Talk:Skåneland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Skåneland has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 20, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
September 5, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sweden (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Denmark (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I removed the following statement:

The term is today used almost exclusively by Scanian regionalists as a way to claim a historical continuity of a non-Swedish Scanian identity. This includes claimes of Scanian being a seperate language and demands to grant Scanian official status as a minority language along side other minority languages of Sweden like Tornedal Finnish.

It would be nice to see a source for this. My experience of the term is solely from historical contexts, where the term obviously is used, and ...from my experience... more so than in the context of regionalism, that in the case of Sweden and Scania seems to be led by the Swedish government. :-)
Ruhrjung 17:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

When I Googled for it, I got (like you mentioned) a bunch sites on history and then links like these [1] [2]. It certainly seems to be a popular term by regionalists, and I don't see why the entire paragraph was removed instead of just reworded. Peter Isotalo 08:53, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Well. The paragraph is wrong. The basic assumption behind the paragraph is wrong. Rewording it wouldn't help much, and... besides, the content belongs to an article on Scanian separatists, not here!
I guess you mean that Googling is your source for the claim that the term "today is used almost exclusively by Scanian 'regionalists'" — indeed remarkable and unexpected from someone whom I've considered rather overzealous in his demands for scholarly quotes.
 ;-))
--Johan Magnus 10:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, why don't you produce a non-web related source for it youself, then? If I can't use a googling to support an attempt to make it more NPOV, then you'll have to prove that it's supported by serious sources in the current state. Otherwise you're just reverting basing on your own opinions. Peter Isotalo 11:56, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
I do not produce a source since it's you who need backup.
 :-)
Besides: sv:Weibull (Lauritz or Martin), whom I believe to be the originator of the "modern" use of Skåneland, was hardly a "regionalist" (rather a Scandinavist and anti-nationalist); but to dig up his works, and then find a relevant quote is not made easily.
I hope you googled for http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=terra-scaniae+OR+terrae-scaniae also.
--Johan Magnus 13:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm Swedish and agree with the paragraph. I don't have any sources though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.140.23 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed tag[edit]

After checking up on the term in Nationalencyklopedin and on the Internet I am, if anything, even more convinced of the fact that this article is heavily POV:ed. For one thing, the term "Terra Scania" (actually Terra Scaniæ) is a medieval term used for the landskap (provinces) of Blekinge, Halland and Skåne. The Swedish historian Martin Weibull based his new term Skånelandskapen ("the Skåne provinces", also knownn as "Skåneland") on this old geographic term, though they were not identical. Though he was himself actually a Scandinavist, who believed that describing the history of these provinces under Danish rule was a part of a bigger and more accurate common Scandinavian history, the term seems to have been basically hijacked by Scanian regionalists as way to construct a non-Swedish identity which is altogether a modern concept.

This term did not exist until 1868, when Weibull first used the term in Samlingar till Skånes historia ("Collections of/for the history of Skåne"). When Googling for it today, it is used only in a few historical sites (which are of course in Skåne) and predominantly by Scanian regionalists who range from the mildly excentric to the downright fanatic. In most cases a dichotomoy of fierce Scanian-Swedish rivalry is presented (though of course long since quelled by a brutal Swedish central government) with very tenuous historical support.

There is a dire need for this article to explain that this is not a genuine historical term, but a modern construction and denying the fact that it's used almost exclusively by Scanian regionalists is a very serious violation of NPOV.

Peter Isotalo 14:19, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


As it was phrased there, it would be better to remove it, yes - it's not "used almost exclusively by Scanian regionalists" today. It could probably be reworded to fit the article more, but I don't see the paragraph as strictly necessary... I wouldn't complain if a minor note was made about it, though.

Michael S. Andersen 15:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph hasn't been in the article since April 20?
My experience is that Skåneland for many means "Country of Skåne" as though it was a country of its own, and don't know what the academical (or historical) meaning is.
As you know, we can't draw our own conclusions (Secondary sources). If you suspect only regionalists use the term, back it up. But if you actually want to claim your sources as: "Doing 20 searches on google for the term, 18 were pages of regionalists" then I wouldn't object. --Fred-Chess 20:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Skåne as a seperate country is the very essence of Scanian regionalism, isn't it? As for conclusions based on secondary sources, how about showing some primary sources before protesting extrapolations from secondary sources? This article is in fact completely unreferenced and contains some very obvious errors and completely leaves out the origins of the term; even the misinterpretation of the name is misspelled. The onus of showing proper references lies on whoever wants to support the current state of the article.
Has anyone noticed that all three external links lead to regionalist sites, by the way? And if you take a look at the edit history, you'll notice that Ruhrjung wouldn't even allow the most obvious one to be commented as a regionalist organization [3]. Is that a good indication of this term being especially neutral?
Peter Isotalo 22:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
A reasonable request.
sv:Disussion:Skåneland quoting "Väsk" -- half translated:
[..] The word is actually in NE: Copy from introduction: Skånelandskapen, de skånska landskapen, Skåneland, da. Skåneland(ene), samlingsbenämning på de från Danmark till Sverige 1658 avträdda landskapen Blekinge, Halland och Skåne, ibland även innefattande ön Bornholm --Väsk ✎ 21 juli 2004 kl.12.14 (CEST)
Removing this from article:
By the treaty of Roskilde the Kingdom of Denmark-Norway also ceded the Norwegian province of Bahusia to Sweden. Bahusia was however a historical province of Norway and not part of Denmark proper.
It has nothing to do with Skåneland

Since the use of the Latin term is not something that is actually historical, but rather just a part of Weibull's justification for the term "Skånelandskapen", and just another one of Mic's misconceptions of how to apply the naming policies, I've moved this to the most appropriate term.

Please see the NE article Skånelandskapen for why "terra Scaniæ" is not the appropriate article title. I also suggest comparing Google searches for "Skåneland" and "Skånelandskapen".

Peter Isotalo 13:21, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

<o>I will revert most of your changes. I can see not a single reference from you. --Fred-Chess 13:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC) </o>
Actually I won't. The terms Skånelandskapen is used on historical pages and not on regionalistic. If you yourself don't think that is significant enough to mention, then I won't either. --Fred-Chess 14:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
After checking with NE -- which I don't have available at home -- I see that you are correct in your additions. I will however do more research.
// Fred.

My impression is that Skåneland refers to Skåne, Blekinge and Halland, as a unity, whereas Skånelandskapen refers to them as a collective. IMHO, it does not really matter what term is given in the article as long as the introductory paragraph clarifies the terminology. I would not recommend the term Terra Scania as it is hardly ever used, and its oldest usage seems ambiguous. Mic seems to have had a passion for Latin.--Wiglaf 21:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New material[edit]

Before removing the new historical material, could you please list your arguments here first so that I can respond to them? --Fred-Chess 18:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see some reference to a medieval concept of a Skåneland. As far as I know, the individual provinces were the most relevant administrative provinces at the time, and this new concept of a unified Great-Skåne is a 19th century attempt to construct a historical continuum.
Skånelagen seems to have been relevant to Halland, Blekinge and Skåne, but there needs to be some sort of contemporary medieval reference to a Skåneland with a common idendity (that isn't just a sense of being subjects of the Danish crown) to claim that the term was used in this periodd. And I still must point out that the term "terra Scaniæ" (not Scania) does not seem to be a proper name, but merely a description, like saying "the lands of Bavaria" , which is hinted at in the NE-article since it is not capitalized.
Is this image of Scanians as some sort of supressed ethnic and cultural really accurate? I'm sure there were plenty of Swedish purges of pro-Danish administrators and guerilla fighters, but I don't see how this would have been an ethnic thing. Any rebellious province in this era would receive the same harsh treatment if they showed disloyalty against the central government, and painting the picture of a Swedish-Scanian dichotomy in 17th century Sweden seems like applying 19th century concepts in an anachronistic fashion; the seeds of later nationalism had certainly been planted by this time, but they were not nearly as clearly defined as they would become later.
Peter Isotalo 20:04, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
* I have not found any concrete reference that terra Scaniae was used to reference for all Skånelandskapen. I would however consider it likely that a joint (or common?) term was used to describe the eastern Danish land area, just as we have Jylland and Själland.
According to Ambrius, the term "Skoneland" has been found in Danish formal letters and decrees from before 1658, but was not used in common speech.
* My Latin is not really good. I think -ae in this case indicates genetive? That is: "the lands/areas/countries of Scania".
* The things I wrote were probably a little harsh and one sided. But I am disturbed by the hostile occupation, done for no reason other than a desire to conquer. I assume most Scanians felt the same in 1658. How would you feel if Stockholm was overtaken and you were forced to learn Finnish?
I am having difficulties taking quotes from NF as my material is interweaved there, so I hope you accept reading a few pages and make your own opinion. "Modern history of Skåne" starts on http://runeberg.org/nfce/0699.html This is about "snapphanar" http://runeberg.org/nfcf/0069.html . I know you can distinguish true facts, and all though I know my material isn't NPOV, it isn't complete wrong either. We probably have to give "both" sides (unlike NF) as both are being expressed in Scania.
Also, I find it appropriate to refer to the hostile takeover in 1658 in this article of Skånelandskapen because it was not only Skåne that was taken over, but Skånelandskapen.
* For the last argument, I would reference you to the last paragraph in the first article I gave above. I do hope you read the article in entity even if it is a lot more than just basic references, because I think it will be useful.
Best regards, --Fred-Chess 11:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I would really like to remove the dispute-sign, but there's still the problem of "Terra Scaniæ" being treated as a term actually used in medieval times. It is treated as a proper name, which it does not seem to be. It seems to me to simply have been a pretty vague term that translates to "the country/land of Skåne". Please remove it if you can't find any actual contemporary references to it. Also, this dichotomy of "Scanian" vs "Swedish" still seems over-simplified. Could this somehow be explained in the text?
Peter Isotalo 21:26, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Again, I'd like to see some references to medieval usage of "Terra Scaniæ" as an actual name for the region. This is not just a matter of neutrality.
Peter Isotalo 12:51, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Williamborg[edit]

You write that the neutrality will be contested by those who have a different POV -- well this seems self evident to me?!

