Talk:Norwegian Labour Movement Archives and Library

Ownership of Arbark
I believe the statement about ownership of Arbark is a bit misleading. Even if Arbark's own web page refers to the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions and the Labour Party (Norway) as owners, the institution is organised as a self-governed foundation according to the Norwegian Foundations Act, thus a self owned legal entity, and has been so for at least a couple of decades. The two mentioned organisations are among the appointees of members of the annual General Meeting that elects the foundation's board, but I am neither sure how relevant that is, nor sure how to express that properly in English. —Mortenoslash (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources for it being a self-owned foundation ? E24 says it is a joint property (tingsrettslig sameie). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems I have misunderstood. A bit embarrassing to admit, as I have actually at a couple of occasions some years ago myself been representing my employer at the annual General Meeting of Arbark. –Mortenoslash (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the statues say Abark is owned by the LO and Labour Party; at the same time other organizations can become "members" and the members elect the supervisory board, so those member organizations appear to have the power except that the chairman of the board shall always be from LO or Labour. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancy / deletion of one sentence
The article states: "During World War II, many of the documents were taken by Nazi Germany and subsequently lost.[1]"

The source for this is Halvorsen, Solveig (1995). "The Norwegian Labour Movement Archives And Library" (of which I can see only a portion online).

However, this (in Norwegian) tells another story:
 * Ikke alle aktører i arbeiderbevegelsen ble handlingslammet ved det tyske angrepet 9. april 1940. Også nå fikk Arbeiderbevegelsens Arkiv dra nytte av Hjartøys handlekraft og forutseenhet. Allerede i aprildagene besluttet han i samråd med styreleder «i all stillhet» å forandre Arkivets navn til Fagbevegelsens arkiv. ...  Ifølge Hjartøy bidro navneskiftet til at institusjonen fikk «en forholdsvis ubemerket tilværelse under krigen».


 * Arkivlederen gav ingen mer utførlig begrunnelse for navneskiftet. Mye tyder på at han forutseende antok at tysk okkupasjon ville innebære at de norske partiene, særlig på venstresiden, ville få vansker og kanskje bli forbudt.

And Norway's political parties were indeed forbidden and their own archives were taken by the German occupants. However, the leader of the archives and library, Mr. Hjaltøy, hid much of its material at Deichmanske and other places in and outside of Oslo. He changed the name of the archive, laid low, and the occupants did not take anything from the organization itself.

To me, this Norwegian source looks much better than the English language one. The materials taken by the Germans should have ended up at the Archive&Library, but they never got there. So I am deleting the sentence which I believe to be wrong.

P.S. An illustration from that Norwegian source might be nice for the article. For example the one at the top or the one with frk. Monrad. I know nothing about uploading images here, nor how to get permission to use photos. --Hordaland (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. Photos in Wikipedia must normally be in public domain or have a similar licence, so we can't just download we find on the internet. Sometimes we can use non-free photos for illustration by "fair use" criteria; I don't know much about that and don't think it applies here). I found three free photos of Arbak at Digitalt Museum, so one of those could be uploaded (I use to upload via Commons but it can also be done directly to Wikipedia). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There are no direct contradictions between the sources, especially as the word "many" as used in the text is no unambiguously term. Additionally Solveig Halvorsen, whose publication is used as the source of the current text, is a reliable historian and the current Assistant Director of ArbArk. I therefore believe there is good reason to leave it unchanged until there can be found sources more clearly contradicting Halvorsen's research as published in 1995. —Mortenoslash (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)