Talk:Norwegians

message: The total population is underestimated at 7.8 considering manny Norwegian diasporas were left out. True number probably stands around 10 million.
where come those numbers from?
Such numbers must be very uncertain. The article also claim 4.6 mill ethnic Norwegian in Norway. Norway has a population of 4, 7 mill. Of this population ca 9 % is foreigner. This makes up around 350 000 people, reducing the ethnic Norwegian population in Norway to 4, 3 mill. If we go into counting ethnic Norwegian we have to subtract also. 
(Norwegian)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.48.180 (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underestimation of Total Population 

message: The page claims "the vast majority" of Norwegians are Lutherans. This is not true; a large Norwegian newspaper, Aftenposten, have found out that no more than 49.5% of the norwegian population answers "yes" at the question "do you believe in God".
Yes you are absolutely right, thats why i have changed the formulation to the "vast majority are nominally Lutherans,(the majority of Norways population still hold membership in the Norwegian Lutheran Church) and mentioned the secularization of a country which probably ranks among the least religious in the world. The religiousity among Norwegian-Americans, as this article also include under Norwegians, is however probably stronger. Not that I have seen any figures but I think it can be presumed due to the relative high level of religiousity in the general American population. Thats why I mention only the secularization of Norway proper, not of Norwegians as this here is meant to mean also their descendants across the Atlantic Ocean. kjetor
:I updated this.  If you read closley, it said the vast majority of religious Norwegians were Lutheran.  However, I updated it to reflect current statistics from Norway.CBadSurf 00:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegian Lutherans 

message: Those who follows news in Norway will know that the term "nordmann" (Norwegian/noun) has been controversial in Norway as well. I don't think this is a simple issue, but let me add a couple of points to the fray:
* I fundamentally reject the idea that genetics should matter at all. Olve's acid test is apt.
* "Ethnic Norwegian" is a bit of an elusive term. What is it that a shipowner in Bergen has in common with a tenant farmer in Hedmark? Or a fisher in Lofoten with a shoemaker in Kristiansand? 
* If we are talking about Norwegian cultural and linguistic heritage, then this should be covered in articles on Norwegian literature, ethnology, architecture, music, etc., etc.
* If we are talking about the people who have lived and live in Norway, then demographics of Norway is the right article. --Leifern 13:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnicity is not an objective category, but one that is renegotiated based on various criteria that are seen as meaningful by the people involved. In this case, most people living in Norway seem to hold that a shipowner in Bergen has a certain something in common with a tenant farmer in Hedmark that neither has in common with, say, a Danish or Pakistani immigrant. At least not the first generation. I would recommend the essay "On Ethnic Groups and Boundaries" by Norwegian social anthropologist Fredrik Barth, that deals with the issue of how real-life ethnic groups very often defy academical attempts at rigorous and "objective" classifications, since they aren't really based on any one criteria, but on several criteria that can in various situations be held more or less important. The ultimate criteria is simply, by his own words, ascription and self-ascription, ie. whether you consider yourself a member of the ethnic group, and whether other members of the group consider you a co-member. Barth's theory focuses more in boundary-maintenance and argues that any particular cultural "content" (language, race, origin, land, religion, etc.) is largely incidental and usually elevated to a symbolic status after the formation of the ethnic group.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Godspeed (talk • contribs) 12:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: Following in the weighty discussions above, this may seem a little minor, but in the info box, the total population is estimated as 4.3 million, and only the USA and Canada are listed as areas of significant population. Is this info box meant only to refer to Norwegians in diaspora? If so, it lacks clear marking as such; its name is simply "Norwegians" (Nordmenn) and it estimates total population to no more than that of Norway. I apologise if this due to inattention on my part, but I cannot find out this puzzle.Hinakana 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Americans or Canadians or anyone else with only partial Norwegian ancestry, with no knowledge of Norwegian and who hasnt lived in Norway for a long time are not ethnic Norwegians...Lukas19 22:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but most Americans or Canadians in question claim partial Norwegian ancestry. Someone with 1/4 Norwegian and 3/4 Swedish ancestry may be an ethnic Norwegian but not someone with 1/4 Norwegian, 1/4 Italian, 1/4 Native American and 1/4 Irish. Of course this is my opinion and you are entitled to your own opinion but there is a distinction with predominantly Norwegian people living in Norway and speaking Norwegian and others with partial Norwegian ancestry; and the table makes that distinction. Lukas19 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Population?

