Talk:Church of Norway

message: Does any one know what the relationship is to say Norwegian Fishermans’ Church, Liverpool.--84.9.194.90 03:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Norwegian Church Abroad Inge 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Norwegian Fishermans’ Church, Liverpool

message: The article claims 10% of the population attends services on a regular basis, whereas the article it claims as source only has 3%.
I presume the source is correct, and changed the percentage in the article.--Sparviere 01:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Attendance

message: I'm sitting here with the CoN's book of worship (Gudstjenesteboken), and I can't find any opening for the credo in the liturgy of communion. There is: Sursum corda, Prefatio, Sanctus, a prayer, Our lord, Verba, (room for second part of "a prayer"), Agnus Dei. No room for credo. There are neither any Credo in the test-liturgy (http://kirken.no/?event=showArticle&FamID=35648) from NFG ("Nemd For Gudstjenesteliv", = the Liturgy-Reform).
Credo comes in the baptismal part, or after the second reading (according to the book from -86), or after the sermon (according to some test-liturgies from NFG).
I will therefore correct the liturgy-part.
--A-moll9 (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right, thanks for fixing ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credo in communion-part of lityrgy? 

message: :Category:State churches (Christian) is itself a category within :Category:National churches. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:National churches]] ''vs.'' [[:Category:State churches (Christian)]] 

message: :Category:Church of Norway is itself a category within :Category:State churches (Christian). — Robert Greer (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:State churches (Christian)]] ''vs.'' [[:Category:Church of Norway]]  

message: The article should really consider looking into whether there has ever been any doctrinal dissent from conservatives within the Church of Norway, who might feel alienated about decisions surrounding the ordination of women or the blessing of same-sex marriages. It is possible to imagine that if this dissent were not healed, many of these conservatives would consider forming their own ecclesial community, which might be tempted to reunite with the Catholic Church, such as recently seen with the Traditional Anglican Communion. ADM (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissent from conservatives

message: This article should be completely reworked.  The name of the church has changed, and its Lutheran exclusivity was changed by legislation in May 2012.  It is still the state church is some ways (payment of clergy and property, schools, organizations), so to say it is not the state church has only limited veracity.
:What do you mean by Lutheran exclusivity? The church is still Evangelical Lutheran, as established by the Constitution. Per Weo (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Church has new name and inclusion

message: The Constitution of Norway now (from 2012) says that "den norske kirke, en evangelisk-luthersk Kirke, forbliver Norges Folkekirke og understøttes som saadan af Staten" ("the Church of Norway, an Evangelical-Lutheran church, remains Norway's people's church, and is supported by the State as such"). The provision is directly based on the provisions for the Danish and Iceland state churches (Church of Denmark and Church of Iceland respectively) in the Danish and Icelandic constitutions. The term people's church (folkekirke) was introduced with the Danish 1848 constitution, where § 4 says that "Den evangelisk-lutherske kirke er den danske folkekirke og understøttes som sådan af staten" ("The Evangelical-Lutheran Church is the Danish people's church and is supported as such by the State"). The Icelandic constitution contains a similar provision based on the Danish constitution. Per Weo (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the wording would imply that it's not a state religion but a national church (people's church). --Pudeo' 02:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Compared to other Nordic state churches

