![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed some racist material and other POV's from this page. As I won't be surprised to see it reinstated I kindly ask that anyone that might do so evaluates the material first. Some other removals could also be needed. - Moravice
The total population is underestimated at 7.8 considering manny Norwegian diasporas were left out. True number probably stands around 10 million.
where come those numbers from?
Such numbers must be very uncertain. The article also claim 4.6 mill ethnic Norwegian in Norway. Norway has a population of 4, 7 mill. Of this population ca 9 % is foreigner. This makes up around 350 000 people, reducing the ethnic Norwegian population in Norway to 4, 3 mill. If we go into counting ethnic Norwegian we have to subtract also. (Norwegian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.48.180 ( talk) 11:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The page claims "the vast majority" of Norwegians are Lutherans. This is not true; a large Norwegian newspaper, Aftenposten, have found out that no more than 49.5% of the norwegian population answers "yes" at the question "do you believe in God".
Yes you are absolutely right, thats why i have changed the formulation to the "vast majority are nominally Lutherans,(the majority of Norways population still hold membership in the Norwegian Lutheran Church) and mentioned the secularization of a country which probably ranks among the least religious in the world. The religiousity among Norwegian-Americans, as this article also include under Norwegians, is however probably stronger. Not that I have seen any figures but I think it can be presumed due to the relative high level of religiousity in the general American population. Thats why I mention only the secularization of Norway proper, not of Norwegians as this here is meant to mean also their descendants across the Atlantic Ocean. kjetor
This article is included in the category Germanic peoples along with other modern national groups (Danes, Swedes, English, Dutch), although no source is given for the claims. I nominated the category for deletion - see its entry here - because it includes modern groups under a historical term (Roman period to mediaeval). The category is being used for a political agenda, to promote the idea that ethnic groups and nations in north-west Europe are "Germanic". That claim is typically associated with neo-nazi groups, for the association of the term Germanic peoples with Nazism, see Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Lebensraum, and for instance Hitler salute. As with the Swedes and Danes, the issue here is also whether Norwegians describe themselves as a "Germanic people". Paul111 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Added accuracy dispute tag, since the article now states twice that Norwegians are part of the Germanic peoples. This category is not in use for modern ethnic groups, see Germanic peoples. (I would have used a section accuracy tag, but neither claim is in a section). Paul111 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No modern ethnic or national group belongs to the Germanic peoples, and that article clearly says so. The category is being used to claim that they do, and that is reason to delete it. However, the false claim is not confined to the category, but is repeated elsewhere, as in the template at this article. All of these references should go. Two other users have pointed out that many East European Jews also spoke a Germanic language, Yiddish, and if language is the criteria, then they belong on this page as a related ethnic group. As for the reference, there were many books published in the 1930s about the Germanic peoples and the Aryan race, but since 1945 few people take their content seriously. Paul111 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Main Entry: eth·nic·i·ty Pronunciation: eth-'ni-s&-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties 1 : ethnic quality or affiliation <aspects of ethnicity> 2 : a particular ethnic affiliation or group <students of diverse ethnicities>
Main Entry: 1eth·nic Pronunciation: 'eth-nik Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin ethnicus, from Greek ethnikos national, gentile, from ethnos nation, people; akin to Greek Ethos custom -- more at SIB 1 : HEATHEN 2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves> b : being a member of a specified ethnic group <an ethnic German> c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics <ethnic neighborhoods> <ethnic foods>
The onus is on the editor to provide a reliable source for the claim, that the Norwegian people are a Germanic people. Because Germanic is no longer accepted, a book from 1934 would not be a reliable source. A reliable source would be, for instance, a recent survey indicating that the majority of Norwegians describe themselves as 'Germanic'. Paul111 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Those who follows news in Norway will know that the term "nordmann" (Norwegian/noun) has been controversial in Norway as well. I don't think this is a simple issue, but let me add a couple of points to the fray:
The more I think about it, the more I think this article should be deleted. We have Culture of Norway, Demographics of Norway, Norwegian language, Norwegian literature, History of Norway, etc., etc. There probably should be an article called Ethnology of Norway, and that should be all we need. I'll await reactions before formally nominating it. -- Leifern 14:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just don't know how much this article adds to Culture of Norway, Demographics of Norway, Norwegian language, Norwegian literature, History of Norway, etc., etc. especially if we add Ethnology of Norway. Maybe there should be an article about what it means to have a Norwegian identity, but that's a different topic. -- Leifern 22:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the fact that there has been a debate makes it clear that it's not that simple. Besides historians do not seem to have any trouble with separating Norwegians and Sami as different peoples Fornadan (t) 07:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Following in the weighty discussions above, this may seem a little minor, but in the info box, the total population is estimated as 4.3 million, and only the USA and Canada are listed as areas of significant population. Is this info box meant only to refer to Norwegians in diaspora? If so, it lacks clear marking as such; its name is simply "Norwegians" (Nordmenn) and it estimates total population to no more than that of Norway. I apologise if this due to inattention on my part, but I cannot find out this puzzle. Hinakana 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Lukas, you seem to be confusing ethnic Norwegian with culturally Norwegian. An ethnic Norwegian is someone who is of Norwegian ancestry, plain and simple. We could argue over how much Norwegian ancestry makes someone an ethnic Norwegian (for example, having a Norwegian parent vs having a Norwegian great great great grandparent). It sounds like that if we reversed your logic, and that if someone who had just partial Norwegian ancestry was able to speak Norwegian and lived in Norway for a long time then he could be considered ethnic Norwegian, however being able to speak the language and living in the country does not change someone's ethnic group. Ancestry (one's ethnic group) and Culture can be two completely different things.
In the case of USA and Canada, the numbers only reflect the number of people who consider themselves Norwegian (as in that's what they write on their census), not whether those people are culturally or even ethnically Norwegian.
I edited the translation of the term Nordmenn. It translates as Norsemen not 'men from the north'. Swedes, Danes and also Norwegians would confirm this.
Hm. The dictionary kind of support both sides
"Norse : 1. Of or relating to medieval Scandinavia or its peoples, languages, or cultures. 2. Of or relating to Norway or its people, language, or culture. 3. Of, relating to, or being the branch of the North Germanic languages that includes Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese."
