Talk:Du gamla, du fria

Something

I really think we need a major revision of the current translation. I will briefly outline my arguments below.

It's not a free, poetic translation, nor should it (in my opinion) be. As should be obvious from a quick look, there is no rhyme, and only a few lines adhere to metre. Trying to write a poetically good translation is difficult, and inevitably means sacrificing semantic accuracy. Attempts have been made (by anonymous editors) to get satisfactory rhythm (e.g. In beauty and peace our hearts beguiling), but these have completely sacrificed accurate translation. I see no need to go even further along this track.

Another, albeit less important, point is the use of "thou". While it is indeed (on a purely semantic level) the only form that precisely corresponds with Swedish "du", it has a rather formal tone, when used in modern English, that doesn't quite reflect the Swedish text. I think a more thought-for-thought approach (plain and simple "you") benefits a translation of this kind more. Opinions are welcome.

While on this topic, does Wikipedia have any official guidelines regarding translations of poetry? Skimming the history of this page, I feel that such guidelines would be rather helpful, so that everyone can work towards the same goal instead of moving the article back and forth between two camps.

I will probably do some revisions to this page soonish. --EldKatt 1 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)

"thou" [...] has a rather formal tone, when used in modern English, that doesn't quite reflect the Swedish text. I think a more thought-for-thought approach (plain and simple "you") benefits a translation of this kind more. Opinions are welcome.

EK, while I appreciate the constructiveness of your comments, I would not, myself, say that "thou" is out of place in an English-language rendition of the lyrics of a national anthem. Thou, in this context, is not so much "formal" (it is, after all, historically, the INFORMAL second-person singular pronoun!) as... dignified – and therefore entirely appropriate.

Leaving aside the fact that many might think that it would be "over-egging the pudding", the ideal from my point of view would be to have: definitely, a straightforward, "literal" translation; optionally, a "poetic" translation; plus, preferably (from my own wish-to-sing-along point of view!), a "free" metrical (i.e. fitting-the-tune singable) translation. Regarding the last desideratum, I think that Fred-Chess's contribution (below) from the Swedish Institute would be well worth adding to the article. -- Picapica 23:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you are right; "thou" is not formal, but it is (and this is, I suppose, what I intended to say originally) archaic. My objection was based in the notion that the tone of the Swedish text, as I see it, has no particular archaic qualities. When I think about it again, though, it may be that getting the point across that the singular is used is more important in a literal translation (at least one of encyclopedic value) than avoiding an archaic tone. As such, I believe I withdraw my remark.

Out of curiosity, how do you differentiate between your second and third kind of translation? Shouldn't a poetic translation worthy of its name be metrically equivalent to the original (and thus singable)? EldKatt (Talk) 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right: the second kind of translation ("poetic" but unsingable) is eminently dispensable! There are a few horrors of this kind in some of the current national anthem articles, e.g.

Prosper, O country, in harmony unbreakable;

Be forever thyself and never servile,

True to the word that thou shouldst fearlessly declare:

For King, for Freedom, and for Justice.

Lots of "verse-speak": harmony unbreakable, thou shouldst, etc. But impossible, alas, to sing to the tune of the Belgian national anthem! --Picapica 20:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Translation from Swedish Institute: http://www.sweden.se/upload/Sweden_se/english/music/The_Swedish_National_Anthem.pdf

Thou ancient, thou freeborn, thou mountainous North,
In beauty and peace our hearts beguiling,
I greet thee, thou loveliest land on the earth,
Thy sun, thy skies, thy verdant meadows smiling.
Thy sun, thy skies, thy verdant meadows smiling.

Thy throne rests on mem’ries from great days of yore,
When worldwide renown was valour’s guerdon.
I know to thy name thou art true as before.
Oh, I would live and I would die in Sweden,
Oh, I would live and I would die in Sweden.

Fred-Chess 08:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

My translation

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)

- - - -

I made a literal translation of the song's first two verses. Feel free to do whatever you like with it.

You old, you free, you mountainous north, You silent, you joyful beuaty! I greet you, the friendliest land on earth, Your sun, your sky, your meadows green

You throne on memories from ancient grand days when honoured your name flew over the earth I know that you are and remain what you were Yea, I want to live, I want to die in the North

Andelarion 21:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

questions raised

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)

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)

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)

Literal Translation

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)

The only issue I have with this is that a poetic translation close to the old one here is stated here to be the official English translation. I have no idea what they mean by this, as the song isn't even official. It would be nice to know who wrote that version, as it seems quite well done, and is reproduced throughout the web (both in that version, and in the various, obviously obfuscated, versions that have been featured here). However, we can't really have an unsourced poetic translation, that would be (a kind of) original research, or in the worst case a copyvio. And even if that translation were, properly sourced, to be included, I welcome the literal translation to accompany it. -- Jao 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point -- I wondered whether to leave the poetic version above and simply add an additional literal translation. In the end I thought it too confusing and cluttered to have three translations, especially when the poetic and literal don't match particularly well.

I followed your link and agree that there doesn't seem to be much proof of an "official" translation, but it does appear to be a de-facto just like the status of the song itself.

There is a reference to Wikipedia at the bottom of the page that leads here [1], and under Item 1, Subitem 2 it states "2) På susning bestämmer ägaren Lars Aronsson allt (vad som får skrivas, vem som får skriva, etc))" -- Lars Aronsson the site owner decides what goes on the site (what is official??). This doesn't make me too comfortable that the translation given is "official" although it seems well done.

--Marcoose 13:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why was the previous attempt at a literal translation replaced with an attempt at a poetic translation? I feel the translation as of september fifth was getting quite good. Why was it replaced without any discussion? From where does the current translation come? If it is to remain, it should not be labeled a literal translation; it is far from it. --Odie

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)

I would like to voice a slight opposition to the translation "fosterjorden"->"Fatherland". While I do agree that they are of similar meaning, the former, in my interpretation of the word, draws a picture of the area where a person was born, while the latter, in my interpretation of it, has more to do with the nation built by someones ancestors. To me, defending the "fosterjord" is an act of passion, a defense of things you have grown to like because you have lived with them all your life, but defending the "Fatherland" is an act of duty and allegiance to a state, a defence not of what you have experienced, but of the "great things" that other people before you have achieved. Since we're not concerned with meter or rhyme, I believe it would be possible to find a translation that more closely reflects those subtle tones of "fosterjorden", though of course I realise that those tones exist in my opinion but perhaps not in yours. Does anyone agree that there is a slight discrepancy here? Does anyone have suggestions as to a better translation? Does anyone even understand what I'm getting at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.107.201 (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

The addition

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)

I've sung them countless times, and I hope I'm a living person... ;-) Pemer42 (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The translation

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)

The name

Maybe it should at least be mentioned that the title of the anthem is Sång till Norden (song of the North), and that "Du gamla, du fria" is the informal (though de facto) name?

"Song of the North" is not the translation of "". "Song to the North" maybe, but I've never taken "Norden" as the North, but as the Nordic. Chandlertalk 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Norden" is IN FACT "the North." The adjective "Nordic" is "Nordisk" in Swedish. "Song to the Nordic" makes no sense in either Swedish or English.

NO, it's not. "Norden" is the Nordic countries, ie. "jag är i norden" - "I am in the Nordic countries", "Sång till Norden" - "Song to the Nordics" makes complete sense. The group of the Nordic Countries are "Norden". "The north" is either "norr", "norröver" or "norrut". The song was penned during a time of inter-nordic cooperation, and a celebration of the nordic union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.29.1 (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If the name of the song is "Sång till Norden", why isn't the article at this name rather than its incipit? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It can't be called "its name", only the title under which a revision of its lyrics was published some decades before it enjoyed the de facto position of national anthem. It's unlikely that it has ever been published under this name for the last 140 years or so. Please refer to WP:COMMONNAME. Tomas e (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME it is. Norma Jeane Mortenson, Reginald Kenneth Dwight and Allen Stewart Konigsberg are redirects, too. decltype (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed misleading paragraph on introduction

I've deleted the paragraph

"Only the first two verses are normally sung. At international sporting events, often only the first verse is played. Furthermore, many - if not most - instrumental recordings take up time by playing the repeated fourth and fifth strophe of the melody as an "intro" before playing the actual song. This is something that is never done with any other national anthem."

for the following reasons:

• The fact that "only the first two verses are normally sung" is explicitly stated in the lyrics.
• At international sporting events, every national anthem has only its first verse sung. The Swedish one is no exception.
• In the recording to which the page links, the introduction consists of the fourth/fifth line played only once.
• The statement that such introductions are "never done with any other national anthem" is inaccurate as the Swiss anthem, to take but one example, features the same. The practice of using the last line of a song as an instrumental introduction to a choral piece is nothing extraordinary.

