Talk:Scanian dialect
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
- Old material is in Talk:Scanian (linguistics)/Archive1 (52 kb)
- The old material was concerning whether Scanian was a dialect or a language. It was originally tagged a 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)
Triphthongs
Good summary of the previous discussions, Fred. You're doing newcomers and outsiders a big favor by cleaning up the talkpage. Kudos.
About the triphtongs, though. Is this something you've read or heard about or was it just a guess? I just want to make sure I didn't delete something that should've been in there.
Peter Isotalo 14:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm certain it isn't the best possible summary (very subjective thing to write of course) but I wrote what I remembered... you could probably add a paragraph if you think I have left something important out...
- About the triphthongs: I read it the first time when I was in school, in a Svenska-bok in the chapter about Swedish dialects. I think it was in 7-9th grade. My experience is also in agreement with it.
- --Fred-Chess 18:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Do you have any examples of these triphthongs?
- Peter Isotalo 03:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Unbacked statements
I see nothing to back this statement up: " Although the dialect is influenced by the region's proximity to Denmark, most Danes today consider Skånska to be even harder to understand than Swedish.". In my experience (I live near Helsingør) Skånska is much more easy to understand than the other Swedish dialects and most people I know acknowledge this as well. Of course, this is just my opinion and it shouldn't be included for that reason. Neither should that comment, so I'm removing it.
Continuity of ideas
The first two paragraphs of the article seem to be a bit confused in how they communicate information. Anyone mind if I attempt to edit them a little bit? P.MacUidhir 20:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have edited bits of the article, changed the order in which some ideas were presented, and revised a few other things in the first two-thirds of the article. There remain quite a few unsupported assertions within the article, mostly dealing with evidence of Skånska possessing unique dialectual elements. Is there anyone editing this article that can provide that data? Perhaps the person/people who originally inserted the data in each instance?
- If anyone objects to my edits, feel free to let me know. P.MacUidhir 23:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
The move
I must say I really prefered the old article title, even it was slightly bulky. Considering we're encouraged to use English when possible, it doesn't make sense to use the Swedish term. Especially not when it contains umlauts that few are familiar with. I'm also fairly sure that the majority of our readers don't really know how to play .ogg-files.
Peter Isotalo 17:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Regarding .ogg files- do you know of a popular file format that is comparable in quality to an .ogg file whilst also being free of copyright issues in using the file compression algorithm? .mp3 is certainly not a good idea. P.MacUidhir 00:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Skåne-map
Could we switch the current map? It's quite misleading since halländska and blekingska are considered separate from Scanian. And please avoid linking to Skåneland unless actually discussing the term itself. It's not in general use in Sweden and I doubt that most Swedes or even Scanians are even aware of the term.
Requested moved
Skånska → Scanian dialect – Current title not in English —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 14:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The current title of the article is in Swedish or Scanian or something. It ought to be in English. It was formerly known as Scanian (linguistics), but that sounds like there's a thing, in linguistics, called scanian, like a phone or an allophone. I think Scanian dialect better parallels Swedish language. An alternative would be Scanian Swedish or, of course, Scanian (linguistics). At any rate, anything's better in English than in other languages with diacritics.
Regarding the comment that "Skånska" is better because it's more consistent, I'd argue against that. Not all dialects have English names, so the English name is the same as the foreign one (probably minus diacritics); if that's not the case, then they should be moved to the English term. Also, it's not necessarily the case that the country name and the language name are the same: Consider French vs France or Denmark versus Danish.
