Talk:Du gamla, du fria

message: I found the alternate translation on the main page that ends with "In my own Nordic land, I'll live forever" so bad that I made rhe following translation of my own, and I suggest that it could be used instead:
:1
:You ancient, you free and mountainhigh North
:you - the quiet, you - the j-o-y-f-u-i beauty!
:I greet you, most beautyful land upon earth,
:your sun, your blue sky and green meadows!
:2
:You rest upon memories of great olden days
:When your name flew honored across the earth,
:I know that you are, and will remain what you were,
:I want to live and want to die in the North.
79.138.206.111 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  My translation 

message: I found a recording of this anthem at the cylinder preservation project made by Arvid Asplund in 1905 entitled "Du gamla, du friska". The song is exactly the same except for this "friska". Is it just a missinterpretation by Arvid (since the song was quite new then) or does anyone else have an explantion for this?
here's the link: http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/search.php?queryType=@attr%201=1016&query=swedish&num=1&start=9&sortBy=&sortOrder=ia
johan_h 21:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original word was "friska", I've added that to the article. It should be possible to give a date for the change as well. I might look into that. -- Jao 21:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That recording actually raises big questions about many of the facts usually told about the song. It´s mostly stated that Richard Dybeck changed "fria" to "friska" himself, and that the song got its unofficial status of national anthem as early as in the 1890´s. But here someone found a recording from 1905, with an announcer who clearly states that Arvid Asplund will sing some song called "Du gamla du friska". The "fria" change obviously has happened later! The growth into national anthem status obviously hasn´t happened in 1905 either. Pemer 08:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions raised 

message: I agree that the "poetic" translation is not what should be featured, and the use of "thou" and "thy" is awkward.  I have swapped it for a literal translation and pasted the original here.  I hope I have more accurately translated the lyrics without making it sound awkward in English (disregarding rhyme and metre).
Previous "poetic" translation for reference:
:Thou ancient, thou free, thou mountainous North
:In beauty and peace our hearts beguiling!
:I greet thee, thou loveliest land on the earth
:/:Thy sun, thy skies, thy meadows green:/
:thy rest on the memories of the great days of yore
:When all round the world thine name honoured was 
:I know that you are and you will be as you were
:/:Oh, I would live and I would die in the North:/
:Forever I shall serve thee my beloved country,
:until death I owe thee my fidelity.
:Thy right I will protect with mind and with hand,
:/:thy banner, feats of bravery carry:/
:With God I shall fight, for home and for bliss,
:for Sweden, the dear fatherland.
:For nothing, in the world, I would trade thee.
:/: No, I would live and I would die in the North :/
--Marcoose 19:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not to remain unless the editor who wants to put it there explains his actions, seeing as how we appear to have sort of a consensus. I've reverted. EldKatt (Talk) 15:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Though "Fatherland" is more in line with the nationalist intention of these two verses (the two first verses are not really nationalist at all) it is not an accurate translation of "fosterjord". A literal translation would be "foster soil". It's a reference to the soil, not the nation. (I would prefer "soil" before "earth". Soil is where something grows and fosters. Earth is dirt.) Perhaps you should even spoil the prefix "foster-" alltogether and just translate it to "soil". Additionally, fatherland is "gender-ish", while "fosterjord" is genderless so it would both be more politically correct and accurate not to use "father" (nor "mother"). On the other hand, since the two added verses carry a nationalist agenda and nobody even knows of them, why are they given such a prominent status in the article at all? They should merely be a footnote, if they are significant at all. 195.67.45.178 (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literal Translation 

message: I think that the addition (verses 3 and 4) should be ommitted. Has any living person ever sung them? As is already mentioned in the article, they are not very official. The parodic "Du gamla, du fria, du smällfeta ko..." is of more interest, as it is widely known, and has been since my grandmother was young. Battra 00:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've sung them countless times, and I hope I'm a living person... ;-) Pemer42 (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The addition 

message: The translation as it stands  now is incorrect. "Jag hälsar Dig, vänaste land uppå jord" does NOT mean "I greet You, friendliest land upon earth" but rather "I greet You, most beautiful land upon earth". (This is the adjective "vän" (=beautiful, lovely,..) , not the noun "vän" (=friend).) Battra 00:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The translation 

