a dictatorship, Norwegian government are currently working on a law making it illegal to criticize governmental employee, and Norwegian government are also currently working on a new law making illegal to post and document child abuse done by governmental employee. Dictatorship is the removal of freedom of speech and the rights to oppose illegal activity by the government. As such Norway IS by definition a dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.222.38 (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The "best country to live in" claim, is rooted in the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Look up the Human Development Index for details. The statement itself is fairly subjective, and I'd say isn't warranted in a Wikipedia article, even though it does seem to be a popular phrasing in a number of international news publications.

A dictatorship is an autocratic state ruled by a single individual, or small group. Norway is a monarchy, and a democracy; ruled by an executive, a legislative and a judicial branch. Don't mistake commenting on a Wikipedia article, with your own political agenda. --Pinkopf (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read the latest UNDP-report used to claim support for the claim by Norway that Norway is the "best country to live in", but no such statement actually exists in the report. The report only state clearly that Norway was the most developed country at the time, but the term developed doesn't necessarily support the claim of "best country to live in". That claim is just propaganda made up by Norwegian government and media as it is not supported by UNDP. --38.119.107.110 (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The report is mainly created to see which are the worst countries, and many independent commentators even in Norway have said that the report is not made for, nor able to be scientifically used to differentiate seriously between the "best" countries on the list. The claim of "best country to live in" is mainly used by (tabloid?) newspapers to achieve a great newsstory and propaganda, as most newspapers in Norway are leftist and thus want to make our leftist government look good. -TheG (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

By "leftist government" you mean The Dictator Comrades? --90.149.222.38 (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Around 1975, both the proportion and absolute number of workers in industry peaked. Since then labour intensive industries and services like factory mass production and shipping have largely been "off sourced". As an English speaker, there is no such idiomatic phrase as Off Sourced - it should either be changed to Outsourced, or Offshored. Both have a different meaning, so could someone please update this (I don't have the knowledge to pick the correct one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.78.211 (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add http://www.norway.plonczak.pl

Added by [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.188.143.122 (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of photos of Norway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.188.143.122 (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

akershus is its own area. it even have its own ticket system for buses as well as trains. though coupon cards from akershus can be used in both areas. cards from oslo only works in oslo. i know that some people may have been confused. i however can clear it up. oslo is a single traveling zone while akershus is many more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.72.121 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This is partially true, as of June some time(at work now, can't look up exactly when) last year they have rolled out

NSB and Ruter

.

In regard to that Oslo is listed as Oslo/Akershus under largest cities is also correct as most of "Stor Oslo" is outside of Oslo county. 193.189.241.36 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC) stor oslo is just used to describe oslo and akershus it isnt a real area. i aint sure where the administration center of akershus is. i know that it isnt oslo but, wether it is sandvika or some other place i cant tell. the flexus seem to be added to all of nsb.

I think it would be much better if Foreign relations was merged with poletics, and military was made to its own stand alone section. 88.88.215.93 (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello.

I would like to add my website to links section. I am the author of a lot of photos from Norway. Yo can see all photos at my gallery at http://www.plonczak.pl

Paweł Płończak [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.188.143.122 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The presentation of Harald Fairhair in this article is questionable. While he is something of a mythical founder figure, the reality is that he never came close to unifying Norway, but simply held a moderately large kingdom in one part of Norway. Furthermore, many historians would argue that he could be more accurately described as a gangster running an exceptionally successful protection racket, rather than a king, as that term is commonly understood.

Maitreya (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Harald hårfagre as far as i remember from school unified Norway by defeating the smaller kingdoms, thus all of Norway war one kingdom. This is taught in Norwegian primary school, and excepted without question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxdude96 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Norwegian myself and have been taught the same thing in school. My point is that what we were taught in school was part of a nation building effort, not objective history. In fact, most of that so-called history is based almost entirely on the sagas and if you look at the Norwegian Wikipedia article it's quite clear that in reality the sagas can't even agree on where he grew up, where he originally ruled or even what territories he eventually conquered. In fact Snorre is the only source that suggests he ruled all of Norway. Most modern historians believe that he was king of Western Norway while his allies controlled Trøndelag. Viken and Vestfold and probably larger areas of Eastern Norway were under the Danish crown. If Harald ruled any part of Eastern Norway even the most optimistic historians today tend to agree that it could only have included the westernmost parts of Eastern Norway. Maitreya (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't the links to "

