User talk:Barend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Barend, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Mais oui! 19:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


Third welcoming to wiki, nice erh? I just wanted to remind you to sign your comments at the end of talk page posts. You can do this by using the signature button in the tool line over the Subject/Headline feild, which is the third from last button. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Central Asia[edit]

WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created! If you're interested, please consider joining us. Aelfthrytha 21:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Civil war era in Norway[edit]

About time someone wrote this! I'm also impressed by other recent edits from you like this very interesting one, I'd like to read that article. I gave you a barnstar on your user page, feel free to move it or remove it however you please. Haukur 11:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! The article on Sveinn is quite interesting. The guy claims that the Svein referred to in the relevant skaldic poems is in fact Sweyn I of Denmark. He has to reinterpret them a bit to reach this conclusion, for example he believes that Olav Haraldsson did not in fact win the battle of Nesjar, but was defeated by Sweyn I of Denmark in that battle. He believes that the relevant poems were misinterpreted by the people writing Historia Norwegiae and the other books in the late 12th centuries. At the same time, he totally discounts the existence of oral traditions besides the skaldic poems. It all seems a bit far-fetched to me, but the guy is a professor of the university of Stockholm (of nordic languages), so I thought it should be mentioned. --Barend 15:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting. I wonder what he makes of Nóregs konungatal, which is an epitome of Sæmundr fróði's history, written around 1120.
28. Talði lönd
ok lausafé
sína eign
Sveinn ok Hákon,
ok tvá vetr
at tali fyrða
Eireks arf
jarlar höfðu,
Surely this Sveinn is Sveinn Hákonarson since he and Hákon are referred to as 'jarlar' in the stanza. Haukur 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course stanza 31 is even more explicit:
31. Bauð Óláfr
austr fyr Nesjum
snarpa sókn
Sveini jarli ;
varð liðfár
lönd at flýja,
sigri sviptr,
sonr Hákonar
This indicates to me that the tradition we know from the sagas seems to have been established already in Sæmundr's time. Haukur 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Quite. What the guy basically says, is that Sæmundr is the guy who made the first misunderstanding. As I say, I find it far-fetched. 1. He feels that he, as a 20th century philologist, is better placed to understand 11th century skaldic poetry than people living in basically the same culture, only about 100 years later, which I find somewhat arrogant. 2. He believes there were no other oral traditions besides the skaldic poetry, no prose stories telling of events and rulers of the past, that had survived these 100 years, which I find extremely unlikely. But there you go. I have the impression his theory hasn't been generally accepted, but not thoroughly discounted either. And, as I said in the article, it is quite typical of particularly Swedish academia to more or less discount the sagas altogether. --Barend 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting intellectual exercise though I agree with you that this hyper-skeptical methodology doesn't lead to very convincing results. If our sources are really so unreliable that we can doubt the existence of someone like Sveinn then they are probably so unreliable that we can't state anything at all confidently. There must have been some oral tradition surrounding the skaldic verses, they can't have been recited and memorized in a vaccuum. People must at least have said something like: "And now I'm going to recite the verses which Halldórr ókristni composed on the Battle of Svold..."
I think it's very interesting when we can confirm or refute the saga/poetic evidence with completely independent sources, this is especially possible with events that took place in England. I recently bought Encomium Emmae which offers a fascinating account of many Scandinavian personalities.
Anyway, thanks for elaborating on that Swedish theory. If you ever need to look something up in a book which you think I might have, feel free to ask. Haukur 16:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Magnúss saga lagabœtis[edit]

Hi! Are you planning an article on Magnúss saga lagabœtis? I just found the text of the fragments online. [1] Haukur 10:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And now there's a Morkinskinna article at no due to the tireless efforts of Finn Bjørklid. We need to get one of those here too... :) Haukur 22:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the links! looks like a great site. I was planning to write about these two sagas, but will now have to put it off for a bit, because of major computer problems at home. When I get my web-connection back, if no one else has done it by then, I will write these articles. --Barend 13:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And now you've written both of them, kudos! :) Haukur 22:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Early Norwegian struggles for supremacy[edit]

I'm thinking of starting an article but I need your advice. I want one with a title like early struggle for control of Norway or something to that effect. The lead could be something along these lines:

As defined in this article the early struggle for control of Norway refers to the wars of conquest and successionfrom Harald Fairhair's unification of Norway in the late 9th century to the accession of Magnus the Good in 1035. During this time overlordship of Norway was repeatedly with violent means. After 1035 there was a period of relative stability until the beginning of the civil war era in 1130.

I think it would be really handy to have an article like this; dealing with the struggle between the Jarls of Lade, the descendants of Haraldr hárfagri, the Danish kings and other players - thus putting a lot of articles in context. The only problem is that I wonder whether this would fall under "original research". Is the period up to Magnus the Good ever treated separately by historians? It makes sense to me to do so but I don't recall having seen it anywhere. Haukur 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea! Of course, this period should be covered a lot better in History of Norway, which is in dire need of improvement on the middle ages. But as for your question: Yes, it is treated separately by Norwegian historians, very much so. I don't know if you have access to academic journals - Historisk Tidsskrift (Oslo), mostly in Norwegian, often features articles on this period. So does Scandinavian Journal of History, which is written in English. Norwegian historians, from the 19th century onwards, have written volumes about the unification of Norway, and about the christianization of Norway and the influence, or not, of kings like Harald Fairhair, Olav Tryggvason and St. Olav on these processes. The early historians, before 1920 or so, went through the sagas and tried to get as much detail as they could out of them. Then a reaction came, with the saga critical school. They considered the sagas useless for this period, as they weren't written until a couple of hundred years later, but they still trusted the skaldic poetry, and often reinterpreted it in a different way than the saga writers had done. At the moment, this is a very much debated topic. So when writing an article like this, you should be prepared that the sagas aren't universally considered good sources for the period. You remember the little talk we had about the existence of Sveinn Hákonarson? Well, there is an Icelandic historian who recently wrote an article claiming that Harald Fairhair is just a mythological character.
OK, I went off on a ramble there, the thing is, I have actually been thinking about writing an article on saga criticism, or something like that. But, yes, the period deserves a better treatment on wikipedia than it has gotten so far. And there is loads of litterature, especially in Norwegian.--Barend 07:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. There's certainly plenty of academic literature on the early kings of Norway - the only thing I was concerned about was whether it was normal to put a break in 1035 and cover the succession wars in the period before that as a specific topic. An article on saga criticism would be very welcome and would serve an educational purpose on Wikipedia where the sagas are too often used uncritically as sources Haukur 09:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Haukur asked me to comment. As a mere hobbyist, I'm not sure if I dare getting involved in a hot topic like this. However structually I think it would be best to start with something like Norway in the Middle Ages and then spin out subarticles from there. Fornadan (t) 14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Haukurth, when I thought about your question more, I realized that was probably more or less what you asked about, as I had no doubt you knew about much of the secondary literature already... But again, yes, I would say it is quite common to reckon Magnus the Good as a landmark - the period from him until 1130 is sometimes referred to as the "century of peace" and so on... But I suppose the common thing is to reckon the time up to 1030 as the long process of the unification and formation of the Norwegian kingdom. There is quite wide agreement that what Harald Fairhair did was only to establish the idea of one king of Norway. It is very unlikely that he actually ruled over all of what is now Norway, probably mainly the western parts. The same goes for Håkon the Good, and all the kings up to St. Olaf, who was, for instance, probably the first king of Norway to hold real sway over the Oppland region. And on top of this, you have the Danish kings, trying to claim overlordship over Norway, and direct rule over Viken at the same time. So maybe a title along the lines of Unification and consolidation of the Norwegian kingdom? A bit long and unwieldy though, I suppose... --Barend 22:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both, those are quite useful points! Fornadan is right when he says that in principle one should probably start with a broad overview article on the Middle Ages in Norway. But since we already have an article on the civil war era I thought that one on the early warlike era might not be amiss. You're right that consolidation of power is an important theme. It's a big subject, of course, I was just thinking of a short overview summarizing the major political players and battles. Haukur 09:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

More naming issues[edit]

See Talk:Eric I of Norway

Fornadan (t) 09:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please cease writing misleading edit comments[edit]

Recently you wrote "rv" (= revert) as edit comment to Skule Bårdsson, when you simply edited one word ("king") away and did not actually revert the article to any earlier version. That is a misrepresentation in edit comments. You certainly know what the term revert means. And it does not mean that edit to which you put it. You have earlier shown that in your opoinion, edit comments must not be misleading. We have to assume that you have not changed yor mind. It is not too much to ask that you live (and act) according to what you say. So, please do not write misleading edit comments any longer. Marrtel 02:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Have a closer look at the history page, before you make petty accusations. You made two separate edits to the article. The first one, I had no objections to. The second one, I reverted. I should have written "revert to earlier edit by Marrtel", this I forgot to do, I'm sorry. But it was a revert. --Barend 15:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Article in desperate need of aid[edit]

A complete rewrite of the first half of Hereditary Kingdom of Norway is sorely needed. I was planning to do this myself, but any "professional" aid would be very helpful. Fornadan (t) 13:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. I took a look at the article and despaired. Today I worked up the energy to improve some of it, but it is still in need of a complete rewrite, I think, to make it more coherent and focussed. --Barend 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know if there are any common English translation of drottsete? Fornadan (t) 21:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Been wondering myself. Apparently, the term that was used in latin was dapifer. If that helps. I'll try looking at Enlish language books and see if I can find some examples.--Barend 15:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Sverre of Norway has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Savidan 05:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Norwegian barnstar of national merit.PNG The Norwegian Barnstar of National Merit 
For your fine work on Norwegian history articles. Keep it going! :) Inge 10:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Why, thank you, sir! --Barend 11:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take notice[edit]

[2]. Theres a phrase that i thing should be moved to another section. M.V.E.i. 15:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

House of Munsö[edit]

Hi Barend, I am having a dispute over the House of Munsö with user:Pieter Kuiper. He wants to remove stuff, while I want to keep in things that I find interesting. Please, join the discussion and give your opinion.--Berig 16:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits of the Hanseatic League[edit]

If it's any consolation there are equally inane partisans of obscure Swedish dialects maintaining that they are seperate languages. I grew up in Ohio and my father drove a truck. He was not a man of much wisdom but used to say, "Never get in a p***ing match with a skunk." I therefore steer clear of philology on Wikipedia but have had some wretched experiences at the hands of Wiki. editors who've never been to the ballet telling me how to write about the ballet (which I attend to excess, both here in N.Y. and in Denmark and Sweden). Robert Greer (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Eric of Pomerania (heraldry)[edit]

I am just curious why you changed the description of Eric's seal to link the lion to "Norway" instead of the "Hereditary Kingdom of Norway". Perhaps it's splitting hairs, but from a heraldic perspective (and this is in a heraldic context), I would think of "the Hereditary Kingdom of Norway" as the more precisely accurate description of what is represented by the lion maintaining an axe, as depicted in the inescutcheon in the center of the seal. If you have a compelling reason for the change, I'd like to know. Thank you. Wilhelm meis (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the description linked to Denmark, Sweden, etc, the respective countries to which the parts of the seal referred. I see no reason why it shouldn't also link to Norway, which is what the lion referred to. The article hereditary kingdom of Norway is a not very good article about the way the Norwegian throne was inherited at various points in its history. The name "hereditary kingdom of Norway" is not very precise, it has never been an official name of the country, and whether Norway was, in fact, hereditary at this point in time is, in fact, open to debate. I see no reason why that article should be linked to from this place. If you want to be accurate, you could of course change the description to "the kingdom of Sweden, the kingdom of Denmark, the duchy of Pomerania, the kingdom of Norway", etc, but still have the links go to Sweden, Denmark and Norway. --Barend (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you for the discussion. As I previously mentioned, I am looking at this from a purely heraldic perspective. As discussed here, the coat of arms in question (depicted within the inescutcheon) originated not as a symbol of Norway per se, but as a symbol of King Eirik Magnusson of Norway, personally. Since the coat of arms, along with the kingdom, was passed down the hereditary line, I think it is more accurate to link the one with the other, rather than directly equating the device with the nation state of Norway (a correlation that eventually developed with the cultural development of the national identity in the 19th century). Basically, I think to us in the 21st century, it represents Norway, but to Erik of Pomerania and his contemporaries, it represented Norway as the domain of Eirik Magnusson and his heirs. Wilhelm meis (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think I see what you mean. You have a good point, but I don't think the specific article hereditary kingdom of Norway is any better to link to in that case. An important point is that Eric didn't, in fact, get the kingdom passed down the hereditary line, it ended up with him as the result of political decisions - basically he was elected in Norway as well. And anyway, the point would be the same for Sweden and Denmark as well, not just Norway.--Barend (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I would counter that whether or not he inherited the Kingdom of Norway, the symbol still (at the time) represented the concept of the hereditary kingdom. Again, I am looking at this from a heraldic perspective; there are others who know much more than I do about the actual history of the period. In any case, thank you for the thoughtful discussion. May I copy this to the Talk:Eric_of_Pomerania page? Wilhelm meis (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, copy away. As for me, I know more about the history, and less about heraldics than you do.--Barend (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Old Norwegian merger[edit]

