Talk:Scania: Difference between revisions

"Improomements" comment _and_ two observations

I'd like to add my two-cents here, for what it's worth...
Until I read this article, I had _NEVER_ heard of the Skåne region being referred to as "Scania". That lead to a bit of confusion on my part, and I imagine the same is true for others. I suggest a bit of latitude... Let's not be so strident and zellous (sp?) with enforcing some wikipedia set of rules. I suggest we let the "Skåne" spelling take a more prominent position in the text.

Topic Change... I've heard two observations about Skåne that I'd like to share...
1st, it's said that the Skåne region is to Sweden as Texas is to the United States. While they may not go around with ten gallon hats, hand guns, and spit tobacco, they _apparently_ have their own distinctive dialect (probably from the Danish times?) and a certain ATTITUDE that we in the US associate with Texas. I have absolutely no idea if the above statement is correct or not, but in case it's relevant to the article, I toss this out there for someone to research.
2nd, it's also been said that consumer product testers from European companies that want to sell in the U.S. first test their products for sale in Sweden. The corrolary (sp?) is that U.S. companies that want to sell consumer products in Europe first test market them in Sweden. In both cases, for similar reasons. Again, I toss this out there for someone else to consider looking into.
LP-mn (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

languages

When you translate a region's name into the original languages, you can't allways write the languages in the brackets alphabetically. As it is now the article looks quite weird, when the languages Danish and Norwegian are put in front of Swedish in the brackets. Swedish is the only official language of the Scania region and if the region has a simular name in other languages that is unintresting. You don't write Danish in front of Swedish in the article:Sweden, when you translate the name Sweden into Sverige (in fact you don't write Danish at all, eaven if the name Sverige is used also in Denmark).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leffe00 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Danish is spoken and written to a great extent in Scania since a very large amount of the citizens of Scania are Danes. For most of human history, Scania was part of Denmark and only Danish was spoken and written there. For these reasons, there is no point in putting Swedish in front. Rather, we do what we do when the sorting order is controversial: sort in alphabetical order. We could remove Norwegian though. --Law Lord (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean with a "very large amount"? In for instance Mamö there are about 9000 persons born i Denmark, out of a total number of 80000 persons born outside Sweden. People from the former Yugoslavia stills constitutes the largest group of immigrants. --Vedum (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide the source for your claims. However, I certainly agree that Malmö is more Turkish, Arabic and Yugoslavian than it is Swedish. --Law Lord (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You could find it here Malmö#Demographics. After the opening of the Sound Bridge Danes are the gretest immigrant group, and also the fastest growing. They often retain their jobs in Copenhagen, and buy dwellings in Malmö, where it is cheaper. But in the province as a whole other groups, with other languages outnumber the Danes. But, Swedish is of course the lingua franca used by all groups when interacting with each other. --Vedum (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As I suspected, your wording was not entirely accurate. Nor is the wording quite accurate in the statistics. The statistics say nothing about where people are born but merely from where they have migrated. Many people, who have Danish citizenship, but who are not Danes, migrate to Sweden, because the Swedish government – in the opinion of many people – would like to turn Sweden into a multicultural and ultimately Muslim state. The Danish government has different wishes for the future of Denmark. For that reason, the statistics offer little guidance, since many of the migrants of Danish citizenship may not speak Danish at all (they may have some skill but rarely ever use it), since their mother tongue is something entirely foreign. --Law Lord (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If, as you claim, so many of the Danish citizens migrating to Sweden are born in other countries and not speaking Danish the number of Danish-speakers in e.g. Malmö would be less then the 9000 indicated in the statistics. But, just a few days ago (10 October) you said that "Danish is spoken and written to a great extent in Scania since a very large amount of the citizens of Scania are Danes". Suddenly, they are just Danish citizens, but not Danes. Could you explain that change of opinion in just a few days? --Vedum (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not had a change of opinion. I offered my opinion on Scania and you offered statistics on Malmö. The former is a province, the latter a city. --Law Lord (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. But Malmö is an example, just because it was more easy to find statistics right here in Wp. But it is certain that most of the Danes in the province live in that city and its surroundings. As soon as I find statistics for the province (or for Skåne län, but the difference is very small) I will present the figures. But which is your source for the statement that a a "very large amount" are Danes? --Vedum (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed "danish" from the first sentence in the article since it is not a language spoken in Scania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.206.41 (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Odd statement about "nationalistic discourse"