Yeah I noticed this too, several countries are missing these links, it's odd. IDK how to fix them though, but I hope someone can. Fry1989 (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

hello!

is the sperm whale to be considered a "predator"? (as written in the Geography section)

I'm not sure myself.... just asking

I checked the sperm whale page in English and they never use the word "predator"

thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.120.241.55 (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

At present, the infobox lists governmental type as "Parliamentary Democracy under Constitutional Monarchy". Other European democracies that have constitutional monarchs list their system as "Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy". These include the UK, Spain and Denmark. I propose it be changed here as well, as these systems are all very similar - I did make this change, but it was incorrectly rolled back as vandalism. Any comments would be welcome. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I find under better as it is more descriptive of the situation than the simple conjunction and. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the source you have to show that the system in Norway is different to that of Spain, Denmark, UK, Netherlands? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Their respective constitutions. Anyway, did I say they are different? Tomeasy _{T C} 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Norway not a Parliamentary Democracy then? And if they are not different, why shouldn't the same format be used in the infobox as for other cm/pd countries? Using the word "under" makes it sound as if Norway is different and that the democracy in Norway is more subordinate to the Monarchy than in other EU countries. Actually, the reverse is probably true if anything. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see why I would have to proof differences between Norway and other countries (which certainly do exist). I prefer the version that was here before you came along with your "consistency". Tomeasy _{T C} 08:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with what "you prefer". If you think that's the basis of how to edit Wikipedia, you are in the wrong place, doing th the wrong job. Now for the facts. The article did previously say "Parliamentary Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy". This was changed [1] on 25 July 2008 by an editor with the less than helpful edit summary "updating link, some formatting using AWB", which in no way explains such an important change. At the moment, the article implies that the parliamentary democracy in Norway is subordinate to the constitutional monarchy. All of the other European democracy articles where there is a constitutional monarch use the word "and" to indicate that this is not a subordinate role. If you have a source to say Norway is different, bring it forward. Otherwise we need to correct the 2008 edit back to the way it (quite correctly) was, in line with all the other similar articles. Just saying you "prefer" it this way is insufficient. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It was uncontested for two years, hence, consensus. You are challenging this now, which is fine. Nevertheless, you should be patient with changing until this discussion is concluded.

For this to ever happen, it would be great if other editors could give their opinion, as I feel James and I are unlikely to ever get on common grounds. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's never been discussed, so there is no consensus. Tomeasy is not producing supported reasons to defend his position and I have reverted to ensure compliance with Wikipedia norms for articles of this type against edit-warring on spurious grounds. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is also on parts that are undiscussed/unchallenged and not only on discussed content. I gave a reason, I prefer under as it is more specific and descriptive than and. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case the article had a much longer consensus for the current version, since that was on the site for longer than the 2008 change! Not only that, but the 2008 change was put through as part of a group of changes with a misleadingly vague edit summary. So there has been no genuine attempt to get consensus for that change. To summarise:

(1) You originally wanted this reverting because you thought I was acting out of a POV unconnected with this article. This is false but for some reason you can't explain, you continue to act as though it isn't.

(2) You then claimed that it was because you "prefer" it the other way.

(3) You can't come up with a reason why Norway is different to the rest of European constitutional monarchies.

(4) You think it should be the way it was left on an undiscussed change because nobody else spotted it, including you, who hardly ever edits this article.

If you can't think of anything better I suggest you give up, because at the moment you've got nothing. You appear to be annoyed that someone changed your Netherlands article without your permission, so you stalked my edit to here and you can't stand being shown to be wrong. Grow up. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If something is stable for 2 years and then is boldly changed and reverted it is clear there is no consensus to change the stable version, just go for

WP:BRD. My view is that whatever system is provided requires a source, whether it is parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy or any combinations of these. Of course such sources will show differences between countries. Arnoutf (talk

) 20:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It was stable for a lot more than 2 years before and the change was sneaked through without discussion. You would also have to explain why this EU constitutional monarchy article infobox needs to be different to all the others. So far, no good argument has been put forward on this second point. Official sources like the main EU info pages say "constitutional monarchy" for all of the EU countries that have crowned heads of state, but in Wikipedia it has long been the case that we describe the government type also as Parliamentary Democracy, since it is more accurate. All that has happened here is that previously nobody noticed the change. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So it was boldly changed in 2008 (which can be done) and not reverted. And then after 2 years it was again boldly change and immediately reverted. So we are now in a bold-revert-discuss cycle, based on the last stable version. If you object the 2008 change I suggest you time-travel back to 2008 and object at that time.