I put this in that discussion, but I would like your input on it as you have also expressed dissatisfaction with Old Norwegian:

I thought of something that might make more people happy than the proposed merge would. Why not cut Old Norse down a bit (it's extremely long, 40kb is long in wikipedia, this is 50% more than that) by making an article "Old Norse Languages" in which Old Icelandic, Old Norwegian, Old Danish, Old Swedish and Old Gnutish can be treated together, separate from the "common norse" but still handled together, so that the developments can be related to each other. That article should then heavily refer to the known documents of these languages, and should draw up the ways that differences and similarities line up, because they do not always follow that East Norse/West Norse split. A large amount of prose can be lifted straight from Old Norse and Old Norwegian can then be merged to the new article. This also allows for the handling of the "middle norwegian" and the other medieval norse languages because the term "Old Norse Languages" can arguably apply also to medieval forms whether they are called "Old" or "Middle" or whatever. Please let me know what you think. I personally feel that this would be a good compromise. I also think my proposed article will be a lot easier to write than the Old Norwegian article has shown itself to be (see that article's talk page for my critique) because the changes can be related to those of the other languages, everything can be put into it's true context.--AkselGerner (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

--AkselGerner (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Gunnhild Mother of Kings[edit]

There is obviously an error in the references on the page. I thought you might want to know. --FinnWiki (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Pirates of Munkeliv Abbey[edit]

I am curious regarding your amendment to the article Munkeliv Abbey and your comment "nothing to do with piracy". The sentence in question came from the Norwegian Wikipedia (yes, I know perfectly well that Wikipedia articles aren't a reliable source) and reads: "I 1455 svidde hanseatene av klosteret da de jaktet på høvedsmannen på Bergenhus Olav Nilson som hadde drevet kapervirksomhet mor Rostock og Wismar", which seems to be saying that Olav Nilson was pursued by men of the Hanse because he was threatening the, presumably very lucrative, business of pirates/privateers operating out of Wismar and Rostock. Was your amendment (a) because the no-Wiki is incorrect and they were after him for some other reason, or because (b) piracy ≠ privateering (in which case, the problem is just a dodgy translation of "kaper"), or (c) because I have completely misunderstood the sentence (which is quite possible, as my Norwegian is rusty). I'm not disputing your changes, I'm just curious to understand them better. Thanks, HeartofaDog (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You understood the sentence quite well, although I would say there is a slight difference between piracy and privateering. But the description of events is an oversimplification, at best. The conflict between Olav Nilsson and the Hanseatics was a complex affair, and piracy/privateering was not the main issue, if an issue at all. It became a big issue afterwards, when Olav Nilssons heirs waged a private war against the Hanseatics for decades. But that's another story. So, in brief, nothing wrong with your translation, but I'll obviously have to go onto no-Wiki and straighten things out there as well :-)--Barend (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the interesting explanation - I'm relieved that the problem isn't (principally) my Norwegian, but I take on board the timely reminder that you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia, in whatever language! All best, HeartofaDog (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Icelandic alphabet[edit]

What is not "Runic" about ð and þ? Or what's "special" about them? Bongomatic (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What is runic about ð? It is not a rune. þ is apparently borrowed from the runic alphabet into the Old Norse latin alphabet, but ð is not. "Special" may not be a good way phrasing it, I meant, "special Icelandic" or something like that, since Icelandic and Faroese are the only living languages that uses them.--Barend (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. . . it appeared to me that eth is part of the Medieval runic alphabet which predates the Icelandic alphabet, but to be fair, I don't see any evidence that it came into Icelandic that way. It's also in Old Enlglish and probably others, too. Bongomatic (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the ð-symbol is not part of any Runic alphabet that I've seen.--Barend (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the topic, but if you're certain of this, perhaps you should correct the first illustration in Medieval runes. Bongomatic (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Full styles are not used in infoboxes[edit]

Hello, Barend! You need to know that full styles (such as By the Grace of God, etc) are not used in infoboxes. See Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom; although her full style is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, in infobox only the simple title (which indicates which kingdom she rules) is used.

King Charles II of Spain's infobox mentions only the title King of Spain and Ruler of the Spanish Netherlands, although Charles II's full style included 30 kingdoms, an archduchy, five duchies, five countships, two lordships, and who knows what else.

