Talk:Scandinavia/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments

As someone how was told about this page by others, I felt slightly incensed that we are striving to ratify and propagate the incorrect usage of the term "Scandinavia", I would suggest it is our duty as editor and contributors to help establish correct usage and explain the history of the it all. As part of that we ought to explain where incorrect usage happens, and try to help reader to use the right terms

There are two terms contested here, one being "Scandinavia", which includes Sweden, Norway and Denmark. If one wishes to to include Finland and Iceland, one should opt for the term "Nordic Countries".

Saying that 2+2 makes 5 does not make it so...

842wikiway (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Balticbandit 16:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)== Done yet? ==

As someone who's never edited this particular article.. Are you guys done yet? The above discussion is long, tedious, and largely irrelevant. The only thing relevant is that in English, the term "Scandinavia" is both used to refer to Denmark-Norway-Sweden and in a broader sense that encompasses Finland and Iceland. Any number of dictionaries will tell you that, and dictionaries are written to reflect actual usage, not political or cultural history.

The purpose of the article and page are not to determine what the "correct" usage of the term is. It is to define and explain the existing usages. That means both explaining the common history and culture of D-N-S but also how Finland and Iceland fit into this. Because that's what people are referring to when they say "Scandinavian" in English. --BluePlatypus 01:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. As a Finn I have no need to belong to the exclusive club of the ethnically or racially pure "Scandinavians". And yet, when abroad, I have to identify myself as a Scandinavian because "Finland" alone signifies little to most people. Fortunately, the Baltic countries are on the rise, so, perhaps in the future I'll be able to refer to my country as "one of the Baltic countries", when people want to know where I come from. Unfortunately, that will be somewhat misleading because historically Finland belongs to Scandinavia rather than to the Baltic countries. But who cares as long as I don't have to argue with an occasional Swede or Dane whether I'm "really" a "Scandinavian".

88.148.198.61tomia

Im sorry, but just because other parts of the world are ignorant when it comes to the definition of Scandeinavia doesnt mean the wrong definition should be listed. Finnland is not a Scandinavian country but a Nordig country. Beeing Scandinavian is not just about ethnics but also about language and culture. If an English dictionary says that Japan is a part of China doesnt mean its right, it would still be wrong. And if its more convinient for a person to refer to Finnland as Scandinavian is equally irrelevant.Nastykermit —Preceding comment was added at 12:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately some Swedes continue to disgrace themselves with their unbroken faith in goold old fashioned racial ideology. The constructed relevance of racial purity connected with geographical perception and language as a booster for national self esteem has never really left Sweden. When certain posters here try to talk about Finns as non-pure non-scandianvian looking people it only displays their laughable ignorance. And the sadest thing is that they are always Swedes... What is a Scandinavian look? Is a blue eyed blonde from Lappeenranta less Scandinavian looking than a brown eyed brunette from Örebro?

What is Scandinavia; in its proper geographical sense it excludes Denmark since its connected to the European landmass, but includes northern Finland and parts of Kola peninsula. Speaking of languages and cultural similarity it does mean Denmark, Norway and Sweden but also includes Iceland. This stems down to Norse history. Are swedish speaking Finns and Estonians less Scandinavian? Or are the centuries old Finnish speaking inhabitants that are today Norwegians and Swedish excluded as non-Scandinavians? Culturally Finland shares a lot with the Scandinavians. So in that context it can be included.

The relation between Saamis and Finns is not quite right either; genetical studies shows that they are more distantly related than most Finns and Danes. How about this as a fact for the average amateur race biologist? Linguistically they are related, yes. But so are Swedes with Russians. Does this make them more than distantly related to each other?

The more nationalistic approach to the issue, the lesser understanding for a broader context...Balticbandit 16:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)BalticBandit

Front material

It seems pretty well agreed that the front material, even though rather well written, is factually inadequate. I note especially mention of a dialect continuum. But Finnish and Lapp are in no way continuous with the Nordic languages, not even being in the same group. As for the ties, well, that same paragraph indicates the ties are no closer than any other nations at peace. Moreover there seems to be a taboo on the Russians, even though Murmansk is pretty close to the Norwegian border. The Russians aren't in the hypothetical continuum, either.

My take on the commentary is that people want to see some recognition of the fact that "Scandinavia" is a term with many meanings. The current write-up presents it more unified and monolithic than it is. So, I am going to jump in here and make it more as it is. I know this is a controversial topic. Maybe I will regret getting involved. But, the tags indicate some dissatisfaction and somebody has to do it. If you think you can do better, go for it! I for one don't mind at all, as long as you are not a vandal.Dave 14:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

After the discussion on my talk page, I did a major rewrite of the front material. After the user discussion I learned from the article Scandinavian Peninsula that it only consists of Norway and Sweden. If Finland is included it is called Fennoscandinavia. I guess I didn't pay attention in that geography lesson. I believe it to be the most fair description based on what a supermajority might define it as. Any comments? --Maitch 20:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Woah, what a major overhaul this article has undergone! Nice to see that someone felt like being bold and energetic enough to freshen things up. Some problematic phrases remain or have been (re)inserted concerning what the toponym in question means, and to whom. If you take a gander at the disambiguation page and the archived discussion, two to three fairly clear definitions will crystalize:
My impression is that definitions 2a and 2b are hardly ever applied within the Nordic societies themselves, except by tourists and other visitors to the region (especially 2a). Definition 1 is predominant within the Nordic countries.
While the initiative is commendable, the current introduction is far too clumsy and insecure of itself and uses far too many words to briefly state what the rest of article is supposed to expand on. My recommendation is to shorten to introduction to just a handful of sentences that give definitions 1, 2a and 2b above (see more tips on article structure here and here). Cheers and good luck. :) // Big Adamsky BA's talk page 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm against Scandinavia=2a or 2b. I don't believe that we should write something that in my opion is very wrong. The Nordic region is the correct term for that. --Maitch 18:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Maitch, the argument in favour of including the wider definition is the fact that some English speakers will use the terms Scandinavia and Nordic region interchangeably, especially English speakers outside Europe. This is the English Wikipedia, which is the sole justification for adding the definition equating these two regions. The indigenous Nordic definition is also used by English speakers. // Big Adamsky BA's talk page 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, my opion is that we shouldn't teach things that is wrong, and I'm not going to change it. I wouldn't add this unless there is a supermajority for it. Maybe we should start a poll. --Maitch 21:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In general Scandinavia would be the 3 contries consisting of Denmark Sweden and Norway. Simply because those three contries share language base. Which means that they understand eachother despite the contries. People from Finland does not share this communication language with the Scandinavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.190.130 (talkcontribs)

Hey presto, I have now changed the lead as per my own recommendations above and in accordance with the guidelines cited. I strongly advise against having identical content in the articles on Scandinavia and the Nordic countries, nor would I approve of merging the two articles. // Big Adamsky BA's talk page 07:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, now we are back to square one. The reason for my (far from perfect) version was that to many English speaking users objected to not having Finland as a part of Scandinavia. As much as I agree with the your version it doesn't really solve the dispute. --Maitch 13:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
But it is at least accurate now, since Finland isn't actually part of Scandinavia... CLW
We are going in circles. I think the only way to get out this dispute is by a poll. --Maitch 13:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I do think that the latest version works very well - it accurately defines Scandinavia as Sweden, Denmark and Norway, but also states extremely prominently (i.e. in the second sentence) that many also use the term to describe what is more accurately the Nordic region. Surely you can't ask for more than that? CLW 13:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Maitch, what I did was remove unnecessary details from the lead in accordance with the guidelines on how to properly structure articles. Much of the text added in the past few days was actually just copuous repetitions of material found further down in the sections on history, etymology, languages, culture and political cooperation and institutions. I discarded or shortened many of the sentences recently placed in the intro because they were missplaced (i.e. the overwhelming massive explanations and speculations did not belong in the lead paragraphs) and also due to their excessive insecurity, nebulosity and speculative nature, not because they were factually incorrect.
Now, as for your suggestion that "the Icelanders don't want to be in Scandinavia where Denmark is located", but that "at least one Finn does": This is an unsourced claim that contradicts what all those encyclopedic sources cited in this posting say. Most of these sources state that Finland and Iceland are both "optional", "usual", "occasional", or "common" inclusions.
You say that we are back to square one, but if I interpret your postings correctly, you also seem to oppose having the two articles in question treat their subject matter as if they were synonyms. I think that it is essential to inform the reader that the article is not about the Nordic countries, since that would be tantamount to having two separate articles with basically identical content. If the reader wants to read about the Nordic countries he or she will promptly follow the disambiguation to that article instead. // Big Adamsky BA's talk page 17:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
What I said about Iceland was "I don't know about Iceland" and "The statement is at least without a source.". Please get your facts straight. I personally don't mind your edit, because you didn't write that Scandinavia equals the Nordic Region. You must know that the current version of the article is the same as what started the dispute. Finland is not included now. I am merely trying to speak for both sides in order to end this dispute. Therefore I started the poll. It seems the only way to make a decision. --Maitch 17:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for misquoting you. But you are incorrect in saying Finland is not included in the currect article. The text proclaims very clearly that Finland, being a Nordic country, is sometimes considered a Scandinavian country, although not by any of the Nordic countries themselves (including Finland herself). // Big Adamsky BA's talk page 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you please quote the part, because I can't seem to find it. --Maitch 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Just for you: Finland is not included now. =) // Big Adamsky BA's talk page 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

  • I've always though of Scandinavia as designating the countries where the "Scandinavian languages" are primarily spoken - i.e. Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Thus, Scandinavia is really a linguistic/cultural identity. The introduction does not mention this.
  • I've never heard of Finland being defined as a Scandinavian country. To mention this possibility in the intro. text and the map will only risk confusing readers.
The use of "Scandinavian" to refer to only the North Germanic languages spoken on the peninsula is an unfortunate result of the power imbalance between the Germanic and Finno-Ugric (particularly Sami) peoples inhabiting the peninsula since pre-history. Both groups are "Scandinavian" in every sense of the word and thus is it both more precise and less biased to refer to Danish, Norwegian and Swedish as the North Germanic languages spoken in Scandinavia. --Bruvssa 14:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It should say that Scandinavia is S, N and D and that it doesnt include Finland as many people might think. It doesnt matter If the englishSpeaking population use it as such. In almost all over the world the term 'England' and 'English' are used to refer to Britain and Brits. may they come from London, Cardiff or Glasgow. Does that mean that Great Britain is the same as England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnalle (talkcontribs) 10:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that matters is what English-speaking population says, as we are talking about the English word Scandinavia. Swedish word "gift" means "poison" in English, so why won't you add info about poison to the article gift? Words of same appearance often have different meaning in different languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinist (talkcontribs) 22:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Map requested

I have put up a request for a map of Scandinavia. The current introduction is not acceptable, as it fails to distinguish between the concise native usage and alternative foreign understandings. In other words, it does not mention the fact that none of the Nordic countries and territories use the word "Scandinavia" to mean anything else than the three monarchies (even though this usage may be encountered in the English language even in Nordic sources). Also, the claim advanced here that the Finns and the Icelandes "want" to be part of Scandinavia (implying that the Scandinavians proper "won't let them"), appears to be unfounded and unsourced, as yet. Therefore, the intro needs to be specific about the expanded usage being associated with speakers of English and other languages (which seems reasonable enough, seeing as this is the English WP). I will try to commission one of our fine amateur cartographers to design a map similar to the ones at Central Africa and Central Asia.

Scandinavia location map definitions.PNG

I suggest three colours:

  • dark hue = the intra-Nordic usage: the three monarchies
  • medium hue = the extended usage: Nordic region, except Greenland and Svalbard
  • light hue = the maximal extent: synonymous with the entire Nordic region

Ideas? Suggestions? // Big Adamsky BA's talk page 18:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should solve the dispute before we draw a map. I don't know about Iceland. They seem to want to distance themselves from Denmark, so I would guess they don't consider themselves Scandinavian. The statement is at least without a source. I've been to Finland and have heard one Finn claiming that Finland is part of Scandinavia. I've also heard other Finns claiming the opposite. --Maitch 13:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This map is based on the above definitions for dark/med/light hue -- Astrokey44|talk 00:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the map, Astro. I would actually prefer a visually clearer map (i.e. sharper and better colour contrast) and I think reducung the number of "optional extras" to just one category will suffice, since English encyclopedias mention only two "levels" of inclusion: core and periphery. Perhaps you could use this image as the basis of a Scandinavia map, showing the mainland portion of the three monarchies in a dark shade and the remaining areas of the Nordic Council members in a lighter shade? Thanks again for helping out with this. =J BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
ok I'll see what I can do.. although Im not sure that there should be only 2 levels - Greenland isnt as often included as Iceland and Finland is it? -- Astrokey44|talk 16:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Shetland and Orkney should be in yellow too, since they were tradional nordic lands, ceded in an treaty some generations ago. Their ethnicity, culture and habits are still completely nordic, only language was lost. They use nordic flags and generally feel nordic :) People here agree? Richard George|talk 11:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC+1)

Poll: What is Scandinavia

After a lot of debate (see archive 3) I think the only way to find a consensus is by voting. The issue is what the article should describe Scandinavia as.

Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed.

  • A: Denmark (excluding autonomous regions), continental Norway, and Sweden
    1. This is what I believe is correct. --Maitch 13:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    2. This is what I also believe to be correct, as a non-Scandinavian who has studied Scandinavian-related subjects at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. CLW 13:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    3. This is what I also believe to be the correct definition for Scandinavia. However, I would favor the creation of a term such as "Nordica" or "Norlandia" to refer to the Nordic region as a whole, i.e. encompassing all of the lands included in "D", as this broader grouping seems to be acquiring increasing importance as a sub-region of Europe. Polaris999 01:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      We cannot create these words here of course. Piet 10:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    4. As a Norwegian I am in favour of this since it is factually correct. I live in North America and am aware that many North Americans refer to the Nordic Region as Scandinavia, and this should of course be noted in the article (as it is in the version I read today).--fred 15:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC) - Does this mean you are really voting for option G? -- Astrokey44|talk 00:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    5. The meaning of the term. --Anjoe 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • B: Denmark (excluding autonomous regions), Finland, continental Norway, and Sweden
  • C: Denmark (excluding autonomous regions), Finland, Iceland, continental Norway, and Sweden
  • D: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden with all regions included
  • E: Mention both A and B in the article
    1. This is my compromise. --Maitch 13:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • F: Mention A, B, and C in the article
  • G: Mention A, B, C, and D in the article
    1. Finland and Iceland are mentioned in the Britannica as possibly being part of Scandinavia, and other sources as from the links in the archives. If there are several views on the subject, they should be mentioned. -- Astrokey44|talk 00:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    2. Include all points of view; per policy. Whether Finland or Iceland or the Faroes are Scandinavian depends on exactly what subject (and time-period) are being discussed. For some choices, Estonia, Yorkshire, Dublin or Normandy are defensibly Scandinavian. From a strictly geographical point of view, Denmark is not part of the Scandinavian Peninsula. A sentence or two in each doubtful case should bring out why X is Scandinavian, and why it isn't/ Septentrionalis 04:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    3. It's OK to mention that A is what Scandiavians and Finns think. But also mention B, C and D and explain who thinks that way.Richard 05:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    4. Agree with Septentrionalis. This seems to be the best possible solution. Mention all povs and let the reader make up his mind. Also this would be more factually correct as the average reader would understand that the notion of Scandinavia could be different depending on the context.gunslotsofguns 22:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)]
    5. It seems obvious that all views should be mentioned. It is definitely not uncommon to categorize Finland and Iceland as Scandinavian. A quick glance at the talk archive doesn't show any authorative body that has the right to determine what Scandinavia is, so IMHO the different views should be mentioned (like here). There should also be a page Scandinavia (peninsula). Piet 10:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    6. Scandinavia is offcourse just Swe/Den/Nor, but enough people believe that it includes Fin/Ice, so a mention is warranted, but point them in the direction of Nordic countries. BTW this vote is evil and silly. --Eivindt@c 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • H: Abiding by NPOV is not something you can opt out of by voting. This poll has no merit and, like most polls on article content, is evil.
    1. Peter Isotalo 15:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    2. This is true too. Septentrionalis 04:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    3. Boivie 06:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Does this article has to cover all Scandinavias? Why not use this page to describe Scandinavia as Sweden, Norway and Denmark? And then describe the broader Scandinavia at the page Nordic countries?
    4. Yup, further discussion is needed Robdurbar 08:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    5. Deciding on content matter by polling rarely settles controversies. —Gabbe 17:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    6. Polls are a hopeless way to solve content disputes. --Bjarki 18:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    7. I've seen good polls, but this isnt it. The question is unsuitable for a poll as the only neutral answer can be: there is no general agreement (meaning the actual world outside the wiki as well). I'd support a map (as suggested above), but only if it is limited to factual actual divisions, such as UN regions, political alliances (such as the Central Africa map. The Minister of War (Peace) 13:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

LOOK IT IS VERY SIMPLE DENMARK FINLAND NORWAY SWEDEN = SCANDINAVIA= "THE NORTH" OR "THE NORDIC COUNTRIES" THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT. (171.64.215.155 02:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Discussion

I think voting is a very bad idea. The discussion is never-ending because there's no clear-cut answer. The article should represent this, not chose a single POV. Fornadan (t) 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Then vote for E, F, G, or make some new definition that you could vote for. --Maitch 15:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
As Forn points out, we are not about to decide exactly what Scandinavia means, because that's not our job. Votes on article content is almost always bad, especially when they're hopelessly complicated. Consensus is not something you're supposed to try once or twice and then give up in favor of editing-by-committee. It's one of Wikipedia's most important priniciples, so keep trying and make extra efforts to be genuinely NPOV and give due article space for reasonably widespead views on the issue.
Peter Isotalo 15:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
After having conducting a vote on third world countries I would have to agree with this - you cant use a vote to determine what something should be - it can be seen as original research. If there are different point of views on the subject, they should be mentioned, rather than voting on which point of view to use. -- Astrokey44|talk 00:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, my definition would be (A).
However, I agree that Wikipedia prefers consensus to democracy.
Voting involves the majority telling the minority to shut up.
This is evil.
You should document all meanings in common usage with perhaps some indication to which ones are most common (and where).
For example, I would guess that most Danes, Swedes and Norwegians don't consider Finland part of Scandinavia.
What do the Finns think?
Who thinks Finland is part of Scandinavia? Probably non-Scandinavians. So say so.
You could explain why some meanings are considered flawed. For example, I don't fully understand why Finland is not part of Scandinavia except that I would guess that Finns are either racially or culturally different from Scandinavians. Their language is very different from Swedish, Danish and Norwegian, right?
So, why include Finland? Just because it's geographically contiguous?
And why include Iceland? Because of language and culture?
Just explain it to us and stop trying to decide what's right.
Let the reader decide. Maybe what's most useful to the reader is understanding the different meanings so that they can be aware that when one person says "Scandinavia", that person may mean something different from what another person means when saying "Scandinavia"?
That could be far more useful than trying to insist that the reader adopt YOUR definition of Scandinavia.
Capeesh?
Richard 01:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
(sheepishly) Maybe I should have read the article first.
Now that I have done so, I would vote for keeping it more or less the way it is now. The current text more or less does what I said it should do in my message above. I will say that it is a bit confusing in the way it is presented.
I still don't understand why Finland is not always considered part of Scandinavia. Is it race, culture and language? Or is it because it was part of Russia for a while?
Don't just tell us what the different definitions are. Tell us how they came into being.
Richard 01:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The answer is not race, but 19th century romantic nationalism as already explained (briefly) in the article.
In-depth: Ethnicity and ethnogenesis are primarily seen as social constructs within societies, with only limited correllation to racial "stock". Examples of this: The modern Finns are an ethnic group composed of a combination of Norse and Finnic populations that started merging in the 1200s, but for convenience they are now simply referred to as ethnic Finns. Similarly, the modern Greenlanders are an ethnic group composed of Alaskan Inuit who settled Greenland in the 1200s onwards and "West Scandinavians" who began settling there in the 1700s (none of the earlier populations, the Dorset people and Norse Greenlanders, are likely to have passed on their genes to the present inhabitants). The Greenlanders are not considered a Scandinavian nation even though most are descended from Scandinavians. The Icelanders, the Shetlanders and the Faroese are mainly descended from Scandinavians and Celts, but this does not make these nations ethnically Celtic in the modern sense, although arguably genetically. The population of northern Scandinavia is largely a mix of Norse and Lappic stock, but modern Scandinavian ethnic groups outnumber the ethnic Sami nearly everywhere. // Big Adamsky BA's talk page 18:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Vox pop via WP:CS: Scandinavian countries are those countries whose flags are based on those crosses offset to the left. Regards, David Kernow 10:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is an article about flags, named Nordic cross flag, not scandinavian. Woden 10:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Åland

