Talk:Riksmål/Archive 1

Riksmål a Danish language?

I see that someone has added a "citation needed" for the following: "it may still be considered fundamentally a Danish language [citation needed]."

I am a little flabbergasted. If I wrote "Riksmål is an IE language" would I also need a citation for that? Is there anyone who has ever classified Riksmål as anything else but a Danish language?

Shouldnt the tag "citation needed" be applied with a little more discretion?

ALDRI MER 1814!

On "Citation needed"

In the section _Language Reform 1907-1958_ I have removed a handful of "Citation needed" where the sources for these facts are already given in the table of references, items 2 and 3.

ALDRI MER 1814!

I have provided a (clearer) reference for the following and therefore removed the two "citation needed" marks:

"The present-day linguistic division in Norway is foremostly a division between descendants of Danes having immigrated to Norway following the Black Death on the one hand and descendants of survivors of the Black Death amongst the original Norwegian population on the other (citation needed). Originally thus an ethnic division (citation needed),"

Note that the two instances of "citation needed" actually refers to the same fact.

(The reference was already in the list of references. I wish people would read the sources already given.)

ALDRI MER 1814!

Can tags be removed now?

Have all the items been agreed upon now? Can the tags be removed? Any further objections?

It seems no items have been agreed upon. Most of the objections have not been taken into the text and most of the attemts to rectify the problems in the text have been reverted. The tags should stay. The tags I added to the "references", which Aldri mer 1814 promised to reinsert, should also still be there. I is normal procedure in wikipedia that ideally tags added to a text should only be removed by "outsiders", that is people not party to the conflict. The notion that you can do what you want so long as no-one objects is not part of wikipedia policy. I don't have time to babysit this article so you should try to incorporate the objections given into the text and as stated earlier try to imagine the other point of view in your editing. Inge 12:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Inge,

Very well, then. The article then proceeds from where it is now, tags or no tags.

POV

This page is heavily influenced by a POV from people obviously trying to promote Riksmål. Trying to imply that Norwegians were on the verge of rioting because of spelling reforms are ridiculous. Formulations alluding towards a state education monopoly being the reason for the mainstream Norwegian population embracing Bokmål are equally POV. The reforms made Bokmål more attractive to larger parts of the Norwegian population. It helped diminish the use of Nynorsk and the alternative forms have made a fundametally Riksmål text at least 90% in line with official spelling rules. The Riksmål movement is now a way of promoting the conservative form of Bokmål. These are just some of the problems in this text. Inge 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

When I was growing up, family social gatherings didn't discuss religion, politics, floridation or which form of Norwegian was correct. Interesting to note that this rule apparently hasn't changed in 40 years. Williamborg 03:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

First, pray tell, what is POV?

Second, the reaction of this Bokmål diehard just serves to examplify what we Riksmål people have had to put up with. The treatment of the Riksmål minority equals the treatment of the Kurds in Turkey, where the government has intervened to ban one particular minority language in the interest of forced assimilation and national unity. The underlying problem is of course that there is no such nation as Norway. It consists of two main cultures, a Danish one and a Norwegian one. Attempts to unify the two are just what one gets when the establishment cannot tolerate coexistence. If the greater Oslo area in 1814 had been ceded to Denmark, then that would have been better realpolitik.

ALDRI MER 1814! User:ALDRI MER 1814!

Please see : Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you feel so strongly about this subject maybe you should be extra attentive to maintaining a neutral point of view. Inge 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I naturally feel strongly about my mother tongue being banned by law and my ethnic group being coercively assimilated- wouldn't you? Banning indgenous languages and forceful ethnic assimilation fits the definition of genocide in international law as far as I can see and I cannot really see how pointing that out makes my less neutral. (Will you also tell the survivors of the Jewish WWII holocaust to "be extra attentive to maintain neutralilty"? Naa, didnt think so.)

Technical question: I believe you added this to one of my references: "please verify the credibility of this source" - well, since I added the reference, what exactly do you want me to do? What do you need?

ALDRI MER 1814! User:ALDRI MER 1814!

