Talk:Havrå

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

I renamed this page from Havre, farm, Norway for several reason. The name was not standard wikipedia format (the ,farm , norway part of it), Havrå is an unique name (see Havre), after googling both havre and havrå, the havre (+osterøy) search led mostly to pages in Norwegian about the name change, while the Havrå search led to both English and Norwegian pages about the farm. Therefore I assume that Havrå is the standard name in English. The old name is now a redirect Eivind 08:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Eivind, what background information do you have for changing the name of Havre to Havrå, except Google search?

You have removed the paragraph: The population from Havre and their descendants have strongly expressed that they have experienced the name change as a violation of their identity and their roots.

I understand that you have done this because you do not see this as a "neutral point of view" statement. However, there exists written documentation that this is indeed the case. It is of objective interest to know that the use of Havrå is against the will of the people from Havre. By leaving this important information out, the article is less in accordance with the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy.

Hei, as the article says the offical name is Havrå, and since there is no common English language name for it, Havrå is the name that is most in line with our guidelines.

On the removal of the line that says that the descendant objected (all of them?) to the name change, I did so because none of the references stated that. I see that some of them object, but unless we can find a source that states that all of the descendands object, I fear the line most either be rewritten or removed. I did modify some other text as well to point out the controvercy in a, in my opinion, more balanced tone. Please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ in the future.

On a slightly unrelated note, I find it odd that the State insist on the name Havrå, I can't find any articles on the internet written by people who actually prefers Havrå to Havre. There has been a similar controvercy in my mother's home-kommune over offical names vs. names the local population prefers. It seems to me that this is a fairly common problem in Norway. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 10:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Eivind. I saw your editing in "This changing of name was accepted by the National Map Service, but the name change remains controvertial among the local population." Is this a neutral presentation? The controvesy in not between the population in Havre, or their descendants. It is between the population an their descendants and the accepting athorities. Authorities who have comitted countless mistakes in matters like this. I think your editing is giving the presentation an undertone that can be misintrepreted. I take for granted you would like yo be as fair as possible. I know I now plays the role of the devils advocate, and I am convinced you do not want to make the article appear biased. --84.202.4.149 23:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry. I forgot to sign in (windows did not remember me)--Frode Inge Helland 23:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

On a second reading I can see that it can be read in different ways than I intended. Maybe we should add "...among the local population and their descendants, who largely prefer the older spelling." I'll wait for you response. In the meanwhile I'll try and sort out the referneces, so that they appear per WP:MOS. Thanks for you civil and mature response, tusen takk. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 06:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Eivind, I have no other comments than this is a sensitve matter. I have the deepest respect for the local people who through their labour and and endless toil created this place and made it an ikon of the small farms in the fjords of the western Norway, and has their pride and identity rooted there. I think it it adds shame to damage to participate in confirming the unjust change of the name of the more than 700 years old name to Havrå for reasons and by motives I am quite unable to comprehend. Whether the article is called Havre or Havrå, does not change realities. The National Map service is a most unreliable source in name reserearch.

I'll give an example from the district where I live. Festøy is a little place by the road from Bergen to Ålesund. The name has two elements: Fest and øy. The sole significance of the word "fest" to my knowledge is party or feast. Øy means an island. This is odd. There are as far as I know no noticeable partys going on there, and the nearest island is miles away. So the origin of the word must be sought elsewhere.

The old name was Festø. People descending from there bear the family name Festø. This name consists of "Fe" and "stø". "Fe" is cattle and "stø" is a landingplace for small boats. So the possibility that the name Festø is reflecting that Festø was a place where cattledrifts passed (mostly sheep, I guess), can not be neglected. But this case of altering of name I can understand. Since the Norwegian maps began to form in the modern sense, Danish language forms in Norwegian were dominating. So all along the coast the islands names was given the Danish form "ø" instead of the the Norwegian "øy". So, the National Map service most possibly changed Festø to Festøy because it looked more likely to be the original form.