message: I edited the translation of the term Nordmenn. It translates as Norsemen not 'men from the north'. Swedes, Danes and also Norwegians would confirm this.
:Actually, I'd suggest another revision of this translation. Nordmenn translates literally as northmen, not Norsemen. Norse, at least in modern Norwegian, would be translated as norrøn, whereas nord simply means north. It's not a major point, but in contemporary Norwegian/Scandinavian usage the terms Norse and Norwegian are intentionally differentiated, because Norse is exclusively used to describe Norwegian/Scandinavian culture during the Viking age. Maitreya (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that this distinction should find its way into the article. __meco (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Now you call it the "term". Since it's a Danish word for Norwegians, and a term in Norwegian and Swedish, where the right word is norsker or norskar. Since nordmænd/nordmenn is the Danish word, which translated means "North men", is probably because they always have lived north from the Danes :). --Tesko111111 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The translation of the term Nordmenn

message: Arigato1 has removed information about Swedes on this page and on this page. To avoid any misunderstandings about his erroneous reason for removing the text, I cite the source here:
:In fact the [...] data indicate Germans and a few other Central European populations as being the closest to the Norwegians. When we compare our results with those based on different polymorphic systems,9,17 we can infer that these conclusions are also valid for Swedish, while Finns and Saami had a quite different genetic history with a great impact of Uralic Finno-Ugric speaking population.
The reason Arigato1 cited for removing the text is disturbingly wrong.--The trollfighter 12:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arigato1's removal of information

message: For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all  infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "related groups" info removed from infobox 

message: Please see the deletion review discussion here. Badagnani 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion review discussion

message: While this is not terribly important, I think it's worth mentioning that in reality the differentiation between ethnic Norwegians and Swedes is primarily a question of history more than anything. In terms of physical appearance, it's impossible, even for Norwegians and Swedes, to tell the two apart and the languages are much closer than, say, American and Jamaican English, although the latter two would both be considered variations of a common language. This is not to say that there are no differences, but my point is really that any estimation of Norwegian population in Sweden or vice versa is meaningless, because the two groups blend together to the extent that any second-generation Norwegian in Sweden would consider himself Swedish and be accepted as such by Swedish society. Thus, talk of a Norwegian diaspora in Sweden (or vice versa) is meaningless, and the large population exchange over time makes it even more so. Maitreya (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor point on Scandinavians as a group

message: Does anyone else than me see a problem with Ari Behn being listed as one of the "top 8" Norwegians through history? I don't think he's worthy at all to be listed amongst Fridtjof Nansen etc., Ari Behn 's achievements is writing a bad book and marrying the Norwegian princess. I think he should be removed ASAP. Gabagool (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, should be people from Norwegian of the century or something. I would change Groven with Edvard Munch (painter) and Behn with Wenche Foss (actor) or Morten Harket (artist) if we find good pictures. Røed (talk · no) 22:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you'd have to make a new version of :image:Norwegians (ethnic group).jpg... But indeed, Behn is not coming close to a representative top 8th. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: You are putting your finger at something important here. At the moment also Siv Jansen has been added. Personally I take offence at her being put together with great Norwegian names. If one should have her represented here, at least one should also have Jens Stoltenberg or some other politicans to the left of centre as a balance. At the moment even some obscure model that I never even have heard about has been added. I think it is time to make a clean up here and not just leave this to individuals trying to force through their own opinions here. Are there no guidelines here? --Oddeivind (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I have now added them both, as well as St. Olaf and Ole Gunnar Solskjær. -GabaG (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ari Behn??

