Talk:Sång till Skåne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From VfD:

--Julle 23:06, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)--Julle 23:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)Wikisource, except that there's something odd going on: Scania isn't a nation. Perhaps someone else can determine if this is a deletion matter (i.e. someone making a political point) or just a transwiki and delete matter. Geogre 17:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • You looking at me, Geogre? I think there probably is a political point. Nils Hansson was a very, very, very minor Swedish poet, younger brother of notable poet Ola Hansson (1860-1925). Nils can't be found in the Swedish national library catalogue or on Project Runeberg, though the song (which is not of great literary merit) was probably published in some form (magazine?) about a hundred years ago. It's a eulogy in praise of the poet's home region Scania (Skåne), the southernmost tip of Sweden, and to describe it as a "national" anthem doesn't make sense. That is either an egregious slip of the pen or a political promotion of the small but vocal regional Scania Party and/or other representatives of the cause of Scanian independence from Sweden. (No, not kidding.) I lean a little towards the political alternative, if only because the same user has also posted the song on the List of national anthems article today. (I'd remove it, but Wikipedia is broken, at least from here, and I don't know if I'll even be able to save this edit.) Do not transwiki. The song itself is a harmless piece, but an old song about Skåne (in Swedish, people!) described as a national anthem isn't of any use except for mischief, even if the anonymous poster meant no harm. Anyway, delete article for non-notability. Bishonen 21:37, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It might be a Wikisource candidate, if only because of the trouble someone's gone to with all the formatting... but does anyone know what the copyright status is? I don't know if he's been dead long enough under Swedish law for it to be PD.... Either way, it's certainly not an encyclopedia entry, nor is there any point in having an anthem of a non-existent nation. -FZ 13:54, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Seventy years after the author's death is the cutoff, so a Swedish author who was alive in 1934 is copyright, one who was dead is PD. Nils is too obscure for my research skills, but well-known brother Ola was the elder and was born in 1860. You figure it: there's nothing much against Nils' song being copyright still. Btw, the text appears with the same formatting in Swedish Wikipedia, a reasonable place for it, and with a sensible introduction. I translate the latter:
"'Vackra hembygd, du som vilar' is one of the songs often associated with Skåne. It is also known as 'Sång till Skåne'. The text is by Nils Hansson and the music by Cid Smedberg."
Please nobody clean up our article by putting in this version, though. The song is possible though unverifiable copyvio. Btw, the user who entered the song on Swedish wiki is also a user here, and I've written him a note, in case he'd like to add to this discussion. Bishonen 15:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Scania isn't a nation? Why is it then full member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation who has alected a Scanian into it's board of directors? If Scania's national anthem should be deleted, then for instance, Scotlands Flower of Scotland also would be in big trouble... Snio 20:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, "Snio", (I see your account only just came into existence, hello there), I've written a lot on this subject already, so I'm not going to take up your, uh, gauntlet, I'll just alert one or two well-regarded Swedish Wikipedians to share some of the explaining here. It's interesting to see that there really was a political point and not a simple mistake, but I get tired. A bit nauseous, too. Bishonen 20:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Snio, we are not accountable for the actions of the "Unrepresented Nations" board. We are accountable for Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's obligation is to be factual. Scania is not a nation: fact. Scania's song, if it has one, does not get to be a national anthem. Secondly, Scania's unofficial un-nation does not have a chosen verse as its song, so saying that this is it is POV or original research -- both grounds for deletion. Thirdly, argument by analogy is a fallacy, to start with, but if you have a case to make that Scania was a separate nation that ruled itself for 600 years or so and that it joined Sweden only as a separate kingdom whose legislative rights have been recognized under a "United Kingdom," then, by all means make it and argue for its parity with Scotland. Otherwise, you've chosen a rotten analogy to make a fallacious argument with. Consensus so far is for deletion. It's fine that you believe in your region, but this isn't the place for boosterism. Geogre 00:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The lyrics does not belong here more than any general song lyrics, nationalistic or not, since Wikipedia is not a repository of that kind. Contributions regarding culture are welcomed, but pushing a particular political agenda is not. If it does actually belong in the public domain it is a candidate for Wikisource, not here. Remove from list of national anthems. -- Mic 22:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Mic, the act of deleting the Scanian song (which of course is a contribution regarding culture) is definitely a "pushing a particular political agenda". In fact, deleting it is a school example of doing just that.
And just look at List of national anthems to see that Wikipedia sure is "a repository of that kind". -- C. Nilsson
  • You're confusing 'nation' with 'nation state'. Basic mistake. Scania is a nation (a historical people separate from other peoples) but not a nation state, simple as that. It's of course officially recognized as such by UNPO och FUEN, so that isn't an issue. If a nation has a song then it's a national anthem, please don't waste people's time saying otherwise. Sigh, there are too many Swedish nationalists (Sverigedemokraterna and such) around in this thread. Every deviation from Swedish "national culture" is considered a "threat" by these people. Don't listen to that political propaganda. That belongs to the 19th centrury. Deleting the Scanian song because of these people's interests would be like blindly obeying the wishes of Front National in France. -C Nilsson
    • It seems that you are arguing ethnicity = nationality. In the contemporary world, that is not a valid position, as the nation-state is the political level upon which "national anthems" and representation in world bodies takes place. Again, all of these are debates folks can have in other forums. Wikipedia is held to strictly the most verifiable, and so, as with every other nation and national anthem, we rely upon political nation states. Geogre 12:59, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, have Skånepartiet and Sverigedemokraterna fallen out amongst themselves? Too bad. There are so few of you that you ought to be able to play well together, and the last I heard you were all marching under the same banners. You know, "Ignorant xenophobia!" "Fantasies of ethnic superiority!" "Glorious past sewn out of whole cloth!" Fellow voters, excluding sock puppets, I can't apologize enough for bringing lunatic-fringe Swedish politics down on your heads. As if VfD wasn't under enough strain. :-(
About the copyright/transwiki issue, which is the only real issue here: I hope I wasn't giving the impression that I Googled for Nils Hansson's vital details and then gave up. I'm quite used to academic research, and short of travelling to actual Scanian archives, I think I've done what can be done, but without success. Please drop me a line on my talk page if anybody'd like to know the details. Bishonen 11:26, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The copyright issue is just an excuse not to have to publish the song. According to the book (there are those too) Eric Mårtensson: "Utsikt från Skurups hus - Kring Vemmenhögs m. fl. härads folkhögskola 100 år", 1988, Skurup, Nils Hansson lived 1850-1929. He was Ola Hanssons older brother, not younger. Page 5 if you want to check. He was principal of Skurup Folk High School and translater of Dutch lyric poetry and, according to, Mårtensson had a "fin känsla för poesi", a "fine sensation for poetry". So don't trash his memory as a writer. Summary: the author has been dead for more than 70 years and the song is now PD. - C. Nilsson
      • Hey, great! Thank you very much for that info. I've checked out the credentials of Mårtensson's book in the LIBRIS catalogue. It's not realistic for me to go to the Royal Library and look inside it for Nils Hansson, but I think we should take C. Nilsson's word for the year of death being 1929. So the poem is PD, transwiki it by all means. (Just the lyrics, of course, not the "national anthem" nonsense.) Bishonen 10:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It's quite interesting to notice that the same people in this thread that puts so much effort to get Scania's song deleted from Wikipedia on the plea that Scania isn't a nation state, obviously have no problems at all with the national anthems of other non-nation states as Basque Country's Eusko Abendaren Ereserkia, Brittany's Bro Goz ma Zadoù, Catalonia's Els Segadors, Cornwall's Bro Goth Agan Tasow, Frisia's De âlde Friezen, and many others. And maybe these people also should check if their own Du gamla, Du fria is a copyright violation? ;-) Snio 22:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Ouch! Ouch! Cutting sarcasm! I can't stand the pain! But I'm sure you're right about the List of national anthems, I was just thinking the same thing as I followed the Sång till Skåne contributor to it (very convenient feature, the "Contributions" button — by using it I can also see, for instance, how Snio's only contributions are right here): "There are probably some more bombs on this list, I wish I had time to research it." See, what you don't seem to appreciate is that Wikipedia is a big-ass place. You think it's the people voting Delete here — four people? Five? — that maintain all the articles ... ? Or you think the List of national anthems is the only one with errors in it? Look around a little. Maybe you'll even get inspired to start helping out, and become a real contributor. Bishonen 23:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • To complete the personal attacks you should maybe also point out, that I'm a contributor to Danish Wikipedia, which makes me a traitor to my country.Snio 00:39, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Oups, well you know Snio, the Swedish nationalists in this thread has one standard for Cornwall, Basque country and Catalonia and another standard for regions in their own country. ;-) I'd say it's because the other nations don't threaten their precious Swedish cultural "unity". To my surprise, Scania does. Accept cultural plurality, people, wether concerning immigrants or other people in your country and in other countries! Scania is a as much a nation as other regional peoples ( http://www.unpo.org/member.php?arg=46 ) and therefore has an national anthem - whether you would wish it to be otherwise or not. - C. Nilsson