—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 14:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Approval voting
- Add #Support followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
- The name should remain Skånska
- Vehemently opposed. move. As long as SIL and a minority of Scanian regionalists consider it a language, it can under no circumstances be moved to Scanian dialect. I would personally never dream of calling Scanian anything other than a dialect and consider those who want to call it a separate language silly and without reasonable arguments, but as long as there are differing opinions of the magnitude that SIL de facto represents, it's not acceptable to use such a blatantly POV:ed title. XXX (linguistics) is the standard disambiguator used for articles that are of disputed language/dialect status (see Mandarin (linguistics), for example). And why has no one done even a bare minimum of research before voting? It would sufficed simply to contact me and ask about it. I could've easily explained the situation and directed you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Structure for the appropriate guidelines. / Peter Isotalo 02:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- This appears to be an argument in favor of Scanian (linguistics), which is not where the article now is. Is it meaningfully an Oppose? (I could accept, but do not prefer, that alternative; see below. 18:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- per Peter and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Structure guideline. The issue whether to call Scanian a dialect or a language is controversial; therefore, the article should bear a name that is neutral wrt to that controversy. The professional, encyclopedic way to go here is for the alternative opinions to be outlined in the article, in an NPOV way. Not for them to duke it out in a page move vote. The title should not take sides whatsoever. Bishonen | talk 07:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would recommend to keep the current Skånska version. Gryffindor 01:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Propose moved to Scanian dialect
- Strongly Support move. Scanian dialect is probably best, since it can be used unpiped; although alternatives are certainly acceptable. More below.Septentrionalis 17:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Should Skåne be moved to Scania too? // Fred-Chess 20:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Article titles on the English Wikipedia should be in English. Jonathunder 23:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support, with reservations (see below) P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. But whether to Scanian (language) or Scanian (dialect) (with or without brackets) I don't care. Arbor 09:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 13:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- propose move to Scanian
- SupportPhilip Baird Shearer 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 13:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- propose move to Scanian (linguistics)
- Support. Philip Baird Shearer 09:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 13:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Discussion
- Add any additional comments
I have changed this to an Approval voting as per guidelines on WP:RM. WP:RM votes are often changed to this style when during the consensus building it becomes clear that there is more than one possible move option.
The ordering of the options is cronalogical. Feel free to add other proposals to the bottom of the list. You can only vote to support a proposal. There is not Opposing voting when votes are under approval voting. You can vote for as many options as you wish and you can change your votes to help build a consensus at any time up to the close of the vote.
I have tried to move the votes under the correct heading but if you think I have made a mistake on any of the votes please inform the person so they can fix their vote. Philip Baird Shearer 09:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Technically, I would consider Scanian to be a dialect. Politically, a case could be made for granting it the status of a language in its own right since Serbian, Croatian, Danish, Swedish, and other languages differentiated mostly because of the "it has an army and a diplomatic corp" argument. The difference with Scanian is that it really is a dialect, and it has no army or diplomatic relations that require other entities to recognise it as a language, which makes it a special case.
I vote that it be considered a dialect of Swedish here at Wikipedia, since that is technically the case, and this is an encyclopaedia, not a textbook concerned with biases and terminology based on nationalism.
As far as SIL and a minority of Scanian regionalists are concerned, that does not matter one bit to me. SIL is already well renowned for its decidedly unscientific biases, and "a minority of Scanian regionalists" does not constitute a collective opinion that requires us to write articles based on their illusions of regional separatism, whether those be cultural, linguistic, or political. If "a minority of Scanian regionalists" want Scanian to be recognised as a "language" instead of a dialect, I would recommend that the supporters of that minority viewpoint develop some pop-science to support their claims. I would love to view whatever they come up with, considering that Scanian is a dialectal hybrid, mostly containing Swedish forms with remnants of older Danish vocabulary and pronunciation in its modern form.
On the matter of what title the article should bear, I have no comment at this time, as there seems to be more than one valid suggestion presented here for discussion.
P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
To make my position clear I have no position on whether the word dialect is in the title but I do not think "Skånska" is an English name and it should not be in the page mae. If someone wish to change this into an approval vote then I will consider other options. Philip Baird Shearer 11:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Philiph, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. NPOV combined with both the naming conventions and the guidelines of Project Languages supercedes anything that Requested Moves can muster. Polls are still evil and especially so when they're constructed so that any of the voting options are blatantly POV.
- Peter Isotalo 11:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Peter, regarding your vote above: the intro of the article states: " Skånska is a closely related group of dialects of Swedish spoken in Skåne", and then explains that SIL erroneously regards it a language. So the article itself clearly establishes Skånska as a dialect, not a language....? In a way I think that the article name should reflect the article content? So "dialect" would not be wrong. There is also no POV dispute on whether it is a language or a dialect anymore, because in the previous discussion all were in favour of it being a dialect. // Fred-Chess 11:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Fred, if you can find a more appropriate term that isn't either "dialect" or "language" to go in the lead, then please suggest one. Otherwise, please avoid using article content as an argument to POV the title.
- And why are you so hell-bent on avoiding a neutral article title rather than one that is not? The formula XXX (linguistics) has been in use for a long-ass time and has been recognized by consensus at Project Languages. We even have two FAs (Cantonese (linguistics) and Mandarin (linguistics) with these names. Why is this consensus as well as my attempt to uphold NPOV being disregarded from on account of this isolated RM poll?
- Peter Isotalo 17:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Peter, regarding your vote above: the intro of the article states: " Skånska is a closely related group of dialects of Swedish spoken in Skåne", and then explains that SIL erroneously regards it a language. So the article itself clearly establishes Skånska as a dialect, not a language....? In a way I think that the article name should reflect the article content? So "dialect" would not be wrong. There is also no POV dispute on whether it is a language or a dialect anymore, because in the previous discussion all were in favour of it being a dialect. // Fred-Chess 11:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Then why not just Scanian? But I remain unconvinced that this is a more common term in English than Skånska. Skåne Swedish still seems like the best option to me. We don't have to kowtow to every minority view in our articles and article names. For example Earth doesn't seem to give a lot of weight to those who think the phenomenon is only a few thousand years old. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I feel that Peter is misrepresenting my intention in requesting the move. I did not do it to further some political motives to oppress the speakers of Scanian, or whatever. I did it because the current title is not in English, which is wrong, especially when it means it has funny characters. I didn't outright move it (which I think I could've) because I wasn't sure if this was the best possible title and wanted to have a discussion. I did a bit of research (based on the article's content) and decided that (seeing as the article says that it's a dialect of Swedish), calling it the Scanian dialect shouldn't be POV, but seeing as it is, someone really ought to add a NPOV banner to the article to make that clear.
I also think Peter is being somewhat arrogant. And why has no one done even a bare minimum of research before voting? It would sufficed simply to contact me and ask about it. What, so you're the boss-king of Wikipedia and know everything about everything? The move hasn't happened yet, mate. We're discussing it and trying to achieve consensus. You don't need to act like you've been stabbed in the back and we're POVing up the article (which, I observe again, is already POV if my suggestion, which is based on the article, is POV). I said in the first place that this was just one suggestion amongst many. I didn't know we had a better procedure for doing votes on multiple options; you have my full support in stopping this poll and starting another one if so.
BTW: There's plenty of neutral terms that can be used instead of language or dialect, if that's a problem in the lead. One such example is 'language variant'. Should we call it Scanian language variant? I really don't care, as long as it's in English unless there's some other insurmountable problem.
Otherwise, I'll ask you to try and be constructive.
—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 22:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I don't object in principle to moving the page to a name that makes it clear to non-Swedish speakers that this is a language variant but the currently proposed move doesn't make sense to me unless Skåne is also moved to Scania. And I was under the impression that Scanian Swedish would be more in line with Wikipedia's naming conventions than Scanian dialect. We have, for example Newfoundland English rather than Newfoundland dialect. So I support a move to Skåne Swedish and I also support a move to Scanian Swedish on the condition that a consensus is reached to move Skåne to Scania. I guess I oppose the current move if every opinion has to be binary. I'd also like to note that I have never edited this page and I feel that the opinions of those who have should be given more weight than those of outsiders like me. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 01:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
This vote violates NPOV
I question the validity of Requested Moves as a policy maker. RM does not encourage consensus, since its guidelines dictate that issues be settled by approval voting with an unacceptaby small majority (60%!). The vote has been flawed from the start, since the move to Skånska was made without seeking any kind of consensus or respecting appropriate naming policies. The following issues makes the current vote unacceptable:
- NPOV is non-negotiable. Any article title which is not neutral is by definition invalid and no vote can change that.