I think both are correct. Besides, Norse translating to norrøn is really not relevant as norrøn is just used as a term used to describe a historical period while Norse is the description of ethnicity and geography. Nastykermit ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Arigato1 has removed information about Swedes on this page and on this page. To avoid any misunderstandings about his erroneous reason for removing the text, I cite the source here:
The reason Arigato1 cited for removing the text is disturbingly wrong.-- The trollfighter 12:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{ Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see the deletion review discussion here. Badagnani 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
While this is not terribly important, I think it's worth mentioning that in reality the differentiation between ethnic Norwegians and Swedes is primarily a question of history more than anything. In terms of physical appearance, it's impossible, even for Norwegians and Swedes, to tell the two apart and the languages are much closer than, say, American and Jamaican English, although the latter two would both be considered variations of a common language. This is not to say that there are no differences, but my point is really that any estimation of Norwegian population in Sweden or vice versa is meaningless, because the two groups blend together to the extent that any second-generation Norwegian in Sweden would consider himself Swedish and be accepted as such by Swedish society. Thus, talk of a Norwegian diaspora in Sweden (or vice versa) is meaningless, and the large population exchange over time makes it even more so. Maitreya ( talk) 18:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else than me see a problem with Ari Behn being listed as one of the "top 8" Norwegians through history? I don't think he's worthy at all to be listed amongst Fridtjof Nansen etc., Ari Behn 's achievements is writing a bad book and marrying the Norwegian princess. I think he should be removed ASAP. Gabagool ( talk) 15:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no Edvard Munch and Edvard Grieg in the picture? Vanjagenije ( talk) 17:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Are beauty queens really sufficiently notable to be included in the picture? Sure they look good but..
Surely someone like
Kristian Birkeland or
Lars Onsager would be a better choice than
Lisa-Mari Moen Jünge ?
84.48.193.121 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
20:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC).
I don't see any explanation of why this page was moved from Norwegian people to Norwegian ethnic group, especially not why the move was repeated after being reverted. The appropriate process is bold, revert, discuss, not "bold, revert, repeat" (we're an encyclopedia, not a shampoo). The common practice on Wikipedia is for articles entitled [[Fooian people]] to be about the ethnic group, and for [[Fooian]] to be a disambiguation page. When we want to refer to people who live in or are citizens of a country, as opposed to members of an ethnic group, we use [[Fooland|Fooian]]. See, for example, French/ France/ French people; German/ Germany/ German people (redirects to Germans); Japan/ Japanese/ Japanese people; Sweden/ Swedish/ Swedish people (recently moved by the same editor who moved this page); and many other examples. Now, I'd be the first to admit that this isn't an ironclad rule and there can be exceptions when there is a good reason for it, but I haven't seen anyone offer any reason at all, good or otherwise, for treating Norwegians or Swedes differently from all other ethnic groups/nationalities. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Members of the Norwegian royal family are hardly "less notable". Also, the presence of more than one woman in the infobox would seem necessary to provide at least some semblance of gender balance. Erik9 ( talk) 22:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Regions with significant populations | |
---|---|
![]() | |
![]() | 4.5 million [2] |
![]() | 432,515 [3] |
![]() | 150,000 - 250,000 est. |
![]() | 50,000 - 100,000 est. |
![]() | 44,773 [4] |
![]() | 42,000 - 60,000 est. |
![]() | 20,000 [5] |
![]() | 15,782 [6] |
![]() | 15,000 - 20,000 est. |
![]() | 15,000 [7] |
![]() | 10,000 [8] |
![]() | 6,251 [9] |
![]() | 452 [10] |
Languages | |
Norwegian Related languages include Danish, Faroese, Icelandic, Swedish, and to a lesser extent, all Germanic languages. | |
Religion | |
83% of the population of Norway are members of the Christian Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway. [11] Norway is highly secularized, and only about 10% of the population attend religious services more than once a month. [12] | |
Related ethnic groups | |
Germanic ethnic groups: Danish, Icelanders, Swedish, Dutch, Germans, Austrian, English, Faroese, Flemings, Normans;. |
Can't you at least edit the ethnicgroup picture instead of just adding pictures in the manner you did. For instance switch Eivind Groven and Frederik Stang with Siv Jensen and perhaps Eva Joly. Just adding the pictures like you did looks very messy and makes the infobox unnecessary big. - GabaG ( talk) 11:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the montage doesn't give enough weight to pre-19th century people YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 04:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
trivializes the issue. Furthermore, if you continue to accuse me of "borderline vandalis[m]", you may be blocked for personal attacks. Erik9 ( talk) 00:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)an encyclopedia... is not merely a beauty pageant. If it's nice-looking girls you're after I suggest that you log out of Wikipedia and google "cute girls" instead.
References
The numbers given for norwegian living outside Norway are at the best inaccurate, and most likely impossible to compare, since some of the numbers only includes norwegian citizens, some of them even only norwegian citizens who has reported their whereabouts to an embassy (UK), while other numbers include every inhabitant in a country who has a norwegian ancestor (US).
How likely is it that there should be ten times as many norwegians in Brazil, half ways across the earth, as in neighbouring country Denmark!?!? Bw -- Orland ( talk) 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
References
The source for how many Norwegians living in Iceland is wrong. Norwegian citizenship does not mean they have to be ethnic Norwegian. Bgagaga ( talk) 19:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see this page before now as I had only looked at the discussion page for the article itself. I did a major cleanup and verified a lot of the sources. Unfortunately none of the sources really said anything about an ethnic group of Norwegians and so I had to delete almost all of that. Please look at the discussion page for that article for the entire explanation. -- google my name to find out about me -- Johannes Wilm 17:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There were two talk pages for the same content. I now move everything here and try to ask the other one to be deleted. We will lose the history of the talk page, but it's the only possibility I can see to get out of this chaotic state. -- Johanneswilm ( talk) 23:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I am
User:MrGulli. Anyway, an administrator is needed to delete this talk page. "
Talk:Norwegians", I mean. The actual talk page for this article is here:
TALK:NORWEGIAN PEOPLE.
