Talk:Islam in Norway

message: Would user Leifern care to elaborate on why he put the "spelling" tag on this article? I can't see how it's that much worse than the average wikipedia-article. --Barend 15:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling? 

message: Note that an anonymous user  has replaced Turkish with Moroccan in this and other articles. I don't have the knowledge about this topic to determine if this is correct or a form of vandalism.Labongo 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning: Turkish changed to Moroccan

message: I think the mosque is gone, or has atleast been painted over. I noticed it a few days ago when I walked past it. Should it be edited? Nastykermit (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nor mosque at Frogner in Oslo

message: Multiple issues, mainly in respect to references, but needs rewriting to be less essay-like. --Haruth (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With all the maintenance tags and banners it is more or less unreadable in its current state. It looks like a bomb has gone off there, __meco (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the edit was done by someone with a rather desperate need to highlight their point. The article is of course utterly meaningless in the state that it is now. I find it a bit odd also, that someone had the time to mark critical points two times in about each sentence because of its "essay-like style", instead of just trying to fix the article self. It feels like someone had a higher desire to just mark their "intellectual" superiority and arrogance, instead of trying to contribute positively to the article. -TheG (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Islam in Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090112172613/http://www.ssb.no:80/english/subjects/02/01/10/innvbef_en/tab-2008-04-29-01-en.html to http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/innvbef_en/tab-2008-04-29-01-en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Islam in Norway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090703202309/http://www.ssb.no:80/english/subjects/00/00/10/innvandring_en/ to http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/00/00/10/innvandring_en/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070206001148/http://wwwuser.gwdg.de:80/%7Emriexin/euroislam.html to http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~mriexin/euroislam.html#N
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Islam in 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/20101215001129/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_341_en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209094904/http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx to http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~mriexin/euroislam.html
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) 09:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I deleted these two sentences: "Non-Lutherans were not allowed into Norway until 1912. Baptisim and confirmation were also mandatory for anyone entering the country." Although there is a reference, the information is obviously wrong. The Catholic Church was allowed to establish a congregation in 1843, Jews were allowed in 1851. (See for instance History of the Jews in Norway, Catholic Church in Norway.) Possibly someone has misunderstood the source given. I have no idea what may have changed in 1912, but it certainly wasn't as late as then that Non-Lutherans were allowed into the country.--Barend (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I misinterpreted the source. You can read it for yourself. It states halfway down the page that "Non-Lutherans were excluded entry" into Norway and "Baptism and confirmation were compulsory for all inhabitants until 1912." The claim that "The Catholic Church was allowed to establish a congregation in 1843" is completely unsourced on the Catholic Church in Norway article page. There is a source for the claim that "Jews were allowed in 1851" on the History of the Jews in Norway article page, but it's in Norwegian so I don't know if that's accurate. Kamalthebest (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in that case, the source is clearly wrong. I would be interested to know what source the book gives for this information, to find out where the mistake has arisen, but I cannot check myself, as I do not have the book. I see the book is online, and indeed that is what it says. This information is clearly wrong. I'll try to figure out where their mistake comes from, and I'll add a source for the info on the article about the Catholic Church, no problem.--Barend (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

text: By the way, I am changing my own mistake in the header here - the claims was 1912, not 1812.--Barend (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-Lutherans banned from Norway until 1912" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Islam in 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  tag to http://www.dagsavisen.no/innenriks/article267155.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217120621/http://tux1.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/d171812.htm to http://tux1.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/d171812.htm
*Added  tag to http://dt.no/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20051214%2FNYHET%2F112140376
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114095235/http://www.minhaj.no/minhaj/ to http://www.minhaj.no/minhaj/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218234736/http://irn.no/old/ to http://irn.no/old/
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) 08:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The edits made by User:Aswinpai should be reverted as they were made in violation of a sockpuppetry ban. I'll be doing that over the next few days.VR talk 23:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aswinpai 

message: There recent edits by 1Kwords here are undue. I have been reading scholarly literature on Islam in Norway and they don't give much nearly as much coverage to demonizing Norwegian Muslims as 1Kwords has been trying to do on this page. The fact that 1Kwords reverts attempts to summarize content is troubling.VR talk 19:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The summary of Solberg's quote was inaccurate since important parts of Solberg's quote were cut for no reason so the source material was not neutrally represented in the "summary". Therefore the accurate citation was restored per WP:PRESERVE. The inclusion critiera for material in article hinges upon it being relevant and accurate, not whether it's "demonizing" or not. A Thousand Words (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

text: Regarding scholarly literature, there is currently a debate on how academics avoid reporting on topics related to immigration, this would tie in with VR's initial statement that scholarly sources "they don't give much nearly as much coverage". Quote: . Use translation engine of your choice. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  That quote says that scholarship is self-censored not just when it comes to immigration but also gender and climate change - but we prefer scholarly sources for both of those topics. We should also prefer scholarly sources here per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.VR talk 09:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP can use self-censored scholarly articles as sources of information, but not as a form of style guide. Other reliable sources are perfectly acceptable. If academic self-censorship was allowed to spread to Wikipedia, it would damage the credibility of this project as a whole. Although I have seen academics who edit WP in their spare time argue in favour of various forms of self-censorship imho it should be resisted, not encouraged. A Thousand Words (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you saying that all scholarly sources are self-censored in the field of immigration or are you referring to some specific books?VR talk 14:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNDUE