Talk:Riksmål

RFC comments (2)

Heavens, is this still in need of RfC? I can see from the page history that the only problem this page has is the continuous presence of an abusive POV-pusher and sockpuppeteer. Get rid of him, get rid of the copyvio text and unreliable sources, and start the article back from scratch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm removing a couple of contributions made by "Aldri Mer" under anon IPs in circumvention of his block (archive: [1]). Let's keep this page readable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, and you should be able to verify this if you check the IP range from which I write, my IP range has been the same all through. I do not use this IP range to circumvent anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.84.56.177 (talk • contribs)

As stated by Peter above, your named account was blocked the other day: [2]. Hence, whatever account or IP address you edit now under, you are evading a block. You are no longer allowed to edit, anywhere or anything on Wikipedia, except User talk:ALDRI_MER_1814!. Go away. (Removing rants again). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And just as my outsider's 2c, I'd recommend you guys simply revert the whole article back to the last legitimate version from March, before IngarHolst first laid his hands on it: [3], and then start expanding it again if anyone feels the need. (Although personally I found this slightly earlier revision even more informative: [4]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That sugestion is very good. Inge 12:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The last version you mentioned ([5]) is the one most suitable for expantion in my view as well. Inge 12:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Naa.. for what it is worth I disagree. I think the article as it stands now is okey. Remove a few tags and - voila.

One other thought here - I ask just out of curiousity: How many of of you here - besides myself - speak Riksmål as their mother tongue? I see a lot of glowing hot opinions here from a Swede, from a German, and from other Norwegians claiming _not_ to speak Riksmål. This strikes me as a little odd.

ALDRI MER 1814!

Note: If you mean me, I have not the slightest bit of an opinion about Riksmal. However, I do have strong opinions about letting blocked users edit Wikipedia. I'd strongly recommend to other users not to engage Alrdi Mer in any further debate and simply revert him on sight. He's indef-blocked, exactly so that you guys should be free to tidy up the article without his interference. (Rest of rant reverted again). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[Posting by banned user removed] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a settlement on the major issue at hand

If I see this discussion correctly, what the major disagreement here is all about, is whether Riksmål is either a written standard only, available to speakers from various dialects, or, if it is indeed a subset of Danish and thus constitutes pockets of sharply delimitable spoken dialects in Norway. This entire question may consequently be phrased as "is there such a thing as spoken Riksmål dialects?"

I propose that you ask an umpire, I propose that you ask professor Finn Erik Vinje. Let him settle this one major issue. I will accept whatever he says. If he sides with the rest of you on this one issue, I will not edit this article again. On the other hand, if he should side with my view, that there are spoken dialects in Norway that deserve to be labeled Riksmål dialects, then the subsection on dialects stands and I will continue to contribute to this article.

What do you guys say? I think this is a possible way to proceed. I honestly do not think we will get much further without asking an umpire, and I can accept Professor Vinje. The alternative seems to be a war. War is ugly.

So, what do you all say?

ALDRI MER 1814!

This is not about fighting a war, it's about referencing Wikipedia content with external sources. If Finn Erik Vinje has written a scholarly article documenting several riksmål "dialects," then we can include it. If it's just one person's opinion, it's a lot more doubtful. If it's a controversy, we have to describe the controversy. At the moment, it seems that the organizations who act as stewards of riksmål describe it as a written Norwegian language with elements that can be found in spoken language.

An argument can be made that Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and all the dialects within are really all just one language. Or you can make the argument that there are dozens of distinct languages within the Scandinavian language group. Riksmål is and was defined as a written language.

That some Norwegian dialects bear a close resemblance to "dannet dagligtale" from the late 19th century shouldn't surprise anyone. --Leifern 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[Posting by banned user removed] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those who have argued to revert to the March edition as a new starting point. I think the articles on Riksmål, Bokmål and Nynorsk should be kept short and to the point, and let the article on Norwegian language deal with both common traits and differences between them. Political aspects should probably be discussed mainly in the article on Norwegian language struggle.