I have been writing to the best of my ability. I am fully aware that the article is not NPOV. If you have additional sources (and I know that you are knowledgeable in history) feel free to add material that would balance it out.

You would also benefit from not marking good copyedits as "minor". Regards, --Fred-Chess 10:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have been giving this some thoughts. I think that we should avoid confusing readers. We should instead mention in the article all different POVs for relevant sections, instead of putting on a tag making it seem like the entire article is under question. Unfortunately I don't know which sections are being disputed so I can't do it. I have given a reference to where I have found term "terra Scaniae" mentioned.
--Fred-Chess 12:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unnskyld - no intent to offend. Just trying to stay neutral while doing some copy editing on an interesting article. My changes seemed minor to me - I tried not to change the intent, but simply catch spelling and some minor grammar.
I do think this article has merit - and suspect that the choice of terms is being debated as a much more serious disagreement on the nature of the region as part of Sweden - but am not particularly qualified to join the discussion. The article and the continuing reverts are symptomatic of a real divergence in POVs, which is by itself worthy of a Wiki entry. After work I may come back to it and think about whether I can understand the concerns which make it so controversial. Williamborg 13:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Skåneland/"Terra Scania" is a term with obvious regionalistic overtones. I still haven't gone through all the articles in which it is used, but it seems to be applied though it was perfectly neutral and this is very, very inappropriate. Wikipedia should not pervey terminology which is clearly nonstandard and in itself POV just because it's practical. If it's not used by Swedes in general, this should be stated--Peter Isotalo 17:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) and it should be avoided in other texts.
If you're refering to the "terra Scaniæ" as it is stated in NE, Fred, I wouldn't call it a proper source. It is clearly not a proper name and seems to be more of an extrapolation that Weibull himself has made with no further references. If it's not used in medieval texts as a free-standing name, it should not be capitalized and the text be changed. This might seem a bit petty, but what I've seen so far seems to be unambiguous evidence that the entire concept of Skåneland is nothing but a 19th century invention.
Peter Isotalo 13:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your initiative in all articles.
I do not, however, appreciate that you do not give proper respect to other contributers.
First of all, read the text. Do you think it is fair that I should respond to criticism that is answered in the text? This is a waste of time.
Best regards, --Fred-Chess 15:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My biggest problem was that the issue of the term being a modern conconction stemming from the time when nationalism and scandinavism were at their highest. I moved the paragraph based on the NE article to the intro to make it perfectly obvious. I appreciate that you state your sources, but there's no need to cite each individual paragraph.
I must stress the importance that you use the proper titles for your sources, by the way. Preferably with the ISBN numbers. I'm also a bit sceptical to using other Wikipedia articles (especially anything from the seriously dysfunctional Swedish Wikipedia) as a reference.
And a Scandinavist is as far as I know a person who is devoted to the cause of joining the Scandinavian countries into one, a pretty popular movement in the 19th century.
Peter Isotalo 17:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your points.
I have taken the liberty of re-adding references to each individual paragraph as hidden comments. It is amusing that you often ask for sources, but when exact sources are provided you think it is unecessary. These references are useful for people wanting to check the accuracy of the text. I see not why it should be better for an article not to include them?
But I am actually quite satisfied with how the article looks! I think it looks good.
I just want to point out that the first paragraph, somewhat based on NE, is biased. Just because NE writes something doesn't mean it is the only truth.
--Fred-Chess 09:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How is the intro biased? The term is not generally accepted in Sweden and is quite seldom used. It has no official status and is burdened by Scanian regionalists who love using it in revisionist historical contexts as way to build a Swedish/Scanian dichotomy. The intro merely explains the origins of the term without even mentioning the regionalistic yoke.

As for the sources, adding sources for every paragraph just looks like bad layout and is really not an appropriate way of referencing. Either you make in-text citaitons, notes or you simply skip them altogether. This article is so small that it hardly needs anything but a list of literature. But I consider it completely inappropriate to cite other Wikipedia articles. It is basically no better than referencing hearsay.

Peter Isotalo 14:29, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Do you call that arguments? To me it looks like this " Because I think.. bla bla bla so this is correct" "I think bla bla bla , so this must be correct".
--Fred-Chess 14:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, at least they are proper arguments and deserve to be responded to with more than just incivilities. I'll summarize:
  • How is the intro biased?
  • Stating unreferenced Wikipedia article as sources is pretty much original research. Please remove them. And just like it is bad to have no references at all, it is just as bad to over-reference. Especially with sources that are completely unmerited and inthemselves unreferenced.
Peter Isotalo 21:18, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Ok. I will address the arguments I can find.
#1 The intro is biased because it consideres NE to be = the truth. Since we have other sources, this is not neutral.
#2 Your point is that we should not give references if they are from Swedish wiki? Well, "references" mean to cite reference used in the text, which is what I have done. The validity of those are not my problem.
#3 "It is bad to over-reference" is a non-argument (it is an opinion).
Best regards, and not intending any incivility, --Fred-Chess 21:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. The intro states in a very neutral fashion that Martin Weibull invented the term "Skånelandskapen" in 1868 which has of lately become "Skåneland" and explains his own reasoning for it. I haven't seen you cite anything that actually questions this fact. Does Ambrius say otherwise? If so, cite some passages. I see absolutely no reason to think that NE is biased in this matter.
  2. We do not cite sources that are inherently unreliable. Referencing a Wikiedia article without its own references is completely worthless since it's no better than referencing hearsay; how do we know that whatever is simply not as wildly inaccurate as this article was a few months ago? Wikipedia is simply not a reliable first-hand source of information in these matters.
  3. Since you don't trust me, just have a look at various FAs. They don't reference every paragraph. And what's the point of hammering this "it's just an opinion"-argumentation? I'm trying to tell you it makes the article looks worse, not insult your intelligence.
Peter Isotalo 03:56, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

About Skåneland: The Swedish Academy in their 1719 entry about Skåneland says "Skåneland (består) uti afskillde och nog synlige delar af skog och slättmark. 2RA 1: 4 (1719)." The Academy also has a quote by Carl von Linné (aka Carolus Linnaeus), the Father of Taxonomy, using 'Skåne land.' LINNÉ Sk III (1751). If the use is biased, then maybe he was a closet regionalist too, being born so close to the border in Småland? (He, he, sorry couldn't resist). Here's the link, again,: http://g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob/show.phtml?filenr=1/253/64657.html

Also: Magnus Eriksson corresponded with Pope Benedikt XII in Avignon in 1339, requesting the Pope’s confirmation of his legitimacy as Rex Scaniae. On 28 June 1340 there is supposed to be a signing of a document by Magnus outlining the governance of Skåne, which named which men would escape taxation, making priests free of all duties, giving knights and squires the right to the three-mark fines from their men and making the Arch Bishop free from secular justice, etc. It also supposedly states that nobody may be arrested and carried away from Skåne without conviction. I'm busy with totally unrelated research, so I just don't have time to look for that source material. I think it's possible we might find references to Magnus and his "kingdom" in lit. about Sancta Birgitta too, especially considering how much she hated Magnus Eriksson, even denouncing him as a homosexual. I've skimmed some peer-reviewed publications related to Sancta Birgitta (by Jonsson, Schmid and Brilioth) and they all agree that Birgitta's 'revelation' were aimed at Archbishop Petrus Philippi and the Odgisle Birgeri, who was at the papal court in Avignon for more than 10 years. He became famous for his use of bribery to secure papal authority for King Magnus Eriksson's occupation of Scania. See Ann-Mari Jonsson, ed. Sancta Birgitta: Revelaciones Book III. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1998. ISBN: 9-174-02288-1(p.37). When I have more time I'll definitely put some energy into this. --Pia

SAOB[edit]

While arguing in favor of Skåne vs Scania on another page, I did a search on SAOB. Not having any way of linking to it, I have created the result a sub page to this talk page. It is in Swedish but should be useful for Swedish editors. See Talk:Skåneland/SAOB

Since SAOB has sources that proves that the term was used already in the 1700s I changed the beginning of the origin section to say: "The Swedish term "Skåneland" has been used since atleast the 1700s, but was popularized by the Swedish historian and Scandinavist Martin Weibull in his political appeal Samlingar till Skånes historia in 1868(...)" I don't know if Weibull popularized the term, but we can be sure he didn't invent it, wich the article used to say. /Jiiimbooh 21:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

History in the Making[edit]

Although my interest in Skåneland is indirect, the controversy it generates indicates that there are important historical issues being dealt with here. The very passion of the debate makes it worth the effort – there is history still being made in Skåneland. So, with trepidation but also interest, I have added a few details to the older portions of the history.

