Talk:Swedish language/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Is it really correct to translate "du-reformen" as "the-you-reform"? Contrary to English, where the more reverential plural form (you) became the norm, Swedish went with the more familiar singular which corresponds more to the (archaic) "thou". Therefore, it would be more correct to translate the "du-reform" as "the-thou-reform" rather than "the-you-reform". /probell (Talk) 20:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I would leave it untranslated, the "du-reform", because one'd need to learn distinctions different from English to understand it, anyway. I'd rather keep a small clause explaing what "du" means in Swedish. (where "du" is the standard second person singular pronoun) Comments? 惑乱 分からん 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I tried to amend this by adding some more information[1]. Please feel free to tweak it s'more if you still feel that anything is unclear. Peter Isotalo 08:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Old Norse vs Runic Swedish

(Also see the archived discussion.)

I'd like to

(1) add a comment in the beginning of the historic section, stating that seemingly the (North Germanic speaking) inhabitants of Scandinavia considered themselves as speaking the same language, up to the sixteenth century;
(2) add a note on seemingly rather early signs of distinctions in the pronounciation of explosives between (rougly) what evolved into Danish on the one hand, and the other mainland vernaculars on the other.

In both cases, I won't do anything until when (and if) I've succeeded to find the sources where I read about these things (unless no other may provide them). My question is: Would you find such additions valuable, if they are properly verified? JoergenB 21:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

They seem very valuable to me. I'm looking forward to the additions. Peter Isotalo 10:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Three slight problems

1. Regarding the statement: "It is currently expected that the bill will be successfully passed if it is put up for a second vote."

Who is "it"? In other words, who is expecting this? Seems like introduction of unnecessary POV. If you want to call it a majority viewpoint, please introduce sources to verify this claim.

2. Regarding the statement: "The linguistic definition of a Swedish dialect is a local variant that has not been heavily influenced by the standard language and that can trace a separate development all the way back to Old Norse."

This statement is too simplistic, if not incorrect. If "linguistics" is referring to old-fashioned "traditional dialectology", this needs to be stated because this is no longer a definition used in modern linguistic research into dialects, and has hardly been in use in practice at all since the early 1980s. "Separate development" is generally not used as a definition for dialects as they are the spoken language of a living, breathing speech community and few modern societies have enclaves of humans without influences from the surrounding world. See for example a more modern approach to dialects in linguistic research, as applied in the SweDia 2000 project, as explained in a statement by Anders Eriksson, Professor of Phonetics at Gothenburg University, one of the leading scholars involved in the project: "Frågor och svar om projektet: Är inspelningarna exempel på genuina dialekter?". SweDia 2000, (in Swedish). For a somewhat different definition, as applied in sociolinguistics, see for example Einarsson, Jan (2004). Språksociologi. Lund: Studentlitteratur, p.139, where the spectrum between genuine dialect and spoken Standard Swedish is divided into five categories. For a common international definition, see for example Dr. John R. Rickford, Professor of Linguistics Stanford University, How Linguists Approach the Study of Language and Dialect, a document offered students in introductory linguistics classes at Stanford University.

3. The article is not clarifying the difference between the codification of written and spoken Standard Swedish, which is odd considering the long section dedicated to the written standard. As pointed out in the article by Einar Haugen (Professor of Linguistics and Scandinavian, Harvard University, 1964–75) and Jan Terje Faarlund (Professor of Scandinavian Linguistics, University of Trondheim, Norway), who contributed the article "Languages of the subgroup Swedish" a North Germanic languages article in Encyclopædia Britannica Online (2006), a spoken Standard Swedish was not introduced until 1842. (See also a Swedish Television special of 25 Jan. 2006, about the "language hygienic" drive in Swedish schools, a drive aimed to obliterate dialects and enforce "well-mannered" (hyfsat) Stockholm-influenced speech in Swedish schools. 060125 - Reportage: Uttalshygien - dialekttvätt genom den allmänna folkskolan. (Media file, in Swedish). I see some other slight problems, which I will return to as time allows, but on the whole, I think this is an excellent article, and the featured status well deserved. Pia 00:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Köla, Värmland - Sveamål!?

I seriously doubt that the dialect spoken in Köla, Värmland is considered to be Sveamål. Where's the proper reference for this extraordinary claim? In any case, it contradicts the article . Which article - at the present stage of development - has the correct claim? I know it's the linked one, but it'd be interesting to see where the claim that the dialect spoken in Köla is Sveamål comes from... Jens Persson ( 21:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

It's obviously something of a transitional dialect. So are you by any chance basing your complaint on something other than an unrefernced article in Swedish wikipedia or your own opinions?
Also, please don't go around changing this fact in other articles (French, Swedish, Dutch wikipedia) without fixing the map first. It's very obvious that the map was made with the intent to go with a list. If you want to fix the list, fix the map as well. You're just making it harder to read right now. Peter Isotalo 15:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to remember to fix the map as soon as I am at home in Jämtland. (Before the end of November.)
I can't say I know anything about the Köla dialect, but if Köla is situated geographically as the map suggests, it can't be a "transitional dialect". The Götamål-Sveamål transitional dialects are situated in eastern parts of the province.
Judging from a search on Eniro and assuming we are discussing a "transitional dialect", I would rather call the Köla dialect an East Norwegian-Götamål transitional dialect. But I think the most sober label would be Götamål. Jens Persson ( 23:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC))
The information in the articles sveamål, götamål Värmland: dialekter in NE and the dialect maps on Svenska språket under sjuhundra år (see reference section) appear very inconclusive on this issue. What are your sources? Peter Isotalo 13:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
One source is e.g. Kortfattad svensk språkhistoria by Gösta Bergman. Bengt pamps Svenska dialekter would work fine as well. If you want to, I can even contact my dear friend professor Staffan fridell at Department for Nordic langauges, Uppsala university. (I have already employed his knowledge in my correct claim that Old Swedish had diphthongs, contrary to the original incorrect claim of the article on the Swedish language.) Since I know you have a severe tendency of interpreting sourcing in your own way, I would like you to quote and scan your graphical data in NE and Svenska språket under sjuhundra år. Please. You're making the extraordinary claim, so you should provide some detailed extraordinary proof for it.
As a very simple and illustrating "proof" of the Köla dialect being Götamål rather than Sveamål, take a look at the SweDia transcription pages of the dialect. (Here.) Now, as you see, Standard Swedish mycket (=much) is myä or möe in the dialect. Now, this if anything should convince you that it's Götamål. I assume you have a deep knowledge about the differences between Sveamål and Götamål. Götamål myä (möe etc) corresponds to Sveamål mycke (myttje etc). The only feature which looks like Sveamål to me is that there is a lack of opened short vowels (fisk, not fesk etc.), but this probably has more to do with the fact that the dialect in question is a transitional Götamål-East Norwegian one. Another explanation is that the dialect speakers have lost this feature recently. (A yet another explanation is that the transcriptioner has interpreted the opened short vowels as ordinary closed vowels - the SweDia transcriptions are far from being flawless.) Jens Persson ( 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

