Talk:Norway

Untitled

For instructions on using the infobox template, which displays short facts about a country, see the template's talk page. For further discussions on the structure of country articles and use of templates, see the country project and its talk page.

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 00:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Surrender in 1940?

under foreign relations it says that Norway surendered to the Nazi Germany in 1940. This is wrong as the royal family managed to escape to England before Oslo was taken. It is true that Norway was invaded by Nazi troops, but it never formally surrendered to them. The royal family even continued to steer the Norwegian freedom fighters from England. I am removing this statement now, You are free to change it if i am wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linuxdude96 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC) norway was most likely under nazi control for a while because they did surrender. the royal family however may have lived in exile during that time.

The Norwegian armed forces in Norway surrendered to the German invasion troops, but there was never a peace agreement between Norway and Nazi-Germany, the Norwegian government continued to operate, although in exile, Norway remained at war with Germany, and also continued to conduct military operations against Germany, with the help of its allies (such as the Svolvær raid, etc.).--84.210.106.155 (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

where in the country of oslo is oslo itself

i dont have much information myself other than the fact that the parliament lies in oslo as well as the castle plus the town hall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.209 (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The county (fylke) borders and the city limits is the same thing; ie the city of Oslo and the fylke of Oslo is the same thing, filling the same geographical area. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

lack of information on jewish people in norway

there a number of jewish people in norway. the exact number isnt know to me though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.75.209 (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific exactly how and where this information should be added to the article? Arnoutf (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added numbers in the section on religion in Norway. As of 2009, there were 802 adherents of Judaism. There is no form of official registration of Jewish ethnicity in Norway, so the only number available is that of members of the Jewish religious community. The number of secular Jews is thus unknown, although I'm sure estimates exist.--Barend (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The article Judaism in Norway claims there are 1500 jews in Norway. Proportionally, it's a lot less than Sweden, for instance. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Might partly be due to Sweden's neutrality during World War 2, as well. The Norwegian Jewish population was severely struck by the holocaust. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

table with dubious information

Following table is in the article --still.

Country	Regular church attendance (%)
Poland	56.7%
United States	42%
Canada	25%
France	15%
United Kingdom	10%
Australia	7.5%
Norway	5%

I have already added following text : "Church attendance data in the U.S. has been checked against actual values using two different techniques. The true figures show that only about 21% of Americans and 10% of Canadians actually go to church one or more times a week. Many Americans and Canadians tell pollsters that they have gone to church even though they have not. Whether this happens in other countries, with different cultures, is difficult to predict."

Furthermore no source is given for the 15 % in France, but known sources list around 5 %, even christian today is listing "In France and Germany, weekly attendance at religious services is below 10% and that was a few years ago already. Furthermore the 5 % for Norway seems rather high , the source is outdated and referring to the % of regular churchgoers in 1993 (study done in 1995).

Would appreciate if someone backs up / updates the table as I can't find the data to support the claims being made. Thanks Ruud64 (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You can find data that support the 5% rate in Norway here http://www.dawnnorge.no/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=jaQGxxj9F0A%3d&tabid=2942&language=nb-NO

Contrary to what many people seems to think, the rate of church goers in Norway is increasing, largely due to growth of immigrant churches, and to some extent to newer charismatic churches

Eskil S (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Union with Sweden

Section 2.4 on the Union with Sweden could do with improving. Eg, this doesn't seem to make any sense:

"However, the decision to link Norway with Sweden caused the Norwegian-Swedish War to break out between Sweden and Norway..."

