Talk:Riksmål/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can tags be removed now? 

message: ::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)
thread_title:  Late Night Thoughts on the Rules of Engagement for POV Discussions  

message: 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 --Eivindt@c 02:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Eivindt@c 03:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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!!! --Eivindt@c 01:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Eivindt@c 01:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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. --Eivindt@c 22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --Eivindt@c 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note of removal 

message: *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)
replies: text: Would you be so kind as to explain why? --Eivindt@c 10:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --Eivindt@c 22:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --Eivindt@c 01:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC comments

message: 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)
thread_title: until we dissolve

message: 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)
thread_title:  RFC issue