In a nutshell: instead of By the Grace of God, King of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Wends and the Goths, etc simply King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway should be used. After that simple title comes the blue link which leads to his full title. I've also answered your question. Surtsicna (talk) 09:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Has this been discussed anywhere, or is it just your opinion? I don't see any logical reason for it. The full style has been included in the infobox for a long time, and no one has reacted. Please point me to where this question has been debated before. Otherwise, your change is a unilateral one, and shouldn't have been done without discussion. I see no reason to impose sweeping rules covering all rulers, just because Charles II of Spain had many titles. There is plenty of room in the infobox for, e.g. Christian I of Denmark's full title. Also, it is more than just an empty title, it is factual information about which areas he ruled, and which he claimed. For instance, Schleswig and Holstein were just as important parts of his realm as Norway was (spoken as a Norwegian). Why should they be left out? --Barend (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, Schleswig and Holstein and other duchies and countships should not be left out (my mistake there), but By the Grace of God should be. By the Grace of God simply isn't put in infoboxes; if you go around Wikipedia you will notice that those few Danish monarchs are the only monarchs whose infobox includes the phrase By the Grace of God. As I said, the blue link will lead to the full title (which will inlcude the phrase By the Grace of God and titles such as King of the Wends and Goths). Surtsicna (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
In that case, we may have a compromise solution. I'm perfectly ok with leaving out "by the grace of God". But I would like schleswig, holstein, the wends, goths, Dithmarschen, Stormarn and Delmenhorst, for those who claimed them. Frederick I also needs to include that he never called himself "King of Norway" as such, only "elected king of Norway", because he wasn't crowned.--Barend (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, thank God I managed to get a compromise solution in at least one discussion! :) I usually get too annoyed and leave the discussion. Anyway, does King of the Wends and King of the Goths refer to any specific teritory or is it merely a part of another title? I've always wanted to know that. Surtsicna (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I know your problem! Good that we settled this one at least. King of the Wends and Goths is not as concrete a title as, for instance, Duke of Schleswig. As far as I know, the Danish kings called themselves King of the Wends after one of them, (was it Canute VI?) in the 12th century was recognized as King of the Slavic (or Wendic) people, the Obotrites, who lived around the area where Lübeck is now. After that, the Danes kept using the title, although it didn't have real meaning. King of the Goths, I believe implies a claim to the island of Gotland, which the Danish kings sometimes ruled and sometimes not.--Barend (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for answering ;) Bye. Surtsicna (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I only sporadically come across some of the articles I have edited previously, so I only noticed now that you have abandoned our compromise, and again removed the full title for many of the Danish/Norwegian kings. In one of the article summaries, you again refer to the ducal titles as "hardly significant", although in reality it was at at least as significant to be duke of Schleswig and Holstein as it was to be King of Norway. What is the reason for your abandoning the compromise solution?--Barend (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I forgot about this discussion - it's been more than two years. The infobox now contains a special parameter that can lead the reader to the full title ("moretext") and I believe that should be used. That way the infobox is kept simple and concise (which is what an infobox is supposed to be) and the reader is shown the details. How about a community discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility? Surtsicna (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Concentration camp[edit]

Hi! I saw your edits among others to Jon Ola Norbom. Could you include a source for this statement as well? Also, remember to add Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors. And also Category:Norwegian resistance members if resistance was the reason for his imprisonment. Thanks, Punkmorten (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Not sure what the criteria for "Norwegian resistance member" is - he was arrested along with all the other male non-NS students at the University of Oslo. From what he's written himself, I gather he was a member of an illegal organisation, but he wasn't part of any armed resistance movement. What do you think?--Barend (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I interpret the category to include civil resistance as well. Punkmorten (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I put a reference in, also on Leo Tallaksen and Helge Rognlien, but I'm not sure of what is the correct formatting of these references, so have a look at it if you want.--Barend (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Population change"[edit]

Hi, what is your source for the "population change"/populationincrease statistic in the Norwegian municipality articles? --Aqwis (talkcontributions) 17:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Statistics Norway, just click the link in the infobox. The percentage figures are calculated from Statistics Norway's numbers.--Barend (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Largs[edit]