message: Why is there no Edvard Munch and Edvard Grieg in the picture? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added them both, as well as St. Olaf and Ole Gunnar Solskjær. -GabaG (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I don't see any explanation of why this page was moved from Norwegian people to Norwegian ethnic group, especially not why the move was repeated after being reverted.  The appropriate process is bold, revert, discuss, not "bold, revert, repeat" (we're an encyclopedia, not a shampoo).  The common practice on Wikipedia is for articles entitled Fooian people to be about the ethnic group, and for Fooian to be a disambiguation page.  When we want to refer to people who live in or are citizens of a country, as opposed to members of an ethnic group, we use Fooian.  See, for example, French/France/French people; German/Germany/German people (redirects to Germans); Japan/Japanese/Japanese people; Sweden/Swedish/Swedish people (recently moved by the same editor who moved this page); and many other examples.  Now, I'd be the first to admit that this isn't an ironclad rule and there can be exceptions when there is a good reason for it, but I haven't seen anyone offer any reason at all, good or otherwise, for treating Norwegians or Swedes differently from all other ethnic groups/nationalities.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: The numbers given for norwegian living outside Norway are at the best inaccurate, and most likely impossible to compare, since some of the numbers only includes norwegian citizens, some of them even only norwegian citizens who has reported their whereabouts to an embassy (UK), while other numbers include every inhabitant in a country who has a norwegian ancestor (US). 
How likely is it that there should be ten times as many norwegians in Brazil, half ways across the earth, as in neighbouring country Denmark!?!? Bw --Orland (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The surprisingly high numbers for norwegians in four latinamerican countries were added by an anonymous (and SPU) IP in june 2007 inthis and the previous edit. I'm removing them now as no source are given. --Orland (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate numbers of norwegian abroad 

message: The source for how many Norwegians living in Iceland is wrong. Norwegian citizenship does not mean they have to be ethnic Norwegian. Bgagaga (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceland source 

message: I didn't see this page before now as I had only looked at the discussion page for the article itself. I did a major cleanup and verified a lot of the sources. Unfortunately none of the sources really said anything about an ethnic group of Norwegians and so I had to delete almost all of that. Please look at the discussion page for that article for the entire explanation. -- google my name to find out about me -- Johannes Wilm 17:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cleanup 

message: There were two talk pages for the same content. I now move everything here and try to ask the other one to be deleted. We will lose the history of the talk page, but it's the only possibility I can see to get out of this chaotic state. --Johanneswilm (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The current redirect is much better than to lose history. --LPfi (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes indeed. The problem is discussed on the above mentioned talk page. --LPfi (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have cleanup the page somewhat. Please see comments below. google my name to find out about me -- Johannes Wilm 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

text: "Norwegians" is not an ethnic group but a national group. If you wish to argue otherwise you will have to produce reliable sources that state this directly. It is currently a problem that there is on article on "Norwegians" and one on "Norwegian people" with no clear differentiation of content between them. You are however trying to turn this article into a POV fork discussing Norwegians as a putative "germanic ethnic" and trying to track down a "Norwegian diaspora" through creative synthesis of disparate sources. This is not permissible. If you want to posit the existence of a "Norwegian diaspora" you will need to find sources that explicitly use that term and use the information from there - you cannot compose such a group from information from different primary sources. This is a clear breach of WP:NOR. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

text: So why did this "mob" of people all just suddenly go on and attack this article about Norwegians? Why have you not done anything to any of all the other "people articles" which holds the ethnic version, including diasporas abroad? If you deny the existence of c. 5 million ethnic Norwegians in the US, then you must also deny the existence of any other ethnic group in the US (and everywhere else). I find it extremely unfair that Norwegians should be treated worse than everyone else in the manner that is happening now. Norwegians are worth just as much as all other peoples in th world. – Bellatores (t.) 12:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Agreed but this would be moving, not merging, right? Is there a consensus on how pages are to be named? For example, the articles for people of Denmark and Finland are named Danes and Finns, not Danish people and Finnish people, with emphasis on the word "people" and nationality. Qwerty (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No it would be merging since I am not proposing replacing one page with the other, only to bring the content of both articles together in a single coherent article with a single title. Whether it be merged to Norwegians or Norwegian people I don't care much about. We just don't need to slightly different article on the same topic.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are an admin, you can undelete it an merge it the proper way. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions from [Talk:Norwegians] 

