Talk:History of Scania

Norse history and culture High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article seems to be in an urgent need of expansion. ~~

Or perhaps better: be merged with the article Scania, which has a lot of history in it. --Vedum (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible to make it the other way round. I mean move the history section (which is rather large) here and replace it with a more condensed one on the Scania page. --Muniswede (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That's perhaps better. I will try doing that. --Vedum (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"apparently forgotten by Vedum"

This sentence was not in the section I yesterday moved here from the Scania article. So it was not "forgotten" be me. I had already forgotten that it had been there. Besides that, I do not really think that this statement by Mr. Krarup is important enough to be in this article. --Vedum (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, Vedum. It was removed by an anonymous user with a tendency to remove any and all references between Scania and Denmark. I didn´t know that at the time. We disagree on the importance, but that´s to be expected with you being Swedish and I being Danish ;)

The article atm. is problematic, particularly due to the whitewashing of the attempted swedification of the population in Scanian, Halland and Blekinge. I´ve noticed swedish editors have a disturbing tendency to remove anything remotely critical of Sweden. Dylansmrjones (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about Mr. Krarup's "proposal" will be moved to the article Søren Krarup as it tells more about him then about Scania itself. --Muniswede (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When was that decision made and by whom? Such changes shouldn't be made without reaching reasonable level of consensus. I object to the removal of the sentence from this article. A deeper treatment on Søren Krarups behaviour can be given in the article on Søren Krarup. It is disturbing that swedish editors seem to believe they have ownership of articles related to Skånelandene, particularly considering your condescending tone in regard to Krarup (no matter how controversial he may be). Dylansmrjones (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Reasonable level of consensus". I think you are the only one who means that this is such an important issue to be mentioned in this article. There was a discussion here Talk:Scania earlier this year. You made a lot of odd statements such as: "the dominating view in Denmark is that Skåneland is Danish in every sense except the legal sense (e.g. Scania, Halland and Blekinge are Danish linguisticly and culturally, but at part of Sweden at the moment)." and "Even on the Danish far left reunification with Skåneland is strongly supported.". This was opposed not only by Swedes, but also by Danes, e.g, User:Saddhiyama. The wars between Denmark and Sweden are over once and for all, and there has been peace and friendship for some 200 years now. Before entering the world of Internet and being a user of Wikipedia I did not even knew that there were such revanchistic opinions at all in Denmark. I am sure that only very, very few Danes even consider the thought of opposing the present borders between our countries. Therefore I mean that this is "non-question" and that such initiatives could be regarded more as jokes and not as serious proposals. --Vedum (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing odd about my statements. I merely told you what the typical view was and supported it with links to sources (Municipalities, mayors and so on). If you need more sources to show you this view in Denmark I can do that. Jesper Klein (famous Danish actor and writer) is wellknown for his views on Scania. The user Saddhiyama is not exactly a lot of opposition, and the user did not counter my sources in any way, nor did you. Apart from that there was zero swedish opposition to my explanation of the Danish view, unless you count yourself multiple times. It looks like you are expecting some sort of warlike state or traditional border revision or something like that. We already established that that was not the case. So why do you keep talking about war and peace and such irrelevant nonsense? We are talking culture here and not soldiers. Your statement Before entering the world of Internet and being a user of Wikipedia I did not even knew that there were such revanchistic opinions at all in Denmark. only shows the great strength of the Internet. The authorities can no longer oppress different opinions. And oppression (Social Fascism) is a major issue in Sweden. You have neither free speech nor free and fair elections. So of course you heard nothing until you get internet access. If you began to study the work of Danish historians you'd see that irridentism in regard to Scania was very prevalent in 1960'es and 1970'es. You'd also notice the discrimination of the Scanian population and the suppression of information on the Swedish genocide against Scanians. You can mean what you want, but our opinions are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a place to spread opinions but a place to post verifiable facts of the encyclopedian kind. I'll grant you that the sentence and its sources are feeling a bit odd in the article atm. But the primary reason for that is our former compromise and many swedish anonymous editors removing contents related to that sentence. It used to be an entire 10-liner paragraph. But then you and your anonymous friends came around and started waging a Nationalist/Imperialist Swedish war. Just take a look on your edits in Danish articles where you are removing all and any sentences mentioning any kind of link to Scania. Like your vandalism of the article on Anholt for an instance. This was fixed later by more capable editors. The sentence is wellsourced, there is lots of evidence for different view in Denmark, and the suppression of information in Sweden do not count as a valid counter-argument. You are engaging in logical fallacies. Stop that. Dylansmrjones (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this on your user page recently- I can repeat i t here: Three years ago Mr. Krarup created a "tempest in a teacup" making claims on Swedish (and German) territory for Denmark. In my opinion this infamous statement should no be in the article History of Scania. It has not "due weight". Wikipedia policy says under "Due and undue weight": Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief. As a matter of fact he soon scaled down his claims after the interview, saying: it was "frugten af en journalists utroværdige vidtløftighed". He was more or less provoced to say what he said. Revanchism in Denmark or irredentism in Scania may exist, but they are so insignificant opinions so they clearly are of "undue weight". --Vedum (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on my talkpage. And reverted your edit. We both have to stop here in order to avoid edit warring. I strongly suggest a non-Scandinavian mediator who can help us find relevant sources for our opposing views and determin whether is has due or undue weight. We strongly disagree obviously and we cannot solve this on our own I'm afraid. Dylansmrjones (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who orignally moved the text about Krarup to the article about him. I also do not think that this sentence should be here. On the Danish Wikipedia this "incident" is described only in the article about Søren Krarup. da:Søren Krarup#Sydslesvig og Skåne. The text there is good and written from a NPOV. Why must there be a "fight" on the English-language wp? --Muniswede (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Muniswede. I actually didn't know there was an article about him in the English wikipedia, nor that the sentence had been moved there. None-the-less it still belongs here as a single sentence and as a larger paragraph in his article, similar to the situation in the Danish wikipedia. Besides that the Danish article on Scania carries an entire paragraph on the incident, but without mentioning Søren Krarup. The article instead goes into details with the polls, and the strong Scanian orientation towards Denmark rather than towards Sweden. I don't see a reason for a fight here. I'm sure we can figure out something reasonable, based on verifiable facts. That is - if we can keep our cool. I'll try to do my best. Dylansmrjones (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Dylansmrjones: You are accusing me of having a "nationalistic agenda". I think it is the other way round. To many Danes (but of course not the majority of them) on the Wikipedia, dealing with the former Danish territories in Sweden, act as there was a still ongoing conflict. They describe the population in Scania as some kind of "Sudentendanes" longing for going "Heim ins Reich" and opressed by the evil Swedes. That is just tireing to read all this nonsense. --Vedum (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Krarup - again