That page then needs to be moved to this address. Someone must've moved the article from Norwegian people to Norwegians without moving the talk page, anyhow GOOD LUCK !
MrGulli (
talk)
03:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This article could need a cleanup. The Icelandic and Faroese are counted as Icelanders and Faroese, respectively, not Norwegians. They're counted as different ethnic groups. Also, it seems weird to include all quarter-bred Norwegians in the Americas who are culturally assimilated into their respective countries, and to not count assimilated Norwegian-speaking immgrants to Norway. At least, it is not in line with Norwegians' own perception of norwegianness. Are there any general guidelines for this on Wikipedia? Narssarssuaq ( talk) 10:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed the three tables at the bottom. The reason for this is:
The first table did not have references connected to it. If you do think the numbers can be proven, please provide evidence before adding the table again.
The second table compared the US and Norway in terms of children born to "Norwegians". However the data about Norway defined origin as "Own, mother's or father's country of birth if it is foreign, otherwise Norway." While the data from the US census describes its selection process as "Respondents were asked to select their origin (and the origin of other household members) from a "flash card" listing ethnic origins." [6].
The two ways of determining background will produce ver different results. First of all are the Norwegian figures based on Norwegian clearly measured indicators, while those from the US measure what group the respondent believes to originate from. Secondly, there is no category "US American" as origin within the US census, so that everybody is forced to select some foreign origin. Third, the Norwegian figures automatically make a third generation immigrant count as "Norwegian", while no such thing happens in the US census. Given that a large part of Norwegian ancestors to US Americans having immigrated in the 1880s or so, had the Norwegian rules for measuring been used, they would all be listed as having "US American" parents.
The third table compared Norwegian and US counties as how large a percentage of "Norwegians living in them. The US data did not have any explanations as how Norwegian ancestry was measured, so it is likely the same data set from the US census. The same problem of comparing data therefore exists, and so the data is not comparable.
The section about genetic similarity to Germans I changed to only be about Norway (not Sweden, that should be on the Swedish page), and I changed it from concerning "Norwegians" to the "Norwegian population" as that is what one study in question refers to, and I#ve also the explanation given that article: thousands of years of migration in and out of Norway. I've also pur the two sections about genetics together. I did not check the references for these studies any further.
I also changed the definition of Norwegians to what its actual use is today. Norwegians are generally all those who have Norwegian citizenship, if they choose to see themselves as Norwegians. If they don't choose to see themselves as Norwegians, but for example Sami, then they are not to be seen as Norwegian.
At the top I exchanged the Norwegian-without-immigrant background for the Norwegian population of Norway. The page linked hitherto does not give figures of this. It is those born to Norwegian parents and those born to foreigners but having Norwegian citizenship taken together: . As menitoned above and as mentioned in the egentic studies that are referenced on this page, the numbers do in fact count 3rd generation immigrants as Norwegians and the general population of Norway has thousands of years of a history of immigration.
I then removed the US figures, for the above reasons. I removed the Canadian nfigures, as the Canadian statistics are based on people's own view as to what their ethnic origin is, whereas the Norwegian numbers are about citizenship (see above).
I then removed the UK and Iceland, and Faeroye Island figures as they weren't referenced. It seems that in the case of Iceland and the F. Islands it is someone's personal estimate of people with Norwegian background, and in the case of the UK it is Norwegian citizens currently registered with their embassy in the UK. These are two very different groups that cannot be compared.
I removed the Australian figures as these are based on origin before migration to Australia of ancestors. These numebrs are different than those of the US and Canada, yet also incompatibel with the Norwegian numbers for the same reasons mentioned above.
I removed the Swedish numbers as these are about where people residing in Sweden were born. A person with Pakistani parents born in Norway would here be counted as Norwegian, although he may hold a Swedish passport. These numbers are therefore also incompatible with the Norwegian figures.
The Danish figures show foreign nationals resident in Denmark. However, none of the pages linked hitherto show number of Norwegian citizens resident in Norway, so also this figure is incompatibel with the Norwegian numbers. If a number of total Norwegian citizens can be found and linked, and the total number of Norwegian citizens in Norway, then those numbers would be more accurate than what is there hitherto.
Given that only figures for Norway are left for now, I removed the total figure and only kept that for Norway. google my name to find out about me -- Johannes Wilm 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is, and has been for several years, an article about the ethnic group Norwegians. The article is not about the word "Norwegian". Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. Alphasinus ( talk) 12:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
this bickering about ethnicity in Europe is extremely tiring. Most countries in Europe are more or less nation states. This is a result of 19th century history. For this reason, the concepts of ethnicity and nationality are blurred all over Europe. This doesn't mean that ethnicity doesn't exist in Europe, but for some reason, there seems to be no end of editors who come to Wikipedia crusading to make exactly this claim. It merely means that the articles about European peoples such as the Norwegians need to take into account aspects of both ethnicity and nationality. -- dab (𒁳) 10:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This article should be merged to Norwegian people. There is no reliable source that can support a distinction between "Norwegians" as an "ethnic identity" and "Norwegian people" as a national identity. And even if there were it would make better sense to treat both sense in a single article in order to explain the difference. This article is currently just reduplicating content with a POV slant towards somekind of ethno-nationalism. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
yes, of course there should only be a single article, but you somehow ended up deleting 600 revisions in the history of the Norwegian people page. This is in violation of our content licence, and it is not the proper way to merge articles. -- dab (𒁳) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The section about modern day religion seems to be original research. I think the situation in Finland is quite the same as in Norway: most people nominally Lutherans, few people attending services. I have heard of no oppression of Lutherans, so the theory that all religious people fled to USA seems quite far fetched. I could argue about the arguing in the article, but as original research isn't allowed here there is no reason to. -- LPfi ( talk) 06:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The culture section now talks only about language and religion. But are we going to have one section here about culture among Norwegians and an other section in Norway about culture in Norway. Then this would either be a duplicate or about how culture of "real Norwegians" differ from that of their neighbours, either in America or in Norway. I see nothing good in such an attempt. -- LPfi ( talk) 06:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I am removing Alphasinus unsourced changes introducing the notion that Norwegians are a "Germanic ethnic group". This classification is is unsourced and arbitrary, Germanic is a linguistic category not an ethnic one and we could equally well write "indo-European ethnic group", but that also contributes no relevant information. Norwegians are an ethno-national group that speak a germanic language. Also Icelanders are not Norwegians, nor are Orcadians or Faroe islanders - each of these are ethno-national groups in their own right - the fact that the first populations of their respective islands migrate from Norway more than 1000 years ago does not make them norwegians by any applicable standard. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, as long as there is an article on Germanic peoples, you are just plain wrong. Read the article for starters, it clearly states that Germanic peoples are an ethno-linguistic group. It's not "a linguistic category" in the sense that is relevant to this article (which is on the ethnic group, not the language). Boefste ( talk) 23:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
In the footnote in the infobox for the UK Norwegian population, it says Does not include people of Faroese, Icelandic, Orcadian or Shetlandic ancestry, or any other rigmaroles and paradoxes. This doesn't make any sense based on my understanding of the words 'rigmarole' and 'paradox' (and it certainly wouldn't be any clearer with rigmarole and paradox linked). What does this mean? — Akrabbim talk 15:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
"But when the gold rush began in Australia in 1851 flocked to the volunteers, and it has been said that as many as 5000 Norwegian-born was in the periods. Around 1860 there shall have been around 2500 Norwegians there. A good number of these had previously tried luck that gold miners in California, and many went also return to America. Gullgravere guess almost by definition, fortune seekers, and thus prepared to move around depending on your luck might smile, and there was little stability there."