Each article stands on its own, so each article has to find its own consensus. I have seen no policies/guidelines about listing stateform, but if they exist of course they may be relevant. What others do has never been a convincing argument and to be honest, the way you use it is flawed as Norway is not an EU member so comparisons with "other" EU members make no sense.

Parliamentary democracy maybe accurate, perhaps even

reliable source for that (infoboxes are no exceptions to this core policy), in which case I am sure TomEasy will happily agree. Arnoutf (talk

) 21:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule and there should not be a rule that all countries' infobox information on government type must be identical, if they appear so on a first view. There may always be subtle differences, so subtle that perhaps the one or the other here would not recognize them. (Is Thailand a constitutional monarchy? I know it is outside the EU, but why is the EU a natural boundary for your consistency - OR). That's just to respond to the consistency obligation. In the end it must be backed up by sources, as Arnout correctly says, and I believe there are sources for constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, parliamentary system, etc. However, we have to pick carefully and not by the argument that the Danish article already uses a certain formulation. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have looked up the government type in the CIA factbook and implemented accordingly. They do not say anything else than "constitutional monarchy". I am not saying that this has to be the final word, but I do hope that it puts the revert war on hold about the use of the correct conjunction. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The CIA factbook isn't a useful source on this, because it doesn't explain - it lists every crowned-head-state as "constitutional monarchy". You are just referencing the quick-intro summary in that site page. It's a shame, because you refuse to actually engage with the issue, eg, why Norway's democracy is so different to, say, Denmark, that it needs to be described a different way in the infobox. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

TomEasy provided a source for his claim, the ball is now with you to provide a source James, that is just how the process works. Arnoutf (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Believe me James, I do not need to proof anything about Denmark. This is not how Wikipedia works. I have been editing the Norway article. For this edit to stand, it must be valid in itself. For contentious edits, a reliable source should be provided. The factbook is certainly a reliable source. It was the first thing for me to look at. Had it said "parliamentary democracy" (PD), I would have added this. I can imagine that you will be able to find a good reference for PD, but why are you on such a rush? Why do you need to implement everything right in the articles why the terms are being disputed? I think for the time being, we can live well with a sourced statement. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

under foreign relations it says that Norway surendered to the Nazi Germany in 1940. This is wrong as the royal family managed to escape to England before Oslo was taken. It is true that Norway was invaded by Nazi troops, but it never formally surrendered to them. The royal family even continued to steer the Norwegian freedom fighters from England. I am removing this statement now, You are free to change it if i am wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxdude96 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC) norway was most likely under nazi control for a while because they did surrender. the royal family however may have lived in exile during that time.

The Norwegian armed forces in Norway surrendered to the German invasion troops, but there was never a peace agreement between Norway and Nazi-Germany, the Norwegian government continued to operate, although in exile, Norway remained at war with Germany, and also continued to conduct military operations against Germany, with the help of its allies (such as the Svolvær raid, etc.).--84.210.106.155 (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont have much information myself other than the fact that the parliament lies in Oslo as well as the castle, plus the town hall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.209 (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The county (fylke) borders and the city limits is the same thing; ie the city of Oslo and the fylke of Oslo is the same thing, filling the same geographical area. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but what I think was really meant is that where the centre and most populated area etc. is. This is, logically, towards the south, around the fiord. Many of the city's people live significantly away from that, but the county is actually very large compared to the built-up area, and large uninhabited areas of lakes and forests are in the North. Some places are so small, disconnected and far away from the "city itself" that they are in practice not part of it and functions as separate villages, sometimes with more connections to counties like Akershus, which is reflected in some memberships of regional organisations etc. (such as Oslo being divided between two regional organised groupings of shooting clubs, based on geographical and historic reasons), and when referring to those places one often does not refer to it as Oslo, but as the name of that particular place (such as Sørkedalen) or refer to it by other means, such as how far it is from somewhere else, especially if the speakers live relatively close to both Oslo itself and these other areas and have some knowledge of places in the area. - 'native Norwegian who has lived in different areas just West and East of Oslo and in itself all his life, currently living in the Northern part of the city, towards the forests and lakes, and who has visited many places in the area.

