Talk:Norway

An event mentioned in this article is a May 17 selected anniversary

There is a template layout for country articles (talk here). There is also a template infobox for short facts (talk here)
 

---

---

On names of counties, cities and municipalities

The Norway pages use the official name forms, for the following reasons:

• The "English" forms" we have seen are bastards from a language point of view, translating parts of names and transcribing letters as seems fit.
• No reliable standard nor historically founded tradition seams to exist for the quasi-English forms, leading to a number of variants of the same name. This is a big problem.
• The reliable official forms are the only suitable means of cross referencing.
• The CIA factbook uses the Norwegian names

EOD -- Egil 15:14 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

The reason the county list I added was partly anglicised was first of all because of Wikipedia's anglicisation policy. We have agreed to use English names and though this case is not specifically mentioned the general idea is that English is preferred and as such certain geographical terms can frequently easily be translated (primarily directions such as east, west, north, south or a simple conjunction like "and"). Contrary to your claim, this is most definitely an historic tradition in many languages, even if you may not have seen it applied to small Norwegian counties.

A second reason is consistency with the rest of the countries that have had the template applied to them (I've added the native forms next to the English forms where appropriate, but removed the capitals because of this). Though we initially use some of their information, we are not the CIA. The CIA Factbook clearly does not have an anglicisation policy, as almost all names used by them are retained in native form. As for these being "official" names, it is obvious that Norway has no authority over the English language so it's not compulsory for us to use the native names, especially since we mention them in the article anyway and redirects take care of the rest.

Thirdly, it would IMO be wiser to be as informative as possible, to both native and international readers. Since English is the vehicle used here it follows that English words are always clearer to readers than local names. Translating bits of a name that are not part of the proper name makes the list more informative. A foreign, non-native English reader likely will not know what "og" means, but he will known what "and" means.

Finally, I would like to point out that calling people "language POV bastards" is a sure-fire way to not being taking wholly seriously. Try to be a little more constructive and discuss things first before declaring "EOD". -Scipius 18:30 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

I can assure you that the word "bastard" in this context was most specifically not meant about people, but about the invented names. They are a mix of a little bit of that and a little bit of that. The wording got pretty nonsensical, though, (I was in a hurry when I wrote it) which meant it could easily be interpreted either way. I've cleaned it up a bit.

We've tried the mixed forms before, and it ended up as a Babelesque confusion with many variants. The names you've put in are just inventions, with no relevance to any tradition. It doesn't really make sense to translate this way, just as it makes no sense to "translate" the name of a person (e.g. translating "Von" or "al-" to "of", for instance). And thanks, we've tried it before, and it just ends up in one grand confusion. The counties have proper names with an official status, and these are well defined. Exactly where and what is translated? Just name of counties? What else? Municipalities? Towns? Rivers? Fjords? Should "Storelvdal" become "Big River Valley"? How are you expecting people that does not know Norwegian to be able to find these locations on a map? What about Arabic names? Chinese names? Other languages? Do you think it is appropriate to translate parts of such names? Or you do think that part translations should only happen for languages with which you are familiar? -- Egil 06:55 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I feel that the English translations of the county names are strange. They are names of entities that there is no tradition for translating. Even between bokmål and nynorsk there is no tradition for using any other name than the official one (Aust Agder is never Øst Agder and Sogn og Fjordane is never Sogn og Fjordene). And a name like Sogn and the Fjords is just plain stupid. No, stick with the Norwegian names, much like it is done with the French regions. -- Gustavf 07:44 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Official language

Status of the Saami language

I am not sure how to best explain the status of Northern Saami language in a short overview. It is not an official language the same way as Norwegian (both Nynorsk and Bokmål), which is used in all branches of government. However it is used by the governemt in certain regions (in Troms and Finnmark). It seems a bit oversimplified to state that both Norwegian and Northern Saami are official languages. Other views are welcome :-) -- Gustavf 09:41, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do it either, but here is what the law says: Lov om Sametinget og andre samiske rettsforhold (sameloven) § 1-5. Samisk språk: Samisk og norsk er likeverdige språk.

Wrong. Here is what the general law says:

Lov 1980-04-11-5 nr. 05 om målbruk i offentleg teneste, http://www.lovdata.no/all/hl-19800411-005.html

§ 1. Bokmål og nynorsk er likeverdige målformer og skal vere jamstelte skriftspråk i alle organ for stat, fylkeskommune og kommune.

§ 2. For statstenesta gjeld dei nærmare reglane i §§ 3 til 11 om plikt til å nytte bokmål og nynorsk.

§ 4. Tilsette i embete eller statstenestepost der skriftleg utforming er del av tenesta, pliktar å nytte bokmål og nynorsk etter dei reglane som til kvar tid gjeld for målbruk i statstenesta.

Which translates to something like "Saami and Norwegian shall be languages of equal status". However, the law gives further details in chapter 3. The Saami government area ("samisk forvaltningsområde") includes the municipalities Karasjok, Kautokeino, Nesseby, Porsanger, Tana and Kåfjord (there has been some talk about adding Snåsa with Southern Saami as the language), and the further regulations about the status of Saami language are limited to this area (or institutions covering at least these areas). But I am still not sure how to describe this. Perhaps something like "Norwegian (and Saami in some regions)" and to add a paragraph in the demographucs section? -- Gustavf 10:01, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps "Norwegian, with Saami in special regions"?

Sounds fine with me. -- Gustavf 11:01, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Looking at the Wikipedia definition of official language does Norway even have an official language? -- Gustavf 10:47, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Norway have two official languages, bokmål and nynorsk (both are variations over the same language, and very close, bokmål almost similar, to Danish. Sami is not an official language of the state of Norway, but is equal to Norwegian in a very few kommuner (districts) in the fylke (province) of Finnmark, which was a colony until 1814.

And, I may add, there are only 6000 registrated Sami People (in Samemanntallet), but over 4 500 000 Norwegians in Norway.

I would like to point out that "Bokmål og nynorsk er likeverdige målformer og skal vere jamstelte skriftspråk i alle organ for stat, fylkeskommune og kommune. ( and the rest )" absolutely not translates to "Saami and Norwegian shall be languages of equal status" This is just plain bs, it is totaly wrong! It means that nynorsk og bokmål shall be equal languages, saami isn't even mentioned! Saami is not a official language of norway. thanks -from a Norwegian.