After deliberating with myself, I have (again) removed the "please verify the credibility of this source" tag, as well as the tag at the header, since nothing in the article on Riksmål as it stands now contains anything which may be described as either new or unpublished research nor unverifiable claims, nor seems the refernce text seem to contain any of these. If you claim otherwise, please be specific. You have earlier mentioned the following:

"Trying to imply that Norwegians were on the verge of rioting because of spelling reforms are ridiculous."

You claim this is not verifiable?

"Formulations alluding towards a state education monopoly being the reason for the mainstream Norwegian population embracing Bokmål are equally POV. "

I got the POV term now, Wiki lingo for Point of View - fair enough. Well, what exactly do you deny? That Norway has a de facto state monopoly on education?

In short, when you tag what I write as unverifiable, please at the same time be specific about which claims you are referring to.

Further down on this page someone mentions taking a Wiki name and so on. I would like to take ALDRI MER 1814! as my signature. If I may. Further, I am new to Wikipedia and not very familiar with the technical stuff. Willing to try to learn everything at least once though.

ALDRI MER 1814! User:ALDRI MER 1814!

You're certainly welcome to take ALDRI MER 1814! as your user name—no one else appears to have claimed it. Just go to the top of the page you're currently on – look to the upper right. Click on "Sign in / create account". Add the name and a password of your choice.

When you’re logged in, to sign an entry, just add four "~" with no spacing.

And as to being new—we're all new—just at different stages. You're clearly knowledgeable and write well, so you'll make a difference here. Welcome.

And be patient—these POV debates can take a while to sort out—but if everyone works in good faith we get there. The net result is a better article for the Wikipedia—and an accurate representation of the issue, including the controversy.

Welcome - Williamborg 17:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove tags before the issue has been resolved. The tags are there to make all editors/readers aware of the problem. When you make claims in an article you should provide verifyable and credible references. The fact that someone already published the same information on a web page is not good enough. It is not good editing to write something just because it can't be disproven. I stand by my earlier statements. There are many things needing improvement in this article. My main problem is its general attitude. It shines through that this was written by someone who feels very passionately for one side of the issue (POV). The views expressed and formulations used in a private essay are most often not suitable in an encyclopedic article. Please try to see all sides of the issue and let the article reflect that. You should try to debate against yourself when writing a good article. I get that you are passionate about this subject, but since this is an international encyclopedia the use of words like "on the verge of rioting", "genocide", "oppression" and other strong formulations should be causious. (And I ask you to think one more time about comparing the situation for Riksmål users to jews during WWII.) They carry a much stronger meaning and entail much harsher consequenses for the people under those conditions in most parts of the world than experienced in the Norwegian language debate. Happy editing! Inge 17:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

About removing the tag - I guess it was done in a fit of rage, sorry, feel free to put it back. May I request another tag? I feel there is need for a tag that states that the former tag is put there in a vile act of provocation, to obfuscate facts about ethnic discrimination, genocide and other forms of socialist political oppression. Who can make such a tag? Then there will be four tags up there. Nice.

Account created! Thanks for your advice!

I would like to raise another issue:

On several instances in the text someone has changed the denomination of the Riksmål forefathers and speakers from "Danes" or "bourgeoisie" to "high classes" or "upper classes". I feel this is problematic. It is precisely this line of thought that preceded the banning of Riksmål. I feel the major conflict earlier was one of ethnicity and langauge, not one of class.

Some personal reflections:

When my forefather came to Viken in the 1620s from southern Denmark, he came on foot with what he could carry. He worked as a carpenter. It took several generations before priests, (medical) doctors and officials emerged in my family, and when they did emerge, none of them were educated in Denmark, all but one in Norway (my grandfather as an exception in Germany). Those that came to wealth all made their fortunes in Norway and some never made it anywhere. I feel that my family is quite typical of these immigrants and I feel it quite strange that my people should collectively be named "high classes" or "upper classes". Sure, some would fit that description, but not all, and those that indeed belonged to the upper classes made it there because they worked hard and studied hard - all of them _after_ my family having settled in Norway. Implying that a class structure was imported from Denmark is a far cry from what really happened in most cases. The clash was one between Danish and Norwegian languages first, then a clash between cultures. The class issue is at the best a tertiary issue. Furthermore, the class aspect of this conflict is long since gone, but the ethnic aspects and the language related issues remain.

I am therefore tempted to do away with the places in the text where the Danes and the Riksmål speakers are merely referred to as "high classes" or "upper classes". May we perhaps have that discussion here now before we change the text back and forth?

ALDRI MER 1814! User:ALDRI MER 1814!

To Inge:

Let us take this one word at a time.

Let us start with the word "rioting": Please provide a better description for what several hundred thousand parents did in the 1950s, when they used red pens to correct the texts of all the textbooks used in primary schools. My parents took my books and tore them apart and asked me to throw the parts at the teacher - this was in the 1960s. Other students parents showed up at the classroom and lit fire to the textbooks their offspring had been sent home with. PTA meetings were always heated to the degree where they were standing yelling at the teachers at the top of their voice. No other agenda could be dealt with for many years. Classmates were kept home. A decade later I saw students reacting: leaving class, refusing the read from the textbooks. Reading aloud in Riksmål from a Bokmål text. Not showing up at the exam. Is this not the rioting of an entire people? If you think it is not, please provide us with your choice of word.

ALDRI MER 1814! User:ALDRI MER 1814!

I should correct myself, in the article text I wrote "bordering on rioting", not "rioting". Well, do I hear a better phrase for "bordering on rioting"? If not, shall we accept "bordering on rioting"? If no protests are heard, I say we aye "bordering on rioting".

Then there is the issue of the state monopoly of education being the instrument enabling the government to substitute Riksmål with Bokmål. Inge originally objected to this. This needs to be broken down to two parts: First, does the Norwegian state exercise a de facto monopoly in education? This should be pretty easy to verify. How many students of each grade attend private schools and how many of each grade respectvely attend public schools? Anyone needs to see the figures before accepting that there is a de facto monopoly? Second, what role did this monopoly play in substituting Riksmål with Bokmål? I claim the education monopoly was the one major tool in this process. Considering that close to 100% of all students attend public schools, then the answer pretty much gives itself, doesnt it? What is taught in those schools are what the students learn. Compare the transition from Khatarevousa to Demotiki in Greece and the transition from complex to simplified characters in Mainland China.

So, any further objections to the folowing passage?

"Through the state education monopoly, Bokmål has since WWII replaced Riksmål as the de facto mainstream written standard through a process characterized by fierce protests bordering on riots in the beginning to widespread ignorance about written Riksmål today, the result being that the vast majority of Norwegians have come to embrace the reforms distinguishing Bokmål from Riksmål and have not reverted to using written Riksmål."

I think all details in this passage now has been thoroughly accounted for.

I'll wait a few days for objections.

ALDRI MER 1814! User:ALDRI MER 1814!

Interesting discussion. Think we have some material for insertion of a discussion that provides a balanced representation that both views can support.

I'll wait a day or two for Inge to take a shot at composing suggested wording that describes the nature of the controversy for the article. If we have no suggested text by mid-week, I may take a try.

Takk-Williamborg 01:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

An example of an article which carried a POV tag for a while for similar controversy can be found at Skåneland. The Official status section is an example of what was required to get it neutral enough that folks could agree to it. It periodically gets relabeled POV as some new editor writes something which is egregious to another. But it does illustrate we reach consensus and remove POV tags. Williamborg 01:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Displayed considerable anger" might be one suggestion. Have you seen what happened last year in France? Those were riots. Were there plans for such actions, were people trying to organise such actions? Do you think more than a handful of people would participate in such actions? Do you have sources for that? The state monopoly: I am not disputing that most Norwegian children go to public school. But have you a surveiy or other scientific work to back you up on the statement that the monopoly was the reason? Don't you think a possibility is that more people found the new spelling reforms had made Bokmål more appealing to them. Isn't it possible that people liked what had happened? If you look at the statistics for the decline of Nynorsk in the same period that might indicate such. I still would like to see sourcing for the statements made in the article. The present link does not constitute a source. For more on source review you might want to purchase or loan Sebastian Olden-Jørgensens "Til kilderne!" published on Gads forlag (a Danish book). Inge 08:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Inge,

You ask me to document that the school is where kids learn to write, no more no less. Are you serious? Of course kids learn to write in the school and of course a people learn to write in the school system. I cannot allow myself to be entangled in even starting to discuss along such lines.