This paragraph is incoherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.150.48.131 ( talk) 14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Aside from needing citations for various claims here, there's a complete lack of information about Norwegians in British Columbia (who came via different routes/means than those described, and for different reasons), likewise Newfoundland (it's not by accident that one of the major streets in St John's is called "Stavanger" and that a taxi company name/family name is Bugden.....re BC Hans Lars Helgesen was the first non-Briton to hold a legislative seat in Canada; he was the founder of the commercial fishery in what's now called Haida Gwaii. Norwegians were common in the goldfields, most of the originals having come like everyone else to the Fraser Gold Rush via California; population rates in the western provinces could also be shown (Saskatchewan has the highest percentage at about 7%, BC and Alberta are next. There's various things in this section that made me go "WHAT?" and "huh?" I'll be back about those some other time. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The term "norrbagge", now seen as derogatory, has nothing to do with sheep or goats, or these animals testicles. During the civil war i Norway in the 12th and 13th centuries, there were two main fractions, the "poor" peoples party called the Birkebeiner (Birch-tree legs) as these were said to use the birch-tree bark (known as "never") for their shoewear,- and the Bagler party, siding with the church and the Bishops. Bagler is an adjective form of the noun "bagall", which is a bishops staff.
Both these names were of course given by the opposing party to the other party to ridicule them. As Norway included large areas which was ceded to Sweden in 1645 and 1658, the people in Sweden referred to those who lived in the southern part of the ceded areas as "baggar",- later "norrbaggar",- as their Swedish ancestors had done before them. But the reason for the name was of course a mispronunciation of the word "bagler",- as no one in Sweden was familiar with that word or the word "bagall".
This led to the erroneous connection with sheep and other livestock. The word bagge has never meant anything connected to testicles, not even today. It simply means male sheep.
In the 17th century the ever present wars led Swedish soldiers to think that this was just another derogatory term of Norwegians, but one must not forget that there were a noble family in Sweden that had "Bagge" as their family name, and they still have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.183 ( talk) 19:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone give me a good reason not to remove her as a "prominent" Norwegian? I see no reason to have her there, especially considering how insignificant and unknown she is. In addition, we should consider adding Magnus Carlsen. He might well be the most famous Norwegian of year 2014.
-- 90.149.188.205 ( talk) 13:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert the image in the info-box of famous/notable Norwegians ("Norwegians (ethnicgroup)b.png") back to the original image ("Norwegians (ethnicgroup).jpg"). The new image has a clear far right-wing political and royalist bias.
The text below the new image reads:
St. Olaf • P. Tordenskjold • N. H. Abel • F. Stang
H. Ibsen • E. Grieg • F. Nansen • E. Munch
R. Amundsen • E. Groven • L. Ullmann • O. G. Solskjær
Pr. Märtha • Pr. Mette-Marit • S. Jensen • L-M. M. Jünge
The text below the original image would need to be edited to:
St. Olaf • P. Tordenskjold • N. H. Abel • F. Stang
H. Ibsen • E. Grieg • F. Nansen • E. Munch
R. Amundsen • E. Groven • L. Ullmann
81.107.45.41 (
talk)
08:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Please read the relevant sections on this talk page. --
Sam Sailor
Talk!
16:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun ( talk) 11:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The number displaying the Norwegian population is not up to date. Per today the number has passed 5 millions, and this shuld be updated in the article. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetterWilmo ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
References
This is simply nonsense. Having some Norwegian ancestor is not the same, at all, as being Norwegian. Those numbers are simply wrong, the measure different things. How can this appear on a serious enciclopaedia? -- 46.25.48.186 ( talk) 14:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Norwegians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aftenbladet.no/livssyn/1086156/2_prosent_gaar_i_kirken_paa_en_vanlig_soendag.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Why are Americans with, no matter how much, Norwegian ancestry considered Norwegian? The definition in the start of the article states that Norwegians: "share a common culture and speak the Norwegian language". Most Norwegian-Americans/Americans with Norwegian heritage do not. I can only find numbers that which say that about 55 thousand Norwegian-Americans actually speak the Norwegian language, and most of them don't really practice the culture or have any relation to Norway whatsoever. Why they are considered "ethnic Norwegians" and included in this article is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supevan ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Norwegians never migrated in Brazil in significant numbers. Somebody is including a fake source to claim there are 400,000 Norwegians in Brazil, but that is not true. Moreover, Brazilian censuses do not ask about ancestry, only about nationality, and there aren't 400,000 Norwegians in Brazil. Xuxo ( talk) 01:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed some racist material and other POV's from this page. As I won't be surprised to see it reinstated I kindly ask that anyone that might do so evaluates the material first. Some other removals could also be needed. - Moravice
The total population is underestimated at 7.8 considering manny Norwegian diasporas were left out. True number probably stands around 10 million.
where come those numbers from?
