User talk:Bruvssa

Welcome!

Hello, Bruvssa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Hi Bruvssa!

Hi there Bruvssa. Glad to see your work, especially your efforts to make sure Sami issues are represented! One thing I need to let you know, so that you don't feel that people are deleting valid and important information from your contributions for no reason: When you add information, it's important that the information reflects and can be traced to what published sources say about an issue and not how things should be or how terms should be used in a perfect world. In order to make sure that the "should be" angle is included and covered properly, it needs to be introduced as an issue found in a reliable source (see WP:NPOV#A simple formulation and WP:NPOVT#Attribution and citation). The reason I'm writing all this to you is that the idea that the term "Scandinavian languages" is too restrictive when it's used only for Germanic languages needs to be attributed to a source. Do you know of a publication, article, news report etc where the issue is presented or debated? I have looked briefly for possible sources, but I'm really busy in real life right now and won't be able to help much. I searched the official site for The Sami Information Centre (by the Sami Parliament in Sweden) first, but that site says only that the term "Scandinavian languages" is used for North Germanic languages: "A language with deep roots".Sápmi: Language history, 14 November 2006. Ed. Inez Svonni Fjällström, Samiskt Informationscentrum Sametinget: "The Scandinavian languages are Northern Germanic languages. [...] Sami belongs to the Finno-Ugric language family. Finnish, Estonian, Livonian and Hungarian belong to the same language family and are consequently related to each other." If you have a source in mind and need help to make it into a ref tag for the footnote sections of the articles, please let me know and I'll be happy to help with the formatting. Best wishes, Pia 21:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruvssa, I really enjoyed reading [1]. Thank you so much for finding that source! Now, about your message on my user page: "My main point about 'Scandinavian' as a description of the North Germanic languages is simply that there is no 'Scandinavian' language branch of Germanic that is distinct from North Germanic." The answer to your point is, of course, that there is no "Scandinavian branch" distinct from the North Germanic branch simply because the two terms are synonyms, ie. they mean the same thing and none of them are "branching" off differently. Concerning: "There are only the east Scandinavian and west Scandinavian branches of North Germanic." No, there is also ample evidence of another, more modern division of the Scandinavian languages, in terms of Insular and Continental Scandinavian, both being used extensively in scholarly sources, both within and outside the Nordic countries. See examples in articles. There are hundreds of articles using "Scandinavian languages", found with a simple Google search, so it's also an established term. Concerning your opinion, "Since the term 'North Germanic' is established and 'Scandinavian' is both redundant and non-neutral, the former should be used": I am unable to find any reliable source that support that opinion. The use of Scandinavian languages as a synonym for North Germanic languages is very common, and does not appear to be considered "unbalanced" and "non-neutral" to the scholars using it in that fashion. As a matter of fact, the Sami sources use the term "Scandinavian languages" about "North Germanic languages" (see above and the pdf file in this message). My point is that the term is extremely common in this meaning in English sources, maybe even more so than the use of the term North Germanic, and attempting to create a new meaning is outside the scope of Wikipedia editors. I would therefore suggest that the most balanced approach would be to steer away from prescriptive linguistics unless there is a basis for these opinions found in published sources, or you'll be accused of trying to create rules for what is your personal opinion of socially or politically correct usage of terms. No offense. Best wishes, Pia 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruvssa, I agree with your basic ideas and support your struggle to make sure that Sami languages and culture are represented, but I'm still not convinced at all about the declaration that Scandinavian languages is a non-neutral term, especially since "Scadinavia" was a name first used by Pliny to introduce one of the islands of the Germanic tribes to his Roman readership. To me it is rather unsurprising that it has come to denote the languages that together form a North Germanic branch on the Germanic "language tree", considering how the name first emerged and how it was used when it reappeared as a common name for the three countries in the 1800s. It is not an indigenous term for the area or even an official term for the territory, making it rather static and dependant on it's history. And that history is rather choppy and short: in its current usage it is a recent invention that only made a come-back in the 1800s, along with cultural Scandinavism (although the term "Scandia" appears to have come into use a bit earlier, as it can be found on some maps from the 1500s). I therefore think that replacing the terms "Scandinavian languages" and "Nordic languages" will not make any amends for wrongs committed through history. And making Sami a "Scandinavian language" is totally undesirable in my view as that would create even more inbalance - having Sami absorbed into or included under an umbrella concept that is already in use for the majority languages is confusing and not at all conducive in protecting and cherishing the unique status and indigenous roots of Sami, anymore than assimilation of Sami culture into the majority culture would be. I think that might be the reason why the Sami Parliament of Sweden appear intent on stressing the individuality and unique status of Sami as a separate group from the Scandinavian languages, and this may also be why there seems to be no desire to blur the borders between the two language groups. But if you feel that this is a worthy cause, I agree with your approach: the work towards change needs to take place in the real world first, and any changes in the current usage will then eventually be reflected here. Best, Pia 07:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bruvssa, Pia L is correct. It is against the policy of Wikipedia to instruct on terminology and usage. Wikipedia is not intended for fixing things in the real world, but to provide encyclopedic information that aligns with how terms and expressions are used. Moreover, we have to follow WP:NPOV which means that we cannot adapt articles to the views of a certain person or a minor group of people (see WP:UNDUE).--Berig 08:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sami articles

Hi Bruvvsa. Great to see that there are more users who are interested in Sami issues. If you are interested we have a list of Sami articles we think should be written or improved. Please feel free to add articles to the list or creating some of the listed articles. Thank you. Labongo 17:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]