Talk:Finland

Archives
For discussions before June 2006, see Archive1.

Etymology

Doesn't anybody see that the English (or Germanic) word "fen" = Finnish "suo"?

Please see Pseudoscientific language comparison.--AAikio 08:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Roman historian Tacitus (~55-120) mentions the Finns (fenno) and Greek Ptolemaios (~170) writes about "Phinns". Is germanic word "fen" from this origin and did these two historians speak about swamp-land livers?

Aikapoika 16:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues here. The origin of the word SUOMI and the origin of the word FINLAND. The word FINLAND would it seem have such a strong relationship to Old German FEN (wetland) plus LAND.

Then there is the issue of the origin SUOMI. SUO is swamp or wetland in modern Finnish and MAA is land, so it is not unlikely from a superficial look that the word SUOMI comes from the same origin as FINLAND.

The article as presently written only presents an alternative view that SUOMI comes from ZEME meaning land. The reason for regarding that as the root over SUO is not explained. Am I the only one who thinks that is rather odd? Why is regarded as Pseudoscientific language comparison? Unless there is a really good reason for saying otherwise I think the etymology section should at the very least refer to the etymology of the word FINLAND. --Tom 09:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We should have a new article to handle related etymologies around "finn", "suomi", "sàpmi", "häme" and others. Currently, the content is spread over many articles, and none of them has a thorough handling of the issue. Suggestions for the name of such an article are welcome. I have not yet been able to come up with a clear enough name. Something more descriptive than "Origin of proto-Finnic etymologies". --Drieakko 09:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Population density in intro...

I'm not sure if the population density of Finland is really that notable, given the precedent that most countries (even those topping the list of the least dense) don't reference this fact in the introduction... eg Mongolia, Namibia, Canada, Russia (see List of countries by population density). I'm not sure if this is really a big deal, but it might mean that we should either correct the less dense ones or put this fact under geography. ekrub-ntyh ^talk 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Finland is not even in the top 20, and even Canada, which has even lower PPD rating, doesnt have such an intro at its start. It could be mentioned at some point of the article, but I dont see any sense in having it at the Intro Arctic-Editor 17:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, is there any way of changing kilometers to kilometres, as per wiki guidelines on articles about Europe? Iain 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's a conflict between two statements made in this article. In the second paragraph of the introduction, it states "(...) making it the most sparsely populated country in the European Union". Later on, under the heading 5.1 Population, it states "This makes it, after Norway and Iceland, the most sparsely populated country in Europe". Needless to say that both can't be right at the same time.--Melgior (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Norway and Iceland aren't part of the European Union, so they only count in the rankings of the entire Europe. 212.50.194.254 (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica: Finland in 1911

I copied the article on Finland from the 1911 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica and wikified it. Some parts make fun reading:

“ Physically the Finns (here to be distinguished from the Swedish-speaking population, who retain their Scandinavian qualities) are a strong, hardy race, of low stature, with almost round head, low forehead, flat features, prominent cheek bones, eyes mostly grey and oblique (inclining inwards), short and flat nose, protruding mouth, thick lips, neck very full and strong, so that the occiput seems flat and almost in a straight line with the nape; beard weak and sparse, hair no doubt originally black, but, owing to mixture with other races, now brown, red and even fair; complexion also somewhat brown. The Finns are morally upright, hospitable, faithful and submissive, with a keen sense of personal freedom and independence, but also somewhat stolid, revengeful and indolent. Many of these physical and moral characteristics they have in common with the so-called "Mongolian" race, to which they are no doubt ethnically, if not also linguistically, related. ”

The complete article is available at User:Petri Krohn/Finland 1911. -- Petri Krohn 23:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Nowadays this would be considered stereotyping and you'd get a whole bunch of human rights organisations complaining if someone wrote like this in an ecyclopedia. :) HJV 02:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, nowadays this is considered made-up. 1911 was an age of rising nationalism; the Swedes wanted to prove their inherent superiority as the purest of the Nordic race, and made up theories of Mongol ancestry of the Finnic peoples. Ironically, the highest proportion of blondes in the world is in Finland. --Vuo 09:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, that may have implications that Finns may not like... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

:) I wonder if it was the other way around. That Europeans would mainly speak languages belonging to the Finno-Ugric group (or languages that are now known as Uralic) with a handfull of speakers of languages from the Indo-European group - somewhere south-east perhaps... Would these Finno-Ugric speakers have regarded the Indo-European speakers for example Indic or Iranid or so because of linguistic connections (or going even furher towards South-East Asian)...? I wonder what the Encyclopedia Britannica from 1911 has to say about Irish people... or Celtic speakers in general. I wonder if it was difficult for a 1911-Encyclopaedia-Britannica-Finn to eat (or nowadays talk to a mobile phone) with his protruding mouth... ;) Clarifer 11:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cross-cultural psychologists today often feel able to make similar statements, with research to support their claims. Having said that, I believe they'd be a lot less likely to make an absolute statement, and say things along the lines of "People in Swedish culture, compared with those of other cultures, TEND to be...". NZUlysses 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The old statements of Finns being Mongoloids is at least partly based on a misunderstanding. The word "Finn" (Phinnoi, Skrithifinni) was used by early geographer-historians (e.g., Tacitus) and also historically by the Norwegians to refer to the Sámi (Lapps) rather than the Finns, who were called "Kvaens". In the late 1800's German physician and physical anthropologist Rudolf Virchow described Sámi skulls -- which he called "Finnish" -- as Mongoloid, and the description became standard in German and British encyclopaedias. As an interesting sideline, it might be mentioned that the same Virchow thought that the first Neanderthal skeleton represented a modern human with legs deformed by rickets and the head by arthritis deformans. The Scandinavians, of course, should have known better.--Death Bredon 18:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Nordic Countries

Template:Nordic Countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Night Gyr 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Indo European languages

Considering Turkey as a country of Europe would mean that Turkish should also be included in the introduction as a non IE language. ekrub-ntyh ^talk 02:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus that Turkey would be an European country. Without consensus, such edits can't be done. --Vuo 15:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Long lists

Long lists do not belong in the main article. I moved the "well-known people" and "well-known bands" to their own articles. The links are under the "related articles" heading. Please try to keep the lists on this page as short as possible, thanks! --Janke | Talk 05:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Finland vs. Scandinavia

The introduction states that Fin is one of the Nordic countries. I think this is an uncontroversial statement and it also already implies an association between Scandinavia and Finland. Some people seem to want to see a sentence about Fin being part of Scandinavia as well. As this idea seems to divide opinions both locally and outside (see: Talk: Scandinavia) I think it should not be in the intrduction but perhaps some place else. Clarifer 07:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not disputed. People aren't just aware of the general term Fennoscandia. Scandinavia is an area defined by the Scandinavian Mountains and Scandinavian peninsula. The very north of Finland stretches to the Mountains, but the rest of the territory is not in Scandinavia. --Vuo 10:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Scandinavia is a cultural/social/political/historical term as well as a geographical one. If it was defined strictly geographically as the Scandinavian peninsula, it would only include Norway and Sweden. Culturally, socially, politically and historically it may also include Denmark, Finland and Iceland. Being much more inclined towards the social sciences myself, I tend to agree with the wider definition, but I still don't think it should be handled that much in this article (especially not in the slightly awkward way it was put into the intro). - ulayiti (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have askend about this from my teacher.. And she said Finland is not really part of scandinavia..

Read the comment by Ulayiti, it pretty much says it all. Technically speaking, Finland is not part of Scandinavia. Finland is Scandinavian in culture, but not linguistically. ---Majestic- 11:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (from Finland)

Actually Finland is also geographically part of Scandinavia. And I wonder why nowadays it´s in fashion to claim bull.. that Finland would not be a Scandinavian country when it is. I wonder who´s idea it was to go claim this kind of lies... unbelieveable how people agree without any critic that Scandinavia would not include a traditional Scandinavian country like Finland. And about Denmark, it would not be at all part of Scandinavia because it has no mountains of Scandinavia, but Finland has (and area is in fact bigger than some people try to make us believe)

Finland is a part of Nordic countries, no doubt about it. Now, should we consider Finland a part of Scandinavia, seems to be much more controversial. Geographically, only northern part of Finland might be included to Scandinavia. Linguistically, only some swedish-speaking regions could be included to Scandinavia. Culturally Finland seems to have traits both from Scandinavia and from Eastern Europe, e.g. lutheran and eastern orthodox churches are the only official churches. Politically Finland is without a doubt more close to Scandinavia than any other region, althought being a republic when others are kingdoms. In Finnish politics, term "nordic" seems to have prevalence over "scandinavia" when considering mutual matters of these countries. Quick search on google gives 969 000 hits for "pohjoismainen yhteistyö", "Nordic collaboration", whereas "skandinaavinen yhteistyö", "Scandinavic collaboration" gives only 31 600. Of course, these searches were made in finnish, but as the first page what "pohjoismainen yhteistyö" gives, is official, mutual organisation of Nordic issues, [www.norden.org], it seems to me that at least in Nordic countries there is understanding that we should classify Finland as a Nordic country, not Scandinavian. Woden 10:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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 02:26, 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? We have good articles here in WP about both, Norden and Scandinavia, so i personally think it is not so much of a matter where does Finland belong, rather than people change their view to a more modern one. Woden 10:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am rather at a loss as to what Woden is referring to when he talks about some parts of Finland having and others not having a "Scandinavian heritage", unless he is referring to those Swedish-speaking Ostrobothnians who want to prove they are of "Viking descent" as opposed to the "Mongoloid" Finns (see discussion above) -- a view that smacks of racism. "Heritage" does not refer purely to bloodlines but also to the political and cultural heritage, and although parts of Karelia -- specifically those now belonging to Russia -- were never occupied by Sweden, all of present Finland was, for several hundred years. A large part of the rather small Orthodox population are refugees from Karelia (after it was annexed by the Soviet Union in WW2) or their descendants, but they are at present clearly outnumbered by the Muslims (although Finland has fewer of these than either Sweden, Denmark, or Norway). If you look at the historical borders, you would actually have to leave out Lapland, because the first treaty border (Nöteborg, 1323) runs roughly from Viborg to Oulu. Sure, there are eastern (not "Eastern European") features in the eastern parts -- eating mushrooms, soft bread, etc. -- but drawing a line between "Scandinavian" and "non-Scandinavian" Finns on such a basis is rather ludicrous; the next thing you know, you will be drawing a line between German and Scandinavian Denmark or Sámi and Scandinavian Norway and Sweden -- in fact, it is getting difficult to draw a line between American and Scandinavian Scandinavia, as the latter is nearly extinct! The only argument for leaving Finland out of Scandinavia is a linguistic one, unless one wants to go back to the pre-Christian religion. If Finland were still a province of Sweden (as it was up to 1809), I doubt whether Woden would consider it "not Scandinavian" even in part. I have nothing against using the term "Nordic countries" instead of "Scandinavia" for N, S, DK, IS, and FI, particularly since the former has less of the linguistic connotation than the later, but I would not try to introduce the term "Norden" into English -- if for no other reason then because it is in "Skandinaviska".--Death Bredon 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While Finland isn't always included in the concept of Scandinavia, it usually is (see Scandinavia). In the English-speaking world, it's the norm to use Scandinavian as a synonym for the Nordic countries, as in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Look at books such as Lonely Planet : Scandinavia or Rough Guide : Scandinavia or other similar books and you'll find Finland treated as a part of Scandinavia. While that's not to say that Finland is a part of Scandinavia in every sense of the term, it's fair to say that it usually is, at least in the English sense of the word. JdeJ (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

To summarise the discussion I think we agree that a) Finland is a Nordic country, b) it is not located in the geographic (the narrow) definition of Scandinavia, c) it is in the wider/cultural definition of Scandinavia (see for example http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scandinavia).

Thus, to avoid confusion, we should not state in the first sentence that Finland is located in Scandinavia as that is controversial, as the sentence already says that Finland is a Nordic country in Northern Europe. Adding that Finland is in the Scandinavian part of Northern Europe just does not add any relevant value to that sentence but adds confusion/controversy.

The geographic Scandinavia and Nordic countries are not synonyms, even if some sources use them as synonyms. There are examples of sources not using them as synonyms as well. (213.28.193.60 (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Where does the Scandinavian Peninsula begin? If it's at the eastern point of the Gulf of Finland and the southern point of Onega Bay, then Finland is clearly inside of it, if one however considers that only fennoscandia, the question remains, where does the Scandinavian peninsula begin? At the indent of the Kola peninsula? That would include some of Finland but not all. Does it begin north along the western border of Finland? That would cut off some of Norway (I think it would be more, or at least as, controversial to say part of Norway did not sit within the Scandinavian peninsula than to say Finland was part of it). This is just considering the Scandinavian peninsula and not "Scandinavia" as a term beyond a concrete, objective geographical constant like an actual land formation. Which might go on to include Denmark, Iceland the Faroes et al otherwise. 67.5.156.47 (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Politics and demog.

