Talk:Norway/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Norway is a firm believer in sustainable development of it's natural resources

It would be interesting to know how Norwegians manage to do this at the same time as they kill off about ten wolves in only a year, out of a total of probably less than one hundred wolves in Norway and Sweden together. --Pinkunicorn

The answer is simple. Wolves are not considered to be a natural resource by Norwegians (in general, not counting myself), but a menace. "Sustainable development" is just a famous wording from the Brundtland Commission. --Pinkerton

---

I know that 'syttende mai' is your big day, just like the 4th of July is for the Americans, 6th of June for Swedes, etc. But is that really what counts as your independence day?? Most countries have their independence day as their national holiday, but is the purpose of the template to list the country's national holiday? Isn't (my original choice) of 1905 more fitting here, instead of 1814? What do Norwegian history books count as the date for Norwegian independece? --Gabbe 21:02 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

"Syttende Mai", is in fact very similar to 4th of July, as it is constitution day, but also marked the end of long-time misfortunate colonization. Contrary to popular belief, Norway was not "a part" of Sweden, or even "under Sweden" in the years that followed. What took place in 1814, is that the Norwegians went for full self-sovereignty, but was denied this by the great powers and circumstances. However, King Karl Johan of Sweden granted Norway many rights, and above all accepted the constitution signed 17th of May (which is why he still is appreciated with a statue in Oslo, and names the main street). Anyway, this means that the true rebirth of the nation was in 1814. The union with Sweden was a "personalunion", and its dissolution was more of a technicality. This could have been denied by Sweden on the basis of realpolitik, but not on formal grounds (which is why it went through).

If you are to stick with 1905, you will also have to change all the countries now in the European Union, to have lost their independence. --Pinkerton

Fine, I agree. Several other articles include this type of definition. Former Soviet countries often list their independence as happening sometime in the 1920's, and there is certainly no reason to count independence from Sweden and at the same time ignore the Nazi occupation during WW2. I'm not here in any way to discuss the definition of independence or sovereignty, nor to debate the status of Swedish supremacy in a bigoted way. I just want for the article to be consistent. You could change the "Event" as well as the date to fit with your (and the rest of Wikipedias) definition. --Gabbe

Let me just say that, I actually consider myself almost a swedophile, and have many times, made mind-experiments where the dissolution of the union never took place. We could have had some football team. :) (Jan Guillou claims through Hamilton, that it was the Swedish intelligence that underestimated the will of independence in Norway, as they didn't believe the country would make it on it's own - greatest mistake of their history). But, in the name of accuracy and being precise, the actual independence was 1814. The fact that Sweden was much more powerful, and could have crushed Norway in a military conflict (there were a lot of troop movements, ect prior to 1905), does not change that the union between the countries was formally on equal terms. One king, two countries. There was also a Scandinavian Currency Union in the late 19th century that was also dissolved. If Sweden had ignored the wish to end the union, crushing it with force, then it would be an occupation and in turn something to declare independence from. See my point? Only one problem, though, my knowledge of the events that took place the summer of 1814 is not very detailed, so I can not answer accurately when the constitution was accepted by Karl Johan, etc. --Pinkerton

But Swedish troops did defeat the Norwegians, after their adaption of "Kristian Fredrik" as king and independence-declaration, troops entered in July 1814, followed by a surrender of Norwegian troops. When an agreement was drawn up in August, Sweden recognized Norway's constitution and Norway recognized Charles XIV John as king. I still agree with that the Norwegian independence-date should be around 1814, but how should the "event" be phrased? Saying "signing of the constitution" is a bit incomplete, albeit less so than "disunion with Denmark". Perhaps "Assembly at Eidsvoll" or something? --Gabbe 21:35 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

Granted that force was used in 1814, my reference to troop movements however, was to those prior to the end of the union in 1905. Through the aid of US President Roosevelt, this was luckily done in peace. I would say that the signing of the constitution was the declaration of independence (if you have no country, you have no use for a constitution), and the time when Karl Johan recognized the consitution as when it was recognized. Do you have this date? Assembly at Eidsvoll would be very meaningful to Norwegians, as "Eidsvoldsforsamlingen" is how it is most often referred to here. I'm not sure that this would be the same for the international audience, though. I actually think "Constituion Day" or "Constituion signing" would be OK, as again, you can't have a constitution without a country. --Pinkerton Sun Jan 19 14:51:54 CET 2003

---

I've reverted the provincial names to more English forms. BTW, what is the correct translation for fylker, provinces or counties? I've seen them described as both. Is there a preference? -Scipius 18:48 Jan 19, 2003 (UTC)

Well, obviously no exact translation can be found. Having stated that, my personal opinions is that "Fylke" is best equated with "counties", because that's a more appropriate indication of their size. However, as Norway is a central state, its administrative organization, which is also currently under review (which could mean that the Fylke-institution is removed), is not one of a federation, like the US or Germany, but a central state that more resembles that of France. The country has 19 Fylker, and 437 (I think) "Kommune"s, which are constituencies under a "Fylke". Well, anyway, "county" is at least what would give me the best connotations as to the state form. "Province" could taste quite wrong, if one thinks of Canada, etc. --Pinkerton Sun Jan 19 20:22:13 CET 2003

I agree, also because the surrounding Scandinavian countries all seem to use "county". Given that all the individual pages already name it county, it's probably best to simply use that name. -Scipius 03:30 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

But what about kommune? I feel that municipality isn't a good translation. I would suggest something like "Kongsvinger is a city and kommune (municipality) in...", but I am not sure. gustavf Mon Feb 3 08:53:26 CET 2003

The term "municipality" is used throughout Wikipedia for similar administrative units in the other European countries, see municipality. "Town" or "city" should be added as required. Note also that changing the wording of the initial sentence creates problems for possible later (semi-)automated addition of other facts. Egil 08:44 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Should the claim for Dronning Maud Land be mentioned? --Egil 12:02 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Probably. And someone should check on the legal status of Svalbard (is "under Norwegian sovereignity" a proper expression according to the Svalbard treaty) and Jan Mayen (where "under Norwegian sovereignity" might be more proper. -- Gustavf Mon Jan 27 13:20:20 CET 2003