The article contains (20 March 2010) the following section:

The status of Scania and the influence Scania has on the relationship between Denmark and Sweden are still contentious issues in the nationalistic discourse in the two countries. One of the state nationalist parties, the Sweden Democrats, is active in Scania and has launched frequent campaigns in the province under the slogan "Keep Sweden Swedish", a slogan which party spokesmen pronounced was their "most important message" during the 2006 election campaign. A member of the nationalist Danish People's Party created another stir in December 2007 by announcing that he would like to see Scania, Halland and Blekinge reunited with Denmark, if they expressed such a desire through a referendum.

The "nationalistic discourse" in Denmark and Sweden ar quite unanimous. Their concerns are about immigration, especially from non-european countries, and the growing number of muslims. They are populist and xenophobic, trying to exploit the fear of ordinary people. But that has nothing whatsoever with the "status of Scania". This is a non-issue in both countries and has been for some 200 years. A few individuals' odd opinions are really not worth such attention. --Vedum (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the first part about "nationalist discourse" seems oddly disconnected to the last part. I think the meaning is something a like to the far-right SD claiming Skåneland is Swedish while the dominating view in Denmark is that Skåneland is Danish in every sense except the legal sense (e.g. Scania, Halland and Blekinge are Danish linguisticly and culturally, but at part of Sweden at the moment).

You are however quite wrong in claiming the status of Scania being a non-issue in Denmark, or that the view is only shared by a few individuals with odd opinions. Apart from that Søren Krarup is a very famous Danish politician and debater. And also very controversial. The only non-controversial thing he has said so far was claiming that Skåneland was essentially Danish. This is a mainstream view in Denmark and completely non-radical and non-controversial. He's usually attacked from all sides whenever he opens his mouth (and for good reasons), but none criticised him in regard to Scania, Halland and Blekinge. Even on the Danish far left reunification with Skåneland is strongly supported. That may be a surprise for you. Dylansmrjones (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As born and raised in Sweden and now living there I have never heard such discussions. I do not think that the SD is "claiming" anything at all about the "status of Scania". This province has and shall not have any other status than any other province. I have no plans to give them my vote so I have not studied every detail of there programme. But, he SD normally sees DF as their "sister party". I do not think they are opponents in this question. Many of the leading persons in the SD are from Scania and the province is one of the strongholds of the party. The SD got 6,58% of the votes for regionfullmäktige in Scania. That the "far left" in Denmark "strongly supports" a "reunifiction" is really very surprising. Which party has that on their agenda?? --Vedum (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can gather from danish politics DF does not consider SD their sister-party; at least not officially, but who knows what happens beneath the surface? I'm not surprised that Scania is one of the strongholds of SD. It used to be a stronghold for the swedish/scanian Framstegsparti and some form of local Centerparti, both parts of Skånes Väl (as far as I recall). I also remember the Sjöbo-affair (it was Sjöbo, right?) back in .... 1987 I think; something with foreigners/fugitives. I was quite young back then, so I might be mistaken.