Section 2.4 on the Union with Sweden could do with improving. Eg, this doesn't seem to make any sense:

"However, the decision to link Norway with Sweden caused the Norwegian-Swedish War to break out between Sweden and Norway..."

Can anyone who knows the history (I don't!) sort it out? Thanks. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the revisions. That does make more sense now. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Might it not be appropriate to mention in the section on Norway in World War II that the English were also planning to invade Norway in 1940 to end the shipment of Swedish iron ore to Germany via Narvik? The English very nearly beat the Germans to the punch -- as they did in Iceland. (66.162.249.170 (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Thank you for this, and for not using the incredibly irritating (and IMHO probably incorrect) "toponomy"! Maelli (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This section makes no sense. When was the last good version edited? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The map of Norway hasn't the island of Jan_Mayen coloured in green. The island, north-east of Iceland is administered by the governor of Nordland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.115.160 (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The way ethnic groups are defined on Wikipedia (common heritage, language, culture, self-identification) are not the same as those used on the page linked for the figures (anyone who is at least 3rd generation immigrant). I will therefore remove this figure for now. Please feel free to add a number again if you can find one that follows the criteria set out by Wikipedia. --Johanneswilm (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

--92.226.86.191 (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)893?

The bit explaining about employment is confusing. It says that unemployment is 3%, but that 22% are on welfare and 30% work for the state. This isnt clear. What about private sector employment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.134 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed the article, although it seems to have been written by Norwegian promoters. The 30% have jobs. The 22%, presumably, will never work or can't work. The 3% are "looking for work". That is my guess. The rest are pining for the fjords. Huw Powell (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason the "intro too long" message appears is largely because there is a short summary of Norwegian history included in the intro. If someone who knows N. history could please slice this up and integrate it into the respective history subsections it would aid greatly. 18:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jforee (talk • contribs)

I agree. The second paragraph of this article is the most ridiculous paragraph I've seen on Wikipedia! 93.96.236.8 (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In the introductory text it's not clear the actual status of Bouvet Island. Although not covered by the Antartic Treaty, I think it's not a constituent part of the Kingdom of Norway but a dependency of it. It should, therefore, not be mentioned in the same sentence as Jan Mayen and Svalbard that are truly constituent parts of the Kingdom. Prvc (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Following table is in the article --still.

Country	Regular church attendance (%)
Poland	56.7%[1]
United States	42%
Canada	25%
France	15%
United Kingdom	10%[2]
Australia	7.5%[3]
Norway	5%[4]

I have already added following text : "Church attendance data in the U.S. has been checked against actual values using two different techniques. The true figures show that only about 21% of Americans and 10% of Canadians actually go to church one or more times a week. Many Americans and Canadians tell pollsters that they have gone to church even though they have not. Whether this happens in other countries, with different cultures, is difficult to predict." ^[5]

Furthermore no source is given for the 15 % in France, but known sources list around 5 %, even christian today is listing "In France and Germany, weekly attendance at religious services is below 10% ^[6] and that was a few years ago already. Furthermore the 5 % for Norway seems rather high , the source is outdated and referring to the % of regular churchgoers in 1993 (study done in 1995).

Would appreciate if someone backs up / updates the table as I can't find the data to support the claims being made. Thanks Ruud64 (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You can find data that support the 5% rate in Norway here http://www.dawnnorge.no/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=jaQGxxj9F0A%3d&tabid=2942&language=nb-NO

Contrary to what many people seems to think, the rate of church goers in Norway is increasing, largely due to growth of immigrant churches, and to some extent to newer charismatic churches

Eskil S (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, just seen that the Government has been changed to Crown Republic. The Constitution states that the exectutive of Norway is the Kings Council, a group of civilians appointed by the king himself, the constitution does not state that he needs to be advised in this duty.