In my opinion, this region should be regarded as part of Scandinavia in the article, since it's historically and linguistically linked to Sweden rather than to Finland, to which it currently belongs. What are your thoughts? —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 12:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

All of Finland and parts of Russia and Estonia are historically "linked" to Sweden (as is Saint Barthélemy, et al.), and some parts of Sweden have their historical links to other peoples and other states. Some Ålanders will probably say that their archipelago forms a subset of Swedophone Finland, but according to this talk page most consider themselves to be a separate nation in its own right, similar to the Faroes or the Isle of Man. It is a non-sovereign member of the Nordic Council, with its own national identity and with its own NUTS-code separate from that of the mainland. Unlike Gotland, Åland is unlikely to be considered an extension of the Kingdom of Sweden, nor of the Scandinavian region, perhaps because of the two centuries of separation (as the article already states, it wasduring this very period that Scandinavia came to mean what it does today in the five Nordic states, viz after the Napoleonic Wars). // Big Adamsky BA's talk page 15:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
shrugs I knew most of that, but I was just throwing in that I'd expect it to be considered part of Scandinavia. Technically, "Scandinavian" mostly carries the connotation of linguistics in German-speaking regions; at least to the best of my knowledge, the Scandinavistics Institute of Vienna University is concerned with Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Faroe, Åland, Iceland, but neither Finland nor Greenland... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Terminology Section

The problem with the article at the moment is that it attempts to clarify the meaning right through. Why not have a short terminology paragraph at its opening? Many non-Scandinavians would be surprised to here Finland and the Faroes not included in 'Scandinavia' - something to explain this is necessary, I feel. Whilst such issues shouldn't bog down the article (SeeBritish Isles for an aritcle where this often happens), ideally a single paragraph can deal with it at the start. Robdurbar 08:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Such a paragraph exists at Nordic countries. Perhaps it could simply be pasted into this one, as well. // Big Adamsky BA's talk page 16:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Article content rather than definitions

At the risk of sounding like a senile professor who repeats himself ad infinitum: Is there really any valid case for having two articles with identical content? Not really, right? Is a merger is order? Hardly. So why not just settle for the basic structure of the current version, which extremely prominently states, for the convenience of the reader, that the content of this particular article is about the three monarchies, but that many English speakers elsewhere will refer to the Nordic countries and associated territories as Scandinavia, and that this expanded usage is solidly documented and sourced in many English language encyclopedias and dictionaries. And as for the concern voiced further up that voting on a definition is a bad thing because that could never alter the meanings of a word: That is hopelessly beside the point here. The goal - I assume - was not to have a majority decide on what something means or should mean, but simply to vote on what subject matter the article is to focus on. I recommend that the content not be made identitical to that of the "other" article, since that would be a waste of a separate page. So here's a simpler poll for ya:

Do you have specific objections of the current structure and content, particularly the sections on usage and terminology? What can specifically be improved in said sections? Can disambiguation be made any more explicit? Please vote yes or no followed by optional answers to the questions. I'll start:

Discussion 2

T'is still evil. We concluded that the above poll is just as bad as any. Just please stop trying to push decisions and let consensual discussion and gradual editing solve the problem. This isn't Gdansk and we're not going to make formal decision. Wikipedia is not a democracy. / Peter Isotalo 11:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Isotalo, do you really genuinely feel that you are being helpful by bombarding this talk page with those red herring links to guidelines, recommendations and essays? No one (I think) is questioning the process of how to resolve disputes. Most of us are aware of the inability of a talk page poll to change any real-world definitions and usage. However, in order to get a crystal-clear picture of what the main dispute is about, polls are a useful tool used in many talk pages to decide how to best structure an article. The poll initiated by myself was explicitly about structure. I have taken the liberty of noting that you wish to demonstratively refrain from casting your vote (just as I refrained from voting in the earlier poll on definitions further up on this page). I have also moved your insights down here to this section called "discussion". If you would care to help out, simply give relevant advice, or - better yet - list some good external links or book titles that can be added to the list of reliable sources that define and delimit the meaning of the word "Scandinavia" as used in English. Specifically, if you can cite some solid reasoning as to why the two articles (Scandinavia and Nordic countries) should remain seperate or be merged, please be bold and state your sourced findings right here. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 13:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You're very aggressive. There's nothing the poll will achieve that a good discussion won't solve better. I find it distracting and I'm doing that because I really believe it's harmful, not because I want to duke it out with you.
And where did you get "essay" from? This is as close to official policy you can get without actually being there. There is consensus for opposing polls and you're just being polemic if you want to call it a red herring.
Peter Isotalo 18:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to Big Adamasky and other's strange assertion, Scandinavia is not considered to also include Finland and Iceland solely by native English speakers; a simple review of ordinary newspaper articles from around the world reveal that pretty much every continent in the world considers Finland and Iceland to be both "Scandinavian" and a part of Scandinavia. Also, as has already been documented even in this ongoing discusion among the few Wikipedians who've participated, there is NOT a widely-held consensus within the Nordic states that "Scandinavia" is really only N, S, and D. I've been promising for a while to post a part two of my argument from a few months ago, which should settle the argument once and for all. This time I will definitely post that this weekend on the discussion, and maybe even change the article itself. Essentially, I'm going to edit the lead paragraph to reflect the usual definition of "Scandinavia" as found in dictionaries and encyclopedias: that Scandinavia is a cultural region considered to consist of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, and sometimes also of Finland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands. And I will insert the flags of Finland and Iceland to be displayed immediately below or just to the side of (not separated a long way's away) those of N, D, and F. J.R. Hercules 13:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Hercules. You are the one who initially attempted to equate these two toponyms about four months ago. Do feel free to add flags and info that might improve the article (especially its lead section), and don't forget to be specific and brief and to document your suggestions for a substantially different version. As before, your own assertion that the two terms are used interchangeably within the regions themselves has never been properly documented, so that is what you will need to focus on in your quest to convince. (I, for one, continue to challenge that unsourced claim.) Also, you may wish to update yourself in the archives of this talk page, where the past four months' debate is stored. And finally, the various policies concerning how Wikipedia works might also be worth reviewing. Cheers and welcome back. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 13:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't do the flag thang, please. It just looks odd and slightly nationalist. We can use normal wikilinks, just like in any other situation.
Peter Isotalo 11:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that flags are rather unnecessary for such a short bulleted list. But your weak argumentation begs a response: What you personally consider to esthetically "look odd" or to have "slight" connotations of ethnic nationalism or other identity politics is irrelevant to any non-biographical WP article (remember the N in NPOV you were talking about recently?). But more importantly, miniature national flags or visual symbols of other locations, peoples, institutions, ideologies, movements and communities are frequently seen in WP articles containing charts and lists, no doubt due to their qualities as conveyors of graphic communication, thus aiding visual perception and recognition in an otherwise dull list. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 13:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been quietly watching this debate from the sideline for some time and would now just like to add my Icelandic perspective although it may be a bit late. The term Scandinavia (Skandinavía) is rarely used by Icelanders. A Google search for webpages in Icelandic yields 11.700 results for Skandinavía while Norðurlönd (Norden) yields 260.000 results. It is my perception that when the term Scandinavia is used, it is to refer to the mainland Nordic countries but not Iceland, Faroes or Greenland. However I do believe that when Icelanders communicate with English-speaking foreigners they are more likely to refer to Iceland as a part of Scandinavia and themselves as 'Scandinavians', perhaps out of believe that foreigners are more familiar with the term Scandinavia than with Nordic or because they themselves are not aware of the English translation of Norðurlönd.
As for the Finland question, I had not even considered this matter before this dispute started. There isn't much connection between Iceland and Finland so I guess few Icelanders find the need to define Finland geographically.
I did look up Skandinavía in both the Icelandic dictionary and the Icelandic encyclopedia (yes there is only one of each). The dictionary gave me: The Scandinavian Peninsula, Sweden and Norway while the encyclopedia had an unusually short entry: a: The Scandinavian Peninsula. b: Denmark, Norway and Sweden. --Bjarki 19:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Great to see someone else providing some sources, rather than just opinions. Bjarki, I take your word for your findings, but could you please also provide the source(s)? In past postings, English encyclopedic definitions and usage are documented (by myself), and just below that an anonymous user added definitions from a couple of Norwegian encyclopedias. I urge others to contribute following these examples. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 13:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Never mind about my "part 2". Somehow, in the time between my part 1 (found here) and now, my "Finland" bookmark folder, which took me two days to compile, got deleted. It basically had about a hundred links to international newspapers from all continents, where both Finland and Iceland were referred to as "Scandinavian" in news articles pertaining to different subjects. The goal was to disprove the myth that it's an American or Anglo-Saxon thing for Finland and Iceland to be considered "Scandinavian" -- people in Japan, China, Africa, and Latin America consider those countries to be Scandinavian too. Unfortunately, I can't spend the time to compile all those links again. I guess we're stuck with a brand new definition of "Scandinavia".J.R. Hercules 23:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Hundreds of links is not necessary to illustrate how the Chinese and the Latin Americans define these two regions (Scandinavia and the Nordic region, respectively). But perhaps you could spare the time to relocate just a handful? That would be seen as an indication of bonafide willingness to contribute with a perspective that you feel is not given due representation. Remember that your sources must be (reasonably) reliable, so encyclopedias and dictionaries are most appropriate. Also, note that English usage is more relevant than Chinese usage. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 13:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Without your references we're not stuck with a new definition, we just keep the existing ones. Anyway, this seems to be an argument of correct definitions and wrong usage. I might call a crystal vase a glass vase and this could be normal usage, but it wouldn't be correct. I think the article should present both what is correct and what is used (and by whom), but clearly state which is what. --Eddi (Talk) 00:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
And in that situation it is Wikipedia policy to follow usage, quoting the self-appointed authorities in the process. Septentrionalis 21:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The only pertinent thing here is the English-language usage, because this is the English-language Wikipedia. All this I-live-in-Scandinavia-and-I-know-how-we-use-the-term talk is ridiculous. How Scandinavians use the term themselves is completely irrelevant, because it's a different language then. There's nothing to debate here! If the English term "Scandinavia" referred to the Mozambique-Botswana area in English, then that's what the article would have to be about. You can't vote on what the article should contain in accordance with your personal definition of "Scandinavia". It needs to contain whatever the English term is used for. If you want to write an article on the Norwegian meaning of the term, do so, but do it in one of the Norwegian wikipedias. If you want to mention that the term refers to a different area in English compared to in the Scandinavian languages, then do so. But the focus of the article must be in accordance with English usage. If I look up an article on subject X, I want to know about what X is. In English. Not in accordance to the Swahili definition. --BluePlatypus 00:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Platypus, while I agree with your polemic rhetoric in principle, in practice I would feel "cheated" somehow if I, as a reader of an ecyclopedia article, were not informed that external English usage is ambivalent while native usage is not. It is only fair to include mention of such a difference between English usage and local usage. WP articles on toponyms, languages, organizations, institutions and ethnicities all include the endonym and the indigenous spelling/script in the first paragraph, and generally these articles also devote a seperate section (usually called something like "Terminology and etymology") to explaining any diverging meanings and naming disputes. I think you wil agree with me that the predominant definition in the Nordic countries is a lot more relevant to the English WP entry on Scandinavia than the Swahili or Chinese definition. I continue to advise against merging the WP articles "Scandinavia" and "Nordic countries", and I base this on the internet sources which I have previously listed in Talk:Scandinavia/archive3. Here's another source: According to Cassel Pocket English Dictionary, Cassel 1995 (ISBN 0-304-34639-X), Scandinavia is "Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Iceland". This source gives no primary and secondary definitions (such as a "core" and an optional "periphery") and makes no mention of Finland or the non-sovereign Nordic territories. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 13:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Also in English there may be differences between definitions and usage, and both should be presented. And, although you were probably not commenting on my comment (since I didn't state what I think is the right and wrong usage), could you please turn down the abuse a bit? Thanks. --Eddi (Talk) 04:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Swedes do not confuse Skandinavien and Norden with one another. The former can be slightly ambiguous, but generally it just refers to Denmark-Norway-Sweden. Norden, however is unambiously "the Nordic countries".
Here are some quotes:
from Encyclopædia Britannica, Scandinavia:
historically Scandia, part of northern Europe, generally held to consist of the two countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Norway and Sweden, with the addition of Denmark. Some authorities argue for the inclusion of Finland on geologic and economic grounds and of Iceland and the Faroe Islands on the grounds that their inhabitants speak North Germanic [languages]
from dictionary.com, Scandinavia:
A region of northern Europe consisting of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Finland, Iceland, and the Faeroe Islands are often included in the region.
from Nationalencyklopedin, Skandinavien:
Skandinavien, dels samlingsnamn på länderna Sverige, Norge och Danmark, ibland också Finland, dels benämning på Skandinaviska halvön. Stundom används benämningen något oprecist om Norden.
my translation:
"Scandinvia, a common term for the countries of Sweden, Norway and Denmark, occasionally also including Finland. Also used as a term for the Scandinavian Peninsula. Occasionally used somewhat vaguely about the Nordic countries."
I can't really see any problem that merits the POV-template right now except that it should be mentioned that the inclusion of Finland is quite common, though not more common than Denmark-Norway-Sweden. Since the sources obviously support this and since the only protests seem to have been based on personal opinion, I'm going to be bold by rewriting the lead to include the alternative extent of the region and removing the sign.
Peter Isotalo 18:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Good work on the lead, Isotalo. I see no major inaccuracies in it currently (i.e. our definition does not deviate from those found in other encyclopedias). Thanks for your effort! BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 10:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Wooops, I spoke to fast. The version referred to had somehow missed any mention of the distinction between concise Nordic usage and more ambivalent external usage. I have added mention of this in the form of pasting in the "Etymology and terminology" section from the article on Nordic countries, and I have renamed that section "Terminology and usage" since a separate section is devoted entirely to etymological hypotheses, speculations and likelihoods. ;) BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 11:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavia, a common term for the countries of Sweden, Norway and Denmark, occasionally also including Finland. Also used as a term for the Scandinavian Peninsula. Occasionally used somewhat vaguely about the Nordic countries." Peter is right.Finland is original by its culture but has too a mix with the Swedish culture.What about the history of colonisation, there is forcely inheritances:lutheranism, urbanism, Swedish as 2nd official language,Swedish minority included in Oland isles.So Finland takes part to Scandinavia.

The foreign ministers of Sweden and Finland gave this press release in 18.12.2002 [1]. The link goes to the Foreign Ministry of Finland's pages. Notice the three different language versions - FIN/SWE/ENG. In the FIN version the word 'Pohjoismaat' (Norden) is used in a sentence. The SWE version says 'Skandinavien' and the ENG again 'Nordic' in the same sentence, implying that 'Scandinavia' and 'the Nordic Countries' are being used interexchangeably even on offficial level in Scandinavia. I don't know if it is correct to use the term 'vague' about official statements given by two foreign ministers together. Prefixcaz 16:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's a few other links to European Union's official documents regarding Scandinavia. The documents are in Swedish and/or Danish, as I deliberately searched them from the EU's SE&DK pages, so please do your searches with the term 'Skandinavien'. A decision on an electricity related twist in Scandinavia (DK,NO,SE,FI) [2] - A decision on a tissue production twist in Scandinavia (SE,NO,FI,DK)[3] [4] - An socio-economical report names especially two capital cities in Scandinavia (Stockholm & Helsinki) [5] [6] - A natural gas related twist in Scandinavia (SE,FI,NO) [7] [8]- Agreed guidelines for co-operation in northern Scandinavia (NO,SE,FI) [9] - Innovation report 2001 (DK,SE,FI) [10]- Interreg in Scandinavia (DK,SE,FI,NO) [11][12]. I only attached a few links to reports where it is clear that Finland is included in Scandinavia. Many other documents only talk about Scandinavia in general and it can be assumed from the context that Finland is included (bird directive, transport related reports, private entrepreneur reports etc). - Enjoy. Prefixcaz 17:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of talk about culture and of usage of the a blurred version of the term in everyday speech or even of usage by nationalistic movements, but I don't think the real reasons behind the term is considered properly (and I read the article). Scandinavia from Scania, which is the center region of the 3 countries (when you talk about travel) and the region where the historical scandinavian battles took place. To include Finland is kinda wrong, to equate Scandinavia with the Nordic Contries is just plain silly and really only for people who don't want the complexity. Why would we have two so different terms for the same thing (and two articles on the same topic)? At least we have to get rid of that horrible approximation-map or change the text. Mention the incorrect definition with Finland if someone (who?) insist, but Greenland is *not* Scandinavia. Who thinks that anyway? I mean, someone who hasn't got a clue might not differentiate between England, United Kingdom and Great Britain, but can someone tell me why there isn't an approximation-map on either of those articles? - Well, because each term has its special reference, and so do Scandinavia, Scandinavian Peninsular and the Nordic Countries. -Anjoe 23:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anjoe, we're trying to go by what other sources write on the definition of Scandinavia and so far I think we've done a fairly good job. I would recommend that you read up on the sources cited in this thread. They support the idea that "Scandinavia" can have a rather vague definition.
Why the articles on England, the UK and Great Britain are different is not relevant to this article because they're not about Scandinavia.
Peter Isotalo 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hierarchical versus alphabetical arrangement of Nordic states and territories

Regarding this edit by Isotalo: I see no reason why the (nearly) alphabetical sorting of the "other" countries and territories in the Nordic Region is any less neutral than a "hierarchical" arrangement based on degree of sovereignty. On the contrary, naming areas/entities in an alphabetical order is commonly used as the preferred option in lists and namedroppings of this kind. Also, erasing mention of the etymology and scientific field of usage for the term Fennoscandian is hardly contructive. Please comment on this reasoning. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 10:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean it's better to equate completely dependent territories like Svalbard with sovereign nations by listing them together rather than budging a hyper-neutral usage of alphabetical ordering?
Fennoscandia is no more a specific geological term than Scandinavia. Look it up if you want to. The etymological information, which is extremely obvious to begin with, is relevant to the separate article Fennoscandian article, not this one.
Peter Isotalo 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
To Isotalo: Yes, Finland is a fully sovereign state. But so is one of the other Nordic entities, Iceland. Your sovereignty criteria seems like a rather flawed argument to me. Your posting above simply paraphrased the WP principle that, for many controversial topics, alphabetical ordering is seen as more neutral than sorting items or words by other criteria, such as degrees of sovereignty. Does "hyper-neutral" mean "overly objective"? If so, then I suspect that you have missed the purpose/spirit of the neutrality policy. Striving towards neutrality cannot really mean that wikipedians should somehow "tone down their NPOV" or "avoid hyper-neutrality", now can it?
Explaining how "Fennoscandia" was coined (by geologists and geomorphologists) as an alternative to "Baltic Shield" is not crucial information, but nonetheless of interest to many a reader, I would imagine. And so why suppress that information? I advocate leaving it in and stating the obvious (even what is obvious to you). I do not advocate modelling articles according to the stylistic preferences or arbitrary convictions concerning hierarchies of one single editor.
Your rationale for ranking Finnish and Icelandic sovereignty differently (or for replacing an alphetical order wwith one based on sovereignty at all) and for suppressing the origin of Fennoscandia both remain a bit confused and thus warrant further explanation from you. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 10:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
When I look up Fennoscandia in Nationalencyklopedin, it's defined as both a geographical and geological term. But I'm not supressing information, I'm just insisting it should be dealt with in the appropriate article.
Do change the wording if you really do feel that it's a neutrality problem. I used the current wording because I felt it was more intuitive. It presents the territories and nations in what I feel are logical groupings instead of listing them all at once which makes it seem as if there are just two options for interpreting Scandinavia; either the narrowest with the three core countries or the widest possible that includes everything.
Peter Isotalo 20:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Nah, I guess I'll just leave it as is, since the current version seems pretty stable with few objections voiced. No major problems. Cheers! BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 21:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Languages

The following was posted on the article page by a user with the IP 80.217.234.80 : Finnish is not banned in Åland, it just is not an official language. Sweden did not impose Swedish in Finland, Swedish speaking Finns started the Swedish Peoples' Party to ensure they stil had the equal right to use their language. This section needs to be comprehensively rewritten as it is currently extremely incorrect and misleading.

