Talk:Storting

Comments

I replaced the copyrighted picture in the article with one I have taken myself. My picture can be freely reprodused.

The previous picture was: Norway-stortinget.jpg

Kristian hv 23:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stortinget vs. The Storting

I don't think the phrase "The Storting" is correctly translated.

In English we say, "Congress voted today." This has the exact same meaning as "Stortinget voted today" in Norwegian. The convention in English happens to be that we leave off the definite article "the" when we talk about Congress. But in Norwegian, they leave it on. That doesn't mean it should be translated "The Storting" though. "Bestempt form" doesn't automatically mean it should be translated with a "the" in front of it. There are times when a direct translation (den bilen, for example) would result in things like "the the car."

So, my suggestion is to refer to Stortinget instead of "The Storting." Please, could we get a native Norwegian speaker to comment?--Kennethmaage 23:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree for two reasons. First, the usages "Congress" and "the Congress" coexist in US English. Second, it is my conviction (as a fluent non-native speaker of Swedish, which of course presents similar problems) that the definite article should be translated where it is present, unless this would result in ungrammatical English. --Tkynerd 03:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should be named Stortinget. I believe it is not uncommon that Norwegian definite singular nouns have a "the" added in front of them when conveyed in English, i.e. "The Stortinget". Even though this would literally be equivalent to "The the Storting", I don't think this is an applicable way of addressing this minor idiosyncracy. I do, however, notice that all other language Wikipedias use the Storting variant. And I'm a native Norwegian speaker. __meco 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

To append myself. I notice that the article on the Swedish parliament, Riksdagen, is called Parliament of Sweden. We also have Parliament of Finland, but Folketing for the Danish Folketinget. __meco 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit late on this, but English also frequently puts the definite article on foreign loanwords in this manner, so the analogy to Congress (an Anglosphere institution) isn't quite right. Compare the Knesset, the Bundestag, etc. --Delirium (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Reverted removal of "Swedish"

I have just reverted an IP's removal of the information that the architect of the Storting building was Swedish. Before doing so, I did a Google search for the architect's name and found that both no.wikipedia.org and nn.wikipedia.org describe him as Swedish. It is standard Wikipedia practice to include the nationality of people in this fashion, particularly when their nationality is not what you would otherwise expect. --Tkynerd 16:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Graph

I created a graph of the number of seats that each major party has in Stortinget over time. Would it be OK to post it on this page, or would there be a better place to put it? The link where I collected all the numbers follows.

https://www.stortinget.no/no/Representanter-og-komiteer/Partiene/Partioversikt/

--User:SteveJothen

Ceremonial

the division into Lagting and Odelsting has been mostly ceremonial, and the Storting has generally operated as a unicameral parliament.

The most important function of the two chambers is to ensure the "quality" of the bill which is, needless to say, extremely important when deciding on laws. If Odelstinget and Lagtinget were mostly ceremonial the new unicameral system (after 2009 elections) when voting the same bills wouldn't include a system where Stortinget has to vote in favour of a bill twice in two different meetings with three days between (which it does).--83.109.112.90 (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the division of lagting and odelsting is no more, the last meeting that was separated took place on the 19.

--Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is there still until the elections in September. It might have been the last planned meeting but until then it is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.112.90 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed name change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

To "Storting", as most legislatures are called by their native names (IE The Knesset, Oireachtas, Cortes Generales, Legislative Yuan, etc). Its far better than simply calling it "Parliament of Norway".--RM (Be my friend) 19:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• This is the English-language Wikipedia, and we therefore use the term most commonly used by English-speaking sources. I did a check on a few English-language online news sites, for instance BBC has 20 hits with "parliament of Norway" and "Norwegian parliament", but only two with "Storting". Similarly, CBC had five hits with the English phrases and zero with the Norwegian phrase. Regarding the argument in the nomination, per Category:National legislatures, most legislatures have English names, and only a small number retain the native term. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• If not "Parliament of Norway (Stortinget)", then I prefer "Parliament of Norway". The above arguments, are good enough for me.--85.165.229.54 (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• I think the main question is what term most English readers would first think of, when looking this up for the first time. Those who don't know that it's called the "Sorting" would undoubtedly know to look for "Parliament of Norway." The term "Sorting" can--and should--be put into the first sentence, which should probably read something like: "The Parliament of Norway, called the 'Sorting,'..." - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Support

• It seems to be the style for most other country parliaments, as you said, and the official English website calls it "the Storting." I would argue that those news sources that use "parliament of Norway" are just describing the parliament and not claiming it as a proper name, otherwise it would be capitalized. Easier for a news story than explaining each time "Storting, the Norwegian parliament,..." and you indeed left the terms uncapitalized (not a proper noun) in your original argument. —Strachkvas (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Stortingets spørretime ; redirect

Do we need a redirect, until someone writes an article about Stortingets spørretime.--85.165.229.54 (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Question time

I have never heard the term Question time from independent English-language sources.

Any mention of the term without notable and independent references, might easily be removed from the article.

(It sounds like a quick translation (of spørretime) from some any of a number of former Norwegian MP, who had practically no schooling in English. (German was arguably a more important language in Norway (than English), more than 100 years ago, when a number of workers/farmers/teachers worked their way up to become an MP.)--85.165.229.54 (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Lagting and Odelsting as "chambers"

Has it ever had two chambers or more? The former Lagting and Odelsting are at present portrayed as Chambers of parliament. --Cookwald (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Storting. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Parliament of Norway → Storting – Universally known like that. See Riksdag, Folketing, Althing, Bundestag, Knesset, Oireachtas etc. The Theosophist (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Opppose all public sector institutions in Norway are known by their English name. Nominator is cherry-picking examples, as most national assemblies are know by their English names on Wikipedia, which if anything would be an argument for this article's name to remain. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Support based on this ngram showing that English language books overwhelmingly prefer the name Storting over Parliament of Norway. Favonian (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Support per nom and other examples.Skookum1 (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Opppose, has an official English name and "Storting" does not flow in English prose.~ Geschichte (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

See wp:officialnames. Could you expand on "doesn't flow in English prose"? ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The Stortinget homepage uses "The Storting" in their English version. Otherwise, I generally agree that names that has the definitive form in Norwegian like Stortinget looks messy when used with the definitive form of other languages. Iselilja (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• The definitive suffix (see also) should not be used in English. A sentence like "In 1964, the Storting passed a law about blah blah..." might perhaps feel odd to some Scandinavian speakers, but it is perfectly natural to any fluent or native English speaker. "Storting" is used as and follows the same grammatical rules as any English word, i.e. it is no longer subject to Norwegian grammar, like you'd say "several kindergartens" and not "several kindergärten" as in proper German, et cetera. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• In addition to the ngram provided by Favonian, it might interesting to examine usage in current English sentences:

Search string	Gbooks	Gscholar
"parliament of Norway had"|"parliament of Norway is"|"parliament of Norway has" -wikipedia -"Books, LLC"	30	13
"Norwegian parliament was"|"Norwegian parliament had"|"Norwegian parliament is"|"Norwegian parliament has" -wikipedia -"Books, LLC"	85	518
"storting was"|"storting had"|"storting is"|"storting has" -wikipedia -"Books, LLC"	6180	689
"storthing was"|"storthing had"|"storthing is"|"storthing has" -wikipedia -"Books, LLC"	5300	139

The data raises an interesting question, if Storthing might not be a better alternative, like Alþingi has its spelling anglicised as Althing? ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment re. "Stort(h)ing": I made this expanded ngram, and it looks like the popularity of "Storthing" faded after WWII. Since we usually give more weight to modern sources, "Storting" would be the preferred form. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• But this ngram shows that "storthing" has been on a strong increasing trend during the last decade, and that "storting" has been on a equally steep decline, and extrapolated will meet each other before the end of this decade. Anyway, numbers aren't everything; they could serve as tie-breaker between two words that were ceteris paribus, but storthing has qualitive advantages: the fact that it was historically used is in itself an educational advantage; as already mentioned a more anglicised version is preferable per wp:ue; and most importantly, it makes the connection to the concept of Thing (assembly) readily apparent to the reader. ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Kjetil_r 22:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{move/dated|multiple=yes|current1=Talk:Parliament of Norway|new1=Talk:Storting}}

Talk:Parliament of Norway → Talk:Storting – Now that we moved the article, should we not move the talk page too?--The Theosophist (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment you should be able to request such a technical correction through WP:RMTR -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Closed as uncontroversial. Favonian (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Progress Party is now in opposition

Apparently this needs to be clarified to some. Norway operates on a system of negative parliamentarism. There is no investiture vote, and as such there are few mechanisms to determine which parties are "supporting" parties, and which ones are "opposition" parties. The only way for a formal confidence and supply agreement to take place in Norway is therefore by a formal, binding agreement between the parties. The Progress Party points to a continued Solberg government, but their official policy is that they do not support a government that they are not a member of by confidence and supply, as explained here, here, and here. The fact that the Progress Party is not removing Solberg from power means nothing as long as Norway employs negative parliamentarism. If FrP does not have a formal cooperation agreement with the government, and is not a member of it, it is an opposition party. It simply tolerates the Solberg government, to the same degree that the other opposition parties tolerate it. Minority governments are the historical norm in Norway for this reason. Siv Jensen is quoted as saying this: "Vi vil ikke lenger anse oss bundet av Granavold-plattformen" ("We no longer consider ourselves bound by the Granavold [government] platform"), source here. Another revert must be seen as no less than vandalism. Whoever reverted my edit clearly has a poor understanding of how Norwegian politics traditionally operates. Μαρκος Δ 03:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that your language is very unacceptable and don’t talk to be about vandalism, speaking you did the same thing and making an edit without providing a source the first time you reverted so your edit can also be reviewed as a sign of vandalism. Now that you have finally provided a better source, I have no reason to revert it again, but you certainly don’t have the right to tell me what I know and what I don’t know, so calm yourself down and don’t use all caps in the edit summary, that is disrespectful. - 98.115.9.16 (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

While I am going to excuse my all-caps with genuinely just wanting you to read it before reverting I apologize for the harsh tone. And yes, I should have sourced it immediately, you are right. That being said, I am glad we could resolve this. Μαρκος Δ 03:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Any translation for som fanden leser Bibelen in the code of conduct section?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.163.154.8 (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Code of Conduct section

The Code of Conduct section is straight trash. It basically just needs to be removed because it barely makes any sense. That's my two scents 02:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Seems to be citing an op-ed, and probably should be citing the Ethical guideline for representatives instead. For unparliamentary language, this article could work. These are primary sources, though. ItGoesItGoes (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)