The official position of all (major) parties and movements in Denmark in regard to Scania and Skåneland appears to be: Denmark and Skåneland belongs naturally together, and as such closer cultural, economical and political integration are fully supported. It is not intended to imply border revision as such. Rather it means abolishment of the border in everyday situations. Jens Kramer Mikkelsen (Socialdemocrat and former mayor of Copenhagen) and Ilmar Reepalu (apparently a member of the municipal council of Malmø? Or possible a PR-something? The worktitle in swedish is "kommunalråd och kommunstyrelsens ordförande i Malmö" - that's probably some sort of PR-thingy (e.g. talsmand)) wrote - in a article brought in Politiken and Sydsvenska Dagbladet 12/11-1999 - that the bridge between Zealand and Scania was the first step in reunifying what naturally belongs together, while making it clear it wasn't ment to imply border revisionism nor revanchism as such. Another thing is what is written on the forums of respective parties and movements. Particularly among members of centre-right parties.

The only place where I've seen some sort of opposition to reunification is among the far right (which does not mean DF; DF is centrist, at least in Denmark) due to the amount of muslims in Malmø. There is of course also strong opposition to launching a war on Sweden. Only fringe groups support that, or perhaps fringe persons is a better term (they are too few to even make a group).

However, it still doesn't change the fact that the part "The status of Scania and the influence Scania has on the relationship between Denmark and Sweden are still contentious issues in the nationalistic discourse in the two countries" sounds weird since there is next to no discourse across the border, as far as I know. It appears to be an internal danish subject. Dylansmrjones (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hallo! "Kommunstyrelsens ordförande" I think is the equivalent of a "Borgmester"in Denmark i.e. "Mayor" in English. This title is always problematic in Sweden as it up to about 1970 was used (Borgmästare) for the chief judge of a "rådhusrätt" (the equivalent of a Byret) and not for a politician.