          • Lovely, a posting that's not signed in any way, that's all we needed. (Hey, no, it wasn't signed when I started typing this, but I see you've edited it since to add your name, C. Nilsson. That's good, but please use the four tildes signature system as well, or some other way to indicate when you posted. If you interline posts without any timestamps, the discussion becomes impossible to follow.) You guys know that can't be taken seriously on VfD, right? But maybe I shouldn't address you as "guys" ... you could be all be the same guy/gal, for all I know. Enough with the chitchat, though. I'll explain what really is interesting about the posting of Sång till Skåne, in case any international contributor here is wondering whether it really matters if the article stays or goes. See, the difference between the versions on sv and en explains the importance of the issue to this group, whose representatives (or just one representative?) you've met above. The sv article merely describes the song as "one of the songs often associated with Skåne". They know better than to talk about the "national anthem of Scania" to Swedish readers, because there would be double takes and outrage: in Sweden everyone knows what their terminology is code for. But on the English wiki I suppose it was worth trying, for the publicity benefits of having a "national anthem" page that they could proudly link to: Look here! Not only is the nation of Scania recognized by UNPO och FUEN, but our nationhood is celebrated by the biggest online encyclopedia in the world! Bishonen 09:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • I have only posted under the signature, C. Nilsson, I promise you that. Now I use the Wikipedia signature system too, as you wanted. The "Sång till Skåne" we debate in this thread isn't an official national anthem. (The centralist Swedish state would never accept that.) Not all national anthems are official: still they aren't disputed. For example, the Swedish national anthem is not official; there has been discussions in giving it "juridical recognition" in a motion to the Swedish parliament, but that hasn't happend yet. "Sång till Skåne" is as official/unofficial as "Du gamla du fria". --Cnilsson 11:49, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Also, Snio, you haven't commented on the banner slogans I created above, but I hope you liked them, please feel free to use them if you're in any international rallies. Released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Bishonen 09:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Yeah Bishonen, all that is Scanian is awkward, narrow-minded and provincial. And of course there is international rallies where we conspire against Sweden. Snio 11:20, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
              • Uh, didn't you read my post with the banners, then? It said that the Scanian Party and Swedish Nationalists are both marching under the banners of "Ignorant xenophobia" etc, so they ought to be able to play together. You think anybody in this thread holds any brief for the Nationalists, you're dreaming. Scanian equals awkward? I beg your pardon. I'm from Scania myself. Bishonen 12:40, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
                • If there really is no Swedish nationalism at all behind the interest here for Scania's song to be deleted, it is quite interesting that nobody at all yet have started a vote for deletion of Brittany's Bro Goz ma Zadoù, Frisia's De âlde Friezen, Cornwall's Bro Goth Agan Tasow or Catalonia's Els Segadors, just to name a few. For some reason, it is only Scania's song, among the many, many national anthems of non-nation states here in Wikipedia, that these people wish to delete.Snio 14:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
                  • Snio, I was wrong to taunt you, but this is too much. You're a registered Wikipedian, you say you contribute to Danish Wikipedia, you should have some sense of how wiki works. List these pages for deletion yourself, take the trouble to introduce them and explain why they should be deleted. Who exactly is it you expect to do all the work around here? Cnilsson has provided valuable information. What use have you been so far? We register pages on VfD as we come across them. You've come across these. Don't cry about how "interesting" it is that somebody out there or "these people" haven't done this, that or the other on Wikipedia. Do it yourself. Bishonen 16:11, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
                    •  ??? It is not me who have argued here, that any national anthem of non-nation states should be deleted :-D I've pointed out that this debate also conserns many other national anthems of non-nation states, and given some examples. So come on now, Bishonen, why haven't you or any other opponent to national anthems of non-nation states nominated them for deletion yet? Snio 17:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- orthogonal 21:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete song of unverifiable...well, everything. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Hi, Cnilsson, glad you registered and I totally believe you about not being the same person as Snio. About the song: I agree it was gratuitous of me to comment on literary merit, which wasn't the issue anyway. I can honestly say I don't think any worse of this song than of Du gamla, Du fria. Bishonen 14:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Mic. Fredrik | talk 06:38, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It would be interesting specifically in which way my counterarguments to Mic wasn't good enough for you, Fredrik. Anyway. I think this discussion is stupid. There are more than 20 nations/regions in List of national anthems which aren't national states today. Anything from Cornwall and Corsica to Frisia and Quebec. The idea of that page is even that they have there own indication (the name in italic)! Scania certainly isn't the first. Singling out Scania - recognized as a nation by UNPO and FUEN - as a nation/region which alone must be completely deleted is pushing a particular political agenda. In my mind, this issue is clearcut, the page should be kept, but in case you actually think there is any doubt, read the Deletion policy on Wikipedia: "If in doubt... don't delete!" --Cnilsson 16:11, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lyrics in a foreign language, untranslated, from a song of minor-at-best notability, do not belong on the English Wikipedia. The existence of the song is the most that might warrant mentioning, in an appropriate article, but having its own article is more than I find justified. --Michael Snow 17:03, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Then you have a lot of work ahead of you Michael Snow. Look at List of national anthems Snio 17:24, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Look at the Deletion policy. Under "Problems that don't require deletion" the following is listed: "Article written in a foreign language". Anyway, now I made a translation. So see Sång till Skåne again. I know that there probably are serious English errors in my translation - it's not my mother tongue so please excuse me - but this is a cooperative project, as I understand it. Feel free to improve on your own and/or ask me what is really meant by some wording. --Cnilsson 18:22, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. 1) It is the national anthem of Scania, as official as the swedish anthem (Du gamla, du fria). Ok, it's unofficial, but nevertheless it's the only song considered to be a scanian national anthem. The swedish wiki-encyclopedia Susning.nu (the worlds largest non-wikipedia wiki-site) claims so. Not only independent states has national anthems. 2) The text should be acompanied with an english translation, a note that the author of the music is Cid Smedberg, but these things aren't hard to do. 3) The song isn't really "minor" as someone said, I have found it in mandatory songbooks för the early swedish school. --Aron Boström 18:07, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppet RickK 04:47, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • No, this user is just a newbie on the english wikipedia. I suspect this discussion has attracted many from sv, for example. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 14:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Huh? Do you try to insult me? I'm a newbie in english wikipedia, I have previously only anonymously contributed to the swedish and occasionally the english wikipedia since the swedish wiki Susning.nu dropped public editing. The reason I created an account was so that I wouldn't got accused of beeing a sockpuppet. I'm pretty sure I'm myself, Aron Boström, from Susning.nu (15 months a top contributor), Gnuheter (a swedish Slashdot clone, Second most commentator) and Skånefederalisterna (The Scanian Federalist Party) fame. --Aron Boström 15:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I suggest it change its title into English, because this title really makes no sense to me, I don't even know how to read it. Of course, my reading ability is not the standard of deletion, but just as what I mentioned million years ago that this is English WP, don't introduce too many foreign words make nonsense to English speakers. If English translation is there, please go and pick that up! Otherwise, what about my using some more weird words to name the entries in English WP (like Chinese characters, Japanese characters, Korean characters, Greek characters etc)? --Yacht (talk) 18:40, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I hardly find one single song among 200 or so on List of national anthems which does what you suggest. Check out the list. The ones with English title references are all also originally in English, except for Macedonia and Yemen. That page is thankfully quite consistent. It's all "Ave Maris Stella", "Sououd-e-Melli", "Ålänningens sång", "Hymni i Flamurit", "Kassaman", "Amerika Samoa", "El Gran Carlemany" etc. Translations follow in English within parenthesis, but the reference is in the original language -- almost without exception. --Cnilsson 19:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Sockpuppet RickK 04:47, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • keepNils allan 20:27, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppet RickK 04:47, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not have enough facts to help decide whether this song is encyclopedic or not. However, I observe that most of the keep votes use some variation of the argument "it's no different than some other song on the list of national anthems." That is not generally considered a valid argument on this page. List of national anthems may itself be an article in desperate need of clean-up, especially if, as some have asserted, the standards are being applied inconsistently on that page. Cutting through all the personal attacks and non sequiturs, my understanding of the other arguments to keep are summarized below. I would appreciate any facts that would help clarify the question. Clarifications to the synopsis below would also be in order as long as the arguments remain short. Thanks. Rossami 22:18, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think that the standards are being applied inconsistently on List of national anthems. In fact, above, I wrote: "That page is thankfully quite consistent." Eg. references are, almost without exception the original language song name. Present national states are written in roman fonts, others, ex-national states and 'regions', are written in italic. It's all very nice and well-thought out. It's quite a neat page. I do support the system on that page. I do that because I agree with what someone wrote below: "The definition of a nation should be broad". And so I'd like anyone who wants to delete Sång till Skåne to actually say that they are opposed to the complete present system on List of national anthems. None of those have done that! Why do I like to hear it? Because I only find consistent arguments credible. A general discussion over how to organize List of national anthems is to a great extent a matter of taste. But applying different standards to different national anthems is politics, nothing less. And it will lead to other endless debates like this one on the VfD page. In closing, I'd like to once more repeat the Deletion policy on Wikipedia: "If in doubt... don't delete!" --Cnilsson 15:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a national anthem. Move to Wikisource. RickK 04:47, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Arguments to delete
      1. Not sufficiently notable for inclusion in the English Wikipedia (not widely known outside a specific geographical area, not written by an internationally known composer, etc.) This makes it functionally unverifiable for future readers.
      2. Since the article is predominantly source text, not commentary about the song, Wikisource might be a better home for the article.
    • Arguments to keep
      1. It is notable because it has been adopted (by persons unknown) as the unofficial anthem of a predecessor territory of Sweden. This territory was incorporated into Sweden well before the text was written, but retains some sense of separate identity.
          • (I'm interlining here, I hope that was what you meant.) I don't know if it matters, but Scania/Skåne is not a predecessor territory, it hasn't had independence or self-rule. It emerges in history around 800 AD as part of Denmark, to be ceded to Sweden in 1658 or maybe 1719 (long story). The historic Danish roots are far from forgotten in Scania today, and I believe it retains a sense of Danishness and therefore non-Swedishness, rather than of separate identity.--Bishonen 00:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Nope, incorrect. Scania emerges in history earlier as a political unity, sometimes in federation with the other two danish "kingdoms", sometimes with own kings and sometimes split between several different lesser kings. After 800 AD Denmark is considered a kingdom, but a lot of rivalty can be found between Scania and the rest of Denmark, during some time periods Scania was independent, finally Scania was incorpotated in the 14th centuary. The swede Magnus Eriksson Smek had during this time the title Rex Scaniæ - king over Scania - and ruled a three-country-union (Sweden-Scania-Norway). Regarding the identity; There sure is a danish mentality, mostly in that Copenhagen is considered to be the "mental capital of Scania", but the swedish identity is far more larger. Notable is that the 85 % of the population consider themselves to be more scanian than swedish. (Source: Kristianstadsbladet/TEMO, around year 1999). --Aron Boström 15:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Verification is established through another website (Susning.nu, a wiki with the same inherent difficulty verifying content that we have).
        • Notability has been previously considered and rejected by the Swedish Wikipedia.
          • This is a misunderstanding, probably my fault. The song is in the Swedish Wikipedia, here [1]. I was only arguing for the significance of sv.Wikipedia calling the song, not a "national anthem", but "one of the songs often associated with Skåne".--Bishonen 00:05, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      1. It is notable because it is in the mandatory songbooks of Swedish schoolchildren.