Article 1 The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy.*

Article 3 The Executive Power is vested in the King, or in the Queen if she has succeeded to the Crown pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 or Article 7 or Article 48 of this Constitution. When the Executive Power is thus vested in the Queen, she has all the rights and obligations which pursuant to this Constitution and the Law of the Land are possessed by the King.

Article 12 The King himself chooses a Council from among Norwegian citizens who are entitled to vote.

Article 25 The King is Commander-in-Chief of the land and naval forces of the Realm.

Article 26 The King has the right to call up troops, to engage in hostilities in defence of the Realm and to make peace

• - Limited Monarchy is another name for Constitutional Monarchy. Constitutional Monarchy suggests that powers are shared. Crowned Republic suggests that the Crown is entirley symbolic with no power whatsoever. The Kingdom of Norway is not a Crowned Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.118.101 (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 attacks should not be excluded, it is already clear that it is a major event in the country's history. Just like the article

I agree, and I have added it again, although this time I didn't name it terrorist attacks (I copied the text from the attack page itself). The event has already happened, it's not going to go away, so I'd rather have it in the article and then have it updated as new information comes along. It is the worst thing that has happened to us (Norway) since WWII, so it's definitely a part of our history now. Kiire (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

But it is a terrorist attack and should be labelled according to what major news reports call it. I dont see any justification for not doing so.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been undone again by

User:SpeakFree, and I give up on Wikipedia once again, nothing is ever good enough. I've got better things to do. Kiire (talk

) 20:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The attacks should be mentioned but not as a separate section. The two lines I added should be enough. Just consider that World War I and II both share a section. Is it really as big that? If it somehow becomes a turning point in Norwegian history in the years to come future generations can give it a section of its own if its warranted at the time. Please don't be discouraged! S_peakF_ree

(talk)

20:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the word "terrorist". If that was the problem it should now be solved. S_peakF_ree

(talk)

20:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep It should be mentioned, in appropriate proportion (avoiding WP:Recentism), and not described as terrorism. Too many political, point-scoring overtones to that word. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mention and describe as what it was: terrorism. After all, the very definition of terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Just because the perpetrator was white don't change basic facts. WegianWarrior (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop making assumptions and (effectively) accusations of racist bias on this matter. You have no idea of my background and possible biases. I don't like the use of the word terrorism anywhere here. It's too loaded politically. By your definition, we would primarily be describing Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Only Muslims can be terrorist, so that's why we shouldn't use terrorism. (Christians fundamentalist thus cannot be terrorist) Mandela was a terrorist for the apartheid regime (and UK and USA government). He terrorized them with the notion that Africans are humans. That terrified them.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is true that a lot of Norwegians would certainly accept king Harald Fairhair as the uniter of Norway. However, I would like to point out that while his supposed unification of Norway (dated to 872 AD in the article) is not entirely fictional, it is more accurately described as a mythological unification of Norway. He has been actively used in Norwegian nation building in an attempt to create a more ancient history for the modern nation of Norway, but most historians now agree that he was only ever king of the (south)western parts of modern Norway. Even the title of king is really misleading, since his rule basically amounted to a large-scale protection racket. He would travel between several estates scattered around the area nominally under his control with his band of warriors, moving on whenever he had exhausted the resources (and people) in one region. In any case, my point is that referring to Harald Fairhair's exploits as the unification of Norway is somewhat like referring to the establishment of the kingdom of Northumbria as the unification of Anglo-Saxon England. The only real difference is in the mythology surrounding the two events. It would probably be fair to say that real unification of most of modern Norway did not happen until the late 10th century (largely thanks to the interference of Danish king Harald Bluetooth) and was a rather messy, dishonorable affair. Most Norwegians would probably not even be aware of this, so it is basically a question of whether the article should simply accept the Norwegian national founding myth or attempt to provide a more historically accurate account, which would admittedly involve considerable uncertainty both with regard to the historical facts and the definitions of "unification" and "Norway". Maitreya (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

For some unknown reason the article on Norway does not mention the whaling issue at all. I've added "see also" tags to the appropriate article in areas it seemed relevent. The fact that it is not mentioned makes me doubt the integrity of the whole article. (Drn8 (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

I took out two-- one mention seems enough. I also added one to Outline of Norway. 24.177.99.126 (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

According to new official figures, the coastline of Norway is 103,000 km (second longest in the world behind Canada) instead of the formerly believed 85,000 km. This is largely as a new survey has registered a staggering 240,000 new islets that had not previously been officially registered.[2] —

I think that there might be a need for a seperate article about Trials in Norway.