Hello. I have this problem: of the three sources on Scottish history I own (all of them more "popular" than "academic", I have to admit), one says the date of the battle was 1 October, the other 3 October. (The latest simply says "in October"). I went to Wikipedia to find out which one was right, only to find here 2 October. As it seems the WP article is mostly "yours", could you tell me whether there's a general disagreement about the date between various chronicles of those times, so that nobody really knows for certain, or whether two of the dates are just mistakes? Thanks, Duncan MacCall (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I don't have my own sources near right now, but I'll have a look. The source I've used for the date is Haakon Haakonsson's saga, which is the source that gives most details about the battle. --Barend (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for answering! It then occured to me that I could try Google for other pages, devoid as I am of access to written sources. Results: Each of the three dates appears several hundred times, but at I found a description of the battle which may answer the question of why there are various dates at all - it seems on 1st some Norwegian ships were stranded and were sporadically assaulted, on 2nd the main fight took place and on 3rd the Norwegians returned to collect their dead, so possibly some refer to 1st as the beginning, some to 2nd as the actual battle and some to the 3rd as the end of it. The writer seems well informed, so if the saga tallies with what he says, I'm inclined to believe him - and to agree that the best date to atttach to the event is 2nd October. Duncan MacCall (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


Well, of course Johan Castberg was a member of the Liberal Party... however, I will not readd the facts to the article until ready to conduct a thorough rewrite. Expect a rewrite sometime next week. But asking before reverting could be an idea... Punkmorten (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Barend! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3,024 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Nikolay Kharitonov - Find sources: "Nikolay Kharitonov" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation wanted[edit]

Dear Barend, I would like you to have a look at the article about the Alois Kottmann Award as we are looking for a Norwegian translation of it. The article actually is also available in German (original), French, Japanese, and Swedish. The Swedish article is not complete, sadly. You'll find these links on the left. If you need any further informations don't hesitate to contact me. Many thanks in advance. ArcCan (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Le Secret des Vikings : pseudohistorical ?![edit]

Hi Barend,

Few years ago, you qualified my book of "pseudohistorical". Here's my late reply.

There is no revisionism in taking into account texts that have been ignored by historians.

To understand the « incomfortable situation » of the Vikings in France -and the ignorance of the world's most famous specialists from Scandinavia and England-, you have to know :

1 – Frenchmen don't like the idea of Germanic ancestors, especially in the South of the Country.

2 – The only people who can study the Vikings in France without being suspected of defending « ideological positions » are from Normandy.

3 – The "father" of the Vikings en France is the normand Lucien Musset. He delimited the subject and produced conclusions that are accepted by everybody. Vikings were bandits. They had no commercial and no political ambitions when they attacked France.

4 – Lucien Musset was not interested in the Vikings, but only in the founders of Normandy. This is the reason why he decided he would not study the invasions south of river Loire!!! However his "ideas" have been extended to the whole of France by his followers !!!

5 – As Musset is keeping silent about the Vikings south of Loire, local historians concluded that Vikings had achieved nothing serious there and were not worth of even a study.

6 – Renée Mussot-Goulard, a medieval historian (la Sorbonne) studying the history of Gascony wrote in the eighties the Scandinavian presence in Gascony had to be considered as « The longest stay of Normans in the kingdom of France ». She was ferociously attacked by her colleagues and she's still paying today for having written so.

7 – The first book about the Vikings in Aquitaine was written by Jean Renaud -from Normandy- in 2002. « Les Vikings de la Charente à l'assaut de l'Aquitaine » Princi Neguer 2002. He describes most of the attacks, attacks that most historians (French or not) ignore completely. I asked him how he analyzed these attacks. He answered « I'm not a historian : I don't analyze, I just mention. »

8 – Five years ago, when my first book was published by 2005 ("Le Secret des Vikings", les Equateurs, 220 pages) some historians said they would demonstrate my fraud. I'm still waiting for their demonstration.

9 – In 2009, I published a second book : " Les Vikings au coeur de nos Régions », Yago, 526 pages. In this book I mention more than two thousand placenames which could have Scandinavian origins. Tourtinhac (Thorstein), Bergerac (Berggeir), Armagnac (Armund), Cognac (Hakon), Cadillac (Kaetill), Bernac, Bournac (Björn), Larzac (Lars), Tourtirac (Thorstyrr), Espartignac (Svarting), Toutigeac (Tostig), Biscarrague (Viskarr) etc... Everybody is disturbed by my lecture, but no specialist ever tried to challenge me on the subject.

10 – The only thing that is pseudo-historical with me is my background. I've have been studying law.

I'm not a « revisionist ». I'm only the first one to study the Vikings in Gascony. The most famous local historical society, la société de Borda, Dax, never published a single article devoted to Viking invasions in 130 years.

Anglo-Saxon research workers rely on French research, which has not done its job. Here is the truth.

So, to consider my work "pseudohistorical" and edit that opinion, you must have good reasons. Which are they ?

Thank you, Ossegor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossegor (talkcontribs) 21:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Last but not the least.

11 - On French forums, the main argument is : "Even in English Wikipedia, they say it's a "pseudo-historical work"!"

Everybody expects that specialists who publish on Wikipedia know more than those who write in French Wikipedia as far as Vikings are concerned. Their opinion (your opinion, Barend!) is a serious obstacle in my credibility, so I would like explanations, and if you're not able to give somme, excuses. Up to you, Barend ! I'm waiting for an interesting discussion with you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ossegor (talkcontribs) 19:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nominated Le Secret des Vikings for deletion[edit]

I have nominated Le Secret des Vikings for deletion and am notifying you as the article's creator.Griswaldo (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC) as reference[edit]

Hi there. The last half year I have been trying to improve articles about Norwegian football here on wikipedia, and when I am looking through the edit history of those articles it looks like you are one of 6-7 people which have made a good foundation for this, so it's good to have you back. Looking at your edits through the last week on clubs on Vestlandet, it looks like you are the "father" of the "Recent history" sections on numerous Norwegian footballclubs, which is great. BUT, when you add a reference, you are only making a link to the front page of, not a specific page at For instance - FK Fyllingsdalen "recent history" should have a reference to this page, which is the teams page at, and almost have every info you need. (Except that the squad tend to be out-of-date on those pages) Mentoz86 (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! The reason I haven't given that page as reference, is that I haven't actually used that page - I wasn't aware that there's such a page for each club, so I have, annoyingly, been doing it the hard way, looking at the league tables for each season, which are of course on a whole bunch of different pages. Therefore I've used just one reference to Nifs. Now that you've pointed out to me that Nifs has these pages, (thanks!) it will make it a lot quicker for me to make more "recent history" sections, and if I find the time to do that, I will of course reference the specific page in each instance.--Barend (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Article to check[edit]

Hi Barend. Is it possible for you to take a look at the article in Norwegian (bokmål) about Australian singer Kylie Minogue and tell me if it's well written? Please let me know. Regards. -- Hypuxylun (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Lillehammer FK (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to 3. Division
Mosjøen IL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to 3. Division

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Egersunds IK[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Toppserien[edit]

Hello, Barend, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on 2013 Toppserien, appears to be directly copied from Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on 2013 Toppserien if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent history sections[edit]

Thanks for undoing my edits to the recent history section in about half the Tippeligaen club's articles, it feels good to know that someone is watching my edits and undoing those that they feel isn't right. :) I still want to discuss what to do with these sections, as (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is frequently updating these sections. While it is a good thing that information gets updated frequently on Wikipedia, I don't see the encyclopedic value of adding a column for a current season, and updating it after every match. Does it even matter that Hødd is 2nd place in Adeccoligaen with 12 points after 5 matches? I mean, if people want to find out the current standing of a team it is much easier to simply enter the article for the league they currently play in, like 2013 Adeccoligaen. There is neither nothing that indicates when the section was last updated, so if the IP goes on vacation for two weeks and noone else updated the section, we'll have incorrect information in our articles. After the 2011-season was finished, some teams was even listed with 28 or 29 matches in the articles until the next season started, as noone updated it.