Can anyone who knows the history (I don't!) sort it out? Thanks. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the revisions. That does make more sense now. Daveofthenewcity (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

English invasion plans in 1940

Might it not be appropriate to mention in the section on Norway in World War II that the English were also planning to invade Norway in 1940 to end the shipment of Swedish iron ore to Germany via Narvik? The English very nearly beat the Germans to the punch -- as they did in Iceland. (66.162.249.170 (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Etymology

Thank you for this, and for not using the incredibly irritating (and IMHO probably incorrect) "toponomy"! Maelli (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This section makes no sense. When was the last good version edited? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Map

The map of Norway hasn't the island of Jan_Mayen coloured in green. The island, north-east of Iceland is administered by the governor of Nordland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.115.160 (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

The way ethnic groups are defined on Wikipedia (common heritage, language, culture, self-identification) are not the same as those used on the page linked for the figures (anyone who is at least 3rd generation immigrant). I will therefore remove this figure for now. Please feel free to add a number again if you can find one that follows the criteria set out by Wikipedia. --Johanneswilm (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Employment

The bit explaining about employment is confusing. It says that unemployment is 3%, but that 22% are on welfare and 30% work for the state. This isnt clear. What about private sector employment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.30.134 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed the article, although it seems to have been written by Norwegian promoters. The 30% have jobs. The 22%, presumably, will never work or can't work. The 3% are "looking for work". That is my guess. The rest are pining for the fjords. Huw Powell (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Leif Ericson picture title

--92.226.86.191 (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)893?

Intro History needs merging into specific history sections

The reason the "intro too long" message appears is largely because there is a short summary of Norwegian history included in the intro. If someone who knows N. history could please slice this up and integrate it into the respective history subsections it would aid greatly. 18:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jforee (talk • contribs)

I agree. The second paragraph of this article is the most ridiculous paragraph I've seen on Wikipedia! 93.96.236.8 (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bouvet Island

In the introductory text it's not clear the actual status of Bouvet Island. Although not covered by the Antartic Treaty, I think it's not a constituent part of the Kingdom of Norway but a dependency of it. It should, therefore, not be mentioned in the same sentence as Jan Mayen and Svalbard that are truly constituent parts of the Kingdom. Prvc (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Crowned Republic?

Yeah, just seen that the Government has been changed to Crown Republic. The Constitution states that the exectutive of Norway is the Kings Council, a group of civilians appointed by the king himself, the constitution does not state that he needs to be advised in this duty.

Article 1 The Kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and inalienable Realm. Its form of government is a limited and hereditary monarchy.*

Article 3 The Executive Power is vested in the King, or in the Queen if she has succeeded to the Crown pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 or Article 7 or Article 48 of this Constitution. When the Executive Power is thus vested in the Queen, she has all the rights and obligations which pursuant to this Constitution and the Law of the Land are possessed by the King.

Article 12 The King himself chooses a Council from among Norwegian citizens who are entitled to vote.

Article 25 The King is Commander-in-Chief of the land and naval forces of the Realm.

Article 26 The King has the right to call up troops, to engage in hostilities in defence of the Realm and to make peace

• - Limited Monarchy is another name for Constitutional Monarchy. Constitutional Monarchy suggests that powers are shared. Crowned Republic suggests that the Crown is entirley symbolic with no power whatsoever. The Kingdom of Norway is not a Crowned Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.118.101 (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 attacks

The 2011 attacks should not be excluded, it is already clear that it is a major event in the country's history. Just like the article United States mentions the September 11 attacks. It's probably more relevant than curbing inflation in the 1980s, which is mentioned. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 18:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I have added it again, although this time I didn't name it terrorist attacks (I copied the text from the attack page itself). The event has already happened, it's not going to go away, so I'd rather have it in the article and then have it updated as new information comes along. It is the worst thing that has happened to us (Norway) since WWII, so it's definitely a part of our history now. Kiire (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