message: Church of Norway was until 2012 an integral part of the Norwegian government apparatus, along with tax offices, police, school etc. The clergy were civil servants appointed by the King, and the King was kind of archbishop. In 2012 there was a soft break from the state, the church is now a self-governing body. It is a national church although not a state church (in Norwegian the word "state" is synonymous with "government"). --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed ad nauseam, and as has been demonstrated (e.g. above), the view that the state church should be abolished is a minority view of only one small party (SV) that was not adopted by the Storting. Both Labour and the Centre Party (then in government) and all the other parties except SV explicitly decided in favour of retaining the state church (see e.g. ) As then-Minister of Church affairs Trond Giske said when the most recent amendments of the constitution were proposed, "the state church is retained" ("Statskirkeordningen føres videre. Verken Ap eller Sp hadde mandat til å gå med på å skille stat og kirke"). The recent constitutional amendments were mostly of limited importance and did not at all affect the church's status as a state church; the only somewhat important change was that authority to appoint bishops was transferred to church bodies, but this was really only the last stage of a process that had been going on for decades and part of the same process that gave e.g. universities the right to hire professors themselves, they don't have to be appointed by the government any longer either. This, of course, doesn't make the University of Oslo any less of a state university. Per Weo (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Norwegian sources says that it is no longer a state church for instance or the church itself. Christianity was the official religion in Norway since 1024, and the church was governed by the king since 1536, priests and bishops were civil servants, the church was in effect the government department of religion. This is no longer the case, the church is self-governed. What remains is funding, but all  religious organizations are supported financially by the state (this is also mentioned in the revised constitution). The church of Norway is no longer part of the government apparatus. Trond Giske's remark is a political statement not a factual statement. Human-Etisk forbund also claims that is still a "state church", but too is a political statement because they dont want any relation between state and church. So the church of Norway is a national church but not a state church. And evangelical christianity is no longer the official religion of Norway. The label state church is removed from Norwegian WP. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but Norwegian sources, as seen above, say it is a state church; even the Minister of Church Affairs said so explicitly when presenting the changes in question, leaving no doubt as to what the official situation is. It also fullfills any meaningful definition of a state church for the reasons mentioned above; eg. it has a special provision in the constitution (unlike any other religion/church) where it is mentioned as the "people's church" (a traditional term for state church; also the provision is an almost verbatim copy of the similar Danish provision for the Danish state church), it has its own law, its employees are state employees (contrary to what you claim), the King is required to be a member, its regional and central bodies form part of the state administration, it is bound e.g. by forvaltningsloven and other laws regulating public bodies, the municipalities are required by law to support its activities, the municipalities are represented in local church bodies and so on. The view that is is not a state church despite all these facts which clearly demonstrate that it is, is a (rather frivolous) minority view, not held by any of the parties which voted for the recent constitutional amendments (not even SV, the only party which in theory would prefer to separate it from the state). The reason why it is a state church can be readily found in current Norwegian legislation. A good overview is presented here. Per Weo (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "fritanke.no" is the publication of Human-etisk forbund, they are very critical to any relation between church and government and they mean that the changes are not sufficient, so it is in their interest to frame the situation. The departemental web pages says that there is no state church. There are some details of the reform not in place, for instance creating the church as a legal entity is not yet in place, but this is a question of practicalities and not principle. There is already a new association, KA, in place for church employers. You are right that some legal details are still not in place. In any case there is no doubt the reform was the most important change in the relation between church and government since 1536, it is clearly misleading to suggest that the church of Norway is the same as 20 or 50 years ago. As we can not agree about the term "state church", the article should mention the specifics in the relation between government and church, including the changes i 2012. --Erik den yngre (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

text: It is the privilege of the Storting and no one else to determine the status of the state church, and the Storting has not abolished any state church, and this was made perfectly clear by the Storting and by the goverment when these changes were adopted. The Minister of Church Affairs said: "The state church is retained." The most recent amendments are mostly rather insignificant changes, and other reforms of the postwar era were far more important, e.g. female priests. The reform 25 years ago was also at the very least of equal importance. There is only one single party in Norway, the small SV party, which is in favour of abolishing the state church. Per Weo (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Also, the two sentence-text that you linked to does not say there is no state church. That would have been rather strange since the government's policy is to retain the state church (both the former Labour government, as they made very clear, and the current one; after Labour decided in favour of the state church a couple of years ago, there is hardly any support for abolishing it). For example, any public university or college, or the state's broadcasting company NRK, are separate legal entities, the church being a separate legal entity doesn't make it less of a state church. There is no requirement that a state church must be fully identical with the regular state administration; a state church is by definition a church that has a privileged position in a state, e.g. in its constitution and/or public life. More important is the fact that it has a special provision in the constitution as "Norway's people's church, and is supported by the State as such" (a very clear wording meaning state church), with the provision being a deliberate copy of the long-standing Danish provision for the Danish state church, having its own law and all the other characteristics of being a state church. If it was not to be a state church, the Constitution of Norway would have to be changed and the current state church provision removed. Per Weo (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: «The departemental web pages says that there is no state church.» No it dont. What is  outspoken political intention of government in office: is intentions, not facts. this timeline shows the work in progress. Andrez1 (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not state church since 2012 

message: There is no consesus to use the term "state church". Some sources (opinion pieces mostly) says that it is still a state church, other sources (the church itself, the ministry, news reports) says that is not. The term "state church" is more controversial then not using the term at all. NO-WP avoids the term and instead describes the specific changes and the specific relations between state and church (for instance no official religion, but priests are still civil servants). It is not our job to draw inferences from facts. When facts are not clear (for instance the term "state church") WP must reflect this state of affairs, for instance by avoiding the topic or by quoting diverging positions. --Erik den yngre (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed there is, and furthermore, it is the official position of the Norwegian government, and of the Norwegian constitution. The opinion that it should not be a state church is just a minority, fringe personal opinion. We have the Storting parties saying explicitly that the state church is retained, we have the Minister of Church Affairs saying "the state church is retained" for Christ's sake. Also, it doesn't really matter which words are used in Norway, I recommend that you read the introduction of the article state religion (which is where state church redirects, and which is synonymous with state church) to get an idea of what the term means in the English language (for example: "State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but neither does the state need be under the control of the church (as in a theocracy), nor is the state-sanctioned church necessarily under the control of the state.") By this definition, the Norwegian state church is even more of a state church than what is really required to be called a state church in the English language; it is one of the most quintessential examples of a state church in the European tradition today, and this (the Church of Norway remaining a state church) was also what the Storting and government said they intended when they adopted the most recent changes. From both the legal/constitutional and scholarly point of view, there is absolutely no question that the Church of Norway has been a state church since the Reformation until this day, regardless of the wish by some of its opponents, a small minority, to change this situation (an agenda they will first and foremost have to pursue by convincing the political parties represented in the Storting to change the Norwegian constitution as well as other laws giving the Church of Norway a special role, although it seems extremely unlikely that the Storting will do that in the near future). Per Weo (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus that the Church of Norway is a state church. The sourced used to support the statement are selective or opinions.It is not our job to reach a conclusion, NO-WP is much more accurate as the term is avoided, instead the various remaining ties to the government are specified.. Even NOU 2006:2 said clearly that "state church" is not a clear concept. Please leave the disputed-tag until this is resolved. --— Erik Jr. 22:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

text: This matter is not resolved. You can not just remove the disputed tag at will. The same discussion was going on in Norwegian WP. There the notion "state church" is avoided because it is not entirely clear. Dont you think Norwegian WP is more accurate in this matter than EN WP? Regards --— Erik Jr. 22:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, on the contrary. This article is vastly superior, and other (poorly sourced and biased) Wikipedia articles are not acceptable as sources. We have been through this material again and again and again, and you refuse to take sources into account, ignore all previous debate and insist on your own theory which is not supported by sources. That's not enough for a tag. English Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not personal opinions. This article is not the right venue for campaigning against the Church of Norway and/or its special constitutional role in Norway. The Minister of Church Affairs and the Norwegian Parliament say Norway's state church is retained (and it obviously meets the definition of the term in the English language as well), while you have an entirely different opinion. That's ok, but not in the article. Per Weo (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop removing the disputed tag. This is disputed because sources are not clear. And we are two editors that do not agree, that is the definition of disputed. I am campaigning for accuracy, nothing else. --— Erik Jr. 22:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, Andrez1 didn't agree with your interpretation either. I'm sorry, but there are no sources that demonstrate that both the government/Minister of Church Affairs and the parliament were wrong when they explicitly decided to retain the state church, as demonstrated by several sources. The Norwegian Wikipedia, which you are so fond of, even has an article called "the new state church arrangement," as the 2008/2012 amendment is known as: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den_nye_statskirkeordningen_(2008) Per Weo (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, stop removing the disputed tag. You had the same argument on Norwegian WP. I have left the word "state church", but added accuracy by specifying below. Please do not reverse the specification of the new church organization. There is no need to repeat the word "state church" when already mentioned in the firs paragraph. --— Erik Jr. 00:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

text: There is only one user (you) who disagrees that it is a state church, based on your own personal opinion rather than sources, while the Parliament and Government of Norway (as explained by the Minister of Chuch Affairs Trond Giske at the time) explicitly hold the opinion that it is a state church (per above). That is not enough to add a tag, which qualifies as frivolous at this point and in view of the very clear sources. You cannot add a disputed tag after the description "American" in Obama's biography either, even though there are people who claim that he's an Indonesian Muslim or something like that. You seem to refuse to even read the article state church to get an idea of what the term means in the English language, instead insisting on your own definition which is unrelated to both English language usage and official Norwegian definitions. There was only a single, small party (SV) which advocated the abolition of the state church at the time (per above), and this article is not the right venue to continue that campaign. Per Weo (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked for a dispute resolution. Please pause editing. See my comment below: a disupte is among editors and there are only two editors at work, one of them can not unilaterally claim that the matter is resolved, that is not how WP works. Please stop saying that it is my personal opinion. We are not here to analyse the concept of state church, we are here to quote what reliable sources say about the matter. I am not insisting on my own definition. The Church itself and the Ministry said that what was once "state church" is now "state and church". Newspaper reports also said "end of state church". Giske has opinions and a political position to defend, so his claim is also an opinion not a clear fact. Fritanke.no is the magazine of the Humanist association that is very critical to any link between state and religion. When reliable sources diverge we as editors can not make our concluisons.  The Gjønnes commission pointed out that the concept of state church is not clear cut (and mentioned several elements that together create a state church), that is one reason why the NO-WP does not use the term. — Erik Jr. 13:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Norwegian Wikipedia does indeed use the term ("the new state church arrangement") (although other Wikipedia articles in foreign languages do not count as sources here). Trond Giske was the Minister of Church Affairs, it was not his personal opinion. Not a single party in the Storting claimed it was an abolition of the state church either. The term state church in the English language is actually well defined and no serious person can claim that the state Church of Norway does not meet the definition when it's one of the most quintessential examples of a state church, fullfilling and even overfullfilling the definition of the term in the English language. Once again you are making your own definition instead of listening to what I tell you about the term in the English language. Per Weo (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Please leave tag until dispute is resolved. --— Erik Jr. 13:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

text: There are not yet any responses to this proposal. I will wait a few more days, then change as indicated. Regards --— Erik Jr. 17:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The concept of state church, as the term is understood in the English language, is relevant to the description of the Church of Norway, and it is flatly wrong that "reliable sources are inconsistent with regard to the label "state church"", it's the other way round. I have actually not seen a single reliable source which is inconsistent with the English language term "state church". The article should certainly describe the 2012 changes, but not misrepresent them as some drastic change of the church's status, or be based on an editor's own analysis and views on a constitutional amendment which was explicitly not an abolition of any state church and which introduced comparatively moderate changes, which were actually seen as a reinforcement and strengthening of the state church by its opponents in Norway. Per Weo (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

text: I propose that we instead follow English language usage and the established meaning of the term in the English language, an issue you have avoided during this entire discussion. Per Weo (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You were invited to join a discussion on dispute resolution noticeboard, but you did not respond. The mediator there advised: "I would suggest that discussion can continue on the talk page, but should focus on the wording of the lede, rather than tagging, which is merely a first step to calling for the need for discussion." I suggest as a compromise that the very broad claim "state church" is removed from the introduction, instead a new section can discuss the relation between state and church including the diverging views about the current status. In this way we avoiding using the disputed label "state church" as a clear fact. Then you can use the label "state church" as a description according to some sources, but not according to others. This is the way forward when sources (and editors) disagree. Please help out finding a constructive solution instead of repeating the same arguments. Best regards, — Erik Jr. 18:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite ages of debate, you seem to refuse to listen to what other editors tell you, and not a single user has agreed with your views in this discussion, so this seems more like an attempt to exhaust others by simply ignoring discussion, arguments and sources. You have not proposed a real compromise, and not even a specific wording or anything like it; the only contested issue (which is only contested by you) is the inclusion of the reliably sourced description of the Church of Norway as a state church in the opening sentence, so your suggested "compromise" is really that you have it your way by removing a reliably sourced description because one editor doesn't like it. There is no disagreement that we can also have a detailed description of the exact ties between the church and the state, and even a discussion of the views of those who think there should be no such ties, somewhere below. What you seem to fail to accept and understand is that reliable sources clearly demonstrate that the Church of Norway is a state church today according to the definition of the term in the English language ("a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state"). Removing the description would clearly be a bold change indeed, and there are no credible sources to support such a change, on the contrary there are solid sources that demonstrate that such a change would be factually wrong. Per Weo (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop attributing intentions and opinions, please assume good faith. You were invited to join a dispute resolution, which is a normal procedure in situations like these, but you did not respond. So I am trying to be constructive without the help of volunteer mediators. Some reliable sources say that it is a state church, others say that it is not. We don't have the option of being selective to create clarity. My suggested compromise is quite clear: Remove the word "state church" from the opening sentence (because it is contested and ambiguous). This leaves the issue open, so instead a new section can be inserted describing the various perspectives on the issue. --— Erik Jr. 12:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources that support your assertion that the Church of Norway is not "a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state"? Despite numerous reminders, you have not replied to this question. How is the Church of Norway not officially endorsed by the state in your opinion, when it's even mentioned as the country's people's church in the constitution? This is a question of the English language descriptive term state religion/state church. This is not a Norwegian language project, so it's even possible that the meaning of the English language term may be different from usage in other langugages such as Norwegian. Per Weo (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus 

