Talk:Flag of Finland

---

Should I keeop this information in? It measn nothing to me. I'm nto shore if any full time vexiologist woudl find it intresting. But Genrally I dont think many people would find it useful. - fonzy

Someone who knows both English (unlike many of the authors of this article) and Finnish (unlike everyone else) and isn't damn lazy (unlike yours truly) needs to completely rewrite this article. - Cymydog Naakka 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)

Danish or Swedish origin?

This article claims Danish origin of the flag. I've the hungarian publishing of the World Encyclopedia of Flags by Alfred Znamierowski (ISBN 9639261874; original might be ISBN 1840384158, but with the same author the more recent ISBN 0754814432), which claims the origins of Finnish flag as being Swedish. Could someone check which source stating the Danish story, please? Thanks! Cheers, CsTom - 18:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply ;). But the Swedish flag origin is the Danish flag. In 15th Century Swedish made their flag, and Finnish is from the Swedish. So basicly it's from the Danish flag. But I don't see the "origin" very important because they're just crosses on a background.. --Pudeo 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

At Akseli Gallen-Kallela, it says: In 1917, Gallen-Kallela and his son Jorma took part in the fighting at the front of the Finnish Civil War. When the regent, General Mannerheim, heard about this in 1918, he invited Gallen-Kallela to design the flags, official decorations and uniforms for the newly independent Finland. This information needs to be clarified or corroborated, and inserted into the flag article if correct. JackofOz 02:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese Flag

The Finnish flag is very similar with the first Portuguese flag [1] should that be mentioned?

New Flag

Did they really have a design competition? If so, the resulting design seems spectacularly unoriginal. It's just the Swedish flag in different colours. I always assumed a Scandinavian cross was chosen as both, a display of historic links with Sweden (the country officially being bilingual Finnish/Swedish, and secondly because it wanted to be associated with or be seen as a part of Scandinavia, in the light of the Iron Curtain and the rather scary super power of the USSR, immediately to it's right. Funny that these days, Finns seem to hate being referred to as Scandinavian.

About Swedish flag: Did they really have a designer imagination? If so, the resulting design seems spectacularly unoriginal. It's just the Danish flag in different colours. I always assumed a Scandinavian cross was chosen as both, a display of historic links with Denmark (the country unofficially being occupied by them for some time), and secondly because it wanted to be associated with or be seen as a part of the Kalmar union...

I don't know why you have a problem with the Finnish flag. In the Nordic countries, a cross-flag was a tradition, what they should have chosen, another ugly tricolour flag out of nowhere? "in the light of the Iron Curtain and the rather scary super power of the USSR" Hah, by the time it was chosen, military leaders planned to crush Petersburg and the ultimately weak Soviet Russia. Besides, a blue-cross flag was used in Finnish boats in the 1800s. Anyway, the main issue seems to be that you classify Finland into a different category than rest of the Nordic countries, thus denying a right to use the nordic cross. Finland however shares the very same culture with the other Nordic countries, so I see no problem with a cross-flag.

And by the way, shouldn't you be wondering about spectacular unoriginality of the St George's Cross? It's like Danish flag in reverse colours. Somehow I find you thinking Britain is more closely related to the Scandinavian kingdoms than Finland, which is an interesting idea.

And with being scandinavians, in English language, Finland should be included to Scandinavia since "Nordic countries" is not so well-known term. I think in the Nordic countries Finlandless Scandinavia should be reserved to matters where Finland actually differs from the kingdoms, such as the linguistics. The only reason why the Swedes etc. didn't want to include Finland to Scandinavia when the term was created was that the Finns were told to be racially Mongolians, thus inferior, so the Swedes didn't want to share a group with them. Nowadays it's just a mess to have those different terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.27.208 (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why do the finish use there civil ensign for there country and not the state flag like everyw where else? thanks --SelfQ (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The state flag is reserved only for government organizations (other than the military). Do other countries have a separate state flag, that's a better question. --Vuo (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the use of the state flag is extremely tightly sanctioned. For example, even the municipal governments use the usual national flag, as they are not state organs. This means that even seeing the state flag is an uncommon occasion. There are not so many buildings flying it. The nationalist feelings we have are focused on the national flag. It is just the way our culture works. In other countries, there are other traditions. --MPorciusCato (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cross representing Christianity

I have removed that statement because there are no sources that the Nordic Cross in the Finnish Flag explicitly represents Christianity in Secular Finland. The cross itself is a symbol of chritianity, but that doesn't automatically transfer into the official representations of the flag according to the Finnish Government. Sources are needed to make such a claim. Fry1989 (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There were three refs, however if you ACTUALLY READ them, you would see that they only say the cross itself, is a common symbol of christianity. None of them show that just because the cross is in the Finnish flag, that the Finnish Government says that it represents christianity. That's two very different things. Churches have crosses on them, so yes, a cross is such a symbol, but unless the Finnish Government officially recognizes in it's deffinitions of the symbolism of the Finnish flag that it symbolizes christianity, than you CAN NOT claim that the Finnish flag and it's nordic cross design does. Per the rules of Wikipedia, unless you can source that, I am right in removing it. Fry1989 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The 3 sources clearly identify the cross as a Christian cross. Your presumption that the Finnish government must corroborate the 3 sources is erroneous. In fact, would the Finnish government to contradict the assertion of the 3 sources that would still be insufficient for removal. In that case the sourced content would still remain, and the position of the Finnish government would be added as rebuttal. The sources are verifiable and reliable. Restoring per WP:V, WP:RS – Lionel ^(talk) 17:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:Fry1989, the source State-Religion Relationships and Human Rights Law clearly states "Many predominantly Christian states show a cross, symbolising Christainity, on their national flag. Scandinavian crosses or Nordic crosses on the flags of the Nordic countries–Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden–also represent Christianity." The two other sources corroborate this statement. The text in this current Wikipedia article reflects the facts given by the reference: "Nordic cross, which represents Christianity." Per WP:V, this content must remain in the article. Furthermore, you have exhausted the amount of reverts available per WP:3RR. Per that policy, should you continue to revert, you are liable to be blocked. I have stated this for your own benefit. Rather than breaking the policy by reverting again, I suggest you gain consensus here to remove that longstanding piece of information from the article rather than unilaterally removing it yourself. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 18:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Finnish Government has sole right to decide what their flag officially represents. Not a private organization, not an encyclopedia. Unless there is a source fromtyhe Government in it's interpretations, than you CAN NOT claim that it does. A perfect example of this is that Tibet's old flag had a crescent on it, a common symbol of Islam. However, Tibet is overwhelmingly a Bhudist land. Do you want to claim that just because they had a cresent on the flag, that it symbolized Islam? Do you not see how foolish that is? Without a Government source from Finland, the flag does not represent Christianity, EVEN IF the cross itself is a common symbol used by Christians. No sources, and it's not true. Fry1989 (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give any deference to the Finnish government when it comes to sourcing. If a reliable, verifiable source says that the cross is Christian, then there is no way to exclude it. This falls under WP:NOTCENSORED. You should try to make more of an effort to understand how the policies work here. Note that consensus is against you. In any event, you should heed the warning placed on your talk page (which you removed): if you continue to remove sourced content you will be blocked. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And you should take more of an effort to realize that if something isn't sourced, it's NOT TRUE. You COMPLETELY missed the point I made about the old Tibetan flag. Just because a symbol, commonly used by a religion of any sort, appears on a flag, that doesn't mean that the flag represents that religion. To say so is overbearing assumption, and ignorant of reality. Another example is the State flag of Oklahoma. It has Christian crosses on it, but they don't represent Christianity either. The cross shape was used by Native Americans in that region to represent stars. You have no proof, and you are forcing misinformation. Lastly, you again claim I've removed sourced material, but I haven't! They DO NOT show that the Authority to claim symbolism of it's symbols says the cross is for Christianity, ONLY that the cross shape, is a common symbol of Christians. Two VERY different things. Fry1989 (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Fry1989, have you bothered to read the history behind the flag? It clearly indicates that the symbol was incorporated for religious reasons. As I stated in my post above, and as User:Lionelt reemphasized, the information given in the article meets WP:V and merits inclusion in the article. Your assessment amounts to drawing your own conclusions, rather than using information from reliable sources. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That book is about the flag of Iceland, not Finland. They're two separate countries, with their own interpretations of their national, symbols. How hard is that for you to understand? Fry1989 (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources Temperman and Foley are extremely persuasive, while you are not. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

All the above-mentioned "sources" have nothing to do with the flag of Finland. One is about Iceland, the others about the Scandinvaian cross in general. None of them mention Finland's Government's position (which is the only one that matters, it's their symbol, they're the ones who decide the official symbolism), or the Finnish flag itself. This is all based on conjecture, which you know does not meet the basis of fact on Wikipedia. I don't give a damn if you agree or not, you're wrong, and if we had an actual RFC, this wouldn't stand at all. Have fun pushing misinformation and ignorance. Fry1989 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)