Mr Krarups infamous statement about a "Greater Denmark" is NOT a great case anyhere. It caused some amusement around Christmas 2007 and was soon forgotten. It is really not worth mentioning here, This is his very private thinking, not backed by his own party. If it is must be mentioned, it should be done here: Søren Krarup. And there it is already. Please stop this nonsense - now! --Muniswede (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back on track after a month's absence I am rather distressed to see that the "Krarup incident" is back in the article. This is not noteworthy for several reasons.

1) It was an isolated statement by a person known making startling statements.

2) It was not backed up by his own or other organisations.

3) This is how S.K. himself describes the incident: "Jamen hvad så med Skåne, Halland og Blekinge, spurgte den ihærdige journalist, de har jo også tilhørt Danmark. Det er desværre irrelevant i dag, svarede jeg, for det er fortid og forbi. Ja, men skal vi ikke arbejde på at få dem tilbage, fortsatte den utrættelige Ritzau-mand. Hør, er du ude på at lave en julespøg med mig, spurgte jeg ham." So, Søren Krarup himself called it a "christmas joke" and said that it is "irrelevant today". So the person to blame for this is the "Ritzau man" who provoked him rather than S.K. himself

4) It was acclaimed in the "blogosphere" for a couple of days around Christmas time and then soon forgotten.

It is time to bring this thing down to a reasonable scale. --Vedum (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I hope it will be out of this article once and for all. --Vedum (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"was" vs. "has been"

This seems to be of little significance. But I still think there is a little, but import, difference between the the two expressions.

To me it is much more correct to write "was, for many centuries, marked by the struggle..." than "has, for many centuries, been marked by the struggle..." If we write "has been" it sounds as if the struggle is still going on. And that is just absurd. It ended two centuries ago. Could some native English-speaker comment on that. --Vedum (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your knowledge of history must be very limited, as is your mastery of the English language. Struggle does not mean war. A struggle here should be understood broadly, particularly in a sociocultural and ethnocultural context. Class struggle should be a fairly obvious example of struggle in a meaning that does not necessarily mean war. The mere fact that the Swedish state insisted on having Scanian removed as a language should be evidence enough that a struggle is still carried on at some level. Dylansmrjones (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, there has NOT been any "struggle" (in any sense of that word) between the two kingdoms, Denmark and Sweden, about this territory for about 200 years. But there was a constant struggle (including many wars) for many hundred years before that, even if both countries were in the a personal union (the Kalmar Union) for a long time. The first sentence of this article is about a "struggle" between the states and it has ended once and hopefully for ever. Even if "struggle not necessarily means war" it is means some kind of antagonism. There is really no antagonism between the countries. Since the 19th century there has been a very good cooperation between the countries (Scandinavism, a Scandinavian Monetary Union (1873-1914, long before the Euro project, which both Denmark and Sweden reject) the Nordic Council, &c are examples of that. I think, however, there are very few examples of what you call "sociocultural" or "ethnocultural" struggle. The ethnical and social conditions are very similar in DK and SE. --Vedum (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact the struggle between the countries was not just about this provice. But its geographical position on the peninsula just made it the core of the conflict over the whole Baltic region. I have now made it clear in the lead and added a source (unfotunately not in English). --Muniswede (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Bluetooth already mentionned in a 8th century text ?