JREL (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

More than one verse only is OFTEN played of MANY other national anthems, even very much longer ones than the Swedish one!

Many, if not most, other national anthems also are so much longer, that playing only one verse takes longer than playing the two verses of the Swedish one. Content-wise, the "first verse" of the Swedish one has absolutely no meaning if sung without being followed by "the second verse". It only comprises the introductory greeting to the old and free North, like one simple "Oh Canada", and it is not until in the second verse that the first person in the lyrics starts to actually convey any actual message. Singing the first verse without the second one therefore is about as meaningful and contentful as singing one "Oh Canada" and then stop, or why not just the "Oh, say can you see..." of The Star Spangled Banner and stop there.

That would get us all wonering "Yes? What can we see?" - Just like the old and free north would wonder "Yes, you greeted me, my sun, skies and meadows, did you want to say something too?"

In this sense, I would rather say they simply ARE not [meant to be] two separable verses.

And all this is exactly why it is an unnecessary and wrongful way to play it instrumentally with the last strophe as an intro first, when it steals much of what time could be used to singing the entirety of the anthem instead. It IS the "Ack/ja, jag vill leva, jag vill dö i Norden" that is the finale, not the lame "Din sol, din himmel, dina ängder gröna", which is only marking the end of the first verse building up to the second one. Pemer42 (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Du blir" or "förblir"

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)

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)

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)~

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)

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)

Basshunter?

"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)

Done. I think this is a no-brainer. —JAO • T • C 09:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency

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)

Dubious tag regarding claim of lack of patriotic lyrics

how is it not patriotic?

another minor issue is the line "In instrumental performances, the last line of the melody is often played once first.." - i believe this goes for sung versions as well? k kisses 13:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a celebration of the Pan-Scandinavistic movement at the time, called "Sång till Norden". It was not patriotic as for the nation of Sweden, it was celebrating the entire region of Northern Europe.

Well, when singing it vocally only, we don't really hum the last line as an intro first... Pemer42 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

hm, my gut feeling was that patriotism should encompass "northeners celebrating the north", but wiktionary et al seems to define it as "love for one's country" only, so i guess i'm wrong. however, i also thought "fornstora dar" was a reference to stormaktstiden (when "the north" was more or less swedish)? k kisses 12:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To-day, I think that most Swedes interpret "fornstora dar" ('glorious old days') as referring to Stormaktstiden; however, this was in all probability not Dybeck's intention. I rather suppose that he (like some other Scandinavists) was rather fond of the Viking era, and was referring to that. JoergenB (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dubious tag regarding arrangement

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)

Alternative translation

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)

Faulty translation in third verse

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)StefanZ

Requested move 8 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Du gamla, Du fria → Du gamla, du fria – Per the Swedish Wikipedia and Wikisource, this seems to be the correct capitalisation in Swedish. The Evil IP address (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support for same reason as OP Alázhlis (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed "poetic translation"

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)

English translations

I removed another one recently. Amateur work. No reliable translator identified. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations.
The original text is usually included with the translated text in articles when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited.
Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research.
You may also improve an existing article here with content translated from another Wikipedia. The same conditions regarding acknowledging the source apply as for a full translation.
— WP:NOENG, WP:TRANSCRIPTION and WP:TRANSLATETOHERE

89.206.112.10 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement about what kind of translation can be added):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Du gamla, du fria and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The translations should remain in the article until translations from reliable sources can be found. Per WP:TRANSCRIPTION, translation into English is not WP:OR. Per WP:NOENG: "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." User:SergeWoodzing: Please add independent translations if you can find them. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• National anthem of the Sweden.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

3rd and 4th verse

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)

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)