message: I have honestly only heard "förblir vad du var" when I have heard it or sang it....never heard ""du blir/bliver vad du var"....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.35.152 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone recently changed the lyrics to "förblir", too. I don't want to revert it without having an authoritative source for the correct lyrics, but I pretty firmly believe in the many people saying that "du blir" is correct. The complicating point is of course that "bli(va)" is no longer used in this sense ("remain", the same as German "bleiben") in modern Swedish, and the line makes no sense if you interpret it as "become". The "remain" meaning is still listed without markers of archaism in the 1913 volume of Svenska Akademiens ordbok though, so Dybeck may very well have used it. Still, who has a contemporary source? -- Jao (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note - nothing against the comment above: In Scania (Skåne) many people still use the word "bli" as "remain". I've sometimes heard "Bli där!" which means "Stay there!". The switch of meanings of words raises another interesting question. Should the lyrics of the national anthem be changed to record the shift of meaning, or should one keep an old, archaic, language? If people start using a different wording, which version should be preferred, the common one or the original? To put it short: Languages evolve, should national anthems be allowed to evolve with them? (And if so, should translations also change over time?) 11:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is also a dialectal matter. As for which version of the text should be given, that also depends on whose text you make the reader believe it is. If, in this instance, it's Richard Dybeck's, "förblir" is of course out of place. If you use "förblir", you should also remark that it isn't the "original" text (whatever that can be interpreted as being), but a text "as evolved" (and perhaps just one of several, so some kind of reference(s) would be welcome). 151.177.62.155 (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Another interesting question with anthems, poems etc. in archaic language: should the text (in whatever version) be translated as is, or (with appropriate annotations) as perceived by the average contemporary singer/listener/reader? Who, in this instance, probably interprets vän (something like "lovely" or "likable") as "friendly" and ängder (something like "(rural) vicinities", "climes" etc.) as "meadows"? 151.177.62.155 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Du blir" or "förblir" 

message: "He made the remix of the national anthem" ?? THE remix, heh? In what sense is his remix more noteworthy than any other remix/cover/whatever that's been done? I mean, if I added Pluton Svea to the list, I'm quite sure that would be edited out rather quickly. What's the deal with Basshunter's version? (And in case I'm not being obvious enough: Unless there's something I don't know about Basshunter's remix, I say we remove him from the list) 94.191.173.9 (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I think this is a no-brainer. —JAO • T • C 09:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Basshunter?

message: Is there any particular reason why the exclamation marks are inconsistent in the fourth verse?
/: Nej, jag vill leva jag vill dö i Norden!.:/
/: No, I want to live I want to die in the North.:/
Nirmos (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: I've added a "dubious" to the claim that the composer Edvin Kallstenius "arranged the traditional melody from Västmanland", as our text now claims.  I do not doubt that he made some arrangement of the melody; however, the original melody of the ballad, as published by Dybeck in 1845 (36 years before Kallstenius was born) and reproduced in Sveriges Medeltida Ballader is rather close to the melody that is usually sung today.  Hence, I do not think that Kallstenius' contribution (whatever it was) should be mentioned at the description of the very origins of the anthem, but later.  They also should be sourced. JoergenB (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious tag regarding arrangement

message: The Alternative translation is a rather free translation which diverges fairly much from the Swedish original. The literal translation is fairly accurate, but not the Alternative translation. What's the reason to include it? --BIL (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative translation 

message: I find the Free translation excellent in overall.  But there is one piece in the third verse which is faulty - nice, but faulty:
"𝄆 the glorious ones carry your banner high. 𝄇"  From your originale "Din fana, högt den glädjerika bära".
Shall be sooner something alike as: "[I wish to] Carry hight the glorious banner of Yours"
Because its entirely clear in the verse, "I" am praising the banner, Im NOT praising these whom carry the banner.
There is also one extra complication.  Because there are two versions; in the version here, its glädjerika; literally Joyous of full of joy.
In the other version its "Din fana, högt den bragderika bära".  Bragderika - Literally = Full of achievements.
So, if we dont want to complicate, I think your free translation as Glorious is a nice compromise. /StefanZ, Sweden.90.231.255.39 (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty translation in third verse 

message: The poetic translation was added on 20 January 2020 by an anonymous editor, with this given as the source: https://st-news.com/, which just fills me with question marks.
Random "poetic translations" that aren't appearing in reliable sources are not encyclopedic, so I removed it.2001:240:2406:D21F:D642:3156:5CD4:E207 (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article certainly needs a translation. I see you've been reverted already by another editor. There seems nothing in policy to forbid a plain translation, if need be by an editor; we're talking a short PD text and common knowledge of the Swedish language, which anybody can correct if they see a mistake, so there's frankly no risk of original research here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is my view that all Wikipedia article content should be supported by reliable sources. There is none for this (rather bad) translation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. You are of course entitled to hold any point of view, but that one goes beyond Wikipedia policy even for definite claims, unless those are directly challenged as untrue. But I think that a translation of a short foreign text isn't actually "content" in that sense: no new fact is being claimed at all. Rather, the foreign text is being glossed to assist English-speaking readers, rather in the way that where a source says "Dickens wrote ...", an article might say "Charles Dickens, a Victorian era novelist, wrote...", the explanatory gloss remaining uncited even in Good and Featured Articles. We would cite a translation if we had versions of the Swedish by an English poet and another by a historian, as we'd obviously want to acknowledge their copyright when making fair use of a small sample of their work; but we're not in that situation here. Instead, all we want to do is to convey to readers what the Swedish text is saying, so no, even if we wanted to cite every bit of content, well, that isn't actually "content". By the way, I added a source from a reputable website in an attempt to humour you, and I see it's still there in the article. If you think that a poor translation, there's no reason why you shouldn't replace it with a better gloss of your own on the original. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would never put any kind of text of my own into a Wikipedia article unless it could be supported by a reliable source. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Completely correct for factual claims; completely irrelevant for glosses. And you know exactly what I think of your edit comment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aren't you making that up? Otherwise, please supply a link to a Wikipedia guideline re: "glosses"! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