In the effort I had the occasion to read some of Vilhelm Moberg’s work. His ability to take what appears to be a critical but balanced view is impressive. His birth in Småland leaves one wondering whether some of his views represent the product of the turmoil in Småland/ Skåneland (well - actually not wondering - he did represent the Småland/ Skåneland smallholder view). It is unfortunate he did not get to complete his history.

If you find the material I’ve added controversial, let’s ‘talk.’

Williamborg 05:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

There is actually another thing I'd like ask your efforts on... This section in the text: In total, the area was invaded by interchanging hostile armies 39 times between 1276 and 1710 come from an unreferenced source on Swedish Wikipedia. I have not wanted to remove it. Can this be attested in your literature, so we can remove the reference to Swedish wikipedia? --Fred-Chess 07:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
I originally left it in the original since I suspect it is essential true, although haven't verified it by counting. I'll delete it, replacing it with a Moberg quote. Williamborg

The discussion of Sawyer's point of view[edit]

In this article there was a certain POV and possibly bogus information, provided by User:Williamborg in the name of Sawyer. Let's have a look at it:

The earliest historians, writing in the 12th and 13th century, believed that the Danish Kingdom had existed since time immemorial, while the kingdoms of Norway and Sweden were formed in the 10th and 11th century, each by consolidation of multiple small kingdoms.

This makes me wonder if it is a correct quote or if Sawyer has actually read Saxo Grammaticus and Snorri Sturluson et al, because it is plain wrong as far as Sweden is concerned. Moreoever, most these sources talk of the founding of Denmark under the legendary king Dan, at a time when Sweden already existed.

Eighth century sources do confirm the existence of Denmark as a kingdom then. Ninth century sources mention the Svear (ancient Swedes) in the Folklands which is essentially the modern Swedish province of Uppland.

I wonder on what grounds User:Williamborg/Sawyer has excluded Tacitus (1st c.), Jordanes (6th c.) and Widsith (7th c.), sources among which Tacitus mentions a Swedish kingdom as early as the 1st century.

According to ninth century Frankish sources, by the early 9th century many of the chieftains in the south of Scandinavia acknowledged Danish kings as their overlords. The west and south coast of modern Sweden was so effectively under Danish control that the area was known as Denmark (literally the frontier of the Danes). In the ninth century, various Svear chieftains gathered tribute in Finland and northern Russia.

Note that Williamborg states that there was a Danish kingdom but also that there were only chieftains in Sweden. Surely, Sawyer is worth being mentioned, but if this information is a correct reflection of that scholar's POVs and hypotheses, they have to be presented as such.--Wiglaf 08:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Alas Wiglaf, I've not been to this article for some time—it not being one of my favorite haunts except for the periodic controversy it generates. Missed your comments until I tried to correlate the references with the text—Sawyer came up unquoted—hence I found your note. I'll grant that Sawyer is at best a derivative source (historians are always so - as is Wikipedia). I'll go back to look at the material you removed and see whether the original quote was accurate (make sure I didn't misquote) and then see if there is a basis for Sawyer's assertion.
I do recognize this is a highly controversial topic with some of Swedish heritage (and some with Swedish/Skåneland heritage) and will attempt to be thoughtful if I elect to restore Sawyer. My goal is not to incite riots—balanced reporting (not uncotroversial—just balanced) is the goal.
Cheers - Williamborg 03:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The deleted material, attributed to Sawyer, was: "The earliest historians, writing in the 12th and 13th century, believed that the Danish Kingdom had existed since time immemorial, while the kingdoms of Norway and Sweden were formed in the 10th and 11th century, each by consolidation of multiple small kingdoms. Eighth century sources do confirm the existence of Denmark as a kingdom then. Ninth century sources mention the Svear (ancient Swedes) in the Folklands which is essentially the modern Swedish province of Uppland. According to ninth century Frankish sources, by the early 9th century many of the chieftains in the south of Scandinavia acknowledged Danish kings as their overlords. The west and south coast of modern Sweden was so effectively under Danish control that the area was known as Denmark (literally the frontier of the Danes). In the ninth century, various Svear chieftains gathered tribute in Finland and northern Russia."[1][2]
  • This does accurately reflect Sawyer's views. I recognize it might in some way be viewed as pejorative to Sweden's heritage—they were not always as large a country as they are today—but I'd mostly read it as a simple commentary that the former borders of Denmark were greater than the current day country, while those of Sweden were smaller than the current day country. If one still feels nationalistic pride in a global age, this should actually speak well for Sweden's prowess.
  • As one might expect of a historian, Sawyer spent extensive time reviewing primary sources. Sawyer preferred sources contemporaneous with the arguably less reliable Saxo Grammaticus and Snorri Sturluson (one need only read Saxo to understand why one might question his reliability - are we to believe, for example, that the Norse god Woden truly dwelt at Upsala?). Sawyer devotes a chapter to discuss verification of Snorri's and Saxo's assertions in primary documents of the era—ninth & tenth century Frankia, England, Islamic texts, Byzantine texts, Russian texts, etc. Sawyer states: "The early development of the Swedish kingdom is very obscure. Accounts written in the 13th century and later treat 11th century Sweden as a single kingdom in which the Svear of Mälardalen were united with the Götar in acknowledging the Uppsala king. But this is certainly an over-simplificaiton. The Götar were themselves divided into the Västgötar and the Östgötar by Vättern and as late as 1018 Pope Gregory VII addressed letters to two separate kings of the ‘Visigoths’, by which he probably meant the Götar."[3]
  • So I suspect Sawyer’s assertions are not completely casual, even if they don’t match what you learned in school.
  • It might be worth remembering Moberg’s comment: “In 1866 the Swedish Government appointed a commission to draw up directives for the contents of history books. Such text books should breath a ‘patriotic spirit’ and foster ‘national political awareness.’” He went on to suggest four traits dominated older “national Swedish histories: 1. ultra-royalism, 2. ultra-patriotism, 3. ultra-heroism & 4. historical casuistry.”
  • Of course this is true of almost any nation's history.
  • Regardless, at my leisure I'll study these works more carefully and attempt to paraphrase Sawyer into a less controversial variation since this article seems to generate endless controversy and I certainly want to add only controversy which is consistent with a reasonably accurate representation of someone else’s views if I don’t know the material from first-hand experience (& I know very little historical material from first hand experience but it increases every day).
Cheers - Williamborg 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • ^ Medieval Scandinavia, by Bridget and Peter Sawyer, University of Minnesota Press, 1993.
    • ^ Kings and Vikings, by P.H. Sawyer, Routledge, 1982.
    • ^ Kings and Vikings, by P.H. Sawyer, Routledge, 1982, page 9

    Terra Scania[edit]

    I'm currently changing links from Terra Scania to "Scanian lands". As P.I. pointed out, Terra Scania is an incorrect form -- it has to be Terra Scaniae to be correct, and in those cases, "Scanian lands" is a direct translation. // Fred-Chess 13:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

    Good initiative!
    --Ruhrjung 13:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you. And welcome back to Wikipedia! // Fred-Chess 13:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    The direct translation is "Land of Scania" (note the singular). "Scaniae" is a genitive form of "Scania", not an adjective. I don't actually know what the proper adjective form of "Scania" would be, but I'm gonna guess "scanica".
    Peter Isotalo 03:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    I actually just want a geographical name for the area. What about Scanian provinces or Scanian land? In historical articles such as Scanian War a better name is needed then the "invented" term Skåneland. Currently, "Terra Scania" is the most used term in such articles, which is (as you pointed out) not correct to begin with. "Terra Scaniae" is maybe correct, but it is Latin. So give your suggestion.... you can also see this section of my talk page: User_talk:Fred_chessplayer#Scania.
    I just don't know. "Terra Scania" is only barely used in English and the usage of it in Swedish is... well... somewhat dubious. I'm not going to lean either way, except that if we go for anything other than "Skåneland", then it'll have to be the Latin term (without a capital "t"), because "Terra Scania" is just a faux representation of something that wasn't even a proper name to begin with. At least that's how I've understood it.
    Peter Isotalo 19:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

    Neutrality[edit]

    It seems to me that this article is written from a "Skåneland regionalist separatist" bias; given that such views are held only by a very small minority of people of Scanian origin (I am an expatriate member of the latter), this article can hardly be deemed neutral, and can perhaps even be misleading for people unacquainted with the subject matter. (added on 09:58, 17 April 2006 by User:Mostergr)

    As a general rule, we'd appreciate if you'd sign your work. It's easy—just add four ~ in a row and save—it automatically signs your comments.
    The article may show a "Skåneland regionalist separatist" bias. But I found that the section which reads, “Official status — The term is not used in official contexts and is seldom used by Swedes, though being more popular within the region itself and with many regionalists and in the context of advocating Skåneland as an independent republic.” is rather clear to most of us non-Swedes. The history makes the context for the disagreement clear.
    To achieve a "neutral" point of view, articles don't have to be (shouldn't be) neutered by removing all controversy; neutrality can be acheived by counterpoint. Since you are an expatriate of the area, I suggest it would be very constructive if you could develop a few counterpoint comments so that we might provide a point of view you judge represents both sides of the controversy accurately. If you're not comfortable putting new text in the main article, add it here and we'll help you refine it.
    Cheers - Williamborg 03:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    Note that I revised the article in an attempt to reach a more balanced content. But any suggestions for improvement are always welcome. Williamborg 04:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

    Understood, and thanks Williamborg. There is an online Skånsk history book for Swedish schools now, funded by Skånes kulturförvaltning, called Terra Scaniae, aiming to support teachers in protecting and sharing the cultural heritage of Skåne with younger students. It's in Swedish, but you can check it out the English description of it here: http://www.ts.skane.se/o.o.i.s/809 . I also wanted to point to http://www.hum.ku.dk/ami/am28.html and the Codex runicus, a vellum manuscript dating from c. 1300, for those who are interested in cutting their teeth on runes by reading Skånelagen in runic form.

