Talk:History of Norway

message: Greetings.
There is a peer review started on Wikipedia:Peer review/Viking/archive1 and any interested party is invited to take part in reviewing the article. If you know the history of scandinavia, then please stop by and help the peer review of the artile Viking
Thank you for your time. --OrbitOne  [Talk|Babel] 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review invitation 

message: For the record: The claim that the name Norway originates from the short strait by Karmoy, is at its best a SPECULATIVE thesis. The root word is more likely to mean "direction", and was applied to the entire coastline. There is no evidence for this claim! 
--Sparviere 19:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold, and removed the speculative references to Karmøy. As Sparviere notes, this notion is far from generally accepted, and cannot be proved. --Barend 06:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karmoy??? 

message: I'm afraid that saying some sources is a bit too vague. I also doubt that the -way in Galloway, Kennoway or Galway derives from Old Norse is dubious at best. They all have original Irish/Gaelic names on which the English names are based. If someone suggests that the Celtic names are based on Old Norse, sources would be needed to support that claim JdeJ 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could anyone mention which sources suggest nor -ay is a viable etymology for Nóregr? It doesn't seem to make much sense. Island in old Norse is 'ey'. So that should make something like Nórey. Not Nóregr. I am very tempted to delete the whole sentence unless someone can come up with a source.--Barend 22:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has come up with a source, so I am deleting this highly dubious sentence. --Barend 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: -way

message: there is much to copy here from the parralel Norwegian article. Acidburn24m 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  help needed 

message: So, it's fairly settled what the English etymology of Norway is, but the Norwegian word forNorway is quite unrelated; Norge, coming from "Nor rige", that is, northern realm, realm of the northmen or even realm of Nor (mythical person)
I'm no expert here, but if anyone knows anything, please add this as it is laughable not having the etymology for a nation's name in its own language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.254.184 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear, no, Norge most definitely does not come from "Nor rige". The Old Norse form was Noregr, this is undisputed. "Norrige" is a Danish distortion of modern times. The etymology of Noregr is quite commonly explained in the same way as English "Norway" - Way to the north. They are not unrelated at all, they are the same.--Barend (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: what the devil is this rubbish?
german POWs throughout Europe were used to clear ordnance
figures already indicate that, sadly, there was a high rate of injury or death
but in this article it purports that in Norway german POWs were forced by their 'british guards' (anyway why British? why not norwegians?? they ran norway after VE DAY) a la Rambo 3-style to run to certain deaths through minefields
what a load of pure BS..!!
the site that this revelation comes from is on a norwegian right-wing website (reference)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.93.132 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when was VG a right-wing website? I tried to dig up some info on Anders Chr. Gokstad, but I couldn't find anything. --85.166.48.224 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British troops forcing German POWs to run across minefields 

message: First sentence in this section: "there were people in Norway as early as the 5th millennium BC (12,000 years ago)." These number don't match: 5th millennum BC (or BCE) was 7,000 years ago; 12,000 years ago was the 10th millennium BCE. Which is it? I'm guessing it's the latter, since the subhed includes "10,000 BC." Also, I believe "BC" & "CE" don't match, either. "BC" means "Before Christ," which matches with "AD" ("Anno Domini," "The Year of Our Lord"). "BCE" means "Before Common Era," & matches with "CE" ("Common Era"). I changed that in the subhead & text (to BC/AD, which seems to be the Wikipedia standard). Ctnelsen (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-historic age 

message: It seems like Wikipedia has no description about when, why, and how, the final border between Norway, Sweden/Finland, and Russia were drawn. This seems like a major event that should be described in this article. Labongo (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Related to the above question. Does anyone know if the borders drawn onto the 1761 map (at the bottom of the page) are something added to the original at a later time? The coloring seems to be modern, but does it also apply to the borders? Labongo (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, there is actually a legend that shows that the borders were in the original document. Labongo (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Border(s) in Northern Norway 

message: I have never heard of the so-called "Christina the Magnificent" of Strandgaten in Bergen, and that her coming marked the end of the Norwegian national decline (which started because of the Black Death and subsequent union under Denmark). Those lines, early in the article, should be deleted. mhusoy (talk) 10:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.220.169.153 (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christina the Magnificent 

message: prepare.the anglo-sikh was kind. the indo-scythian is not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.220.169.153 (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nyota - translates Message 

message: Hi,
A lot of this sounds like a machine translated holiday resort brochure reused in a term paper. You get the intention, and it's almost there, but not quite, neither wrt. language nor content.
"About 10,000 BC, following the retreat of the great inland ice sheets, the earliest inhabitants migrated north into the territory which is now Norway. They traveled steadily northwards along the coastal areas, warmed by the Gulf Stream, where life was more bearable."
Afaik _among some of the earliest_ settlers are found reindeer hunters from a culture centered in the area around present day Berlin. As the ice receded, they probably followed the reindeer wherever those went.
The coastal areas are not "warmed by the Gulf stream, making life more bearable" ... Between the GS and Norway there is first the Atlantic drift, and then there is the Coastal Stream, which originates in the Baltic, not Florida (still warmer than the North Atlantic, of course). 
Norway has high average temperatures and less temp. spread realtive to its latitude, that is true. This info could perhaps be placed with he first sentence. And perhaps combined with one sentence on Geology/Topography, which would explain or at least underpin that first sentence.
(Digression: In Norway people talk of North-Norway, West Norway (Vestlandet), East Norway (Oestlandet) and the South Land (Soerlandet). The latter is the fairly narrow and short strip of coastland in Aust-Agder (and some parts of Vest-Agder, in the interest of tourism). Genereally speaking, however, there is a South Norway (The "South Land", Eastern and Western Norway) and North Norway (Nordland, Troms, Finnmark), with the Trondelag as a sort of self-declared "Central Norway" or "Mid-Norway". This makes seem strange sentences like ...)
"... agricultural settlements appeared around the Oslofjord. Gradually, ...  these .... spread into the southern areas of Norway - whilst the inhabitants of the northern regions continued to hunt and fish".
Well, Oslo _is_ i the southern areas of Norway - relatively far south, actually.  "... up throughout"?
And for sure the inhabs of S-Nor continued to hunt and fish, as if their life depended on it, as their life depended on it.
Then, in the next paragraph, Norway makes the giant stride from the Neolithic straight to the Migration period. No bronze age? No pre-roman, roman iron age? Maraviglioso.
"The migration period caused the first chieftains to take control ..." This is just so ....
There were probably chieftains a long time before the migration age (and clans, too). 
And the age doesn't _cause_ anything. At best, in an age, we can _see_ that X.
(This one's not for this page, but the history page claims rapid population increase in the middle ages while the viking related pages claim overpopulation as a factor that triggered the viking age. Go, as it were, figure.)
"In 1814 Norway was ceded from Denmark to Sweden and a constitution was passed. Norway declared its independence but was then occupied by Sweden, although the Parliament was allowed to continue to exist."
Here is a slightly streamlined version from the Wiki page on the S/N Union:
"Following the 1814 Treaty of Kiel, Norway was to be ceded from Denmark to Sweden, but declared itself independent and adopted its own constitution. A brief war with Sweden resulted in the Convention of Moss on 14 August and the Norwegian Storting (parliament) electing Charles XIII of Sweden as King of Norway, while Norwy retained its own legislature, cabinet, administration, church, armed forces, and currency."
"In 1884 the king appointed Johan Sverdrup as prime minister, thus establishing parliamentarism."
I don't like this one either, but ...:
"During the 1884 constitutional crisis, the king was forced to appoint the parliamentary nominee Johan Sverdrup as prime minister, thus establishing parliamentarism." 
"From the 1980s Norway started deregulation in many sectors and experienced a banking crisis."
"From the 1980s Norway started deregulation in many sectors. In two referendums, Norway has refused to join  the European Union, while maintaining close ties to the EU via its membership in EFTA and thereby in the EEA." This one is perhaps broader in outlook?
Prehistory: "The immigration .... something. /.../ They were nomadic." Who? The Immigration? Must be a new band.
"Increased ice receding from 8000 BC caused settlement along the entire coastline." 
Increased receding caused settlement? Is it just me who finds this awkward?
"The Stone Age consisted of the Komsa culture in Troms and Finnmark and the Fosna culture further south."
Or: "The Komsa culture in Troms and Finnmark and the Fosna culture further south are evidence of Stone Age culture/settlements/habitation something"?