You are quite right that the sentence about "nationalistic discourse" "sounds weird". I would like to change it or delete it, but I thought you would put it back. Perhaps we can make up some consensus about that. Good! A thanks for cleryfying things about opinions in Denmark. Perhaps SD likes DF more than DF likes SD. I think SD sees DF as some ideal pattern for them. And they strongly support Denmark in the conflict with the Muslim world. [1]. --Vedum (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As I replied to Saddhiyama I believe the statement about "nationalist discourse" is original research. Probably a result of an attempt to balance the statement from Søren Krarup. The only reason I haven't removed it is because I don't know much about the internal debate in Sweden. Personally I think SD resembles the british BNP more than it resembles DF. I thought SD was founded by persons coming from the neo-nazi environment in Sweden. But perhaps I'm mistaken? I am sure we can find some form of consensus on the modern view on Scania, but I lack knowledge of SD and its policies. Dylansmrjones (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"The only non-controversial thing he has said so far was claiming that Skåneland was essentially Danish. This is a mainstream view in Denmark and completely non-radical and non-controversial." That is not true at all. I am a Dane and I have met noone apart from members of DF or more radical nationalist groups that held those views. "Even on the Danish far left reunification with Skåneland is strongly supported." That is also total nonsense, I would very much like to see you provide any evidence for such a statement. Regarding your most recent post, talks of Scania and Zealand experiencing closer economical ties does not necessarily imply a reunification with Denmark, in fact I would claim that that is very much far from the truth. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Saddhiyama. We're off topic now, but okay. I'll answer anyway. As far as I know radical nationalist groups in Denmark do not support reunification as long as there is a "large" muslim presence in Skåneland. At least not any that I know of. There are quite a few such groups of course, but Vederfølner and its allies do not support it unless the muslims are expelled. I have yet to meet persons from SUF (Socialistisk UngdomsFront) who are opposed to reunification - so far I've only met persons who supported it. I haven't written anything about "Scania and Zealand experiencing closer economic ties". I explicitly wrote that the official views at the moment were: "Full support of cultural, economical and political reunification without border revision as such. I agree that such "reunification" does not necessarily imply border revision, but I wrote that in my former post. It looks like you didn't read my second post. The exact wording was this: while making it clear it wasn't ment to imply border revisionism nor revanchism as such. So we agree on that one. That reunification with Skåneland is non-controversial is impossible to prove, except through the lack of criticism of Søren Krarup in regard to his statements (the problem with proving a negative). Only Rune Engelbreth Larsen critizised him, and Rune Engelbreth Larsen is just as controversial. I'd like to see some evidence of this subject being controversial. You can't find a single politician critizising Søren Krarup in regard to Scania. However, this thread is about the odd statement about "nationalist discourse". As far as I know there is no cross border nationalist discourse at all, and as such the statement seems to be original research. Dylansmrjones (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It sounds as we can all agree that this is not a great issue in either country. I think that Mr Krarup said that he would like a "reunification" if the population in Scania "voted for it in referendum" or something like that. And that makes it much less controversial. He did not say that the province should be taken by force. I think he also said that even if he regrets the loss of the provinces he understands that it is impossible to get them back. So, the whole thing is a "tempest in a tea-pot". Perhaps it could be mentioned in an article about Mr Krarup instead. --Vedum (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We can definitely agree that it is not a great issue in either country. And you are correct about the statements from Mr. Krarup - it was of course through referendum. His statements created no stir in Denmark, the swedish reaction however did create a reaction; in strong support of reunification (69% as stated in the sources). But the lack of criticism of him and the lack of a official push for reunification of course proves that it is not a major issue. The incident is however still notable, in part because a famous debater and member of parliament publicly stated such a view and in part because there was no criticism (in it self notable). I just don't see the connection with the SD wanting to keep Sweden swedish and the claim of a cross-border nationalist discourse. There is no such discourse. The question is how we reword the section. I reject the removal of references to Krarup's statement. The incident is notable and deserves one or two sentences. A detailed treatment of the incident can be done in a different article if anybody wants to. I'm satisfied if it is mentioned here briefly. The two organisations mentioned by Saddhiyama are supporting each other instead of being opposed to each other and as such cannot be taken as evidence of a nationalist discourse across the border. A temporary solution could be to remove the section (or parts of it) of "Rivalry" and start from scratch. It is easier to start from scratch than fixing something which is broken. 130.226.70.2 (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Dylansmrjones (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There is of course the option of moving the statement of Krarup and related incident to the article of Skåneland which may be more appropriate than this article on Scania. Dylansmrjones (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You got it the wrong way around Dylansmrjones. It is up to you to prove that it is non-controversial if you want a claim that such a sentiment is widespread in Denmark to be reflected in the article. I agree with Vedum. As the issue is a non-issue in Denmark it mostly belongs in the articles of the few people that actually holds such ideas. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "nationalist discourse", there are a couple of organisations like "Foreningen Skånsk Fremtid" og "Föreningen Skånelands Framtid", which have both Swedish and Danish members. And according to their websites they apparently work for some kind of self government of Scania, not a reunification with Denmark. But whether it is a widespread movement in Scania I don't know, it is certainly not in Denmark. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Saddhiyama. This is my last reply to you. You are grossly misreading my comments. The sources you are asking for are already used in the article, and other sources (Sydsvenska Dagbladet and Politiken, incl. exact date, month and year) have also been mentioned by me. Besides that I don't intend the article to express such views, nor have I explicitly stated such a wish, nor even implied it. I'll be satisfied if the statement of Krarup is briefly mentioned, since the incident after all was quite notable. 130.226.70.2 (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Dylansmrjones (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The term "Dominion"

The article talks abot the "Scanian dominion" &c. If you check the article Dominion you only find references to British usage. The article Dominions of Sweden was created by the user "Mic" many years ago. This man was famous for creating his own terminology. My question is: Is the word "Dominion" used in English when talking about non-british territories? --Vedum (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving of a section to Skåne County or Region Skåne

Some parts ought to be moved to other articles. The traditional provices (the landskap) in Sweden are not administrative or political entities. In this case the County (län) and the Region have almost the same boundaries as the province. But nevertheless the section "Regional politics" fits better in in the article Region Skåne. If someone has another opinion, please let me hear, otherwise I will make a move. --Muniswede (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but maybe to Region Scania. There is no such thing as "Region Skåne" in the English language. John Anderson (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, look here: http://www.skane.se/default.aspx?id=54721 --Muniswede (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is more about the name (exonym or endonym). Nobody seems to have an opinion about the moving of the section. Therefore I will move it now. --Muniswede (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

History section to page History of Scania

The history section here is much larger that the whole history article. They should be merged one way or the other. --Vedum (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It has now been done. --Vedum (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

strange formulation ?