        Best wishes, Pia 
    

    So might makes right? Do you mean to say that all articles on regions should be required to take a "centralists" stance to be considered neutral, at the expense of local voices of discontent with the centralizing force, or does this apply only to Skåne? If so, why? Perhaps you consider it crucial that no accounts highlighting the fact that the original "centralizing force" in Skåne's case was historically an uninvited, violent and unwelcome invading force? This is about a region. In my opinion, "regionalistic overtones" are far more appropriate here than "non-regional overtones" . If that seems like a strange opinion, please consider sharing your argument against "regionalism" with the local writers contributing to articles on Wales (who are not shy about pointing out what they consider "anti-Welsh" and "Welsh-bashing"), South Africa, Tunisia, etc, or writers of articles about any former colonies of for example the British Empire, and you will perhaps be better able to absorb the full impact of a universal request for a "centralist" approach. (added on 17:46, 26 April 2006 by 71.106.239.124)by Pia

    GA- nomination[edit]

    Seems familiar this 8).Gnangarra

    I ve been reading its also interesting one small point these two Govenor Generals

    • Carl Gustaf Skytte (1716-1719)
    • Carl Gustaf Hård (1717-1719)

    The date overlaps are disturbing has anybody check to confirm they are right. maybe a quick comment to clarify might be of some use.

    Also you talk about pre 1658 when the area was part of Denmark, wouldn't a list of kings prior etc also be pertinant.

    I'll leave the nomination open for a week if the dates can be fixed/explained quickly I'll promote. The list is something that can be considered and discussed later I wont hold GA promotion up because of this Gnangarra 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

    I'm doing some research into the governor generals. It appears there was one Governor General of the Scanian Lands (Skåneland), and one just for Scania. I'll investigate some more. / Fred-Chess 16:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    Ok I have rewritten the section. / Fred-Chess 17:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    Well done with the quick response I have promoted the Article, Well done to all have contributed to this article Gnangarra 04:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

    Treaty of Roskilde[edit]

    Couldn't the following sentence be a little bit confusing: "As a result, in the Treaty of Roskilde (1658) Denmark ceded the provinces of Skåne, Blekinge and Halland (i.e., Skåneland)". It did actually also mean that Trøndelag, Bohuslän and Bornholm were ceded to Sweden. Might be particularly confusing since Bohuslän is mentioned earlier in the text. --Warfvinge 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

    Removed picture[edit]

    I took the libery of removing the picture supposedly showing Lund Cathedral "ravaged by the war of 1676". This since a) the cathedral was not ravaged by the war, at least not to that extent b) the picture did not show the cathedral but an ex-monastry ("Allhelgonaklostret") located a bit north of the town centre, which was a ruin already long before the war since it had been shut down by the Danish Protestant Reformation in the early 16th centure and after that used as a local source of building material. /FredrikT 13:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks FredrikT. You are right. The perspective and lack of detail is deceptive, as it is the only church in the illustration, but after your message I have looked again at the battle line in other drawings from this period, and I definitely agree with you that this one must be meant to illustrate the Helne Church at the ex-monastry. The Swedish Church website states that all churches except St. Peters Cloister Church and Lunds Domkyrka had already been torn during the 16th century, so I assumed that the corner image of the city and church in this large illustration was meant to show Lund Cathedral. I must add that even if Lund Cathedral was not as badly damaged in 1676 as it was in the Swedish attack in 1644, and even though it made it through the Danish attack in 1678 when a large portion of the city was burnt to the ground, I think it may be hard to pinpoint exactly what and how much damage was done to it each time during the repeated lootings and attacks during this period, at least without neutral illustrations (with neutral, I mean illustrations not created to glorify one of the two warring sides). It doesn't help, of course, that the entire church archive was removed and transported to Stockholm in 1683, and destroyed there in the 1697 fire. Since the dating of this image is unsure as well, even though it has been determined to be an illustration of the battle in 1676 by the archivers, I agree with your move to delete it. I'll search the files for some other illustration of the architectural damage and human losses caused by this long tug of war over Scania. Thank you so much for pointing this out and for your kind message. Pia 23:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    You're welcome! And by the way - nice to find another ex-student of Lund University here! /FredrikT 15:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

    Name change to "Scania (historical region)"?[edit]

    No one seems too enamo(u)red with either the current name of this article, Skåneland, or with Terra Scania, so what about changing to a form that is used in several other similar situations in Europe, namely Scania (historical region)? Other regions using this form are West Friesland (historical region), Maramureş historical region, and Castile (historical region) (also cf. Ostrobothnia (historical province)).

    Scania is seemingly the most common name used in English for the historical region and this title would disambiguate it form the modern region, Scania, without original research names like "Scanian lands."

    Please discuss. -  AjaxSmack  00:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    I support the format Scania (historical region). I think this is the best solution for English Wikipedia under the circumstances, as Scania appears to be name used for both the modern entity in recent English-language media and scholarship, and for the larger, historic entity, especially as it relates to the early medieval period. Pia 01:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    My friends, beware of these things. Of making name changes there is no end, and much disputation is a weariness of the flesh. If you'll forgive my abusing Ecclesiastes 12:9-12.
    Naming disputes have gone on within Wiki-Sweden for some time. The more pedantic, academic sounding Latinate form for Swedish names once prevailed in English-language Wiki-articles on Sweden. I'm pleased to see that this form (rarely used in English) has almost died out.
    There once were lovely, vigorous debates in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Swedish) namespace, which I see is now kept only for historic interest. The proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) has replaced it. That proposed policy suggests:

    ”When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. … If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these apply, the modern official name or the modern local historical name should be used, respectively.”