message: Hello! I am User:MrGulli. Anyway, an administrator is needed to delete this talk page. "Talk:Norwegians", I mean. The actual talk page for this article is here: TALK:NORWEGIAN PEOPLE.That page then needs to be moved to this address. Someone must've moved the article from Norwegian people to Norwegians without moving the talk page, anyhow GOOD LUCK ! MrGulli (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TALK PAGE TELEPORTATION PROVES PROBLEMATIC – [[Talk:Norwegian people|Correct talk page here]]. 

message: This article could need a cleanup. The Icelandic and Faroese are counted as Icelanders and Faroese, respectively, not Norwegians. They're counted as different ethnic groups. Also, it seems weird to include all quarter-bred Norwegians in the Americas who are culturally assimilated into their respective countries, and to not count assimilated Norwegian-speaking immgrants to Norway. At least, it is not in line with Norwegians' own perception of norwegianness. Are there any general guidelines for this on Wikipedia? Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed. The problem is discussed on the above mentioned talk page. --LPfi (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have cleanup the page somewhat. Please see comments below. google my name to find out about me -- Johannes Wilm 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup?

message: I removed the three tables at the bottom. The reason for this is:
The first table did not have references connected to it. If you do think the numbers can be proven, please provide evidence before adding the table again.
The second table compared the US and Norway in terms of children born to "Norwegians". However the data about Norway defined origin as "Own, mother's or father's country of birth if it is foreign, otherwise Norway." While the data from the US census describes its selection process as "Respondents were asked to select their origin (and the origin of other household members) from a "flash card" listing ethnic origins." .
The two ways of determining background will produce ver different results. First of all are the Norwegian figures based on Norwegian clearly measured indicators, while those from the US measure what group the respondent believes to originate from. Secondly, there is no category "US American" as origin within the US census, so that everybody is forced to select some foreign origin. Third, the Norwegian figures automatically make a third generation immigrant count as "Norwegian", while no such thing happens in the US census. Given that a large part of Norwegian ancestors to US Americans having immigrated in the 1880s or so, had the Norwegian rules for measuring been used, they would all be listed as having "US American" parents.
The third table compared Norwegian and US counties as how large a percentage of "Norwegians living in them. The US data did not have any explanations as how Norwegian ancestry was measured, so it is likely the same data set from the US census. The same problem of comparing data therefore exists, and so the data is not comparable.
The section about genetic similarity to Germans I changed to only be about Norway (not Sweden, that should be on the Swedish page), and I changed it from concerning "Norwegians" to the "Norwegian population" as that is what one study in question refers to, and I#ve also the explanation given that article: thousands of years of migration in and out of Norway. I've also pur the two sections about genetics together. I did not check the references for these studies any further.
I also changed the definition of Norwegians to what its actual use is today. Norwegians are generally all those who have Norwegian citizenship, if they choose to see themselves as Norwegians. If they don't choose to see themselves as Norwegians, but for example Sami, then they are not to be seen as Norwegian. 
At the top I exchanged the Norwegian-without-immigrant background for the Norwegian population of Norway. The page linked hitherto does not give figures of this. It is those born to Norwegian parents and those born to foreigners but having Norwegian citizenship taken together: . As menitoned above and as mentioned in the egentic studies that are referenced on this page, the numbers do in fact count 3rd generation immigrants as Norwegians and the general population of Norway has thousands of years of a history of immigration.
I then removed the US figures, for the above reasons. I removed the Canadian nfigures, as the Canadian statistics are based on people's own view as to what their ethnic origin is, whereas the Norwegian numbers are about citizenship (see above). 
I then removed the UK and Iceland, and Faeroye Island figures as they weren't referenced. It seems that in the case of Iceland and the F. Islands it is someone's personal estimate of people with Norwegian background, and in the case of the UK it is Norwegian citizens currently registered with their embassy in the UK. These are two very different groups that cannot be compared.
I removed the Australian figures as these are based on origin before migration to Australia of ancestors. These numebrs are different than those of the US and Canada, yet also incompatibel with the Norwegian numbers for the same reasons mentioned above.
I removed the Swedish numbers as these are about where people residing in Sweden were born. A person with Pakistani parents born in Norway would here be counted as Norwegian, although he may hold a Swedish passport. These numbers are therefore also incompatible with the Norwegian figures.
The Danish figures show foreign nationals resident in Denmark. However, none of the pages linked hitherto show number of Norwegian citizens resident in Norway, so also this figure is incompatibel with the Norwegian numbers. If a number of total Norwegian citizens can be found and linked, and the total number of Norwegian citizens in Norway, then those numbers would be more accurate than what is there hitherto. 
Given that only figures for Norway are left for now, I removed the total figure and only kept that for Norway.  google my name to find out about me -- Johannes Wilm 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Major cleanup