Some parts on politics and economy need either editing or rewriting, since they are unneutral to the extreme and appear to be written referring selectively to support the (apparently non-Finnish) writer's views. For example the part on the "Nordic model" says that "almost everyone wants to cut taxes". The particular study that the writer is referring finds that only 50 % of the people want tax cuts a lot and the "almost everyone" part refers just to the fact that the results are not dependent on educational level. 85.77.240.69 (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll do some editing myself right away. 85.77.240.69 (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Did some editing and added information on Finns' real opinions in the section. 193.167.45.242 (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's nice. The article's political and economical sections however are still filled with massively ignorant fiction. A wonderful example of this is the story how the social democrats "seized power" (sic) in the 1970s. The SDP had in reality been the biggest (as in most popular in the vote) party in every single parliamentary elections from 1945 through 1987 (see www.stat.fi for details) and had up to 47% support before WWII. Whoever wrote these parts should not be allowed to modify this article. 85.77.249.170 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

These sections also use references that do not support what is claimed in them. Editing needs to be done. 85.77.249.170 (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Swedish People's Party represents Finland Swedes, especially in language politics. The relative strengths of the parties vary only slightly in the elections due to the proportional election from multi-member districts"

This gives a false impression, since only the three previously named main parties have a slight variation of strengths with each other, and the Swedish People's Party is one of the significantly smaller parties.

The text in demographics had some irrelevant length, and also gave a slightly wrong impression of the topic, but is now corrected.

Intro

Unnecessary repetition with both 'Finland' and 'Republic of Finland' removed putting it in line with other country introductions. Estonia wasn't mentioned as Finland's neighbour and has been added. "Officially bilinguar country" removed because reader can clearly see it already twice from "(Finnish: Suomen tasavalta, Swedish: Republiken Finland)" in the first sentence and official languages in the summary table.

Location map of Finland

The map doesn't show Aland Islands, so if anyone has a map with them included, it would be better.

I changed it to "Image:Europe location FIN.png" which shows the Åland Islands. It is also higher resolution if you click on it. ---Majestic- 01:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Åland (Swedish) = Ahvenanmaa (Finnish) ---Aikapoika 16:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This new map is strange. It shows Vojvodina as a separate state but doesn't show Montenegro at all. --80.186.158.146 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Map of a Greater Finland?

Such a map has very little to do with this article - especially with no references to it in the actual text (which in turn would make this article too long and overlapping). The map's place is in the article on such an irredentist idea of the early 20th century (see Greater Finland). Clarifer 11:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nordic council / European Union

The ending of the Finland page is slightly misleading because most Finns see Finland primarily as an EU-country instead of a Nordic council country. This should be fixed by either collapsing the Nordic country to a small box with a "show" button or by simply removing it. It should be replaced with a big box (with hide-button) of the "European Union members and candidates" and/or "Countries of Europe" that the other European country pages also have.

The oldest MODERN democracy in the world

ref change by 67.142.130.22 (Talk) (→The oldest modern democracy - Changed section name because finland is clearly not "the oldest modern democray". That would be America.)

USA was not a _modern_ democracy in 1907, with equal voting rights and equal rights to be elected for all citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.215.75.17 (talk)

I would like to see references to a research in this area. Before this, more vague version should prevail. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What kind of research is is that you want. That Finland granted women the right to vote prior to the election of 1907 is a well-known fact. New Zealand had done so before, but the Maori population was not allowed to vote. I guess you also know that women did not have the right to vote in the US in that time, nor did all races. JdeJ 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand women could not be elected. The Maori were unrepresented. The lack of Maori representation is a bit similar to the old estate system that was abolished in Finland. --Vuo 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Research that there were no other regions where women and other groups were not discriminated during votings. Anyway, "The first modern democracy" is a very bad term for an encyclopedia, it is more suitable for an advertisment or a touristic booklet. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 18:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem here? It's fairly well known that New Zealand was the first country giving the vote to both men and women. Finland was the first country giving it to all citizens, regardless of sex and race. I don't know why you (Vladimir) takes a problem over that issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isber (talk • contribs)

Used wording is a good indicator of Non-NPOV. I would be happy if Finland really was the first country not discriminating voters, but it should be expressed in more precise wording that advertising-like "The First Modern Democracy". And a little notice - despite it had a huge autonomy, Finland was not an independent country in 1907. So I'm still unsure about correctness. If it is so easy to demonstrate, why wouldn't you put references here? Thank you in advance! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 19:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference for 'A reform of the parliamentary system and electoral law gave Finland the first modern representative institution in the world. Universal and equal suffrage was introduced and Finnish women became the first in the world to enjoy full political rights.' from the finnish parliament. http://uutisruutu.eduskunta.fi/dman/Document.phx?documentId=hs11506184651281

from the web page http://uutisruutu.eduskunta.fi/Resource.phx/ek100/index.htx?lng=en

At least New Zealand was invited and represented during the most important 100-year session in the finnish parliament.

The word 'representative' should maybe be included, or even 'fully representative' to be more specific. However, the word 'representative' also tends to associate to 'proportional representation' which might, or would cause more debate..

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.215.75.17 (talk)

Ok, I won't change the title myself, but I strongly recommend to consider replacing it with something like "Celebration of the world's first equal rights parlamentary elections" or something like that. "The First Modern democracy" is a vague and incorrect term... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 09:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what user DrBug said here. The wording "the oldest modern democracy" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, because it is not neutral in style and it is also hopelessly unclear - the concept of 'modern democracy' does not have any clear definition. I can't see any justification for keeping this heading in the article. --AAikio 09:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the term is vague, I don't think there is any standard by which Finland could be considered the first modern democracy. Other countries had universal adult sufferage for men and women before Finland did. Ordinary Person 11:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from New Zealand, where the women did not actually get to stand as candidates in parliamentary elections until 1919, and Australia, where universal sufferage was granted only to all Whites in 1902, would you, Ordinary Person, care to list any other countries with universal sufferage before 1907? But, I do agree that the wording is corny--Death Bredon 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Finland was part of Russia has to be taken into consideration, because that means that the Russian Emperor could veto all laws that Finnish Parliament enacted. Doesn't that kind of mean that Finland wasn't a democracy because it was ruled by autocratic Emperor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.222.50.237 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

The section should really be deleted. The only source is the Finnish Parliament itself, the entire section is fairly vague. I could assert that the Soviet Union had a form of 'modern democracy' that was completely different from Finland's--both were technically democracies, and both could be considered 'modern'. Arguably there is no such thing as the 'first modern democracy' because every democracy is different. Many of Finland's 'modern' innovations, such as open list voting, have yet to be adopted in most democracies. To say that 'modern' democracy involves open list voting would assume that at some point in 'modern' history, past or future, democracies 'modernize' and adopt open list voting. If they don't, Finland's 'modern' reform of open list voting will really have been a mere political experiment rather than a globally-imitated blueprint for 'modern' democracy. And even if this is considered to be true by anyone outside of Finland, this crap doesn't deserve to be in Finland's main article. Do we need three paragraphs of: "The theme of the centenary is "The right to vote – trust in law. One hundred years of Finnish democracy. The anniversary festivities focus on the parliamentary reform of the early twentieth century and the introduction of equal and universal suffrage and full political rights for women." If you want an article on the celebration, make one. If you want to discuss Finnish history in the history section of Finland's main article, go ahead. But don't dedicate three paragraphs to a celebration in Finland. If you want, talk about the reforms themselves, but three paragraphs is too much for the discussion of the celebration. Nothing against Finland--quite the opposite. I really think more important things have occurred in Finnish history than this celebration. I know it's probably not my place, but I'm deleting the section. If someone really and truely thinks it needs to be there, put it back. But think about it first. The article's getting too long, and this tidbit is too stupid for three paragraphs—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.140.239 (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Are you saying that the Finnish Parliament is an untrustworthy source?--Death Bredon 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No - at least not entirely. However, I'm sure the Finnish Parliament's got a considerable bias. Of course they're going to promote Finland - they represent Finland. However, neither the facts nor the international consensus seem to indicate that Finland was definitely the first modern democracy. The entire notion of the first modern democracy is very shaky - both 'modern' and 'democracy' have no definite meaning. Depending on how we define a 'modern democracy', several nations, including the United States, United Kingdom, and even the Soviet Union could claim such a title. But don't kid yourself: that doesn't make anything true.

The elections of 1907 used closed list voting. (I do not know when open list voting was adapted.) -- Petri Krohn 03:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I found one source for women in parliament: On May 23, 1907, the first session of the house — known as "eduskunta" in Finnish — was held in Helsinki, with 14 female lawmakers in the 200-member legislature. Earlier, Finland became the second country in the world to give women the right to vote, after New Zealand, but was the first to allow women to be elected. Published by The Associated Press. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/23/europe/EU-GEN-Finland-Parliament.php --Zzzzzzzzzz 01:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

Is it necessary to mention so many books of the Second World War in this article? Every people who is interested in further reading of Finland might not be a military historian.217.112.242.181 14:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Britannica: wrong about languages

I am currently doing a project on Wikipedia's editing style and was cruising in encyclopedia Britannica's site for comparison. I decided to do a search about Finland as it is my home country. Let me quote something that I found out about my country: "Finnish and Swedish are national (not official) languages." This is wrong because according to Wikipedia and to a Finnish site I checked (http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=27443#lang), Finnish and Swedish are official languages of Finland. I was amazed to see this basic mistake. Therefore I can conclude - Wikipedia won and Britannica lost; Wikipedia 1 - Britanica 0. Inkarima 17:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Britannica is more accurate here. Language act [1] is about "kansalliskieli" (national language), official language would be "virallinen kieli". However, the definitions of what is official language and what is national language have large overlap, and considering that Finland is still quite a strong nation-state, it is in my opinion safe to speak about official languages. Also, if Wikipedia would list languages that are now listed official in the article as national, the distinction between official and national languages would have to be made for every other WP country article too. SGJ 11:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I was told at school (long time ago when I was a kid) that Finland has two official languages: Finnish and Swedish. The national languages are Finnish, Swedish and Saame (Sáme or Sámi).

Aikapoika

Prehistoric Finland

That Finland was not settled until a few thousands of years ago is most certainly incorrect. The oldest human (humanoid) settlings in the Nordic countries is in a cave on the cost of Ostrobotnia in western Finland. Modern analysis indicate the caves was habited 120 000 years ago, i.e. before beginning the modern (Weichsel) ice age. For further reading go to: http://www.susiluola.fi/eng/index_eng.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.168.147 (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2006

The findings from "Susiluola" could well be "findings". It has been disputed whether any proof of human habitation quite that long ago exists.

Might be, but they are not Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens followed the ice in both Finland and Sweden so they are at last 10 000 years old. Seniorsag 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Susiluola debate has been highly personal from the very beginning and the mutual enmity of some of the persons involved goes back over twenty years, though I won't go into the details. Both sides have recruited well-known international experts to bolster their views, but no consensus has been reached. In no case can the finds and findings be dismissed out of hand, and the research is still ongoing. However, Susiluola is irrelevant from the point of view of the settlement of Finland in the sense that human or not, the occupants certainly didn't remain in the area over the last Ice Age so there is no chance of population continuity into the Holocene.--Death Bredon 11:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted

The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.

Please support me in maitaining Finland's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Finland deserves no less! JamesAVD 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has decided to remove references to the EU from the page of every member state. See his talk page for more details. yandman 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not discuss here, but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries so a uniform decision can be reached. Kusma (討論) 15:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The users above are misrepresnting my actions. Certain non-standard items have been included in the infoboxes of the pages of some European states. I have removed the undiscussed and unsupported changes and started a discussion here on the best way forward. I have in no way 'removed references to the EU'! The EU is an important part of the activities of the governmenance of many European states, to the benefit of all. That does not mean that an encyclopedia should go around presenting potentially POV information of the constitutional status of the EU in the infoboxes of states which are supposed to be standardised across Wikipedia. I'm interested in what users here feel? Please feel free to comment at any of the various pages Yandman might suggest. JamesAVD 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country.

Thanks, —MJCdetroit 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Defence Forces

I think there should be a mention about people who choose to go to prison instead of military or non-military service and also a mention about the criticism Finland recieves from Amnesty about the problems in finnish military.

I don't find myself objective enough nor do I think my english is good enough.80.222.69.196 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and the article should also mention that the government will punish tax evaders and collect tax debts, with force if necessary. And that parents aren't allowed to decide whether their children goes to school, but the government forces the education. And that the government forces fathers to pay child support dues. And so on. All citizens have the constitutional obligation (Perustuslaki, 12. luku, § 127) to assist the defence of the nation. The government has the legal obligation (Asevelvollisuuslaki 1950/452) to enforce this. This is perfectly democratic, and no serious challenges have been brought against these obligations during the independence of the nation. It is worth mentioning that the constitution forbids expeditionary wars, which are the main function of the militaries of colonialist powers^W^Wmany countries. --Vuo 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I found no such mention, where is it supposed to be? --88.114.252.193 21:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Input requested

Hi. Over at Talk:Yleisradio, there's some discussion about moving the page to the title Finnish Broadcasting Company. Since the two editors currently contributing to the discussion seem to be at an impasse, I wonder if we could get some more informed opinions weighing in there? Input from anyone with some knowledge of this subject would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What year did Sweden invade Finland?