Such numbers must be very uncertain. The article also claim 4.6 mill ethnic Norwegian in Norway. Norway has a population of 4, 7 mill. Of this population ca 9 % is foreigner. This makes up around 350 000 people, reducing the ethnic Norwegian population in Norway to 4, 3 mill. If we go into counting ethnic Norwegian we have to subtract also. (Norwegian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.48.180 ( talk) 11:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The page claims "the vast majority" of Norwegians are Lutherans. This is not true; a large Norwegian newspaper, Aftenposten, have found out that no more than 49.5% of the norwegian population answers "yes" at the question "do you believe in God".
Yes you are absolutely right, thats why i have changed the formulation to the "vast majority are nominally Lutherans,(the majority of Norways population still hold membership in the Norwegian Lutheran Church) and mentioned the secularization of a country which probably ranks among the least religious in the world. The religiousity among Norwegian-Americans, as this article also include under Norwegians, is however probably stronger. Not that I have seen any figures but I think it can be presumed due to the relative high level of religiousity in the general American population. Thats why I mention only the secularization of Norway proper, not of Norwegians as this here is meant to mean also their descendants across the Atlantic Ocean. kjetor
This article is included in the category Germanic peoples along with other modern national groups (Danes, Swedes, English, Dutch), although no source is given for the claims. I nominated the category for deletion - see its entry here - because it includes modern groups under a historical term (Roman period to mediaeval). The category is being used for a political agenda, to promote the idea that ethnic groups and nations in north-west Europe are "Germanic". That claim is typically associated with neo-nazi groups, for the association of the term Germanic peoples with Nazism, see Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Lebensraum, and for instance Hitler salute. As with the Swedes and Danes, the issue here is also whether Norwegians describe themselves as a "Germanic people". Paul111 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Added accuracy dispute tag, since the article now states twice that Norwegians are part of the Germanic peoples. This category is not in use for modern ethnic groups, see Germanic peoples. (I would have used a section accuracy tag, but neither claim is in a section). Paul111 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No modern ethnic or national group belongs to the Germanic peoples, and that article clearly says so. The category is being used to claim that they do, and that is reason to delete it. However, the false claim is not confined to the category, but is repeated elsewhere, as in the template at this article. All of these references should go. Two other users have pointed out that many East European Jews also spoke a Germanic language, Yiddish, and if language is the criteria, then they belong on this page as a related ethnic group. As for the reference, there were many books published in the 1930s about the Germanic peoples and the Aryan race, but since 1945 few people take their content seriously. Paul111 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Main Entry: eth·nic·i·ty Pronunciation: eth-'ni-s&-tE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ties 1 : ethnic quality or affiliation <aspects of ethnicity> 2 : a particular ethnic affiliation or group <students of diverse ethnicities>
Main Entry: 1eth·nic Pronunciation: 'eth-nik Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin ethnicus, from Greek ethnikos national, gentile, from ethnos nation, people; akin to Greek Ethos custom -- more at SIB 1 : HEATHEN 2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background <ethnic minorities> <ethnic enclaves> b : being a member of a specified ethnic group <an ethnic German> c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics <ethnic neighborhoods> <ethnic foods>
The onus is on the editor to provide a reliable source for the claim, that the Norwegian people are a Germanic people. Because Germanic is no longer accepted, a book from 1934 would not be a reliable source. A reliable source would be, for instance, a recent survey indicating that the majority of Norwegians describe themselves as 'Germanic'. Paul111 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Those who follows news in Norway will know that the term "nordmann" (Norwegian/noun) has been controversial in Norway as well. I don't think this is a simple issue, but let me add a couple of points to the fray:
The more I think about it, the more I think this article should be deleted. We have Culture of Norway, Demographics of Norway, Norwegian language, Norwegian literature, History of Norway, etc., etc. There probably should be an article called Ethnology of Norway, and that should be all we need. I'll await reactions before formally nominating it. -- Leifern 14:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just don't know how much this article adds to Culture of Norway, Demographics of Norway, Norwegian language, Norwegian literature, History of Norway, etc., etc. especially if we add Ethnology of Norway. Maybe there should be an article about what it means to have a Norwegian identity, but that's a different topic. -- Leifern 22:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the fact that there has been a debate makes it clear that it's not that simple. Besides historians do not seem to have any trouble with separating Norwegians and Sami as different peoples Fornadan (t) 07:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Following in the weighty discussions above, this may seem a little minor, but in the info box, the total population is estimated as 4.3 million, and only the USA and Canada are listed as areas of significant population. Is this info box meant only to refer to Norwegians in diaspora? If so, it lacks clear marking as such; its name is simply "Norwegians" (Nordmenn) and it estimates total population to no more than that of Norway. I apologise if this due to inattention on my part, but I cannot find out this puzzle. Hinakana 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Lukas, you seem to be confusing ethnic Norwegian with culturally Norwegian. An ethnic Norwegian is someone who is of Norwegian ancestry, plain and simple. We could argue over how much Norwegian ancestry makes someone an ethnic Norwegian (for example, having a Norwegian parent vs having a Norwegian great great great grandparent). It sounds like that if we reversed your logic, and that if someone who had just partial Norwegian ancestry was able to speak Norwegian and lived in Norway for a long time then he could be considered ethnic Norwegian, however being able to speak the language and living in the country does not change someone's ethnic group. Ancestry (one's ethnic group) and Culture can be two completely different things.
In the case of USA and Canada, the numbers only reflect the number of people who consider themselves Norwegian (as in that's what they write on their census), not whether those people are culturally or even ethnically Norwegian.
I edited the translation of the term Nordmenn. It translates as Norsemen not 'men from the north'. Swedes, Danes and also Norwegians would confirm this.
Hm. The dictionary kind of support both sides
"Norse : 1. Of or relating to medieval Scandinavia or its peoples, languages, or cultures. 2. Of or relating to Norway or its people, language, or culture. 3. Of, relating to, or being the branch of the North Germanic languages that includes Norwegian, Icelandic, and Faroese."