          • Was included, rather than is. I believe Aron Boström's statement about a songbook for the "early Swedish school" must refer to "early" as in "a long time ago", like the early 20th century. I don't know, so I hope Aron will supply more exact info — I'm only going by the song being so old-fashioned, in values and in vocabulary. I can't see it being considered appropriate or comprehensible for modern children. --Bishonen 00:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Yes, that is correct. There no longer are nationwide schoolbooks and certainly no mandatory songbooks. This songbook ("Den svenska sången", the swedish song) is not used in todays school. the number of this particular song is in the range 350-370, I can't remember the exact number. --Aron Boström 15:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Most national anthems are old-fashioned and are not always 100 % "appropriate" if they have some ancestry and is something else than a modern-day assembly. The Swedish anthem talks about "Thy throne rests on memories from great days of yore" (refering to the magalomaniac Swedish expansionist kings in the end of the 17th century). It's normal for that period around mid- or late 19th century. The French song says: "To arms, citizens! Form your battalions! March, march, Let impure blood, Water our furrows". I just want to make sure you're not using this as an argument against these songs' existence on Wikipedia. --Cnilsson 15:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      1. For practical reasons, it is better to have a consistent broad policy considering the songs of non nation-states than to have endless infected political debates whether one particular nation/region is "enough nation" to be accepted on Wikipedia. A consistent policy also makes it easier for users of Wikipedia to find their way. --Cnilsson 20:29, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - to answer the question "what is 'Sång till Skåne'". The phrase "national anthem" may need looked at - as may other issues (like reproducing the lyrics), but I don't see this as reason to delete. zoney ███ talk 23:43, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The definiton of a nation should be broad
  • Keep -- Pjacobi 21:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! If the article entry is to be deleted, then the reason for that has to be that it's not notable, not the controversy over how to express Scanianness in English. The confusion about what constitutes a nation and what does not has little to do with this issue. Do Bavarians or Austrians constitute nations of their own? Do the Welch or the Flemish, the Sorbs or the Samis? --Ruhrjung 13:12, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

*Delete! Otherwise I will make sure to find a song about Öland as well, since one of the (more obscure) politicians on that island declared Öland to be independent from Sweden a couple of years ago. I think he's somewhat alone in that opinion, but hey, the point is that there has to be some limit conserning how big support the separatist movement does have, before we accept it as a reality (with corresponding inclusion of national anthems and whatnots). \Mikez 17:25, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    • Which clearly shows that you and others here (probably both proponents and opponents) try to use Wikipedia with a political aim. That's not good. Wikipedia is supposed to have instruments to handle political conflicts with a Neutral Point of View. --Ruhrjung 17:57, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

***I'm sorry... I regret that I didn't mark the above as the intended sarkasm. My point with the remark above was that there has to be a line somewhere - to be able to say that *this* separation movement is significant in some sensen - *that* is not. Of course it is my personal POV that I think the Skåne separatists could be considered pretty non-significant, and I my only reason to believe so is following argument: ***:I consider Swedish media to be free, independent, and in general trustworthy ***:I can't recall these separationists to be mentioned in national media. :::Conclusion: I don't think they are important. But of course, as I have not looked at regional media I can't say whether this is a big movement in Skåne with some kind of "general" support. If it is, ok, then I won't object keeping it with present formulation (i.e. the 'national' anthem stuff), and my trust in Swedish media will be severely damaged. On the other hand, you talk about "political aim" - I'm afraid that I consider almost everything to "political" in some sense or another. The fact that Wikipedia strives for NPOV can be considered as a political statement. The fact that Wikipedia strives for "opennes" and "freeness" (if those are the proper words, if not excuse my bad english) - may also be political (in some sense) - hence you can imply that "(almost) every contributor has a common political aim". Actually, I would go as far as asking you for one single statement which can not in any way, by any crank, be considered as political. Sorry, but I just had to rant - I know this is not quite the proper place. Please feel free to delete it (the complete post) if you really think it is too inapropriate for the discussion. ::: \Mikez 10:20, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

        • Yeah right Mikez, the existence of national anthems for non-nation states equals separatism. Identities beyond that of the nation state is dangerous.Snio 13:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Mikez, I'm stunned by how you make a connection between the cultural expression of a song based on regional identity and separatism. I deplore the kind of anti-pluralistic culture which form such ideas. In many other countries parallell cultures (and the public expression of those) and parallell identities are natural. No-one has to warningly wave the "Separatism!" card because of that. (BTW outside this subject, I consider Swedish press extremely centralist in its reporting. But it's of course ok if we differ on that.) --Cnilsson 20:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • (As a side note, which probably will give me a bad mark from some Swedes, I am tempted to add that as an immigrant to Sweden I don't give much for the Swedish press. Not in any aspect. Neither its handling of language, nor of bias. Un-critical journalists exist in all countries, but the dominance of an uncritical attitude, and of mainstream beliefs, is more total in Sweden than I've experienced in other European countries. The situation in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the Anglo-Saxon world is uncomparably superior, and even in Denmark you can find journalists who are able to make independent analyses and who actually ask questions when they interview. I have great respect for Sweden's long democratic traditions, and for the Offentlighetsprincipen, but unfortunately not for Swedish journalism.) Ruhrjung 10:20, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

end moved discussion