Regarding the difference between Bokmål and Nynorsk; Bokmål is in fact danish. It's a simplified version of danish. Nynorsk however is a gathering of norwegian dialects made into a language by Ivar Aasen in the 1800's. Nynorsk as it was originally would probably not be understood by norwegians today. Bokmål(danish) however would be understood by todays norwegians. Through a series of reforms following norways independce, the two languages came closer to each other, and are today fairly similar. Mostly the two languages share most words, and the way of building up sentences, but there are also words that are completly different from another. Because most people speak Bokmål, and because it is the most common used language in newspapers, TV and radio; people speaking Nynorsk dialects quite easily can speak and write Bokmål. However people speaking bokmål as a native tounge, might find it hard writing and even understand certain nynorsk dialects. Further on it is worth mentioning that most norwegians understands danish quite well, danish might find it difficult understanding norwegians. Cheers, Henrik

I have with interest read the debate here about official languages in Norway. The situation is comparable with the situation of the federal level in Canada. The status of Bokmål and Nynorsk are the same as with English and French in Canada. And the Saami language has the same status in Norway as the First Nation languages have in Canada. But you have forgotten Finnish. One community is officially trilingual with both Norwegian, Saami and Finnish all recognized as administrative languages there. Cato from Oslo.

Bokmål and Nynorsk

Hi, I have a question on the status of Bokmål and Nynorsk. According to the article, both are officially recognised languages.

But, Norwegian stamps (e.g. [1]) show only the Bokmål name "Norge" and not the Nynorsk name "Noreg". Does that mean that Bokmål is practically the first language and Nynorsk is the second? Everton 02:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If it is the case that only "Norge" is used on stamps, it is probably because of a necessity for using the same name on all stamps (to avoid confusion). The state tries to enforce the equality of the languages as best they can. In such cases where they have to choose one over the other bokmål is probably (undoubtedly) the most frequent choice, though in some cases you might find nynorsk chosen. Your question does not have a definitive answer. The vast majority of the population use bokmål, and bokmål is the official language in most municipalities, so in this sense bokmål is clairly the first language in practice, but on state level I would say the equality exists also in practice, because in official state matters there is of course a high level of overlap between formal and practical status. In other words: They would probably issue 50% of the stamps with "Noreg" if they didn't have a good reason not to. I hope this was at least slightly helpful for you. :)

Kvaks 22:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

There are stamps with both Norge (bokmål) and Noreg (nynorsk) though not simultaneously in my long abandoned stamp collection, you've just been unlucky Everton. --Kaleissin 21:18:41, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

Kaleissin is right, there are stamps with both forms. Even money notes use both forms. All notes use Norges Bank on one side, and Noregs Bank on the other. Even the coins have two forms; The 20 and the 10 uses "Alt for Norge", the 5 uses "Kongeriket Noreg" and the 1 Norge. Cheers, Henrik

Start of edit war

I protected the page as you requested Gustavf. Ask someone to help you mediate if you can't solve your issue alone :-) Anthère

---

You have protected a page for a person (Gustavf) who is inserting wrong and political (not NPOV) information on Norway. Maybe some Saami fanatics will tell you that Saami is an official language of Norway, but most people will not. It's just co-official in a very few municipalities and is written by the Saami people - 6000 persons out of 4,5 million Norwegians, and should therefore be written as a footnote (see for instance Denmark, under Official language)

You should probably also have a look on the German, French, Danish, Swedish etc. wikis. Why are the English wiki telling you that Saami is an official Norwegian language, when none of the other wikis (and other encyclopædias at all) are? The answer is Gustavf.

I have contacted the Norwegian consulate in Washington D.C. and asked them to clarify the matter. This issue should be resolved shortly. --Dante Alighieri 18:18, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Excellent. They will tell you exactly what I've already told.

Very good. I assume everyone will accept them as an authorative source. -- Gustavf 11:52, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I will not comment on the attacks on my person from an IP address user. -- Gustavf 08:28, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In the Norwegian passport 'Norway' is written in the two official languages, bokmål and nynorsk: Norge, Noreg. Not in Saami. Isn't that prove enough?

No, that is not enough. In my Dutch passport, I see "Koninkrijk der Nederlanden" in Dutch, with smaller English and French versions. Still, Frisian is an official language of the Netherlands (although only in Friesland), while English and French are not. Andre Engels 19:00, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, Saami is co-official in a few municialities in the northern provinces. It's not an official language of Norway (as a state). There is a difference. Therefore, Saami should be mentioned in a footnote, just like Inuktitut on Denmark and Danish on Germany.

---

I just spoke with the Norwegian Embassy in Washington. The way that it was explained to me (over a 5-10 minute conversation) was very detailed. I will try to summarize it briefly here. Norwegian (both Bokmål and Nynorsk) is the official language of Norway, in that it is the mother tongue of a majority of the population and is also compulsary to learn in schools in Norway. It would be "politically correct" (exact words of the woman from the Embassy) to list Saami as an official language as well, as it is the mother tongue of the Saami people who live in northern Norway. As the Saami people have been attempting to further their rights as indigenous peoples in the north, more and more credence is being given to the Saami language, at least politically. There are Saami radio stations, television stations, and newspapers. However, unlike Norwegian, Saami is not compulsary teaching throughout Norway. It is only taught in Saami communities in the north, and really only used in the same communities. It was likened to the situation in Peru where Spanish is the official language but Quechua is the mother tongue of the indigenous peoples (as well as of the natives of Bolivia, Ecuador, northern Chile, et al.). For the record, I also called the Peruvian embassy and they told me that Quechua is also an official language. I'm updating the article on Peru now.

I think that the best way to express this in the article is to list Norwegian and Saami as the official languages in the article and to put a footnote marker by Saami. The footnote could explain that while it is listed as an official language, it does not have the same status as Norwegian (it isn't compulsary education) and is only spoken by a minority of the national population and only in Saami communities in the north.

Anyone who wishes to confirm this is free to call (202) 333-6000 (The Washington D.C. Norwegian Embassy) or any of the other embassy/consulate sites listed on this page. --Dante Alighieri 20:09, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)4

I still think Saami should be mentioned in a footnoote just like Inuktitut on Denmark and Danish on Germany. De jure is Saami not an official language of Norway, but just co-official in these municipalities, and there are only 6000 registrated Saami people (Samemanntallet) out of 4,5 million Norwegians, so the information is not so relevant for people who is reading about Norway. There are much larger language minorities than Saami in Norway (Urdu, for instance). The Saami area isn't even a part of the historical Norway, but had status of colony until 1814. Several languages are also spoken in the British Commonwealth, but they are not mentioned as Official languages on the top of the page in the article United Kingdom. Neither should Saami in the article about Norway.

Heine's suggestion

My suggestion:

Official language: Norwegian bokmål and nynorsk1 [...] (1) Saami is co-official in a few municipalities in the northern provinces of Finnmark and Troms.

We have now gotten an answer from someone that should be authorative and Isuggest someone from outside the edit war makes a decission. -- Gustavf 06:29, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, just remember that the secretary at the Embassy was asked what is official and correct de jure, not what is "politically correct" to say. This case is identical with the case on Denmark and Germany, and I think we should follow the style used on other articles.