I think both are correct. Besides, Norse translating to norrøn is really not relevant as norrøn is just used as a term used to describe a historical period while Norse is the description of ethnicity and geography. Nastykermit ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Arigato1 has removed information about Swedes on this page and on this page. To avoid any misunderstandings about his erroneous reason for removing the text, I cite the source here:
The reason Arigato1 cited for removing the text is disturbingly wrong.-- The trollfighter 12:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{ Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see the deletion review discussion here. Badagnani 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
While this is not terribly important, I think it's worth mentioning that in reality the differentiation between ethnic Norwegians and Swedes is primarily a question of history more than anything. In terms of physical appearance, it's impossible, even for Norwegians and Swedes, to tell the two apart and the languages are much closer than, say, American and Jamaican English, although the latter two would both be considered variations of a common language. This is not to say that there are no differences, but my point is really that any estimation of Norwegian population in Sweden or vice versa is meaningless, because the two groups blend together to the extent that any second-generation Norwegian in Sweden would consider himself Swedish and be accepted as such by Swedish society. Thus, talk of a Norwegian diaspora in Sweden (or vice versa) is meaningless, and the large population exchange over time makes it even more so. Maitreya ( talk) 18:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else than me see a problem with Ari Behn being listed as one of the "top 8" Norwegians through history? I don't think he's worthy at all to be listed amongst Fridtjof Nansen etc., Ari Behn 's achievements is writing a bad book and marrying the Norwegian princess. I think he should be removed ASAP. Gabagool ( talk) 15:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is there no Edvard Munch and Edvard Grieg in the picture? Vanjagenije ( talk) 17:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Are beauty queens really sufficiently notable to be included in the picture? Sure they look good but..
Surely someone like
Kristian Birkeland or
Lars Onsager would be a better choice than
Lisa-Mari Moen Jünge ?
84.48.193.121 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
20:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC).
I don't see any explanation of why this page was moved from Norwegian people to Norwegian ethnic group, especially not why the move was repeated after being reverted. The appropriate process is bold, revert, discuss, not "bold, revert, repeat" (we're an encyclopedia, not a shampoo). The common practice on Wikipedia is for articles entitled [[Fooian people]] to be about the ethnic group, and for [[Fooian]] to be a disambiguation page. When we want to refer to people who live in or are citizens of a country, as opposed to members of an ethnic group, we use [[Fooland|Fooian]]. See, for example, French/ France/ French people; German/ Germany/ German people (redirects to Germans); Japan/ Japanese/ Japanese people; Sweden/ Swedish/ Swedish people (recently moved by the same editor who moved this page); and many other examples. Now, I'd be the first to admit that this isn't an ironclad rule and there can be exceptions when there is a good reason for it, but I haven't seen anyone offer any reason at all, good or otherwise, for treating Norwegians or Swedes differently from all other ethnic groups/nationalities. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Members of the Norwegian royal family are hardly "less notable". Also, the presence of more than one woman in the infobox would seem necessary to provide at least some semblance of gender balance. Erik9 ( talk) 22:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Regions with significant populations | |
---|---|
![]() | |
![]() | 4.5 million [2] |
![]() | 432,515 [3] |
![]() | 150,000 - 250,000 est. |
![]() | 50,000 - 100,000 est. |
![]() | 44,773 [4] |
![]() | 42,000 - 60,000 est. |
![]() | 20,000 [5] |
![]() | 15,782 [6] |
![]() | 15,000 - 20,000 est. |
![]() | 15,000 [7] |
![]() | 10,000 [8] |
![]() | 6,251 [9] |
![]() | 452 [10] |
Languages | |
Norwegian Related languages include Danish, Faroese, Icelandic, Swedish, and to a lesser extent, all Germanic languages. | |
Religion | |
83% of the population of Norway are members of the Christian Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway. [11] Norway is highly secularized, and only about 10% of the population attend religious services more than once a month. [12] | |
Related ethnic groups | |
Germanic ethnic groups: Danish, Icelanders, Swedish, Dutch, Germans, Austrian, English, Faroese, Flemings, Normans;. |
Can't you at least edit the ethnicgroup picture instead of just adding pictures in the manner you did. For instance switch Eivind Groven and Frederik Stang with Siv Jensen and perhaps Eva Joly. Just adding the pictures like you did looks very messy and makes the infobox unnecessary big. - GabaG ( talk) 11:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the montage doesn't give enough weight to pre-19th century people YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) 04:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
trivializes the issue. Furthermore, if you continue to accuse me of "borderline vandalis[m]", you may be blocked for personal attacks. Erik9 ( talk) 00:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)an encyclopedia... is not merely a beauty pageant. If it's nice-looking girls you're after I suggest that you log out of Wikipedia and google "cute girls" instead.
References
The numbers given for norwegian living outside Norway are at the best inaccurate, and most likely impossible to compare, since some of the numbers only includes norwegian citizens, some of them even only norwegian citizens who has reported their whereabouts to an embassy (UK), while other numbers include every inhabitant in a country who has a norwegian ancestor (US).
How likely is it that there should be ten times as many norwegians in Brazil, half ways across the earth, as in neighbouring country Denmark!?!? Bw -- Orland ( talk) 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
References
The source for how many Norwegians living in Iceland is wrong. Norwegian citizenship does not mean they have to be ethnic Norwegian. Bgagaga ( talk) 19:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see this page before now as I had only looked at the discussion page for the article itself. I did a major cleanup and verified a lot of the sources. Unfortunately none of the sources really said anything about an ethnic group of Norwegians and so I had to delete almost all of that. Please look at the discussion page for that article for the entire explanation. -- google my name to find out about me -- Johannes Wilm 17:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There were two talk pages for the same content. I now move everything here and try to ask the other one to be deleted. We will lose the history of the talk page, but it's the only possibility I can see to get out of this chaotic state. -- Johanneswilm ( talk) 23:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello! I am
User:MrGulli. Anyway, an administrator is needed to delete this talk page. "
Talk:Norwegians", I mean. The actual talk page for this article is here:
TALK:NORWEGIAN PEOPLE.