message: This article is, and has been for several years, an article about the ethnic group Norwegians. The article is not about the word "Norwegian". Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia.Alphasinus (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Norwegians" is not an ethnic group but a national group. If you wish to argue otherwise you will have to produce reliable sources that state this directly. It is currently a problem that there is on article on "Norwegians" and one on "Norwegian people" with no clear differentiation of content between them. You are however trying to turn this article into a POV fork discussing Norwegians as a putative "germanic ethnic" and trying to track down a "Norwegian diaspora" through creative synthesis of disparate sources. This is not permissible. If you want to posit the existence of a "Norwegian diaspora" you will need to find sources that explicitly use that term and use the information from there - you cannot compose such a group from information from different primary sources. This is a clear breach of WP:NOR. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

text: So why did this "mob" of people all just suddenly go on and attack this article about Norwegians? Why have you not done anything to any of all the other "people articles" which holds the ethnic version, including diasporas abroad? If you deny the existence of c. 5 million ethnic Norwegians in the US, then you must also deny the existence of any other ethnic group in the US (and everywhere else). I find it extremely unfair that Norwegians should be treated worse than everyone else in the manner that is happening now. Norwegians are worth just as much as all other peoples in th world. – Bellatores (t.) 12:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Johanneswilm

message: This article should be merged to Norwegian people. There is no reliable source that can support a distinction between "Norwegians" as an "ethnic identity" and "Norwegian people" as a national identity. And even if there were it would make better sense to treat both sense in a single article in order to explain the difference. This article is currently just reduplicating content with a POV slant towards somekind of ethno-nationalism. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed but this would be moving, not merging, right? Is there a consensus on how pages are to be named? For example, the articles for people of Denmark and Finland are named Danes and Finns, not Danish people and Finnish people, with emphasis on the word "people" and nationality. Qwerty (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No it would be merging since I am not proposing replacing one page with the other, only to bring the content of both articles together in a single coherent article with a single title. Whether it be merged to Norwegians or Norwegian people I don't care much about. We just don't need to slightly different article on the same topic.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are an admin, you can undelete it an merge it the proper way. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The section about modern day religion seems to be original research. I think the situation in Finland is quite the same as in Norway: most people nominally Lutherans, few people attending services. I have heard of no oppression of Lutherans, so the theory that all religious people fled to USA seems quite far fetched. I could argue about the arguing in the article, but as original research isn't allowed here there is no reason to. --LPfi (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: The culture section now talks only about language and religion. But are we going to have one section here about culture among Norwegians and an other section in Norway about culture in Norway. Then this would either be a duplicate or about how culture of "real Norwegians" differ from that of their neighbours, either in America or in Norway. I see nothing good in such an attempt. --LPfi (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: I am removing Alphasinus unsourced changes introducing the notion that Norwegians are a "Germanic ethnic group". This classification is is unsourced and arbitrary, Germanic is a linguistic category not an ethnic one and we could equally well write "indo-European ethnic group", but that also contributes no relevant information. Norwegians are an ethno-national group that speak a germanic language. Also Icelanders are not Norwegians, nor are Orcadians or Faroe islanders - each of these are ethno-national groups in their own right - the fact that the first populations of their respective islands migrate from Norway more than 1000 years ago does not make them norwegians by any applicable standard. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Get reliable sources. Without sources there is no discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: your wrong maunus you dont have to have a source for a self evident basic fact, look on other ethic group articles like russians or kirgiz people they all have unsourced yet self evident basic facts, here is some more information about the Germanic peoples(count it as your "source" if you may)[]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freesaveliy (talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Germanic