I have searched this website (search: "first trial in Norway"), and came up these hits [3].

What is the first recorded trial in Norway?--85.165.229.8 (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The post war history section and culinary section needs expanding. Currently the post war history section only covers two subjects: Post War Economy and the 2011 terrorist attacks. I am no historian, so I am not going to add to the section right now. I will, however, suggest some topics that could be covered and hope that someone with more knowledge of sources can elaborate:

- Post-war immigration: The 70s saw a change in immigration to Norway. As a result of globalization immigrants from asia, africa and latin america started to arrive, while previous immigration had largely been from Europe. The new millennium saw another shift. Sweden, previously the dominant economic power in Scandinavia, experienced a severe economic downturn while Norway had redeemed its foreign debt during the 90s and emerged as a new, economic powerhouse. Previously, there had been a steady flow of immigrants from Norway to Sweden, but now the tide turned and swedes looking for work became the largest immigrant group by some margin.

- Post-war military history: During the 80s Norway began taking part in international peace operations, starting with the UN intervention in the lebanese civil war. As demand for peace keeping troops internationally increased and norwegian foreign policy increasingly focused on negotiating peace in conflicts around the world the norwegian defence force increasingly specialized itself on foregin operations rather than solely on hold-out defence against invasion as had previously been the case.

- Post war internal migration and population increase: The population of Norway has grown explosively since the war, and is set to pass 5 million shortly. This, combined with internal migration from the districts into the cities (such as is seen all over the world) as well as foregin immigration to the cities have caused the larger cities such as Oslo, Trondheim, Bergen, Stavanger and Drammen to grow even more explosively, driving real estate prices up. Oslo has now passed 600.000 inhabitants which is double that of the pre-war years and is predicted to pass 1 million in 2020. Various govenments and local councils have attempted to stem this tide by various policies such as tax breaks for people who live in remote areas, low-cost or free housing, economic rewards for families who move to the districts, and attempts to settle foreign immigrants in remote areas but these efforts have been ineffective so far.

- Post war policies for women and children: The feminist and equality agendas of the leading left-wing parties in the post-war era has resulted in some of the most robust and expansive allowances, maternity leaves and kindergarten systems in the world as well as one of the highest number of female political and corporate leaders in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.19.102.35 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I just undid some vandalism that had recently been added by a Swede. Well, by someone proficient in swedish at least. --46.9.12.93 (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

damn Swedish, i say we vandalise their country's wiki page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tincanmansiimon (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a new map for Norway: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norway_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg

Any suggestions? Previous discussions on Wikipedia has concluded to have independent evaluations on new maps to be held on each country's article. 83.108.199.200 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

nope, we don't need that many random countries on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tincanmansiimon (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The norwegian population passed the 5.000.000-mark yesterday. http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/2012/03/19/na-har-norge-5-millioner-innbyggere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.224.149 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The correct population number for 1st of April 2012 should be 5,002,942 http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/02/folkendrkv_en/, and not the rounded up number they put as a headline on the overview page. As for the newspaper link right above, it is rewriting what the main source is saying, and at the time (March) it was just (calculated) guesswork for when the population would tip over 5 million. -Hekseuret (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So, since the article is semi-protected I can't edit this myself (unless you want me to randomly edit stuff on other pages just to get my edit count up), but why haven't anyone else done it? Isn't anyone following the comments made to a page that is (semi-)protected? Or are you just disagreeing to the numbers? If so, shouldn't there have been some notice: Not done or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hekseuret (talk • contribs) 13:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I added a few "Verify source" templates to some statements that aren't supported by the source. The statements make claims about ethnicity, but the Norwegian statistics bureau Statistisk sentralbyrå doesn't collect any information about ethnicity, only nationality and place of birth. There are ethnic groups, such as the kven people that have lived in Norway for many generations but don't self-identify as ethnic Norwegians. Likewise, a child born to two Norwegian expatriates counts as a non-Norwegian as the statistics are used now. A possible solution is the one used in the Swedish infobox: An explanation that there are no official statistics on ethnicity, but the percentage of persons with "foreign background" is presented.Sjö (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed a statement that stated that Norway had a 13% disability rate, the official statistics list it as between 4 and 6%: http://www.ssb.no/vis/samfunnsspeilet/utg/201002/10/art-2010-05-03-01.html (Figur 3)