That's quite true. The language section vis-a-vis Finland/Åland is very misleading. It's certainly true that Finnish is not banned in Åland! The idea is laughable. It's like saying that the use of Spanish is banned in USA. It's also true that the SFP / Swedish peoples' party was a homegrown Finnish movement by the Finns who have Swedish as their mother-tongue. 94pjg 22:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Åland-part has now been revised in accordance to the official pages and the legislation regarding the county. Prefixcaz 01:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Im including Sami to this part as its totally ignored, as well as the finnish speaking minority in Norway. by the way the Finish language in Sweden and Norway are recognised as separate minority languages: Meänkieli, Sweden and Kveenin, Norway

No, Meänkieli is regarded as a whole different language than Finnish. --Red w 14:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Scandianvia - geographic and cultural

This article primarily presents Scandinavia using the geographic definition. However, the cultural (linguistic) definition which is as, if not more, valid is not presented in the article. Compare to the Swedish Wiki article on Skandinavien. It defines Scandianvia as:

  • Cutlturally: the regions where the Nordic languages are spoken, i.e. Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
  • Geographically: Scandinavia is defined as the Scandinavian peninsula, including NW Finland.
  • Finland, Iceland, Åland, Greenland and the Faroe Island are not part of Scandinavia.

Is this something which the English article could/should be clearer about, especially in the intro text?Osli73 10:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nordic Languages are spoken in Faroe Islands, Iceland and Finland (the Swedish speaking minority)as well. However this doesnt mean that they are a part of Scandinavia culturally.

Finland is not Scandinavia

Scandinavia is denmark norway sweden.

The nordic countries are denmark finland iceland norway and sweden

These so called links are not official in anyway, i can read them because i am swedish and they talk about makeing buissnes and are not official in the sense of what is scandinavia. All text books in denmark, norway and sweden explain what scandinavia is. Every swedish, norwegian and danish citizen knows what scandinavia is.

So either ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Text books in sweden, denmark and norway are wrong or saying finland is part of scandinavia is wrong. (Supermos 03:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Article is not stating one way or the other. It says Finland is often included even in official contexts and provides links to SWE & DEN EU pages, but also says this inclusion divides opinions. Reading before editing is recommendable. Prefixcaz 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it gives the illusion that Finland is part of Scandinavia. And I have read the links would you like me to translate them for you? And they are not in any way to be considered in any support of that Finland is part of Scandinavia (Supermos 08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC))
I have in my hand a tourist guide book published by the Finnish Foreign Ministry, titled "Finland - a Modern Scandinavian Country". Do you need anything more official than that? I reinstated the statement, but changed "often" to "sometimes". OK? --Janke | Talk 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That guide book is wrong. Because Finland and Iceland as Scandinavia is a fault made by forigners. The Nordic is + Finland and Iceland, but not Skandinavia. --Comanche cph 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So you say the Finnish Foreign Ministry is wrong? As said in the article, it divides opinions - which is pretty much what happens on this talk page, too... ;-) --Janke | Talk 05:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes the Finnish Foreign Ministry is wrong. Maybe they also know that. Both in the Norwegian, Swedish and Dansish wikipedia and encyclopedias, it says that Scandinavia are these tree countrys. Finland and Iceland as Scandinavia is a fault. And there is no extended usage of Scandinavia, and those who claim that are wrong, -it´s not like the EU :o). --Comanche cph 20:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Found a good explanation on the Nynorsk page: "I engelsktalande land tek ein ofte også med Finland, Færøyane og Island i Skandinavia, sidan det engelske omgrepet for Norden, the Nordic countries, ikkje er særleg i bruk." That explains the difference between the Eglish and Scandinavian wikis. --Janke | Talk 06:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not a explanation to why Finland and Iceland should be considered as Scandinavia. Let us keep it to the facts that Scandinavia are tree countries, and the Nordic are seven countries including Greenland and the Faroe islands. --Comanche cph 10:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

All the links in the article attached to the claim of "official context" are deliberately linked to the SWE/DEN EU pages. Supermos, thank you for the offer of translation. However, at this point it is not necessary, as the documents are found on several other languages and are easily verified. I assume you do approve the EU translations of their own pages. All complaints about the usage of terminology on SWE and DEN EU publications should be adressed to the foreign ministries of the respective countries, as the texts are OFFICIALLY approved by them. Ranting just for the sake of it is not scientific. Prefixcaz 05:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about the relationship between Finland and Scandinavia seems fairly similar to the one about Ireland and the British Isles. Whereas outsiders innocently use the term British Isles about the islands off the north-western shore of Europe, people living on those islands associate different images to the terminology. I think most people in Finland agree, in a Nordic context, that Finland is NOT part of Scandinavia but in an English (or other than Nordic) language context Finland is usually called a Scandinavian country because of the futility - or lack or patience - of trying to explain otherwise. Clarifer 07:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Finland is not Scandinavia, Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden period. The nordic countires are scandinavia + finland and iceland. As I have said before all books in sweden and denmark and norway point this out. I dont know what you think you know but it is clear what scandinavia is and what it is not. And these so called links has nothing to do with the matter at hand what so ever. It is like haveing links to tanks when you are talking about potatos. So clerk somewhere wrote someting sloppy and then some person like you wants to twist and turn it into something it is not. (Supermos 01:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

Of course Finland is not part of Scandinavia. But try and explain that to the English, Americans and Germans. Futile. It is the other way around: Scandinavia is part of Pohjola (the Nordic countries)! ;) The big unresolved question regarding this article seems to be: should it deal primarily with the ENDOGENOUS (Swe, Den, Nor) or the EXOGENOUS (Swe, Den, Nor, Ice?, Fin?) meaning of the term Scandinavia. Either way, the primary view point to the concept of 'Scandinavia' should be stated and other usages for the term should be mentioned as well. Either this or you guys could write a lenghty article on the usage of these terms as per British Isles (terminology)? Cheers! Clarifer 14:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: Scandinavia 1. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and sometimes Iceland and the Faroe Islands; the former lands on the Norsemen 2. Also, Scandinavian Peninsula, the peninsula consisting of Norway and Sweden. Now if it says so in an American dictionary, what is the problem to explain it? Woden 10:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Map edit

Is there a experienced user in here, who can and please will draw Fyn, Zealand, Lolland/Falster, and other missing islands on the map. I have no idea how to do it. But maybe it´s to small to do it, don´t know. --Comanche cph 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Culture?

I was reading the article, and then I looked back up at the headers - and then realized, there's no ==Culture==. Isn't that not important? Why is there mention of culture? zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavia named after

It says on the top "Scandinavia is a region in Northern Europe named after the Scandinavian Peninsula." This is wrong. "Scandinavian Peninsula" is a geographic word, and first used in the 1800 century. --Comanche cph 12:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The origin of the name of Scandinavia is already explained in this article, read the section about Etymology. The region is indeed named after the peninsula. /M.O (u) (t) 21:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What is Scandinavia

Scandinavia is a word used for the 3 scandinavian kingdoms- Norway, Denmark and Sweden, for their same history, same scandinavian language and same culture. And there is no extended usage of that.

Finland is NOT Scandinavia, but a Nordic country, and have same language family with the baltic countries. (slavic or Uralic languages)

The use of "Scandinavian" to refer to only the North Germanic languages spoken on the peninsula is an unfortunate result of the power imbalance between the Germanic and Finno-Ugric (particularly Sami) peoples inhabiting the peninsula since pre-history. Both groups are "Scandinavian" in every sense of the word and thus is it both more precise and less biased to refer to Danish, Norwegian and Swedish as the North Germanic languages spoken in Scandinavia.--Bruvssa 14:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By foreigners is the Nordic often wrongly used as Scandinavia, like Scandinavia often is used as Nordic.

Scandinavia are Norway, Denmark and Sweden! --Comanche cph 15:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia's on Swedish, Norwegian and Danish, says Scandinavia is 3 countries. And the Nordic often is mistaked with Scandinavia by other countries. --Comanche cph 13:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Finland doesn't have the same language family with the Baltic countries, but the same language family with Estonia. Latvian and Lithuanian are Indo-Europian languages, not even part of the Finno-Ugric language group. Slavic languages are also Indo-European and should not be confused with Finno-Ugric languages. Manatar 05:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I just checked 10 different languages pages on Scandinavia and all say that Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and occasionally people include Finland. This includes the Simple English page, the German page, the Icelandic page, the French page and many others. In Scandinavia (Norway, Denmark and Sweden) Scandinavia is ONLY these three countries and most of the Finns I know do NOT consider themselves Scandinavian, but rather Nordic. They are not related culturally or linguistically and Finland is not on the Scandinavian Peninsula. Also, the English page on Finland refers to it as a Nordic country and not a Scandinavian country. Most any Nordic person would consider it incorrect to refer to anything other than Norway, Denmark and Sweden as Scandinavian. Nordic≠Scandinavian 128.138.64.143 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not start a revert war!

Nowhere does this wiki article say Finland definitely is part of Scandinavia - it says it divides opinions, which is true. See previous discussions, also the archive. I removed the references which Supermos say don't "prove" Finland is a part - but have you seen all other possible documents? Let's keep the NPOV statement that Finland sometimes is considered belonging, and that it divides opinions. You can't be more fair that that. --Janke | Talk 06:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On Iceland: I for one am willing to accept that Finland "sometimes" is considered belonging to Scandinavia, but as it is now, the map shows Finland on equal footing with Iceland! Iceland is never "sometimes" considered belonging to Scandinavia, - it is simply not part of Scandinavia. The map is scandalous as it is now! The orange area should limit itself to Finland, and the map-text should reflect that the yellow area is in fact depicting The Nordic countries - not Scandinavia. --Anjoe 09:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Svalbard: Norway has made Svalbard a part of the kingdom, which is not in conflict with the Svalbard Treaty giving some special rights to some other nations, so perhaps Svalbard should have the same color on the map as the norwegian mainland. Orcaborealis 10:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To user:janke. It's says that "Finland is sometimes also included". But that should be change to something like "Finland is sometimes wrongly included by foreigners". Else we can only use the word Finland in the "Terminology and usage". Btw. "Terminology and usage" is wrong. Greenland more often included as Scandinavia, than Finland, since Greenland not is all independent from Denmark. --Comanche cph 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

On wikitravel you can also see what is correct. That Scandinavia are Den, Nor and Swe. http://wikitravel.org/en/Scandinavia --Comanche cph 12:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have my comment on it as well - My yes for Iceland being counted into Scandinavia. For difference from Finland, icelandic language has always been counted among scandinavian languages, as it´s old norwegian language. And also Iceland is geographicaly in North of Europe. I don´t agree with Greenland on the map from geographical point of view - yes, it´s true that it´s Denmark´s colony so that´s why maybe it should be counted into Scandinavia, but in geographical way Greenland is counted to America! Svetlana S.

omg!

This hole article has been rampaged by fins who include Finland! --Comanche cph 08:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How about letting people with English as their mother tongue decide what definition the English speaking part of the world is using, wrongly or not? See the archived discussion. The English Wikipedia is for foreigners - at least from our perspective! You can define Scandinavia just as you like in the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian Wikipedia - have a look at the nynorsk version, by the way! Also, I'm not a "fin" - I'm a finlandssvensk... ;-) --Janke | Talk 10:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Belive me. Not all Finns (Finland-Swedes aside perhaps?) paricularly like to have Finland included in "Scandinavia". You can compare this to some Irish people not liking the term British Isles for Ireland. The view point seems to vary. A Finnish view point is irrelevant, however. What is perhaps MORE relevant is the ENGLISH LANGUAGE usage of the term 'Scandinavia' since this happens to be an English language version of Wikipedia. Clarifer 13:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No both on the Norway Swedish and Dansih wikipedia it's says that its the 3 countries.

It's dosent matter if there are Finland-Swedes. There is also Danish speakers in Germany. So should we include Germany? Don't think so.

If Finland should be Scandinavia, so should Estonia, Latvia and Litauen.

FINLAND IS NORDIC COUNTRY. NOT SCANDINAVIA!

So please stop the vandalism. Scandinavia are the 3 countries. Witch has common languages. --Comanche cph 11:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop calling it vandalism. I'm only re-instating the consensus version. I did not write it! See your own talk page, section "Blocked". You just broke the 3RR again, BTW. --Janke | Talk 16:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"I'm only re-instating the consensus FINISH version".

But don't do it, if you don't know what Scandinavia is. And i can only see it's you and your Finish friend who has being very active on this page, in including Finland. I'm starting to losing my patience to this Wikipedia. --Comanche cph 17:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not only Finns (two n's by the way) who revert your version. People from Iceland, Sweden and Norway have done it, too. Please try to comprehend the idea of consensus! --Janke | Talk 17:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh really, like other people revert it back. Look at history.

But this don't explain your act why you doing it. Answar here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scandinavia#What_is_Scandinavia --Comanche cph 17:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden and anyone can who reads this talk page can see that all people who know anything about scandinavia agree with this correct and exact view. And to the point only pro-finns from Finland want to include Finland into the context and try to make up some lies about "official" statements. And for anyone who believes Finland is part of Scandinavia then look up Scandinavia in your countries National encyclopedia (Supermos 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC))
This issue is not agreed upon everywhere (not even in Scandinavia). In Denmark, Scandinavia is defined as Denmark + Norway + Sweden but other countries have used a different interpretataion which must be respected as well. Germany, for one, has historically included Finland but sometimes excluded Denmark. All theories should be included to provide a full picture. Valentinian (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I just realised this post was a bit unclear, sorry. I think the definition (DK + N + S) is pretty universally agreed upon in these three countries, but in English language material, the matter is often used a bit wider (probably because Iceland is a former part of Denmark and Finland a former part of Sweden). Valentinian (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This is can be a hard thing for non-scandinavians to understand but we scandinavians know what scandinavia is and what the nordic countries are. Scandinavia is Sweden Norway Denmark, the nordic countires are Sweden Norway Iceland Finland Denmark. Ever heard of SAS scandiavian air line systems. But If this soap opera contiunes then I will go to the local library and sort it all out and i recommend all of you doing the same thing. (The Green Fish 10:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC))
There is more than one definition in use. Many English-language books include Finland (and Iceland etc.) in their definition of Scandinavia. We can't dictate usage, we can only describe it. If you've got a Google account here are three examples: [13] [14] [15] Haukur 11:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Haukurth. Those three history book links show that in the English language usage, Scandinavia can include all five countires: S,N,D,I,F. This is the English language Wikipedia. So, Comanche & Co: let's keep the "divides opinions" as is. In the S, N and D wikis, you can define Scandinavia just as you like... Greetings, --Janke | Talk 12:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Your own links prove that you are wrong your own link number 2 says it all! Link number 2 says it all it says what Scandinavia is it says what the nordic countries are and it proves that you are all wrong and it points out that Finland can only be used in a sloppy way and that it is not part of scandinavia your own links prove you wrong. [16] YOUR OWN LINK SAYS THIS : " THE NORDIC COUNTIRES CONSIST OF THE FIVE NATION STATES OF DENMARK, FINLAND, ICELAND, NORWAY AND SWEDEN." And a few lines down it says "SCANDINAVIA IS USUALLY MEANT TO INCLUDE DENMARK , NORWAY AND SWEDEN. And then your own book points that that in this text we will use scandinavia and the nordic countries togheter but it DOES NOT say that they are the same thing I SAY AGAIN IT DOES NOT say that they are the same only that in THIS book in THIS text in THIS book that will use them as the same.(Supermos 03:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
The most relevant part from that book is: "Scandinavia is usually meant to include Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but more recently it has also been used to embrace Finland. In the following pages, designation as "Nordic" is used synonymously with "Scandinavian"."
"Correctness" in terminology issues is just the aggregate of the usage of different sources. Many sources include Finland in their definition of Scandinavia, the article should report on that rather than try to prescribe something else. Haukur 08:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I will go get the Swedish National encyclopedia copy the page that says what scandinavia is and then you can try all you want to tell me that they are wrong. That the whole swedish national encyclopedia is wrong and those who made it are all so stupid that they cant even tie their own shows, because that is what you are saying when you say that they are wrong. And the fact that the vast majority on this page says what Scandinavia is means that you are going AGAINST the agreed upon version read the talk page how many users have spelled out what scandinavia is and how many are trying to include Finland and those who want to include Finland where are they from -> Finland. This has gone to far. What the page should say is this Scandiavia is Denamrk Norway and Finland The nordic countries are Denmark Finland Iceland Norway Sweden and that some Non Scandinavian books and/or people often/sometimes mistake The Nordic countries with Scandinavia. Scandinavia Has smiliar languages, Finnish and Icelandic is not similar to the Scandinavian language. And the fact that is the biggest problem is that you ALL know what scandinavia is you have all been told this on school but for one reason or another you just cant accept this, what next are we to say that the world is flat and that the sun orbits around the earth? (Supermos 02:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
And the line that says "official texts include Finland" is a big fat LIE. It dosent get more official than the Swedish National Encyclopedia. (Supermos 03:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
This is the correct thing to say and that you want to remove it proves that you are not intrested in a correct and proper article you just want to confuse people by adding wrong things so that they will never learn what scandinavia is and what the noric countries are and how they differ this is the correct version it explains it all and Everyone knows it.
Scandinavia is a region in Northern Europe named after the Scandinavian Peninsula. The most common definition includes continental Denmark, mainland Norway and Sweden.
The Scandinavian languages, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, are mutually intelligible, the countries share a common history and have many cultural similarities.
Scandinavia differs from the Nordic countries, in that it excludes Iceland and Finland. Scandinavia plus Finland is sometimes referred to as Fennoscandia, though the term is rarely used.
The Nordic countries include Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway (including Svalbard), Sweden and associated autonomous territories (Åland, Faroe Islands and Greenland).

Why you want to remove these lines is beyond me the only reason I see is that you are somehow trying to speard misinformation and confuse people. (Supermos 04:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

Please let's stop this revert warring!

What I, and many others have done, is re-inserting the following paragraph, which Comanche and Supermos always remove in their reverts:
Sometimes, Finland is included even in official contexts, although after the 1850s (when Finland was no longer part of the Swedish empire) this inclusion divides opinions in all of the respective states. This is sometimes reflected with the usage of the term "Fennoscandia", mainly a geological term.
That is all I wish to be re-instated, (possibly with the above amendment re the Swedish empire). You cannot dispute the truth of that. Somewhere in this revert war, an additional paragraphs about language similarities has been on and off. I have no objection to including that, but you should then also include the Swedish speakers of Finland.
The fact that the Swedish National Encyclpedia says one thing, still says nothing about the English language usage. Also note that the above paragraph does not say an interptetation including only S,N,D is wrong - it says it divides opinions. Is that so hard to undestand?
So, again, as the comments on top of the edit page state (amended a bit):
Please do not make edits that try to convey the idea that inclusion of Finland or various Norwegian and Danish territories in the term Scandinavia is "wrong". Read the lengthy discussions about this matter on the talkpage and its archive before editing. This article reflects the ENGLISH LANGUAGE and historical usage of the term. National definitions in the respective Scandinavian countries do differ.
Greetings, --Janke | Talk 07:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No Janke, your wrong. So what should Iceland also be Scandinavia. Should Estonia also be Scandinavia? Finland is a SLAVIC and NORDIC country, -not Scandinavia.

Scandinavia is often mistaken with Nordic country as foreigners. That doesnt mean Finland IS Scandinavia. --Comanche cph 08:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, i've never heard that Finland is a slavic country, and i've been living here for thirty years... Actually, many finns would be extremely offended if their country would be referred as slavic. Woden 15:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Such a statement is indeed pure nonsense. But don't waste your breath on more of Comanche's edits. He's account has been permanently blocked for disruption and several other offenses. Valentinian T / C 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL TEXTS THAT SAY FINLAND IS PART OF SCANDINAVIA. WHAT IS MORE OFFICIAL THAN THE SWEDISH NATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA TELL ME PLEASE!

And you remove the difference between the nordic countris and scandiavia you remove that the sandinavians have similar languages. As wiki verify says you must provide bases for your assumptions as I have sais there are no offical texts and I can bet you all the TEA in china that the British American and Candaian national encyclopedias all say the same thing. If i get my hands on a English speaking countries national encyclopedia will that be enough -> ofcurse not, because you will still want to add your false information. But THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL TEXTS THAT SAY THAT THE NRODIC COUNTRIES AND SCANDINAVIA ARE THE SAME BUT THERE ARE OFFICIAL TEXTS THAT EXPLAIN WHAT SCANDINAVIA IS, WHAT THE NORDIC COUNTRIES ARE, AND HOW THEY DIFFER. (Supermos 08:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

An encyclopedia isn't what's usually meant by an "official source" though they're still good sources for us. By all means, go ahead and see what English language encyclopedias say, there are several online. Haukur 08:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine call the British embassy In sweden and ask them is that official enough for you. Call them and ask. And no countries national encyclopedia is online for free that I know of. Nothing is more official than a countries national encyclopedia. And what does Swedens national encyclopedia say, Or the Danish or the norwegian or the finnish or the icelandic look at them and see what they all say and you will see how wrong you are and I dont think any of them is online atleast not for free. And not english language wikipedia is english language I am talking about NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL NATIONAL. Anyone can make any change on wikipedia and it is an englisk language encyclopedia but not anyone can make a change in a NATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA This link which is NOT official says it all http://open-encyclopedia.com/Scandinavia, These alternative meanings are considered incorrect in the local languages, and occasionally some people may take offense by such usage in English. I am somepeople I take offense!

(Supermos 09:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

I have no idea what you mean by "national encyclopedia". There is certainly no Icelandic "national encyclopedia" for me to look at. But let's look at the English language encyclopedias available online.
Columbia Encyclopedia: "Scandinavia (skăn'dĭnā`vēə), region of N Europe. It consists of the kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark; Finland and Iceland are usually considered part of Scandinavia." [17]
Encyclopædia Britannica: "historically Scandia part of northern Europe, generally held to consist of the two countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Norway and Sweden, with the addition of Denmark. Some authorities argue for the inclusion of Finland on geologic and economic grounds and of Iceland and the Faroe Islands on the grounds that their inhabitants speak North Germanic (or Scandinavian) languages..."
Encarta: "name applied collectively to three countries of northern Europe—Norway and Sweden (which together form the Scandinavian Peninsula), and Denmark. The three countries are so grouped because of their historical, cultural, and linguistic affinities. The term Scandinavia is sometimes extended to include Iceland and the Faroe Islands, which are linguistically related to the others, and to Finland, which is not linguistically related." [18]
This is all very similar to the version I prefer here. First we give the narrow Denmark-Sweden-Norway definition as the most common one and then we mention the extended definitions. Haukur 09:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you're looking at an old Wikipedia mirror there :) Haukur 09:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Supermos is right. There are some few guys here, who try to paint a wrong picture of Scandinavia, when wrongly including Finland. --Comanche cph 09:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A national Encyclopedia is made by the COUNTRY. The Swedish National Encyclopedia is made by the Swedish Natinonal Assembly And you can link all day long to wrong links that dont know anything about anything but this link which is NOT OFFICIAL says it all. http://open-encyclopedia.com/Scandinavia. Look if you want to get official call the British embassy In Sweden and in Denmark and In Norway and ask them. (Supermos 09:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
You blithely dismiss Britannica, Columbia and Encarta as "wrong links that don't know anything about anything" and promote an obsolete Wikipedia mirror as the truth. Wikipedia goes by reliable published sources, not "national Encyclopedias" or "official calls" to embassies. Haukur 09:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No you are misunderstanding me Look an official source is a national encyclopedia which is made by the country do you understand that much or do I need to explain it more. So you wont call any REAL OFFICIAL SOURCE So then calling the Swedish embassy in your country is something also you wont do because they ARE to official for you? And wikepidia does not I say again does not go by reliable published sources any person can add anything they want and there are many things that are wrong in wikepedia. Just now this is a perfect example and TELL ME WHAT IS MORE RELIABLE THAN THE SWEDISH NATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOTHING!(Supermos 09:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
Wikipedia does not go by phone-calls to embassies or "national encyclopedias", it goes by reliable published sources. Where word usage is concerned it goes by reliable published English language sources. Read up on WP:RS. Haukur 09:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't use "Britannica" is not a neutral encyclopedia. Britannica is many times based on few and one sided sources. We have seen that before. In Rollo of Normandy etc. The National encyclopedias in Sweden Denmark and Norway say it's the tree countries. --Comanche cph 09:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I Say again What is more official than the Swedish national encyclopedia, you avoid this part why -> because you know that you can not argue with it. A National Encyclopedia is made by the country and published by the country most countries have one. What is more correct than a countries National Encyclopedia -> the answer is nothing. And to call the embassy was just so that YOU and YOU alone could get a full and detailed answer so that YOU would understand YOU not the whole of wikipedia not the whole world just YOU. But As I have said many times A countries national Encyclopedia is a correct source, a Countries school books which are approved by the country is a correct source and nothing you say and no twisting of my words will ever change that fact. And as I have said the swedish national encyclopedia and the danish and the norwegian and most likely the british, the american and the canadian all say the same thing that Scadinavia is Denamrk, Norway And Sweden and that The Nordic countries are Scandinavia + Finland + Iceland. I do so love the fact that you quickly dismiss my one internet link which is just that an internet link it means nothing but praise your own internet links. As I have said and will continue to say nothing is more official than the school books of ones country and the national encyclopedias of ones country. (Supermos 10:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
Your internet link is to an outdated Wikipedia mirror. My three are to recognized English language encyclopedias. Wikipedia doesn't give any special precedence to "official" "national" encyclopedias or the "official" textbooks in a country. Would you prefer that our coverage of North-Korea be exclusively derived from official government-sanctioned North-Korean textbooks and reference works?
But even that is beside the point - the point about your Swedish, Danish and Norwegian encyclopedias is that they are irrelevant unless they say something about how the word "Scandinavia" is used in English. If they don't do that they have no bearing on the matter at hand. Haukur 10:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The right article also tells about some wrongly English usages for Scandinavia, and the confusion in what Scandinavia and the Nordic countries is. But Finland is not included officielt anywhere, and should not be. --Comanche cph 10:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Again you avoid it all together so you dismiss the actual national encyclopedias which have a burden of proof. And they are not irrelevant but highly relevant are you telling me that they are worng is that what you are saying. And bringing in North Korea is just you grasping at straws you cant say antyhing so you try to make up things. The Swedish school books are not wrong they explain what scandinavia is and so does the Swedish Natinaol Encyclopedia and they are higly relevant wouldnt you say so. Look I made an edit here which said Scandinavia is sometimes WRONGLY confused with the nordic countries. Is that not correct. Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden and sometimes wrongly confused with the nordic countries, This Is the absolut truth what is more correct than that tell me now and without bringing in North Korea. Now please look at the last version made by me supermos here on the scandinavian page and tell me what you dont like in the last version made by me supermos what part do you find false? (Supermos 10:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
There's nothing inherently wrong with using the word that way and we shouldn't say there is. It's just a word, it means whatever people use it to mean. Haukur 10:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Again for the millionth time you avoid my reasoning, Look Scandinavia IS Denmark Norway and Sweden and sometimes the word is wrongly wrongly wrongly used to describe the nordic countries. That is what it should say here in wikipedia and anything that says antyhing else is wrong. (Supermos 11:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC))
Your reasoning about national Scandinavian encyclopedias and school books is largely irrelevant. The English Wikipedia should reflect usage in English language sources and not pass value judgments on what usage is "right" and what is "wrong". Ask any experienced Wikipedian and they'll tell you the same thing. Haukur 11:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

^ There is no oficielt statement That Scandinavia is +Finland in English. Scandinavia is not only a geografic word. It's a word witch is being used to combind the tree North germanic kingdoms. For history and related languages. --Comanche cph 11:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the version yet again to this which is 100% correct and can be back with real sources. This is 100% correct and you can mention North Korea to your head goes blue because nothing will ever change that this is the whole truth the abosult truth and nothing but the truth.
The Scandinavian languages, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are mutually intelligible, the countries share a common history and have many cultural similarities.

In the English language, "Scandinavia" is often incorrectly used as a synonym for the Nordic countries

The Nordic Countries are Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and include the autonomous territories of Svalbard, Åland, Faroe Islands and Greenland.

(Supermos 12:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

And more importantly this article itslef Describes what scandinavia is if you would have bothered to scroll down you would have seen that. And the key words are the three kingdoms the three kingdoms the three kingdoms the three kingdoms the three kingdoms the three kingdoms the three kingdoms the three kingdoms the three kingdoms the three kingdoms the three kingdoms the three kingdoms. So this article explains it allready that Scandinavia is the three kingdoms and can be misunderstood with the nordic countries which you are doing. So more North Korea then? (Supermos 12:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

^This version is correct and it explain all. The old version was wrong. And please don't revert it back to the wrong version, it's starting to look like vandalism. --Comanche cph 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the entry from the New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd edition):
Scandinavia |ˈˌskandəˈnāvēə|
• a large peninsula in northwestern Europe, occupied by Norway and Sweden. It is bounded by the Arctic Ocean on the north, the Atlantic Ocean on the west, and the Baltic Sea on the south and the east.
• a cultural region consisting of the countries of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark and sometimes also of Iceland, Finland, and the Faroe Islands.
--A. B. 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I know why swedes don't consider Finland part of Scandinavia. We have pretty much no finnish cultural influence here in Sweden, we have some cultural exchange with Norway and alot of cultural and commercial exchange with Denmark (especially in the Öresund region). On the other hand, when I went to Helsinki I noticed that Sweden has a great influence on Finland. The Swedish window to the world has never been open to the east, so I think that's why we don't consider Finland part of Scandinavia, Finland is simply not part of the cultural exchange between Sweden, Denmark and Norway. This includes everything from exchange of workforce to exchange of jokes. But if Finland wants to call itself Scandinavia, I wouldn't mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.157.214 (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me supermos

I very agree with you that Finland not is Scandinavia.

But why keep writing that Scandinavia is named after the Scandinavian peninsula -When it's not.

And about this After the 1850s (after Finland was no longer part of the Swedish empire Where does it says that Finland was Scandinavia that time? And Finland became a part of Rusia in 1809, -it says on Finland history. Anyway this stuff should not belong to the header, but under history in Scandinavia. --Comanche cph 11:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Useing False sources

I do so love that your official sources are as I have said before just clerical errors and in no way are they official they talk abot makeing business and use the word scandinavia losely and yet you call these official and they are in swedish and danish but then you totally ignore the Swedish National Enycylopedia and the Swedish school books because they on the other hand do not reflect how the word is used in english. So then half-baked internet pages which by misstake and were never made to be read with such detail about scandinavia and which use the word losely to describe an area very losely are official BUT Government published books which are used to teach the citizens are not official (Supermos 23:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

Here is an official internet source or as official as it will get it is a swedish english internet dictionary made by the swedish schoolnet press on swedish to english and type in Skandinavien. http://lexikon.nada.kth.se/cgi-bin/swe-eng (Supermos 00:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

The three points in the lead and languages

Currently we have the following in the lead:

'The usage and meaning of the term outside Scandinavia is somewhat ambiguous:

  • Finland and Iceland are many times counted as parts of Scandinavia.
  • In a German mindset, Norway, Sweden and Finland are usually included, but Denmark is not.
  • In a British mindset, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are usually included, often with the addition of Iceland and Finland. '

Of these three points the first one is ungrammatical but comparing to the encyclopaedias that Haukur quoted it seems that we should mention that Iceland is sometimes included. On the other hand, the second two points seem to come with no credible sources and why should we be singling out these two 'mindsets' (whatever that means) and mention them. These two points should be removed, in my opinion.

It appears to mean "point of view" in precisely the sense WP:NPOV actually uses it. I will substitute; even the number of WPians who think PoV = bias should be able to follow in this context - and the only alternative I can see is Weltanschauung, which en: should avoid. Septentrionalis 13:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, so we have nailed down the indended meaning of the points but what are the sources of the claims in these points. That is, where is the evidence that Scandinavia has a different meaning in Germany than in Britain. From the sources cited in the next section, at least it seems that there is the same vagueness in English sources and in Swedish sources. Stefán Ingi 15:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no reply to that question, but one example of German usage is found in Meyers Konversationslexikon (1888):
Skandinavien (Skandinavische Halbinsel), große nordeuropäische, vom Nördlichen Eismeer, dem Atlantischen Ozean, der Ostsee und dem Bottnischen Meerbusen bespülte Halbinsel, welche die beiden unter Einem Zepter vereinigten Königreiche Schweden und Norwegen umfaßt. Die landläufige Annahme, daß beide Länder durch ein Kettengebirge, das sogen. Kjölengebirge (welcher Name in S. selbst unbekannt ist), geschieden werden, ist irrig, da das skandinavische Gebirge keinen ausgeprägten Kamm hat, sondern ein zusammenhängendes, von tiefen Thälern mannigfach durchfurchtes Hochland bildet. Weiteres s. Schweden und Norwegen.[19]
In other words, only the peninsula, excluding Denmark. The question remains how representative this was for its own time, and if modern usage has changed in any way. u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 16:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In the section on languages we should certainly have a see also that points to Finnish language and Sami languages; the most sensible thing would be to point to Finno-Samic but unfortunately this article doesn't exist. In any case, the Sami languages deserve at least one sentence in the Scandinavia article.

Finally, is Fornnordiska (see the Languages section) a word used in English? Stefán Ingi 12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A good analysis, Stefán, I agree with you. Incidentally I do think the article should mention the definition of Scandinavia where Denmark is excluded - judging from this search it sees some use. Haukur 10:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot the correct mindset of Scandinavia by Scandinavians. That Scandinavia Is Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Why Gernman mindset and English mindset. There is probaly many other differents mindset of Scandinavia. Why should we care about these mindset, when they are wrong, and why sohuld we care about a mindset? Scandinavia is not a mindset. But a cultural and geografic region of Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Look at Etymology.

This hole article has been rampaged by some weird kind of Finnish and Icelandic nationalist, who wanna keep the confusion by foreigners in what Scandinavia is.

And i will like to know, where you see Finland as official in Scandinavia? And where do you see that Scandinavia is named after Scandinavian peninsula? because it's NOT. This must be like the 10 times i asked this.

And the term Fennoscandia is just a very very strictly geographic use, and should not be mentored as it is Scandinavia. --Comanche cph 11:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why no one not answer me or user:supermos to these logical questions about your acts who looks like vandalism. --Comanche cph 16:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Still no answer! --Comanche cph 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny that user:Janke slowly put more false lines on this article, while still refusing to answer the questions here. --Comanche cph 17:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

>>>>> Where you see Finland as official in Scandinavia? And where do you see that Scandinavia is named after Scandinavian peninsula? <<<<< As your reverting version says! --Comanche cph 00:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comanche, please stop accusing me of vandalism and being a nationalist. That is not nice, and you may be blocked (yet again) for that. To answer your questions (yet again): It was NOT me who originally wrote the section about Finland in the introduction. I have only reverted to a version that was considered a consensus version long before the current revert war which you and Supermos (who is now permanently blocked for being a sockpuppet) instigated and kept up.
I think the current version, with the different viewpoints is excellent, and shows that the word Scandinavia means a different thing depending on what language you speak. My personal addition has been regarding the Finland-Swedish dialect, which is understood both by Danes and Norwegians - yes, I have spoken F-S while listening to N or D, and the conversations were very pleasant, and definitely mutually understandable.
Regarding the naming, I have no part in that, and I don't oppose the removal of it. But please do not erase the fact that in English usage, Scandinavia can include F and I - the article clearly states that this is controversial - which is good, and will educate a reader with the "wrong" impression. I don't care what your schoolbooks say - they are written by Danes for Danes (or by Swedes for Swedes). Wikipedia presents a global perspective. So, if anything, I'm a globalist, not a nationalist! ;-) --Janke | Talk 13:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavia in Swedish reference works

User:Supermos referred repeatedly to the "Swedish National Encyclopedia", i.e. Nationalencyklopedin, but apparently without actually checking what it says. The article on Scandinavia in NE defines it as follows:

Skandinavien, dels samlingsnamn på länderna Sverige, Norge och Danmark, ibland också Finland, dels benämning på Skandinaviska halvön. Stundom används benämningen något oprecist om Norden. (Nationalencyklopedin, [20]) (My emphasis.)

Looking the most authoritative Swedish source describing usage of Swedish words, the article on the adjective "Skandinavisk" ("Scandinavian") in Svenska Akademiens Ordbok defines it thus:

"BETYDELSE: som utgör l. tillhör l. finnes l. bor i l. härstammar från l. utmärker l. avser l. gäller Skandinavien (dvs. den halvö som omfattar Norge o. Sverige, oftast med inbegrepp av Danmark (o. Island), stundom äv. av Finland); som är skandinav l. tillhör l. härstammar från l. utmärker l. avser l. gäller en skandinav l. skandinaver; som består av skandinaver; om sammanslutning o. d.: gemensam l. avsedd för skandinaver;[21] (My emphasis.)

In other words, in describing how the term "Scandinavia(n)" is actually used, these Swedish reference works say exactly the same thing as the English Wikipedia: "Scandinavia" usually refers to Norway, Sweden and Denmark, and occasionally (NE: "ibland"; SAOB: "stundom") also Finland (and even Iceland, according to SAOB). This usage is attested. If some Wikipedia user finds it objectionable is inconsequential, and there is no need for the article to be prescriptive. u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Etymology?

I have added a template to the Etymology section regarding its lack of citations. For all I know, the basic facts are correct, but much of the detail strikes me as speculative in the absence of sources to back it up. In the entire section, there is only one citation, and all it establishes is that saevō is Latin for "fierce." If the rest of the information is not original research, could someone let us know where it came from? Tusen takk, as they say! Lusanaherandraton 04:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. It's also to heavy. It's not encyclopedia stuff. --Comanche cph 01:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

All this Finland

Why linking to Finland's language strife. -It has nothing to do with Scandinavism

Claiming that the strictly geographic term Fennoscandia (witch not are used in Den, Swe Nor.) is used as Scandinavia in the original Scandinavia is not true either --Comanche cph 01:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Hello, Comanche - I guessed you were back since there's been so much activity here, after a peaceful period while you were blocked for edit warring. Putting {{fact}} after everything you don't agree with is POV-pushing, you know. Why can't you let the English-speaking part of the world (and even Sweden, see SAO and SE quotes above) keep their definition, but have to push your own, personal interpretation onto everyone? Keep doing that, and you'll be blocked again.--Janke | Talk 06:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

See this is a typical way for Janke to discuss and POV-pushing on. He have finally found out that he need sources for his edits. Now when another guy finally have seen that "named after Scandinavian peninsula" is totally wrong. Witch i have told and reverted (from Janke) like 30 times before. Janke has come to his own conclusion that he better not gonna revert it this time. You should think that this wikipedia should be pretty simple, that you just need to put sources out to those who question it, but sadly not for Janke. --Comanche cph 08:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, who is it who has been blocked for 3RR, and is going agains consensus here? YOU, not me. Continue, and you'll be blocked again. (I'll concecde and leave the {{fact}} on the naming, reverting myself, since I've not gone into closey studying that. This was the first time I reverted that separately, separately from your other edits, just so you know.) --Janke | Talk 08:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavia, Nordic and Finland, again...

Hi, it's been a while since I last participated in this article but I see that the whole Scandianvia-Nordic-Finland issue still doesn't appear to be settled in a satisfactory way.

This is the way I see it (and which I believe the article should reflect in a clearer way):

  • In the Nordic countries, most people are clear about Scandinavia only including Sweden, Norway and Denmark
  • For some reason (though see below) it seems that Scandinavia is often used as a synonym for Nordic
  • Geographically, it is quite clear that the Scandinavian peninsula includes Norway and Sweden only

I've found a, in my opinion, very good summary/FAQ of the issue on soc.culture.nordic which I've copied below. Please let me know your thoughs on this.

2.1.3 What is "Scandinavia"?
The word "Scandinavia" presents a bit more difficulty.
  • In Nordic languages, the meaning is quite clear: Skandinavien: Sweden, Denmark, Norway (and sometimes Iceland)
  • The Scandinavian peninsula, on the other hand, is usually simply understood as comprising Norway and Sweden, despite the unclear border to the Kola peninsula. The northernmost part of Finland is of course also situated on the Scandinavian peninsula.
  • But in English, alas, there seems to be no standard usage. This is mainly due to the fact that English lacks a simple and clear term for the five countries, and the word "Scandinavia" tends to be used for that purpose instead. The term "Nordic countries", in its current definition, is a rather recent invention, its meaning is still a bit obscure especially to non-Europeans, it's awkward to use and to some people it carries unpleasant connotations of the Aryan "Nordic race". Therefore, you will find that it's quite common to define the word "Scandinavia" in English like this:
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
SCANDINAVIAN: of the countries Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland in northern Europe, or their people or languages.
On the other hand, it is not uncommon to use the word "Scandinavia" in its more limited definition. An example:
The Concise Oxford Dictionary
SCANDINAVIAN: a native or inhabitant of Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland).
And some encyclopaedias put it like this:
The Random House Encyclopaedia
SCANDINAVIA: a region of northern Europe consisting of the kingdoms of Sweden, Norway and Denmark; culturally and historically Finland and Iceland are often considered part of this area.
Despite the term being rather clear for the Scandinavians themselves, disputes remain about how the term would be understood and derived in English. If the word is understood as a geographic term, how can then Denmark be included - as most do. If instead it's deduced from the area where the languages are quite similar North-Germanians, should

Iceland logically be excluded?

At the risk of disturbing some people's sleep, we will use "Nordic" and "Scandinavian" interchangeably throughout this FAQ, for practical reasons. You have been warned.

I think that discussion was a pretty good summary of the issue. Something that we could include? Cheers Osli73 09:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi good finding there :). So now we see there IS English encyclopedia's who use the correct form for Scandinavia (Den, Swe and Nor).

I don't agree with Denmark not is "geographic" Scandinavia. Remember Scandinavia is not the strictly geographic word witch only is used on some maps "The Scandinavian Peninsula". You also need to remember that in old days seafaring was much faster than land travel. And the population in Norway live on the south and west coast. While the mainly the population in Sweden live south, and west to. There live almost no one in north Norway, north Sweden or north Finland (where Swe and Fin is connected) for that case. --Comanche cph 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comanche,

Regarding the Denmark bit, what I (and the usenet summary) meant is that Denmark is not part of the Scandinavian peninsula, which is a geographic term. Maybe a comparison would be saying that while Sicily is part of Italy it's not part of the Italian peninsula.

So, the term "Scandinavian peninsula" has nothing to do with history or demographics.

By the way, I read somewhere while on vacation in Skåne this summer that Fennoscandia ends somewhere in the region of Ringsjön (near Höör in central Skåne). Apparently that is where there is a geological transition of some kind - from granite to clay I presume.

Regards Osli73 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Denmark was part of the Scandinavian Peninsula for much longer than Sweden has been part of the Southern tip of that same peninsula. I'm surprised nobody in Scania bothered to tell you that when you visited, Osli. As Comancho would probably happily report, for a kingdom as old as Denmark, 350 years or so is nothing but a blink of an eye---therefore the queen of Denmark has only "just recently" lost her foothold in Scania (Terra Scaniae), which was twinned with Denmark since, the days of Harald I of Denmark, at least, which means, uhm, for 650 years or so. --Pia 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The above definition of "Nordic languages" seems rather strange to me. Finnish and Sami are spoken both in "Scandinavia" and in several "Nordic countries", whatever the usage of the terms one wants to use. To me there is a strange sound to claims of "these-or-those-countries-are-the-NORDIC-and-not-Scandinavia" when talking about Nordic languages as only being the germanic ones spoken in the area.
Also I think that "Scandinavian languages"-section should be changed into "Languages in Scandinavia" with a clear introduction on what languages actually are spoken in Scandinavia, regradless of the "meaning" of the term "Scandinavia". "Scandinavian languages" are not the same as "Languages in Scandinavia". Fennougrian languages were spoken in most parts of the region before the germanic ones, and they are still spoken in large areas. The article does not give a completely correct view to the readers as it only emphasizes the germanic ones. Prefixcaz 07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging

I would suggest this article include the whole of the Denmark-Norway article. The D-N article is some what short and I think I will fit nicely in this article, explaining part of the history of Scandinavia.

Yeah, I know. Keep this article focused and the D-N article might be better in either Denmark or Norway, but which one of the two should it be in? I think Scandinavia should expand its scope a bit and include region wide history sections, including D-N.

Who agrees with me? --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 11:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah hell. I will be bold and start including parts of the D-N article myself and we can see how it turns out. I hate waiting for more than a few minutes to do something. :) --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 11:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You can include any information you want, but I don't thing merging the D-N article into this article is the right thing to do. D-N should remain a separate article. Inge 11:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but I lean towards larger, broader articles that reach FA or atleast GA than smaller focused articles. --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 11:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now that I have added part of the D-N article, how does it look? --OrbitOne [Talk|Babel] 11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

About the German definition of Scandinavia

Can we please get some references to back up the statement that Scandinavia has the following meaning in German: "In Germany: Norway, Sweden and Finland are usually included, but Denmark is not." Looking briefly at the German Wikipedia article about Scandinavia, the claim that the German definition does not include Denmark seems a pretty radical interpretation. Are there any sources available to back up this claim? Pia 00:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Meyers Konversationslexikon seems to have a somewhat divided opinion. "Skandinavien" is considered identical to Norway and Sweden [22], on the other hand, Denmark is elsewhere described as a Scandinavian country. [23]. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavia again

I´m pretty sure that the schoolbooks in Denmark, Norway and Sweden needs some fixing, because Finland is part of Scandinavia by many ways: geographically (actually the whole country is part of Scandinavia), culturally, racially those Finns are same (there are no genetical differences between Finns and other Scandinavian people), culturally same, historically the Finns are part of Scandinavia (Finland was part of Kalmar´s Union under control of Sweden), Finns were vikings etc. Plus the terrain is same like in other Scandinavian countries. So, I´m sure that the Danish/Norwegian and Swedish schoolbooks are wrong in that case if they claim that Finland would not be a Scandinavian country. Notice that most Scandinavians accept the truth that Finland has always been, is, and will always be part of Scandinavia by geographical, historical, racial, cultural, economical etc. ways. Only exception is the Finnish languange which isn´t a Germanic languange, but it´s Scandinavian languange (a languange spoken in Scandinavia).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.148.100.50 (talk)

The article now says: "In popular usage, the definition is normally restricted to ... Norway, Sweden and Denmark." This is not true, in my experience, and not backed up by the references cited in the article and on this talk page. Haukur 13:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think Pia refers to Scandinavian popular usage, being a Swede, because I intuitively agree with Pia. However, an Icelander probably has a different experience. I think this article should be on Sweden, Norway and Denmark, being the central meaning of Scandinavia. Iceland and Finland do belong to the Nordic countries, but Nordic and Scandinavian are not necessarily the same thing.--Berig 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Haukurth and Berig (and User 62.148.100.50), I tried to implement Haukurth's sentence above, "First we give the narrow Denmark-Sweden-Norway definition as the most common one and then we mention the extended definitions". Wikipedia has a suggested "policy for geographical names" to use when establishing common English usage, so we should be able to establish that without too much strife. I went through Haukurth's list above (Encyclopædia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta. My sentence "In popular usage, the definition is normally restricted to" tried to reflect the fact that all three Wiki-recommended English sources mention three core countries, then add Finland and Iceland with various degrees of reservation. But please correct that sentence if it gives the wrong impression. (As a parenthesis: This seems to be the common theme in other countries' encyclopedias as well, but I removed the similar definitions in different languages because that should not be the focus on en.wikipedia. (The only exception seems to be the German encyclopedic article kindly supplied by Valentinian here on the talk page, which uses a narrow geographical definition for Scandinavia in the main article, listing it as Skandinavien (Skandinavische Halbinsel)). In addition: it was entered in the lead, which normally contains the major summary or most important points of an article.
About the changes I made:
1. Differentiating between Nordic and Scandinavian: The drift of the article appeared to be to equate the Nordic Countries and Scandinavia, which may be politically correct, but which is also somewhat deceptive looking at the etymology of the word and looking at the use through history. As etymology appears to show, the name originated in antiquity with Roman geographers as a name for the southern part of the "island" (which turned out to be a peninsula). This is reflected in modern geography, where the definition is centered around the Scandinavian Peninsula. The reason I removed the emphasis on Finland in the geography section is that the majority of the Finnish landmass is not generally considered to be located on the Scandinavian Peninsula, but part of Fennoscandia, or the Baltic Shield (see for example Encarta: "Scandinavian peninsula (which is part of the ancient Baltic Shield), occupied by Norway and Sweden", Britannica: "Large promontory, northern Europe. Occupied by Norway and Sweden"). However, I stand corrected if Berig User 62.148.100.50 wants to add sources from the field of geography and change that assumption in the article. We can certainly introduce all the countries in the geography section as well, including Iceland.
2. Establishing popular usage: I believe that the two issues mentioned above (etymology and geography) are reflected in popular usage, which is the reason only 3 of the Nordic Countries are most often mentioned as being "Scandinavia". However, my intention is certainly not to try to limit or exclude any of the culturally and linguistically Scandinavian countries from being considered Scandinavian according to more modern points of view. Still, I think we need to point out that there is historically a core meaning centered on the Scandinavian peninsula, even though it is a given that the usage is extended to a larger area in different disciplines, due to the shared heritage, culture, language, history, etc, etc of the region. It is especially important to point this out considering the fact that the earliest and best-known Scandinavian literature and contributions to geographic exploration of the lands to the far west did not come from the peninsula, but from Iceland.
3. About people of Finland as a "Scandinavian race": I didn't mention genetics, but I'm not necessarily arguing that it couldn't be part of the article. The earliest settlers of Iceland, for example, were of Scandinavian descent according to modern gene research. See for example "Estimating Scandinavian and Gaelic Ancestry in the Male Settlers of Iceland" in Am. J. Hum. Genet. 67:697–717, 2000, authored by scholars from Institutes of Biological Anthropology and Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, 3deCODE Genetics Inc., Reykjavik; Department of Genetics, Trinity College, Dublin; and 5Blodbanken, Ulleval Sykehus, Oslo. pdf file here. I'm not in a position to comment on Berig's User 62.148.100.50's assertion about the people of Finland, but it shouldn't be too hard to look that up and enter it into the article, if needed, and with sources. The reason I do not want to go there myself is that it enters into the territory of the racial, tribal and ethnocentric and I don't think that race should define Scandinavia, which is a place.
As a final comment: I also want to say that I think that we need to go back through the history of this article and see what has been deleted during the long and nasty edit war so that facts and viewpoints have not been left out of the equation. The problem here, as I see it, is that the usual ultra-nationalists tendencies have made some people withdraw and for that reason, the article had, quite frankly started to be a whimsical assortment of unrelated statements, totally unfocused and gliding away on different, distantly related concepts, or simply put: it had begun to suck. I'm out of time now for the weekend, but I'd be so pleased and happy if more work and sources could go into this article, for example by you two. :) Pia 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I would not say that I am asserting anything :). My personal POV is that Finland does not belong to Scandinavia ;). You have done some great work Pia L.--Berig 13:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Berig, sorry!! Didn't mean to put words in your mouth (keyboard). I didn't notice that the first comment was not part of yours and Haukurth's discussion. (Blush, blush). I've put in an "unsigned comment tag" now to try to make it up to you. And thanks :). Pia 21:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No way Finland is a part of Scandinavia. Finland has more relations to Estonia and Russia than Scandinavia. Finland only connects to Scandinavia in a very small part in the north where no people lives.

Finland does not share same culture as Scandinavia, but with Estonia and Russia.

Finns are racially NOT Scandinavian/North Germanics. Only the small Swedish minority who lives in Finland are. (there are no genetically differences between Finns and other Estonian people)

Finland does NOT share same history as Scandinavia. Finland have more and later history with Russia than Sweden. Thats why their music, buildings etc. is like Russian. Its truly pathetic that the guy claim that Finns were vikings. Because they were owned by them. In that case Iceland is way more Scandinavian.

lol. yes the terrain looks like north Sweden. But not the climate. Sweden are way more sunny than Russian-cloudy Finland. And what have this anything to do with this stupid issue.

Finland is just some wannabes who steal the Scandinavian cross flag and wanna claim them as North Germanic Scandinavians because they have no history and don't wanna be in same boat with Estonia and Russia, where Finland belongs.

I'm tired to see this article being messed up by some Finns.

--203.223.46.81 13:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Finland doesn't "belong" anywhere where patronizing and reactionary forces try to park it. It has a plural heritage and a population that has taken the country from a neglected back-water position under imperial rule to a position where the population enjoys one of the highest per capita incomes in Europe. Finland has the highest number of technology patents awarded per capita and is ranked first among Western countries in scientific talent. Standing on its own two feet, it was the first country in Europe to allow universal and equal suffrage and the first making women eligible to stand as candidates in national elections. In spite of various forms of patronizing stereotyping, I might add. So eat your heart out. It has been a long time since Finland had to bow to anybody telling it where it belongs, or to whom. Culturally, Finland is Scandinavian. As for identity: Finland is Finnish, not Swedish, not Russian and certainly not "wannabe" anything. Pia 21:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Finland has become sideways on scandinavian capita. But only because of the EU support, the same thing you see in Ireland. Finland does not have a Scandinavian culture, only parts of it. Pia i think you like to talk about things you dont really no much about. --202.93.10.71 08:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The "I" and the "you" are totally irrelevant, as you, perhaps better than I, illustrate by being nothing but number 202.93.10.71. What "I" personally "know" or do not "know" makes no difference whatsoever because neither number 202.93.10.71 nor some other "I" are writing personal autobiographies or personal accounts of experiences of historic events when we contribute to Wikipedia. What matters is what the published, academic sources have to say on the issues. For your information: The books on which I based my per capita and identity statements above is The Information Society and the Welfare State by Manuel Castells and Pekka Himanen, published by Oxford University Press; and Shapiro, Michael J. "Finnish Political Theory". Theory & Event - Volume 1, Issue 3, 1997, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Neither credit the Finnish success story to EU charity in any way, shape or form. About the idea that "outsiders" should not dare to comment on what they can't "know": There are a lot of articles that are not Scandinavian in origin that deal with the obstacles the Finnish identity and culture have had to face, and still has to face today. It is not an exclusively Finnish/Swedish or Danish preoccupation--it is an issue of interest to people around the world (me included). See for example IFLA Council and General Conference Bangkok, Thailand, where Finnish author Antti Jalava is quoted on the issue of identity: "The Finnish language is my skin, my air, my snowfall, my anger and my sorrow. It is the language which heals my deepest wounds and in which I express my feelings. Finnish is the very origin of what I am." Even in India, the press has been discussing what humanity as a whole might learn from the Finnish experience (see for example "Finland: A Turnaround Success Story" in Financial Express, India). Besides the importance of language for identity, what I personally think is the most important issue that modern Finnish scholars have been trying to share is that "Scandinavian" isn't something static: the Scandinavian countries are not "Scandinavian" because they have a common root in Old Norse and the sagas, or worse, some kind of common inherited "Viking gene" that is so essentially part of the identity that if the right circumstances arise, they may all very well be expected to go and conquer England again, or raid some other unfortunate, peaceful tribe in the neighborhood, should another severe famine roll around or should the lack of available women become acute. Scandinavian culture is shaped by modern ideologies that are not necessarily originally "Scandinavian" but have become part of the Scandinavian cultural heritage nevertheless, such as elements of protestant Christianity (originally German). The list of continental influences that has been integrated into what constitues Scandinavian culture through the ages goes on and on. Some of them mentioned in the Redescriptions article in relation to their influence in Finland: French Enlightenment (French was the language in which the Russian authorities communicated with the autonomous Finnish part of the Empire in the 19th century); human rights; freedom of the press and organization and multi-party system--an expressions of French thought modeled into Finnish politics; socialism from the Reds of 1918--inspired by French parliamentarism and by Swiss ideals of direct democracy as much as by the Soviets in Russia. Pia 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

About various definitions

I made a fact request invisible for the time being, because I'm wondering what the {{citation needed}} is asking for in reference to the sentence, "The region is therefore often defined according to the conventions of different disciplines or according to the political and cultural aims of different communities of the area". The sentence is a summary of the conventions of the various definitions of disciplines that already appear in the article, with references: The article lists and references 1) a linguistic definition (East-West Scandinavian), 2) a geographical definition (Scandinavian Peninsula only, see the three recommended encyclopedias), and 3) various definitions according to etymology (referenced). The article also lists the definition according to the recommended "popular science" encyclopedias (for a reference, see for example Encyclopedia Britannica, which lists Nor/Swe/Den as the core, even though it is not cited in the intro). Concerning "The region is often defined according to the political and cultural aims of different communities of the area": The article lists and references three movements that have produced definitions with political aims, namely the 1) Fennoman movement (aiming to define Finland as non-Scandinavian); 2) the Svecoman movement (aiming to define the high culture of Finland as exclusively Swedish and thus Scandinavian); 3) Scandinavism (aiming to unit three Scandinavia kingdoms); and last 4) the Nordic Council (aiming to include under the Scandinavian umbrella all countries that apply and are accepted). If the sections with references had not been moved elsewhere, the sentence "The region is therefore often defined according to the conventions of different disciplines or according to the political and cultural aims of different communities of the area" would not be "flying solo". I could add the following reference to make up for the move, but to me it just seems superfluous: <ref>For political movements that define Scandinavia according to various political aims, see for example the Fennoman and Svecoman movements (referenced below), Scandinavism (referenced below), and the political organization the Nordic Council. For the linguistic definition, see below (East Scandinavian-West Scandinavian), for the definition used in geography, see below (only two countries are located on the Scandinavian Peninsula today). For a cultural definition, see for example the article [[Scandinavian literature]].</ref> . Pia 23:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • ->

Never mind. I forgot about the special issue of the peer-reviewed journal International Journal of Heritage Studies (Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2005) which deals exclusively with the Scandinavian heritage. I'm going to insert a link to the introductory article by Kenneth Olwig (Professor in geography, NTNU, Trondheim), "The Nature of Cultural Heritage, and the Culture of Natural Heritage—Northern Perspectives on a Contested Patrimony", where he states (p.3): "One’s perspective on natural versus cultural heritage as a contested patrimony is, to some extent, governed by one’s [...] discursive position within ongoing discourses concerning the heritage of one’s place on the globe. In discourses influenced by the natural sciences, culture is a heritage of nature, whereas in those deriving from the humanities and social sciences, nature is defined socio-culturally. 'Scandinavia' is thus home to most of the authors writing here, including me, and, depending upon one's perspective, it might also be the subject of the essays. But if one looks at the definition of Scandinavia in a standard dictionary, it becomes clear that Scandinavia is a function of whether we choose to define it on the basis of natural or cultural criteria. In definition (1) Scandinavia is a: 'peninsula N Europe occupied by Norway and Sweden'. [In] definition (2), Scandinavia is: 'Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and sometimes also Iceland, the Faeroe Islands, & Finland'. [...] The very name 'Scandinavia' is of cultural origin, since it derives from the Scanians or Scandians (the Latinised spelling of Skåninger), a people who long ago lent their name to all of Scandinavia, perhaps because they lived centrally, at the southern tip of the peninsula. In physical terms, they lived within the boundaries of the peninsula, but in cultural terms their heritage is very much bound to Denmark because they lived under the suzerainty of the Danish monarch from time immemorial until 1658." Pia 01:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to 203.223.46.81´s comment (in bold)

User 203.223.46.81 wrote:

No way Finland is a part of Scandinavia. Finland has more relations to Estonia and Russia than Scandinavia. Finland only connects to Scandinavia in a very small part in the north where no people lives.

Actually, Finland has more connections to Sweden, Norway and Denmark than to Estonia and Russia. For example the Finns prefer to travel to other Scandinavian countries than to Estonia and Russia. Also, the area isn´t very small, it is like the Eastern Finland plus the area above Oulu.

Historically Karelia has been more under Russian influence, but the rest of Finland has been more under Swedish influence. By land Finland is connected to the Scandinavian peninsula by a small part, but remember that seas have always connected cultures also. Most of the Finnish coast are towards Sweden, and therefore the connections between Swedish culture have been major.Shubi 04:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Finland does not share same culture as Scandinavia, but with Estonia and Russia. No, Finland shares same culture with other Scandinavian countries, for example the Nordic bookaward, Hello Scandinavia-project (easier to work on other Scandinavian country), The Scandinavian passport treaty (no passport needed when travelling to other Scandinavian country) etc. In case of Estonia, it seems that only languange is a relative to Estonian. The cultural features with Finland and Russia are not same, some words have been borrowed from Russia (but very few, in other words not alot). The construction style is way different in Russia when comparing to Finland.

Sweden does not have the exact same culture as Norway. Norway does not have the exact same culture as Denmark. Denmark does not have the exact same culture as Sweden. Even though there are differences between the cultures, they nevertheles are similar between the three countries. And even though Finnish culture is not identical with Swedish, Danish or Norwegian culture, it can be sometimes said to be a Scandinavian culture.Shubi 04:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Finns are racially NOT Scandinavian/North Germanics. Only the small Swedish minority who lives in Finland are. (there are no genetically differences between Finns and other Estonian people) Wrong. The scientists have showed it that the Finns are racially same like Swedes are. Estonians may be genetically same with Finns, but this one does not mean people of Finland would be non-Scandinavians. And also, the people who speak Finnishswedish as their native languange are genetically just same like Finns are, which means that Finns ARE genetically same.

I would not even speak about races, since the genetic differences are very, very small. The closest genetic relatives to Finns are the Estonians. And there are genetical differences between Finns and Estonians, just like there are genetical differences between the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish people. The closest genetic relatives of the Finns after Estonians are the Flemish people, If I remember correctly. Keep in mind that language relations do not equal genetic relations, and just because Finnish isn't linguistically related to Swedish, does not mean that the people aren't. Finnish and Germanic-speaking people have mixed for over a thousand years. Genetically the Finnish people are pretty much just like the rest of the European people. Swedish language is linguistically related to Hindi and Russian, but it would be strange to claim on that basis that Swedes are more related to the Hindi or Russian people than to Finnish people.Shubi 04:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Finland does NOT share same history as Scandinavia. Finland have more and later history with Russia than Sweden. Thats why their music, buildings etc. is like Russian. Its truly pathetic that the guy claim that Finns were vikings. Because they were owned by them. In that case Iceland is way more Scandinavian. Notice that Finland was 800 years part of Sweden, which means they had (and have also nowadays) Scandinavian culture because they ARE Scandinavians. "More history with Russia", what do you mean? Finland was part of Russia from 1809 to 1917, but it did not mean that Finland would had changed Russian. Finland was nearly an independent state and they had their completely different culture, own currency etc. And about vikings, "they" did not own Finns because Finns truly were vikings, just go find it out from historial sources. And Iceland is a Scandinavian country like Finland is.

You really can't argue that Finland isn't a part of Scandinavia sayint that it does not share the same history as Scandinavia, because the whole issue is about defining what Scandinavia is.
Finland shares way more history with Sweden than Russia. As said, Finland was a part of Sweden for almost thousand years. The Germanic culture influenced Finland even before the Swedish regime. Most of the Finnish vocabulary originates from Germanic languages, mostly from Swedish. Pea soup, red cottages, meatballs, mämmi, christianity, law, literacy, education and so on have all arrived to Finland from Sweden. Sweden influenced the Finnish culture for hundred of years and blocked the Russian influence. Even the Finnish constitution during the Russian regime was based on the Swedish constitution, as Finland was an autonomus Grand Duchy of the Russian Empire with its own currency, law, customs, army, senate and so on.
I would say that the Finns were not vikings, but the Finnish way of life during the viking age was quite similar to that of the Norse people. Finns traded and made war and mixed with the vikings. Finnish paganism also has similarities with the viking religion.Shubi 04:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

lol. yes the terrain looks like north Sweden. But not the climate. Sweden are way more sunny than Russian-cloudy Finland. And what have this anything to do with this stupid issue. The weather does not differ alot in Sweden and Finland, climate is same (the clouds are not made in Russia).

Finland is just some wannabes who steal the Scandinavian cross flag and wanna claim them as North Germanic Scandinavians because they have no history and don't wanna be in same boat with Estonia and Russia, where Finland belongs. What wannabes? Notice that though Finnish is not a Northern Germanic languange it does not mean that it wouldn´t be Scandinavian. "They have no history." What do you mean? As far as I know, that nation has alot guts, because they have fought in side of Sweden-Finland in Germany, fought against Soviet Union in 1939-1940 and in 1941-1944 and against German from 1944 to 1945, which means they really have history with other Scandinavian countries.

And now I have to ask from the user that why Finland would belong to same boat with Estonia and Russia?

Gerrne 21:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Most what you say is bullshit and you have no sitting sources on it.

Finns and finnish culture are a bit different and they dont share same language or history as scandinavia does. Finns looks like a grossover of a Scandinavian and a Russian. You know as much of everybody here that Finns are allot closer in language and culture to Estonia than Scandinavia. Or maybe you wanna Estonia to be Scandinavia to? It has always been known in Norway, Denmark and Sweden. That Scandinavia is the 3 countries and the nordic is plus Iceland, Faroe island and Finland. If you travel to some of the Scandinavian capitals you will see on some of the big old kings buildings. Either the 3 scandinavian flags or 3 crowns as symbol of the 3 Scandinavian kingdoms. --203.223.46.81 11:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)--

Scandinavia is Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. And you can not talk about Scandinavia in this case because every country has their own history, so in other words Sweden has it´s own, Denmark has it´s own, Finland different and Norway different. And the languange what Finns speak is Scandinavian languange. Plus, the only thing in culture which seems to be same with Finland and Estonia is the languange, otherwise they are completely different - Finland is Scandinavian country, Estonia is a Baltic country. And Finns do not look like mix of Scandinavian and Russians, because you can not tell a Finn from Swede and so on, but you can clearly see the differences between a Finn and a Russian person (just try it yourself). And please give us a link in which you can proof your claim that "It has been always known in Norway, Denmark and Sweden". We all know that most other Scandinavians are normal and they agree Finns to Scandinavians because the history is same with other Scandinavia (Actually, DNFISI, all of them, have their own story, history, culture and languange).

Scandinavia is five countries, just check it out yourself, the main things which are same to these five countries (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland): all of them are part of Scandinavia, all of those five are viking countries, plus the cross in flag does not symbolize 3 Scandinavian countries, it´s the Scandinavian cross which is used by all five countries.

I picked the sources randomly. This one is used to make you believe that people really agree that Finland is a Scandinavian country. http://www.forumplanet.com/counterstrike/topic.asp?fid=4975&tid=1004493&p=1#10227635 http://www.forumplanet.com/counterstrike/topic.asp?fid=4979&tid=1107054&p=1#11550574 http://www.goscandinavia.com/ http://www.scandinavia-tours.com/ http://www.scandinavianow.com/ http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Europe/Regions/Scandinavia/Countries_and_Regions/ http://www.holidaycityscan.com/ http://www.royalty.nu/Europe/Scandinavia/index.html (Yes, also Swedes accept the truth.) http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?S=R&wtit=history+scandinavia&wauth=derry&siteID=_K9TL5uS924-wtpl8ch74iLSX4bxwyqVZQ http://archive.wn.com/2004/08/19/1400/scandinavia/

So, as you can see, also Swedes, Danish and Norwegians accept that Finland is a Scandinavian country. And please, do not take this personally. I´m sure that accepting the truth (Finland is part of Scandinavia) isn´t a big thing, isn´t it?

--Gerrne 21:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)--

What a pathetic idiot. Linking to random homepages who agrees with you, -like a counter strike forum. Finland is not and will never be Scandinavia. Finland is Nordic country, not Scandinavian. Finland is a Ugric-slavic country. And NOT Scandinavian!!! and not even Germanic. --124.108.52.2 03:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I linked randomly was to make you understand that Finland is not Ugric-slavian country, it´s Scandinavian. Gerrne

Oh you wanna start a link fight. im sure people here can find 5 times more pages who agrees with Scandinavia STILL only is Den, Nor, Swe. But for what reason?? --124.108.52.2 09:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I´m not trying to start any link fight. I googled out for it "Finland is part of Scandinavia" and "Finland is not part of Scandinavia" and the first one wins:

1 750 000 - 1 600 000.

So, remember: I´m not going to insult you personally and I haven´t started any link war. You are just way too aggressive in this case ("idiot", "bullshit", "oh you wanna start a link fight" <--- at least I understood you took things too seriously). Just check the links and you´ll notice that people really accept Finns to be part of Scandinavia nowadays. And please, just accept the truth: though Finnish isn´t a Germanic languange it is part of Scandinavian culture - if you think otherwise, just give me a link to site you use as your source. If you don´t have anything smart answer to add, in my opinion we can end talking about this.

Good news, this link is hopefully way to comphromize in this question, please read it! http://www.flickr.com/groups/scandinaviandelight/discuss/84325/ <--They talk about Scandinavia in that link which I gave - the idea of my post is in Meltfire´s last comment. Gerrne 12.38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep linking to these no one cares forum? Far most people in scandinavia know that Finland NOT is included.

Listen. Scandinavia is not er region you can apply membership to. But a historical and cultural region, consisting, plus almost same language of Den, Nor and Swe. No we dont wanna sink on your level and find homepages who agrees with you.

And when you source on finland is (not) part of scandinavia on google. You know you only will find forums. And you can't use them to anything. --124.108.52.2 12:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It´s not an region, neither it´s not only Den Swe Nor, because we never have applied being part of Scandinavia, we´ve always been part of it. Of course, languanges of Nor, Swe and Den are relatives but that is only small part of Scandinavia. You still haven´t sent me any link or given any source of you which you could use as your proof, remember. So, did we accept it or not, it seems Finland has been always part of Scandinavia, those just haven´t advertised it. I think it´s still the best way to make end of this needless arguing by accepting the truth Scandinavia has 5 countries, no less or more. DNS, all of those three have their own languanges, so does FI and IL have. All of them have sent vikings, culture is pretty same, music style etc are... only languanges are different. So, you can go on with arguing, hkvam´s comment from http://www.flickr.com/groups/scandinaviandelight/discuss/84325/ seems to be solution:

Knowing there are so many definitions of Scandinavia, I think we should include all the Nordic Countries: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Faero Islands, Iceland and Greenland.

And though it is borrowed from some forum, it´s the smartest solution to this problem. It does not kill population of Sweden or do anything other harm to anyone.

Why is this discussion going around in circles?

Pardon my uneducated question, but why are you arguing over geologigal facts? Scandinavia, as a geologigal term does mean Sweden, Norway & Denmark. Only a small part of Finland belongs to that description. This is how it is tought in schools in Finland and vast majority of finnish people see it. When a finnish news host talks about the swedish social democrats party or such, he/she does not relate the story with "other scandinavian SD parties" but "other nordic soc dems". It's not an term used to relate sociopolitical atmosphere, it's an geologigal term. Period, right?

However, I do feel that this article has some serious problems with parts that I see as opinions of some, not facts. An example, if you will:

Sweden, Denmark and Norway share many things that Finland does not. Mutually intelligible languages, similar mentality and social codes, pride of Viking history and being monarchies are just a few. This is further exemplified by Royal League a common football league and SAS, the common airline company and main carrier for the three countries. A common sense of brotherhood amongst the three nations is easily detectible with the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes.

What is the source of this information? I'm sorry, whoever wrote that - but the language and structure does not say "dictionary", it reminds me an 12 year-old writing an essay for school. I myself live in the west coast of Finland and have many swedish (and swedish speaking) friends that would find this sentence an clear opinion of some invidual people. Where is the scientific basis for this sentence? What in the world is this "similiar mentality" and "social code"? I really can't argue on this on a broader scale (is there a difference in the east Finland / west Norway regions) but I can speak on an general scale: whenever I visit Sweden its' culture is familiar to the point of being boring. The language is different, but even that is pretty much the same. I can imagine the feeling being same with an french canadian visiting USA (english/french language). However, when I visit Estonia, I somehow feel like being "abroad" - you can hear russian being talked on the street, the architecture is slightly different, people look a bit different etc. you get my point?

What Finnish people see is an strong connection to Swedish people by trade, relationship, family bonds and hundreds of years of interaction, regardless of the language difference and vice versa - this of course being my opinion and experience. I mean come on, using a football trademark and an airline company name as scientific proof? Isn't that a bit like proving that santa exists because there's a amusement park in Lapland called "Santapark"? :)

My bottom line; please do not confuse english speaking users with this petty squabble, to them BOTH swedish and finnish languages are absolute gibberish. I'd bring up noticeable minority rights, for example, before making a point on "brotherhoodliness because people are so proud of all the raping and pillaging of the viging age". To a foreigner it might seem amazing that there are 5 countries in one area where gay marriage is not only legal, but to most extent socially acceptable. (Though I am not certain on this, please correct me if there is a nordic country where GM is not legal.) What I would imagine interests an english-speaking user is the striking similarities in the sociopolitical atmospheres in the 5 countries, not the excact placement of the peninsula, although i understand it must be also described for the scientific accuracy of the article. There is not a single reference in this article to the nordic welfare state model and I'd be willing to bet it's the single most known term about our countries. Could someone please include some reference to it?

(Written by another user) Actually Scandinavia is geographically Norway and Sweden and northern & eastern Finland, Denmark has cultural connections to Scandinavia. And Finns are just one Scandinavian nation like the Swedes, Norwegians, Icelanders and Danish are.

I think that any reference to nordic welfare state model belongs to article Norden. And to anonymous user, where are your sources citing finns are just one scandinavian nation? This discussion is getting nowhere, i think that the article already says quite well there is controversy over what is Scandinavia/Norden, and since we don't seem to get any consensus over matter, it should be that way. Woden 11:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A new subject about how Finns wanna claim Finland to Scandinavia?

What do you say to that? I will try finding sources. --194.255.124.250 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with the need for this. Is it any more controversial than Denmark, if you look it from a geographical viewpoint. In fact, from that viewpoint, northern Finland is on the Scandinavian peninsular. You also have to remember, that Finland was part of Sweden for many years and that Swedish is an official language in Finland, which also demonstrate quite legitimate political reasons as to why Finland may consider it to be in Scandinavia. 94pjg

Maybe you should find out what Scandinavia is. And that "Scandinavia" not is the same as the "Scandinavian peninsula". Its like saying Sweden is a Baltic country because their ocean on the east coast is called Baltic sea.

I think this is a good new headline to make. --194.255.124.250 13:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Actually, I can't even figure why Finland & Iceland would even want to be consireded as one of these countries. Some of the comments by the Swedish users seem downright racist. But then again, with the hate crime rate in Sweden rising, it might be that racial bigotism is this "scandinavian culture" they are so proud of. 194.50.168.30 07:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what this subject is about. but, i will try to point out that there are NO concrete facts for OR against iceland, finland and such being scandinavian countries culturally.

so, i would like to suggest that you leave this part out of it, as you can't seem to get your act together. personally i can't even figure out what you are arguing about. to me it's trivial: all of the original nordic countries (including ALL of the nordic countries) are fundamentally SCANDINAVIAN, as to the meaning of the word in cultural sense, don't mix geography in it. there's just no point in that. it's almost like arguing on if not to include swedish lapland to scandinavia. so, i repeat: i think it's trivial, and has no scientific value to the common wikipedian.

194.255.124.250, the fact is that is not universally agreed. Often the opinion is different depending on where you come from. As a Finland-Swede I always consider Scandinavia to include Finland also. My German friends consider Scandinavia to include Norway, Sweden and Finland and yet not Denmark. (Perhaps they consider Denmark within their sphere of influence, due to proximity... I don't know actually why). But, either way, it just shows further lack of consensus on what Scandinavia means. 94pjg
The whole thing is rather simple, Scandinavia can be taken to mean Sweden and Norway and in that case Finland is not included. If one includes Denmark, then Finland should be included as well. It should also be pointed out that the term "Norden" is far more common in our countries than the term "Skandinavien". In English, it's the other way around. In other words, using Scandinavia to refer to just some of the Nordic countries can easily give the wrong impression and especially if one starts to apply one's own rules. The term "Skandinavien" is a geographical term from the beginning and includes parts of Norway, Sweden and Finland. JdeJ 02:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, except even if Denmark is included, I wouldn't classify whole Finland to be part of Scandinavia, only those regions with scandinavian heritage, for example Pohjanmaa. After all, Finland is quite diverse culturally, and in some parts of Finland eastern european culture takes prevalence over scandinavian. Should we then talk about Finland as part of Russia? I wouldn't dare to make such allegiations to any Finn! So I rather speak of Norden, when refer to SWE, NOR, DEN, FIN, ICE, and Scandinavia, when the question is about geographical region of NOR, SWE and northern FIN. Now, the whole point here seems to be, that in english speaking world the word Scandinavia means mostly Norden. So why not introduce word Norden to those people? Quote Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: Scandinavia 1. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and sometimes Iceland and the Faroe Islands; the former lands on the Norsemen 2. Also, Scandinavian Peninsula, the peninsula consisting of Norway and Sweden. It says so in an American dictionary, so what is the problem? Sorry earlier double-posting Woden 10:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think whole Finland has Scandinavian heritage more than Russian. I've never been to Russia, but I'd say that Savonlinna for example is more like some Swedish city than any Russian (or other eastern European) city by it's culture, even though Savonlinna probably has more Russian speaking than Swedish speaking people. I think culturally Finland isn't that diverse compared to other countries.81.175.134.236 19:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavia again and again

So I think it´s best that we keep Scandinavia as DNSFI (Denmark Norway Sweden Finland Iceland) because they all have samekind culture, people, behaviour etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.148.96.66 (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

I think it's best to make it clear that there is no consensus over this matter, if we put it like that, e.g. DNSFI, we just start this whole thing over and over again. Woden 11:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that both Finland and Iceland, together with Norway, Sweden and Denmark is the right term for Scandinavia because of the historical and cultural background. The difference between the Finnish language and the others could be explained by Finnlands geographical setting. Since Finnland is divided from Sweden and Norway by an ocean it would have been easier for them back in the days to comunicate and trade with the Russians, hence the language¨¨¨¨

About the introduction

If there's anything that this talk page should have managed to make clear to all editors, it's the lack of agreement on how to define Scandinavia. Doing as Pia L does and starting the article with saying categorically that "Scandinavia is this" cannot be considered as anything else but NPOV given the circumstances. Providing a few sources simlpy is not good enough, not when there are other sources saying the opposite. Look for instance at the tourist page for America run by the five Nordic countries. The page talk about Scandinavia, and defines it as all five countries and many other official pages do the same thing. At the moment, the introduction should make this situation clear and not try to push one version. JdeJ 14:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

JdeJ, I believe that you have misunderstood the principle of NPOV. You have to distinguish between two parts of "meaning" here, because there are different levels involved. There is a "core meaning" to Scandinavia where all definitions agree, and there is an "extended meaning" where definitions disagree. The "core meaning" where all definitions agree is that Scandinavia means "Denmark, Norway and Sweden" and then you have various extended meanings where it can meaning "North Germanic language speaking countries" or "Nordic countries15:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that there is a core meaning that means Denmark, Norway and Sweden. This is certainly not the case in Finland, and especially in the Swedish speaking population. We would never think of Scandinavia or use the term in its political sense to not include Finland in it. I agree with JdeJ completely, there is no universally agreed definition of Scandinavia and so indeed it is wrong to start an article about it in the way he states has been done. I think most English speakers (first language), e.g. British, Americans, think of Scandinavia to mean the same thing as Norden. It would be nice if this word was used in English ("the Nordic countries" is a clumsy and overly long term), but let's face it, there's not enough of us to successfully introduce it.94pjg 16:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Introducing what is the basic/central/core meaning of Scandinavia has *nothing* to do with whether WP editors would like to include or exclude Finland or not. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to describe the matter and the scope of the article and not to make political statements.--Berig 16:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
There are things I support in both your statements. I agree with 94pjg that the ideal would be to use Scandinavia as a substitute for the Nordic countries (and many people do) but I also agree with Berig that it's not up to us to define the term, just to report on it. BUT... Berig is wrong to claim that there there is a "core meaning" where all definitions agree and includes Denmark. I've never seen or heard Scandinavia being used without meaning Sweden and Norway, but Denmark? Sure, often enough. So the current version of the page, by Berig, is a political statement of sort. It's an attempt to take one definition that is not universal and masquerade it, if the expression is forgiven, as a definition that everybody shares. That is not the case. The core of Scandinavia, devoid of all disagreement, is Norway and Sweden. Once Denmark, Finland or Iceland is taken in, there is no longer a universal agreement. I am not advocating one single viewpoint that the article should take, instead I would like to see the article being factual and mentioning the disagreement about the term. Not trying to impose it's own definition as Denmark being, in Berig's words, part of the core of Scandinavia. Dusis 17:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Berig in your last sentence regarding what the purpose of an encyclopaedia article is 100%. But my point is there is no single "correct" definition of what Scandinavia is. My statement that in my personal opinion Finland is a part of Scandinavia is no less political than your statement that it isn't, or that for example of a German, who would likely not consider Denmark to be included. I agree with Dusis that the article must make it clear that is no one set definition of Scandinavia that somehow has precedence over the others. (I also agree that I have never heard of a definition without Norway and Sweden). Even in Sweden, the matter is not universally agreed; someone in Skåne may well not think of Finland as being part of Scandinavia, however someone in Kiruna probably would. There are some people in earlier discussions that have posted that e.g. SAOL states or Swedish schools taught them that Scandinavia was just Denmark, Norway and Sweden... does somehow the Swedish school system and SAOL's viewpoint have more weight than that of Germans or the viewpoints of many Finnish people? Even more vital to consider, as this article is in the English Wikipedia, is the use of the term amongst English speakers. All that these differing views prove is that there is no single definition more correct than any other. 94pjg 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let us get back to basics, everyone. If you have a different definition from the ones mentioned in the introduction, cite a reliable source.--Berig 18:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As JdeJ already said in this discussion, it's enough to look at the links here. Scandinavia House, [24], the Nordic Center in America, defines Scandinavia as the five Nordic countries. The magazines Scandinavica [25], Scandinavia Now [26] and Scandinavia News [27] all center on all five countries. The official Scandinavian Tourist Boards [28] also agree. I would not be as bold as some users and rewrite the page to suit my own view just based on a few links when I know the arguments about this matter, but sure these official sites add to the view that Scandinavia is made up of all five countries. Dusis 18:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct, there is a view that Scandinavia comprises all five countries, and the introduction mentions that there is such a view. There is also a view that it only comprises three countries, and the article mentions that view. Whichever way you turn it, you have three countries that always appear in the definition (Sweden, Norway and Denmark) and two that don't always appear (Iceland and Finland). That is why I support Pia L's version.--Berig 19:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. We all know by now that you hold that view, but others don't. You've got two countries that always appear, Sweden and Norway. Just now, since I wrote my last reply here, I attended a meeting where I heard two people talking about the Scandinavian countries (one German and one Canadian) and according to how they saw it Scandiava is Norway, Sweden and Finland but not Denmark. To include Denmark and Iceland, they talked about 'Northern Europe'. I dom't share their view, but that's beside the point. This idea of yours that Denmark is always included in Scandinavia does not hold, as 94pjg already pointed out and as other users have said as well. That's why the present introduction isn't suitable. Dusis 20:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
A geographer would completely disagree that Denmark is in Scandinavia, therefore there is also a few that Scandinavia is neither 5 countries or 3 countries, but 2 countries. Northern Finland is in fact situated on the peninsular called Scandinavia. I personally would never exclude Denmark from my own personal definition of Scandinavia (even if I must confess that I feel far more like I am in a foreign country there than in either Sweden or Norway), but there are some that would disagree me, geographers foremost. So, at the risk of repeating myself, there simply is no strong agreement to justify the strong statements that this article begins with. 94pjg 21:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It is very simple. If you want to add the definition that Scandinavia is "Sweden and Norway" (not the Scandinavian peninsula but Scandinavia) you will have to cite a reliable source.--Berig 21:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for using reliable sources, that's fine. The problem is that if any of you two (Pia and Berig) have the slightest idea of academics, you would know that you can easily find contradicting sources. Nothing wrong or unusual with that. The problem here is that you want to preach your version like the gospel. According to you, Scandinavia always includes Denmark and then the article should say so. That there are many people who don't see Scandinavia in its most limited use as including Denmark is something you seem quite willing to ignore, for one reason or another. Perhaps Berig and Pia would be so kind as to explain exactly what they think should be needed for some mentioning of the fact that many people see the core of Scandinavia as just Norway and Sweden. Perhaps you also could explain why you're so dead-against mentioning a view that undeniably exists. JdeJ 06:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to look any futher than the article itself which states that there is no universal position in the Terminology and Usage and The Nordic Countries vs Scandinavia sections of the article. Are you seriously suggesting that you do not believe there are people who have a definition of Scandinavia other than DK, SE and NO? Incidentally, there is a completely mad line in the Terminology and Usage section that cites the existence of Scanidinavian Airlines as some kind of evidence. 94pjg 06:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone is free to add definitions such as the one you suggest, as long as you respect WP:RS. JdeJ's edit, OTOH, borders on vandalism since he removed references to several authoritative encyclopedias and replaced it with a reference to a personal site in Örebro.--Berig 08:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
A bad edit on my part, I should have done it differently. On the other hand, the authority of the sources is of limited importance in this regard. If you were trying to make the point that there are people who see Scandinavia as Denmark, Norway and Sweden those sources would be excellent, but nobody is disputing that point. You know as well as I do that there are people who see core Scandinavia as only Norway and Sweden and that is the matter of discussion here. JdeJ 15:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What you and I believe is correct or not does not matter at all. Whenever a definition is contested among editors, definitions are to be presented from reliable sources and referenced to them.--Berig 18:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the introduction is now perfect, wouldn't fix a thing about it. It's short, straight to the point and informative. It does not take any stand on the whole "what is scandinavia excactly?"-issue, but describes what scandinavian countries could mean. Please, let's keep it like this? 194.50.168.30 07:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary describes Scandinavian as "Of or pertaining to Scandinavia, a geographical term including the three countries Norway, Sweden, and Denmark." As do most reputable dictionaries, so I too think the introduction as it is now will suffice Shogyou Mujou 00:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the debate on the introduction, I must take issue with the clause "the Finns form a distinct linguistic and ethnic group". As a Finn who has Swedish as mother tongue, I speak a Scandinavian language. It's excluding nearly 300 000 Finns to leave that clause in. Of course, there is also the sometimes confusing issue of the English word "Finn" and the Swedish word "finne" which do not mean the same thing. 94pjg 22:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed something

It is kinda interesting that there is no universal agreement of Scandinavia actually. The truth is, as we can see from our conversations, Norway and Sweden are in this usergroup´s opinion part of Scandinavia, but Finland, Denmark, Iceland and Faroe Islands, from those we seem not to be so sure at all. Most of the Internetusers (no matter were they Englishspeakers, Danish, Finns, Brazilians etc.) seem to agree that Scandinavia is same as the five Nordic countries (Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland + Faroe Islands as part of Denmark). It is funny that some, probably 12-year-old child, came claim Scandinavia is DNS without any good links or prooves (I wonder did he/she read at all the rule in which it is said "No profanity" and "No personal attacks" when he/she sweared). In fact, we can not say that Sweden would be part of Scandinavia because "its just is", because that doesnt proove anything except user´s opinion. What should we do in this case since there seem not to be an universal agreeement what Scandinavia is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gerrne (talkcontribs) 10:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

"It is funny that some, probably 12-year-old child, came claim Scandinavia is DNS without any good links or prooves"

Look at the footnotes etc. --Arigato1 12:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Greenland

Arigato has twice recently removed Greenland from the list of former Norwegian possessions mentioned in the section on Scandinavian unions, claiming the Greenland has never been part of Norway. Not so. To quote one respected author, "Greenland first came under Norwegian rule when, in the year 161, the Norse population in Greenland requested to be ruled by the Norwegian King Håkon IV Håkonsson." (Erik the Red’s Land: the land that never was)

Skarstain also mentions the fact that the treaty of Kiel refers to the former overseas possessions of Norway: "However, a parenthetical clause in the final draft of the treaty stipulated that although Denmark gave up Norway itself, Norway's colonial possessions fo Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Iceland remained under the Danish Crown". This clause was referred to in the ruling of the International Court of the Hague, when in 1933 the dispute between Denmark and Norway over the sovereignty of East Greenland was settled. Roede 08:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

hehe. My friend. You are linking to a Norwegian romantic nationalistic historian. Nothing in this says that Greenland official has belonged to Norway.

What BBC says about Greenland: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/1023448.stm --Arigato1 10:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian possessions

Against better judgment I will try once more to reason with you, Arigato1. I have found an article at the website of the National Museum of Denmark that list Greenland, the Faroes and Iceland as Norwegian dependencies as late as the 17th century [29]. You can't possibly believe that they are in on this grand old history falsification conspiracy you seem to believe in, so please stop altering these articles to fit your negationist views. (Nidator 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Do you read Danish? Your link from "National Museum of Denmark" says that; Norway, Iceland, Skåne, Halland, Blekinge, Greenland and the Faroe islands, plus the Duke territories of Slesvig and Holstein was a part of Denmark. --Arigato1 16:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read Danish. If you think that is what the article says then I have my doubts about your proficiency in the language though. After having discussed this with you over the past two days I can only come to the conclusion that you are intentionally sabotaging these articles to fit with how you wish history was. (Nidator 17:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

I 1600-tallet omfattede det danske rige- kongeriget Danmark med Skåne, Halland og Blekinge, også kaldet Skånelandene, kongeriget Norge med bilandene Færøerne, Island og Grønland samt hertugdømmerne Slesvig og Holsten.

This is what it says. You should be able to read it? And thanks for linking this page. --Arigato1 17:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I am able to read it. It lists Norway as a separate kingdom within the realm and Greenland, the Faroes and Iceland as dependencies of the Kingdom of Norway. Just the opposite of what you have been arguing on a couple of articles here. Now you are just trolling. (Nidator 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

No, It says that the kingdom of Norway belonged to kingdom of Denmark. (1600's) --Arigato1 17:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. The Kingdom of Denmark is listed as a separate kingdom within the realm. This is getting ridiculous. (Nidator 18:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

No it says what Denmark consisting of in the 1600's, witch is including Norway. I dont think you are able to read Danish. Then you are saying that Slesvig/Holstein was Norwegian to, since they are listed right after Greenland? And now you starting with personal attacks on me to hopefully get your POV. --Arigato1 18:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect and I find it hard to believe that you actually think otherwise. It does not say that the Kingdom of Norway was part of the Kingdom of Denmark. With regards to the second issue you seem to misunderstand the structure of the sentence. It does not say that Slesvig and Holstein were dependencies of Norway, but that they were separate entities within the realm. (Nidator 18:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Read the first six words laud for yourself. "I 1600-tallet omfattede det danske rige" Thank you. --Arigato1 18:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what "omfattede" means? --Arigato1 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nidator is able to read Danish just fine. Please keep your posts civil. The text states that the realm of Denmark consisted of two kingdoms (Denmark and Norway) and two duchies (Schleswig and Holstein), and that the kingdom of Norway included Greenland, Iceland and the Faroes. Note the distinction between the realm (Danish: rige) and the kingdom (Danish: kongerige). Hemmingsen 18:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

haha right. Then i must ask you. Who was the King of Norway that time?? --Arigato1 18:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How about reading WP:TROLL, Arigato1 or should I say, Comanche cph? Valentinian T / C 18:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
If Norway was an independent kingdom. Then it should be easy for you to tell me who the king of Norway was? And please don't call me names like Comanche, im not a Comanche im Danish. And please dont call me troll in trying to get your POV, because that is a trolling move itself. --Arigato1 16:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Not independent, but separate. Fornadan (t) 18:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Who the King of Norway was? Very easy: List of Norwegian monarchs Barry Boster 16:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Kiel, Article IV [30]

Hans Maj:t Konungen af Dannemark afträder oåterkalleligen och för ewärdeliga tider så väl för Sig som Sine Efterträdare till Danska Thronen och Riket, till förmon för Hans Maj:t Konungen af Swerige och Dess Efterträdare till Swenska Thronen och Riket, alla dess rättigheter och anspråk på Konunga-Riket Norrige, nemligen följande Biskopsdömen och Stift: Christiansand, Bergenhuus, Aggerhuus, och Trondhiem, tillika med Nordlanden och Finnmarken, ända till gränsorne af Ryska Riket.

Dessa Biskopsdömen, Stift och Provinser, innefattande hela Konunga-Riket Norrige med alla dess Inbyggare, Städer, Hamnar, Fästningar, Byar och Öar utmed hela detta Rikes kuster, tillika med deras tillhörigheter (Grönland, Ferröarne och Island här under likwäl icke inbegripne); äfwensom de med alla förmoner, rättigheter och afkastningar skola hädanefter under full ägo och öfwerherreskap tillhöra Hans Maj:t Konungen af Swerige, och utgöra ett Konunga-Rike förenadt med Swerige.

Fornadan (t) 19:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want us to understand you, please translate to English, Danish or Norwegian. --Arigato1 16:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Stop your trolling, Comanche cph / Arigato1. You are Danish just like me, so you can read Swedish just as well as all other Danes. There is absolutely no reason why the rest of us should waste more of our lives playing your games. The burden of evidence is still on you, and the Swedish text consistently refers to Norway as the "Kingdom of Norway". The end. Valentinian T / C 21:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The population paragraph should go

We've had a similar unreferenced and equally problematic population paragraph on Nordic countries which was removed since it is has proven next to completely impossible to find a list that everybody can agree is the objective truth. The main problem in this respect is that the greater Copenhagen region is very poorly defined. See also Talk:Nordic countries. I suggest we remove this section here as well one week from today, unless somebody can find a well-referenced list from somewhere reputable (an encyclopedia, the Nordic Council or somewhere similar). Valentinian T / C 11:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost a month gone and no apparent opposition. I've removed the paragraph. Feel free to add a new one compiled by somewhere reputable; a traditional encyclopedia, the Nordic Council, the UN, the EU or similar. Valentinian T / C 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavia in other Wikipedia articles

When it's not apparently clear even in English or in here what excatly is Scandinavia, I'd think it would be wise to usually avoid the term in other Wikipedia articles if possible, unless clearly stating what is ment. Even though I'm Finnish and mainly consider Scandinavia being SND, I'm not sure what the editors of English Wikipedia mean by Scandinavia. So when some English Wikipedia has a statement like "X was popular in Scandinavia during the 15th century" I'm kind of puzzled what area does it actually mean. I cannot tell by the article that was X popular in Finland or in Iceland for example. If clearly meaing The Nordic Countries with Scandinvia, then rather write the Nordic Countries. And The Nordic Countries are so few that I'd guess it's not a problem to write like "X was popular in Sweden and Norway during the 15th century" to make it clear. 81.175.134.236 13:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Finland belongs to Scandinavia, remember that :)

Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Barry Boster 16:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My point was not to say what is or is not Scandinavia, but to say that when you are a writing other articles and you are about to use the term "Scandinavia", try to think is there a more precice way of saying what area is ment.

The Metropolitan Area List

Under the list which show us the largest cities, there is a list of the largest metropolitan areas. In the bottom of this list small areas of less than 400 000 citizens appear. My question is as follows: What is the minimum size of an metropolitan area? In my view, only Stockholm, Copenhagen, Oslo, Gothenburg, Malmö and maybe Århus qualify to be on this list. The others are too small to be considered as metropolitan areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirro (talkcontribs) 18:20, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

The only thing people could agree on regarding such lists was not to include them here since they always led to revert wars between (mostly) Danish and Swedish editors. I still don't see any reason at all for such lists, as long as we don't have access to a list that everybody considers to be fair. The main problem is that nobody can find common ground concerning the size of Copenhagen. I've removed the list again. Please don't add such lists again. Valentinian T / C 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Since Finnland and Iceland are listed as part of Scandinavia, should Minnesota be listed too? Just to cover the bases. 12:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.248.112 (talk)

Why is Denmark part of Scandinavia?

I know there's no Absolute Truth, but in Finnish schools it's taught that Scandinavia is A: peninsula = Sweden and Norway, B: countries of Scandinavic languages (or how is that said in English?) = Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland or C: Nordic countries. The point is that there's no mention of Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Should something be changed?

--212.149.216.233 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You have mentioned four models for what is Scandinavia, but there is also a fifth: the three countries where Danish, Swedish and Norwegian are the dominant languages. The fact that these three languages are relatively mutually intelligible is a common denominator, and these three languages are often referred to simply as "Scandinavian". In my experience, it is this fifth model that is the most common in Sweden, Norway and Denmark.--Berig 18:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The languages are mutually intelligible, the cultures are similar, and so is the pagan prehistory. Besides, parts of the Scandiavian peninsula were integral parts of Denmark for 700-800 years. See also Lands of Denmark. In the Middle Ages, Scania was Denmark's richest province and the seat of the Danish archbishop, the Archbishop of Lund. Valentinian T / C 11:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, thank you! --212.149.216.233 12:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that people always seem to forget the finlandssvenskar, the Swedish-speaking Finns, when this question is debated. It is almost that they are a forgotten minority. For instance, few would forget to include Canada in a list of French-speaking countries. I believe Finland is a Scandinavian country. There are significant and strong cultural ties and similarities with SWE, NOR and even DK. (It's probably even fair to say that FIN+SWE have more in common than say SWE+DK). Linguistically Finland has nearly 300,000 Swedish mother tongue speakers also, which also negates the argument that there are no linguistic ties. This topic re Denmark is interesting. The traditional view of "Scandinavia" in German was that it was made up of NOR+SWE+FIN but not DK. 94pjg 16:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The language issue is a major factor and especially for subjective matters such as country categorization. Even if there are still 300 000 Swedish speakers in Finland, I doubt that the majority of the Finnish citizens are fluent in Swedish.--Berig 16:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is subjective. However, I doubt that the majority of Canadians (or indeed even Belgians or Swiss) are fluent in French, but I would not discount them from being French-speaking nations because of this. On the same grounds, Finland is a "Scadinavian-speaking" country. It is just that the finlandssvenskar are almost unheard of outside of Scandinavia, or indeed within it... so they are forgotten. I am always surprised how lacking the education of Swedes is in this regard, as you'd imagine there would be a natural interest in the only other significant group of people who have Swedish as their native tongue. I have met many Swedes who think that finlandssvenska is simply a description of the way that many Finnish-speaking Finns speak/pronounce Swedish. I also think that some people prefer to ignore the Finland-Swedes as a matter of convenience when it comes to this issue, as it makes it easier for them to argue that Finland does not belong in Scandinavia. Unfortunately there are those who have a prejudice against Finns, especially in Sweden. (Equally there are many prejudices against Sweden in Finland). It is possible these lead to the question being treated from a less than unbiased standpoint. 94pjg 16:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Away with mandatory Swedish".
A campaign logo against mandatory Swedish.
I believe that Finland itself is the cause of its peripheral position in Scandinavia. When Finland was separated from the Swedish kingdom, many Finns in the Fennoman movement consciously and actively worked to separate Finland from a Scandinavian (i.e. North Germanic) identity ("Svenskar får vi inte vara, ryssar vill vi inte bli, låt oss då vara finnar"). The creation of a Finnish national epos by Lönnrot, which he based on Fenno-Ugric tradition, the dwindling of the Swedish-speaking population and now lately the crusade against Pakkoruotsi are all factors that contribute to separate Finland from an unambiguous Scandinavian identity. BTW, I don't think that Swedes forget about the Finland-Swedes. They are an important part of Swedish-language culture with for instance Tove Jansson, and the Swedish accent of Finland is (AFAIK) held to be a high status accent because of the many intellectuals who speak it.--Berig 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Berig, of course lots of Swedes have heard of Finland-Swedes. But I have also met countless who have, to my surprise, not. Many Finland-Swedes who moved to Sweden in the 50s and 60s were taunted by the rikssvenskar as finjävel etc, despite a considerable number of them not even being able to even speak Finnish. Many a Finland-Swede can tell you about a time when a Swedish-Swede has patronisingly complimented them on their "good Swedish". Of course, I am not suggesting that is all of the Swedish people! There are many who are of course well aware about Finland-Swedes. And indeed, I have also heard Swedes who have said that they consider Finland-Swedish to be a beautiful sounding and clear dialect.

There is no crusade against pakkoruotsi, as you suggest. Of course, there are a minority who do not like it - but there are some in Österbotten who do not like tvångsfinska either. So what, neither change the fact that there are Finland-Swedes in Finland speaking a Scandinavian language. Swedish is an official language in Finland. Many traditions celebrated by both language groups are variants of or exactly the same as those in other Scandinavian countries (especially Sweden). The logo you show is generally propagated by the extreme group Suomalaisuuden liiton (Finskhetens förbund), which has in the past also accused the Swedish government of infiltrating Finnish institutions and for pursuing racist policies (from that you can get the impression that they are little bit less than sane or mainstream). The political side of the Fennoman movement did not become significant until after Sweden lost Finland to Russia. The expression you quote of course shows a lack of attachment to Sweden (but I have also heard it end finländare rather than finnar). I am sure a Norwegian nationalist in e.g. 1905 would not wish to be considered a Swede either. That doesn't make he or she not a Scandinavian. One does not have to be Swedish to be that! 94pjg 00:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say your last argument here is based on some false pretenses. Norway did not have the relationship with Sweden that Finland did. And Norway is considered Scandinavian "in its own right". The argument for Finland seems often to be the Swedish connection. "Finland should be counted as Scandinavia because of its ties to and similaritites with Sweden." Then others point to the differences between Finland and Sweden as reasons not to include Finland. "Politically" I am for a definition that is as inclusive as possible (No+Sw+Den+Fin+Ic+Fa+Gr), but I am not sure that is always factually correct.Inge 09:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia solution for this kind of definition problems is to cite definitions in various sources. I think that this article already does so and points to how the concept "Scandinavia" varies.--Berig 09:59, 1 November 2

The section about Finland and Scandinavia

I can see that you have debated this for a long time, but it still look strange and seems to have been written by someone with a political agenda. I think we need to take a closer look at it and rewrite it or perhaps just delete it. Aaker (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

bunching of edit links

not sure if this looks better? It's really a bug in MW I suppose Farannan (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Edited to remove 19th and 20th century ideas about Finns

This:

As a cultural and historical concept, Scandinavia can include Finland as well (of the larger region Fenno-Scandinavia), often with reference to the nation's long history as a part of Sweden. Although Finland is culturally closely related to the other Scandinavian countries, the majority of Finns form a distinct linguistic and ethnic group (distantly related to the Sami), with a Finno-Ugric-speaking population that has incorporated features from both Eastern and Western Europe.[7]

This is so not NPOV that it's hard to show exactly how.

  • First, the Finnish language is distantly related to Sami languages. Current Uralic research, however, constructs a "comb" rather than a "tree" of Uralic languages, and the Sami languages and Baltic-Finnic languages are two "spikes" on the "comb", with no direct, close relation. The classification of obviously related groups within the Uralic is a matter of dispute. Second, the Finnish lifestyle has been that of a farmer with some hunting and gathering involved; in contrast, the Sami have historically been hunter-gatherers and only began reindeer farming in the middle of the last millennium. Third, Finns are genetically a distant branch of (Central/Western) Europeans, like the Dutch, Germans, and Scandinavians; the Sami form their own distinct group within Europeans. There is no uniform "Finnish-Sami ethnic relation"; such ideas were popular in the 19th century, particularly for political purposes (proving that Finns are genetically inferior because they are related to a hunter-gatherer population).
  • The next problem is this "East and West". In the Kekkonen era, the state of Finland had political interests — a policy of neutrality with respect to Communists and the NATO — to make the impression that Finns are somehow a "mix" or that Finland is a "gray area" between the Sweko-German and Russian cultural spheres. This ignoring the fact that Russians had been seen as an foreign occupier and that culturally the country was completely Western and Westernized. There are real old relations between Russians and the Finns, but Finns don't have a mythical "Eastern origin". For all intents and purposes, Finns are a unique, native population, which have received influences rather than having originated from Sweden or Russia. Finns are not a "mix" of Swedish and Russian invaders. Unfortunately, I had to remove the reference, because even if there is a reference from an official publication of the Finnish state does not mean it is a fact.
  • "Majority of Finns" seems to refer to the distinction between finländare and finsk.

I believe this formulation shouldn't favor any point of view:

As a cultural and historical concept, Scandinavia can include Finland as well (of the larger region Fenno-Scandinavia), often with reference to the nation's long history as a part of Sweden. Although Finland is culturally closely related to the other Scandinavian countries, Finns form a distinct linguistic and ethnic group, which speaks a Finno-Ugric language of different origin from Scandinavian languages.

It does not make unasserted claims about ethnic relations, it just notes the facts: cultural influences and the language spoken. --Vuo (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sami name for Scandinavia

I see the article now features the Sami name for Scandinavia in this first paragraph. If we are going to include this, should we not give the name in all the relevant languages of the region (Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian (both nynorsk and bokmål), Danish etc). Potentially we'd need to give it also in Faroese and Icelandic (and maybe even Greenlandic). As noted in the article, there is no agreed definitive definition of Scandinavia - so that naturally makes it impossible to agree on which languages are native to Scandinavia. This therefore complicates the issue of giving the translation into the languages of Scandinavia. It may be that we may have to settle for not translating it at all, and stick with just "Scandinavia" in English Wikipedia! 94pjg (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I've removed the Sami name. IMHO the only relevant languages are Swedish, Danish and Norwegian i.e the major Scandiavian languages. If someone is interested in the name of Scandinavia in other languages they can check the interwikis. Aaker (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that was a good move by you (to remove the Sami name). As your answer highlights, there's no definitive answer to which country's comprise Scandinavia :). From my stand-point, I would include Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and Finnish. Probably also Sami too. However, I fully accept that not everyone would agree with me. Perhaps it's best left just in English - as you so rightly say, users can click through to the relevant language wiki if they need to know a translated name. 94pjg (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The Finnish, Faroese, Icelandic and Norwegian names for Scandinavia are all the same as the English name, ("Skandinavia" as opposed to "Scandinavia"). See fi.wikipedia.org, fo.wikipedia.org, is.wikipedia.org, nn.wikipedia.org and no.wikipedia.org. The Swedish and Danish names are the same, "Skandinavien" as opposed to "Scandinavia". See da.wikipedia.org, sv.wikipedia.org. None of these names are notably different so there is no need to enter "variations". They are practically identical! The Sami name is the only one that is notably different. In addition, the Sami are a native people of the Scandinavian peninsula, a minority group of both Sweden and Norway. Their name for Scandinavia is therefore a valid addition, especially since some scholars appear to argue that the Sami name has preserved traces of the name used by an original population that inhabited Scandinavia before the first Germanic and Sami speaking populations and that the root may be preserved in the Sami languages of today (pending verification of the incomplete sources added recently). The Sami name for Scandinavia is therefore a perfectly valid addition to the lead section. 71.106.249.138 (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I just want to you to be aware of that the names known in sami skadesi suolu if borrowed from germanic must be very old borrowing from before the introduction of the 'n' in skand- become common, further as some scholars have interpreted the origin of the name the sami name supports the interpretation that Scandinavia refer to Skadi's island.
I notice that some have rephrased my original formulation in the text. There is to my knowledge no scholars that have written explicitly that skad- has any sami origin of the first part of the word, my point is that lexicon of unknown origin with the beginning sk- is well present in saami vocabulary and place names. Ref Sami etymological lexicon the lexicon appear to be finish but there are english describtions in the lexicon easily found when getting used to the interface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XiXaXo (talkcontribs) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
In my post above, I was referring to Ante Aikio (the source introduced by someone in the "Sami etymology" section) and more specifically to Aikio's text as it appears in the pdf file uploaded here, where the author states that the Saami "have inherited a significant genetic component from the non-Uralic first settlers of Lapland", and that the "only way to reconcile the linguistic and genetic facts is to assume that language shifts have taken place [...] While these languages did not survive the course of prehistory, they have probably left a trace of themselves behind: general contact linguistic principles predict that Saami must have adopted a substrate component during its expansion." I don't have access to the rest of the text, but your edits imply that the substrate component "sk" in Sami place names, as per the Aikio citation, is evident in "Skade's island" or Scandinavia, and that Aikio thus might be arguing that "sk" (as in "Skadesi-suolu") is a trace preserved in Sami from these early, now extinct languages. 71.106.249.138 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes thats correct, saami lexicon and placenames of unknown origin with sk- exists indirectly supporting that the saami name may not be a borrowing from nordic. The saami name for Scandinavia also exists together with the substrate word for island (suolu). My point is that Aikio or any other scholars have never investigated this explictly for this particular word in the light of the findings of heavy paleo-european substrate influence on saami. (By the way I checked the link, the whole text is available) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XiXaXo (talkcontribs) 07:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK, thanks. The text was scanned sideways, so I didn't realize it was scrollable. The problem with the original edit in the section "Sami etymology", which read, "However the rich occurence of sk- substrate lexicon of unknown origin in Sami,the unknown origin of the word suolo (island) (Aikio 2004) and the disputed origin of the word skadi may put doubt on this interpretation", is this: 1> The words "however", "disputed" and "put doubt on", in combination with cited sources, gave the impression that other scholars had alternative ideas about the origin of the Sami name for Scandinavia and that a scholarly dispute about the origin of the first segment in Skadesi-suolu was taking place. 2> If that is not the case, the paragraph cannot read as it originally did, nor as it has been edited to read now. The problem is that the original edit about how certain findings about "sk" in Sami "may put doubt" on Svennung's interpretation of the origin of the Sami name for Scandinavia is not a usable idea here on Wikipedia if no published sources express this idea and if no scholar has done research and come to that conclusion. Unless there is a reliable source doing the doubting, or presenting alternative research results, conclusions about the doubtfulness of Svennung's research fail to meet Wikipedia's no-original-research policy as per WP:Synthesis. Since you are familiar with the sources used in the section, please see if you can work it over again so that it does not imply too much or reach beyond anything actually stated in the sources used. 71.106.249.138 (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information and correction. Just as a curiousity I should mention the word in sami: skāđâ-nawˈde in the meaning noxious animal (e. g. the wolf). This is not based on any scientific work but on simple observation on the sami etymology wordbook at [31]. naw'de is usually in the meaning wolf in modern sami. It could therefore have a possibly etymology for Scandinavia in the meaning the island or land with dangerous animals or wolfs. There is also an other possibilies in the last part of the word reconstructed as -awjo in the wiki article meaning island. Saami offer here another word -ávju [32]in the meaning edge or cliff. At the south-west coast of Scania in Sweden there are two large coastal cliff formations that descripe the same landscape as sami use for ávju in the north. However no linguistiscs have every considered these possibilies so far.
Granted, the names in the other languages have the same origin. But the spelling is different. For an English speaking person visiting here, they are not necessarily going to know that only Sami is given because the names the Scandinavian languages and Finnish are the same as in English. The majority of visitors to this page in English Wikipedia will not be speakers of a Scandinavian language or Finnish. If you are going to give the translation in the opening paragraph, I think it needs to be more inclusive. And, as I said before, in my opinion that is impossible to do because of the lack of one definitive definition of which countries comprise Scandinavia. If Sami is to be included because its meaning is different to the English and other languages in Scandinavia, then there needs to be a clarification in the article detailing that. Otherwise, how does the non-Nordic reader know this is why only Sami is given. (In fact, I as a Nordic reader would not have known unless I had read your Talk contribution). Perhaps the Sami name and an explanation of it would be better placed in the Sami etymology alone. It doesn't feel right to give the Sami name a prominence over and above the other languages of the region in the opening paragraph. 94pjg (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, added all East Scandinavian and West Scandinavian languages, the Sami languages (as native minority languages of Scandinavia), and Finnish (with Finland part of the Scandinavian culture sphere) to the lead. 71.106.249.138 (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Scandinavia - Baltic States

In my opinion Baltic States: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia must fall in to wider understanding of Scandinavia, because for many years these countries and its people shared common history. For example: Swedish people living in Estonia, Riga used to be second largest city in Swedish kingdom, story of Apuolė in Samogitia, Lithuania. What about Viking era, when Curonians (present Latvia and Samogitia) used to fight, trade and co-operate with Swedish and Danish Vikings. Most of Baltic people look like Scandinavians, have many things in common. Ties were lost, when Baltic States were brutally occupied and annexed by USSR, but now… finally we can be together again. Pleckaitis (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Skandinavian Britaine

The British islas where also considered to be part of SKandinavia, both in languege and geograficaly.

Being that the whole of British islas where dominated by the Vikings for some time and the fact that most British langueges are Germanic must mean that Britain being part of Skandinavia should be considered.user:80.192.246.56 (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)FalconEagle200780.192.246.56 (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

no --EvilFred (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)