message: In the footnote in the infobox for the UK Norwegian population, it says Does not include people of Faroese, Icelandic, Orcadian or Shetlandic ancestry, or any other rigmaroles and paradoxes.  This doesn't make any sense based on my understanding of the words 'rigmarole' and 'paradox' (and it certainly wouldn't be any clearer with rigmarole and paradox linked).  What does this mean? —Akrabbimtalk 15:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are the diffs that added the language, found with wikiblame: paradoxes, rigmaroles.  Unfortunately, MrGulli is retired.  So are these formal anthropological terms, or should they be removed, or what?  —Akrabbimtalk 12:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "rigmaroles and paradoxes part".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rigmaroles and paradoxes 

message: "But when the gold rush began in Australia in 1851 flocked to the volunteers, and it has been said that as many as 5000 Norwegian-born was in the periods. Around 1860 there shall have been around 2500 Norwegians there. A good number of these had previously tried luck that gold miners in California, and many went also return to America. Gullgravere guess almost by definition, fortune seekers, and thus prepared to move around depending on your luck might smile, and there was little stability there."
This paragraph is incoherent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.150.48.131 (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under Australia 

message: Aside from needing citations for various claims here, there's a complete lack of information about Norwegians in British Columbia (who came via different routes/means than those described, and for different reasons), likewise Newfoundland (it's not by accident that one of the major streets in St John's is called "Stavanger" and that a taxi company name/family name is Bugden.....re BC Hans Lars Helgesen was the first non-Briton to hold a legislative seat in Canada; he was the founder of the commercial fishery in what's now called Haida Gwaii.  Norwegians were common in the goldfields, most of the originals having come like everyone else to the Fraser Gold Rush via California; population rates in the western provinces could also be shown (Saskatchewan has the highest percentage at about 7%, BC and Alberta are next.  There's various things in this section that made me go "WHAT?" and "huh?" I'll be back about those some other time.Skookum1 (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Norwegians#Canada]] section

message: The term "norrbagge", now seen as derogatory, has nothing to do with sheep or goats, or these animals testicles.
During the civil war i Norway in the 12th and 13th centuries, there were two main fractions, the "poor" peoples party called the Birkebeiner (Birch-tree legs) as these were said to use the birch-tree bark (known as "never") for their shoewear,- and the Bagler party, siding with the church and the Bishops.
Bagler is an adjective form of the noun "bagall", which is a bishops staff.
Both these names were of course given by the opposing party to the other party to ridicule them.
As Norway included large areas which was ceded to Sweden in 1645 and 1658, the people in Sweden referred to those who lived in the southern part of the ceded areas as "baggar",- later "norrbaggar",- as their Swedish ancestors had done before them. But the reason for the name  was of course a mispronunciation of the word "bagler",- as no one in Sweden was familiar with that word or the word "bagall".
This led to the erroneous connection with sheep and other livestock. The word bagge has never meant anything connected to testicles, not even today. It simply means male sheep.
In the 17th century the ever present wars led Swedish soldiers to think that this was just another derogatory term of Norwegians, but one must not forget that there were a noble family in Sweden that had "Bagge" as their family name, and they still have.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.183 (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting. I started searching for sources, as we ought to give reliable sources for statements in the article. I found a Norwegian source, who had yet another explanation: that "bagge" refers to Bagaholm, which lies at what used to be the border between Norway and Sweden until 1658 (at Bagaholm, later Bohus, Fortress. "Nordbagge" then means those who lives north of Bagaholm. If you have a reliable source (books, magazines, newspapers) for the "bagler" explanation, we can include that explanation as well. But it appears that the meaning of the word is regarded as uncertain by linguistic experts. Kind regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other terms 