I've noticed that you've updated the Cup-progress after the teams has been been eliminated from the cup, and I agree with you that this is the most convenient way to update that row, but couldn't it be an option to do like I did with Randaberg IL here; Add the cup-progress and hide the current season, before we update the section after the season? Mentoz86 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for not getting upset about my edits! :-) I have no strong opinion on the value of information about current league standing while the season is in progress. It is obviously unworkable to include it for all clubs anyway. But my opinion is "live and let live" - if someone wants to add this information, and it is correct, I don't see the harm in it. As for the information becoming outdated I don't really see that as a problem either, for this reason: The (in progress) tag clearly shows that this isn't the finished league standing. And one of the numbers in the table, indicates how many matches have been played. So even if more matches are then played without anybody updating the table, the table will still show the correct information about what was the club's position at the time this number of matches had been played. (Hope that was understandable). And if some user wants to add this information, telling him not to, seems to me to have the potential to scare that person off from wikipedia-editing. So that's why, all in all, I feel that if someone wants to add this information, they should be allowed to.
As for the cup information, I absolutely think it should be visible in the article right from the moment it is entered. When a team is knocked out of the cup in the 2nd round, the cup is over for that club for that year. This is factual information, which is ready to be entered into the article. I see no reason for hiding it until the end of the season. Well, that's my view on this.--Barend (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the entire table could be deleted as WP:NOTSTATS, but I think it is useful for finished seasons. I don't really see the value of having all these numbers before the season is over, and I want to get rid of it. When it comes to Norwegian football on Wikipedia, I think it is a problem that we only updates tables and infobox, without updating the corresponding prose, and removing the unneccessary updates might ease this problem. You want to include the cup-information after the teams enter the cup, or after the teams have been eliminated? To use Randaberg as example again, would the example below be useful? I'll post a message on the IP's talkpage about this discussion, he might be interested to contribute. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Season Pos. Pl. W D L GS GA P Cup Notes
2012 D2/3 14 26 6 3 17 31 49 21 1st round Relegated to Third Division
2013 D3/7 in progress 1st qualifying round
I'd like the cup information to be included after a team has been eliminated.
As for the table, as far as I'm concerned, the example you posted looks OK to me. But as a general principle, I don't think "I don't see the value of X" is a valid argument. There is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia I don't see the value of. I don't see any value in this article, for example. But I accept that others might disagree with me. So as long as it isn't clearly detrimental to the article or to Wikipedia as a whole, I think it is good to be accomodating to those who do see the value. At the same time, I understand that others who may be more personally invested in Wikipedia than me, might see it differently - I am only an occasional editor.--Barend (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you reasoning, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is indeed not a valid arguments. Instead I try to argue with policy-based arguments, and that's why I say that when WP:NOTSTATS says that "Wikipedia is not excessive listings of statistics", we should try to limit the excessive listing of statistics to only include the last finished season. I'll go ahead and change the current season to my example above when I have time. :) Mentoz86 (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I understand your reasoning as well. The WP:NOTSTATS thing is interesting - if interpreted strictly, it would seem to run counter to every infobox on every article on Wikipedia, which I'm sure is no one's intention. But a very obvious target for this policy are the articles like 2013 Molde FK season and its like. These whole articles seem to be nothing but statistics, at an excessive level of detail. For that matter, I would absolutely be open for the argument that the "recent history" tables don't need to include Wins, Draws, Losses, Goals for and Goals against, but only the final league position, points and possibly games played (and cup run of course). But here as well, if others feel strongly for including this information, I don't feel strongly enough to take any initiative for a change.--Barend (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the layout slightly at the section of Fana IL. You can see what I've done here. I've changed the "Year in Norwegian football" links to the individual season articles, and changed the name to "2. Divisjon" and "3. Divisjon" instead of the English names that isn't used (2. Division or Division 2). I've also spelled out "First round" instead of "1st round", as that is the common usage in English wikipedia, and removed the medal-colors (for leagues not awarding medals) and instead having a light green color with an arrow for promotion and a light red color with an arrow for relegation. I've also replaced the current season with my example above, with a wikilink to the current season. What do you think? This is something I intend to do on all these sections across Norwegian football clubs articles, so any feedback and help is appreciated. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That seems OK. Personally I would prefer e.g. "2nd round" to "second round", but it's not a big deal, if there is a common usage, then why not.--Barend (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Norse content/OR/SYNTH articles on {{Canadian colonies}}[edit]

Been reviewing its edit history because of recent additions of a highly-OR/SYNTH article to it, justified by the term "named territories" by a user who evinces extremely "OWN" views on the article....which I've put on WP:NOR and due to his attitude on an ANI (how unusual for me to start one instead of being threatened with one LOL). I'm of Norse descent myself but don't like to see spurious and "reaching" claims made in the name of encyclopedic content, or SYNTH made out of yes, available sources.....and it was never a "named territory", just a placename. The title's in Old Norse, I can't be bothered to copy-paste if you don't mind; my time/energy on this is already too much as it is.Skookum1 (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Åsane Fotball Damer [edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Åsane Fotball Damer , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Norway Football Task Force[edit]

Hi! In an attempt to get better overview on what exists of Norwegian football articles I've created a task force. I'd like to invite you to join so we easier may improve the most important topics regarding Norwegian football. Feel free to invite other potential members. --Kjello (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess! I am a quite sporadic user, and don't often have much time to do things here, but thanks for the invite.--Barend (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed[edit]

22:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Barend. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)