Also updated source for statement that Norway has a 30% public employment rate. ArneHD (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

this page should be promoted to a good article. it contains a lot of good and extended information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegance (talk • contribs) 15:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first paragraph is "According to the UN Human Development Index (HDI), Norway is the best country in the World to live in." It should be "According to the UN Human Development Index (HDI), Norway is the best country in the World in which to live." It's incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition. 70.228.72.219 (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The source on this matter is rather outdated; it is believed now the battle was no earlier than 880 I believe. If someone can find a source on this and make the edit that would be great. 152.93.162.85 (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The statistics about different ethnic groups in Norway presented both in the infobox and in the section uses a norwegian source (SSB) but I cannot seem to find the same numbers in the source as it's presented here. Am I reading it wrong? It's not that far off, but we should be able to get our facts right on this one. --Kristian Vangen (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the short answer is that it's impossible to get the facts right on this one, since the SSB doesn't compile data on ethnicity. I think what's confusing you, though, is that the various figures have been added at different times, but if you try to visit the referenced source page, you're automatically redirected to the latest summary from the SSB. The numbers were probably given as stated in the article at the time the author checked the referenced page, but if you click the link you're taken to the most recent numbers available, not to the referenced version of the page. Maitreya (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've found this article differentiating the Romani and the Norwegian Travellers -- still looking for more. Here's the quote, which is a footnote in the larger article:

Norwegian travellers, Tatere, were numerous and belonged to several different tribes or groups. They were to an extent considered troublesome by peasants, but most of all the emerging social democratic state saw it as its duty to bring the travellers into the ‘modern world’, that is, into the workforce, schools and houses. This was partly achieved by force – by confiscating their horses and wagons, by forcing them into camps where they were taught to work, read and write, and by taking the children of those who resisted, placing them with Norwegian peasants. Instances of lobotomy and sterilization are also reported. This assimilation went on, using gentler means, up to the late 1960s.