Why did not the locals fight back for the name and their identity? May be they did. I do not know. But but the National Map Service has, during the years, contributed to a significant cultural loss, flattenening the "name-landscape" of Norway and wiping out tradiditions and history - not from evil but from indifference.

In Brita Skree's book about Havre, the list of mistakes proven by Magnus Havre, covers four handwritten A4 pages. It is odd to see how many people accept printed sources whithout criticism, and reject verbal and handwritten sources. Brita Skre's mistakes will eventually become the truth as the time passes, and as the line of decentants fades out. Wp is not serving either the truth, facts or the reality by just accepting this.

Changing the name from Havre to Havrå in WP, intentional or not, is in my view, a way of confirming this process. As far as the official name, whatever that should implicate, is Havrå, it does not change that the real and original name is Havre, and will still be used for some time.

The goal of Wp is certainly not to confuse people or conceal reality, but enlighten people and reflect it. The reality is that Havre now has two names. One more than 700 years old, and one about 50 and enforced on the locals. Wp should reflect this and not conceal it.

It should be of no harm to truth if it also made people think.

I do not know how familiar you are with Havretunet. I used to visit the place from time to time to enjoy the sight of it and absorb the atmosphere. I do not know, or has ever spoken to anybody there. But I consider it one of the most shining pearls in the western Norway. But the Stiftelsen Havråtunet has put up signs of permitted visiting time. I am expecting to see in the near future signs with ticket prices for getting access to the tun and meeting guides in Hardanger folk costume disturbing the place whith shrillled voices.

The killing process of Havretunet will then be successfully completed.

I guess this did not make you happy. Not me either. But this is how it is.

--Frode Inge Helland 08:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you should make such bastant conclutions when you havn't actually done research about the issue. The statements above seem to suggest that Havrå is a modern wrongful spelling of a local name Havre. Havrå is the name that the local population have used for hundreds (possibly thousands) of years, and by some on the farm still is. Havre on the other hand is a misrepresentation of the name made and used solely by authorities up until recent times. Now the old correct spelling of the name, which also corresponds to the local pronounciation of the name, has been granted official status. The modern pronounciation Havre is a pronounciation which has come into existence only during the 20th century, based on the foreign written name Havre and not on the local tradition.

And Festøya? How can you say that the map service made a mistake when you yourself say "to my knowledge", thus not knowing for sure. The mapping service cooperate with many other parts and know quite well what this name means. The old spelling was Festøen, and how can this mean Fe-stø when the pronounciation of the name is fæsstøynå? Fe- cannot be pronounced fæs- and -stø cannot be pronounced -støynå. The old part Fest- means a place where you fasten your boat, whick makes very much sense. Also the old part -øya, means land by water, thus not necessarily completely surrounded by water.

193.90.160.21 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC).Reply

Wikarth

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have undone Wikarth's edit two times for the following reasons.

Alternative name spelling had been removed.

Characterising the name conflict as cultural misunderstanding is wrong. The word possibly in "possibly representing Havrå" was changed to "probably".

The sentence "The dialect has retained the pronunciation "havrå" from this age" was added. There is no way anyone can know this. This is something Wikarth believes, not a fact.

The "Danish administrative language" was in fact the Norwegian written language at the time and is what modern Norwegian writing language is based on today.

The last paragraph in the name conflict section is not of encyclopedic character. And Norway was not a Danish colony.TTDDHH (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Undid revision 411251166 by TTDDHH made without knowledge of the issue or local opinion. If not vandalism, consider it misinformation with a private agenda, choose which suits you better. I recommend TTDDHH read the sources and talk with local people before editing again. Wikarth (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Havrå. 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:

When 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Havrå. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060216153855/http://kulturnett.ivest.no/tema/havraa/default.htm to http://kulturnett.ivest.no/tema/havraa/default.htm

When 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic