This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
I find it mildly amusing that FFI uses the mostly British English word Defence in its English language title, while at the same time describing itself as the "chief adviser on defence-related science and technology to the Ministry of Defence and the Norwegian Armed Forces’ military organization" (the latter word being the U.S. English usage, contrary to British, which would be organisation). Oh well, they are engineers and scientists after all, and is better employed doing (hard) core research rather than polishing their written English (?). --Wernher 06:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A few years late (!) but just for the record, "organization" is also a valid spelling in Britain and tends to be the preferred Oxford usage. "I am not a lexicographer" and all that, but my understanding is that the preference for "-ise" vs. "-ize" is a comparatively recent thing. --Vometia (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