If the articles on the language forms were to be expanded, I think they should focus on describing their respective orthographies. Still, the Riksmål article could refer to the article on Bokmål on most issues.

Plutix 19:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The suggestions to revert as far back as March or January seem a bit extreme to me, even if I don't know the finer details of the development of the various forms of written Norwegian. I don't agree that articles have to be that concise as long as the information is correct, neutral and relevant. The historical background is always relevant and doesn't have to redirect the reader to just one article. Some repeptition is unavoidable, though I agree that the consequences of the Black Death don't seem immidiately relevant to Riksmål.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if the Riksmål-movement's fight against radical Bokmål following 1938 was to be described in this article, and not only in the new article on Norwegian language struggle, I think a complete rewrite is necessary, so I still vote in favour of a revert. This could possibly be justified if the Riksmål article went in more detail than the more general articles, though one could argue that it more naturally belongs in articles treating Bokmål, since it was a fight over the official orthography, not over the unofficial standard Riksmål. (As an aside, I find it ironic that the Riksmål movement by now in reality has won the fight over the official orthography, but by still upholding it's own slightly diverging orthographic standard, it has chosen not to claim that victory.)

Prior to 1938 the history of Riksmål is indistinguishable from the history of Bokmål. The only justification I can imagine for treating the pre-1938-history of Riksmål here, would be to present it from another point of view than in other articles, which surely must be against Wikipedia policy.

Plutix 07:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about the history before 1938. I was just trying to make sure that we weren't discarding information contributed by ALDRI MER without considering that it might be useful to make the article more neutral.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No doubt some of the information could be included in the future article, but reverting will produce a neutral and factual article to expand on. The present article will be preserved in the history so we can include information we want to keep from there. I think doing it that way will make things easier. Inge 14:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

References to Riksmål as a spoken language

[Posting by banned user removed] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously irrelevant to the question of Riksmål dialects. It is a known fact that some speakers of conservative Standard Østnorsk refer to their spoken language as Riksmål. I don't know what the scientific literature says about this use of the term Riksmål, but in linguistics the phenomenon would be treated as a question of sociolects.

Plutix 07:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[Posting by banned user removed] Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I regret trying to discuss this with you. I should have kept my mouth shut, you being not only notoriously unconstructive, but also banned because of it. If you can come up with at least one scholary work supporting your view on the ethnicity of Riksmål users, I will reconsider. EOD.

Plutix 09:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

These are just opinion pieces, and not even good ones. Can someone please unprotect this, at least partially, so we can delete the spoken riksmål - sociolects is a separate discussion. --Leifern 09:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The user Aldri mer 1814 has been banned from wikipedia. That applies to any edits made by the person behind that user name. Any contributions by banned users are to be reverted on sight, exept those to the user's talk page. The user has lost the right to contribute to this discussion, the article and the rest of wikipedia and should not be encouraged to continue. The contributions above made after the ban should be removed. The user has to realise he is not welcome any more. When that problem is solved we can move on to the article. Inge 13:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

66.98.131.*

66.98.131.* is blocked user ALDRI MER 1814! Please do not engage him in discussion. Actually, he can be immediately reverted as a banned user trying to get around his block. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

A clean slate

OK, I stuck my neck out and reverted the article. I also reincluded the information on the pre 1938 reforms and some minor stuff. Remember the information in the "old" article is still accessible in the history. I feel the removed information was overall either highly controversial or better suited in other articles. Inge 18:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the tags at the same time as they were there because of the now removed sections. Inge 18:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I had previously corrected some errors in this version and removed some irrelevant and partially erroneous discussion about Nynorsk, but instead of restoring my previous version, I did a new rewrite. Plutix 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