text: 89.206.112.10 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I seem to be learning something, but that doesn't mean it makes me very happy. It is inconceivable to me that we could be allowed to add any kind of "translation" of our own, no matter how inaccurate, and no matter how unsourced, to any article, simply because other editors can (or obliged to?) improve them when they see them. Is that really (really) what's going on nowadays? What I will agree on is that we have no clear guideline at all re: song translations. What we're saying in this case is "the Swedish lyrics of this song mean this in English" no matter how off base that may be. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "poetic translation" 

message: I removed another one recently. Amateur work. No reliable translator identified. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article certainly needs a translation. I see you've been reverted already by another editor. There seems nothing in policy to forbid a plain translation, if need be by an editor; we're talking a short PD text and common knowledge of the Swedish language, which anybody can correct if they see a mistake, so there's frankly no risk of original research here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is my view that all Wikipedia article content should be supported by reliable sources. There is none for this (rather bad) translation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. You are of course entitled to hold any point of view, but that one goes beyond Wikipedia policy even for definite claims, unless those are directly challenged as untrue. But I think that a translation of a short foreign text isn't actually "content" in that sense: no new fact is being claimed at all. Rather, the foreign text is being glossed to assist English-speaking readers, rather in the way that where a source says "Dickens wrote ...", an article might say "Charles Dickens, a Victorian era novelist, wrote...", the explanatory gloss remaining uncited even in Good and Featured Articles. We would cite a translation if we had versions of the Swedish by an English poet and another by a historian, as we'd obviously want to acknowledge their copyright when making fair use of a small sample of their work; but we're not in that situation here. Instead, all we want to do is to convey to readers what the Swedish text is saying, so no, even if we wanted to cite every bit of content, well, that isn't actually "content". By the way, I added a source from a reputable website in an attempt to humour you, and I see it's still there in the article. If you think that a poor translation, there's no reason why you shouldn't replace it with a better gloss of your own on the original. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would never put any kind of text of my own into a Wikipedia article unless it could be supported by a reliable source. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Completely correct for factual claims; completely irrelevant for glosses. And you know exactly what I think of your edit comment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aren't you making that up? Otherwise, please supply a link to a Wikipedia guideline re: "glosses"! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

text: 89.206.112.10 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I seem to be learning something, but that doesn't mean it makes me very happy. It is inconceivable to me that we could be allowed to add any kind of "translation" of our own, no matter how inaccurate, and no matter how unsourced, to any article, simply because other editors can (or obliged to?) improve them when they see them. Is that really (really) what's going on nowadays? What I will agree on is that we have no clear guideline at all re: song translations. What we're saying in this case is "the Swedish lyrics of this song mean this in English" no matter how off base that may be. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: English translations

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Should that really be on here as part of the lyrics? It wasn't in the original, it was added later. By a different writer no less. I dare estimate 90+% of Swedes doesn't even know a 3rd or 4th even conceptually exists. And seeing how this is not officially recognized by Swedish government as the National Anthem, but instead being there simply because the people wanted it to be so, wouldn't that mean that when a majority doesn't recognize (both as in is unaware of and dismisses it) those additions, it's not part of the song? I've lived in Sweden my entire life, sung the first two verses in school and at events, heard it sung during Swedish holidays and have not a single time even known it was part of it. And when searching for information about it a vast majority is just the two verses, while the few non-blog posts (that I can find at least) which lists the third and fourth verse, notes along the lines of "Louise Ahléns addition is normally not seen as part of the anthem and is therefore rarely sung". And as a small side-note: The source attached to "Swedish Original" (source #7) in the lyrics section, is a written motion in the government suggesting the song listed to be the official one. It's not an official source as to what the lyrics are, seeing how anyone can make a motion but not all of them pass - This one didn't. The person who wrote it even states "... only the first two [verses] are usually considered the Swedish National anthem". Narawa (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that verses 3 and 4 by Louise Ahlén should be removed. They are entirely unknown in Sweden, they lack all official standing, and they were not written by the author of the actual national anthem, i.e., verses 1 and 2. The only place anyone is likely to have come across them is on the English Wikipedia page. They are, tellingly, not included on Swedish Wikipedia. If they are for some reason deemed important, their existence could instead be noted in he text, perhaps with the lyrics placed in a footnote.84.218.18.161 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd and 4th verse