Is this sentence from the History of Scania makes sense ?

"Scania was first mentioned in written texts in the 8th century, stating that it was a part of Denmark under Danish king Harald Bluetooth." ... since Harald Bluetooth is probably born c. 935.

When was "Danmark" (Denmark) used first time ?

I may be wrong here, at the border between history and prehistory. But f.i. the larger Jelling Stones states

"Kong Harald bød gøre disse kumler efter Gorm sin fader og efter Thyra sin moder - den Harald, som vandt sig hele Danmark og Norge og gjorde danerne kristne."

Or in English

"King Haraldr ordered this monument made in memory of Gormr, his father, and in memory of Thyrvé, his mother; that Haraldr who won for himself all of Denmark and Norway and made the Danes Christian."

It was risen around 985 AD. Late in the 10th Century.

But article states 8th Century for Scania. That's 200 years before, atleast. And no source. Other stuff are sourcered indirectly (in other articles), but the entire first part (down to mentioning of Jelling Stone calls for better sourcing, I think.

Also - when references are lacking, it tend to be easy to self become "lazy". I've contributed with the 14th Century parts, from Black Death to Eric of Pomerania's founding of Landskrona. I've used other , already sourcered articles (but not added them here), but I would have if it was better sourcered from beginning. I will now go back and add sources for my part. But as stated the prehistory and earliest history needs sources, there are none ! Boeing720 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "333 Årsboken"

Although doubtful/debatable "333Årsboken", it was stated that it could be used if and when an author refers to reliable sources. In this case Wilhelm Moberg puts his entire reputation at stake, if he lies. He tells about a letter written by Gustav II Adolf himself, and found in the Swedish National Archive (Riksarkivet). I think this is a reliable source, in this case. Made my best, in order to use NPOV, by mention the Kalmar War and the fact that the Danish were not better. Boeing720 (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a lot of edits to this article. Could you provide a link to the particular edit where you added this source? --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of cource, at headline "The Renaissance, and time until 1658", second part. Source from

-->Wilhelm Moberg, "Hur historien förfalskas", page 124 of "333 Årsboken", Settern, ISBN 91-7586-384-7, the author describes the contence of a letter from the mentioned king to his cusin Duke Johan, dated 13 February 1612, which the author read at the Swedish National Archive. Moberg died in 1973, 18 years before the printing of this collection ("333Årsboken"), and had no dealings with the publishing foundation<-- end

supports article text

"In the winter of 1612, during a period of two weeks, the Swedish King Gustav II Adolf burned down or otherwise destroy 24 Scanian parishes and most of its population without meeting any enemy troups."

I hope I didn't misunderstood the question. "333Årsboken" was assembled and in 1991 published by "Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid" - who are accused of being separatists and the source hence "doubtful".

Nevertheless the outcome of the :::Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#.22333_.C3.85rsboken.22.2C_assembled_by_a_Scanian_foundation_in_Sweden

gave no consensus, but the user who found use of this book inappropriate then said "it can be used IF the author gives his sources [and that source is reliable]" - which become a rather fair solution, I think. And in the case in Wilhelm Mobergs short chapter (på dansk "Hvordan historien forfalskes" sidene 122-126). Are You interested in the original Swedish text ? Then just mail me, pontus.eriksson4@comhem.se. I've got no scanner but I can photo those 4½ pages, if You'll like Boeing720 (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vilhem Moberg (who spelled his namne with V and not W) was a famous author and debater, but not a professional historian. It is of course O.K. to quote him. But the source given should be his own work and not the so called "333Årsboken". It is more of a pamphlet with a very selected content. --Vedum (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Scania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080408234812/http://www.hist.uu.se/historikermote05/program/Monarki/S46-Olinpaper.pdf to http://www.hist.uu.se/historikermote05/program/Monarki/S46-Olinpaper.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Scania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"After 1720 and the last peace treaty"

The articles says: "The last peace treaty between Sweden and Denmark was signed in the summer of 1720 (in Stockholm), and from that year became Scania a Swedish province". I don't think that the Treaty of Frederiksborg in 1720 was the last peace treaty between Sweden and Denmark. I mean, the Great Northern War was not the last war between Sweden and Denmark. What about the Treaty of Jönköping in 1809, ending the Dano-Swedish War of 1808–09 (probably Denmark's last attempt to regain lost territories)? Perhaps the Treaty of Frederiksborg was the least peace treaty dealing with Scania, but then it has to be clarified. Kindest /EriFr (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]