I have various sources saying 1150, 1154, and 1157 are the years King Erik IX of Sweden led a crusade against Finland. It is a quasi-historical legend. I think it would be better if the year 1150s was used instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

All years regarding king Eric and bishop Henry are later speculations, as no historical record has survived of either one. The expedition might as well have taken place in the 1140s. --Drieakko 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But the speculation had to be based on something. So Sweden has no official record on this huge piece of land becoming a part of them for hundreds of years? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.103.81.226 (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

They have no surviving official records. It is usually speculated in Finland that most of the related documentation was kept in Turku, where it all was destroyed in 1318 when Novgorod burned the city, cathedral and episcopal palace. From foreign records it is quite likely that still in the 1230s there was no official Swedish presence in Finland which was ecclestically under the same supreme command than the Livonian dioceses. Pope also 1232 asked Teutonic Knights to invade Finland to protect the church there. The first time Bishop of Finland is listed among Swedish bishops is 1253. Article Second Swedish Crusade summarizes what evidence is left of the probable Swedish conquest in 1249. --Drieakko 10:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The section on health reads "The life expectancy is 82 years for shemonkeys and 75 years for monkeys." Is it safe to assume that this is an instance of vandalism? I've always been a reader, and not a contributor, so I'm a little leery about editing the page directly.

70.67.160.196 05:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Inter

Possible Shortening?

When i went to include some information on the Finland page last night. It stated this article is over 85kb perhaps consider re-organising it. I have noticed it is exceedingly long. Far more so than many other country's articles I have seen. Perhaps it COULD be considered. By the way was anyone intending on doing the flora and fauna section because if not i will?

It's so long because this article contains information on more topics than other countries' articles, for example Sweden (67 kilobytes long and also considered "too long" if you try to edit it) which lacks Tourism section among others. Finland is just a more comprehensive article and should not be shortened too radically IMHO. If you compare to United States, it is currently 99 kilobytes long. If I remember correctly, all articles over 30 kilobytes are considered "too long" by this wikipedia software. ---Majestic- 14:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is very comprehensive which is great but perhaps segments such as Health, Education, Tourism, Energy Policy, Presidents of Finland, Administrative Divisions, Sports, Cuisine, Cinema, Media and Communications, Public Holidays and Music could all be compiled into the 'See Also' section to make the article concise and objective allowing the reader to redirect to other sub-categories if necessery. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rory for suomi (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Religions in Finland

"The remainder of the population consists of relatively small groups of other Protestant denominations, Catholics, Muslims and Jews (1.1%) beside the growing population of unaffiliated (14.7%)." This is sort of ambiguous. The fact that a person is not a member of any registered religious community does not mean he/she does not have a religion. Most Finnish muslims (~90% of them) and many pentecostals, for example, do not belong to any registered religious community. They cannot however be classified as "unaffiliated" as the term kind of implies a secular/nonreligious view. More adequate listing could be something like: - Evangelic lutheran church 83.1% - Orthodox church 1.1% - Other/non-affiliated 15.8% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.222.50.237 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Legally, it doesn't matter whether one is religious or not, but whether one registers one's membership and pays taxes to the church. "Unaffiliated" doesn't imply anything, it's just a catch-all category. --Vuo 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not legally, but actually it does, because I think many countries do not have this system of registering religious communities. Many countries do not have any sort of "official" statistics about different religions in their country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.222.50.237 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Well this does not also reflect the true nature of religiousness since many just belong to the church out of cultural habit than anything else. So legality is the only true measure here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.237.199.2 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

There should be a discussion about the images in the article. My opinions. 1. The Finnish soldier of choice is the sissi, since ski warfare training for most conscripts is something unique to the country. All major armies have special units with MP5 or other special weaponry, it's the same everywhere. The information value of the special troops picture is nil. 2. More pictures of Finnish people is needed. In the article, there are many (too many) postcard views, one old photo of Sibelius, and Kekkonen with a Soviet citizen. That's not too great. 3. Finnish-peculiar collection of objects would be cool. See United States of America: apple pie, baseball, and the American flag. We could have sauna, Koskenkorva, salmiakki, and so on. --Vuo 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you ask to delete the Kekkonen & Hruštšov image? There are other pages besides Finland that are using it (other language wikis too) and that is just breaking those pages' layout because they have not asked for you to delete it. What's wrong with this "kekkonen and a soviet citizen" image? It's part of THAT history. As for pics of Koskenkorva bottles on Finland, I disagree. ---Majestic- 23:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not delete, but replace with something more representative. Kekkonen surely is, but it's one of very few images with Finnish people in it, and the only one depicting modern people. --Vuo 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually replaced the picture of Former President Kekkonen with Hrustov image with another, not because of this discussion but because that particular image was deleted off the wikimedia datbase. Also as to the Finnish-peculiar collection of objects, perhaps Vuo would like to create a new page about this at a different location and simply provide a link in the 'See Also' section, as the Finland page is already quite substantial and comprehensive... Thanks Rory for suomi 04:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Majestic, a topographic map should be in the topography section, not in the population section. If there are too many images in the geography part, then image removal is the solution. --Vuo 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

All right. About the military image, I put an image of FNS Pohjanmaa, the flagship of the Finnish navy, but it was replaced by this soldier image two days later. Would it be good to put the Pohjanmaa picture back, or what would you suggest? Look at the commons category of the Finnish military]. There are not many good quality alternatives. ---Majestic- 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

File:Rajajääkäri-au.jpg

Although the ship is a better choice than a "all countries have them" special forces soldier, then again, there are too few pictures of people, in my opinion. Ski warfare, like sauna, is something that's special elsewhere, but common in Finland, and what Finland is militarily famous for. -- Also, this picture is a great one: what it is, in practice, to defend Finland. --Vuo 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is it that has some sort of infatuation with the image of Lake Paijanne? Its been in almost every category with any mention of nature. I fail to see any direct relevance to the article pertaining to Finnish Flora and Fauna. The image of a Wolverine was far more appropriate as it is a rare, endangered Finnish predator. An icon of the Finland's natural world if you will. And in my opinion, the military picture should either be the special forces member with the mp5, the surveillance team which is on skis or the vertical fa-18 with the highly visible Finnish Air Force roundel. The 'FNS Pohjanmaa' is quite ambiguous. Rory for suomi 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the lake is supposed to represent the lakes of Finland. I don't like it, because it's not very clear. But topography should be represented. There is little room for pictures, so something must be chosen. --Vuo 20:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and I do not like the picture of Lake Paijanne either. There are better images of lakes and national parks, for instance the picture of Koli National Park which for some reason was removed. The picture of lake Paijanne is more like a postcard photo than something which demonstrates the immense labyrinth of lake in Finland.Rory for suomi 04:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the Archipelago Sea picture (Image:SchärenTurku.jpg) is better, and it's something special in the whole world, nothing like national parks and lakes that (almost) every country has. ---Majestic- 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I like the image of the archipelago. Also I thought this picture of a traditional, chimneyless sauna in country side Finland would be better than the current image under Culture. See Image:Smoke sauna.JPG Rory for suomi 05:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The beginning of the Swedish reign (year)

The title "1150–" was edited to "early Middle Ages–" because "no exact year is known"? I got this year from the article Sweden (not the discussion page) so I thought it is pretty accurate if they are including it in that article. "Finland was still a part of Sweden from 1155 until 1809." ---Majestic- 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Swedish conquest was a gradual process. Actual reign did not start earlier than 1249. Sporadic raids certainly took place earlier as well, possibly even temporary conquests in certain parts. Placing the conquest to 1150s is generally dismissed today as it is only based on medieval political propaganda. --Drieakko 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not really a conquest, it was part of the Swedish unification. East Uppland (north of Stockholm) Åland and SouthWest Finland was one cultural area at least since wiking ages. Water unifies, Land separates. Seniorsag 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there were a lot of contacts and connections, but "one cultural area" is exaggeration.--130.234.5.136 15:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:24 (UTC)

Article is getting too long

Article is by now already 108 kilobytes long, which according to Wikipedia rules is not practical anymore. For example, similar article for France is just 70 kilobytes. Kindly list issues that should be shortened in the article and their content be left to linked articles. IMHO, the current history section could be cut half. --Drieakko 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, article size is no longer a BINDING RULE, but it was before because of earlier browser compatibility issues with articles over 32kb. This is no longer an issue. Also, the article about Sweden is currently 103 kb long, and United States is even 117 kb long. Although the article should nonetheless be kept short where possible, the history section IMO is not yet complete especially regarding the wars (that doesn't mean making them considerably longer), and I think not many people care to look at the sub-articles for more information. If a long article is good for a topic, then it's good. Not many people nowadays are using old browrsers that can't handle 100kb pages, and even if you reduce this to 70 kb, even it would be too impractical for mobile phone browsing. There could be some places where you can trim the size down, but nowhere near 70 kb without reducing the quality and information content of the article itself.

Also, only the main body of the article (excluding wikipedia coding, links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size. This can be done by copying and pasting the encoded article into a notebook software and saving it as a text file, and checking the size. This makes it a 80+kb article, including the tables but excluding the internal coding (they don't contribute to readability), "see also" and "external links" sections. ---Majestic- 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The part on history could be summarised a lot. Cut it down to, say, 1-2 sentences per existing paragraph. To avoid current major overlapping, shouldn't this article be primarily about the contemporary Finland as there is an own article on Finnish history? Should we vote? Clarifer 09:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree on that. Most other countries' articles have equally long history sections, particularly FA-class Germany. Besides, the history section is already as concise as it needs to be without losing relevant information. If you don't want to read it, there's always the scroll bar and the contents index :) Kumiankka 10:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I cut some 2500 bytes from the history section, IMHO not losing any relevant information. Please indicate if something valuable was lost. Article is now at some 114kB. --Drieakko 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eivat.Rory for suomi 07:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Official languages of EU

Basque is not an official language of EU!

Too negative article

I think this article about Finland is written on a too negative note. We, the people of Finland who really live in Finland, know that there's hardly nothing to complain about in our country. We've won the big Russia in the WW2, we're one of the richest countries in the whole world, our unemployment rate is low, we have lots of high technology and a majority of innovative work that has eased humankind's life has been made by Finns.

Not to mention our folk, we're a most friendly, sophisticated and educated nation. We don't have so much violence and crime and we have very well-functioning police and court systems. Our social security works well and covers all the people, but the taxes are rather small. Everyone gets free education from kindergarten to university.

So I think that if there're any negative colour in the article about Finland, there's a big possibility that it's incorrect information and should be checked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.102.30.237 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree to an extent. As a part-Finn myself. Although this is an online encyclopaedia I believe it also represents Finland. For instance in the introduction it read "Finland is ranked as the 6th happiest nation in the world by an independant scientific study", a week later it read, "Finland is ranked as the 6th happiest nation in the world by an independent scientific study heavily weighted on literacy rates". Well whether or not this is applicable it comes across as subtle attack at the credibilty of the study and indeed the fact that Finland mostlikely is one of the most 'happy'nations because as aforementioned it is one of the safest, educated, democratic and beautiful countries on this planet. Rory for suomi 07:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed much about Finland that is good and much to admire and much for Finns to be proud of, however, there are negatives to EVERYTHING, there is nothing perfect under thesun, most espcially when concerning nations. Finland may be quite admirable (indeed I, who happen to be American, certainly respect and admire Finland), however it must all be taken into context: No nation can be perfect as governship by it's nature is flawed, its just a matter of choosing the least flawed course possible. Sorry if that seems a bit POV on my part... My main point is, it is good to fight against UNJUST negative criticism, but let's not get carried away and make it seem as if ANY negative critique is unjust, period.

John 02:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC) (part Finn and proud)

Language

The language-section is unstructured for the reader and does not give a full picture. I hope the quality of the language section would not be compromised based on personal interests or language politics. The section should clearly tell the following facts: a) what is the language spoken by most people in Finland b) what are the linguistic characteristics of that language c) what are the other languages spoken in Finland and how many speak those languages d) any other relevant information (e.g. status of minority languages, secondary languages spoken, status of other Finno-Ugric languages)

The language section should not: - present a language in a negative fashion: "isolated between unrelated..." - have an unclear structure - discuss immigration, religion, culture or any other topics outside language - exculde relevant information, e.g. how big share speak Estonian and Russian

This is one way how the section would be more structured and fact-based than the old version:

--

Main articles: Finnish language and Finland Swedish

See also: Finnish alphabet, Finnish grammar, Finnish phonology, and Spoken Finnish

Most of the Finnish people (92%) speak Finnish as their mother tongue. Finnish is a member of the Finno-Ugric language family and is typologically between inflected and agglutinative languages. It modifies and inflects the forms of nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals and verbs, depending on their roles in the sentence. Finland is, together with Estonia and Hungary, one of the three independent countries where a Finno-Ugric language is spoken by the majority.