That page then needs to be moved to this address. Someone must've moved the article from Norwegian people to Norwegians without moving the talk page, anyhow GOOD LUCK !
MrGulli (
talk)
03:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This article could need a cleanup. The Icelandic and Faroese are counted as Icelanders and Faroese, respectively, not Norwegians. They're counted as different ethnic groups. Also, it seems weird to include all quarter-bred Norwegians in the Americas who are culturally assimilated into their respective countries, and to not count assimilated Norwegian-speaking immgrants to Norway. At least, it is not in line with Norwegians' own perception of norwegianness. Are there any general guidelines for this on Wikipedia? Narssarssuaq ( talk) 10:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed the three tables at the bottom. The reason for this is:
The first table did not have references connected to it. If you do think the numbers can be proven, please provide evidence before adding the table again.
The second table compared the US and Norway in terms of children born to "Norwegians". However the data about Norway defined origin as "Own, mother's or father's country of birth if it is foreign, otherwise Norway." While the data from the US census describes its selection process as "Respondents were asked to select their origin (and the origin of other household members) from a "flash card" listing ethnic origins." [6].
The two ways of determining background will produce ver different results. First of all are the Norwegian figures based on Norwegian clearly measured indicators, while those from the US measure what group the respondent believes to originate from. Secondly, there is no category "US American" as origin within the US census, so that everybody is forced to select some foreign origin. Third, the Norwegian figures automatically make a third generation immigrant count as "Norwegian", while no such thing happens in the US census. Given that a large part of Norwegian ancestors to US Americans having immigrated in the 1880s or so, had the Norwegian rules for measuring been used, they would all be listed as having "US American" parents.
The third table compared Norwegian and US counties as how large a percentage of "Norwegians living in them. The US data did not have any explanations as how Norwegian ancestry was measured, so it is likely the same data set from the US census. The same problem of comparing data therefore exists, and so the data is not comparable.
The section about genetic similarity to Germans I changed to only be about Norway (not Sweden, that should be on the Swedish page), and I changed it from concerning "Norwegians" to the "Norwegian population" as that is what one study in question refers to, and I#ve also the explanation given that article: thousands of years of migration in and out of Norway. I've also pur the two sections about genetics together. I did not check the references for these studies any further.
I also changed the definition of Norwegians to what its actual use is today. Norwegians are generally all those who have Norwegian citizenship, if they choose to see themselves as Norwegians. If they don't choose to see themselves as Norwegians, but for example Sami, then they are not to be seen as Norwegian.
At the top I exchanged the Norwegian-without-immigrant background for the Norwegian population of Norway. The page linked hitherto does not give figures of this. It is those born to Norwegian parents and those born to foreigners but having Norwegian citizenship taken together: . As menitoned above and as mentioned in the egentic studies that are referenced on this page, the numbers do in fact count 3rd generation immigrants as Norwegians and the general population of Norway has thousands of years of a history of immigration.
I then removed the US figures, for the above reasons. I removed the Canadian nfigures, as the Canadian statistics are based on people's own view as to what their ethnic origin is, whereas the Norwegian numbers are about citizenship (see above).
I then removed the UK and Iceland, and Faeroye Island figures as they weren't referenced. It seems that in the case of Iceland and the F. Islands it is someone's personal estimate of people with Norwegian background, and in the case of the UK it is Norwegian citizens currently registered with their embassy in the UK. These are two very different groups that cannot be compared.
I removed the Australian figures as these are based on origin before migration to Australia of ancestors. These numebrs are different than those of the US and Canada, yet also incompatibel with the Norwegian numbers for the same reasons mentioned above.
I removed the Swedish numbers as these are about where people residing in Sweden were born. A person with Pakistani parents born in Norway would here be counted as Norwegian, although he may hold a Swedish passport. These numbers are therefore also incompatible with the Norwegian figures.
The Danish figures show foreign nationals resident in Denmark. However, none of the pages linked hitherto show number of Norwegian citizens resident in Norway, so also this figure is incompatibel with the Norwegian numbers. If a number of total Norwegian citizens can be found and linked, and the total number of Norwegian citizens in Norway, then those numbers would be more accurate than what is there hitherto.
Given that only figures for Norway are left for now, I removed the total figure and only kept that for Norway. google my name to find out about me -- Johannes Wilm 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is, and has been for several years, an article about the ethnic group Norwegians. The article is not about the word "Norwegian". Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. Alphasinus ( talk) 12:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
this bickering about ethnicity in Europe is extremely tiring. Most countries in Europe are more or less nation states. This is a result of 19th century history. For this reason, the concepts of ethnicity and nationality are blurred all over Europe. This doesn't mean that ethnicity doesn't exist in Europe, but for some reason, there seems to be no end of editors who come to Wikipedia crusading to make exactly this claim. It merely means that the articles about European peoples such as the Norwegians need to take into account aspects of both ethnicity and nationality. -- dab (𒁳) 10:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This article should be merged to Norwegian people. There is no reliable source that can support a distinction between "Norwegians" as an "ethnic identity" and "Norwegian people" as a national identity. And even if there were it would make better sense to treat both sense in a single article in order to explain the difference. This article is currently just reduplicating content with a POV slant towards somekind of ethno-nationalism. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
yes, of course there should only be a single article, but you somehow ended up deleting 600 revisions in the history of the Norwegian people page. This is in violation of our content licence, and it is not the proper way to merge articles. -- dab (𒁳) 10:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The section about modern day religion seems to be original research. I think the situation in Finland is quite the same as in Norway: most people nominally Lutherans, few people attending services. I have heard of no oppression of Lutherans, so the theory that all religious people fled to USA seems quite far fetched. I could argue about the arguing in the article, but as original research isn't allowed here there is no reason to. -- LPfi ( talk) 06:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The culture section now talks only about language and religion. But are we going to have one section here about culture among Norwegians and an other section in Norway about culture in Norway. Then this would either be a duplicate or about how culture of "real Norwegians" differ from that of their neighbours, either in America or in Norway. I see nothing good in such an attempt. -- LPfi ( talk) 06:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I am removing Alphasinus unsourced changes introducing the notion that Norwegians are a "Germanic ethnic group". This classification is is unsourced and arbitrary, Germanic is a linguistic category not an ethnic one and we could equally well write "indo-European ethnic group", but that also contributes no relevant information. Norwegians are an ethno-national group that speak a germanic language. Also Icelanders are not Norwegians, nor are Orcadians or Faroe islanders - each of these are ethno-national groups in their own right - the fact that the first populations of their respective islands migrate from Norway more than 1000 years ago does not make them norwegians by any applicable standard. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, as long as there is an article on Germanic peoples, you are just plain wrong. Read the article for starters, it clearly states that Germanic peoples are an ethno-linguistic group. It's not "a linguistic category" in the sense that is relevant to this article (which is on the ethnic group, not the language). Boefste ( talk) 23:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
In the footnote in the infobox for the UK Norwegian population, it says Does not include people of Faroese, Icelandic, Orcadian or Shetlandic ancestry, or any other rigmaroles and paradoxes. This doesn't make any sense based on my understanding of the words 'rigmarole' and 'paradox' (and it certainly wouldn't be any clearer with rigmarole and paradox linked). What does this mean? — Akrabbim talk 15:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
"But when the gold rush began in Australia in 1851 flocked to the volunteers, and it has been said that as many as 5000 Norwegian-born was in the periods. Around 1860 there shall have been around 2500 Norwegians there. A good number of these had previously tried luck that gold miners in California, and many went also return to America. Gullgravere guess almost by definition, fortune seekers, and thus prepared to move around depending on your luck might smile, and there was little stability there."
This paragraph is incoherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.150.48.131 ( talk) 14:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Aside from needing citations for various claims here, there's a complete lack of information about Norwegians in British Columbia (who came via different routes/means than those described, and for different reasons), likewise Newfoundland (it's not by accident that one of the major streets in St John's is called "Stavanger" and that a taxi company name/family name is Bugden.....re BC Hans Lars Helgesen was the first non-Briton to hold a legislative seat in Canada; he was the founder of the commercial fishery in what's now called Haida Gwaii. Norwegians were common in the goldfields, most of the originals having come like everyone else to the Fraser Gold Rush via California; population rates in the western provinces could also be shown (Saskatchewan has the highest percentage at about 7%, BC and Alberta are next. There's various things in this section that made me go "WHAT?" and "huh?" I'll be back about those some other time. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The term "norrbagge", now seen as derogatory, has nothing to do with sheep or goats, or these animals testicles. During the civil war i Norway in the 12th and 13th centuries, there were two main fractions, the "poor" peoples party called the Birkebeiner (Birch-tree legs) as these were said to use the birch-tree bark (known as "never") for their shoewear,- and the Bagler party, siding with the church and the Bishops. Bagler is an adjective form of the noun "bagall", which is a bishops staff.
Both these names were of course given by the opposing party to the other party to ridicule them. As Norway included large areas which was ceded to Sweden in 1645 and 1658, the people in Sweden referred to those who lived in the southern part of the ceded areas as "baggar",- later "norrbaggar",- as their Swedish ancestors had done before them. But the reason for the name was of course a mispronunciation of the word "bagler",- as no one in Sweden was familiar with that word or the word "bagall".
This led to the erroneous connection with sheep and other livestock. The word bagge has never meant anything connected to testicles, not even today. It simply means male sheep.
In the 17th century the ever present wars led Swedish soldiers to think that this was just another derogatory term of Norwegians, but one must not forget that there were a noble family in Sweden that had "Bagge" as their family name, and they still have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.183 ( talk) 19:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Can someone give me a good reason not to remove her as a "prominent" Norwegian? I see no reason to have her there, especially considering how insignificant and unknown she is. In addition, we should consider adding Magnus Carlsen. He might well be the most famous Norwegian of year 2014.
-- 90.149.188.205 ( talk) 13:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert the image in the info-box of famous/notable Norwegians ("Norwegians (ethnicgroup)b.png") back to the original image ("Norwegians (ethnicgroup).jpg"). The new image has a clear far right-wing political and royalist bias.
The text below the new image reads:
St. Olaf • P. Tordenskjold • N. H. Abel • F. Stang
H. Ibsen • E. Grieg • F. Nansen • E. Munch
R. Amundsen • E. Groven • L. Ullmann • O. G. Solskjær
Pr. Märtha • Pr. Mette-Marit • S. Jensen • L-M. M. Jünge
The text below the original image would need to be edited to:
St. Olaf • P. Tordenskjold • N. H. Abel • F. Stang
H. Ibsen • E. Grieg • F. Nansen • E. Munch
R. Amundsen • E. Groven • L. Ullmann
81.107.45.41 (
talk)
08:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Please read the relevant sections on this talk page. --
Sam Sailor
Talk!
16:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun ( talk) 11:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The number displaying the Norwegian population is not up to date. Per today the number has passed 5 millions, and this shuld be updated in the article. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetterWilmo ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
References
This is simply nonsense. Having some Norwegian ancestor is not the same, at all, as being Norwegian. Those numbers are simply wrong, the measure different things. How can this appear on a serious enciclopaedia? -- 46.25.48.186 ( talk) 14:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Norwegians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aftenbladet.no/livssyn/1086156/2_prosent_gaar_i_kirken_paa_en_vanlig_soendag.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Why are Americans with, no matter how much, Norwegian ancestry considered Norwegian? The definition in the start of the article states that Norwegians: "share a common culture and speak the Norwegian language". Most Norwegian-Americans/Americans with Norwegian heritage do not. I can only find numbers that which say that about 55 thousand Norwegian-Americans actually speak the Norwegian language, and most of them don't really practice the culture or have any relation to Norway whatsoever. Why they are considered "ethnic Norwegians" and included in this article is beyond me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supevan ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Norwegians never migrated in Brazil in significant numbers. Somebody is including a fake source to claim there are 400,000 Norwegians in Brazil, but that is not true. Moreover, Brazilian censuses do not ask about ancestry, only about nationality, and there aren't 400,000 Norwegians in Brazil. Xuxo ( talk) 01:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)