History

I believe that some of the old historic material warranted retention. Please given my attempt to capture that which I thought relevant to the topic a careful review. I'm not interested in rekindling the fire we enjoyed for so long here; but I do believe the fire represents an interesting insight into the emotion that language represents even today. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 07:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please re-add the information you want to be in the article. I think we who are left will be able to reach a good compromise if a disagreement occurs. But my view is that this article does not have the potential to become a long article as most information is better suited in other articles. Inge 09:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the background section is redundant, as it is common Riksmål and Bokmål and already treated elsewhere, but I won't fight to get it removed as long as it is accurate. I do however think it should refrain from characterizing Landsmål/Nynorsk, those issues should be settled in articles on that language. Plutix 09:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Plutix here, that was my first thought when I read the history section. Inge 10:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd offer that Wikipedia:What is a featured article? sets the standards we might want to strive for; one of those standards is that it be comprehensive. Section 1 (b) of the above indicates "Comprehensive means that the article does not neglect major facts and details." Again I'd propose that the historical context of the topic is relevant, as long as it is only a concise summary of the more detailed history elsewhere, links one to that history, and is relevant to understanding the article. Am comfortable with your rewrite, removing the characterization of Landsmål/Nynorsk for now—may want to revisit that discussion later—but for now I'd prefer we build a strong article while sticking with those topics we can reach an easy consensus on. Takk - Williamborg (Bill) 14:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If I was going to make this article a featured article, I would concentrate on describing the language, i.e. its morphology, syntax and vocabulary. I would furthermore describe its differences from written Danish, Bokmål and Norwegian dialects/Nynorsk. But I think that if I ever was doing all this work, I would have done in the article on Bokmål. But most likely, I won't put much effort into it at all. The day I feel like contributing to a featured article on Norwegian language, it will be on that main article. It is symptomatic for articles on Norwegian language that the longest section is on the outer language history that we all feel so passionately about. That's why I think the article on Norwegian language struggle was a good idea: to get the conflict stuff out of the other ones.

BTW, sorry about the deleted reference.

Plutix 17:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Must agree that Norwegian language is the right place for a featured article, not Riksmål. My problem is, I guess, that it is the best standard Im aware of. I'll have to poke around Wikipedia and see where we discuss intermediate articles (never to be featured, but worht making pretty darn good). Regardless, I appreciate the thoughtful & civil responses.

And I am willing to delete the historic material, even though I rather think it adds context to the article, if the three of you advise me you feel strongly. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 17:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide references where possible

In recent edits I noted some of the referenced material became orphaned. Please be careful to neither prune nor misapply references when editing. It's a fairly standard convention (which Wikipedia accepts—well this is Wikipedia, so it is more correct to say many accept) that a reference at the end of a paragraph serves the whole paragraph unless there are internal references. So you can safely leave the reference on a paragraph, even when you delete a sentence somewhere in the paragraph.

Other late night thoughts:

• Given the history of this article, we probably want to strive even harder than usual for a factually accurate article.
• Factually accurate means that assertions in the article are verifiable against reliable sources (peer reviewed or published by credible publishers) and accurately represent accepted knowledge.
• So where possible (which for this topic should be everywhere) major discussions should be supported by external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources).
• We should follow citing sources for guidance on when and how extensively references should be provided
• For footnotes/endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. If you prefer other conventions, I'm flexible—let's discuss.

If you view anything from a better perspective, please educate me. I have enough Norwegian blood that I am occasionally hard headed, but am truly interested in the best Norwegian-topic article we can develop here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Takk - Williamborg (Bill) 17:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Merged with Bokmål

As you can see, I have merged the text from the Riksmål and Dano-Norwegian articles into the Bokmål article and redirected the two former articles there. I figured it was easier to just show how it could be done than to ask for your opinions beforehand. Now that you can see the result, your opinions are greatly appreciated.

The main motivation was to avoid redundancy. The three articles told the same story with just somewhat different emphasis.

Plutix 21:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Fiet Nam, I strongly suggest that you give your reason for resisting the merge. As it stands now, the Riksmål article does not add anything to the Bokmål article. One should always try to resolve disagreements through discussion, not edit wars.

Plutix 10:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

ISO 639-3 mismatch

According to the article, The ISO_639-3 code for Riksmål is "nor", but according to https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/nor "nor" is the code for the norwegian macrolanguage (not specifically Riksmål). 130.238.112.129 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)