But it is a terrorist attack and should be labelled according to what major news reports call it. I dont see any justification for not doing so.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been undone again by User:SpeakFree, and I give up on Wikipedia once again, nothing is ever good enough. I've got better things to do. Kiire (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The attacks should be mentioned but not as a separate section. The two lines I added should be enough. Just consider that World War I and II both share a section. Is it really as big that? If it somehow becomes a turning point in Norwegian history in the years to come future generations can give it a section of its own if its warranted at the time. Please don't be discouraged! S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 20:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the word "terrorist". If that was the problem it should now be solved. S_peakF_ree ^(talk) 20:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep It should be mentioned, in appropriate proportion (avoiding WP:Recentism), and not described as terrorism. Too many political, point-scoring overtones to that word. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Mention and describe as what it was: terrorism. After all, the very definition of terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Just because the perpetrator was white don't change basic facts. WegianWarrior (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop making assumptions and (effectively) accusations of racist bias on this matter. You have no idea of my background and possible biases. I don't like the use of the word terrorism anywhere here. It's too loaded politically. By your definition, we would primarily be describing Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Only Muslims can be terrorist, so that's why we shouldn't use terrorism. (Christians fundamentalist thus cannot be terrorist) Mandela was a terrorist for the apartheid regime (and UK and USA government). He terrorized them with the notion that Africans are humans. That terrified them.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Unification"

It is true that a lot of Norwegians would certainly accept king Harald Fairhair as the uniter of Norway. However, I would like to point out that while his supposed unification of Norway (dated to 872 AD in the article) is not entirely fictional, it is more accurately described as a mythological unification of Norway. He has been actively used in Norwegian nation building in an attempt to create a more ancient history for the modern nation of Norway, but most historians now agree that he was only ever king of the (south)western parts of modern Norway. Even the title of king is really misleading, since his rule basically amounted to a large-scale protection racket. He would travel between several estates scattered around the area nominally under his control with his band of warriors, moving on whenever he had exhausted the resources (and people) in one region. In any case, my point is that referring to Harald Fairhair's exploits as the unification of Norway is somewhat like referring to the establishment of the kingdom of Northumbria as the unification of Anglo-Saxon England. The only real difference is in the mythology surrounding the two events. It would probably be fair to say that real unification of most of modern Norway did not happen until the late 10th century (largely thanks to the interference of Danish king Harald Bluetooth) and was a rather messy, dishonorable affair. Most Norwegians would probably not even be aware of this, so it is basically a question of whether the article should simply accept the Norwegian national founding myth or attempt to provide a more historically accurate account, which would admittedly involve considerable uncertainty both with regard to the historical facts and the definitions of "unification" and "Norway". Maitreya (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Whaling in Norway

For some unknown reason the article on Norway does not mention the whaling issue at all. I've added "see also" tags to the appropriate article in areas it seemed relevent. The fact that it is not mentioned makes me doubt the integrity of the whole article. (Drn8 (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

I took out two-- one mention seems enough. I also added one to Outline of Norway. 24.177.99.126 (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Longer coastline/more islands according to new official figures

According to new official figures, the coastline of Norway is 103,000 km (second longest in the world behind Canada) instead of the formerly believed 85,000 km. This is largely as a new survey has registered a staggering 240,000 new islets that had not previously been officially registered.[1] —Filippusson (t.) 22:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Trials in Norway

I think that there might be a need for a seperate article about Trials in Norway.

I have searched this website (search: "first trial in Norway"), and came up these hits [2].

What is the first recorded trial in Norway?--85.165.229.8 (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing on Taxes?

This article has no problem boasting the programs that come with Norway's welfare state, yet there seems to be almost no mention of the taxation; it has one of the highest in the world! I don't know where I could begin to mention tax rates, etc. so any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Some well sourced, objective content could be added to the Economy section, but be very careful. Taxes come in many forms, so comparisons ("it has one of the highest in the world!") are very difficult to make while remaining totally non-neutral on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with HiLo48's comments and will add that while it is common for Norwegians to assume that taxation in Norway is extreme, the numbers tend to show that total taxation (by which I mean "including all the various forms of taxation") is fairly typical for a Western European country. Obviously, tax rates are higher in Western Europe than in most other places, but my point is that Norway is not really exceptional in that neighborhood. Maitreya (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If one solely looks at direct taxation on income Norwegians actually pay less taxes that many other European countries... don't stop us complaining about the tax though. If you look at the total taxation (taxes on income and assets plus the various other fees and taxes) as a percentage of GNP Norway is a fairly average European country - see here and here. WegianWarrior (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just undid some vandalism that had recently been added by a Swede. Well, by someone proficient in swedish at least. --46.9.12.93 (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)