About "Displayed considerable anger" - I feel this phrase is not sufficiently strong. To "display anger" does not convey physical actions taking place, like tearing books apart, rewriting entire textbooks, keeping kids home, et cetera. We need a phrase that covers all of that and also covers the division in society. Do not forget that a minority of parents sided with the teaching profession and the beureaucrats and that a minority of the teachers sided with the parents.

I recall when one textbook in physics arrived at the start of a semester. The teacher tried to read from the text, but himself not understanding or understanding only with difficulty. He read aloud, ridiculing the awkward language allowing the entire class to dissolve in laughter and asked students to take turns to read aloud in a similar manner:

<amusing incident>

- Ein BRULE-kam på femten meter. Ja, mine damer og herrer, tør jeg spørre om noen av Eder har SETT slik en kam? Er det en kam for BRULER? (vill og uhemmet latter mens læreren tok seg til sitt skallede hode)

(Det var selvfølgelig "ein bru-lekam" - "et brolegeme").

</amusing incident>

So, any better phrase to cover all of this? The phrase should cover the widespread physical actions of rewriting textbooks, tearing the books apart, keeping pupils home, it should also cover the division in society, and also the odd episodes of ridicule that some resorted to.

OK you don't think it's strong enough. I can live with that, but displaying anger does also sometimes envolve physical actions. So I think it's fitting. But please acnowledge that rioting or bordering on rioting or on the verge of rioting is too strong. Bear in mind this is an international encyclopedia and in most of the world those actions you have described do not come close to rioting. I am not asking you to prove that school is were people learn to write. I am asking you to consider other possibilites as to why Riksmål has declined. As I mentioned earlier it is actually possible that most people in Norway liked the reforms, but as alway they were not the ones "screaming highest". If Riksmål was forced out agains the genereal populations will wouldn't you have seen more protests in other parts of the country? I am just saying that even though it seem logical you can't jump to conclutions without documentation if you want to be scholarly or scientific.

You have seen and experienced things in your childhood and want that acnowledged in an encyclopedic article about Riksmål. Whatching from the outside I see those actions as parents and teachers using children in the front lines of the conflict. Those incidents do have a place in the article, but we should first try to write a balanced article including all of Norway. If you look outside your environment at the time the picture is far different from what you want this article to look like.

Just as we are thinking logically I have wondered about something. Riksmål has been described here as an indigenous language, the Norwegian national language and other similar things, yet later it is also the language of the persecuted minority of Danish decendant people? It is also desribed as the language of government, law, high litterature, the polite classes and so on, but then it is being oppressed by "the establishment". This doesn't add up. Inge 12:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Let us see if can reach some common ground here. I do not need to insist on "bordering on riots" - you think that is too strong, and you on your hand can live with that "Displayed considerable anger" is not strong enough. Can anyone come up with a phrase somewhere inbetween? Williamborg?

Let me briefly comment about some of the other things:

"Riksmål has been described here as an indigenous language"

Article 1b in the manifest of the ILO (International Organization of Labor) defines indigenous peoples and their rights in this way:

«-To the indigenous peoples in independent countries, considered indigenous because they descend from populations which inhabited the country or a geographical region belonging to the country during the era of the conquest or colonization and the establishment of the actual borders of the present states and which, no matter their legal situation, still preserve all their appropriate social, economic, cultural institutions or remnants of them.»

The descendants of the Danes were obviously present before the present borders of Norway were established the way they are today and for hundreds of years before the formation of the present day Norwegian state. So yes, these descendants are by this definition an indigenous people and their language Riksmål is therefore an indigenous language. This should not cause much controversy. This definition is fairly simple and clear-cut.

"...the Norwegian national language..."

Just an attempt of translating what "Riksmål" means.

"...yet later it is also the language of the persecuted minority of Danish decendant people?"

Yes?

"...It is also desribed as the language of government, law..."

Not anymore. It once was, yes. You say it was not? Grab a volume of "Norges lover" and read aloud from any law passed before 1938. You will find that the laws not authored in Landsmål were authored in Riksmål.

"..high literature..."

I count three Nobel Literature laureates in less than thirty years at the beginning of the last century. We have to say check on that one, don't we?

"...but then it is being oppressed by "the establishment". This doesn't add up."