I'll try to search on Tater and Tatere and see if that leads me anyplace. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're actually looking for here, but I'll give some general information. Note that there's a lot of confusion surrounding this subject and various terms are often thrown around more or less arbitrarily, but I believe my following statements to be accurate. Taters are descendants of Sinti ("first wave" or "Western/Central European" gypsies), who started arriving in Scandinavia during the 16th century. They usually make a point of distinguishing between themselves and descendants of Eastern European gypsies (often called Roma, at least in the Norwegian context), the first of whom arrived in Norway during the 19th century, and this distinction is accepted by Norwegian society at large. Note that in Norway, the term "sigøyner" (more or less equivalent to "Gypsy"), was originally applied to Taters, but was transferred to, and thereafter used exclusively about, the Roma when they started arriving in the 19th century, since the two groups were immediately perceived to be distinct. Like the British Romanichals, the group described as Taters has been heavily influenced by their cultural surroundings (they have lived in Norway for about 500 years, after all) and intermarriage has been relatively common (it's been estimated that the number of Norwegians with some Tater ancestry is about ten times the number of self-described Taters), so that they are culturally, linguistically and, to a large extent, genetically clearly distinct from the more recent Roma arrivals. Overall, the Taters are typically considered far more "Norwegian" than the Roma/gypsies, especially "fresh off the boat" Roma arriving from Romania in the last few years. To illustrate the point, Åge Aleksandersen, one of the most beloved musicians in Norway, is of Tater ancestry, but no one even suspected until he wrote about it himself. Maitreya (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As a clarification, I'll just add that there is/was also another group, usually called "indigenous Norwegian travelers" in English ("skøyere" in Norwegian). These were originally a mixed population of Norwegians and Germans (many of the latter were, or started out as, traveling salesmen in Norway) who lived a traveler lifestyle and occasionally intermarried with the Tater population, but were not Romanies and did not speak a Romani language. The indigenous travelers are more or less extinct as a distinct culture (due to assimilation), leading some of the few who continue the traveler lifestyle to adopt a Romani language and claim a Tater identity, although this is not widely accepted among Taters. In fact, many Taters resent these claims of "Taterness" as a form of cultural identity theft. Maitreya (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This article has no problem boasting the programs that come with Norway's welfare state, yet there seems to be almost no mention of the taxation; it has one of the highest in the world! I don't know where I could begin to mention tax rates, etc. so any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Some well sourced, objective content could be added to the Economy section, but be very careful. Taxes come in many forms, so comparisons ("it has one of the highest in the world!") are very difficult to make while remaining totally non-neutral on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with HiLo48's comments and will add that while it is common for Norwegians to assume that taxation in Norway is extreme, the numbers tend to show that total taxation (by which I mean "including all the various forms of taxation") is fairly typical for a Western European country. Obviously, tax rates are higher in Western Europe than in most other places, but my point is that Norway is not really exceptional in that neighborhood. Maitreya (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If one solely looks at direct taxation on income Norwegians actually pay less taxes that many other European countries... don't stop us complaining about the tax though. If you look at the total taxation (taxes on income and assets plus the various other fees and taxes) as a percentage of GNP Norway is a fairly average European country - see here and here. WegianWarrior (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The taxation IS ekstreme in Norway, up to 85 percent on oil-revenues. But of course the ekstreme taxation is defended by the majority whom is living on taxex (public emplyees). As of 2112 SSB there are less salarytax put in to the state from fewer and feewer taxpayers, than is taken out from det state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.230.225.194 (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The taxes are this high because the income is high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.69.221 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't it make more sense to translate it to "All for Norway"? 158.36.235.71 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Regards, Kjetil_r 17:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

In the resources section, it says the Government Pension Fund - Global was established in 1995, that's wrong. It was established in 1990 according to NBIM who manage the fund. Can somebody fix that? Regards, 150.101.219.28 (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Tim

I request a better, more direct and logical translation of this motto. I suggest something along the lines of "Accordance and honesty until Dovre falls." I realise a completely correct translation is impossible, but I think it could do some work, and maybe add parentheses or brackets to show implied knowledge instead of "writing it out", such as it is with "the mountains of " now ("Dovre" in Norwegian (it's not even Norwegian, it's a proper name!) is "Dovre" in English, too, not "the mountains of Dovre" (that'd be "Dovrefjellene" or something to that extent), and "faller" isn't (necessarily) "crumble", and beware of the third person singular "-s"; don't get into the habit of adding words or meaning that isn't there in translations, give explanations if needed instead, or just do it right and let people investigate more if they wonder why Norwegian grammar etc. is different from English grammar, because it is and it has to be that way no matter the way you translate a sentence, and it's not going to be easier to understand or learn if we pretend Norwegian is just some weird code for English where letters are omitted, misspelled and swapped and switched around (please excuse the rant and odd punctuation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.223.160 (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess the translation could be improved, but I think it conveys the intended meaning fairly well as it is. "Accordance and honesty until Dovre falls" wouldn't really be an improvement. "Enig" does technically mean something closer to "in agreement", but in this case it's intended to convey a determination to stand united behind what's been agreed upon (the constitution), so "united" isn't a bad choice. Any translation would arguably be imperfect, since a full understanding of the oath really requires knowledge of the historical context. "Tro" means "faithful", rather than "honest", so I think the current translation ("loyal") is pretty good. Finally, there's an implied "We" preceding the oath, as in "We will remain united and loyal...", which your proposal seems to ignore. This was an oath spoken by the men present at the signing of the constitution in 1814, not an attempt at defining some general principles. If anything, I think the real question is whether it should be included under the heading "motto" at all, since it's not officially a national motto, nor is it used as one in practice. Again, it was an oath spoken at a specific time by a specific group of people and (in Norway, that is) it's rarely, if ever, mentioned outside of that historical context. Maitreya (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Norway/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following

Last edited at 04:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 21:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)