No one told you she was a secretary or that she was asked "what is official and correct de jure". Please don't make statements about things that know nothing about as if you DID know something about them. Furthermore, if you sign your comments, people will probably take you more seriously. --Dante Alighieri 20:30, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Article 110a in the Norwegian Constitution states: "It is the responsibility of the authorities of the State to create conditions enabling the Sami people to preserve and develop its language, culture and way of life."

When I was talking to the woman at the embassy, I asked her if it would be appropriate to phrase it in the following way: Norwegian and Saami as official languages (with a footnote by Saami). The footnote would explain that Saami was not compulsary education (unlike Norwegian) and is only in use in certain communities in the North. I told her that our primary concern was factual accuracy, not political correctness, and she didn't say that it was incorrect to list Saami as an official language, so I'm inclined to think we ought to... especially since she likened the position to Peru (which lists Spanish, Quechua, and Aymara all as offical languages - check the temp page).

Still, I don't mind listing Norwegian only with a footnote about Saami, but I leave that up to the rest of you to decide. My work here is done. ;) As a bit of trivia, if anyone cares and didn't know, Norwegian and Danish are practically the same spoken language... they are mutually intelligible. --Dante Alighieri 17:32, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This secretary in the USA should study the country she is working for some more. None of these languages she is talking about are official. 1) It doesn't exist a language called "Norwegian". The official languages of Norway are bokmål and nynorsk (both are Norwegian languages), and actually no one other!!!

Saami is used beside both bokmål and nynorsk in schools etc. in a very few municipalities in Finnmark and Troms. I does not make it an official Norwegian language ("Norway" refer to the state of Norway! For norskspråklige: merk forskjellen på statlig, fylkeskommunalt og kommunalt nivå. Bokmål og nynorsk er på statlig nivå, samisk på kommunalt). Saami is not used in the Norwegian passport, because it is not an official language of the state, but only of some municipalities.

To list Saami as an official language in the article Norway is a) wrong and b) it's no point in giving 6000 people so much attention, beside 4 500 000. What you could do, is to list Saami as official language in the article Kautokeino and other municipalities where Saami is used.

Again: Please have a look on "Official language" on Denmark and Germany, to see how cases like this are handled on Wikipedia.

By the way: Norwegian and Danish are not practically the same spoken language, but written Norwegian and Danish are very similar. Norwegian, Danish and Swedish are though mutually intelligible.

First of all, I gave you no indication that the person I was speaking to was a secretary. Are you assuming that a woman must be a secretary? This, of course, assumes you are using the normal AE definition of secretary, which I really don't know for certain. But, if you do mean Secretary (in the sense of an appointed official), please forgive me. Given the tone of your usage, howevr, I doubt you meant the latter.

I don't think you spoke to the Ambassador :-) Heine 01:38, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Make light as much as you want, I'm not the one sounding like a bigot. --Dante Alighieri 06:00, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Second of all, we ALL know that Norwegian is two languages, and not one, read the text above. Rather than typing Bokmål and Nynorsk OVER AND OVER we simply type Norwegian for convenience at times.

Furthermore, you can stop telling me to look at Denmark and Germany, I've already done so. Have you looked at Peru?

Lastly, my usage of "practically the same spoken language" was perhaps a bit of hyperbole. I just meant to indicate that the two languages were mutually intelligible... as they are, apparently, with Swedish as well.

--Dante Alighieri 20:21, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Here's a quote from "Innføring i lingvistikk" which was used for the introdutory linguistics course at the University of Oslo:

Vi har tre språk med offisiell status i Norge i dag: norsk (med de to skriftspråksvariantene nynorsk og bokmål), samisk, og norsk tegnspråk (NTS). (...) Mens norsk er majoritetsspråket, og brukes av langt de fleste språkbrukerne, er samisk og NTS minoritetsspråk som brukes av mindre grupper språkbrukere. (Det finnes også andre minoritetsspråk i Norge, men de har ikke offisiell status.)

That is: There are three languages with official status: Norwegian, Saami and sign language. (Possibly there is a difference between "official language" and "language with official status".)

It is wrong to say that bokmål and nynorsk are seperate languages. The language is called Norwegian, and bokmål and nynorsk are the two variants of written Norwegian. Fisk 23:14, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Kjære vene, hvor lenge skal dette holde på?? "Offisiell status" betyr ikke at det er et nasjonalt språk av den typen man lister opp i leksika. Samisk og tegnspråk har en formalisert posisjon på avgrensede områder, men har ingenting under "Official language" å gjøre. Det kan godt hende at engelsk tegnspråk har en formalisert posisjon også, men engelsk tegnspråk STÅR IKKE UNDER "OFFICIAL LANGUAGE" I ARTIKKELEN OM UK!!! Rettledende for hvilke språk som skal regnes som offisielle nasjonale språk, og følgelig listes under "Official languages" bør være hvilke norske språk som er brukt i det norske passet. PS: Bokmål og nynorsk er to forskjellige språk. EOD!

Kunn De gir en Engelsk oversettelse behager? Angela 22:29, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It was meant for my Norwegian fellows, but of course: A kind of formal (f.i. protected by a law or something, like Danish in Germany) position is not the same as a status of official, national language which should be listed under "Official language" in encyclopedias. Other encyclopedias are not listing sign language and Saami as official Norwegian languages. I still think only the Norwegian languages used for instance in the Norwegian passport (bokmål and nynorsk) should be mentioned as official languages (and Saami in a footnote, of course). heine

I think that as Saami is co-official in some places, there is no problem with stating that in the main box as well as explanation of this fact. However, as it really an issue of formatting - the content will be the same as Saami will still be listed and it will still say that this is co-official - then I don't see the need for an edit war. Gustavf, what are your objections to listing it as a footnote? Angela 02:29, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Saami is co-official of some (very few) municipalities, but not of the state of Norway. I think the German word Amtssprache best desribes what "Official language" in this case are referring to. No one will say Saami is an Amtssprache, or what we in Norwegian probably would call (statlig) forvaltningsspråk. Heine

I object to changing something that has been agreed upon on the talk page without even discussing it here. That is the reason for the edit war. -- Gustavf 06:34, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"Agreed"? By exactly ONE person (Gustavf) plus an unsigned message? Do you think it is up to only you to decide? Heine

If I were you, Heine, I wouldn't point fingers about unsigned messages. --Dante Alighieri 08:03, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mr Anonymous. Forget I said anything. Fisk 23:47, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with writing bokmål and nynorsk along with Norwegian, which seems to be what half the edit war was about. With regards to the Saami issue, I think that what was suggested above about saying "Norwegian, with Saami in special regions" is probably the best idea. This isn't claiming it is an official language throughout Norway and noting the fact it's used only in some areas. Heine, do you still have a problem with this? It's hard to tell when you write in Norwegian and don't sign your posts quite what you're thinking. Angela 23:57, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I still support this idea, just as I did when it was first introduced. -- Gustavf 06:34, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Conclusion

A summary of Heine's message: The German, French, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Polish and Norwegian Wikipedias do not list Saami as official. See [2] for the links to prove this. Angela 02:29, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Have a look on this english article on the homepage of the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "Norway: Small country with two written languages " http://odin.dep.no/odin/engelsk/norway/history/032005-990497/index-dok000-b-n-a.html

Especially: "Norway has two official written languages, Bokmål (Dano-Norwegian) and Nynorsk (New Norwegian)."