Well, the language was banned in 1938. How much more oppressed can a language get?

ALDRI MER 1814!

Late Night Thoughts on the Rules of Engagement for POV Discussions

I copyedited the article, making only changes I have some confidence are correct (e.g., identifying the king referred to in the discussion). Since I wasn’t raised in Norway, I’m aware of the energy this topic can engender, but not particularly qualified to advocate one side or another.

Anytime an article gets labeled POV it immediately indicates there is a diversity of viewpoints which is worth capturing.

And we clearly have intelligent contributors on both sides, so it is likely we can reach a logical consensus.

If we aren’t careful, POV discussions get quite nasty. I’m watching two others (outside Norway) which have become quite personal. So let me suggest a quick review of the Wikipedia rules of engagement:

• Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle and official policy which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.
• The policy requires that, where there are conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted.
• All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.
• Readers should be presented with enough information that they can form their own opinions.
• Facts are preferable to judgments. Precision is preferable to generalities.
• Work in good faith!

• Virtually all of us start with no intention of malice.
• People generally try their best to do their best.
• People gnerally try their best to do their best for the greater good of the community.
• Friendliness, honesty, caring (or at least civility) make the discussion go more smoothly. Avoid adjectives and adverbs—especially when commenting on other individual’s views.

• And let’s work toward a consensus so we can remove the POV tag from this page. As a starting point, it would be useful if:

• Anonymous contributors might take on a Wiki name (this is not much less anonymous, but does allow us to feel like we’re dealing with people who are interested in standing behind their work)
• And it would be very useful if the person who added the POV label listed could add more discussion of the concerns or, even better, drafted a balancing viewpoint for inclusion in the article.

Takk - Williamborg 14:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Note of removal

Removed edit by Aldri mer 1814, ref provided was irrelevant to topic, doesn't report on riksmål at all, but ethnic cleaning, see WP:OR --Eivind^t@c 02:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstated removed part removed by Eivind, as ethnic cleansing is obviously relevant to genocide. Funny that Eivind in this explicit way should prove the point made in the newspaper article refered to.

ALDRI MER 1814!

The article doesn't even mention riksmål, the conection between the subject of the reference and this article is only made by you, so it is original research and your point of view. If you can find an article that comperes ethnic cleansing with the riksmål history please provide it and your edit should stand, otherwise please remove it. And please don't assume that I'm some form of adversery trying to cleans this article of opinions of other, it is insulting, and against policy.--Eivind^t@c 03:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Eivind,

So you say that in describing a phenomenon as a principle, that unless each case of this phenomenon is mentioned specifically, then any given case cannot be classified as belonging to the given phenomenon for that reason? That line of thought would give rise to many funny situations, let me extrapolate: Mr. Smith is murdered. The penal code only mentions murder, not the murder of Mr. Smith, therefore Mr. Smith's death is not murder. (Why do I get this Balkan feeling when discussing Riksmål with Bokmål users? I once tried to discuss ethnic cleansing with a Serb, being taken on a dive ride down to his level of logic - "What ethnic cleansing! Can you see any ethnicity on this picture!" And so on and so on.)

If you look up the term "genocide" in this very encyclopedia, you will find that the history of Riksmål from 1938 onwards fits that description well. It has been a well-organised (and successful) political attempt to eradicate the language, literature and culture of an entire nation. And by nation I do not limit this to Riksmål users, but to all Norwegians, as Riksmål was once their common cultural heritage, and because modern Norway is to a great extent the creation and the fruit of the Riksmål culture.

The aim of genocide is always, invariably, ethnic cleansing. (Is this in dispute?) The newspaper article I refered deals with why people cannot get along and what gives rise to notions that result in ethnic cleansing and genocide. It is highly relevant to our reference article on Riksmål. It goes straight to the point about "us" and "them", and if there are two words that sum up the history of the coexistence of languages and ethnic groups in Norway, it is those two words.

Eivind, please rethink.

ALDRI MER 1814!