The largest minority languages spoken in Finland are Swedish (5.5%), Russian (0.8%) and Estonian (0.3%). To the north, in Lapland, are also the Sami, numbering less than 7,000, who like the Finns speak a Finno-Ugric language. There are three Sami languages that are spoken in Finland: Northern Sami, Inari Sami and Skolt Sami.

Swedish has an official language status in Finland, and the right of other minority groups (in particular Sami people) to cherish their culture and language is protected by law.

The majority of Finns also learn enough English in school and from media to be proficient in that language. Other common secondary languages are German, French, and Swedish.

--

The last paragraph needs a bit of modification: Swedish is not a "common secondary language," it is officially termed a "domestic language" and as such is compulsory for, e.g., all civil servants. It also used to be a compulsory part of the matriculation examination (High School Diploma) except in foreign language schools, and of academic MA-level degrees. Sámi is taught as a second domestic language in schools in the Sámi areas of northern Lapland. It has also been lately suggested that Russian could become a "first foreign language" in areas near the eastern border, primarily to serve the growing cross-border tourist traffic.--Death Bredon 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

-- The last paragraph is only for summarising which languages Finns speak in addition to their mother tongue. The second last paragraph already mentions the official language status of Swedish.

As Finnish is a secondary language for Swedish speaking Finns Finnish should then be included as a secondary language. Alternatively Swedish can be excluded or a new section on domestic languages added. I opted for the last possibility, also adding the information that Åland is monolingually Swedish (also quite relevant in the language section). This in the interest of maximizing the amount of information.(194.252.5.66 07:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

-- If the aim of each Wikipedia page was to maximise the amount of information without any kind of priorisation, then all articles would take a week to read and would not be very relevant either.

Swedish is spoken as a secondary language by roughly ~90%, German by ~50%, many other languages between ~5-50%, and Finnish by ~5% of the population. If you need to summarise the most common secondary languages spoken in Finland, so Finnish (~5%) is far from the top-3 list. Aland islands represents half a percent of whole Finland both area and population wise. That specific area having a different local formal language rule/law compared to the rest of the country, is clearly irrelevant (especially when many people there learn and speak Finnish too). The article is already too detailed without adding such minor details. That could, however, be a relevant fact in an "Aland" article.

A separate section of domestic languages would just not be very relevant, as Swedish being an official language has already been mentioned in the "Language" section. --

Mentioning the different status of the languages in Finland and what this means in practise for language education is quite relevant for the "language" section of the article (if done concisely and my version is not very long).

Finnish and Swedish have equal status in Finland's constitution and Swedish is still the dominating language in some regions of the country. Writing from a strictly fennophonic viewpoint is thus POV.

If you mention small groups like the Sami, mentioning the monolingual status of one of Finland's 6 provinces, with a larger population than all of the Sami groups combined, is not irrelevant (might even be interesting to some foreigners, especially Swedes) (194.252.5.66 08:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)) --

-- I hope the language section will not be used for political interests to campaign/over-emphasise Swedish language in Finland. I would also assume that the Wikipedia articles in English are not targeted especially for Swedes.

The language section should give a clear picture of the status on how big share of people speak which languages in Finland and describe the most common language, to a reader who does not necessarily know Finland. To answer that you need to tell: 1) What is the most common language spoken natively in Finland and describe the language 2) What are the next couple of most common languages spoken natively in Finland (and in the Finnish case, we need to write that Swedish also has an official language status, and perhaps mention the special status of Sami language) 3) What are the couple of most common languages spoken non-natively in Finland (English, Swedish, German, French)

By describing these, you cover the status of different language skills in the whole population in practice. It is obvious that there is a huge number of further details regarding each language and it is much more useful to stick to relevant topics. If we would write everything that could be interesting for someone, the articles would get hundreds of pages long. If we want to go into details of Swedish, Sami, Russian, etc. language situation of a specific location or teaching in schools, a dedicated article about Finland-Swedes/Russians/Samis would be a more suitable place for that.

By digging out facts like "equal status in constitution", "1 of 6 provinces is monolingually Swedish" and "dominating status of Swedish" in some specific places where Swedish speaking population is concentrated, might be correct as individual facts. However, intentionally picking some individual facts and leaving out other relevant aspects to give a misleading impression about the whole, is not the best possible way to write Wikipedia articles.

It is generally known in Finland that the practical reality is far from equal status with Swedish language and that some specific language policies that can be highlighted from constitution, are not fulfilled in practice. We also know that the 1 of the 6 provinces happens to be Aland representing only 0.5% of area and population of Finland, but is officially defined as a province for historical/administrative reasons. In addition, the "monolingually" Swedish island also has Finnish speakers. -

I don't want to turn this into a language strife either. You can however not disregard the official status of Swedish as one of Finland's two national languages. As you well know, our constitution and other legislation treats the two languages equally and this is also implemented (not perfectly but still). If our legal base, established by the Finnish people through Parliament, starts from the premise of equality between the two languages this article should also (even if you personally disagree).

Swedish speaking Finns don't learn Swedish as a secondary language. It is their first language. They learn Finnish as their secondary language. Your edit is thus wrong.

That we have province that by international treaty is monolingual and that education in the other domestic language is cumpulsory is I am sure more important for anyone to know than that e.g. "...this means that instead of prepositions and prefixes there is a great variety of different suffixes and that compounds form a considerable percentage of the vocabulary of Finnish...."

Most of this I think belongs in the Finnish language article which deals with that kind of detail. I however didn't delete it because I realize that some of my compatriots feel strongly about having it included (fennomans for example).

--

I would appreciate if political interests would be kept out of this article and if we could be realistic about the content.

1) The article does not disregard official status of Swedish language in Finland as it very clearly states that Swedish "is the second official language in Finland, spoken by 5.5 percent of the population".

2) In practical reality, Finnish and Swedish are not equal in Finland. Finnish is spoken by ~92% and Swedish by ~5.5% of the population. Additionally, major parts of the constitution regarding language may be formally implemented but not in practice. E.g. government officials are formally required to have a certificate of knowing both Finnish and Swedish. This certificate is given in Finland to people who do not know Swedish as a part of their degree if they just attend a mandatory Swedish course. As a result, people working in governmental offices, extremely often do not know both languages and thus the language laws are very far from being fulfilled in reality. Formal legislation is an important aspect to tell, but the article should not be too narrow to focus on that, especially if the purpose is to intentionally give a misleading picture of the practical reality.

3) This article is not and should not be about someone's personal/political preferences.

4) The article does not say that the Finland-Swedes learn Swedish as a secondary language. On the contrary, the citation of the article above, says that Swedish is spoken natively by 5.5% of population. I doubt that someone reading the article, would understand that citation as speaking non-natively by 5.5% of population. The ending of the article is not wrong either as it just lists the most common non-native languages as per share of the total population, and does not describe only Finland-Swedes.

5) The language section as the biggest part of "Demographics", seems to be longer in comparison to average country articles. So it would make sense to shorten the first paragraph with the "prepositions and prefixes" instead of adding further details. I have no clue if you refer to the 92% of population speaking Finnish or to whom, with your word "fennomans".

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.30.199 (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that political interests and personal interpretations should be kept out of the article and that it should deal only with fact. A short response to your numbered points:

1) No-one has argued this, only that relevant facts are left out with regard to the language situation in the country.

2)You have the right to your interpretation of reality but it is just that; your interpretation. Finnish law is made by the people of Finland through parliament. Implementation might not be perfect but most officials try to implement it to the best of their ability. As you write, ability to function in both languages is a requirement of all Government officials.

3)Agree

4)The article said Finns speak Swedish as a secondary language. As the Finland Swedes are Finns just like anyone else this is not true. Swedish, one of Finland's two official languages, is their first language.

5)Agree on the prefixes etc. Remove them if you like. I assume the jibe on 92% of the population beeing xenophobic was a joke. Finland is becoming more and more international.

So much for the general discussion. Now for the specifics. I removed the statement on Finland Swedes beeing a minority protected by the constitution, as Finish law does not recognize them as a minority to be protected (some organizations like Finlandsvensk Samling have argued that Finland Swedes should be given minority protection, but this view is by no means mainstream). Finland Swedes are considered part of the general population. Just check the constitution in Finlex (link from the sources)!

The second part I edited was just reverting to the text mentioning language education in the other domestic language and the unilingual status of Åland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.252.5.66 (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

1&2) The article clearly tells the main points of the Swedish language status in Finland. However, the article can not limit itself only to describing language from one (legal) aspect only unless it wants to promote a specific topic/cause, e.g. Finland Swedes in this case. See previous comments for details.

3) Excellent, then I hope we will also see that you behave accordingly.

4) That is not correct. The article says that "common secondary languages are Swedish, German and French". This does not mean that 100% of Finns speak these three secondary languages or that none of these languages are mother tongue of some people. It simply states the fact of what are the secondary languages spoken by highest share of the whole population. Swedish is definitely one of those languages as it is taught in Finnish schools to ~90% of children as a secondary language. And that does not in any way conflict with Swedish being the primary language of ~5.5% of people.

Specifics: 5.5% of 100% is obviously a minority share, and that is what the article refers to as "minority", not just to formal classification in constitution. People speaking primarily Swedish in Finland represent ~5.5% of population, and thus represents a minority in language terms (which is the topic of this chapter). Highlighting exceptions of Aland (0.5% of area and population) and selecting a minority favouring detail about education is based on political goals and does not belong to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.30.140 (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Gini coefficient

The Gini coefficient in the first databox is listed as 26.9. Since the Gini coefficient can vary between 0 (no difference in income) to 1 (extreme difference), this figure is obviously wrong; the Gini (qv.) colour map places Finland in the .25-.29 range.--Death Bredon 21:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Miscellaneous: Facts and figures: Alphabet"

The short note in the Miscellaneous section that refers to the alphabet states that "In some rare instances, one also needs the letters Š and Ž." These letters do not appear in any Finnish words; they are used primarily for transliterating the Cyrillic consonants Ш and Ж, usually transliterated "sh" and "zh" in English, since Finnish itself has no equivalent sounds nor a tradition of using the English method of marking them.--Death Bredon 21:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure about ž, but š is actually used in some Finnish words. According to one of my old school books (well, it was published in 2005, so it's not that old really) dealing with the correct way to write Finnish, š should be favored over sh when writing the following words: šaahi, šakki, šamaani, šeikki, šeriffi, šillinki, geiša, Tšekki and Tšehov.

Of course, sh is still used by most people since Finnish keyboards don't even have a key for š, let alone ž. In recent years there has also been a trend towards replacing sh with s: e.g. the word for shock, sokki, used to be written and pronounced as shokki (or šokki). I don't know why they decided to change the spelling (to reflect current pronunciation?), but I still pronounce it as shokki, with a š sound. --ざくら木 18:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Population

By describing Finns moving to Sweden, the article gives a misleading picture. There are two main streams of Finns moving abroad in its history: to North America and to Sweden. If these are described, one of them should not be excluded. However, as these are historical facts, they do not belong to Population section but rather in History section. Population section should put emphasis on the current and very recent population related topics.

The text also gives a misleading impression about immigration to Finland when stating that Finland has equal immigration rates than other Nordic countries. The most significant fact about immigration to Finland is that it has a very low share of immigrants compared to other European countries. Additionally, biggest foreigner groups should be mentioned.

The population section should also include some basic demographic indicators, such as age structure, growth rate, etc. I would suggest that the historical population table would be replaced with a general demographics indicator table.

Introduction

The beginning of introduction should be aligned with the more clear way of other countries. The article should begin with referring to the commonly known name "Finland" instead of formal "The Republic of Finland", which can be specified later and seen in the box to the right. This is how other country articles also begin, e.g. with Sweden, Germany and Estonia.

--

Instead of stating that Finland is a Nordic country, the introduction should start with Finland being an EU-country. EU is a clearly more significant membership for Finland than being a Nordic country. Most Finns also identify Finland more as an EU-country than as a Nordic country.