Maybe we now could bring this discussion to an end? Heine 22:06, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Change to my version Heine 00:14, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So, unprotecting the page means that your version should be used? Would it not be better if we (the persons involved in the edit war) left the diting of "official language" to someone else? -- Gustavf 07:05, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Heine, are you happy with the latest compromise? Saami is clearly not being referred to as the language of the whole country. Both bokmål and nynorsk are mentioned too. Can you all stop fighting now? Any further objections? Angela 18:23, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

It seems fine with me. Heine 22:45, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

But there are several Sami languages in Norway, not only one - and they are as different as Bokmål and Dutch (Nordsamisk, Lulesamisk, Skoltesamisk, Sørsamisk etc. Sami is a group of languages! Jakro64 20:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

National motto / Royal motto

"Alt for Norge" is not national motto. Remove

Agreed. It is the king's motto. I removed it again. -- Gustavf 15:34, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sweden lists the royal motto, should we do that?

Maybe. To me (as a Norwegian) calling "Alt for Norge" ("All for Norway") a national motto seems a bit strange. -- Gustavf 12:03, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Alt for Norge" Has been translated to "all for norway". Is this correct? I believe it woud be more proper to translate it to "Everything for norway" becouse "all for norway" means and translates to "Alle for Norge" if im not wrong.--Heno 08:40, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

"Alle for Norge" means "Everyone for Norway". Crucial distinction. In any case, the intention of the motto is probably closer to meaning something like "There's nothing I won't do for Norway", not describe an imperialistic or egocentrical attitude.

"Enige og tro til Dovre faller": This was the motto the parliamentarians in Eidsvoll stated when they created the Norwegian constitution. This statement is very often used among people in various cases, in the Norwegian military, at sea etc. If Norway has a national motto, this is the one. I do not see the sense that a Wiki-page National motto is should be confirmed by the Storting in order to be listed here. Isn't it better to state "Enige og tro til Dovre faller" than to leave it blank? Jakro64 06:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think "Alt for Norge" is the more well known motto, even though it is correct that it is the royal motto. I was not aware that "Enige og tro..." was the official national motto. Unless this is confirmed, I think it would be appropriate to list "Alt for Norge" and note that it is in fact the royal motto. As "Alt for Norge" is on the 10 Kroner coin, it is the most visible motto.--MaxMad 11:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The mottos are being discussed at the Norwegian discussion page, too, and whatever the solution is I think the same solution should be chosen in both the English and Norwegian wikis. In my opinion any motto should be written along with its proper designation be it "National motto" or "Royal motto", and if necessary more than one motto may be listed. The Danish and Swedish pages have been mentioned as examples. --Eddi 17:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Alt for Norge" is not only a royal motto, it is King Harald's personal motto. Maybe Denmark and Sweden do not have any motto, but Norway has at least "Enige og tro.." and this motto has its bautastein (some kind of a memorial) at Dovre! Jakro64 19:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The question here is perhaps what kind of motto people are most likely to identify as the unified motto of the nation. I personally have never heard of "Enige og tro til dovre faller", even though i've served twelve months in the armed forces where we swore an oath to our king and country. But i've heard "Alt for Norge" in many contexts and occasions. And it is written on our currency too. I say we let "Alt for Norge" stay un-touched. --Heno 17:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And - yes. I know that "Alt for Norge" isnt a national motto, but "Enige og tro ..." isnt either. Therefore its better to use the royal motto if you ask me. --Heno 17:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please can this end soon? Let me repeat my suggestion to include more than one motto if necessary. Now it seems to be necessary. I can't see that the article will suffer with two mottos, as long as both are written with their proper designations. --Eddi 18:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree --Heno 19:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Enig og tro til Dovre faller" is very well known among Norwegians above 30 years of age. If school children is not learning about it anymore it is another example about the terrible educational level in Norway's secondary schools. "Alt for Norge" is not a royal motto in the sense that it belongs to the royal family. But we can list both mottos as a compromise. This topic has also been discussed on Norwegian Wikipedia, and there we have left only "Enige og tro til Dovre faller". Nynorsk Wikipedia is also using "Einige og tru til Dovre fell". Jakro64 10:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why cant you take the time to proper analyze what im saying in response to you? I've served 12-months in the armed services and i never heard any of the officers-in-charge there use that motto. Even when we pledged the oath. Furthermore, i never have heard it meantioned in the media etc. "School children not learning about the Eidsvoll motto is an example about the terrible educational level in Norways sec. schools"? I can agree that its poor. But terrible? Youre getting more sentimental than patriotic. --Heno 13:47, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I read your lines and noticed what you stated. I cannot explain how. If you are a Norwegian and more than 20 years old it is seen in my eyes unbelievable if you until now never have heard this oath. You should've been taught this already in 3rd-4th grade in the primary/secondary school and repeated this several times before entering high school. Many memorials from World War II has this statement engraved, and I am 100% sure that most Norwegians are not in doubt that if Norway has a national motto, this is the only one! And foremost - it's a great statement and sounds very good in Norwegian language. (The King's motto would be much better suitable in His Majesty's article.) Jakro64 17:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"I read your lines and noticed what you stated. I cannot explain how." --Jakro64

I'll try to explain how. Even since the days when the King chose to abdicate (but he didnt he managed to escape to London), rather then to give in for the German aggressors demands, he and the slogan "Alt for Norge" became a symbol of a free Norwegian nation. The very reason many norwegians chose to fight on was becouse of the kings zealous attitute towards the occupiers, dissregarding his own safety, gains and profits. The motto "alt for norge" was a bonding slogan, that reminded the norwegian people not only about the sacrifices the king made for his country, but for what sacrifices that was expected out of each and every one to make in those times of need.

Thats the reason i think, the kings motto is used much more frequently as a slogan than the Eidsvoll motto. The movie that celibrates 100 year of Norwegian independence which is scheduled to be realesed in 2005 isnt called "Evige og Tro til Dovre faller" but "Alt for Norge". To give one such example.