- The guidelines and long standing practice of Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Structure have been ignored, despite the fact that it has had consensus for well over a year.
This vote should be discontinued, the article moved back to Scanian (linguistics) and if anyone opposes that, then please take the issue up at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Languages and explain why NPOV should be ignored in this particular. Consensus for both of these already exists and overridees anything RM can muster.
WikiProject:Languages
WikiProject Languages cannot relieve us of our obligation to use English. Fortunately it does not pretend to.
- The intro to Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages expressly says: "These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them."
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Structure is explicitly described as disputed. (I have added some language to it, but not that.)
- The fourth point of Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Structure deprecates usages such as Skånska or Scanian alone, as implying that Scanians are only a speech community, and not a culture, a people, or a region.
I would accept, although I do not prefer, Scanian (linguistics), or Scanian language; I would even tolerate Scanian. All of these are, of course, moves; and therefore do not change my vote. I suppose an approval summary will be needed, but this is enough for now. Septentrionalis 18:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- No one is advocating that the article stay in the current title, Sept. My own and bishonen's objections are becuase the intended move is to Scanian dialect, which is not neutral. I agree with your interpretation that the vote should be whether the article should be moved or not, but the problem is that particularly Philiph doesn't view it this way, and he echoes his usual demand that each seperate suggestion for a move should require a sepearate vote. He's done it in several votes before this and it always leads to hopelessly confused discussion and bureaucratic chaos. To me the issue is crystal clear; Wiglaf moved the page to Skånska without any prior consensus. The article should've defaulted back to Scanian (linguistics) before the RM vote even started. Unfortunately, no one bothered to actually read up on this properly, and right now we're stuck with several votes supporting a move that contradicts several guidelines as well as NPOV.
- Peter Isotalo 18:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Wiglaf moved the article on my request. My reasoning was that we have articles "Halländska", etc; also all provinces were moved from Latin to Swedish names, including "Scania" that was moved to "Skåne", furthermore we have the article called Skåneland which was moved from Terra Scania. So why not move "Skånska" accordingly I reasoned? It seemed to make little sense to move all other articles to their Swedish counterparts, but have this article still with the English/Latin name. If we do move this article to an English name, I reason we should also revisit articles such as Skåne and Skåneland. // Fred-Chess 19:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- We certainly should reconsider Skåne, but this is not the place to do it. I doubt any further progress can be made without an approval summary. Septentrionalis 19:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, Sept. The provinces is a separate discussion. And, Fred, please don't try to apply consistency to all these article just because they'r about Sweden. We can't always be 100% consistent in article naming.
- Peter Isotalo 20:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- We certainly should reconsider Skåne, but this is not the place to do it. I doubt any further progress can be made without an approval summary. Septentrionalis 19:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Wiglaf moved the article on my request. My reasoning was that we have articles "Halländska", etc; also all provinces were moved from Latin to Swedish names, including "Scania" that was moved to "Skåne", furthermore we have the article called Skåneland which was moved from Terra Scania. So why not move "Skånska" accordingly I reasoned? It seemed to make little sense to move all other articles to their Swedish counterparts, but have this article still with the English/Latin name. If we do move this article to an English name, I reason we should also revisit articles such as Skåne and Skåneland. // Fred-Chess 19:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Retreating from approval voting
From my talk page:
- Philiph, please stop changing votes drastically right in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Encourage people to vote according to the standing vote, not one you decided by yourself. Please read my objections about the validity of RM as a policy maker. I do not recognize RM as any kind of arbitrator of NPOV. Peter Isotalo 16:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
At the moment I think that as there are so many options being expressed that an approval vote is more likely to reach a consensus than any other method. At the moment the danger is the page will be moved to name most do not think is the best one. But if someone other than you revets this revert I will accept the majority view that approval voting is not wanted. If anyone else reverts it please reinstate the vote made by user:Cassowary who has got caught up in the revert made by Peter and is entitled to have his/her view added to what ever voting method is used. Philip Baird Shearer 16:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)