Input requested

Hi. We could use some outside input over at Categories for discussion. In particular, here we have two people arguing over what to call Category:Finland-Swedish, and another couple of opinions could be very helpful. Thanks! -GTBacchus(talk) 20:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Dialect" Samples

On the one hand, the article says (in the dialect paragraph):

The linguistic definition of a Swedish dialect is a local variant that has not been heavily influenced by the standard language and that can trace a separate development all the way back to Old Norse.

But on the other hand (concerning the SweDia samples),

All dialect samples are from SweDia, a research project on Swedish dialects available for download (though with information in Swedish only), [...]

Something is wrong here. Listening to most of the samples (especially the ones from my own province Jämtland, they do not represent "a local variant that has not been heavily influenced by the standard language", which is "[the] linguistic definition of a Swedish dialect". Thus, following this claim, most of the samples do not represent "Swedish dialects", but something else. Either we must change the definition of what a dialect is, or we must remove the claim that the SweDia samples represent dialects. The samples represent random speakers from certain areas, but hardly the genuine form of the local varieties of speech untouched by Standard Swedish. What do you think? I request change of terminology here, at least concerning the samples. Should we instead of "Swedish dialects" call them e.g. "local varieties of regiolects"? Of course, a few of the samples reallt represent dialects, so they should be denoted dialects. (Or preferrably removed and replaced by more Standard Swedish samples from the nearby area.) Jens Persson ( 22:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

Take a look at 2. in Pia's post above. When I wrote the dialect section I had only really read a small section on dialects in Olle Engstrand's book on phonetics, and since I have encountered other views on this issue. For example in books written by Östen Dahl.
Could you motivate why you switched the dialect sample from Aspås and described it as transitional? Peter Isotalo 10:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I switched the dialect sample since the young man better represent dialectal speech, which is what the samples are trying to reflect. I come from the neighbour village (Nälden, which is mentioned in the main text about Aspås), so I know that the young woman more represents the Östersund speech than Aspås speech. But of course, the young male doesn't speak "a local variant that has not been heavily influenced by the standard language and that can trace a separate development all the way back to Old Norse" either. But that's an other issue. (NB: I know the identity of the speaker and his father - who I have met a couple of times - is pretty well-known in Jämtland.)
The dialects in Jämtland (except the ones in the east) are transitional Tröndish-Norrlandic ones. No dialectologist denies this. They usually state it as "Norrlandic with heavy Norwegian influences" in the literature, though. (Note that I am not one of the fanatics stating that the Jämtland dialects are Norwegian or even constituting an own separate language. I am merely following the mainstream Scandinavian dialectologists here.) I may seem pedantic to you, but I simply want things to be as correct as possible. You'll be able to verify all my claims by reading the sources presented by both you and me.
I propose we also denote the Bohuslän sample transitional. (East Norwegian-Götamål; this is in accordance with the mainstream dialectology.)
I didn't notice the debate started by Pia. She's correct in that it's slightly simplistic, but I must say I agree with the definition. But this means that there are very few surviving living dialects today. I don't think dialectologists disagree with me. The local varieties of speech we hear today are varieties of regiolects, e.g. the young female from Aspås speaks a local variety of the Norrlandic subdivision of the Central Swedish regiolect. Remember - I assume you have even written some article about this though not using the term "regiolect" - the Swedish regiolects are South Swedish (Lund), East Swedish (Åbo), Mid Swedish (Uppsala) and West Swedish (Göteborg). The cities within parenthesis are the universities where the region's variety of Standard Swedish were once defined.
I think it is very important to separate genuine dialects (which are more or less extinct today) and the local varieties of regiolects. Linguists use a system where there are five steps (I think) where the step in one (let's say left) extreme is "genuine dialect" and the step in the other ("right") extreme is "standard language". The "neutral regiolect" would be the step just "left" of "standard language", and the samples of SweDia probably typically represent the step just left of the "neutral regiolect", let's call it "local regiolect". The "local regiolects" show some important surviving dialectal features, but mainly they follow the "neutral regiolect" in question. Left of the "local regiolects" we find the "diluted dialect" which is a very inconsistent version of "genuine dialect" and "standard language". Basically, when I changed the sample, I switched from "local regiolect" to "diluted dialect". I request that we change "dialect" to "local regiolect" (requires a regiolect article?) when referring to the SweDia samples in general. But it would take an expert on the subject to actually determine whether the single samples are pure dialect or regiolect. We need to be able to verify that the individual samples actually are dialects or regiolects. That's the problem with SweDia as I see it. It's not consistent in the five step scale described above. Some speakers are purely dialectal (where the genyuione dialect has survived AND the picked speaker happens to speak the dialect) while some are close to speaking neutral regiolect (quite few, though). Most samples tend to be in the middle of the scale, but SweDia should have some kind of comments on how well the samples represent the dialects described in the traditional dialectology literature. Jens Persson ( 18:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC))
This is not the appropriate article to go into this kind of excruciating detail. If you want to start going into pedantic detail I suggest you start working on Swedish dialects. This is a main language article and it's intended for general readership and laymen, not hobby linguists.
And do try not to switch more dialect samples based on what you personally consider to be more appropriate representations of certain dialects. Peter Isotalo 22:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not about being pedantic, but about being consistent with current scientific terminology. If you don't accept basic conventions, then Wikipedia is not the right place to argue against them. You are too inflicting here, which I would only accept if you actually were not ignorant concerning the subject. But you clearly have no bakcground at all in dialect reserach, not even on hobby level.
The reason I aim on this article rather than the specialized Swedish dialects article is of course because the latter is much less visited, naturally.
I can't see any reason not to switch samples. They are randomly chosen anyway. Though concerning e.g. the Aspås sample it almost feels like the person who made the choice to use the yonger female did so to prove that people don't speak dialect in Jämtland any more. But I assume it was a random choice, and all I did was simply to put some intelligence behind the new choice. Let me ask, which were the exact principles behinds the scientific valid process of chosing which samples to use in the article? Jens Persson' ( 18:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC))
I noticed now there is no article on Swedish dialects since one gets redirected to Swedish language. Please mr Isotalo, don't tell me to focus editing on a specialized article that doesn't even exist anymore! Jens Persson ( 19:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC))
Mr Persson, I appreciate your knowledge of Swedish dialects, but jugding from some of your contributions, I really must remind you of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. In some of your suggestions, you are proposing changes of classification based on your own knowledge, not on scholarly literature - and that is a problem. For example, unless you provide a reliable source calling this or that dialect "transitional", "a neutral/local idiolect", "a diluted dialect" or whatever, it is against Wikipedia's policies to use these designations. Now, while you might be right in inventing this or that new designation/interpretation, it still may not be included in the article, because we have no guarantee that you are right (it is not verifiable, even if it is the truth).
I haven't been following this page and I don't know whether the original classification is based on scholarly literature (I suppose Peter Isotalo ought to know that, if he was the one who added it). If it isn't, it should be deleted as well, or only the uncontroversial parts should be kept.
Concerning the issue about whether these are "original" or "authentic" dialects, it is indeed discussed on Swedia's site (I don't remember where exactly, it's a long time since I read it, so I suggest you find it yourself). Personally, I'd say that switching samples is a questionable enterprise, because it is based on your personal judgement of what is a more or less "real" dialect/local variety. The samples were meant to show the condition of the modern local varieties of Swedish as they are, and they are all equally valid and "real", regardless of how Stockholm-influenced or pristine they are. -- 20:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
You write: "The samples were meant to show the condition of the modern local varieties of Swedish as they are, and they are all equally valid and "real", regardless of how Stockholm-influenced or pristine they are." I agree, but they should not be called dialects but local varieties of Standard Swedish. SweDia's definition is far too politically correct and popularized, and besides it's not in accordance with the article's current definition. (I seriously doubt whether the SweDia project is in accordance with the neutral scientific method. If people here had the slightest insight in dialectology, they'd realize this. Perhaps my feeling of being Josef K here is because I have a deeper knowledge in this specific field than other Wikipedians working on the article.) I am not sure why I am the one who should provide the specific sources since it is not my claims which are extraordinary.
All this debate can be easily resolved my redefining what a dialect is. See Pias post above where she questions the article's definition.
It's a bit difficult to solve a problem which has no yet well-defined formulation. Am I the only Wikipedia contributor who feels like one is debating with über-pedantic two-year-olds who know nothing but slavically following some rules?
Inorder to see the inconsistency between the definition of dialect and the provuided "dialect" samples in the article, one doesn't need a pile of sources to back it up. It's not "original research" to realize this inconsistency, but it's definitely "original research" to make the current claim in the article. Josef K finally got executed. When will my head roll? Jens Persson ( 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC))
The inconsistency is admitted, and some sort of a disambiguation of the terms is desirable; now trying to solve this problem by re-defining and re-classifying dialects/varieties without the help of sources would be original research. As for your hint that Peter Isotalo and I are "über-pedantic two-year-olds", that is a PA in Wikipedian terms and, frankly, quite distasteful and useless in human terms. The rules are there for a reason - in particular for preventing cranks from imposing their personal opinions and theories on what is supposed to be a neutral and reliable encyclopedia (see NOR#Notes. You may feel that you are an unrecognised genius, that the noted researchers who conducted the Swedia project aren't as authoritative as you are, that your claims aren't extraordinary while others' are, and that Wikipedia's rules shouldn't apply for authorities of your stature. But keep in mind that all of these are your subjective opinions which can't be proved to be correct, hence can't serve as arguments here, no matter how vehemently you assert them. Concerning your head rolling - yes, violating the policies systematically does tend to get people blocked from editing. I am sure that you are very far from that stage and that you are a very useful contributor; I just wanted to remind you about the policies, because you didn't sound as if you were aware of them. -- 01:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw the Request for Comment and am therefore commenting. I don't know diddly about Swedish dialects, but I'm not at all pleased with the current statement, "The linguistic definition of a Swedish dialect is a local variant that has not been heavily influenced by the standard language and that can trace a separate development all the way back to Old Norse." The statement is unsourced; who defines it that way? "Dialect" is a notoriously ambiguous term in linguistics, so claiming one definition as "the linguistic definition" is inaccurate. John C. Wells proposed the term "traditional-dialect" for the dialects of English that come close to that definition, but "dialect" by itself can mean anything from that down to a cluster of similar idiolects within a standard language. —Angr 08:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The statement is referenced at the end of the section. Like I pointed out recently, I've seen other definitions since writing the section, but the wording is almost straight from Engstrand's book on phonetics. Peter Isotalo 11:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think a book on phonetics is not the best source for providing definitions of concepts in dialectology. That would be like providing definitions of astronomical concepts in an organic chemistry book (the section where one discusses extraterrestrial lifeforms). The best source would be a pure dialectology book, e.g. Bengt Pamps Svenska dialekter. (I can't access it right now, though.) Jens Persson ( 19:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Choice of dialect samples

I'm attempting to section this discussion so we can discuss each issue separately. Please help me out on this one, as posts are getting very long and ungainly.

My choice of dialects back when I wrote most of the section more than a year ago was an attempt to provide a reasonable number of samples based roughly on the number of speakers and the degree of variation in each of the various dialect groups. I tried my best to compromise between representing as many dialects as possible and not cluttering the map too much. I was trying to be pragmatic. I'm sure that it doesn't fall into the category of "scientific methods", but then again, the purpose of the article is to give basic information on Swedish to laymen and to illustrate variation within the language, not to stand up to scrutiny though it was a scientific paper. I urge you to try to view this from the perspective of someone who doesn't know squat about linguistics or dialects. Peter Isotalo 12:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should compromise scientific exactness just because most people reading an article like this one happen to me laymen. I might violate Wikipedia policies by valuing scientic exactness (unreferenced or not) higher than than the providing of sources (misinterpreted or not). Perhaps my struggle should be aimed at changing Wikipedia policies instead of improving specific articles. Jens Persson ( 19:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC))

Definitions of Swedish dialects

I suggest that we start by making brief citations of various scholars and their views on Swedish dialects. Olle Engstrand is already cited in the article, but he's not a dialectologist as far as I know and the page cited is only of a brief summary of how a Swedish dialect would be defined.

Please keep it short and to the point and avoid including too much of your own opinions. Peter Isotalo 12:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We are playing with words here, and since the definitons of words tend to be different in different sources, it is a matter of opionion when chosing one path to follow. The important thing is to make the definition of the word dialect consistent with the samples used in the article. (Unfortunately, it would be original research to validate the samples.) I am sure that we must follow dialect in order to avoid an internal incosistency. Why would the definiton of a "Swedish dialect" be different from the general definition of a dialect here on Wikipedia? The extra thing is of course that "Swedish dialect" of course introduces the adjective "Swedish". That is what needs a source of some kind. Bengt Pamp's Svenska dialekter may provide an answer. (If it does, it should be acknowledged and valued higher than Engstrand's book since Engstand is no authority on dialectology, but phonetics.) Jens Persson ( 19:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC))
In the beginning of the article, it says:
"While distinct regional varieties descended from the older rural dialects still exist, the spoken and written language is uniform and standardized, with a 99% literacy rate among adults."
Here one actually speaks about "regional varieties" vs "rural dialects". The samples are claimed to be (rural) dialects, while anyone who's got some insider knowledge of dialects (being a dialect speaker myself when I have the opportunity) knows that the samples mainly represent what here is called "regional varieties". It is clear that there's a severe inconsistency in the article, mainly caused by the randomly chosen SweDia samples. Shouldn't we simply mention that the samples range from being "regional varieties (of standard Swedish)" to being "(rural) dialects (descended from local varities of Old Norse)", or whatever formulation? This would be simpler than changing the definition of the term "Swedish dialect". Jens Persson ( 20:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC))
Now when I think about it, why is the article loaded with specific "dialect" samples anyway? Should a general article on the Swedish language actually have such an amount of samples? The best thing would be to remove the samples completely and instead write something about the dialects, the most important general features of Norrländska mål, Sveamål etc. As the article is now, immigrant Swedish is explained in greater detail than the traditional dialects.
Proposition: Remove the samples and include a brief discussion on the defining features of the different dialect areas.
NB: I can't find any Wikipedia article called Swedish dialects (redirection). Does this mean we ought to start one? The Swedish dialects definitely deserve their own Wikipedia article. The Swedish language article shouldn't provide the only gathering information about them. (Obviously, someone made a bad decision deleting the formerly existing article Swedish dialects.) Jens Persson ( 18:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

Are you sure?

Are you sure that /r/ can be pronounced as [ʐ] (voiced retroflex fricative)in Swedish? I am a native speaker and I and everyone I´ve asked have never heard something like that. We would consider it comical! 19:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The "dialect" samples

I have removed the "dialect" samples. Please don't reinstate them since that would indeed be original research (and it takes a lot of space in the article). Instead, I'll use one of the referred books to write something more substantial concerning classification. Jens Persson ( 01:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC))

Original research my ass... The section might need work, as pointed out by Pia, but it's referenced and links to a major dialect sample project. You cite no sources and push only your own opinion. The dialect samples stay until you support your position with something concrete. Peter Isotalo 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It is original research. SweDia is a popularized project not intended for scholars but for a broad audience. The point is that SweDia has a very "liberal" definition of a dialect not consistent with the traditional definition used in the article in the same subsection. I will give you the following concrete thing proving that SweDia isn't a very reliable project. Let's look at the following sample transcription (Young Male, Aspås, Jämtland):
"Åä... då såt ma der å de var, je tro, heri barn va re. Å... å så sått ma der å..."
which according to SweDia translates to
"Och då satt man där och det var, jag tror... Ja, här i baren var det. Och så satt man där och..."
I have high-lighted the flaws of SweDia in bold face. In Jamtlandic, the pronoun ma translates to Swedish vi ('we'), not "man" ('one') which would be the naïve translation. Furthermore, the Jamtlandic adverb heri translates to Swedish i ('in'), not "här i" ('here in') which would be the naïve translation. This was just a few sentences from one sample, but I see these flaws in practically every sample for which I have a basic knowledge in the corresponding dialect. These flawed translations are most often due to naïve interpretation of dialectal words. Another very striking example is this (Old Male, Överkalix):
"Döm kånn äint huri ne jer oppa vättnen..."
which SweDia naïvely translates to
"De kan inte hur det är på vatten"
Here, vättnen is the dative of vättne, so the correct translation would be the definiet vattnet. (Remember, SweDia is supposed to provide a very literal translation with explanations as notes below the texts.)
Of course, I am not alone in this critique of SweDia. My point isn't to say that the SweDia samples are irrelevant as samples of rural everyday speech, but I a can't take the project seriously, i.e., I don't consider it to be scientific, but popular. And I don't think Wikipedia should value popular material higher than scientifically rigorous material. Thus, since the SweDia definition of a dialect is not in accordance with the definition of a dialect (consistent with the scholar literature) already in the article, it would be original research to call the SweDia samples dialects.
So far, I haven't seen anything to back you up, mr Isotalo. Jens Persson ( 16:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC))
SweDia is used by scholars in its unedited form. They have more and longer samples available for researchers. The webpage is intended for a broad audience, but so is Wikipedia. This is not a scholar forum.
And what can I say? You're still trying to remove an entire section because you have personal quibbles with the intepretations. You're not even quoting Pamp. As long as you keep pushing your own opinion without backing it up, you'll be reverted. Peter Isotalo 10:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not the sound samples of the SweDia which is the problem, but rather how they are used in this context. I am working on a more descriptive dialect section based on the classification found in Svenska språket under sjuhundra år by Gertrud Pettersson. I will adapt some isogloss maps. You can control the final result by borrowing the book at some library. The reason I use this book is because it is published by Studentlitteratur, which I trust as a scholastic source. (I have some friends who have published books there as well, e.g. Rumtid - en introduktion till Einsteins relativitetsteori by Sören Holst, theoretical physics lecturer and a former colleague of mine at Fysikum, Stockholm university.)
The greatest reason for removing the samples is that they take too much space. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to take one sample from the "core" (following Pettersson's book above) of each dialect area and skip the huge map? The huge map and the ridiculous amount of samples is simply not necessary. I am surprised noone has ever argued against the way the dialect section is constructed. It's far too heavy and free from interesting information about the dialects.
You are free to participate in improving the dialect section, mr Isotalo. Jens Persson ( 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC))
Jens, your very radical rewriting of the dialect section is in some ways useful, but it is also extremely partial to a certain interpretation which does not enjoy much support among Swedish linguists. The idea of the "genuine dialect" is today seen as overly conservative and rigid by many prominent linguists. The dialect samples from Svenska Dagbladet, with which you have replaced the ones from SweDia are all of people who aren't even alive today. And all of this because you personally don't like their choice of informants. There's still no attempt to prove that your stance reflects academic consensus. The latest sample is from 1982, and the oldest from 1950s, and all of them of very elderly people. This does not accurately reflect how people speak Swedish today, which is one of the prime concerns of this article. You've also removeed (!) a perfectly valid and accurate citation of Engstrand and replaced it only with a general reference to Pettersson.
And I would like you to stop calling me "Mr Isotalo". Peter Isotalo 12:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, you're free to improve the current version by reinstating the Engstrand citation, if necessary.
The problem with the SweDia samples isn't that they are too modern, but that they are not consistent. Some of the samples are very close to Standard Swedish, some of them are very close to the traditional dialect.
I agree with you and everybody who claims that the traditional dialects aren't very interesting for Modern Swedish. In fact, the rural dialects can not be said to be Swedish at all, rather local varieties of the gerenal Mainland Scandinavian super-language. This is of course why all isogloss maps show at last both Norway and Sweden.
I can only see two solutions: (1) Slightly improving the current (i.e., my) version of the dialect section. (2) Rewriting it completely by chaning the name of the section to Local varieties of Swedishand not referring to the SweDia samples as dialects but to as Samples of local varities of Swedish. You simply can't go against centuries of traditional classification of what a Swedish dialect is. So far, you're the one who committing original research. I have simply put Gertrud Petterson's (ultimately the linguist Elias Wessén's) treatment of the Swedis dialect into the article. So, you don't agree with Petterson (Wessén)? I am sorry, but I will never accept the former version of the dialect section. Either you come up with some non-original reserach text, or you let my version be (with slight improvemnets to "Wikify" it a bit more.) Jens Persson [i.e., non-logged-in Hunef] ( 14:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC))
I have reinstated the SweDia samples by calling them Modern Dialects. Can we agree on the general set-up for the dialect section now? Feel free to improve some details, but I think that the current version is quite good. It's a good compromise, I believe.
Note that the most important improvement with respect to the earlier version of the article is that the traditional classification system (Götamål, Sveamål etc.) is not used on the modern dialect samples of SweDia, since that would be utterly meaningless. Ther traditional classification system can only be used in a meaningful way on the traditional dialects. If have everr looked closer on the SweDia homepage, there is no traditional classification system there. They only organize the samples with respect to province, not with respect to the old classification system. Jens Persson (i.e., Hunef) ( 15:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC))
Jens, there is no original research involved in the selection or dialects and you should stop making false accusations because they are false and exaggerated. There are minor uncertainties in the classification of one or two of the selected samples and the description needs to be nuanced with other opinions, but certainly not more traditional views. Pia made some very appropriate comments above and if you want to improve, you should take inspiration from those instead of insisting only on your own interpretations.
SweDia tries to treat all forms of Swedish fairly equally as far as I can tell. They're missing info about the various city dialects, which deserve as much treatment as any of the rural ones, but otherwise they've tried to include as much as possible. I don't agree that we should start labeling dialects depending on how traditional they're perceived to be. They're all dialects. What should be provided, though, is information that there are forms of speech which are more or less divergent from Standard Swedish. But that still doesn't justify making sweeping and highly biased statements about what to define as a dialect or not.
Views on classification change all the time, so there's usually no one version that can be considered correct and final. I spoke to Östen Dahl a few weeks ago about this issue, and he explained that the consensus today has moved away from the separation of "genuine rural dialects", even if its recognized that many of them are in some sense very archaic. This has also been mentioned by professor Lars-Gunnar Andersson who appears on the weekly SR radio program Vetenskapsradion Språket. And I'd say that the old dialect groups are still quite applicable to what you call "Modern Dialects", even if the differences between individual communities tend to be smaller than before. Even Swedes with no knowledge of linguistics or dialectology know of småländska, värmländska, pitemål, etc. That they're not as unique as they might have been 50, 100 or 300 years ago doesn't change the fact that they're readily identifiable to most Swedish-speakers.
No dialect really remains static and even the most conservative of communities have been influenced by the standard language in one way or another. Peter Isotalo 12:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I don't disagree on much being said here. But I don't think that the earlier version of the dialect section is consistent with what you say here. In the article, there was a veri strict definition of the term dialect, especially that it has no influence from Standard Swedish. This is the core of my objection. We can't claim that the samples of SweDia are dialect with this definition of a dialect. What we obviously need to do is to change the definition of what a dialect is, i.e., a much more liberal definition of the kind any geographically localized variety of Swedish. Don't take this wrong, it's somewhat an insult to dialect speaker of the traditional kind to claim that the highly Standard Swedish influenced SweDia sample from their parish is dialect in the article's sense. The fact that most people don't speak the traditional dialect doesn't mean that the traditional dialect is extincted. In each rural parish, you'll find a range of varieties of speech being spoken from the most traditional dialect to the most standardized Standard Swedish. SweDia randomly picks a variety of speech which indeed is more dialectal than the weighted average in the parish in question, but still quite far from the most pure dialect still spoken by a few.
The consensus must be that we either have two subsections (Traditional and Modern Dialects) or one section with a highly liberal and modernized definition of what dialect is. In this definition, there will be no classification into Götamål, Sveamål etc. since it simply has no meaning for varieties close to Standard Swedish. Compare with the classification system for West vs East Norse which only worked until Old Norse times. After Old NOrse, one needs instead a mainland vs Insular Norse classification. We simply can't apply an old classification system to modern dialects. In e.g. Jämtland the typical speech of today does not fit into being a Norrländskt mål (there won't be many agreements with the table in the current version of the article), so one can't label a sample from Jämtland as belonging to the Norrländska mål category. The same applies for 90+% of the samples.
Proposition: Give a liberal definition of a dialect and keep the current label-free version of the SweDia samples. The map with the numbers speaks for itself. Jens Persson ( 22:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC))
Yes, the solution is to assign a liberal definition of what a dialect is. This does not, however, justify the trumping of any choice of dialects, especially not the kind spoken by elderly informants recorded 20-40 years ago, all of whom are most likely dead. As for the classification scheme, you're free to use sources to prove that "modern dialects" are somehow above and beyond the old classification and that they're fantastically free from the shackles of categorization. But if you can't prove it, it should be included. It could easily be supplemented with comments and perhaps combining the current numbered dialect map with color-shading for the dialect areas. I suggest you start cleaning up the additions you made containing the misleading information about traditional vs modern. You should also reinstate the content that cited Engstrand. There is no problem in combining this content with other views on dialectology.
And, again, I really urge that you start the article Swedish dialects, since a lot of the very detailed information you want to include doesn't really fit this already rather crowded main article. Peter Isotalo 03:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
So, suppose we assign a liberal definition of what a dialect is. Then, due to the "Law of Shift", we must also have a liberal definition of what a language is. Ultimately, this means that a dialect according the non-liberal definition (i.e., as in e.g. Wessén's book) is a language in the liberal definition of a dialect. Or?
I think this question is too complex for amatuers like us, mr Isotalo, especially you who haven't even studied dialects on a shallow level. We would need an expert on dialectology to write the section on dialects. The dialect section is not wrong per se as it is now (I assume you agree with me here), but it is obvious that we some disagreements how to write it. My proposition is to contact several dialectologists to supervise the project.
You can reinstate the Engstrand refrence yourself, as I already explained in some of my last posts. No need to bug me about it when you can do it yourself mr Isotalo. Jens Persson ( 15:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC))
I, along with others here, are trying to paint a nuanced and composite picture of what a dialect is while you're insisting on making your own analyses and classifications. I know that Pettersson most definitely doesn't divide Swedish into "modern" and "traditional" dialects in the way you've done here. You're also insisting on picking what academics and sources you deem appropriate or not. The burden of proof is yours in this kind of situation.
To spare the main article from this dispute I've now moved the questionable (or just overly detailed) content to Swedish dialects and replaced it with an attempt to explain the traditional and modern views on dialectology based on Engstrand and Dahl. Peter Isotalo 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article looks fine now. I think we'll have to work on the details on Swedish dialects on the appropriate Wikipedia article. Jens Persson ( 20:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Logical Contradiction -- which changes "often(times)" -- phonology or prosody?

SOUNDS section:

"Native speakers who adapt their speech when moving to areas with other regional varieties or dialects will often adhere to the sounds of the new variety, but nevertheless maintain the prosody of their native dialect. Oftentimes the prosody is the first to be changed, perhaps because it is the element most disruptive to understanding, or simply the easiest to adapt." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC).

Strange "dialect" claims

Swedish is my mother tongue and I can’t remember ever having any problem to understand any dialect. The only “dialect” not understanable by other Swedes I have ever heard of is Elfdalian. In my opinion all multually incompencible varities should be considered separate languages. 2007-02-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Isotalo (talkcontribs) 18:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

What is a language anyway? Why is Norwegian a seperate language? It is mutuallly intelligible to Swedish. By the way, have you ever heard anyone speaking Jamska or anyone from Ekshärad? Aaker 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard Jamtlandic on TV and I had no problem understanding it. There is two ways of defining language. One is language as a social construct: a variety defines itself as language by creating it’s own rules of writing. However, by this definition there would not be any non-written languages. The other way is as a group of mutually understandable dialects. I myself use the first definition for written language and the second for non-written ones. That is how I can come into the justification of the Corsican language yet deny that Scanian is a language of it’s own. But I can quite understand linguists who use the second definition only. 2007-03-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

You heard it on TV. With all due respect, that doesn't mean much. A friend of mine claimed the same, but in the end it turned out he just heard a Jamt speaking Swedish. The speakers of Jamtlandic also speak Swedish, which they use with people who doesn't know the former. I'm born and raised in the province and there is some variations even I can't understand. There is, by the way, several standards of writing Jamtlandic. I have also encountered a number of local dialects along the Norrland coast and inland which are basicly unintelligible to me. Hubert82 08:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Language talent varies widely among people. You might have considerable difficulty to understand some Swedish dialects especially if people talk inarticulately. Yet I have never had any such problems except for Elfdalian which I consider an own language. When I heard Jamtlandic on TV it was a program about Jamts paying tribute to anything Jamtlandic. Why would they not speak as they normally do? If there is no mutual agreement on how to write Jamtlandic it is not a language of it’s own. I wonder if your argument about “several standards” is not an attempt to explain away disagreement on how to write it. Is any of those standards markedly more common then the others? If not I would not count any of them as a “mutual agreement”. 2007-06-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.


Could somebody please translate the following:

Klingar icke modersmålet skönast Binder ej ditt hem med dubba garn Lyser icke själfva gräset grönast På den tufva där du lekt som barn.

Thanks.Cameron Nedland 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The language used is not "modern" Swedish
Klingar icke modersmålet skönast
Does not the mother-tongue sound the sweetest
Binder ej ditt hem med dubba garn
Literary: Does not your home tie with double yarn
I assume it means something like "your home keeps you at it" or something. I'm also assuming that the word "dubba" is actually "dubbla" misspelled.
Lyser icke själfva gräset grönast På den tufva där du lekt som barn
Does not even the grass shine the greenest on the tuft where you played as a child
hope that helps. --Popoi 01:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"language of glory and heroes"

I oppose this formulation:

Swedish ... known since Esaias Tegnér as the language of glory and heroes...

It seems random and not a "common truth" or is it? Even if Esaias said it should it be in there. I mean Rudbeckius said that Atlantis most likely is Sweden (or something like that). And I'd have serious problems seeing this phrase:

Sweden ... known since X Rudbeckius as the utopian kingdom of Atlantis...

as the first sentence in the article on Sweden. // PER9000 13:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Noting that the claim of renown is being made in an English language article, try a Google search on "language of glory and heroes" (with the quotes). I note that somebody made what seemed to be a well-reasoned attempt at eliminating the "literary hyperbole" but that it was reverted as vandalism. Time to unrevert? --Futhark|Talk 16:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support removing this line, either entirely or at least from the first paragraph. Actually, I heard the line mentioned once or twice in my kid years, I think; but mainly in the context of criticism of abundant usage of foreign words: "In the sentence 'Ärans och hjältarnas språk', only the word och ('and') is Swedish". The sentence could be mentioned in such contexts later in the article.
However, I think it only fair to notify Turesson (talk · contribs), and hear his/her opinion, before taking action.JoergenB 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Turesson gets special consideration for an egregious misuse of the word "vandalism"? I don't think so, I think he gets my personal "Please don't call that vandalism" template. I've reverted, I think it's absurd to have an expression of nationalism in the first sentence. PER9000's point about Rudbeckius is also very well taken. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
As you can see, this was Turesson's second edit - summa summarum. I think this is a reason not to bite too hard. On the other hand, Bishonen's message to Turesson (talk · contribs) was more informative than biting, and could be of help for a bona fide but slightly confused newcomer; so I approve of it. actually, I'd like to know where to find this 'personal template', since I might want to use this or something similar myself.
I would of course have informed him/her 'even' without that abuse of terminology in the edit summary! JoergenB 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
That's odd, I could have sworn User:Turesson was a seasoned wikipedian—at, not here—or I would have used a different tone. But I can't find him there. Ah, well. The template is at {{vww}} ("vandalism warning warning"). Sadly, it's sometimes useful for seasoned wikipedians as well! In any case I prefer just copypasting the text, without box and so on, actually, and removing whatever doesn't happen to fit the particular case. I don't want to sound like a template. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
There is - both at Swedish and English Wikipedia - an experienced user named Thuresson. Yes, I had the same question, and checked with him, too. Here he denies all connection with Turesson; and I think I believe him. But as you can see, more users were fooled to think that Turesson = Thuresson :-)
Thanks for the template reference. JoergenB 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nordic Language Convention

I don't know if you would like to include some legal information on Swedish from a new article I have created on Nordic Language Convention. --Michkalas 12:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a nice addition. I recommend including it under "Official status". Peter Isotalo 14:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

About removing {{fact}} requests

A fact request tag was recently deleted with the following edit summary: "do let us know if you actually know of any; don't use article space as a discussion forum". Please assume good faith when people ask that the article's factual base is made clearer. Modern Continental West Germanic languages (German, Dutch, Frisian) as well as Afrikaans and Yiddish, are often considered Germanic SOV languages by various scholars, so obviously the statement as it appears in the article is simply too categorical. See also the Wiki-article Luxembourgish. The request that the statement in this article is referenced to a scholar who actually argues that all modern Germanic languages are SVO languages is therefore not unreasonable at all. And if certain statements cannot be referenced, or if it is preferred to not have things individually referenced in this particular article, an alternative would appear to be to modify the statement somewhat. Also, for the record: I disagree with User:Peter Isotalo's implication in that edit summary that in order to request a source or a fact check, users here will have to present some kind of scholarly support to explain why the request for clarification is made. Rather, it is the person who introduced, or who supports, the statement as an indisputable fact who needs to present the source on which the statement relies for its accuracy. Pia 21:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And a good faith to you too, Pia. I obviously thought the fact was correct. Or are you suggesting I did it to spite Kjonlee? :-p
I would really, really prefer if people actually removed stuff they think is wrong instead of smearing those annoying doubt-spreaders all over articles. They're nothing but simplistic and ambiguous speech balloons in article space; a truly abominable compromise in an encyclopedia with reliability problems. Even Jimbo pretty much agrees with me on that one. Peter Isotalo 20:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It would actually seem more polite, in my opinion, to actually insert a source request and wait for the person to clarify his/her source than to start to delete and change in a featured article, which I assume has already had some kind of verification process before having been granted elevated status. In addition, even leading scholars often argue over certain "facts", such as a language's SOV or SVO classification, so there is no reason to assume that something is "incorrect" without checking first to see if there is actually a source for a statement or if it has simply been taken from thin air. (Otherwise, you may delete something that is valuable and also well-known to others). We can't use personal criteria for deletion and simply delete everything we don't know or think "strange". Time is precious, which is why I prefer fact requests to lenghty discussion threads. Thanks for the good faith sent my way though. Much appreciated. Pia 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mutual intellegibility with Icelandic?

I'm a native Swedish speaker, and I can't understand a word of Icelandic. Say, German, is closer to mutually intellegible with Swedish than Icelandic in my opinion (not saying that it is). Can any other native Swedish speaker confirm or deny this? Dingbats 07:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mutual intelligibility is not something that is either true or false and the article says "to some extent". Understanding other languages is also to a great extent something that has to do with attitude. That you would never be able to understand a single word of Icelandic is obviously not true unless you had actually decided not to try. That it's not as easy to understand as Norwegian or Danish doesn't mean that it's 100% gibberish. The "not a word"-level of non-understanding only really occurs with more distant languages like Russian or Hindi. Peter Isotalo 07:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
But I still don't think that kind of far-fetched mutual intellegibility is relevant here. In that case you could note on the article on English that it's mutually intellegible with Dutch and German, or say that French is mutually intellegible with Romanian or something. I don't think it belongs here. Dingbats 18:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, mututally intelligibility is not something that is either just true or false with no middle ground. Are you sure you've understood how closely related the North Germanic languages really are? It's not even remotely comparable to the distance between French and Romanian. Peter Isotalo 19:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I am a native Swedish speaker myself, and I do know that they are closely related, yes. But it doesn't matter if they're closely related or not when it comes to this; if speakers of the two languages can't understand one another, then that's enough not to call them mutually intellegible. What I'm disputing is where you seem to be drawing the border of what is to be called mutually intellegible and not. I think Swedish and Icelandic are on the far side of that border. Dingbats 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly what "to some extent" means. Peter Isotalo 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
But then as I said, English is "to some extent" mutually intellegible with German, or French with say Italian. Just because you recognise a word here and there, it doesn't mean the languages are mutually intellegible enough to have it mentioned. I went to this page with Icelandic phrases recorded on it and clicked the links at random without reading the text. At best I could make out a word somewhere, but the rest was like gibberish. And I really tried to understand it. You're defining mutual intellegibility way too loosely. Dingbats 06:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I'll remove that line from the article now. Dingbats 15:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I think Danish could be rather difficult because of the slurred speech, but when written or if pronounced slow and clearly, it's generally not difficult. Icelandic, on the other hand, is generally an enigma. Even for clear prose, I can't make out much more than a rough gist, even if I try to make an effort. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 13:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Most Swedes understand very little of what Icelanders say. If a Dane is reading this, he/she might be insulted by the description of Danish as “slurred”. I would say their nasals makes it harder for Swedes to tell the vowels apart. 2007-06-05 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

To 99% of the world's population "mutual intelligibilty" means you actually can have some normal conversation going with the two languages. In the case of Swedish and Iceland, this is not possible (unless the speakers learned the basics of pronounciation of the opposite language, which makes it a *lot* easier, but that's besides the point). This is an encyclopedia; any other definition of mutual intelligibilty may fit for academical linguistics, but not here. Hubert82 08:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, typically a Swede and an Icelander can’t speak with each other unless at least one of them speak a foreign language. I hope that is the confirmation Dingbats originally asked about. 2007-08-11 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Genitive 'case'

I'm going to change the parts in the article where it says Swedish has a genitive case. This 'case' is a clitic that attaches to whole phrases, not individual words (cf. mannen med grå kavajs hatt). If anyone disagrees, don't revert without letting me prove you wrong first. --Dingbats 17:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Dingbats 17:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have gone by somewhat unnoticed. Do we have any sources for this? The interpretation of published linguists is what really matters here. Peter Isotalo 06:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Rinkeby and segregation

The article says that Rinkeby is "a heavily segregated suburb of northern Stockholm" which imo is incorrect and misleading. I claim that Rinkeby is more victim of white fly since it encompasses a very large number of ethnicities and nationalities (although a majority are of Swedish nationality and Swedish born). It does however lack people of the undefined term "ethnic Swedes" that's not used officially. Also, ethnicity is not measured so there aren't any statistics available to back up this statement. - Masken 12:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's immigrants who flock to certain suburbs or white Swedes running away from the (very often non-white) immigrants, it's still segregation. Anyone who has ever set foot in Rinkeby knows that something like 80-90% of people there are Arabs, Kurds, South Americans, Serbs, Chinese, Viatnamese, etc. A statement about the exact extent of the segregation would indeed require a precise source, but merely claiming that there are rather few white ethnic Swedes in Rinkeby is not in the least controversial or even likely to be challenged. Peter Isotalo 05:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Segregated is not the correct word in this case. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, segregated means:
1 : to separate or set apart from others or from the general mass : ISOLATE
2 : to cause or force the separation of (as from the rest of society)
Segregated has very strong negative connotations that imply that the people who live in Rinkeby were forced to settle there, which AFAIK is not the case since many have chosen to live there. Since claiming few white ethnic Swedes live in Rinkeby is more correct, I'm changing the text to match that. panda 14:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete references

Can someone please update the references? There are several references in this article that are incomplete, such as "Crystal, Scandinavian", "Bergman, pp. 21–23", "Pettersson, p.139". The title of the article, the author's first name or initial, year of publication, journal (if published in a journal) etc needs to be included. Using Wikipedia:Citation templates may help ensure that the minimum info is included in a citation. panda 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Notes" simply refers to the sources in the "References" section, where the complete information on all the sources are included. henriktalk 10:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Citation templates have the disadvantage of introducing huge swathes of wikicode for very little benefit, making the article a lot more difficult to edit. The format of referencing used here is pretty much identical to how footnotes are used in print literature and avoids the staggering redundancy that the citation templates tend to lead to. Peter Isotalo 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't notice the References section. Thanks for pointing that out. –panda 05:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)