message: This matter is resolved and there is no evidence that supports such a tag. Your personal opinion that the church shouldn't be a state church is not acceptable evidence. Please familiarize yourself with what the term state church means in the English language (per above) before making edits here. Per Weo (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This matter is not resolved. You can not just remove the disputed tag at will. The same discussion was going on in Norwegian WP. There the notion "state church" is avoided because it is not entirely clear. Dont you think Norwegian WP is more accurate in this matter than EN WP? Regards --— Erik Jr. 22:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, on the contrary. This article is vastly superior, and other (poorly sourced and biased) Wikipedia articles are not acceptable as sources. We have been through this material again and again and again, and you refuse to take sources into account, ignore all previous debate and insist on your own theory which is not supported by sources. That's not enough for a tag. English Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not personal opinions. This article is not the right venue for campaigning against the Church of Norway and/or its special constitutional role in Norway. The Minister of Church Affairs and the Norwegian Parliament say Norway's state church is retained (and it obviously meets the definition of the term in the English language as well), while you have an entirely different opinion. That's ok, but not in the article. Per Weo (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop removing the disputed tag. This is disputed because sources are not clear. And we are two editors that do not agree, that is the definition of disputed. I am campaigning for accuracy, nothing else. --— Erik Jr. 22:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, Andrez1 didn't agree with your interpretation either. I'm sorry, but there are no sources that demonstrate that both the government/Minister of Church Affairs and the parliament were wrong when they explicitly decided to retain the state church, as demonstrated by several sources. The Norwegian Wikipedia, which you are so fond of, even has an article called "the new state church arrangement," as the 2008/2012 amendment is known as: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Den_nye_statskirkeordningen_(2008) Per Weo (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, stop removing the disputed tag. You had the same argument on Norwegian WP. I have left the word "state church", but added accuracy by specifying below. Please do not reverse the specification of the new church organization. There is no need to repeat the word "state church" when already mentioned in the firs paragraph. --— Erik Jr. 00:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

text: There is only one user (you) who disagrees that it is a state church, based on your own personal opinion rather than sources, while the Parliament and Government of Norway (as explained by the Minister of Chuch Affairs Trond Giske at the time) explicitly hold the opinion that it is a state church (per above). That is not enough to add a tag, which qualifies as frivolous at this point and in view of the very clear sources. You cannot add a disputed tag after the description "American" in Obama's biography either, even though there are people who claim that he's an Indonesian Muslim or something like that. You seem to refuse to even read the article state church to get an idea of what the term means in the English language, instead insisting on your own definition which is unrelated to both English language usage and official Norwegian definitions. There was only a single, small party (SV) which advocated the abolition of the state church at the time (per above), and this article is not the right venue to continue that campaign. Per Weo (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked for a dispute resolution. Please pause editing. See my comment below: a disupte is among editors and there are only two editors at work, one of them can not unilaterally claim that the matter is resolved, that is not how WP works. Please stop saying that it is my personal opinion. We are not here to analyse the concept of state church, we are here to quote what reliable sources say about the matter. I am not insisting on my own definition. The Church itself and the Ministry said that what was once "state church" is now "state and church". Newspaper reports also said "end of state church". Giske has opinions and a political position to defend, so his claim is also an opinion not a clear fact. Fritanke.no is the magazine of the Humanist association that is very critical to any link between state and religion. When reliable sources diverge we as editors can not make our concluisons.  The Gjønnes commission pointed out that the concept of state church is not clear cut (and mentioned several elements that together create a state church), that is one reason why the NO-WP does not use the term. — Erik Jr. 13:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Norwegian Wikipedia does indeed use the term ("the new state church arrangement") (although other Wikipedia articles in foreign languages do not count as sources here). Trond Giske was the Minister of Church Affairs, it was not his personal opinion. Not a single party in the Storting claimed it was an abolition of the state church either. The term state church in the English language is actually well defined and no serious person can claim that the state Church of Norway does not meet the definition when it's one of the most quintessential examples of a state church, fullfilling and even overfullfilling the definition of the term in the English language. Once again you are making your own definition instead of listening to what I tell you about the term in the English language. Per Weo (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed "disputed" tag