    I researched my histories of Sweden & Scandinavia for precedents in discussions of the relevant historic period(s) to identify the widely accepted historical English name. Here are the results:
    Title Usage
    Adamson, Hans Christian (1958). Admiral Thunderbolt. Chilton Company. none.  Skaane
    Andersson, Ingvar (1956). A History of Sweden. Praegger.  Skåne
    Barton, H. Arnold (1986). Scandinavia in the Revolutionary Era. University of Minnesota Press. 0-8166-1393-1.  Skåne
    Derry, T.K. (1979). A History of Scandanavia. University of Minnesota Press.  Skåne
    Fullerton, Brian and Williams, Alan F. (1972). Scandanavia: An Introductory Geography. Praeger Publishers. ISBN none.  Skäne (yes Skäne)
    Gjerset, Knut (1915). History of the Norwegian People, Volumes I & II. The MacMillan Company. ISBN none.  Skåne
    Griffiths, Tony (2004). Scandinavia; at War with Trolls. Griffiths, Palgrave MacMillan. ISBN 1-4049-6776-8.  not found in any form except hyphenated corporate name
    Gutkind, E.A. (1965). Urban Development in the Alpine and Scandinavian Countries. The Free Press, New York. ISBN none.  Skåne
    Hovde, B.J. (1948). The Scandinavian Countries; 1720—1865. Cornell University Press. ISBN none.  Skåne
    Jesperson, Leon (Ed.) (2000). A Revolution from Above? The Power State of 16th and 17th Century Scandinavia. Odense University Press. 87-7838-407-9.  Scania & Skåne (differs from one article to another)
    Jones, Gwen (1984). A History of the Vikings. Oxford University Press.  Skåne
    Kirby, David (1990). Northern Europe in the Early Modern Period: The Baltic World 1492—1772. Longman, London. ISBN 0-582-00410-1.  Skåne
    Larson, Karen (1948). A History of Norway. Princeton University Press. ISBN none.  Skaane
    Lisk, Jill (1967). The Struggle for Supremacy in the Baltic: 1600-1725. Funk & Wagnalls, New York. none.  Skåne (& uses term Scanian War)
    Moberg, Vilhelm (translation by Austin, Paul B.) (1971). A History of the Swedish People, Volume II (Min Svenska Historia II). University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-4657-0.  Skane
    Nordstrom, Byron J. (2000). Scandinavia Since 1500. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-2099-7.  Skåne
    Sawyer, Bridget and Peter (1993). Medieval Scandinavia. ISBN 0-9166-1739-2.  Text "University of Minnesota Press" ignored (help) Skåne
    Sawyer, P.H. (1982). Kings and Vikings. Routledge.  Skåne
    Scott, Franklin D. (1988). Sweden; the Nation's History. Southern Illinois Press. ISBN none.  Skåne
    Scott, Franklin D. (1975). Scandanavia. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-79000-6.  Skåne
    Sømme. Axel (Ed.) (1961). The Geography of Norden. Heinemann. ISBN none.  Skåne
    Stiles, Andrina (1992). Sweden and the Baltic, 1523 - 1721. Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 0-340-54644-1.  Skåne
    Toyne, S.M. (1996 (reprint of 1948 edition)). The Scandinavians in History. Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-7607-0082-6.  Check date values in: |date= (help) Skane
    Since Skaane, Skane & Skåne are essentially equivalent, and since Skåne clearly dominates the common English usage, I believe that a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for the place, and that is Skåne. I would suggest you should use Skåne (historical region) if you think that is relevant—but recognize that some of the current Skåneland article deals with modern issues.
    Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 05:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    Should you decide to move the article, and I'm not fully convinced it must be moved, I'd caution you to be careful to retain the history and discussions. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 05:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    Williamsburg. It's good to see you here. It seemed hard to me at first to give up on Skåneland simply because it was such a miserable struggle to even get it accepted by some people here--before you came and put in the sources and the time and effort spent on diplomacy. But I think it is time to move on to Scania (historic region) in order to make this a stable article, because even though it is easy to find English speaking people who use Skåne, you will have a hard time locating the name Skåneland in English texts. Scania is used for both. Notice that a lot of the Norse or Viking era Scania is the domain of British and Danish scholars. And they do primarily use Scania, not Skåne. (See for example Pamela Nightingale's article in The Journal of Economic History, "The Evolution of Weight-Standards in the Creation of New Monetary and Commercial Links in Northern Europe from the Tenth Century to the Twelfth Century". She writes, p.197:" Cnut introduced the same new weight-standard into the coinage of Scania and eastern Denmark, the most prosperous part of his Scandinavian possessions, at the same date (c. 1026) as he changed the weight-standard of the English coinage.", p. 199: "The political ties with Denmark are explanation enough of the simultaneous introduction of the new standard there, but its limitation to Scania and the Baltic islands suggests that that area's trading links with England counted more than mere political ties." (Footnote: J.C. Becker (1981). The Coinages of Harthacnut and Maagnus the Good at Lund, c. 1040-6, Studies in Northern Coinages of the Eleventh Century, ed. Becker (Copenhagen 1981), pp. 120-1.) Notice also that Danish authors and translators never seem to insist on Skåne. As a matter of fact, Danish scholars and authorities have always been very accommodating in allowing English names when their regions and cities are mentioned in English translations, from Hamlet onwards. However, it is only recently that Swedish dissertations in general use Scania. (See below). There was a long, long discussion stretching over a couple of weeks, before the changing from Skåne to Scania. See the talk page here. I'll repeat my stuff: Checking English usage, I found about 1,000 pages or so of English titles using Skåne in combination with Scania or Scanian, but very few using Skåne alone, with no mention of Scania or Scanian (only 2 actually). Books that use Skåne often explain in the beginning that it is the equivalent of Scania. An unrestricted search for English-language books using the name "Scania" produced 11,100 pages of titles through the university search engine (I also did a quick double-take at home with Google scholar's book search, because I didn't print out anything from the "Skåne" list, just the "Scania" list..it confirmed that there are a lot more published about Scania than there is about Skåne.) I put a random sample of the titles in my sandbox: User:Pia_L/sandbox2. I'm feeling pretty tired of this now, but I will run the search again on Monday to make sure. Also: if you check the most recent dissertations presented about Scanian subjects, you'll notice that almost all the scholars use "Scania" in their abstracts, only a few abstracts have "Skåne" parenthesis Scania, and only three use Skåne alone, namely [4], [5] and [6]. The list of examples of Scania include, among others,: [7],[8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [[13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] (uses Skåne (Scania)), [30], [31],[32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. I also ran a Lexis Nexis search, but I was unable to find a single English speaking media outlet using Skåne. I had more luck with a Google news search: it reveled this source as a "Skåne" user: The Local, from Stockholm, Sweden. "Scania" is used by: The BBC [38], [39], The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec)(Nov. 25, 2000, Pg. G3, HEADLINE: Opening Sweden's deep south: People of the Scania region boast they enjoy life more than other Swedes.), Financial Times (London,England, Jun. 13, 1991, Pg. 32 HEADLINE: Oresund 2; Business city planned near Copenhagen - Denmark), NORDIC BUSINESS REPORT (Sep. 13, 2001, HEADLINE: Danes still interested in moving to Sweden - report. BODY: "There were reportedly 801 Danes who moved from Denmark to the Scania region of Sweden between January and June this year", and Aug. 16, 2001, HEADLINE: Possible progress in Oresund tax rules soon, and August 15, 2001, HEADLINE: Garbage target for Swedish thieves. BODY: The large refuse collection companies in the Scania region.." ), The Times (London, Aug. 20, 2001, HEADLINE: Bridge of size opens economic laboratory, BODY: Scania's so-called Medicon Valley attracted investment of $ 800 million between 1997 and 1999, with up to ten big new companies moving into the region each year.) The Economist(Oct. 3, 1987, SECTION: World politics and current affairs; EUROPE; Pg. 50 (U.K. Edition Pg. 50) HEADLINE: A bridge too far, BODY: "IN SCANIA, the southern province of Sweden,.."), PAP News Wire(Dec. 03, 1997 and January 25, 1997, SECTION: NEWS, HEADLINE: SWEDISH SCANIA COUNTY TO JOIN POMERANIA EUROREGION.) Best wishes. Pia 15:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah Pia, it is always a pleasure to read your lovely, well-composed writing.
    • For me, Skåneland is a strange attractor. I was invited to comment by  AjaxSmack  & to my chagrin, couldn’t resist—this is an old discussion that we resurrect—guess I couldn’t resist doing it again.
    • The use of Latin terms like Scania (& Jemtia & Bohusia & …) is most common among people educated in Sweden who write in English (and most common in their scholarly texts). I think it may be a vestige of the requirement that one must be proficient in Latin in the mediaeval and post-mediaeval periods to be considered educated.
    • When I first joined the Wikipedia, the vast majority of Swedish articles used Latin names. After making a few comments like the one above, I took a Wikibreak from Oct—December, 2005. Upon returning, I found the Swedish articles had all been converted to the vulgate forms. If I recall correctly (& since my son & daughter-in-law will arrive in ½ hour for a several day visit, I’m relying on my flimsy memory) the consensus was that we ought to use the form most common in English language publications about Sweden by folks whose native language was English.
    • I rather liked the change (I’d never in 100 years have looked for Jämtland under Jemtia or Bohuslän under Bohusia). The only outlier left is Skåne which used to be Skåne but has now gone the other way to become Scania.
    • I’d predict we will hunt back and forth between the Latin & vulgar names many times as new editors join.
    • In one sense it doesn’t matter a great deal which we use in the article, as long as we have a logic for our use & are consistent; Wikipedia is a relational database & can link either way equally easily.
    • But I do like the standard that it actually be the most commonly used form by English language authors. This is because that is where those who speak only English are most likely to find it that way, and because we are not changing the accepted usage by the substantial influence Wikipedia.
    • But you may be correct. The naming in English may be migrating & my examples may be outdated. Amusingly, I'd argue, the recent migration may be due to the influence of Wikipedia; I note that material that I contributed to Wikipedia articles is starting to show up in guide books; why wouldn't name usage in Economist articles be influenced by Wikipedia?
    • Regardless, I'll consider your examples above more carefully when I get some free time. And I'll get out of my personal library into the university library to see what is used by the modern world.
    • Since it is a good article, I'd much rather we now work to upgrade it to a featured article than debate the name. I’d be willing to pitch in if someone wants to critique it & identify what needs to be upgraded. As far as Swedish naming conventions go, I rather hold with Chief Joseph, “From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.” I will support whatever the other authors for this article prefer with no reservation.
    • Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 21:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    I admit that some of the Latin derived names for Swedish regions are a little comical but it's tiring to hear similiarities of English names with Latin as a constant put-down (this is especially common with Polish and South Slavic regions). Should English change its names for Russia, Africa, Albania, America, Belgium, Slovenia, Georgia, &c. simply because they happen to correspond to a Latin form? It's almost as ludicrous as saying Swedish should change most of its exonyms because they're the same as Danish. In English, the -ia or -a endings for toponyms did derive indirectly from Latin but they have been in the language so long as to be considered natural. (Witness creation of new names of English speaking countries such as Tanzania, Nigeria, Zambia, or Malaysia or sub-national entities like Appalachia, Scillonia, or Acadiana) French uses -ie or -e and German -ien or -en which are only slight differences from Latin yet somehow these forms escape the tarnish of Latin by association. Latin has ceased to be language of direct importance in the English speaking world for some time and any toponyms that are coincidental with Latin but are used in English can safely be considered pure English. Angermannia, Gestricia and Westrogothia are clear Latin anachronisms and Dalecarlia less so, but Scania is another case. Solely for comparison, cf. other wiki versions Catalan (ca:Escània), German (de:Schonen), Spanish (es:Escania), French (fr:Scanie), Italian (it:Scania (provincia)), Polish (pl:Skania), Lithuanian (lt:Skonė), and even Anglo-Saxon (ang:Scōnīeg). —  AjaxSmack  22:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    I favor "Scania" (or Terra Scania -derivation, but that's not easy) instead of Skåneland. And, to reply to some comment above, this is not same issue as replacing Ångermanland with Angermannia. Scania and even its derivatives have been and ARE is much more common use in English-language literature. I know that Scania is used in secondary and tertiary sources in English. (Moreover, it helps to avoid that å - actually, I have the letter in my keyboard, but I do not want to give it any privilege over all those ü, Ø, æ, or Ł. We should preferably keep this written in a way that English-users are able to write it easily.) My only small reservation os whether Scania connotates too much to the biggest province, Skåne, of those three - but my observations speak hat Scania is much used of the whole bunch (to mollify that reservtion, Terra Scania derivation would be precise, but alas, such is not well-established in English, as opposite to in Latin texts). So, wlcome to move this to Scania (historical region), as far as I am concerned. Suedois 16:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    I am deeply skeptical to using the name "Scania" for the article, mostly because it's extremely confusing for anyone without knowledge of the subject. It also makes it that much more difficult to keep the Great Scanian regionalists at bay since the two terms are blurred. I am even more skeptical to calling it "Skåne" (or worse yet, "Skaane"). "Scania (historical region)" has to be the worst suggestion, though, since the province of Scania is mostly historical as well, even if it might be a more recent concept.
    Peter Isotalo 15:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Name change to "Scania (historical region)"? - I say NO.

    Scania is in herself a historical region, or historical province if you may. Skåneland is equivalent, as far as I know, to the combined territories of three historical regions of Sweden, the three which used to be part of Denmark: Scania, Halland and Blekinge. To call Skåneland "Scania (historical region)" would be highly confusing.

    I concur that the name Skåneland does not agree very well with the English way of pronouncing things, especially since the letter Å is unknown to most English speaking people. OTOH, I can't see any established English name form for this territory (like there is one for Scania). Maybe, but just maybe, the term "Scanian lands" could be used. John Anderson 23:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    Skåneland as name justified to one section[edit]

    I read the current article through, and observed that there, scattered everywhere, is sentences trying just to justify the term "Skåneland", and not dealing with the region itself in an objective way. My opinion is that the Skåneland term will have an own section, and all those justifiction-oriented details will go there. And other sections will then deal, without that POV, one with political history of the actual Terra Scania, one with its current life, one with sme other aspect of its history, and so forth. I do not condone an article which seems to have a message of justifying its (current) title, and nothing more substantial. And I am sure there are much things to mae this a more substantial article. Suedois 21:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    I agree. The article seems more concerned with regionalism and links with Denmark rather than focusing on the region as such. As Skåneland is mainly used by regionalists, this might be fitting, though.KarlXII 15:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

    The term "Skåneland" has two uses.

    • As a historical (16th century) Danish name for its eastern provinces.
    • Today, however, it is really mainly (only?) used by fringe Scanian separatists/regionalists.

    While the first use of the term is covered quite well, the second, today more common, association of the term is not very well described in the article (other than a short and not very clear mention in the 'Official status' section). I suggest describing this more clearly in the article and adding links to the various groups which advocate the term Skåneland (for example, it is the association Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid (SSF) which 'represents' Scania in the UNPO (which has nothing to do with the UN).KarlXII 13:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    I agree. This article is about to "create" some kind of "country" which does not exist. "Skåneland" consists of three provinces in southern Sweden, which in 1658 were ceded from the Danish crown to the Swedish crown. That's it! During the almost 350 years which have elapsed since that time the provinces have been fully and totally integrated into Sweden. They are as much Swedish as any other of the provinces of this country. The subject is almost not debated at all in Sweden, but the "fringe groups" are setting the standards. They could say and write whatever they want, and nobody cares. They are formulating a problem, which is no problem at all for the rest of the population. --Vedum 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

    The UNPO-membership[edit]

    The article says that "Skåneland" is a member of the UNPO. Well, I dont think you can put it that way. Who is really representing the area in The UNPO? The elected County Council, or some other representative body? Of course not. But a very small private foundation (Stiftelsen Skånsk Framtid, SSF), based in the municipality of Eslöv. I tried to mention that in the article, but this information was immedeatly removed. Is there any evidence that this foundation is at all known by more than 1000 persons in the whole country? Is SSF at all active outside the Internet? How many percent of the population of the provinces concerned know that they are internationally "represented" by this tiny foundation? Nobody knows. --Vedum 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

    SSF represents themselves and nobody else! --Vedum 23:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

    Vedum, you are entirely correct. To say that Skåneland is represented in the UNPO is completely false when in fact it is a small private foundation, SSF, calling it a 'club' would probably be more correct, that is a member. I'll support you on this one!KarlXII 09:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you! I think it is even more important to "moderate" these "club members" when they write in the English version. In Sweden everyone knows that these are really "fringe groups" (if they know about them at all). But on the international scene it is much more easy to make up the fiction of an "opressed Scanian nation". I Turkey there have already been newspaper articles describing Scania in the way we write about Kurdistan!
    Skåneland (called Scania) is not found on the web site of the UNPO http://www.unpo.org/members.php anymore. Has the membership been suspended?? --Vedum (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

    "Minority viewpoint"[edit]

    What to say about the following sentence: The long amalgamation of Skåneland with Sweden would suggest that the area is generally "Swedified" and that separatism represents a minority viewpoint. ? It is a very typical way of putting things among the "regionalists". It is of course true hat "separatism" is a "minority viewpoint". But an uncritical reader could think that this "minority" constitutes some measurable part of the general population. Even 48 % is a "minority". But in this case I strongly believe that this minority is so small that it is almost impossible even to measure it with normal statistical methods. The results of the election to the Regional Council tell us something: The "local nationalist" party "Skånefederalisterna", got a total of 732 votes. But the right-wing "Swedish nationalist" party "Sverigedemokraterna" got 45 945 votes and ten seats in the council. That is another problem, but it has nothing to to with "separatism", on the contrary!

    "Political underrepresentation?"[edit]

    The User:Pia L makes comparisions between Skåneland and places like Quebec. And she says that it is "background information about political underrepresentation as a driving element in regionalism in Europe". That is of course a very interesting topic. But: Could you answer me in what way Scania (or "Skåneland") or its inhabitants are "politically underrepresented" compared with other Swedes? The provinces are represented in the Swedish parliament in the same way as any other part of the country. And the Regional Council of Skåne (like the Regional Council of Västra Götaland) has more power than the County Councils of the other counties of Sweden. Not very much more perhaps, but at least not less power. If Skåneland is "underrepresented", which areas are then "overrepresented"? Stockholm perhaps. Yes that could be true, because it is the national capital. But I am sure Scania is not more "underrepresented" than any other county. It would be interesting with a debate here instead of en edit war. --Vedum 21:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

    Mr Nilsson, the section which you are disputing (which, by the way, was not authored by me), is not making any claim whatsoever about how Scanian regionalism compares or does not compare with other movements, and neither does it make claims about how closely related or how different various separatists/regionalist movements are to Scanian regionalism---or about whether or not such feelings of underrepresentation are warranted. It is simply stating that regionalists movements are often driven by a sense of underrepresentation. Thank you for asking, Vedum, but what I think about Scanians being "underrepresented" has no bearing whatsoever on this article. It would behoove you to realize that the same goes for you. If your question is why I support the inclusion of the section, I'd be happy to tell you: the section adds perspective to the issue of regionalism by showing that it is not necessarily driven exclusively by "patriotism" or "nationalism". It points to the fact that many other regions, of various shapes and forms, demonstrate impulses towards autonomy that are not based solely on such sentiments. Now, back to you: it is bad enough that you are misrepresenting the content and authorship of the section here on the talk page, but a bigger problem is that you are also applying your own personal opinions on the issue when arguing to have it deleted---You want to remove the fact that many other regionalist movements, of various shapes and forms, who demonstrate various impulses towards autonomy, are driven by feelings of underrepresention as well as nationalism, because you personally think that the regionalist sentiments in Scania have nothing in common with the sentiments of other regionalist movements around the world. And who are you? I don't think I see your name under "Notes and references". If you have a reputable source in mind, giving scholarly/researched information about how Scanian regionalists feel about the way the centralist state is handling the issue of regional representation, then please do make a contribution. Pia 01:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    I am sorry, but I thought it was your section, because you always put it back. I don't know if there are any research made about "feelings of underrepresentation" in any part of Sweden. I have never heard of any. But I don't think that Scanians in general feel more underrepresented than people in Värmland or in Hälsingland or anywere else in the country. But I can of course not prove it, as little as you can prove the opposite. But if this was a general feeling, regionalist parties should have more support among the electorate. But if you have some reputable source in mind, giving scholarly/researched information about how Scanian people in general (not just the decided regionalists) feel about the way the "centralist state" is handling the issue of regional representation, then please do make a contribution. --Vedum 00:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    Apology accepted, Vedum. And sure, thanks, I will certainly contribute whatever I feel is needed, although I would suggest a separate article about various forms of regionalism in Scania (or in Sweden in general) since it would require a lot more text and may crowd the current article. Actually, I am not the one, either, who have been been slanting this article in such a way that it has become unavoidable to deal with the issue of regionalism as opposed to separatism. Throughout the history of this article, certain groups have congregated here, inserting derogatory phrases such "local patriots" about Scanians of today and "bandits" about their ancestors, etc. I would prefer it if this article stayed with the known facts, such as the fact that the region has been accepted into UNPO, and then simply leave out all the rest of the opinionated speculations about how many Scanians feel what, which is what you are asking for by requiring that the regionalism of the people of Scania is measured in some way, according to how strongly they feel about regionalism. I will go through the main research efforts on this issue, which I think are the surveys done in relation to the continuation of Region Skåne's trial period (which had strong support in Scania). In the meantime, here are some sentiments from the capital, with two radically different views on regionalism, from two different "Matses" on the top of the batting pile, namely Mats Hellström, County Governor of Stockholm, and Mats Svegfors, chairman of the Ansvarskommittén (the "Responsibility" Committee). What they have in common, and which I thought I'd share with you, is that they both basically state that the current county based power structure in Sweden is chaotic, paralyzing and useless. The solution for Hellstrom, naturally, is to increase the power of the state governors over the regions/counties and the municipalities, and the solution for Svegfors, surprisingly (as it shows faint echoes of sentiments expressed by some Scanian regionalists in book form) is to scrap the old county governors' system and introduce more autonomous regions: "My State County Governors are still stuck in the 17th Century power structure which everybody else left behind. Too often, we in the State organization are competing for things to do and fighting over the territorial space instead of being productive for the good of the citizens. [...] Faced with this situation, several of my County Governor colleagues rally around the slogan: 'Hands off my county'". [But everything] we were supposed to coordinate is gone." (My translation. Article in Swedish.) Later and best wishes, Pia 05:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    Perhaps the system with state appointed governors (landhövdingar) is a bit old-fashioned. In neighboring Denmark a new system with larger regions will be introduced on January 1st, replacing the amts. I don´t no so very much about it. I am not even sure if there will be more self-government in the regions compared with the present system. I am myself not an opponent of more power to regional councils. But I think that it must be the same degree of self-government in all parts of Sweden, not more in some parts and less in other parts. But this is perhaps another discussion. --Vedum 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    Concerning deletions by 217.211.126.111[edit]

