Former good articleScanian dialect was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 17, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


  1. Talk:Scanian (linguistics)/Archive1 (52 kb)
    • The old material was concerning whether Scanian was a dialect or a language. It was originally tagged #* language, but especially Peter Isotalo argumented that it could not be a language. He backed it up with much evidence. This led to a NPOV and a disputed tag put on the article for several months. Eventually the sources of the language-claim was found, and due to overwhelming evidence it was unisonely decided to move the page to its current location and drop the language infobox.
    • There was some controversy concerning regionalism contra objectivism, where the credability of some sources were disputed. Those sources were then properly attributed and mentioned which solved the dispute.
    • This summary has been written by --Fred-Chess 22:13, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Talk:Scanian (linguistics)/Requested move (3 October - 15 October 2005) 41 KB
    • Skånska → Scanian dialect – Current title not in English

Including "bornholmsk"[edit]

This[1] addition seems dubious to me. There's no source for the classification and there's an obvious internal contradiction in the division of "Danic" and "Macro-Swedish".

Why are we putting stuff like this into the infobox in the first place? There's clearly no agreement about this among linguists.

Peter Isotalo 12:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions[edit]

I added ((contradiction)) since the article does not appear to be in agreement with itself. Here are the problems:

The classifications by SIL, ISO 693-3 and Glottolog all seem to be without real substance. There are no demographical surveys and no actual studies of the modern, living dialect.

Peter Isotalo 17:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not contradictive[edit]

The most editors appear to strive in one direction. We have the same general display of this article as of most others. A overviweing lead followed by history. If the were no contradiction for an article going back some 1200 to 1300 years - and yes it's about the the language in Scania. Today and so far back as ever is possible. Editing Wikipedia is not only about the sources, but it has to be based on such. But ONLY sources would give a lot of confusional jumping. For an article like this, isn't just academic sources written in Stockholm the ONLY thing the article can be based on. And since Tommy Isosalo doesn't like Scania or Scanians overwhealmingly much, the I suggest he ought to return to topics which he clearly suits him far better. (However not Danish pastry, that was a joke). But Tommy why not wright about the 08-dialect (which used French R, in the upper classes until 100 years ago, perhaps) or "Muminsvenska" (no offence ment, just don't know the correct term even n Swedish, sorry), But your impacts in everything that can be related to Scania, doesn't improve the articles. And please stop searching for litterature you personally disproves of, that's not constructive - bur sooner contradictive. You can do much better in other articles, Tommy. If something is horrobly wrong, only the should you intervene - but that relies ALL articles. Boeing720 (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like this you wrote above " 'Today' multiple examples of notable modern people who both speak Scanian and perform music or acting in Scanian. This has to refer to Standard Swedish since people like Mikael Wiehe, Hans Alfredsson..." - Why not artists who haven't spend 75% of their careen in Stockholm instead, like Peps Persson, Kal .P. Dal, Hans "Kvinnaböske" Andersson ("fåur man ta honnen me' saj in te himlen..") And earlier Gabriel Jönsson and Edvard Persson etc ? Boeing720 (talk) 06:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Banning Boeing720[edit]

I have reverted the wholesale swap of the lead by Boeing720.[2] Boeing has by now been informed half a dozen times over the course of several years why personal experience and synthesis should not be reflected in article content. In my experience, Boeing's additions to Scanian topics are 95% poorly-worded and subjective crap, most of it fueled by the conviction that Scania is under the thumb of Stockholm-based political elite and that the Scanian language and culture is under threat of... well... something.

Considering the long and consistent history of Boeing's bad additions to articles about Scania and Scanian, I suggest that a movement toward a topic ban be initiated. I recommend all experience users who watch this article as well as Scania or Swedish language to outright revert any additions of content made by Boeing that aren't purely technical or grammatical in nature. His competence when it comes to editing Wikipedia is simply too low and he does not appear to be willing or capable of any real improvement.

Peter Isotalo 07:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had an understanding, Peter ! Have you already forgot the help I gave you about a user who put a lot of effort in wanting me to join some kind of anti-PeterIsosalo-club ? You can stop giving me advices , especially about Scania, its history, culture and language. It's only you who have critisised me - So you have "adviced me" like six times. Which isn't the same as if six of each other independant contributors had done the same. Do you now say that the "French-R" is not used by wide majority of native Scanians ? Just as in Denmark, most German-speaking areas, in some Norwegian areas and also together with a blowing sound in Dutch dialects. (The latter can be a metter of discussion, but certainly not for Scania) [1] Entire Scania is located below "gränsen for tungrots-R" or in English "the boundry for French-R".

Further - We have had absolutely no contact with each other for more than a year (I guess). And in "Wikipedia-time" a long time anyway ! But You suddenly make an attempt to discredit me , during a period when I have been forces to deal with other matters - in the real world, actually. So why do you give me this sudden frontal attack now instead of when I made the correction ? Dirty tricks ? Or You have lost yet another "bun-discussion" and simply has to through bad emotions on some of your enemies ? If it's the latter, then I forgive you. I don't like dirty tricks - of any kind. Which I indeed have proven to you, like I've already stated.

You proved yourself to be affected of the Wikipedia-illness in the never ending debate about danish pastry. Cool off ! Boeing720 (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy with other things and haven't checked Wikipedia in a while. I don't see how that has any relevance to the quality of the content you added.
Peter Isotalo 16:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Swedish Encyklopedia ,Bonniers "Äpplet" ("the Apple"), volume 8 of 15, article "Landsmål" (Dialects) - the map in bottom of column 1154

Requested move 18 September 2019[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: withdrawn — kwami (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Scanian dialect → Scanian language – (Old) Scanian is a separate language per Glottolog and other sources, including several cited in the article. Modern Scanian (90+% of those who speak "Scanian") is a mutually intelligible dialect of Swedish, not very different from Standard Swedish, which is where much of the confusion comes in. This article, however, with the Glottolog code and old SIL code, is about the language. There's a political element as well -- the Swedish govt doesn't want to spend the funding that would be required by minority-language laws if they accepted Scanian as a "language", esp. as only a few old folks still speak it, language revitalization isn't going anywhere and it will soon be extinct, so there's not much point. ISO reflects the political position, just as it does with Serbo-Croatian, Hindustani, Malay, Sichuanese and other languages that various govts object to recognizing. (E.g., a proposal to create an ISO code for Sichuanese was recently rejected by the ISO-639 committee, despite linguistic sources showing that it is only 50% intelligible to Standard Chinese, which per ISO standards qualifies it for a separate code, because the Chinese govt objected.) Thus ISO is not a RS for what is or is not a language. Such positions are certainly worth discussing in our articles, but linguistic decisions should be made per linguistics, not politics. — kwami (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's probably best. Whether Scanian is claimed as Danish or Swedish, it's not the only variety of East Danish, so we can sidestep the issue that way. I'm closing the RfM. — kwami (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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