I have to stress one more time that the Eidsvoll motto is not an official National motto as stated on the Norwegian WikiPedia. And that is for a reason. It woud cast a shadow upon the kings motto which i think is recognized far more as a slogan than the Eidsvoll motto. --Heno 17:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why are you still complaining? Now both mottos are listed, the people's and the king's. You are right, none of them are official Norwegian mottos. Let's end this now, please! Jakro64 05:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why are you still complaining?--Jakro64

I'm not complaining. I'm just trying to convince you of my point of how i see this. I'm doing miserably - obviously. --Heno 15:02, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The flag

Talking about details, could somebody fix the flag? It has wrong proportions. The red rectangles to the left are supposed to be squares, and the red rectangles to the right should be 2:1. Fisk 16:25, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The coat of arm seems to be the old one used during King Olav V era. It was changed around in the 90s. Is this the old or the new? Jakro64 19:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Day of independence

The article claims the day of independence to be the date when N separated from Sweden. In Norway, the day of the constitution , May 17 (1814), is much higher regarded. May 17 should definitely be in the table of facts, and perhaps the day of independence not. -- Sverdrup 23:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree, but there are two ways to see this. After 1814. Norway was regarded as a separate country in union with Sweden. However, Norway was not truly independent until 1905. Most of all, I think the table is oversimplifying facts. -- Gustavf 12:26, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Of course, this list is made according to USA-standards. If we should be 100% correct, Norway got her independence last time on 7 May 1945. The independence came gradually from 1814 to 1905, and today Norway in fact is not 100% independent anymore as most laws are issued in Brussels. Anyway I vote for 17 May 1814. That's the most important independence. Jakro64 19:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Issued in Brussels? What kind of rubbish is that? 22:55, 04 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before anybody starts explaining or arguing, it may be useful to know whether or not you are familiar with the Norway / EU relationship. --Eddi (Talk) 23:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

17th of May 1814 is obviously the most important day, as this is the date of Norway existence as a nation. Even though Norway was not wholly independent before 1905, the important thing is that before 1814 it was not even a nation, just a region of the kingdom of Denmark-Norway. After 1814 it was a nation in union with Sweden.
Of course the US celebrates its Independence Day, since that is the most important day in their history. France on the other hand, celebrates Bastille Day, since that date marks the French Revolution. This does not mean that the French wikipedia should use the Boston Tea Party as the national day of the US. Correspondingly, the day of actual indepence is not the most important day in Norway. In Norway, 17 May is absolutely regarded as the national day, while 7 June (1905) and 8 May (1945) are of about equal but lesser importance. On a side note, 7 June is also the date King Haakon fled for England in 1940, and the date he returned in 1945.--MaxMad 08:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Was Norway not independent before the unions with Denmark and Sweden? I believe it would be best not to list "independence day" in the fact box for Norway.

Yes, Norway was independent until the death of Olav IV Håkonsson in 1387. However, 7 June 1905 is held by Norwegians as the date when Norwegian sovereignty in modern times began as the union with Sweden was dissolved (although it wasn't formally dissolved until 26 October 1905). I think there is support to keep the date in the infobox, but perhaps "independence" is not the best label. How about "dissolution of union" or something? --Eddi (Talk) 22:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Norway has always been a independent country (since872ad), however it was in union with other countries for many centuries. First the Kalmar Union with Sweden and Denmark. Then the 400 year long union with Denmark, as the weaker part however. (Not as a region of denmark as stated above, though it might it many cases seem that way). On 17 may 1814 Norway took a stand and said it will no longer be a part of the union with Denmark, nor any other country. On this day the country got it's constitution and also got a king, King Cristian Fredrik I, which was the first king in Norway who was not also the king of another country for more than 400 years. However the freedom was short lived, and Norway took its place in a union with Sweden on 10 octover 1814. But as a free and independent country with its own parliment and constituion. Henrik

Place names

• Sogn Fjord, Sogne Fjord, Sognefjord, Sognefjorden
• Oslo Fjord, Oslofjord, Oslofjorden
• Gudbrand Valley, Gudbrands Valley, Gudbrandsdalen Valley
• Hardanger Plateau, Hardangervidda Plateau
• Jostedal Glacier, Jostedals Glacier, Jostedalsbreen Glacier

What should we use?

To the best of my knowledge forms like Gudbrandsdalen valley, Lake Mjøsa and the Nidelva river are preferred in English. -- Gustavf 14:09, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

"-dal" means ~valley, yes? Then I'd stay away from Gudbrandsdalen Valley. Though people do say La Brea Tar Pits, and some even say Rio Grande River and Sierra Nevada Mountains. And then there's England's Torpenhow Hill. --wwoods 20:08, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Religion

An anonymous user (User:80.213.78.67, contribs) has laid a claim that some 16% of Norwegians are not actually Lutheran and only listed as such due to an assumption that people listed as not being members of some other faith must be Lutheran. This strikes me as rather POV, but I wouldn't know where to check such claims (and don't read Norwegian, so Google is unlikely to be helpful). Could someone check this out? — OwenBlacker

Statistics Norway: Church of Norway and other religious and philosophical communities, 1 January 2003

Under Demography it is stated that "Approximately 86% of the inhabitants are members of the Evangelic Lutheran Church of Norway (state church)." User:83.227.106.95 added, "although this high figure owes to the fact that all Norwegians are automatically enlisted when born." I may sympathise with the intentions, however, the statement is not accurate. According to the Constitution of Norway, "All inhabitants of the Realm shall have the right to free exercise of their religion. (...) The inhabitants professing [the Evangelical-Lutheran religion] are bound to bring up their children in the same." If the parents don't profess this religion, the children won't automatically be enlisted. One may try to rephrase the statement, although I'm not sure how it should be done NPOV, at least not without a literature reference or something. Perhaps one could write, "Some people claim that the proportion of true followers of the state religion is far less than the membership number, ..." It is obviously true that some people claim this, but it is not certain whether the claim is correct. What do you think? --Eddi 23:00, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm the anonymous user that edited the listing for Norway. Perhaps I got a little carried away and my insert was POV ed, but I just felt that the entry should reflect the reality, which is that Norway is a very secular country and not what sounds like an Iranian-style theocracy. It is true that if neither parent is member of the state church then a newborne child will not automatically become a member. However, since there is no economic incentive to leave the state church (everyone pays for the state church through their taxes unless they have joined another religious organization or belief-system, in which case there contribution is forwarded to these instead), most people don't feel strongly enough about it to go through the trouble. Also, in 1997 when the church digitalized its membership register it simply copied the entire database of Norwegian citizens and told people that had thus forcefully been enlisted (myself included) through newspaper ads to write to their local church to get a rescindment form. Naturally, quite few people bothered and many of those who did later discovered that they nevertheless had not been removed from the register.

I can tell you that the membership figures of the state church are severly bloated. A comprehensive poll with 2500 participants was performed in 1998, asking questions about religious, moral and ethical issues (see the report at [3] - Norwegian only unfortunately]. I'll translate a few of the questions and resulting frequency tables to strengthen my point:

Do you believe in God? (p 50)	(percentage of all participants)
I do not believe in God	11.6%
Unable to decide	12.0%
I believe there are higher powers	24.9%
I sometimes believe	8.4%
I doubt, but I believe	23.9%
I know God exists	18.3%
Unanswered	0.9%

How often do you take part in a religious/church services/activities? (p55)	(percentage of all participants)
Never	54.0%
Less than once a year	15.2%
About 1-2 times a year	12.1%
Several times a year	8.4%
About once a month	1.6%
Two-three times a month	2.5%
Almost every week	2.5%
Every week	2.0%
Several times a week	1.0%
Unanswered	0.7%

Are you religious? (p55)	(percentage of all participants)
Very religious	2.0%
Strongly religious	6.9%
Somewhat religious	29.0%
Indifferent	37.9%
Somewhat non-religious	6.7%
Strongly non-religious	8.9%
Very strongly non-religious	4.0%
Uncertain	4.0%
Unanswered	0.6%

Although I was a bit surprised by the results of he first question, it should be obvious from the second one that it is severley misleading to say that 86% of the population belong to the state church (evangelical lutheranism). If you subtract the appr 10% that belong to other religious organization (who are, presumably, more active members), there's clearly not much of an attendence. Furthermore, when asked about their religious affiliation, 58% answered none and only 15.7% felt any affiliation to the state church (p56). What do you think? — Robin

I didn't know there was such a survey – it's probably been well hidden. If you could write this relatively briefly, perhaps in a separate paragraph, and include the reference, it might work. If you have a reference for the story on digitalisation of the membership register, too, it could be included. Try to put it so that your opponents (there may be quite a number of them) can't blame you for POV. Although many are not strongly religious, very few are blatant atheists. --Eddi 08:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Kirkerådet regner med at kirkelig medlemsregister i dag inneholder mindre enn en prosent feil." [4]

"Undersøkelser gjort av statistiske byrå viser at det i dag kan være om lag 0,5% feil i Den norske kirkes medlemsregister, det vil si at rundt 20 000 personer kan være registrert som kirkemedlemmer uten å være det." [5]

There are at least two issues here; the accuracy of the membership registers (which according to the above articles cited by Samuelsen are accurate to the percent), and the true faith of the registered members (see the survey cited by Robin). Both issues can probably be presented together in NPOV and without contradiction. --Eddi 12:10, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The 83% membership estimate may be factually accurate, but still misleading. In 1997, all Norwegians not enlisted in any other religious community, or the non-religious Human-etisk forbund, were enlisted in the state church by the state church, without their concent. Those who are unaware of this and therefore have not actively unlisted themselves since, are members without their knowledge.

It is true that newborns of parents that are not members are not automatically enlisted in the state church. However, the large numbers of people unknowingly and involunteerly becoming members in 1997, makes the number 83% more than unaccurate as an estimate of actually religous people in Norway. (My peronal experience is that religous people are a small minority i today's Norway.)

Area

An anon edit changed the size of Norway, so I reverted, assuming that the national boundaries haven't changed and the original number was correct. Someone may want to check though; here's the edit. Tuf-Kat 19:03, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

The anon reverted and I have left it, because some googling indicates he may be right. Tuf-Kat 19:11, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

According to the official website at www.odin.dep.no, the area of Norway is 386,958 sq.km (incl. Svalbard & Jan Mayen). The website at www.statkart.no says that the area of Norway excluding Svalberg and Jan Mayen is 323.802 sq.km. So both the previous number and the anon edit is right - the big question is which number we ought to use. What do the guideline says? At the very least we should add the words "(incl. Svalbard & Jan Mayen)" to the table I think. WegianWarrior 06:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered if that was the issue. My feeling is that the area given should be the total area, including Svalbard and Jan Mayen, though a note that those areas are included should be present (a footnote might be better than trying to put it in the infobox). Tuf-Kat 07:04, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

---

The footnote on what's included in the total area has been deleted recently. If the area of the mainland is not mentioned separately, at least the footnote should be there. I will restore it. --Eddi 00:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

The area has again been changed to 386,958 km². This figure is indeed mentioned in a document from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at www.odin.dep.no (http://odin.dep.no/odinarkiv/norsk/dep/ud/1999/publ/032005-990501/dok-bn.html). On the other hand, the official Statistical Yearbook of Norway at www.ssb.no (http://www.ssb.no/english/yearbook/tab/t-010101-021.html) indicates that the area of the kingdom is 385,199 km² (incl. freshwater, Svalbard and Jan Mayen), and the mainland is 323,802 km² (incl. freshwater). Generally I wouldn't doubt such information from a ministry, but when there is disagreement over the size of domestic land area I trust the Statistics Norway rather than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Therefore I'll change the area back to 385,199 km². --Eddi (Talk) 01:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Economy

GDP

The various GDP rankings and figures for Norway are not from the same year; they are from 2002, 2003, and 2004. Therefore I think the year should be stated for each figure. If not, someone should constantly watch the figures and make sure they are all from the year given in the heading. Any volunteers? --Eddi 23:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Welfare or social capitalism?

There have been several edits – yet no war – between welfare and social in the sentence "The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention." I have not been involved in this, but it makes me wonder. Does any of these versions offend anyone? Should it be re-written, or does it need more detail? Some of the following information may be considered:
Norway has a social democratic form of government. It is a prosperous country rich in natural resources as well as high-technology industry. Its economy is mainly capitalistic with free market activity, along with certain government intervention. Norway has a comprehensive public welfare system including free healthcare, free higher education, care for senior citizens, 1-year maternity leave, and liberal unemployment pay, all funded through relatively high taxes. The standard of living is very high, but the cost of living is also the highest in the world.
This may be too much to include, but it may shed some light on the original sentence and perhaps one may agree on a more permanent wording. --Eddi 18:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just a few corrections before your suggested sentence is published (don't know if it already has been). The Norwegian state doesn't provide citizens with 100% free healthcare. Dental care is covered in its entirety by the patients themselves without any financial support unless the patient can prove a medical condition that requires extensive surgery or a number of consultations within a short period of time. Appointments with general practitioners are priced with a fee of approximately NOK 125,- + additional services (usage of disposable medical equipent, issuing of sick-leave declarations etc). As far as I know these are all completely free of charge in e.g. the UK for tax-paying citizens. Finally, there is no free care for senior citizens. In publically run full-time homes for seniors there is a relatively fixed percentage of approx. 80% of the receiver's income going directly into the local authority's operations relating to his/her stay. I'm not deliberately trying to nitpick, just pointing out a few facts that even Norwegians themselves don't seem to fully recognise. pneumaman 23:13, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The phrasing right now is somewhat POV in favor of a socialist or "social market" economic perspective. I would note this article from the New York Times, which talks about how Norwegians' collective myth that they live in the world's most prosperous country is untrue because of the significantly slower economic growth, higher unemployment, and much higher cost of living relative to the USA or UK all create a lower standard of living than is generally acknowledged in the left-leaning media and political culture of Europe.

LeoO3 18:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

This text are very glose to CIA world facth, word by word.

The royal house

The following sentence has been inserted and deleted several times in various sections of the article on Norway: "The royal house is since 1905 the North German house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (which is also posessing the Danish throne)."
It would be great if those for and against could discuss the matter at the talk page and agree on wording and, if included, on the position within the article. --Eddi 20:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While I havn't neither inserted nor deleted that, I would argue that even if King Haakon VII was part of that particular royal house, the current royal house probaly ain't - rumour has it that King Olav - son of the british-born Queen Maud and (officially) Haakon - was a bastard, and King Olav himself was married to Princess Märtha Louise of Sweden; thus bringing in the 'blood' of the House Bernadotte. Olav's son Harald (the current king) married a baseborn norwegian woman (whom I must admidt not liking personally), this thinning out the bloodline even more... Crown Prince Haakon did as his father and married a single mother, so that the 'blue blood' present in Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway (future ruling Queen of Norway) is minuskle at best...

Okay, so I Rant. Anyway, my point is that it might be better to say something like "The royal house is descended from the North German house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg." --WegianWarrior 13:51, 19 Nov 2004 (missing signature added by Eddi)

I doubt that the disagreement on insertion and deletion was concerned with the question of King Olav's father, but it's difficult to say since nobody provided any reasons on the talk page. Anyway, the sentence has been revised recently and is perhaps acceptable now.
By the way, I think blue blood is genetically dominant — that is, once you have a few millilitres the rest turns blue instantly. :-) --Eddi 18:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The issue of "dilution of blood" also goes to descendancy. The Norwegian Royal house also descends from the British royal family, as King Harald is the great grandson of King Edward VII through his daughter, and #59 in succession to the British throne. As the Norwegian Royal House historically has had close ties with the British, this might also be a point to note. On the other hand, as most European royalty is very interrelated, this may not be such an important issue on the Norway page. Also, the page on King Harald does not mention Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, so why should the Norway page do so?--MaxMad 09:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opening sentence / Country name

"The Kingdom of Norway (Nynorsk: Kongeriket Noreg; Bokmål: Kongeriket Norge) is a Nordic country west of Sweden on the Scandinavian Peninsula."

It's a bit long. Aren't there better ways of describing the "Norge/Noreg" situation? Besides, the links to Nynorsk and Bokmål are both redirects to Norwegian language, and it is a bit misleading to give impression of two separate articles, when there's only one. 14:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about deleting the parentheses, like it was before: "The Kingdom of Norway is a Nordic country west of Sweden on the Scandinavian Peninsula."   The Norwegian versions of the country name are listed in the infobox anyway and, as long as Bokmål/Nynorsk are stated as official languages, it may not be necessary to explain the Norge/Noreg situation any further. --Eddi 01:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's what I wanted, but it was reverted. 10:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The opinions could be polled here and, if conclusive, support one or the other version. --Eddi 20:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My take is rephrasing the "west of Sweden" statement. While factually true, the same could be said if we wrote "west of China" or "east of Greenland". Using "bordering Russia, Finland and Sweden, with territorial waters bordering Danish and Brtish" would be less patronizing of Norway. As it is, enough people think Norway is the capital of Sweden, and using a "Sweden is a point of reference that more people know of" as an argument would be odd - considering how Russia is also immideately east of Norway, and, I should think, rather well known. I know it doesen't exactly shorten the opening sentece, but this is a hot point for me. --TVPR 09:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Country

I don't understand what's the big deal. Could someone please start discussing here instead of in the history? If this is part of a bigger discussion please insert a link to that discussion. Thanks. --Eddi 00:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[6]. Gzornenplatz 01:00, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll follow the discussion at the Village Pump. --Eddi 01:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Judging from discussions here and there, the Template:Infobox Country seems to be most popular. I'm now testing it on Norway. Please have a look and return with your thoughts.
The template has many variables that may be used plainly or manipulated, see for example the Area Total, Constitution / Independence, and Internet TLD rows – with a slightly unelegant solution for the TLDs. --Eddi 23:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There hasn't been much editing lately, so I wonder: Is the layout acceptable? If all details are copied correctly, we should perhaps delete Template:Norway infobox. --Eddi 19:04, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Population

Census

Does Norway have census? The infobox indicates a census of 2001, but Norwegian authorities keeps a continuous count (from births and deaths), and does not hold census in the manner of other some other countries, as far as I know. 06:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The last Norwegian census was held in 2001. Although it focused on standard of living, employment, education, standard of residences, size of households, temporary location of residents etc., it was indeed a census counting the population. It was proposed to be the last Norwegian census ever, and so far it has been... See http://www.ssb.no/fob/ --Eddi (Talk) 23:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Source of population estimates

It has been argued to use the population from the list of countries by population. Why should it be used, if it isn't the most recent estimate? The first list on that page is taken from the 2003 edition of the CIA World Factbook, and even if it was taken from the 2004 edition it would be far from updated. The second list is dated January 2005, but the source is not stated. By the way, the recently reverted population estimate did not use the population from the list at all. In my opinion the best source for the article on Norway would be the official Statistics Norway. For the complete list, the CIA World Factbook or something else could be used. --Eddi (Talk) 13:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

English Wikipedia and Norway

It is so much strange things written about Norway on English Wikipedia that the articles cannot be taken very seriously. E.g. is Svalbard and Jan Mayen listed as dependencies and the coat of arm pictured has even never been the coat of arm of the kingdom (only used by the king before WW II). When I am trying to correct these mistakes the corrections are being reversed by people who does not have the simplest understanding about what they are talking about. Therefore I am giving up this project. My suggestion to those of you who will use English Wikipedia, check the sources or try Norwegian Wikipedia - it is at least written by natives!

The lion is the official coat of arms of the Norwegian State. Caplex, a Norwegian encyclopedia says so. For more evidence, just look at the logos at Odin(government website), the pages of the Norwegian military or the official information site of Norway.

Jakro64 08:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Information on the Coat of Arms can be found here: [7]. This is as official as it gets. --Cybbe 23:56, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Best Country? I Dont Think So...

As I recall Norway has been awarded the best country reward several years (inclouding this year i think), Norway has also been awarded the richest country several years, and a lot of look a like rewards ower the years. But does this nessecerily make Norway the best country in the world? I dont think do... Even though Norway had been awarded the best country award, the statistics show that Norway has one of the highest suicide numbers ower the years. And the people of Norway know that bulling between students and cids is a serious problem... If you smile to a stranger on the street he/she will probably not smile back, but rather wonder what`s wrong... (Janteloven er mere populær enn vi tror...) The norwegian people seriously have an attitude problem... Some people are dragging Norway donwn by saying we are a boring country, bla bla bla. Others keep talking about have special Norway is... Saying we should stay out of EU and EØS (if those are the english letters for the unions), because we are better then other countries (what crap!). Most of the people who said that suddenly went still when it came on the news that their local carpet shop called something like "ALL NORWEGIAN" had been importing carpets from Bangladesh several years. I reast my case... Whatever my case is... -Kim Pløhn hundremeterskogen@gmail.com

Better map?

Does anyone have a map with a better projection? As it is, the "goathead"-part is completely squished and the entire thing looks slightly bizarre. --Kaleissin 13:09:53, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

You could have a look in the Image namespaces at commons (starting at "Norw"), en: (starting at "Norw"), no: (all) or nn: (all), or ask at the Norwegian village pumps no:Tinget or nn:Samfunnshuset. For the general geography there are at least en:Image:No-map.png and nn:Image:Noreg kart.jpg, and for an overview of the counties commons:Image:Norway counties.jpg and no:Image:Norgesfylker.png. By the way, which map are you referring to – the one in the infobox or that in the Counties section? --Eddi (Talk) 14:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The one in the infobox. I've lived up there so I'm a little protective of maps of the area, it so often get turned into a shapeless blob. Where would be a good place to discuss the reason for the russian wedge into eastern Finnmark? There are so many potential places it could go. Here, or an article on Finnmark, or czarist Russia, or the Russian orthodox church... --Kaleissin 11:57:48, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

Yes, maps viewed from the equator tend to be somewhat distorted that far north. For discussion of wedges I suggest no:Diskusjon:Norge, no:Diskusjon:Norges geografi, or no:Diskusjon:Finnmark. I notice there is a Russian church at Boris Gleb at the end of the wedge, east of Bjørnevatn. But isn't the Norwegian wedge between Russia and Finland really the peculiar one? --Eddi (Talk) 14:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Boris Gleb is the reason alright. The other wedge would have been a lot less wedgy if it weren't for that church. The big wedge follows a river southwards and iirc there were settlers from southern Norway living all along it. --Kaleissin 16:09:43, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

How does one define early?

As per a recent edit summary, how is "early in the century" defined? Ten first years? Twenty? --Kaleissin 11:57:48, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

Human Rights in Norway

I've noticed there is no "Human Rights in Norway" article. The treatment of natives, racism and discrimination in today, and the controversy regarding Arne Treholdt and others might deserve a mentioning. NWOG 12:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Then be bold and add it - allthought considering the vast maajority of norwegians are natives, I'm not sure what you mean by that part of your comment (unless off course you mean the sami, who pretty much get treated like royaltiy these days). WegianWarrior 13:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose this is a valid subject in present as well as the past, and should not be brushed off bluntly. Such an article or section could discuss the treatment of e.g. arrestees, children, disabled, elderly, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, immigrants, political and religious dissidents, poor people, prisoners, women, etc. through different periods in time. All of these and others were or are treated badly in various ways by the Norwegian state or significant portions of the public. However, this being a sensitive issue, any coverage of the subject needs substantial reference material. I can't provide any references and therefore I can't contribute to an article. --Eddi (Talk) 03:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Oslo not closer to Rome

Unless we include Svalbard, which is a special case which does not qualify as "northern regions" (what regions?). Take a close look at a map. From Oslo, Rome is farther away than any point on mainland Norway -by a clear margin. Therefore, I suggest this: Oslo in fact being closer to Paris than to Vardø. Because that is actually a correct statement. Orcaborealis 22:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if your statement is actually correct, I see no problem with it. Is Vardø Norwegian for Svalbard (I'm American, the only link I have to Norway being that my girlfriend is Norwegian)?Tommstein 00:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind that stupid question, I looked at the article and now see what Vardø is. I don't think being closer to Paris is all that impressive though, so maybe the sentence should just be completely removed.Tommstein 00:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the statement is a misrepresentation of what we learned in school, i.e. if one were to turn Norway around its southern point, then the farthest point would almost reach Rome. The southern point is Lindesnes (not Oslo), and the farthest point from Lindesnes is close to Vardø. To check our school lesson quickly and crudely we may first calculate only the differences in latitude (north-south) by simple subtraction, which gives a distance from Lindesnes to Vardø of 12.23° and from Lindesnes to Rome of 16.20°, i.e. quite different (see data below). If we calculate great-circle distances instead, counting longitude as well as latitude using non-Euclidean geometry, the distances are 15.75° or 1752 km Lindesnes-Vardø, and 16.53° or 1838 km Lindesnes-Rome, i.e. quite similar. This may or may not be worth mentioning in the article. --Eddi (Talk) 06:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC) / 18:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Item	Location	Lat. (° N)	Long. (° E)	Angular distance (°) to						Great-circle distance (km) to
				NC	V	O	L	P	R	NC	V	O	L	P	R
NC	North Cape	71.17	25.79	--	1.87	12.77	15.14	24.82	30.02	--	208	1420	1684	2760	3339
V	Vardø	70.33	30.85	1.87	--	13.27	15.75	25.34	29.93	208	--	1476	1752	2818	3329
O	Oslo	59.93	10.75	12.77	13.27	--	2.56	12.08	18.06	1420	1476	--	284	1343	2009
L	Lindesnes	58.10	7.28	15.14	15.75	2.56	--	9.68	16.53	1684	1752	284	--	1077	1838
P	Paris	48.87	2.33	24.82	25.34	12.08	9.68	--	9.95	2760	2818	1343	1077	--	1107
R	Rome	41.90	12.48	30.02	29.93	18.06	16.53	9.95	--	3339	3329	2009	1838	1107	--

lat.=latitude; long.=longitude

Exactly. So the statement "Oslo being closer to Rome" is false, by a good margin. Even if we use Lindesnes, the statement is false. This is the free encyclopedia - false statements are of course unacceptable. If anyting, one of it's purposes is to falsify myths. Here is a suggestion that might underline the elongated shape: Vardø is the easternmost town in Western Europe and is in fact east of Istanbul. This is correct, if we use the standard definitions of western Europe. Or, we could just mention the distance from north to south (1770 km, isn't it?). Or, we could just drop it and delete the sentence. And Tommstein, as I see it, where we happen to live is of no importance. Orcaborealis 15:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just saying, my expertise on this probably pales badly compared to that of an actual Norwegian. I say, whip out the most impressive fact(s) that can be found, and stick it/them in. If none are too impressive, then we might as well not bother. Although that 'east of Istanbul' fact is impressive to me (what comes after Turkey, Iraq?). Saying that the southernmost point as almost as close to Rome than Vardø is also impressive, even if that southermost point isn't anything special and Vardø isn't a straight shot north; that highlights how long the country is.Tommstein 06:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)