Talk:Union between Sweden and Norway

message: The section "Personal union with Norway" refeers to the Treaty of Åbo of 1743! 
Evidently it should refer to the meeting between Alexander and Charles John in Åbo on August 30, 1812. There is no entry for this meeting. Or is there?
-- Petri Krohn 16:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaty of Åbo

message: The dissolution is included twice which seems slightly excessive. Prezen 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissolution twice 

message: The present article ought to be divided. Under the present headline, we need a total revision, giving a balanced and nonpartisan view of the Union, and not primarly from a Swedish point of view. 
Large parts of the contents ought to be transferred to a new article in the History of Sweden series under a new name, perhaps Sweden in union with Norway.
The template History of Sweden should of course accompany the Swedish-related parts over to the new article Sweden in union with Norway. 
Also, the Ïnfobox Former Country template should be deleted completely, as it is based on the false premise that the union was one single state, not a personal union of two states. The template has the "one-state-model" as a premise, which makes it difficult to adjust to the facts of this case, e.g. two capitals, two flags, two currencies, two parliaments etc. I have just removed a Swedish flag and the post-union greater coat of arms of Sweden, which are absurd in this context.
Apart from the very partisan treatment of the Union, large parts of the text are of inferior quality. 
WARNING: I may soon start work on a ruthless revision of the Union between Sweden and Norway article, but I'll leave it to others to write the article taht is missing in the History of Sweden series.  Roede 10:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissolution of article needed 

message: The article title has been stable for a long time now so it seemed like it had a good name. It is not easy to find a good name for this phenomenon (espeshially on en:) as this union will most of the time be compared to or viewed in the same light as the UK one. This is not correct. The union in question was not a union of two states into one. It was a union between two states and remained so for its duration. I believe the name Union between Sweden and Norway is more fitting. Inge (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter what seems more fitting to you. It matters what people actually call it in English. You can gloss any confusion that arises. — LlywelynII 11:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: It'd be nice if there was a bit more on the structure of the union.  How did it work?  In particular, what common institutions were there besides the person of the monarch?  My sense is that pretty much everything having to do with foreign affairs was conducted from Stockholm during this period, but I don't know whether this was a case of a common institution that functioned as a foreign ministry for both countries (like the foreign ministry of Austria-Hungary), or a case where a dependent country's foreign policy was conducted by the state of which it was a dependency (this, for instance, was the way things were for the British Dominions before 1931, or for the Cook Islands now).  Basically, what exactly was this union?  Was it a union of two fully sovereign states, joined only by the person of the monarch, like the various Commonwealth Realms today, or like Hanover and the UK before 1837?  Given that all foreign policy was conducted from Stockholm, this doesn't seem to be the case.  Was it the case of the two countries united into one, with the monarchy and certain other common institutions uniting them, like Austria-Hungary between 1867 and 1918?  Or was it a case of one sovereign state (Sweden) and a non-sovereign dependency (Norway) with certain rights to self-government, as for instance the relationship between Russia and Finland in the same time period, or that between the UK and its dominions before the Statute of Westminster?  More clarification on these issues would be helpful. john k (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your questions may be (partly at least) answered by the total revision that I have completed today, as I threatened to do on 22 May 2007 - "Dissolution of article needed". I have extracted this article from the "History of Sweden" series, and removed most of the contents that dealt with Swedish matters only, in order to make it correspond to the heading. It was also very partisan, in that most of the contents was taken from Swedish sources. This last revision is written by a Norwegian with access mostly to Norwegian sources, and may of course be slanted in the opposite direction. I have added a lot of information on events in Norway, because the Union was established by actions of the Norwegian government - although under Swedish threats of war. I cordially invite all displeased readers to set the article straight. (However, the Union broke up over the interpretation of its intended nature - equality or disparity - and we would do well to avoid a rerun of that discussion and the bloodshed that it almost caused). The bits about internal Swedish matters have been transferred to a completely new article, Sweden in Union with Norway, which is meant to be included in the "History of Sweden" series. It may of course be even more slanted than this one, but I trust my Swedish friends to improve it. As I wrote two years ago, my intention was to leave the writing of that article to others. But I found that I had to start it, to avoid a gap in the series. I will elaborate my articles with more notes and literature by and by. It is too late tonight. Roede (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Roughly 90% of the content of this article is about Norway and Norwegian history, and what little there is about the union as such and Sweden is seen through revisionist Norwegian glasses. So it is definitely not a neutral unbiased historically correct view of the "United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway". The union between Sweden and Norway came about because Sweden was on the winning side of the Napoleonic wars and Norway on the losing side of those wars, with the pecking order between the two countries confirmed by the short war between Sweden and Norway in 1814. It was never a union between two equal partners, but a union of a senior partner, Sweden, and a junior partner, Norway. With the king of Sweden also being king of Norway and Sweden controlling the foreign policies and foreign affairs of Norway through the Swedish Foreign Office in Stockholm. And to back it all up Sweden had roughly 2.25 times the population of Norway and a correspondingly larger army. So I suggest that someone either does a total rewrite of the article, and makes it what it should be, or renames the article to "A revisionist's history of Norway 1814-1905". Allan Akbar (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I could add that a country that has a foreign king as it's head of state, cannot pass laws without the approval of that foreign king, has part of it's cabinet, including the prime minister, residing in a foreign capital and is not allowed to manage it's own foreign affairs (including not having their own embassies in foreign countries, not having foreign embassies in their own country and not being able to enter into treaties with other countries) is not an independent country. So all claims that the "United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway" was a union between two independent countries are patently false. Which should be reflected in the article. And the name of the article should be "United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway", as that was the official name of the union in English, and not "Union between Sweden and Norway". Allan Akbar (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing just to get it over with: The United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway is/was a historical political entity and the article should be about that historical political entity, as it was then. A political entity that signed international treaties (such as the Hague convention of 1899/1900, which among it's signatories lists The United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, not Sweden and Norway as separate countries). It should not be about the internal politics of Sweden and/or Norway during the same time period, 1814-1905, because that is best done in two separate articles, one about Sweden and one about Norway. As it is the current article is written to be as close as possible to what is currently politically correct in Norway. And in order to do that even the name of the historical political entity was distorted by moving it from "The United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway", the official name of the historical political entity, to "Union between Sweden and Norway", in order to make it appear as if the historical political entity was a union between two equals... Allan Akbar (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A very one-sided article

message: I suggest that: 
A. A new page named "United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway" be created following the template "Former countries" (which, like it or not, the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway was since it was the union that signed international treaties, both bilateral and multilateral, from 1814 to 1905, not the individual member states; treaties that were binding for both Sweden and Norway...), dealing with the historical political entity "United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway" from a neutral contemporary point of view (I even offer to write such a page...). Such a page should be short and contain only facts about the union, with the exception of a brief description of the reasoning, and important events, in each of the two member states when the union was created and when it was dissolved. Everything else should be in either of the two pages suggested below, which should be linked to from the "Union page".
B. The current page named "Union between Sweden and Norway" be moved to "Union between Norway and Sweden from a Norwegian perspective".
C. A similar page named "Union between Sweden and Norway from a Swedish perspective" be created using material that is already available on Wikipedia.
Allan Akbar (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Swedish and Norwegian perspectives on the same thing would be a POV fork. Just include the content of both here. — LlywelynII 11:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals for a totally reworked page 

message: The royal standard of this period is as yet unconfirmed, but if it existed, it is likely to have been a modification of the war flag introduced by royal decree on 7 March 1815. That flag had squares along the hoist, unlike Swedish flags after 1844. The canton with the "Norwegian" colours was always square in the union flags of 1815 and 1818. See: Munksgaard, Jan Henrik (2012): Flagget – Et nasjonalt symbol blir til. Kristiansand, Vest-Agder-museet, pp. 67-83. . Roede (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are various sources for it, that's all we need. Also if the canton is square, change the SVG, don't keep replacing it with a PNG that is up for deletion on Commons. Fry1989 eh?  18:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal standard 1815–1844 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Union between Sweden and Norway →  – if the country was named United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, then that should be the article's title. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The ambitious wars waged by King Charles XII, however, led to the loss of that status after the Great Northern War, 1700–1721.???????????????  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.73.217.230 (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: rename

message: Just as an aside, I'll note that this name is a valiant effort by the editor involved but is not in any way, shape, or form English. The way we actually write what this is trying to do is Swedo- (never with a U) and this coinage actually means something different from what is intended: Austria–Hungary is a union of Austria and Hungary and Austro-Hungarian is its demonym but "Austro-Hungary" would be the Austrianish part of Hungary. "Swedo-Norway" would be some part of Norway turning Swedishy from an influx of Type-Ö migrants. Kindly do not ever restore that name here. Literally no native speaker has written it that way and we try to avoid s (falls under ). — LlywelynII 13:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suedo-Norway

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Union between Sweden and 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://web.archive.org/web/20141119124317/http://www.ssb.no:80/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/hundre-aars-ensomhet to http://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/hundre-aars-ensomhet
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) 18:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose to merge Talk:Kingdom of Sweden (1809–1905) and Talk:Kingdom of Norway (1814-1905) into Talk:Union between Sweden and Norway. Because  and  are only redirect pages for Union between Sweden and Norway for a long time; Talk:Kingdom of Sweden (1809–1905) and Talk:Kingdom of Norway (1814-1905) are only blank pages from these talk pages were created until now, I think it is a good idea to complete this page merger.
123.150.182.179
08:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: This article greatly lacks any mention of the economy of this nation and I believe there should be one. 108.58.204.26 (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add an economy area/section? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion consensus. (non-admin closure) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Union between Sweden and Norway →  – I've seen more people refer to this state as "Sweden–Norway" and this follows per WP:COMMONNAME so I'm wondering if that's a more appropriate title per guidelines. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

text: *Why does the current title imply anything different than that though?--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ditto.  Other than the inverted alphabetical order, how could the asymmetry be gleaned from either title?  On another note, the current title could be construed as the action rather than the state of union.  —  AjaxSmack  19:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 August 2021 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. While it is important to assume good faith in Jishiboka1's rationale, consensus is that there is insufficient evidence for the belief that this is the new common name.(non-admin closure)   Garnarblarnar (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Union between Sweden and Norway →  – It is already a redirect that is mentioned on the hatnote, but I feel like it is has now become the common name. Jishiboka1 (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 March 2022 

message: This article focuses too much on the events that lead up to the formation of the union as everything about the Napoleonic wars and Norways proclamation of independance is outside of the scope of this article and is only worthy of a short background section. The fact that this article's sections about events before union was formed is larger compared to the section about the actual union is very strange, maybe all the pre union stuff should be its article. Dencoolast33 (talk) 08:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre Union