    Please supply a source that contradicts Moberg if the contention is that other scholars disagree with Moberg's assessment of fighting on Scanian soil. Deleting sourced material (especially from a well-known and reputable source) is frowned upon. Also: there were incidents in Scania due to wars between Denmark and Sweden even after 1710: During the Theater War (Sweden vs Russia and Denmark) in 1788-1790, Båstad was attacked and Råå was burnt to the ground. During the Napoleonic war, Sweden and Denmark took different sides and engaged in minor incidents in 1808-09 and 1813. Unless some reputable scholar states that no fighting took place on Scanian soil during the Napoleonic War, I would tend to trust the one used by the Wiki contributors here so far. Pia 05:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

    The text talks about fighting in Scania "or other border provinces". If somebody is checking a list of years, please also include possible fighting in Norway and Holstein. It might be the explanation if a year seems to be missing regarding Scania. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 06:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

    Too large an article[edit]

    As my nick tells, I am here to work with the administrative subdivisions of Sweden. This is certainly not an administrative subdivision. However, I would like to express some wievs on this topic: The denomination Skåneland is hardly ever used in everyday life. It is 1) a technical term used by historians (more often "Skånelandskapen" or "de skånska landskapen" are used), 2) a term used by people who want to out-distance these provinces from the rest of the country for some reason or another. --Muniswede 22:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

    Modern popular usage??[edit]

    The obvious fact is that the term "Skåneland" is used: 1) In historical contexts as a common name for the three Swedish provinces which belonged to Denmark up until the Treaty of Roskilde. It is, however, more common to use the plural denomination "Skånelandskapen" in Swedish and "Skånelandene" in Danish. 2) Sometimes Bornholm (which was included in the treaty, but went back to Denmark in 1660) also is included. Anholt is almost never included in this term. There is just a "local legend" about that on the island. I cannot understad why this local legend is considered so very important. It could be mentioned in the Anholt article of course. 3) Skåneland is also sometimes used synonymously with Skåne (Scania). 4) Some people who have an agenda to make Skåneland a fourth informal "land" besides Götaland, Svealand and Norrland or to make it an administrative area when and if the administrative subdivision of Sweden is revised are the most frequent users of this name. This last category seems to dominate here, Every effort to moderate them is quickly reverted. In most normal encyclopædias the term Skåneland is mentioned in one or two sentences. My question above got no answer. I hope for better luck this time. It is better to discuss instead of changing the article too often. --Muniswede (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

    The "obvious facts" mentioned in points 1), 2) and 3) above are all accounted for in the article. So is the popular usage, explained in accordance with Nationalencyklopedin and one of the premier popular history magazine in Sweden, etc, etc. The complaint is too much information? And the request is that the article is made less informative?! Please note that such an aim is at cross-purpose with the aim of this encyclopedia (as is attempts to make articles shorter because of a personal dislike for a subject or antipathy towards another country). Edits in this vein are likely to be reverted in the future as well, I'm afraid. I notice that the above user have searched out the information about Anholt in other articles as well, only to delete it, along with the reference [40]. The same goes for mentions of Danish or Denmark in the lead of articles about this historically Danish region [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. Why? It makes articles too long? This article is not unusually long or unusually detailed - and if that was a problem, splitting would be an option to consider. The question the above raises in my mind is instead why referenced historical facts should be, or for some reason or other needs to be, concealed? The fate of Anholt, as a former part of the region, is interesting and it is a fact often mentioned in history books. The legend about Anholt (only mentioned in a footnote in this article) is perhaps more famous than even the actual people involved (as shown by it being the first thing the island's tourist board mentions about the history of the island). What is the argument for the removal of the footnote again? Too much information? As for point 4) above: I can't find any info in the article where it is implied that the region is a historical "land of Sweden" and I have found no evidence of an agenda expressed in the article that would aim to make the region an informal "land of Sweden". Rather, the article seems to stress the historical and cross-border aspects; it states right away in the lead that the region was a historical land of Denmark. Sorry, but the claims don't make any sense: if the request instead is that the article ought to include some sort of conspiracy theory, I would urge Muniswede to make sure to consult reliable sources. (Please also source your most recent additions about crown land and the Danish bishop. It is important to keep all facts WP:verifiable.) Also: I suspect there is a language problem: there is no popularity contest implied. "Modern popular usage" means only "usage by or usage aimed at nonspecialists: designed to appeal to or be comprehensible to the nonspecialist". See also "popular science". 71.107.17.50 (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
    This seems to be one of those controversial topics there almost every sentence needs a reference. Thats O.K. with me. I just must visit a library and serch for reliable sources. And that may take some time, as I am not employed or paid for doing this. One problem, however, is that there is much easier to find sources for the occasional times when this term is actually used in "popular usage" (the term is actually mentioned in these sources) than to find sources for the "non-using" of the term. After all you cannot mention all books about the provinces where the term is not used. I did not mean "popularity contest". But the term is very seldom (I would say almost never) used in "everyday speech", in daily newspapers, wheather forecasts, tourism promoting, company names etc. There are only four names found in the "Yellow pages" (nation-wide) involving that term. Furthermore, two of them are societies promoting the agenda. I therefore think this article should stress on the fact that the name Skåneland (or Skånelandskapen) is used in historical contexts. And, by the way, Skåneland was not ceded by Denmark as a whole in 1658. There is one instrument of surrender for each one of the provinces. Not even at that time the area was treated en bloc. --Muniswede (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, Denmark did the surrendering of the four provinces (the provinces did not surrender individually, if that's what you mean), after which they were most certainly treated en bloc as one dominion by the victor. They became one dominion ruled by one Governor General, namely the Swedish Governors-General#Scania, a man named Gustaf Otto Stenbock. Secondly, about references: the number of references does not directly correlate with the amount of controversy over facts in articles: if that was the case, the article Kingdom of Sweden would be twice as controversial as Skåneland with its 70-something footnotes. Providing references is simply good policy as it encourages transparency and helps students find sources in a subject. Unfortunately, the yellow pages would probably not be considered a reliable source though, unless the Swedish version has some kind of encyclopedia attached to it. I'd suggest sticking with peer-reviewed articles, encyclopedias, dictionaries, published books, etc. Commercial enterprises' use of terms or names may not be considered especially interesting additions to articles. Concerning using sources to "prove the negative": if by that statement you mean that you would like to see a section added to the article that talks about how unpopular the terms "Skåneland-Skånelandskapen-Skånelandene" are in Sweden by showing how many times they are excluded from Swedish books dealing with the subject, I'd suggest this modus operandi: try a Google book search first to see if your theory holds water, then proceed by locating a source making the claim. It's probably not impossible, just not that interesting an addition in my opinion, because it basically boils down to the popularity-competition aspect mentioned above. It doesn't change the fact that terms still exist in encyclopedias, dictionaries, history books and popular science magazines and therefore warrant mention. But if you feel that this aspect is crucial, I'm sure people would be willing to help you out though, although nobody is paid. No problem. :) 71.107.17.50 (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    The telephone book should of course not be used as a source, but it givs an impression of how much the name is used in everyday life. I do certainly not mean that the article should be deleted (as somebody proposed when it was newly written), but that even more stress should be put on the fact that it is a historical term. I am not going to try to prove some "unpopularity". As you said yourself it is not a "popularity contest". I do not think the term is either "popular" nor "impopular". Most people simply don't need to describe the provinces en bloc in their everyday life. Yes there were governors general for the whole area for some time in the beginning of the Swedish era. But Halland had its own governor (landshövding) already in 1658 and Blekinge got a landshövding in 1683. The area has been incorporated in the "normal" administrative pattern for some 300 years now.--Muniswede (talk) 07:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Several people, including myself, have tried to "moderate" this article. But it is not so easy. Some of us have almost given up. Good luck!--Vedum (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

    "Historiographic term" - why not?[edit]

    In December last year I made a change to this article, calling the denomination "Skåneland" "historiographic", a word I had just recently found. This change was soon deldeted. Now I have found out that this term is very suitable. E.g. the Byzantine Empire and the Kalmar Union are called historiographic terms on the WP. I am not an expert on historical terminology, but I think this term should be very proper for an area like this. This is really not a geographical, political or administrative entity. The name is not commonly used in everyday life and it is not on maps, roadsigns, company names or the like. It is almost only used describing the provinces in historical contexts. Therefore I consider it a historiographic term. Please, correct me if I am wrong. Are there anybody wanting to support me in this case? --Muniswede (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

    The problem is that there are four names in the title of this article (plus two translations): Skåneland, Skånelandskapen (Scanian Provinces), Terra Scaniae ("Scania Land") and Scania. One was used during medieval times, one was used in 18th-century poems etc, including in texts by Carl von Linne, one is used, as you have yourself pointed out repeatedly, by Scanians who wish to stress their belonging to a certain cultural region, one is favored by some historians, another by other historians. If it is the term Skåneland you wish to target, how do you suggest dealing with the issue of historiography without having to separate the names into different articles? Notice that the article about the Byzantine Empire deals elegantly with the historiographical issue (i.e. what names have been used for the Byzantine Empire throughout that entity's history) in detail, already in the lead: "During much of its history it was known to many of its Western contemporaries as the 'Empire of the Greeks' ...To its inhabitants, the Empire was simply the 'Roman Empire (Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων)' or 'Romania (Ῥωμανία).' In the Islamic world it was known primarily as 'روم‎'.'" If you'd like to author a similar section about historiography in order to introduce the word "historiographical" for some uses of for example the term Skåneland, I'll still support you though. (However, I'd suggest not basing the discussion on any historiography terms used in the Kalmar Union article right now, as that article is undergoing work after having been delisted..and since it seems to rely extensively on a source from 1904 called "The Historians' History of the World". The "historians' history" and the historical methods, including terms (and views on nationalistic perspectives), have changed a little since 1904, I'm afraid. 71.106.242.31 (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

    GA Reassessment[edit]

    This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Skåneland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

    GA onhold.svg This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

    • The ribbon of images down the righthand side of the article is causing layout problems. I'd suggest using a table format to fix that, as in this example, or reducing the number of images.
    • The left-aligned image of the historian Martin Weibull is squeezing the text between it and the right-aligned image opposite, and overwriting the text behind it.
    • The first, third, and fifth paragraphs of Scanian regionalism are uncited.
    • References in popular culture is entirely uncited.
    • The second paragraph of Modern usage needs to be cited.

    --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for reviewing and for your own fixes to the article. It was a fair review in my opinion, and I agree with the issues you mention.
    • I can fix the layout, unless some of the more involved editors do it first. I'll wait for a few days.
    • The sections that need referencing should be referenced by those who wrote them. If they don't, I'll try to find some references for the sections, and if I can't find any, I'll remove or rewrite the sections accordingly.
    • "References in popular culture" could be deleted, in my opinion. Whether "Skåneland" in popular culture just refers to the Scanian area or to the larger territory is hard to know. I also don't find the mention in popular culture to be of particular interest. However, if this sections gets referenced, it could remain.
    Fred-J 15:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    A fair review indeed, and I think your task force is doing a good and very important work.
    • Do we really need so many images in the article? Three maps from roughly the same period depicting the same land area. I'll keep Image:Scaniaemap.jpg because it has the highest resolution and detail. I'll remove some more images and try to fix the layout problems.
    • The "References in popular culture" section feels unnecessary and incomplete, I don't mind if it's removed from the article.
    --Krm500 (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    Okay, I removed the "Reference in popular culture" section. I think the images look alright now, good job with that.
    The only book I have on Skåne in one by Ingvar Andersson that covers the time 1200-1500 so the references I add come from whatever I find on the internet.
    To reviewer: If there is particular statements that need references, could you add "cite"-tag for it?
    Fred-J 20:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    There's really only one area where I think a further citation is needed, Bornholm Rebellion, so I've added a {{fact}} tag for that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks very much to everyone for the work that's been done on this article. I'm closing this review now as a keep. It's a very nice article, you've done your subject proud. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Scanian regionalism - incorrect/misleading text/wording[edit]

    Hi, I have two problems with statements in the article regarding the relationship between Scanian regionalism and Swedish state nationalism:

    1. I feel it's misleading to call it Swedish state nationalism since it is really just "Swedish nationalism" and not at all supported by the State. If it is to be characterised as anything I would prefer Swedish cultural nationalism. It should also be noted that in most cases these are more anti-immigrant than "nationalist".
    2. In the beginning of the article there is a sentence stating that "In Scania, Swedish nationalism, which often alludes to slogans such as "Keep Sweden Swedish", is resisted by many regionalists as being intolerant of Scania's cultural diversity and Danish history, and as being non-inclusive of cultural expressions originating in areas outside the capital region". I feel this sentence risks being a bit misunderstood. "Keep Sweden Swedish" (which was a movement during the late 80's to early 90's) has nothing to do with Scanian regionalism but with anti-immigration views (which in fact had strong support in the Scania region).

    I suggest (1) we change "Swedish state nationalism" to "anti-immigration" and take out the sentence referred to in point 2 above. Any comments?Osli73 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

    You are of course very right in your observations. Furthermore there is no "Scanian regionalism" at all when it comes to the territory here referred to as "Skåneland". The fact is that "Skåneland" is a purely historical term, not used in everyday life regarding today's reality. The political landscapes of the three Swedish provinces concerned are really rather different. Only in Region Skåne, the county council of Skåne län, the anti-immigration party Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats) have got a representation (5,89 % of the votes). They are very small and without representation in Blekinge and Halland. "Scanian regionalists" have no representation whatsoever in any regional or municipal council neither in Scania nor in the other provinces since the xenophobic Skånepartiet was thrown out from the municipal council of Malmö in the last elections. And, by the way, what is really ment with ""State nationalism"? If there should be anything written about "Scanian regionalism" it should be moved to the article "Scania", because it has nothing to do with the other provinces. --Vedum (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    I can only agree and I have now removed the section. My intention was to move it to the article "Scania", but there is already a lot about "regionalism" there. --Muniswede (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

    interwiki links[edit]

    Per this discussion, I think it is best to remove the "nobots" tag completely and see if user Thijs' modifications work. We can re-add it if the problem re-occurs. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

    Dubious sources and limits of historical description[edit]

    The article uses the following sources which are problematic since they are not written by professional or generally recognized historians.

    • Svensson (2005) Sanningen om Snapphanelögnen.
    • Ambrius (1997) Skånelands historia
    • Lindquist (1995) Historien om Sverige – storhet och fall.
    • Moberg (1971) Min svenska historia
    • Röndal in 333 års-boken om Skånelandsregionen (1991, published by Stiftelsen Skånsk framtid)

    Most of them are also published by various Scanian regionalist organizations which makes it an issue with POV as well.

    Considering this article is about a geographic term that didn't exist until 1720, why is it relevant to describe its medieval history? Which reliable sources have actually described Skåneland as a cohesive region, separate from the history of Denmark or Sweden?

    Peter Isotalo 21:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

    I fully agree with you. This is just a short term for three Swedish provinces (and sometimes also a Danish one). The only thing they have in common is that they were part of Danmark until the Treaty of Roskilde. The term was coined by historians and should be used in historical contexts. But there a some indiduals and organisations out there, trying to make it "bigger" than it really is. Most Encyclopedias have very short articles. --Vedum (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    There clearly needs to be some sort of delination between the regionalist ideas and the views of professional historians regarding both terminology and the region itsel. When is it relevant to talk of "Skåneland" and when is it not? Because it's very clear that modern day Skåne, Blekinge and Halland are not referred to as "Skåneland" except for an insignificant minority, most of whom appear to be local Scanian patriots. It can't be treated like just another Swedish county, historical provinces (landskap) or such, with a separate overview of demographics, climate and whatnot. The region's distinctly Danish identity before Swedish consolidation of power in the early 18th century is not in doubt. But it's unclear to what extent it was actually a cohesive region.
    And we really need to get rid of sources Ambrius and the likes when establishing historical "facts". They can certainly be used as examples of regionalist history writing, but not for any description of a specifically Scanian identity, be it Danish, Swedish or wholly independent.
    Peter Isotalo 12:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

    Not a "stronghold for Sweden Democrats"[edit]

    Do not mix up this area with the province of Scania itself. In Halland the Sweden Democrats got only 5,9 % of the vote (national average is 12,86 %). Therefore a statement calling "SKåneland a stronghold for the Sweden Democrats was deleted. The constiuency "Skåne läns norra och östra" with 22,16 % may be considered a stronghold, but not this historical region as a whole. --Vedum (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

    Agreed, Vedum. This article should generally focus on describing the history of the term "Skåneland", not the region itself. For all intents and purposes it's similar to Republic of Jamtland which does not cover the general history of Jämtland or stuff like voting patterns within the province.
    Peter Isotalo 17:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)