message: Can someone give me a good reason not to remove her as a "prominent" Norwegian? 
I see no reason to have her there, especially considering how insignificant and unknown she is.
In addition, we should consider adding Magnus Carlsen. He might well be the most famous Norwegian of year 2014. 
--90.149.188.205 (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Svi Jensen a prominent Norwegian?  

message: Please revert the image in the info-box of famous/notable Norwegians ("Norwegians (ethnicgroup)b.png") back to the original image ("Norwegians (ethnicgroup).jpg"). The new image has a clear far right-wing political and royalist bias.
The text below the new image reads:
St. Olaf  • P. Tordenskjold  • N. H. Abel  • F. Stang
H. Ibsen  • E. Grieg  • F. Nansen  • E. Munch
R. Amundsen  • E. Groven  • L. Ullmann  • O. G. Solskjær
Pr. Märtha  • Pr. Mette-Marit  • S. Jensen  • L-M. M. Jünge
The text below the original image would need to be edited to:
St. Olaf  • P. Tordenskjold  • N. H. Abel  • F. Stang
H. Ibsen  • E. Grieg  • F. Nansen  • E. Munch
R. Amundsen  • E. Groven  • L. Ullmann
81.107.45.41 (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Please read the relevant sections on this talk page.  -- Sam Sailor Talk! 16:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2015 

message: I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The gallery of personalities from the infobox 

message: The number displaying the Norwegian population is not up to date. Per today the number has passed 5 millions, and this shuld be updated in the article.http://ssb.no/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetterWilmo (talk • contribs) 15:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The total population of Norway is a bad indication over how many ethnic Norwegians there are, according to SSB the entire population growth stems from non-ethnic immigration and the total ethnic Norwegian population has been reduced.https://www.ssb.no/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/_attachment/151661?_ts=142b3125768 84.247.151.29 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong population of Norwegians 

message: This is simply nonsense. Having some Norwegian ancestor is not the same, at all, as being Norwegian. Those numbers are simply wrong, the measure different things. How can this appear on a serious enciclopaedia? --46.25.48.186 (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Norwegians in the US than in Norway? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Norwegians. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ssb.no/innvbef_en/tab-2009-04-30-05-en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927060758/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/EJHG_2002_v10_521-529.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/EJHG_2002_v10_521-529.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414055310/http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(07)63256-X to http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(07)63256-X
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120219033541/http://www.studyinnorway.no/sn/Living-in-Norway/Culture to http://www.studyinnorway.no/sn/Living-in-Norway/Culture
*Added  tag to http://www.aftenbladet.no/livssyn/1086156/2_prosent_gaar_i_kirken_paa_en_vanlig_soendag.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) 02:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why are Americans with, no matter how much, Norwegian ancestry considered Norwegian? The definition in the start of the article states that Norwegians: "share a common culture and speak the Norwegian language". Most Norwegian-Americans/Americans with Norwegian heritage do not. I can only find numbers that which say that about 55 thousand Norwegian-Americans actually speak the Norwegian language, and most of them don't really practice the culture or have any relation to Norway whatsoever. Why they are considered "ethnic Norwegians" and included in this article is beyond me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supevan (talk • contribs) 10:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegian-Americans 

message: Norwegians never migrated in Brazil in significant numbers. Somebody is including a fake source to claim there are 400,000 Norwegians in Brazil, but that is not true. Moreover, Brazilian censuses do not ask about ancestry, only about nationality, and there aren't 400,000 Norwegians in Brazil. Xuxo (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil