Talk:Norway/Archive 3

The following subjects were moved from Talk:Norway on 16 January 2006 (see diff). For the original contribution history, see the history of the original page.

If you would like to start new subjects, kindly do so at Talk:Norway.

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


 * It is unfortunately quite common to say that Norway was a province of Denmark. This is however not nececarily true. But to say that the Norwegian nation did not exist before 1814 would be, depending upon your definition, even more wrong. This discussion surfaces once in a while when notable Norwegians from the years of the union are being claimed by Danish people today as being Danish (Ludvig Holberg, Peder Tordenskjold). It is difficult to know what they themselves thought. But Norwegian playwright Johan Nordahl Brun said in 1770 that the Norwegians had two fatherlands: One natural (Norway) and one for citizenship (the state they shared with Danes, Holsteiners and others). Others might say that they were Danish because they were subjects of the Danish King.


 * So that leads to the question of the "existence" of Norway.


 * The Danish kingdom was an elected kingdom until 1661. However the Norwegian kingdom was hereditary. This meant that the Danish Riksråd could theoretically choose someone else than the person next in line as King. This was used in the power struggle between King and Riksdråd. However if the Danish Riksråd chose someone other than the person next in line the person next in line would still inherrit the throne of Norway and thus the union would be dissolved. This led to the Riksråd making Christian III promise to make Norway a province of Denmark (and not call himself King of Norway) before they would elect him King in 1536. This is the origin of the "myth" of Norway only being a Danish province. There is however no indication that this was actually done by Christian when he became King. On the contrary both he and subsecuent kings insisted that they were hereditary kings of Norway as well as elected kings of Denmark (and hereditary dukes of Schleswig and Holstein). The Norwegian Riksråd was however abolished so one might say that Norway lost its independence this year. But the separate hailing of kings in Norway continued. Norwegian culture, laws and organization continued. The separate status of Norway was still maintained and used to full in the process of creating an absolute monarchy and the abolishment of the Danish Riksråd in 1661 and continued after that. Source: Ersland and Sandvik, Norsk Historie 1300-1625, Det Norske Samlaget, Oslo 1999 ISBN 82-521-5182-5 and Dyrvik, Norsk Historie 1625-1814, Det Norske Samlaget, Oslo 2004 ISBN 82-521-5183-3 This didn't exactly clarify which date to use, but I thought it was worth mentioning since the subject was already up.Inge 12:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Place names
What should we use?
 * 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


 * 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? &mdash; 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 - Norwegian only unfortunately]. I'll translate a few of the questions and resulting frequency tables to strengthen my point: 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? &mdash; 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."


 * "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."

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 km&sup2;. 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 km&sup2; (incl. freshwater, Svalbard and Jan Mayen), and the mainland is 323,802 km&sup2; (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 km&sup2;. --Eddi (Talk) 01:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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 &mdash; 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)