You might read a connection in the article, but it's not implied in the article so it's useless as reference in an article about riksmål, since it not about riksmål! Your trying to push some your point of view that the change of language form from riksmål to bokmål, was a form of cultural genocide, that I can understand, but if this is a view held by language researchers or anyone other that you, why can't use use a different source that actually states that. Not just arbitrary article. For the millionth time the article is about genocide and ethnic cleansing, it doesn't mention "language-ocide" or riksmål at all. It's a useless source for this article!!! --Eivind^t@c 01:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made a request for comment on the issue, as I feel like we're just repeting out opinions, and not coming any closer to an agreement. Hopefully this will resolve this dispute. --Eivind^t@c 01:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

RFC comments

• Agree with Eivind above. Couldn't have said it better, therefore no longer comments from me at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with Eivind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.44.237.17 (talk • contribs)

Would you be so kind as to explain why? --Eivind^t@c 10:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I have on a few occasions asked some very concrete questions and in some cases have gotten no answers. If I may mention the following points, where I still lack answers:

1, A comment was added to a reference I added, stating the need for the reference to be verified. I asked what sort of verification that was in demand, what verification that would be acceptable. No answer.

2, I have encouraged all to come up with a phrase inbetween "bordering on rioting" and "display considerable anger". There were earlier indications that a phrase lying inbetween these two could be acceptable to all sides. No suggestions so far.

3, Then you raised doubts in several points as to the way I described Riksmål:

"Just as we are thinking logically I have wondered about something. Riksmål has been described here as an indigenous language, the Norwegian national language and other similar things, yet later it is also the language of the persecuted minority of Danish decendant people? It is also desribed as the language of government, law, high litterature, the polite classes and so on, but then it is being oppressed by "the establishment". This doesn't add up."

I went into most of these points defending my description. I did not get a reaction from you to the effect of if you had accepted my deliberation regarding these points or not. I would appreciate if you did.

4, Then there is the point of classes versus ethnicity. I wrote:

"Implying that a class structure was imported from Denmark is a far cry from what really happened in most cases. The clash was one between Danish and Norwegian languages first, then a clash between cultures. The class issue is at the best a tertiary issue. Furthermore, the class aspect of this conflict is long since gone, but the ethnic aspects and the language related issues remain. I am therefore tempted to do away with the places in the text where the Danes and the Riksmål speakers are merely referred to as "high classes" or "upper classes". May we perhaps have that discussion here now before we change the text back and forth?"

I have so far not heard any responses to this.

So, as far as I can see, there is still a wide field of issues here, containing points where we are not through discussing and containing other points which we have not yet even begun discussing. It is quite possible that we could reach what would amount to agreement on many of these points if there would actually be a (continued) discussion. I therefore say we continue to discuss.

Thanks for your reply, unfortunatly as you have edited this article before you don't fit in to the RFC group, which is for people with no previous edits, minor edits excluded, to the article(s) the discussion is about, I started the RFC to get neutral editors to comment on the use of the source. Secondly you do not answer why you think the use of the source is acceptable. It is also unfortunate that no one answered your questions earlier, I've only recently started watching this article. Again I state my opinion that the source is unaccepteble. While Dagbladet is a reliable source, the article does not mention Riksmål, and so it is a source for the statement at all. Since the comment is of a very controvertial nature, I can no other solution other than to remove it, unless we can find a reliable source that acctually comperes riksmål with ethnic cleansing and similar. And please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ regardless of if you have an account or if your not signed in. --Eivind^t@c 22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I find your stern statement "Dagbladet is a reliable source" somewhat amusing. Is there a Wiki list of publications that are reliable? Is there a Wiki list of publications that are not? Who says which publications are? What are the criteria? Just curious.

ALDRI MER 1814!

I allready gave the link to >>>the guideline for reliable sources<<< guess I have to do it again. And yes I laught a bit to. --Eivind^t@c 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have read the texts you refered me to - again. Perhaps I am slow, but would it be too much trouble to ask you to explain - in the light of the definitions in the texts you are refering to - why Dagbladet is a reliable source per se and why the reference I originally provided is not?

ALDRI MER 1814!

until we dissolve

Please, could we be spared the repeated "correction" of the following: "Although Norway nominally remained a separate kingdom for the duration of the union with Denmark until its dissolution in 1814..." The alternative ".. all through the dissolution ..." is liguistically and factually wrong, since it implies that Norway's status as a separate kingdom was true only during the process of dissolution.

And while we disagree: The Quisling language reform did not embrace the Samnorsk thought. For the most part, it reverted to pre-1938 spelling, but with a few concessions to the idea of Samnorsk. Please see the article on Riksmål in Norwegian. Roede 14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is almost getting entertaining. I was going to ask for being spared the "correction" of "all through" being changed to "up to". This is factually and historically wrong, for the reason that it implies that Norway ceased being a separate kingdom in 1814, which it of course did not.

I believe Hans Fredrik Dahl has written a book on the intimate connection between Nasjonal Samling and the Samnorsk movement. If the Quisling spelling reform did not embrace the Samnorsk thought, then what did? Have a few reads from officialese literature from those years!

Anonymous friend, consult these texts:

• Norsk krigsleksikon: «Rettskrivningsreformen av 1941». Nettversjon
• Tjelle, Arne: Rettskrivinga av 1941. Bakgrunn, politisk spel og ideologisk analyse. [[Nordica Bergensia nr. 2 1994. ISBN 8290500173

Roede 18:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

First, my apologies for not always being able to sign in. I am ALDRI MER 1814!.

Second, whether a certain reform may to seen as having embraced this thought or that thought, well, it shall have to be very subjective, shant it. My way of looking at the Quisling reform is neverheless that it firmly embraced the Samnorsk thought, for the reason that it promoted a writing somewhere inbetween Riksmål and Landsmål, just as Bokmål and Nynorsk do today. These two standards also firmly embrace the Samnorsk thought in my view. If people do not firmly embrace the samnorsk thought, they will either write Riksmål or Landsmål (Høgnorsk). Bokmål and Nynorsk are next to the last stations on the track to Samnorsk. This is of course a subjective view and there are other views.

ALDRI MER 1814!

RFC issue

Would the editors involved in this dispute each briefly describe what is at issue? Why is the source appropriate? Why is the source not appropriate? Keep in mind that I and others would might be interested in helping may not know anything about the Norwegian language. —Centrx→talk • 05:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dialects

As far as I can tell "Riksmål" is really only used to refer unofficial orthographic standards, not spoken variants of Norwegian. Please provide proper references that there is a widespread usage of Riksmål as a linguistic term for spoken Norwegian or remove the dialect section. We already have an article dedicated to Norwegian dialects.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I believe I and my entire family is a very good reference. We all speak Riksmål. Widespread, no. Riksmål is not a widespread language, on the contrary, it is on the verge of extinction. The number of speakers is perhaps at the very most counted in the tens of thousands nationwide - just my guestimate - and the number of people being able to write Riksmål may now be counted at the very most in the thousands, perhaps only in the hundreds. Again just my guestimate. My impression is furthermore that most people who speak Riksmål are very old. My impression is further that the people who are able to write Riksmål in their turn on the average are even older than the age average among the speakers. I would welcome field research to establish a more correct estimate of the number of Riksmål speakers. This has until now been difficult to do, as the Nordic departments at our four (real) universities are thoroughly politicized and adhere to the state view that Riksmål at the latest ceased to exist by the parliamentary vote in 1938. Linguists educated after WWII will therefore be under considerable political conformity pressure to ignore Riksmål when they chart Norwegian dialects. For one thing, _all_ of the people having surveyed Norwegian dialects since WWII have been state employed. Official language statistics are useless for clarifying the number of Riksmål users, as they will typically ask "please state which langauge you use" and then provide a choice between "Bokmål" and "Nynorsk" only. Many Riksmål users will then tick "Bokmål".

My best advice to someone who wishes to survey the usage of Riksmål today, will be to travel to its core areas, as outlined under the article proper under "Dialects". Talk to elderly people, younger people will as a rule be ignorant about Riksmål pronounciation and will without exception be unable to write Riksmål.

ALDRI MER 1814!

You're misinterpreting my criticism. The point is that a written standard can't have dialects since dialects are always spoken. The spoken language in this case is Norwegian. This applies equally to all written standards, including nynorsk and bokmål.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And you are - it seems - misinterpreting what a language is. This article is not dealing with merely a written standard, but with a language, Riksmål, which has a written standard and several dialects.

ALDRI MER 1814!

That's a rather odd statement considering that the lead of this article informs the reader that:

Riksmål is an unofficial variant of written Norwegian language...

The text then goes on to repeat this fact several times. I don't know about your interpretation of what "language" means, but here on Wikipedia we don't describe written standards as spoken unless there's a clear case that this is actually a widely-held opinion among people in general and the linguistic community. What are your references? Who made the classification of the various dialect groups? Why should they not be considered dialects of Norwegian just like those spoken by people who use bokmål or nynorsk?

Peter ^Isotalo 06:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

My spoken language is also pretty close to riksmål, but that doesn't make riksmål a dialect, nor do any of the organizations that promote riksmål describe it as such. Riksmålsforbundet: "om offisielt skriftspråk, som kulturspråk, som fellesspråk i de funksjoner hvor et standardisert talespråk er på sin plass" (an official written language, as cultural language, as a common language where a standardized spoken language is appropriate). Det norske akademi: "normering av riksmålet med grunnlag i dets litterære tradisjon og aktuelle bruk i velpleiet, landsgyldig skrift og tale." I would posit that I speak a dialect, but it is not riksmål. You need to either produce reasonable references for this assertion, or it amounts to original research. --Leifern 11:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the removal of the dialect section. The most axcepted view at least is that Riksmål is a written variant of the Norwegian language. If this article is to state otherwise a credible source has to be quoted. I would like to add that the dialect labelled here as "Bergen Riksmål" is viewed as a variant of the common Bergen dialect which is itself a western Norwegian dialect. It am not so sure you will find many people from Bergen (even of those few using Riksmål as a written standard) willing to state that their dialect is anything other than Bergensk. Inge 20:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Surces used

I would like to contest the value of three of the references used in the article. References 1 and 2 are not good sources for an objective description of Riksmål as they are works published by one of the most entrenched sides of the conflict at the very hight of the conflict. They seem to be somewhat arbitrarily placed in the text as well. Exerpts from them could better be used to illustrate what one side of the conflict ment. Source 5 is an essay, not a scholarly work. Several passages in this article are cut and paste exerpts of that essay consisting of the author's personal opinions. From the translations of the terms Riksmål, Landsmål, Nynorsk through the descriptions used to the last sentance "In grief I end here." the text is clearly not an objective description. In addition using so much of this essay in the article could be a copyright violation. Inge 20:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I originally tried to obtain permission from the author, but had a hard time getting in touch with him. Upon phoning the only phone number on the website, a Chinese number, I was told he deceased some time ago and that the website and its contents now belonged to some foundation, but I was not able to find anyone who could answer copyright questions. What do you think - wouldnt the author have welcomed our using this source? Judging from the contents of the source itself, thats my guess though.

ALDRI MER 1814!

The Wikipedia user IngarHolst, presumably the author of source 5, did his last edit on April 21st. Then, on June 3rd, the new user ALDRI MER 1814! appeared, whose username incidentally is a phrase that used to be in Ingar Holst's signature on usenet. On September 5th he claims that he had tried to contact Ingar Holst, but that he reportedly had deceased some time ago. True as this may be, it does not resolve the question about copyright infringement, nor the evident personal POV in the referenced text.

Plutix 08:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I readily confess having borrowed my nick from Holst's usenet signature. I think the slogan "Never again 1814!" is the most concise expression of the tragic fate of Riksmål. It ought to be adopted and widely used by Riksmål users. I am deeply grateful to Holst for his insightful essay. Too bad he's gone.

I also see that you guys have locked the Riksmål article. I am not sure who is doing the vandalism here, but you can surely have this your way.

ALDRI MER 1814!

What we think the copyright holder might feel about us using so much of his text is irrelevant. In my opinion the amount of text from the essay in this article crosses the line of copyright infringement. When we add that the text really isn't suitable for a good wikipedia article on this subject the risk isn't worth taking. Regarding the user name Aldri mer 1814 (Never again/Never more 1814): it might violate a wikipedia policy and should not be encouraged. Inge 21:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The user in question has been blocked indefinetely[1] for repeated vandalism. I think it's high time that the user (under whatever name) start seriously respecting Wikipedia policy and the constructive criticism provided by other users. The conflict here has been going on for over three months and has not gotten the least bit better. Instead, it has escalated into outright vandalism and spread to both my own user page and even Swedish language. Both of them are currently semi-protected.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)