"There are no independence movements organized for electoral contests in Scania", supported by a source from 2005, if we are absolutely thorough, this doesn't cover time after its publishing. And the phrase "organized for electoral contests" feels a bit embroiled. Better and more true (based on the source) could be "By 2005 there were no political parties which supported independence" Boeing720 (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Regional politics section - again

Four years ago I proposed that the section Regional politics could be moved to the county (län) or region (landsting) articles as the province (landskap) is not a political entity. There was no discussion about that at the time (only one concerning te use endonyms and exonyms). Now, the article is under constant rewriting by two users, "Boeing720" and "Peter isotalo" with somewhat opposing approaches. I now wonder if you have any opinions about this proposal. --Muniswede (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion Scania (which indeed is English, atleast Brittish English) should be the main article it cover both län(administrational) and landskap (historical province) - provided the difference remains mentioned, from geographical aspect "Östra Karup"'s parish is the only difference. Articles like "Malmöhus län" and "[[Kristianstads län]" ougt to be very brief. "Region Skåne" is the name of the "landsting" and should, 1. a brief comparission toward "län", the parliament and its (minor) functions etc (Sweden isn't a federal nation) 2. health care and hospitals, and [if they still exist] hostpital regions. If You want to dig deeper, could what special care / wards that the different hospitals offer 3. collective trafic ("Skånetrafiken") - but the main part of it ought to be here and in separate articles. Also the regional politics (and parties) which is debated in the parliament could be used in Region Skåne, but issues about a further Swedish regionalization, and ideas of such (which hasn't developed under the current Swedish government, by the way. Plans existed in the zeroes), and things like TV4 closing down their tiny regional television, are issues that fits better here. The collective traffic is a bit more difficlut, since "Skånetrafiken" (subordinated to Region Skåne) not quite equals especially trains in Scania (Other "landsting" aswell as Denmark is involved in Oresundstog, and Krösatåg (subordinated to other "landsting") runs in the north-east. While as SJ is a national network, and I believe their tickets are not valid on other trains and vice versa - All in my opinion. Boeing720 (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Muniswede. The provinces are at most cultural and historical entities. It is not accurate to describe modern party politics in this context.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Primary source observations

I removed[2] Boeing720's addition regarding referendums. They are entirely based on primary sources in the form of statistics. As such, the selection of facts has been made by a single user. I don't doubt that there are differences in how Scanians vote, but the comparison should be with all of Sweden, and based on selections by secondary sources.

In line with the comment in the section above, it's also quite questionable why it is relevant in an article about an historical landskap.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is in order to show differencies, I made no personal interpretaions of the data. The article covers its population aswell. I once asked a noteboard (as an example) if "Mein Kampf" could be used to show that Hitler hated Jews. The answer was yes (to any part where Hitler gives antisemitic statements), provided no further interpretations were added. I find this to be similar. Boeing720 (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same thing, actually. And both are not advisable. Claiming that Hitler was an anti-semite is rather uncontroversial, but the extent of his opinions should always rely on secondary sources as interpreted by experts in the field, not his own writings. Extrapolating facts from general statistics is making observations and deciding notability on your own.

And, again, this related to modern politics and belongs under Skåne County. This article is about territory that ceased being an administrative, political entity almost 300 years ago.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that some people writing here are very interested in showing how "different" Scania is from other parts of the country. And they are selecting examples proving their thesis, but omitting others. But such dissimilarities from the national average could also be found in other parts of Sweden, in the far north for example. --Muniswede (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Skåne"

I'm not sure if "Scania" or "Skåne" is the most common name used in modern English texts, but it's undisputable that both are used in actual English texts.[3][4][5][6] This is the same as with all other Swedish Place names except for Gothenburg. I'm sure there's plenty of uses of "Skane",[7] but I don't know how relevant it is.

So I have no idea why it would be referred to as "locally known" when it's used in both Swedish and English (unlike "Göteborg"). It seems to be for reasons other than the guidelines specified by WP:TITLE or WP:LEAD.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

All ngrams show Scania as consistently much more common[8]. I have no problem with changing "locally" to "also". I just think we dont want to have "Swedish" between the two forms of the name.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter now You have used just the kind of "crazy" sources You've told me to never use. Encyclopedias and unknown single web-sites. Some of them might even been written by someone who may sympathize with SD. This confuses me Boeing720 (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bolded name of province in lede

Some of us have made corrections a few times now, to the first line of the article, to make it clear to any regular (non-Swedish & non-scholarly) reader that the English word "Scania" is not pronounced the same as the Swedish word "Skåne". That attempt to establish full clarity keeps getting reversed by a few Swedish editors, with edit summary comments like "Swedish is the only relevant language, just like with all other Swedish cities", which I find very confusing and hardly can be intentional (?) on English Wikipedia. I am now restoring the clarity and asking any and all editors to be considerate. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Why did you start a new discussion when this was already being discussed in the section above? How is it relevant where other editors come from, and how do you know? As for "being considerate" is that what you are being here do you think? Peter has shown good sources that skåne is being used in English language sources as well, not just in Swedish and not just locally.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This section specificlly deals with what is beginning to amount to an edit war about the article's first line and about best possible clarity there for regular readers of English. Who ever doubted that "skåne is being used in English language sources as well"? I certainly didn't, and that's not what we're even discussing. When speaking English, to pronounce the word "Skåne" with Swedish phonetics (which is what I assume Swedes want done, not Skain, which rhymes with rain) a speaker or English speaks Swedish when pronouncing that word, not English. I'm a bit surprised that that isn't clear to you. English and Swedish, after all, are two different languages, with totally different phonetics, and their words are pronounced in English or Swedish, depending on which language is being spoken, but not in a hodgepodge of both. In this case, though, the few non-Swedish readers of English who might be interested in learning how to try to say "Skåne" in Swedish or Scanian can try to pronounce it in Swedish or Scanian, and then, of course, go back to speaking English. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

PS Trying to take everbody's ideas into consideration, I've now made an additional adjustment. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is essentially at this point an editwar. That is because you keep reverting instead of discussing and arguing your point. I have looked how we handle other places that have both an English and a local language name that is sometimes used in English, and I think the solution you are advocating reflects general practice. I think I have heard English speakers say [skoʊ:ne] which is an Anglicized pronunciation of the Swedish, like [pa'ri:] is an Anglicized pronunciation of the French Paris. But I think you are right that we need to identify skåne as Swedish and not try to pass it off as an English language name. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Serge has a very valid point here. Something which in one way or another we contributors far too often forget. Why are we writing articles ? The answer must be for the readers. Which at this Wikipedia are people who read and speak English. Hence we must to the best of our capabilities try to not forget this important issue. Also in this article. Boeing720 (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrative center

The center for political administration of Skåne is not Malmö but Christianstad (Kristianstad).

After the joining of the two administrative shires (~county)or actually "län" "Malmö Hus län" and "Kristianstad län" in the 1990s the administration was split betewen the two capitals but the center for the Regional Parlament, "regionsfullmäktige" and political power is Kristianstad and not Malmö, as this article falsly implies.

193.14.65.55 (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)