"The Nøstvet culture took over from the Fosna culture ca. 7000 BC,[Hi, guys!] which (who, the Fosna ?) adapted to a warmer climate which gave increased forestation and new mammals for hunting." Cool - or is it "uncool"? Adapting to a warmer climate gives new mammals, what with the massive breeder program. 
"This period also saw the arrival of the Corded Ware culture, who brought new weapons, tools and the Indo-European language, from which the Norwegian language developed.[6]"
Changing "who" to "which" would make this a lot less funny. Although IE language imported in Corded Ware still is. 
The info on the linked page "Furhter info: Nordic Iron Age" consists of six lines of text, less than the section here.
" Trading with Romans also took place, largely furs and skins in exchange for luxury goods. Some Scandinavians also served as Roman mercenaries. " Really? Really? 
" Some of the most powerful farmers became chieftains."
"The role of chieftain passed to the powerful among the farmers."
(""The role of chieftain was now taken up by the most powerful landlords."?)
"The chieftains' power increased during the Migration Period between 400 to 550 as other Germanic tribes migrated northwards and local farmers wanted protection." The Migration Age page states that Scandinavia was largely unaffected by the Migrations.
Viking Age:
" ... advanced navigation techniques ..." -  not "improved" or "more advanced"?
"Vikings ... had a psychological advantage over Christians ... since they believed that being killed in combat would result in them going to Valhalla." And the Christians wouldn't go to Heaven? OK, ok ... but it's just such a sweeping psychological generalization.
"The lack of suitable farming land in Western Norway caused Norwegians to travel to the sparsely populated areas such as Shetland, Orkney, the Faroe Islands and the Hebrides to colonize" - because there is such a massive abundance of suitable farming land in Shetland, Orkney, the Faroe Islands and the Hebrides?
I'd posit that Shetland, Orkney, the Faroe Islands and the Hebrides were perfect places to export the way of life of Western Norway as a successful model. Those who sought land went to England (or, at least many of those who went to England and setteld there, sought land.) But that's my OR and all that. 
" abolishing the rites in Norse mythology was first attempted by Olav Tryggvason.."
a) How do you abolish the rites of a mythology? What does that even mean?
b) Olav was perhaps the third king who was an xian (Ericus Sanguisecuris, Haakon the Good)
Olav V "... created an institution of priests." ???
"Many chieftains feared that the Christianization would rob them of power in lieu of their roles as heathen priests" In lieu? "Many chieftains feared that the Christianization would rob them of power instead of their roles as heathen priests"? 
" In 1130 the civil war era broke out on the basis of unclear succession laws, which allowed all the king's sons to rule jointly."
Sounds like they introduced some very confusing succession laws in 1130.  Having all sons of a king to rule jointly must have been incredibly stressful all around.  
(And the "Succession law" link leads to the seven people in line for the throne of Norway after the present king Harald V. Precious little relevance. )
" The church inevitably had to take sides in the conflicts, with the civil was also becoming an issue regarding the church's influence of the king." ???
And with " many aristocrats lost the basis for their surplus" I think I'll leave off.
The article is a mix of bad language which partly creates, partly masks misinformation. Bold edits aren't enough, this requires someone who knows both English and History.
T
85.166.162.202 (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Scream of Desperation 

message: As far as I can tell, it references the same source 90% of the time with no original reference point (that I see). Am I overlooking it? If not, how could this even happen in the first place? MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations are too confusing. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140528014107/http://www.avinor.no/lufthavn/stavanger/omoss/70_Historikk to http://www.avinor.no/lufthavn/stavanger/omoss/70_Historikk
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5uv6grx5a?url=http://www.lillehammer.kommune.no/files/75261/ to http://www.lillehammer.kommune.no/links/113598
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hi, there exists a Wiki article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Norway_(872%E2%80%931397)". How about linking to it? Or ... the "History" section in the "Norway" article is more extensive than this page devoted solely to the history of Norway. Instead of fixing this one, it should perhaps just be deleted? T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motstandsretten is a NO language page on the people's right to regicide if the king broke the law, given in para 75 of the Frostating law; in support of Olav II being killed at Stiklestad "in accordance with the law". T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlinked article