Talk:Norway/Archive 5

message: Media:
this be of interest to members of this forum?  I created a table for all the Olympic medal count winners including Norway. It also includes per capita data, where Norway excels. The original article is here: Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. Recently, however, someone nominated this article for deletion. If you want to comment on whether it really should be deleted, go to this article's entry. Thanks!
Medalstats 14:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

message: in this article
: "The Kingdom of Norway also includes the arctic island territories of Svalbard and Jan Mayen." Shouldn't you also mentionate the Norwegian part of Antartica: Dronning Mauds Land (Queen Maud's Land)? It is just as much a part of the Norwegian territory.
Vemund 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The antarctic territories are not part of the Kingdom and they have no permanent population. //Big Adamsky 18:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Hi!'' 

message: Anyone know anything about Norwegian food? I'm thinking of those delicious marzipan specialities and  that variety of rice pudding.   Springald 19:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're thinking of kransekake and riskrem? WegianWarrior 11:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food 

message: It is unfortunately not true that you have to be baptized to be counted as a mnmber of the State Church.  it is not even true what the previous version said that both parents have to be memberers. The official version is that one parent has to bea member, for yothe child to be included in the chriuch membertship, but  many people find themselve son the rolls even if noen of their parents were mebers, and they have never been baptized. The practice seems to vary from place to place, but in many instances being born is enough to become  a member. --Vindheim 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This may or may not be the case, but I think references are needed. --Eddi (Talk) 01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1316112.ece - Article in Norwegian from Aftenposten, 13.05.2006 HeleneGombos 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The  Church of Norway ( den norske kirke)

message: :From the article:
"In order to form a government, more than half (currently at least 10 out of 19 members) of the Council of State are required to belong to the Church of Norway."
:Not quite like Iran, but that is surprising is it not, nowadays, in Europe?  So it would improve the article to add a little explanation of how that arose, and why it persists. Midgley 22:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article on the Church of Norway and Constitution of Norway for more explanation. It is equivalent to the Church of England, except that Norway has a constitution. In this case, it is bounded in paragraph 12 of the constitution. Interesting that you should be so interested in Norwegian politics and society. Lots of controversies here, but it would probably be a good idea that you read up about them before editing. --Leifern 00:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So does England - well, the UK - have a constitution, and since around the penultimate Elizabeth R there has not been a requirement for the government to be of a particular faith or any.  (E2R has to be in order to be head of the Established church.  And reading about it is a good idea.  What shall I read?  Oh I know, an encyclopaedia.  Which is usefully cross-referenced on such matters.  Midgley 13:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, do not edit my entries on this discussion page. The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. There are many source documents in English about Norway. In addition to various books, the Norwegian departments publish a lot of content in English, as do many Norwegian newspapers. --Leifern 11:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re editing, see below. --Eddi (Talk) 13:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making that clear.  Eddi..'s edits were of course an improvement.  Midgley 01:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not consistent, from the referneces given.  Interesting the proportions, and the statmeent that the majority of government support disestablishment.  If i have to give any excuses for reading a page of WP, and expressing an opinion (!), then let it be known that I have lived in a state where the Parliament is a Thing and meets on a hill, and I know where it comes from.  Midgley 13:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know the reason is that the members of government who are not members of the church are not permitted to take part in decisions concerning the church. So you have to have a sufficient amount of members of goverment who are members of the church in order to make decicions. In practical terms this is not very problematic as 86% of Norwegians are members of the church and so far the number of members of government who are members of the church have alwas well exceded half. In principle it is more problematic, but it seems stranger than it is when it is pulled out of its contecst. The intent isn't to keep members of other religions out of government. Inge 13:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  That makes sense.  The Established Church in the UK has tended to count its membership higher than a more detailed enquiry arrives at but I expect that is unavoidable.  The move to disestablishment would presumably, as in the UK, cause constitutional changes and losing that provision might be one of them.  Is Norway the only country in Europe/N. Europe that still has such a provision in its (written, as one document) constitution? If so that might be worth bringing out as a difference, which is encyclopaedic, for anyone who tries to learn about the country by reading this article rather than the many other things written about it.  Midgley 01:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Norway is, as far as I know, the only country with such a demand of its cabinet. krikkert (Talk) 06:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice if someone could verify this for certain. If Norway is the only country in the world with this demand I will be very surprised. Inge 13:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know countries like Lebanon and others demand certain percentages of different religions in their parliament or equivalent to avoid sectarian conflict. Other than that, I can't think of anything. Either way, this is hardly a controversial issue, and anyone I ask seem to be ignorant of it. Joffeloff 23:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Theocracy?

message: eddideigel writes: (→A Theocracy? - clarify context + rm some irrelevant and indiscreet remarks - feel free to revert, but this does not belong here)  Please do not edit the talk page! Change the articvle itself, but    DO NOT edit the talk page  --Vindheim 17:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. But I would like to add: Please keep indiscretions and personal conflicts out of the article talk pages. This is seriously disturbing. Even this thread does not belong here but at my user talk page. Not that I don't like public criticism, but it is not relevant to the article at hand. I would like to ask you to move this thread to my talk page. Thank you. --Eddi (Talk) 13:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing the talk page 

message: I'd say that this box should be removed in favour of a) Climate of Norway or b) shorter notes on average temperatures. Ehjort 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate data 

message: I will work on a better entry for Culture of Norway in the Norway article; one with less links and more text and not only a listing of famous norwegians but hopefully something about Norwegian culture.Ehjort 16:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Black metal really part of Norway's culture? 218.186.10.12 10:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture of Norway 

message: Is is necessary to list all 19 counties in the Norway article? Not even the Subdivisions of Norway article includes the whole list. The Norway article should be as much text and as less tables and lists as possible. Ehjort 16:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, I can't see USA without its list of states. It would just look silly without the counties. Henning 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I don't think the listing of the ten argest municipalities is necessary in the main article. There's already enough listings. (please sign, use four ~)Ehjort 19:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, forgot the signing. ;) In any case, if not to include the ten largest municipialities, there needs to be a link to the Municipalities of Norway, which I took the liberty of including on the bottom of that section (in about the same manner as with the counties-section, where in the end it links to the Regions of Norway). I must say, I was amazed to find that more or less every single municipiality has an article! Henning 17:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we merge the list in question into the Municipalities of Norway article. The main article shall of course include a link to Municipalities of Norway. )It is fascinating to see the coverage for our municipalities, I think Norwegians feel alot for their hometown however small it is) Ehjort 14:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a very good idea, will you do that? I should get about to update some of the Finnmark municipalities sometime. First I shall translate no:Eina as requested. :) Henning 12:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is done. Thumbs up Ehjort 18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems we willl have to get used to just that, Henning - USA without its list of states. It is gone by now. Ehjort 16:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counties of Norway 

message: Why do Norwegian banknotes say NORGES BANK on one side and NOREGS BANK on the other? Is this a subtle Nordic-type joke, or can´t Nowegian central bankers spell? Adam 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we can spell, but we can't agree on how our language should be. There are two official forms of written Norwegian, Bokmål  and nynorsk. The banknotes have different versions on the two sides. (I never noticed that before).--Vindheim 20:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Although the prevalence of Nynorsk is higher in the western parts of the country, it's not possible to say that they only use Nynorsk or Bokmål in any one place. Which one you use can often be a political statement. I recommend reading the Nynorsk and Bokmål articles if you're interested. --Nnp 20:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Bergen is 95% bokmål, maybe more. Kjetil_r 00:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't easy to get it right everytime, though. I think the Nynorsk in my father's passport was misspelled. ;) 惑乱 分からん 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Norwegians can´t spell

message: "This research was done by graduate students of NTNU and researchers at SINTEF in Trondheim [7]."
i think this should be deleted. Ehjort 09:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This research 

message: Although there was a Norse settlement in the area which nowadays is Dublin it would be wrong to state that the Norwegians (or any Northmen) founded the city as such. They did have their own settlement - from which the English name is taken, however there was a celtic settlement there beforehand - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Dublin for more details.
The same is true for Cork. In fact one could say that the vikings destroyed more of this city than built it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cork
Limerick is said to have had a celtic settlement before the vikings, though most accept it is a viking city and Waterford was indeed founded by the vikings.
I propose we reword the history of Norway section pertaining to the viking age. Bikerams 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comanche cph: Please don't spread slander on wikipedia. Your history here speaks for itself. Inge 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your statement is taken out of thin air. I am willing to give any editor the benefit of doubt. I will however expect an improvement in behaviour if I am to take someone seriously. You have been here for some time now and I have seen slim and temporary if any improvement in you. Myself and several other editors have tried to guide you towards what is axceptable behaviour. In stead you have carried on in the same track on article after article. You know what you have to do and I hope you are aware of the actions you take. If you want to be taken seriously and want other editors to spend their time answering your "questions" you will have to comply to wikipedia policies. I have also answered you on your talk page. Inge 18:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norwegians founded Dublin? 

message: Could somebody help me understand why a bunad "may be traditional or not traditional costumes". I'm a tad confused by the opposition.Bikerams 08:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, only traditional costumes are granted status as bunad. Ehjort 18:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, present day bunader were reconstructed from traditional elements from the 1920s on. A semiofficial  committee, Bunad- og folkedraktrådet,[] has the power to accept new designs for bunader. However many traditional style costumes which are not officially classed as bunader, are  used as if they were such. --Vindheim 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I understand it somewhat better now, only I'm left with the question how that section of the article can be re-worded because, as it stands now, it's not logical - "traditional or not traditional", doesn't really work. Bikerams 20:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bunad 

message: Religion claims 89% are members of the protestantic church. Demographics claim 86%. Both numbers cannot be rigth.
Any number is suspect anyway, because the protestantic church of Norway has been counting by starting at 100% and subtracting known members of other churches. This obviously gives over-reporting.
Eivind 13:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inconsistency 

message: During the nineteenth century considerable numbers of people from Finland moved into Norway, especially in the North , but also in southern areas ("Finnskogen").  There have also historically been  considerable intercourse between the "three tribes": Finns (Kven), Saami and Norwegian in this area.  Some communitites in  eastern Finnmark (Vadsø, Bugøynes  etc.), have until recently had a majority of Finnish speakers.--Vindheim 14:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish speakers in the North 

message: Because the page is more or less vandalized on a daily basis, is it not an idea to protect it in the same way as the page about the Swedish language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_language) is? Bikerams 14:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost think it's a good idea. Is there no way to blovk the vandals? and, is the article vandalized by one or many IPs? Ehjort 18:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vandalised enough to warrant protection really, but you can ask for it to be protected at WP:RFP. Only administrators can protect pages. HawkerTyphoon 12:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: vandalism

message: Whaling is mentioned in Economy section, but not in main article Economy of Norway. And maybe a seperate Whaling in Norway like Whaling in Iceland is needed? - Kristod (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whaling 

message: Any reason for this or just vandalism?? Orcaborealis 11:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography section seems to have gone out of the window 

message: Geirangerfjorden & Nærøyfjorden have been rated 1 and 2 in National geographics rankings for the most beautiful places on earth, shouldn't this be mentioned?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yakoob (talk • contribs) .
:The Geography section is currently pretty short, and I don't this is what it needs the most right now. --Turbotape 22:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geirangerfjorden & Nærøyfjorden