Have you any references for that? I think it's just the opposite. Being a Nordic country and nation means more to Finns than being a EU country and nation. It's quite clear actually. --213.186.254.94 12:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how being part of a European organisation based on economic viability is more appreciable than the deep-seded nationalism of finns of being a scandinavian. would the user that initially brought this matter into question kindly leave and never have anything to do with finland again... Rory for suomi 03:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Flora and fauna section

I would replace the foto about Wolverine by a photo about Saimaa Ringed Seal. Comments? 84.251.73.218 13:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)X

Fine by me, do you have a photo of Saimaa Ringed Seal - it's not in the article anyway. ---Majestic- 15:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Finnishness

The subsection titled "Finnishness" is almost incomprehensibly bad. All it provides is a random list of things that some people apparently perceive as being somehow specifically Finnish - even if they are not, e.g. Ice swimming is also common in Russia, and Salty liquorice is widely sold throughout the Nordic countires - not to even mention sausage with mustard... Could someone think of a way to improve this section to meet encyclopedic standards, and find some references for it? --AAikio 07:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We should create an article on Finland's self-image. Maybe this stuff should go there. -- Petri Krohn 22:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the entire article should go there. Let's start with defining 'omahyväinen' for non-Finnish speakers.Jatrius 01:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The section was previously titled "Miscellaneous cultural concepts". Does it sound better? And yes, the section should be trimmed. ---Majestic- 15:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The finish and Latin

I've been learning Latin for quite some time now, and repeatedly I've found examples that Finland excels in having Latin..stuff.. like a Latin radio station and Latin homepages; is the special tie between Finland and Latin real or is it just me? And if real, is it noteworthy enough to add to this page? (PS. also, what is the reason for it if real?) --BiT 18:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

would also say that there is a mistake in the history chapter stating that Swedish became the language of administration and education - what education? Within the church the language was surely latin during early mediaeval times and what other education was there in Finland? None. The same chapter also uses the word "peasantry" and "nobility" in a careless way - somehow there should be a way of explaining the structure of society in Finland; the fact that nobility never got a firm grip of the land. The majority of farming land was owned by the peasants, and not just the small fields but entire villages as well, hundreds of hectars of forrest was owned by single peasant families - and still is to this very day. I think this is important as it helps to understand many modern features of the country that are significant. The political history looks grim - first under the Swedes and then under Russia - but in fact the country has been owned by its inhabitants, it has been run by them, and in everyday life people have had much more freedom and responsibilities than has been the case in feudal and other class societies in Europe. Universal suffrage and democratic development have been natural consequenses; private enterprise, co-operatives and family owned forrestry did not emerge from nothing. And let me take a guess about Latin: Finns have been within the western influence for so long that they are definitely pro European; however Sweden and especially Swedish is less popular, allthough/because the western influence has come from an through Sweden. So it is quite natural that the independent Finns seek their western and European cultural roots using the "free" European language that is not so strongly connected to any other existing country; it is the only direct "Finland - European heritage" connection there is to be found. Finnish is out of the question, it is not European.

classic Latin is apparently easy for Finns to pronounciate 12:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Curse of the Hockey Finals

Should the curse of the hockey finals be mentioned in this article? It ceirtanly is a much discussed subject in Finland almost every year. Since 1992 Finland has been in seven Hockey World Championships finals and in one Olympic final. That makes 8 finals in 15 years. Still, Finland only has one gold medal (from 1995.) Perhaps we are just sore losers, but considering how popular this theory is amongst Finns, shouldn't it be in the "sports" section? Or perhaps the "trivia" section? I'll let the wise people who edit Wikipedia more than me decide if it is significant enough to be added here. Personally, I think it would fit. Thank you! -Anna

Western Economy?

Maybe this is a mistake of sorts but since Finland is in th EASTERN Hemisphere doesn't that make it an Eastern Economy?

Kindly read what the Eastern Hemisphere is. Also Luxemburg, Germany, Italy, Denmark and Switzerland are there.--Drieakko 04:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the geographical and economic term mean different things. Eastern hemisphere obviously refers to its position ont the Earth, whereas the economic term refers to the fact that in recent years Finland has immersed itself in globalisation and a quickly advancing and evolving economy hence being a 'western economy'... ?? Rory for suomi 08:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why "recent years"? Finland's external trade has been mostly with the Western countries as long as independent Finland has existed. --Vuo 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Eastern Economy" and "Western Economy" are weasel words without factual content in Wikipedia. --Drieakko 09:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's true, they're so Cold War. I already removed some "East and West" wording. --Vuo 15:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Shortening the Introduction

I agree with Pudeo that the lead should not contain irrelevant facts. I suggest that in addition to removing the population density sentence, mentioning the Aland Islands could be removed. They represent only 0,5% of Finland both area and population wise.

Simplified the lead overall. --Drieakko 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion vote

Please see the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian Americans. Badagnani 03:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review discussion

Please see the deletion review discussion here. Badagnani 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

League of Nations

I see nothing about how useless the League of Nations was in defending Finland when the USSR invaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.238.59 (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC) The League did arbitrate successfully on the Aaland islands, though. By the time of the Winter War the League was just a little bit pre-occupied with events in East Central Europe, Western Europe, Asia etc. There was this little conflict called World War Two happening; you may even have heard of it.Jatrius 01:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Finnish Soldiers Skiing.jpg

Image:Finnish Soldiers Skiing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

- I'd like to complain about the language in the caption accompanying this image: "virtually all conscripts".. either ALL conscripts, or MOST conscripts would be preferable. "Virtually" is not encyclopaedia material and sounds like it was written by a school student amazed with the statistic. It's too emotive. 58.105.198.222 08:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Languages

I hope no one minds, I added an image of the cover of a Finnish passport next to the language section as it seemed appropriate there and is a good example of an official document showing both of Finland’s official languages. I hope what I did was OK, I do not edit a lot on wikipedia and I am kind of new to it.

Kind regards,
Leeuwekoning 10:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Suicides and alcoholism

Somewhere I had heard several times that Finland has or had a high rate of suicide, especially amongst young men. I searched the article and the discussion pages (including the archive) for suicide but found nothing. A quick search on google found lots of results agreeing with what I thought. For example, the second link (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/skills/disability/papers/finpart3/finpart519.htm), which looks particularly reputable, states that "The rate of suicide has been high in Finland, especially among young men. To address the problem, Finland was the first country in the world to implement a nationwide suicide prevention programme.". It goes on, but the point is that I think this should be mentioned in the article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_rates has Finland as the 12th worst country in the world).

Google confirmed my memory that alcoholism is also a major problem (relatively, of course). Again, there is nothing in the article. The 1st page on google (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6106570.stm) was from the bbc and has the title "BBC NEWS | Europe | Alcohol now Finland's top killer". Although it was from 2006, I think there should be some more research and some mention of it here.

Hopefully, someone with more familiarity with the article will be able to fit these points into it.

23:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I am Finnish, and I have read many times that Finland has been declared the one of the "Happiest places to live." It was number one on the list a year ago, and this year it is Denmark. But the rates of suicides being high I have not heard of. Though drinking is high, but is it not that most European countries that way? Look at the Irish, you can not say that one nation is that way compared to another it is minimal. As for it being 12th worst country in the world, I highly disagree, or maybe it's just me, but it has also been declared happiest. So I guess the decision is up to you, because we have been on that list for years.

-Cölé 30, March, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cölé jones (talk • contribs) 08:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody claimed Finland was the 12th worst overall country, he was referring to its rank in the suicide rates (which is currently 16th). Besides that, Finland is known to be a happy country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_happiness.png). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.217.48.23 (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Finland and the Vikings

For some reason a few people seem to want to add info on particularly the Vikings into the history of Finland. Sure, there probably was a Viking presence in the coastal areas of Finland and sure, the Gulf of Finland probably did serve as a route for them. It seems a bit of an exaggeration, however, to claim that the origins of Finland somehow be related to a Viking activity in the area. Also, if detailed info on the Vikings need to be added, perhaps the article history of Finland would be more appropriate? (if every group of people that left their marks in Finnish archeological sites are mentioned here, the article will be endless.) Clarifer 15:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is claiming that the origins of Finland has something to do with the Vikings? I think you are overstating what the edit actually said. Just for the record this is what it said

The vikings of the Baltic sea sailed via the Gulf of Finland to the Middle-East. Ancient coins that they brought back can be found in the coastal area of Finland, for example Turku. The architecture of the early Finnish towns Turku, Rauma and Naantali were influenced by the Swedish towns Uppsala, Sigtuna and Stockholm. Finland was a part of Sweden from the Viking Age up to 1809, when Sweden lost Finland to Russia in the battle of Suomenlinna.

Is there anything inaccurate about what was said? To me that just seems informative and does not seem to claim that the Viking influence was any more significant than what the edit actually said it was. As for other groups of peoples that may have at some time settled in Finland I see no reason why they should not get a brief mention. The Viking period was a long one and affected many countries, but until I read the information on this page I was unaware of a viking presence in Finland. For that reason alone I would want the reference to stay. I'd be interested to know what other editors think, not just Clarifer. --Tom 15:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's me again. Yes, there are plenty of inaccuracies. The original text read: "The origins of Finland begin in the Iron Age. The vikings of the Baltic sea sailed via the Gulf of Finland to the Middle-East. Ancient coins that they brought back can be found in the coastal area of Finland, for example Turku. The architecture of the early Finnish towns Turku, Rauma and Naantali were influenced by the Swedish towns Uppsala, Sigtuna and Stockholm. Finland was a part of Sweden from the Viking Age up to 1809, when Sweden lost Finland to Russia in the battle of Suomenlinna." 1. Did the Vikings bring eastern coins into Finland? Was it only the Vikings that carried coins from the east? This is not known. There are many coin finds in Finland from the 9th-11th centuries which have probably entered the area via trade (of course the Norse might have well been among some of the trade partners.) 2. The info on architecture is fine, but a bit misplaced in a section on history. 3. That Finland was part of Sweden during the Viking age is an anachronistic statement. Sweden, let alone Finland, didn't exist during the Viking Age. The eastern side of the Gulf of Bothnia came gradually under the Swedish crown -itself only forming - starting at the earliest in the 12th century i.e. a century after the end of the Viking Age. 4. The battle at Suomenlinna was merely one scene of the Finnish war (actually Suomenlinna or Sveaborg surrendered without much of a battle). Clearly, the paragraph was badly constructed in misinformed so it needed revision. Clarifer 16:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Coins. You may or may not be right about the coins as I have no special knowledge. But someone has added that information, so my reaction would be assume good faith and assume it could be true. Your edit appears to claim that you have superior knowledge to the original author. Well, that may or may not be so. But the sensible thing woould be to add a citation request to the article. If none is forthcoming then deletion might be justifiable; but I think it would be fairer to wait a while and let the original author reveal his/her sources. Tom 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Architecture. The reference does not seem out of place to me. The reference is a reference to archtectural history and impact on the peoples living in the area known today as Finland in the English speaking world.Tom 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

3. I think you are being picky about names. I get the feeling that you don't want to talk about any place known by the name of Finland before it actually acquired that name. But surely the article is about a geographical location and the peoples that live there, regardless of how the place got its name. You could have just clarified the statement rather than delete it altogether.Tom 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

4. The reference to the battle of Suomenlinna was just to put a point in history at which Finland's Swedish is claimed to pass from Sweden to Russia. Nothing more than that. I don't think the section you deleted laid claim to a significance beyond that meaning. If that claim is inaccurate then by all means correct it. But if it is true, I see no reason why it should be deleted. The passing of control from Sweden was a significant change in the status of Finland and clearly has its place in the article.Tom 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being bold (though, wp:be_bold), I hope I was not being reckless. The burden of proof lies indeed on the shoulders of the original editor. Assuming good faith is to be pursued no doubt. However, if we did that all the time Wikipedia would be filled with all sorts of dubious claims with citation requests. That sort of an encyclopaedia wouldn't be too useful. On 3. It's not really about geographical names. It's about the anachronistic claim that a centralized monarchy (called Sweden) existed during the Viking Age. This simply isn't true and such a claim may even reveal the original editors true motivations (or ignorance). I may be wrong. 4. This is just it. There was no "battle of Suomenlinna" in which Sweden lost Finland. There was a battle at the fortress during the Finnish war of 1808-1809 but this was just a minor incidence. Either the wording is funny or the editor very misinformed. Either or, it is better to leave that out especially as the Russian conquest is already dealt with in a following paragraph. Just my line of thinking, sorry. Clarifer 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

BCE

What on earth is this 'BCE' nonsense? Oh, of course, it means 'Before the Christian Era'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis (talk • contribs) 19:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be superhuman, or maybe only too human, to want to be the "Overman", but adding new comments at the bottom of a page, rather than over older comments, is considered good form. It helps keep threads in chronological order (no matter if your personal preference is for a continued use of a Christian Lord as naming convention in chronology matters, rather than the common era chronology name). "What on earth is BCE?" Well, I suspect it it is an acknowledgement that Western time has become World time, by unabated habit and domination in terminology issues such as this - although the name is merely constructed around guess work about the date of birth of a Jewish man whom the Romans gave religious lordship to in Latin only after having grown tired of the fun and games at the Colloseum. The answer to your question is, I suspect, that BCE is a nod at the fact that this is how time is commonly divided, but less of a declaration of religious convinction than the old-timers' abbreviation which declares that we are now and always "In the Year of Our Lord" era. Afv2006 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To repeat, what is this BCE nonsense?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.70.120 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 30 November 2007(UTC)

To repeat: The discussion page about the article Finland is not the appropriate place to campaign for AD usage. Rather, the appropriate page to discuss the use of BCE and CE on Wikipedia would appear to be the discussion page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), although advocacy is not generally considered an appropriate modus operandi anywhere on Wikipedia. Complaints about "this BCE nonsense" is therefore ultimately best leveled at influential English usage trend setters in real life, such as, to pick a few on random, Encyclopaedia Britannica[2], the College Board[3], the National Geographic Society, the United States Naval Observatory[4], Smithsonian Institution, etc., etc. (But please note that repetitive personal belief-based rantings against the modern use of BCE and CE certainly does not lend much support to the claim that AD has no religious connotations). And to repeat: The campaign for or against AD has no relevance whatsoever to the subject of this article - in spite of odd claims to the contrary by certain dollar-rich cults of Christian denominations, such as the one that liked to claim Finland's position as the central location where "Scientists Discovered Hell" in 1989 (as reported by California-based Trinity Broadcasting Network in 1990, based on findings in "a respected Finnish scientific journal" [i.e. a letter to the editor in a Finnish Missionaries Newsletter] that TBN's initial 1989 story about howling heard from condemned souls from a hole on the Kola Peninsula had lead scientists to discover a connection straight down to hell from Finland). Perhaps 1990 could be forwarded as a contender to 1950 as the Before present starting-point in archeology - the year hell on earth was revealed to archeologists could perhaps be considered just as malevolent and emotional to the global atmosphere in some quarters as the date atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons altered the global ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. ;) Afv2006 01:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.72.18 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rate

I changed the rate from A to B because I didn't found out if the article had already passed the GA assessment. Coloane (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal?

Who, who has a beef with Finland? Why this abuse? They are the most inospicuous peoples Radio Guy (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

I would like to point out that the aim of Wikipedia is to present a neutral an unbiased view. Recently, user Pudeo has taken to vandalising this article to remove views he doesn't seem to like. There is currently no agreement on when speakers of Finnish and Swedish first arrived in Finland, and I've tried to edit to present that lack of concensus, keeping both the theories of Finno-Ugric speakers arriving thousands of years ago as well as recent research putting their arrival at a much later stage. Neither of these theories are so-called fringe theories, they are both put forward and accepted by many specialists. My edits build upon the views of the Finnish professor Juha Janhunen, the edit is sourced back to an article by Janhunen and makes it clear that this is Janhunen's view. Despite this, Pudeo keeps deleting it to present his version and the only one, and I can only see this as an act of vandalism. To make matters worse, his comments to me makes it perfectly clear that he is making this edit out of nationalist reasons, bringing up a lot of completely irrelevant things about Swedish speakers. Just to make it clear, modern science does not argue that Swedes were the first in Finland, far from. Neither were Finns. Before the arrival of Finnish and Swedish, other languages were spoken in Finland just as in almost all of Europe. This is nothing new nor remarkable. Janhunen presents this research and rejects the idea of Finnish having been spoken in Finland for thousands of years. I can understand why some Finnish nationalists may not like this, but there are ideas presented by Finnish researchers. I don't see the problem in saying that other languages were spoken in Finland before the arrival of the languages spoken here today. As this goes for Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, the UK and every area in Europe with the exception of the Basque Contry, it's hardly controversial. I hope Pudeo will start contributing in a more NPOV way and not delete sourced information just because he doesn't like it. Especially not if he does so to try to give the idea of a consensus where there is none. JdeJ (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now half of the history section is of one historian's theory. According to Janhunen, Juha Janhunen describes is very, very stiff in a top level country article. Such things have no place here. It is incredibly ignorant to say Swedish has been in Finland as long as Finnish (or Finnic). --Pudeo⺮ 10:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Folktinget's report [5], Swedish-speaking populations arrived to Finland in late Middle Ages, in 12th and 13th Century. While we can find references for the fact Finnic has been around for thousands years, stating Swedish and Finnish have "arrived" at the same time is very questionable. Finnish did not arrive, it evolved from indigenious Finnic language. Swedish arrived from Sweden as part of the Middle Agean movement. --Pudeo⺮ 10:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some corrections. It's not even close to half the history section, it's around half of the pre-historic section, which is just one of many parts under the heading History. Secondly, this is not just "one historian's theory". No offence intended to you, but I assume that you're not very familiar with academic writing? This is a proper way to reference. This view is far from just Janhunen's view, Janhunen describes where the research currently is. Every piece of writing has one or a few writers, that doesn't mean that they are the only ones behind the idea but it is these writers you mention when you source the idea. And with due respect to Folktinget, and to Virtual Finland, they are politicians and not academics and have very little relevance. I read that report years ago and it used old sources already then. That is not to say that it's necessarily wrong, but it's not very relevant. The article by Janhunen is just a few days old, written by an expert in the field and telling what reseachers (not politicians) currently hold to be correct. JdeJ (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Familiar enough to know one historian's recent attempt to get publicity in media by such claims doesn't overwrite hundreds of other academic works. Introducing very recent research, that is without scientific concensus, is a very bad idea to a top level country article (again). Maybe then if this would be Languages of Finland or something. So what then? Should I just line up 10 references stating Finnic presence? Or perhaps someone else will notice this and revert you as well.

Out of curiosity? Where did those "ancient Swedes" live? There is no archeological evidence besides in Åland. We all know where Tavastians, Lapps and other Finnic tribes lived. First inhabitants of Finland Proper and Uusimaa were Tavastians who did not live there permanently, but went there to hunt and fish. Some great information available at National Board of Antiquities. --Pudeo⺮ 10:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To begin with your first point, Janhunen hardly needs any "publicity". He's one of the best-known experts on Uralic languages in the world and has written and edited multiple article and books. If this would be an academic paper, that is the only valid reference in the section whereas virtual Finland isn't. Having said that, I'm the first to admit that not all experts agree. And that is precisely why I've made it clear in the section that there is disagreement. I really don't see the problem here, unless you want to present only one version as the truth. As for your question out of curiosity, I wouldn't have the wildest idea. Once again, I'm not putting forward my own version. Personally, I don't think Swedish speakers have lived here for very long, and that is precisely what Janhunen says. Probably earlier than the 12th century and perhaps then in some of the areas where Swedish speakers still live. Please note that I'm guessing now and I wouldn't put any of that in the article without sources.

I think you may have misunderstood the theory here. It's not a very long Swedish presence, it's a relatively short presence of both Finnish speakers and Swedish speakers. I've never understood why Finns (some few Finns, but very active on the Internet) have such problems with this. In Europe, Finns and Turks seem to be the only societies where we constantly find new ideas that their own people are the origin of everything. To be honest, this does more disadvantage to the picture of Finland. I'm mainly French myself, and have no problem whatsoever accepting that before my ancestors started speaking French, they spoke the Celtic language Gaulish. And before they spoke Gaulish, they spoke some now extinct and unknown language. Such was the case in every European country, including Finland. Indo-European and Finno-Ugric languages arrived relatively late in Europe and gradually replaced other languages being spoken here. JdeJ (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the page you posted to, the National Board of Antiquities, I too think the information is interesting. Please note, though, that it says that the Comb-Cheramic people may have spoken Uralic languages. That's consistent with what many experts say, it's one of the options but certainly not the only one and definitely not a known fact. So it would be percetly consistent both with Finno-Ugric languages having been spoken in Finland for a long time or with Finno-Ugric languages arriving late and replacing other languages. JdeJ (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I inserted a proper version with all theories, and telling the real consencus. There was more text about Janhunen than Tarja Halonen in the earlier version. :) Oh, and don't call Virtual Finland's Dr. Pirjo Uino, Docent, Curator, Department of Archaeology, National Board of Antiquities "a politician". It is a valid source. --Pudeo⺮ 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, don't assume ownership of the article. It not for you, nor for me, to decide which version is "proper". You seem to be very unwilling to accept that there is no consensus on when any language arrived in Europe. Including Finnish. Dr. Uino is certainly a valid source but that information on Virtual Finland is very old, it's at least five years since I first read it. Science progress, and there is no consensus today. And I object to you constantly trying to accuse me of putting in only one version. I have consistently tried to provide room for all versions, whereas you twice have deleted the version you don't like and the last time written that "your" version is the consensus-version. JdeJ (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Still the article says Finnish "arrived" at the same time as Swedish. Ridiculous.. --Pudeo⺮ 14:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that that's one theory, it doesn't claim it's the only accepted theory. And with all due respect, neither you nor I are as knowledgeable about the matter as professor Janhunen. JdeJ (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I, too, find it curious that bringing up questions about an "arrival" seems, to some people, especially justifiable in issues regarding Finland and the Finns. This seems a recurrent theme in both Finnish nationalistic spheres and in non-Finnish nationalistic spheres in their attitudes toward the "odd man out" which the European Uralic speakers seem to be. I don't, however, think that claims of the own primacy are unique to the Finnish and the Turkish nationalists. On the contrary, most Germanic speaking nationalists seem to claim a primacy, not only on their location but also within the German speaking world. Most Swedish nationalists, for example, seem to think that Proto-Germanic is especially a "Swedish thing" and was first spoken in Sweden or southern Scandinavia (this simply isn't known). There are plenty of examples. I think what seems especially odd about writing about an arrival of the Finnish and the Swedish languages in Finland is the great anachronism and the apparent confusion of terminology. 1000 years ago there simply were no Finnish or Swedish languages as both are the result of a linguistic evolution. I must confess I'm not familiar with Janhunen's work, I can only comment on some of the interpretations made of his claims here in Wikipedia. I bet the question at hand really runs: when was a Uralic language first spoken in Finland and when was an Indo-European language first spoken in Finland. The answer is: it is not known. We only know that a Baltic-Finnic language was spoken in Novgorod in the 13th century and we know that Swedish had differentiated itself from Danish by the 13th century. To speak of "an arrival" of Finnish and Swedish into Finland really sounds corny in this light... The Sami claim a culture continuum ranging thousands of years locally and have been accepted in the ILO convention as an indigenous population... Does the fact that they speak a Uralic language mean anything? As far as I know, there aren't any people in the ILO list Living in Finland, Scandinavia or the whole of Europe that are considerend indigenous and speak an Indo-European language? Clarifer (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Many good points in there. I must admit that I know next to nothing about different origin theories popular among nationalist speakers of Germanic languages, but I'm sure you're right. Nationalists of all kind seem to like "discovering" that their own origin is especially ancient. I've simply run into exceptionally many cases among Finns and Turks, but I'm sure it's not restricted to them. Regarding the "indigenous" peoples, it's important to keep in mind that it is about a way of life and says next to nothing about how long a certain people have lived in a given area. Had the Sami people not lead a nomadic life until fairly recently, they would probably not be considered indigenous. Besides, the whole idea of speaking of different peoples when discussing languages is rather absurd, as it would be hard to find a single people in Europe (with the possible exception of the Basques) that has not changed language, often many times. Neither Indo-European nor Uralic languages are native to Europe, and neither of them have spread in Europe as the result of an ancient mass-invasion, the like of which has never been seen again. Most scientists agree that a fairly small group of Indo-Europeans were responsible for bringing the languages to Europe. As they were technically superior at the time, their language carried prestige with it. Not unlike the use of English as an international prestige language today. None of us are English-speakers, but given the dominance of English, we're discussing this in English. Uralic languages spread to Europe in much the same way. So different peoples all across Europe adopted the new languages that arrived, so no "people" in the modern sense is more or less indigenous to Europe than any other. This is something that nationalists, regarding what kind of nationalists they are, would hate to admit but it doesn't make it any less true. Genetic research in our time has confirmed this, there is no genetic limits that would correspond to language limits. As I'm sure you all know, the Sami people have changed their language into the present Sami languages, while the original Sami languages is pretty certain to have been a form of Samoyed. Of course, saying the "original" Sami language is just a guess, what I mean is that the earliest form of language known to have been spoken by the Samis was a kind of Samoyed but of course they could have spoken yet another, or multiple, languages before that. And as Clarifer correctly points out, both Swedish and Finnish are less than 1000 years old in the sense of being differentiated from other languages. In the article, Janhunen states clearly that both Germanic and Finno-Ugric languages (in an unspecified form) were present in Finland before either Swedish or Finnish existed. What is important is that he states that also these languages were relatively recent newcomers and that other and now extinct and unknown languages were spoken in Finland before the establishment of these languages. JdeJ (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, let's speak nationalism, shall we? Just look at this:

"...more recent theories according to which Finnish arrived at about the same time as Swedish and spread in Finland during the last thousand years.[11]. Likewise, there is no consensus on when Swedish speakers first arrived, their arrival has been suggest both to coincide with the arrival of Finnish or to arrive later."

Does it really matter if Swedish came at the same time with Finnish? It matters to Swedish-speaking nationalists. What that is really saying, is "Swedish is spoken at least as long as Finnish, so Swedish-speaking Finns are not invaders!" To non-nationalists, whatever Swedish came with Finnish is totally and absolutely irrelevant. Believe me JdeJ, even as early Finnish language came before early Swedish language, it doesn't make Finland-Swedes invaders or something not belonging to Finland.

I include this higly unlikely theory, but as shortened. Timing to Comb Ceramic culture is the most common though I have seen experts having made, so it must be included.

And please don't call me a nationalist. I have fixed claims of Finns being mighty riding conquerors because it's not true, like it's not true to hint this theory being commonly accepted.

Wikinist (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, I haven't called you anything. Before today, I haven't met you on Wikipedia and hold no opinion at all regarding your beliefs. All I've done is to point out that when a fact is attributed to a source, changing that fact is incorrect. That is a general principle for all articles, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and has nothing to do with nationalism, Finland or when certain languages arrived. JdeJ (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the europa.eu portal had a text about Finland which said that Swedish language presence in Finland is just a result of Swedish occupation starting from the 12th Century. The ethnonationalists very furious especially about the word "occupation", and the portal was criticized in Huvudstadbladet. The portal promised to change the text. Too bad I can't find the news articles. --Pudeo⺮ 12:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say JdeJ, but you are mistaken. Mainstream science supports and have supported different theories, but they all place Finnish related languages earlier than Swedish. I have studied this subject, and i know there is no any kind of relevant controversy about this. Only some irrelevant and marginal Swedish or Germanic ultra-nationalists oppose this. Even the old and partially pro-Germanic theories stated that Finnish-related languages have been spoken in Finland for at least 2000 years. Modern theories suggests different dates of "arrival" from 2000 years ago to more than 10 000 years ago. Finnish is clearly indigenous like Bascue. Tuohirulla puhu 10:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Links

Is it possible to take www.finlandlive.info into the Link section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.61.75 (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Language accuracy

Which one is correct, or are they both wrong? Check them up and correct?

Quote from Finland: "The largest minority language is Swedish, which is the second official language in Finland, spoken by 5.5 percent of the population."

Quote from Sweden: "Swedish, the first language for about 7 percent of the population of Finland..."

Xertoz (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto_en.html

Wikinist (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"The first verifiable written documents appeared in the twelfth century." I wonder what these might be. Any suggestions, sources? (12th century = years 1101-1200) Clarifer (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hufvudstadsbladet quotation

Under the paragraph 'Time span of the modern languages' the Swedish language newspaper Hufvudstadsbladet is quoted. The source is an opinions page and a comment by professor Janhunen there. This is a portion of the text in Swedish (sorry for the lack of the correct keyboard):

"Alec Aalto citerar i förbigaende den gamla myten om det FINSKA sprakets tuseariga rötter i Finland. ... Det FINSKA Finland som nu firar sin självständighet är resultatet av det FINSKA sprakets expansion i landets inre delar under det senaste artusendet. ... Sprak som VAR SLÄKT med svenskan (germanska) och finskan (samiska) hade nog talats i landet lite tidigare, ... ". Here's the translation in English (by me):

"Alec Aalto quotes in passing the old myth concerning the thousand year old roots of the Finnish language in Finland. ... The Finnish speaking Finland that now celebrates its independence is a result of the Finnish language's expansion in the land's inner areas taking place during the last millennium. ... The languages that were related to Swedish (Germanic) and Finnish (Sami) were probably spoken in the land a bit earlier, ..."

My earlier adjustments in the paragraph were removed by claiming that my analysis and understanding of Janhunen's opinions were wrong. However, the focus of Janhunen's comment was the Finnish language in Finland. He addresses the other Uralic languages (and Germanic) only in one sentence stating vaguely that these may have been spoken in the country a little earlier. How little, he doesn't say. He does go on to state that neither the Finnish nor the Swedish place names are the oldest in Finland and these, he writes, descend from (an) extinct language(s). I think a) that the whole paragraph is unfortunate and feasts on a need for a primacy. However, if there should be a paragraph on the primacy in this article, it should not focus too much on an opinions page writing, or these opinions should be clearly and truthfully disentangled. Trustworthy quoting from multiple sources is the best approach. I'm reverting closer to my earlier analysis. Please feel free to heavily edit or remove the whole paragraph. Clarifer (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're making yourself guilty of WP:OR. You choose to interpret the paragraph the way you want to, make yourself the judge of what is relevant in it and rewrite the article to suit your own ideas of what you think the professor means to say. And adding a long resume about who professor Janhunen is and where he publishes? In an article on Finland? Should we add a similar sentence for each source in the article? Surely not. I agree 100% with you about quoting from multiple sources being preferable, though. JdeJ (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who apparently has done an interpretation and what worse: a wrong one. --Pudeo⺮ 19:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No offence Pudeo, but your lack of objectivity in anything dealing with Finland is rather well-known. So what "wrong interpretation" have I made that's in the article but not in the source. JdeJ (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of going behind some guide line why don't you try and systematically show how I may be wrong in my analysis? Did I translate the Swedish text wrong? If you simply count how many times the word FINNISH appears in Janhunen's comment and compare this to how many times he refers to the Uralic languages as a whole, surely you must agree that the focus in his comment is indeed the Finnish language and less the relative languages. If I went and put content from an opinions page by an expert in East Asian studies into the article, say, on the Irish language in Ireland I'm sure people would immediately criticize my source. That I think is justified in the same manner as me asking for sources for the claim that there exist written documents in Finland from the 12th century (see above). I think Janhunen may well be right in his own way. Much of what people nowadays designate as Finnish or as typical for Finland is the result of fairly recent developments (and this is true for most of the current nation states or national identities and languages). However, perhaps we should quote some of his research and not a comment on an opinions page. I still think that such a source is hardly comparable to the other source (a history book) and the reader needs to know this. Again, I'm willing to drop the entire paragraph or severely alter it. Clarifer (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involving myself in this debate but I'll make a short and general note. The sources in this article are of rather low quality in general. Worse, the sources as Wikipedia are of rather low quality in general. A professor writing in a newspaper would be a terrible source in any academic writing but is a pretty average (=cr*p but not cr*ppier than the rest) source here. JdeJ is right when pointing out that the result would be hillarious if the same idea was employed in every Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.29.33 (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input anonymous user. One cannot justify a bad thing by comparing it to some worse thing. See the reasoning concerning this particular case (above) and counter argue if you are able to. I am reverting to my edits. Sorry. (Once again, I have nothing against removing or seriously altering the whole paragraph in question, but if this particular reference needs to be there, the reader needs to know where it comes from. Yes, even more acutely than is the case with the rest of the bad references). Clarifer (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is my second and last comment on this. Show me some other cases on Wikipedia where this is done. You seem to be doing it only to devaluate a source you don't seem to like. Not very honest, I have to say. This whole article is bad enough as it is, should different users now begin to give us their very own judgement on sources as well? Wikipedia is getting funnier by the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.29.33 (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you also agreed such new "research", or should we say a comment in a newspaper by a professor is a bad idea to put into a very broad description of Finland, which shouldn't go into much detail anyway. Scientific theories usually need review by other scientists, not just newspaper comments by the author. Of course they can be told in appropriate articles but this top level country article is not that. Anyway, Clarifier clearly pointed a "manipulation" by JdeJ, who changed the meaning of Finnish language to Finno-Ugric languages. --Pudeo⺮ 12:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. One cannot justify the use of a badly chosen source by referring to article technicalities. (Good grief, this is beginning to sound like a law case.) I agree that the input within the parenthesis is a bad step stylistically (or a bold novelty in Wikipedia ;) but the reader needs to know that a) the reference is not scientific writing but an opinions page text and that b) it doesn't really refer to the issue of at hand in the sentence. Besides more info on a simple foot note, the only other option is to remove the entire reference but I tend to lean on an inclusive approach to Wikipedia myself. I just wish whoever put that reference there used some of the publications of Janhunen instead of opinions page writing. I'm adding my analysis at the bottom in the references though I think that this is not enough. Clarifer (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing at the moment is to try and reach an agreement on the talk page, not reverting back and forth. I think the present solution is rather bad, but I'm not going to change it. The problem is that all solutions are bad, at least none are good. Clarifer is completely right to point out that the source is not very good. A huge error of my own, strengthened by others, is that the whole issue has been connected to Janhunen. The ideas aren't Janhunen's, he's only referring on what he described to be an academic consensus in this field. The obvious problem, and I'm sure you all agree here, is that he doesn't present any academic source. Perhaps he thinks this is evident, but we certainly don't. While agreeing with Clarifer that the rerence isn't scientific, let me point out that the other reference, Suomen historia isn't scientific either. What I'd suggest is to delete almost all of the paragraph for now, although parts of it can be restored once credible scientific sources are given. What I'd keep is a sentence saying that "There is no consensus on when Finno-Ugric nor Germanic languages were first spoken in the area of contemporary Finland.". I guess we all can agree on that, right? That sentence could be added to the previous paragraph and we could avoid going into all kinds of different theories about when which language arrived. JdeJ (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you read the first comment by Clarifier? You have manipulated the meaning of "Finnish" (FINSKA! The article is about FINNISH) to "Finno-Ugric". There are very well known theories about the arrival of the Finno-Ugric languages. None of them suggest a date like 1000 CE. I can't possibly figure out how one can be so ignorant to think Finnish language's separation from other Finno-Ugric languages can be interpreted as the "arrival of the Finno-Ugric languages". --Pudeo⺮ 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, then just post the scientific sources for those theories. This far you haven't provided any such source but I'm looking forward to reading it. But why is it so important to put a date on something that there seems to be no consensus on? Sorry to say so, but it seems to be the old Finnish nationalism of "we were here first, we built Stonehenge, we were the Vikings." The previous comment is of course only intended to Pudeo, I've never seen Clarifer engaged in any petty nationalism. And by the way, I don't believe in a date like 1000 CE either, neither for Finno-Ugric nor Germanic languages. JdeJ (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, nobody objected to the suggestion above so I've implemented it. JdeJ (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV foods

"The food is generally simple, fresh and healthy." This isn't exactly the most objective (or truthful) statement I have read recently. Anyone have objections to removing the 'fresh and healthy' aspect of this? My own experiences of Finnish cuisine (in terms of what is eaten in homes and/or restaurants, particularly in winter) is somewhat at odds with this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjamjak (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but in historical context I would say Finns have been a poor people up until recently. Then if one is poor, there isn't much choices but eat "simple, fresh and healthy", self-grown or whatever (he he you stupid farmers). Besides, what you cited above was under section "Cuisine", and that what people eat in Finland nowadays has nothing to do with the "Cuisine of Finland". --ÖhmMan (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Kosovo

I'm resuming with the inclusion of independent Kosovo in the maps of the countries that have recognised it. Bardhylius (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jepua

I should be grateful if a Finnish speaker would look at [6] and add any extra info to Jepua, please. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Done - thanks to User:Vuo. TerriersFan (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of curiosity, it might have made more sense to ask a Swedish speaker to check an article on a village that's close to 100% Swedish speaking and where, I suspect, most people aren't even able to speak Finnish. Not that I mind, User:Vuo is one of the best editors on topics related to Finland. JdeJ (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Finnish article is a little bit better than the swedish, so asking finnish speaker is logical, I think. --217.30.176.189 (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Finland and Suomi

Pronounciation of the names of Finland in Swedish sounds like spoken by Swedish speaker from Sweden. It should sound like spoken by Swedish speaker from Finland instead. Most Swedish speaking people in Finland speaks their own dialect, "Finlandssvensk", that should be used in the pronounciation of formal names here.

Also the Finnish pronounciation of "Suomi" and "Suomen Tasavalta" sounds like spoken by Swedish speaker. It tries to "sing" too much, while normal Finnish is more steady, strong and plain. Tuohirulla puhu 09:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

National anthem

I think the national anthem name should be mentioned in English too, in the introduction box at the beginning of the article. It is mentioned only in Finnish and Swedish currently, but there is a translation of the anthem in English as well.

After all, this is the English Wikipedia. Any thoughts? (213.28.193.60 (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Divisions

The administrative divisions part is rather misleading, over-edited and needs to be brought up-to-date. First of all, the middle tier of administration, as known elsewhere in the world, is practically absent in the Nordic countries including Finland. (See this World Bank report.) Finland is divided into municipalities; some larger divisions are recognized but used only for special purposes. Practical politics, provision of public services and taxation take place only on two levels, with the exception of some singular issues. Second, the state local district system has been officially abolished. Third, I already removed the speculation that provinces would be abolished. The proposal is real and made by the relevant minister, but hardly necessary for the main general article about Finland. Thus the text needs a major rewrite and objections could be made now. --Vuo (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Could you do the rewrite? Turkuun (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have quite a clear idea what it should include. It's going to be based on the World Bank report as an external source in addition to local sources. --User:Vuo 09:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe and Template:Finno-Ugric-speaking nations

Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe and Template:Finno-Ugric-speaking nations have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you, Tack & Kiitos: — Janneman (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Errors in text at beging of civilwar

Couple of errors in history section of Finland. Especially begining of civilwar is incorrect..

Oddly writen part: "On December 6, 1917, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Finland declared its independence, which was approved by Bolshevist Russia.

Contrary to Lenin's and Finnish socialists' expectations, the majority of Finns voted non-socialists parties in 1917 general elections. Soon in 1918, ..."

Text is writen like real order events was independence, generalelections, civilwar. In fact order was general election, independence, civilwar.

Few dates to illustrate error

July 1916, General elections, seats 103/97 socialdemokrats/right wing parties. February 1917, revolution in Russia, Kerenski's provisional government. Summer 1917 Kerenski's government call for new general election in Finland. 1-2nd October 1917 General elections in Finland, seats 92/108 socialdemokrats/right wing parties 7th November 1917, bolshevist revolution in Russia 6th December 1917 Finnish parliament declare independence Early january 1918, Russia and others recognize indpendence of Finland.. 27th January 1918 civilwar begins

This part is much better written in finnish wikipedia.. Could somebody rewrite this? I really don't have time..

Kalle Konttinen Pori, Finland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.253.55 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Term for "Soviet Union" in 1917

In the lead section it is said that Finland declared independence in 1917 from the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union did not exist before 1922, so what should the Bolshevik-controlled successor of the Russian Empire in 1917 be called? Soviet Russia, Bolshevik Russia, just Russia, or what? -Victor Chmara (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Crime rate

"Finland has the third highest total crime rate in the world" <- Dubious claim. According to that survey, Finland was 3rd of the 56 countries surveyed. That hardly is "the world". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.99.38 (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited that paragraph, removing the reference to nationmaster.com and adding another source that indicates that Finland is generally a low-crime country. The use of national crime statistics in international comparisons is generally discouraged, because definitions of crimes, availability of law enforcement, methods of statistics collection, and the propensity to report crime to authorities vary widely between nations. Statistical comparisons are adequate only when comparing unambiguous crimes such as homicide; otherwise, victimisation surveys, like the one I cited, are preferred. Victor Chmara (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference #80

This source, named "nordicmodel" is used multiple times in the article, but what this source actually is, is not specified; that's why there's an error message in the references list. Is #80 possibly the same source as #62 ("The Nordic Model of Welfare: A Historical Reappraisal", by Niels Finn Christiansen")? Victor Chmara (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"...borders with Sweden to the west, Russia to the east, and Norway to the north..."

The territory roughly north of the red line, though possibly from the northern rather than southern ends of Lake Onega & Lake Ladoga.

OK, maybe this only aesthetically doesn't sit well with me, but Russia is quite the landmass to generalize as what's "to the east" of Finland. I'd like to change that initial line and make it more specific. However a problem arises if we are to be more specific. One cannot say "...the Russian Karelian Republic to the east..." though I thought that might be better; it is more specific but there is more bordering the east of Finland than that territory alone; saying such doesn't encompass the Murmansk Oblast north of that with the Kola Peninsula & the Karelian Isthmus south of the Karelian Republic along the Finnish border with the northern part of Ingria. However that all is still a very specific part of the Russian federation, I see why that is said for simplicities sake, but might we do better? What is collectively the Russian territory north of the White Sea-Baltic Canal? It is all part of Fennoscandia, but one cannot say Finland is east of what it is itself part of. There is a fennoscandian peninsula that begins between the eastern point of the Gulf of Finland and the southern point of Onega Bay in the White Sea. Is there not a collective name ever proposed for the complete Russian territory up into those parts? 67.5.156.47 (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The line is simply supposed to illustrate Finland's location in the world, not differentiate between every province of its bordering countries. Anyone interested in areas other than Finland should just check the respective pages to keep the main article easy to read. 85.217.48.33 (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is a unified term for that region, that does make it easy to read, and properly wikified. That proves my point that other areas surrounding Finland can't be properly wikified if one goes directly to the "Russia" article, how easy is it honestly to find that area bordering Finland if one has to search through the Russia article: it simply won't be found by that extent of wikification alone. So if anyone knows if a generalized term exists for that region, in the future that could be added. 67.5.147.10 (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Article hijacked by non-NPOV problem user "Turkuun"

The user Turkuun has aggressively replaced major portions of the article with his far-right extremist non-NPOV views. Something should be done about this. He is attempting to demonize the public sector, trade unions and the welfare state ideology, all of which are well-respected by the vast majority of Finns. In doing this, the views that he purports are often not sourced or not at all supported by the sources he cites, or when they are, the sources are not NPOV or the support is vague. The POV that he is forcing on the article are worship of the NATO and some form of laissez-faire economism.

Here follows a short list of some of his abuses.

- In the "Cold War" section he writes:

"Nordic countries have since [the 1970s and 80s] been in a economic decline when measured by income level ranking and other indicators"

This is the biggest flat-out lie I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The nordic countries are in the absolute top end of any per capita GDP ranking.

- In the "Judicial system and law enforcement" section he writes:

"Corruption perceptions were widespread at the peak of welfare state in the 70s and 80s.[12]"

The source is anecdotal and does not mention the welfare state. The source relates its view on corruption to the nation's previous decades of poverty.

- In the "Nordic model" section he writes:

"Much of the taxes are spent on bureaucrats, many of which are jobs-for-life and amount to 124,000 state bureaucrats and 430,000 municipal bureaucrats.[57] That is 113 per 1000 residents (over a quarter of workforce) compared to 74 in the US, 70 in Germany, and 42 in Japan (8% of workforce).[93] The Economist Intelligence Unit's ranking for Finland's e-readiness is 13th, compared to 1st for United States and 14th for Germany. Also, early and generous retirement schemes have contributed to high pension costs[57]. Spending on core things such as health or education is around OECD median.[57]"

Here he calls Finland's entire public sector "bureaucrats". The term carries numerous negative connotations - including allegations of inefficiency, and its use in itself is strictly non-NPOV. Included in this section are vague comparisons to several countries with smaller public sectors, but none with bigger ones.

After calling every person in the public sector a "bureaucrat", he proceeds to contrast the size of Finland's public sector with the rather low GDP percentages used on health and education, making it appear as if Finland should use less money on the public sector and more on health and education. As a side note, the low GDP percentage used on the relatively high-ranking health care and top-ranking education system means that the Finnish public sector is superlatively efficient, which is the fact that he is trying to hide by saying Finland uses money on "bureaucrats" and not on "core things".

- In the "Defense Forces" section he writes:

"Finland is the only non-NATO EU country bordering Russia. Finland's official policy states that the 350,000 reservists with mostly ground weaponry are a sufficient deterrent. The military strategy is to hide in forests when attacked.[53]"

Simply "hiding" is not a military strategy and the source does not suggest that it is Finland's plan.

-On the early, 1990's economic depression he writes:

"Between 1970 and 1990; however, taxation and the burden of regulation increased dramatically compared to other Western countries, and delayed liberalization caused Finland to sink into a severe depression in 1992."

This is an extremist fantasy. The general consensus is that the depression was caused by a combination of vanished (Soviet) markets, depressed (Western) markets and economic overheating caused by failed fiscal policy and finance market deregulation.

His general rhetoric has a bitter and biased tone that does not belong in an encyclopedia. He repeatedly writes how people "suffer" from taxes while his cited sources actually say that Finns would want to raise taxes. He seems to like the word "still" and to use it to describe many things he doesn't personally like. "Spend" is another word he likes, particularly when using it to describe actions of the government. Trade unions are portrayed in a solely negative light and the public sector's size is meaninglessly contrasted (only) to countries with smaller ones.

These are just some examples of the fabrications as I do not have enough time to list all of them. In addition to failing to have his sources support his views he also makes several wild claims that aren't sourced at all. I'm not sure if he grasps the concept of NPOV, if he does, he certainly isn't acting accordingly. There is little point in editing the article as it is, as he reverts edits made to correct him. Something should be done about this. A ban on him wouldn't be out of place. 85.77.234.72 (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Long text, but I agree that there are some problems. Here are list of user Turkuun's edits. He started editing on March 18. This article has changed very much in a short period, and not all in a good way. Here's what has changed since March 17 till May 15, and here's what this article looked like on March 17. I think this article, or at least some of its sections, should be reverted back to March 17 state, as presently, I am not interested to participate in this mess. Remember, Wikipedia encourages its users to be bold - "to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc." ---Majestic- (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes

Please contribute and go on with improving the article!

A few points however:

• The growth was clearly slowest in the Nordics between 1970-1990 among Western European countries and one of the main topics of the time (except in Finland, for reasons mentioned).
• The success with getting rid of corruption in earlier decades should really be mentioned. The entire police force leadership in Helsinki was convicted for corruption in the 1970s and saving the politician-filled banks such as Labor Savings Bank cost some billions to taxpayers in the early 1990s. I added more sources and more about the ways Finland fights corruption.
• If we could find statistics about efficiency, they would surely be valuable to the reader.
• You are right, adding more about the official defense strategy would certainly have information value. I added something already.
• All sources say the depression was primarily caused by overheating and depressed markets only launched it and contributed a few percentage points of the total 15%. I haven't seen anything contrary.

Turkuun (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point about using the word bureaucrat. The cited sources seem to use either the word bureaucrat, civil servant or public sector employee. In Google, the words "bureaucrat" and "civil servant" result most hits at around 2 million. Which word would be best used in the article?Turkuun (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Economic growth in Finland between 1970 and 1990 (that is, during the heyday of the welfare state) was some of the fastest in the world. Whether or not at the same time the growth in the other Nordic countries was as impressive, is irrelevant for this article.

You try to couple corruption with welfarism, even though none of your sources make this connection. Using similar tactics, one could conclude that there is so much more corruption in, say, Estonia and Ireland than in Finland, because the former have lower tax rates -- which would be an idiotic conclusion, because corruption is caused by numerous different cultural, political, economic, legal, etc. factors.

Corporate interests and politicians are and have always been closely connected in Finland. This can easily be seen in the election funding scandal involving many leading politicians and rich businessmen that is currently roiling Finland. The banking crisis that was at the center of the early 90s recession was indisputably caused to a large extent by overenthusiastic deregulation, and the politicians did not bail out (with 50 to 100 billion marks of tax payers' money) just some "politician-filled Labor Savings Bank" but practically the entire banking sector of Finland -- it was a really remarkable case of socializing losses and privatizing profits.

Big business CEOs were some of the most enthusiastic supporters of Kekkonen and Finlandization (because of trade with the Soviets), so it's ridiculous to ascribe Finlandization to some KGB and socialist plot.

The welfare state is popular among Finns, and many people gradly pay high taxes in order to get lots of public services and equality of opportunity regardless of family background. It makes no sense to say that Finns "suffer" from taxes. The article cannot be written from the perspective that taxes and a large public sector are in and of themselves bad (or good), or that some other economic model is preferrable to Finland's model. Naturally, you can cite somebody who is of this opinion, but you cannot cite some neutral source and twist it to support your agenda.

I'm not a big fan of the welfare state, and criticisms of the Nordic model are useful in the article, but your brand of libertarian agitprop is not welcome.

Victor Chmara (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody here says that there's anything wrong with welfare state. Isn't it just important to know that the country has 6th highest taxes in the world? Isn't it also significant, that according to World Bank Finland Finland has had one of the strongest property right regimes of any country in the history and a long record of free trade? These are one of the key aspects determining results in history. Do they need to be removed?

The Soviet Union utilized several political groups' () desire for power and Finland's overall desire to trade. Soviet union gave these in exchange for Moscow's strategic interests (Finlandization, EEC opposition, the rise of Sorsa, the disarmament treaty). There was a lot diplomatic and especially intelligence resources behind advancing Finlandization. Corruption is affected by a multitude of factors, Finland's development is reviewed in the sources.

The economic growth was not particularly fast, except late in the 1980s. Did you read the referred studies about the economic crisis? Every single study you find from Google concludes that the main reason was overheating. Finland's exchange rate was politically fixed, as were interest rates (central bank independence was just a joke), and there was no typical banking reforms. For instance, Denmark had implemented reforms already years ago and wasn't affected. You are very correct about socializing losses.Turkuun (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why information about the huge (5% of Sweden's population) Finnish minority in Sweden must be removed? Would it help to understand the deep links between the two countries?Turkuun (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You can insert any sensible sourced claims to the article as long as you follow Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:BLP. The article is very long as it is, so there is no need to add long and detailed paragraphs about all kinds of things -- those matters can be dealt with in separate articles. There is certainly no need to discuss how many Finns there are in Sweden in the lead section. Victor Chmara (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cold War

This part of article is baced on fictional Alpo Rusi's book and it should't be in Wikibedia.

"The SDP suffered from its role in the crisis and politicians such as the SDP chairman Ulf Sundqvist were convicted for economic crimes. Mauno Koivisto and later Tarja Halonen classified documents about their and other politicians' involvement in the crisis. Similarly, documents about Stasi and KGB operations in Finland are still kept classified, though revelations by former Soviet commanders, foreign intelligence services, and self-revelations have consistently pointed to even top names such as Paavo Lipponen, the Prime Minister from 1995–2003.[17] Critics suggest that Finland should openly review its Cold War history like other former Soviet satellites have done."

My points:

-Ulf Sungqvits wasn't SDP's chairman when the bank-crice broke out and he wasn't in Finnish parliament when Holkeri's Goverment was on duty, which by the way was led by a National Coalition(party). - According to Finnish law some documents must be kept as classified and so Mr. Koivisto and Mrs. Halonen couldn't release them. - And by the way Finland has never been a Soviet satellite.

Greetings from Finnland by

Jaakko Heinonen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.128.89 (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)