Talk:Norway

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

On names of counties, cities and municipalities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official language

Status of the Saami language

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

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

Wrong. Here is what the general law says:

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps "Norwegian, with Saami in special regions"?

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

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

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

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

Start of edit war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heine's suggestion

My suggestion:

Official language: Norwegian bokmål and nynorsk¹

[...]

(1) Saami is co-official in a few municipalities in the northern provinces of Finnmark and Troms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

A summary of Heine's message: The German, French, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Polish and Norwegian Wikipedias do not list Saami as official. See [1] for the links to prove this. Angela 02:29, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National motto / Royal motto

"Alt for Norge" is not national motto. Remove

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

Sweden lists the royal motto, should we do that?

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

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

"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)

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)

Place names

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

What should we use?

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

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

Religion

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

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

Size

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)