message: Dispute is not resolved. I reinsert "disputed" tag to notify readers that "state church" is an disputed term in this case. — Erik Jr. 11:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please leave tag until dispute is resolved. --— Erik Jr. 13:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag again

message: (and other interested editors) Reliable sources are inconsistent with regard to the label "state church". For instance the church council says that "the church of Norway can no longer be labeled state church" ("I 2012 endret Stortinget grunnloven slik at Norge ikke lenger har noen offentlig religion. Den norske kirke kan derfor ikke lenger betegnes «statskirken»."). So there is no basis for opening, unambiguous statement that it is a state church. Instead, I propose to remove this claim and avoid labeling the church of Norway as state church or not-state church. The article should instead
* describe the 2012 changes that relaxed ties between state/government and church
* describe the remaining ties (funding, legislation, priests as civil servants)
* describe the main views about the label "state church" with the current church legislation
Because the matter is not clear, it is not the task of WP editors to analyze the concept of state church and draw conclusions in the case of Norway - that would be original research (WP:SYNTH). Regards — Erik Jr. 11:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not yet any responses to this proposal. I will wait a few more days, then change as indicated. Regards --— Erik Jr. 17:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The concept of state church, as the term is understood in the English language, is relevant to the description of the Church of Norway, and it is flatly wrong that "reliable sources are inconsistent with regard to the label "state church"", it's the other way round. I have actually not seen a single reliable source which is inconsistent with the English language term "state church". The article should certainly describe the 2012 changes, but not misrepresent them as some drastic change of the church's status, or be based on an editor's own analysis and views on a constitutional amendment which was explicitly not an abolition of any state church and which introduced comparatively moderate changes, which were actually seen as a reinforcement and strengthening of the state church by its opponents in Norway. Per Weo (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

text: I propose that we instead follow English language usage and the established meaning of the term in the English language, an issue you have avoided during this entire discussion. Per Weo (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You were invited to join a discussion on dispute resolution noticeboard, but you did not respond. The mediator there advised: "I would suggest that discussion can continue on the talk page, but should focus on the wording of the lede, rather than tagging, which is merely a first step to calling for the need for discussion." I suggest as a compromise that the very broad claim "state church" is removed from the introduction, instead a new section can discuss the relation between state and church including the diverging views about the current status. In this way we avoiding using the disputed label "state church" as a clear fact. Then you can use the label "state church" as a description according to some sources, but not according to others. This is the way forward when sources (and editors) disagree. Please help out finding a constructive solution instead of repeating the same arguments. Best regards, — Erik Jr. 18:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite ages of debate, you seem to refuse to listen to what other editors tell you, and not a single user has agreed with your views in this discussion, so this seems more like an attempt to exhaust others by simply ignoring discussion, arguments and sources. You have not proposed a real compromise, and not even a specific wording or anything like it; the only contested issue (which is only contested by you) is the inclusion of the reliably sourced description of the Church of Norway as a state church in the opening sentence, so your suggested "compromise" is really that you have it your way by removing a reliably sourced description because one editor doesn't like it. There is no disagreement that we can also have a detailed description of the exact ties between the church and the state, and even a discussion of the views of those who think there should be no such ties, somewhere below. What you seem to fail to accept and understand is that reliable sources clearly demonstrate that the Church of Norway is a state church today according to the definition of the term in the English language ("a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state"). Removing the description would clearly be a bold change indeed, and there are no credible sources to support such a change, on the contrary there are solid sources that demonstrate that such a change would be factually wrong. Per Weo (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop attributing intentions and opinions, please assume good faith. You were invited to join a dispute resolution, which is a normal procedure in situations like these, but you did not respond. So I am trying to be constructive without the help of volunteer mediators. Some reliable sources say that it is a state church, others say that it is not. We don't have the option of being selective to create clarity. My suggested compromise is quite clear: Remove the word "state church" from the opening sentence (because it is contested and ambiguous). This leaves the issue open, so instead a new section can be inserted describing the various perspectives on the issue. --— Erik Jr. 12:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources that support your assertion that the Church of Norway is not "a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state"? Despite numerous reminders, you have not replied to this question. How is the Church of Norway not officially endorsed by the state in your opinion, when it's even mentioned as the country's people's church in the constitution? This is a question of the English language descriptive term state religion/state church. This is not a Norwegian language project, so it's even possible that the meaning of the English language term may be different from usage in other langugages such as Norwegian. Per Weo (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed compromise

message: I have no added more accurcay (mostly to intro) regarding ties between state and church. Please help improve accuracy. --— Erik Jr. 23:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurcary 

message: As the lead section of the article on state religion/state church explains, it is "a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state [...] State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but neither does the state need be under the control of the church (as in a theocracy), nor is the state-sanctioned church necessarily under the control of the state."
By this common definition, the state Church of Norway is one of the more stringent state churches of the world. Even churches with far looser ties to the state are considered state churches/religions according to the definition of the term in the English language. The key element in the definition of a state church/religion is the endorsement by the state of a particular religion, whether officially or in practice. Norway both endorses (alone sufficient to be considered a state church) and even organises a particular church, which has a special constitutional, legal and administrative position. The priests are even direct employees of the state. Norway, unlike many other states with state churches/religions, has a constitution that describes the country's dominant and officially sanctioned church as "Norway's people's church", a strikingly clear designation as the country's state church. The provision is a near-verbatim copy of the Danish constitutional provision for the Danish state church, and noone disputes the Danish state church's status as a state church. Per Weo (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a state church (or state religion) in ''the English language''?

message: Relations between state and church is covered under both "organization" and "legal status", these sections should be consolidated. --— Erik Jr. 13:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of article 

message: Per Weo again removed this paragraph: The church itself explained that: "In 2012 the Parliament changed the constitution such that Norway no longer has a public religion. The Church of Norway can accordingly no longer be labeled as state church." Er det statskirke i Norge, Den norske kirke, Kirkerådet, 3 March 2015, accessed 31 October 2015. Translated from original: "I 2012 endret Stortinget grunnloven slik at Norge ikke lenger har noen offentlig religion. Den norske kirke kan derfor ikke lenger betegnes «statskirken»." Please stop removing sourced and relevant content. It is a quote from a reliable source. The paragrap clearly states that this a statement by the church itself, it is not presented as a clear fact. It is however a fact that the Church itself issued the statement. Per Weo can not dismiss this statement as low quality anonymous source. These deletions are disruptive and not helpful. Regards --— Erik Jr. 09:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unjustified removal of sourced and relevant content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Church 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6DEb3MkkC?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abcnyheter.no%2Fnyheter%2F080410%2Flosere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke to http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/080410/losere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Church 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/20070714085413/http://www.kirken.no/english/engelsk.cfm?artid=5276 to http://www.kirken.no/english/engelsk.cfm?artid=5276
*Added archive https://archive.is/20150427102546/http://m.k-s.no/artikkel/article/116910 to http://m.k-s.no/artikkel/article/116910
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/080410/losere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke
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) 08:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Church 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://www.webcitation.org/6DEb3MkkC?url=http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/080410/losere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke to http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/080410/losere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042914/https://kirken.no/nb-NO/konfirmasjon/sporsmal-og-svar/om-kirken/er-det-statskirke-i-norge/ to https://kirken.no/nb-NO/konfirmasjon/sporsmal-og-svar/om-kirken/er-det-statskirke-i-norge/
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) 13:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Category:Norwegian Lutheran priests has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TSventon (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Norwegian Lutheran priests]] has been nominated for discussion