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

Dubious first sentence[edit]

The first sentence in this article seems very dubious to me, using "ethno-cultural North Germanic heritage" as the definition. Is that a sourced fact? I've never seen it in any reliable source. Not to sure about "mutually intelligible North Germanic languages" either. I'm Swedish, and standard Norwegian is no problem for me, but standard Danish is already more of a challenge and there are numerous Norwegian and Danish dialects I don't understand. Besides, does any source actually say that speaking these languages define Scandinavia. So both the claim about "ethno-cultural North Germanic heritage" and "mutually intelligible North Germanic languages" as the definition of Scandinavia seems to be WP:OR to me. Jeppiz (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment, obviously such a claim ('mutually intelligible') needs sourcing. On the face of it however, the claim seems overstated. No two languages are wholly 'mutually intelligible', or they are simply dialects. Would 'closely related' be more accurate? Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, though my main problem is with saying that this, along with "Germanic heritage", is what defines Scandinavia. Jeppiz (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Understood.Pincrete (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense, this opening sentence has been stable for years, and this article is specifically about the linguistic and cultural region, as both the "Scandinavian Peninsula" and the "Nordic countries", which are separate concepts, have their own articles (in this sense, this article could, for clarity, be titled "Scandinavia (cultural-linguistic-region)", were it not the primary topic of the term). The article only describes Scandinavia as a linguistic and cultural region as characterized by e.g. (mostly) mutually intelligible North Germanic languages (and related culture), which is an entirely uncontroversial statement which is also addressed later in the article. Whether "Scandinavia" might be used by a minority of (lower quality and mostly American) sources when they are referring to the Nordic countries (which have their own article) is a concern for the Nordic countries article and not for this article on the linguistic-cultural region. The current Swedish (Swedish-Finnish? especially in view of the desire to annex Finland into Scandinavia) nationalist POV pushing, with "Sweden first" as the most visible feature (the insistence on mentioning Sweden before other countries instead of the usual alphabetical order), is both disruptive and unfortunate for this article. --Dijhndis (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

As usual you ignore the question, and assert the WP:TRUTH along with your usual personal attacks. Let me be clear here: either you provide a reliable source for the claims in that sentence, or it goes. That original research has been left in place for a long time is no reason to keep it. Jeppiz (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no original research anywhere in that sentence. Generally Wikipedia articles don't use footnotes in the lead sections to any significant degree, as they tend to clutter up articles. As far as I can tell, this (entirely uncontroversial) statement on Scandinavian languages is already adequately sourced in this article. The only personal attacks in this discussion have come from you.

--Dijhndis (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

So where is the source saying Scandinavia is defined by our common Germanic ethnicity? Yes, we can make unsourced claims in the introduction if the same fact is sourced elsewhere in the article. I don't find a source for those claims anywhere in the article. You are free to provide one if you know of one. Jeppiz (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure it's quite easy to find a ton of other sources supporting the entirely uncontroversial statements on language and Scandinavia being inhabited by Germanic majority peoples. E.g. this one on language: "In the Scandinavian countries the term [Scandinavia] is applied exclusively to Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, the national languages of which are mutually intelligible" and on why Finland is not included in the term "Scandinavia": "one reason for this exlusion is that Finnish is unrelated to Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish". (Jan Sjåvik, "Definition of the term 'Scandinavia'", Historical Dictionary of Scandinavian Literature and Theater, p. xxv, Scarecrow Press, 2006) --Dijhndis (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dijhndis: If this was only about "Sweden first" instead of alphabetical order there wouldn't be any discussion here, since we all support that change, but it isn't, you're only using it as a pretext for all the other changes you want to make. Changes that are not supported by anyone here. This is the English language Wikipedia, so the only definition of "Scandinavia" that matters here is the definition, or rather definitions in the plural, that are common among English speakers, meaning that your strictly Scandinavian definition of "Scandinavia" doesn't belong here, other than as a footnote or brief mention in the text. Whether you like it or not. Thomas.W talk 14:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I notice that you continue with your disruptive nationalist POV pushing against consensus here. You are edit-warring against the longstanding consensus version (of many years), and your edits are not supported by consensus here. So kindly stop your disruptive attempts to get "Sweden first" into this article. Other than that, you clearly demonstrate that you have little productive to contribute here other than your WP:FRINGE POV that the normal definition of Scandinavia (in English as well) should only be a "footnote" (sic!), a stance so WP:FRINGE and extreme/chauvinist that it has so far not been advocated by any other user than you. --Dijhndis (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't, since I don't have any "nationalist POV", but you continue trying to lay smokescreens to hide your POV, and put all blame on others. People here don't support your edits, period, so just stop. (PS, there's no need for you to add all the links to WP:FRINGE etc since I know what all of those pages say, almost by heart, after having spent several years here fighting POV-pushers like you almost every day.) Thomas.W talk 15:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
You have clearly been edit warring to introduce "Sweden first" into this article, and your nationalist POV is quite evident from both your edits, and your WP:FRINGE suggestion that the normal definition of Scandinavia should only be a footnote. Your edits are not supported by anyone, you are behaving disruptively (including, but not limited to, your repeated "Sweden first" edits), and I urge you to stop. Your POV pushing here is disruptive and unhelpful. --Dijhndis (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
nb edit conflict
No one is supporting 'Sweden first', so why are you complaining that they are? It looks awfully like an attempt to 'muddy the waters'. Scandinavian definitions deserve full coverage, not footnotes, but they don't deserve to be treated as 'holy writ'. There are many broad geographical descriptors which are not susceptible to final authoritive definition, The Balkans? … … ps as someone born there, I can vouch that 'OxfordEngDict' isn't 'American' and isn't usually thought of as 'lower quality' Pincrete (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Um, I've repeatedly removed "Sweden first" and a certain editor has repeatedly edit-warred it back, and it still says "Sweden first", so evidently this is a major issue for certain editors. Why would the article else still insist on this order after all this discussion of it? --Dijhndis (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Now that alphabetical order is restored, and that Red herring is out of the way, where are the sources that define Scandinavia by its "ethno-cultural North Germanic heritage" and its "mutually intelligible North Germanic languages", and that say that this is the ONLY valid definition in English, rather than being perhaps one (local) definition? Pincrete (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no red herring anywhwere, but I'm glad the attempts of the last few days to get "Sweden first" into the article have apparently ended (at least for now). This article is by definition an article about the linguistic and cultural region. The reason for that is that the two other possible concepts, the Scandinavian Peninsula and the Nordic countries, have their own articles. Plenty of sources define Scandinavia as a linguistic region (i.e. characterized by North Germanic languages, also called Scandinavian languages). For example this one[1], which states (p. 152) that Scandinavia can be defined as "a linguistic region of North Germanic languages that include Swedish, Danish and Norwegian" (and which also states that "Norden usually refers to a larger geographical area of the five states of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden plus the three autonomous territories of the Faroe Islands, Greenland and the Åland Islands"). Of course, many similar definitions for this entirely uncontroversial statement can be found. --Dijhndis (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually there are possibly legitimate arguments for 'Sweden first', (geographical or population size?), however since no one objects to alphabetical, the matter is/was a red herring. Of course Scandinavia CAN BE defined as a linguistic area, which (unsurprisingly) concludes that it is where 'Scandinavian' languages are spoken. The discussion is whether that is the sole valid definition in English. Ency Brit and OED don't seem to agree with you, and they summarise their reasons, but apparently you feel they are just 'wrong' and OED has no idea about use in English. I agree that there is a problem with 'Nordic Countries' being close to a content fork, however your peremptory 'this is ours … … that is theirs' rationale isn't even attempting to address how to give the reader a balanced account of what sources say. Repeating that a claim isn't controversial, doesn't make it true, it just shows that you are only prepared to listen to one argument about that disagreement. Pincrete (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
ps the source you quoted above actually starts (in Eng) 'the two terms (Scand+Norden) are often used interchangably but they do not refer to exactly the same etc. Confirmation to me that 'Scandinavia' is flexibly used in English and that part of the purpose of the article is to reflect that multiple use, not to decide which is 'right'. Pincrete (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have read what the source says. It correctly points out that while Scandinavia and Norden are often used interchangeably, "they do not refer to exactly the same area" (citing Jones and Olwig's Nordic Landscapes: Region and Belonging on the Northern Edge of Europe, 2008). No one has contested the fact that "Norden" and "Scandinavia" are used interchangably when referring to countries within Scandinavia, but that doesn't mean they are identical. They are (highly) overlapping concepts. All of Scandinavia is of course also Nordic. And most people in the Nordic countries are Scandinavians. In many contexts one will refer to other Scandinavian countries with terms like Nordic and so on, especially in regard to modern political cooperation.

I don't know what you are talking about in regard to Ency Brit and OED. It is quite possible that some sources mention e.g. the Scandinavian Peninsula or the Nordic countries when discussing Scandinavia, but since this particular article is specifically not about the Scandinavian Peninsula or the Nordic countries because they each have their own Wikipedia articles devoted specifically to those concepts, they no not necessarily refer to the same thing as the topic of this article.

I see no legitimate arguments for "Sweden first." The alphabetical order is not only the logical choice because it is alphabetical, it is very established and is the preferred usage among most sources, in English as well as Scandinavian languages. One example of the established usage is Robert Nisbet Bain's classic work Scandinavia: A political history of Denmark, Norway and Sweden from 1513 to 1900. --Dijhndis (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing for Sweden first, and this has already been changed. Nobody suggested that we change the article to claim that Scandinavia and Norden are synonyms. So we're done here then? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
OED, Ency Brit (and other Eng sources) are in the article or on this page (I don't have time to copy them at present), they all say that while the central 2+1 are always included, the others are/are not in various contexts. Your own source (Theatre above), says 'within DeNoSw' it is defined linguistically and therefore excludes Fi. I'm no expert but don't dispute that, though some sources say Ic is sometimes included for similar reasons. The issue is how to present a balanced account of use historically, locally, more broadly in Eng usage. Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I think what some users might find confusing is that the title of this article is Scandinavia, rather than Scandinavia (cultural-linguistic region). Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to cover a specific topic, rather than all possible meanings of the word used in the title. Even most English language encyclopedias agree that the normal meaning of Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and if other countries are mentioned it is as an "extended usage", in reality referring to the Nordic countries (which is an "imprecise" usage as e.g. Norway's main encyclopedia Store Norske Leksikon puts it[2]). The reason for this is of course the historical dominance of Scandinavian countries (and as a result Scandinavian languages/culture) over other Nordic countries, but such usage is increasingly problematic and on the decline, e.g. in regard to Finland where 95% are not Scandinavian speakers and where "Scandinavian" really means "Swedish" with strong connotations of Swedish imperialism in Finland in the past. There is also the Scandinavian Peninsula, which some readers might be looking for when searching for Scandinavia.

Hence, the situation is that when readers search for Scandinavia, they could be looking for three concepts:

  1. The linguistic and cultural region
  2. The peninsula
  3. The Nordic countries

Each of these distinct topics have their own article, and this articles resolves this problem by the hatnote which points readers to the two alternative meanings. The article should therefore not mix up various concepts (and possible secondary/alternative meanings of the word in the article title), but focus on its distinct topic. --Dijhndis (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

And they do. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone doubts that the term usually has a narrower definition within SwNoDe, nor that this narrower definition should not be recorded. According to the article the term was originally a geographical descriptor, then became a cultural one to describe three countries with closely related language + culture, (which adds a political dimension). All of this is informative and worthy of being noted, but the SwNoDa usage is not the final authority on Eng use.
Explaining away Eng Ency's etc. 'imprecision' is a politer way of saying 'they got it wrong'. Well, certainly, the sources say that the term is used in Eng in ways, which do not necessarily correspond to SwNoDa usage. I'm afraid none of us can 'own' words, if we could, only countries that conformed to an Athenian model would be describable as 'democratic'. Pincrete (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree 100%, Pincrete summarizes the most relevant points brilliantly above. Thanks! Jeppiz (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


I start to suspect we're dealing with a troll rather than a POV-pusher. Dijhndis's comments to Thomas.W above are so ridiculously detached from reality, and only consists of throwing the same terms Thomas (correctly) used back at him (incorrectly). This has happened three times already by the same user in the discussions above. I cannot believe anyone can honestly fail to read what Thomas.W has explained, or honestly think that Thomas.W has no support, so it all starts to look very much like trolling to me, rather than the POV-push I first suspected. Jeppiz (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have the same suspicion in regard to your behaviour here. This article seems to have been overrun by certain editors with an agenda in the last few days, who "suggest" outrageous things like the normal definition of Scandinavia (in English and Scandinavian) should only be a "footnote"(!) (an idea not advocated by anyone else, and which really seems like obvious trolling), and oddly insist on "Sweden first" which seems like a parody of Swedish chauvinism. --Dijhndis (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Point me to where anyone here suggests 'Sweden first' please? Pincrete (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
It's the edits of the article that counts. And it still insists on Sweden first after the Sweden first order was repeatedly edit-warred back into the article by an editor who refuses to remove it. --Dijhndis (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment As I take it from the discussion everybody agrees on alphabetical order, I've edited the intro accordingly. Jeppiz (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, that was an improvement, at last. --Dijhndis (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Drastic changes to lede again, and without discussion[edit]

A Swedish editor has made drastic changes to the lede again, totatlly disregarding what has been discussed about that here, and removing Finland and Iceland from that introductory text but leaving them (!) in the info box. I still wish this article would make sense to most readers on English Wikipedia, and do so already in the lede. Please!!! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Iceland and Finland are still part of the third paragraph, which discusses English usage, but are no longer part of the second, which mainly deals with Danish, Norwegian and Swedish usage.
Andejons (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The father down they get moved, the more confusing the article - and especially the info box! - gets. And removing the links (Finland, Iceland) didn't help either. The basic description of what countries normally are included belongs in the first sentence, as extensively discussed here - something you seemd to have missed?. This is English Wikipedia. Let's have it make as much sense as possible to as many readers of English as possible! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Still your mammary glands. The changes were not "drastic", it was mostly rewording it so it was clearer and removing the need to read fotnootes. We can add back a mention of Iceland and Finland into that paragraph if necessary. No need to be hysterical. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with the changes, which are in line with what has been discussed here recently, and also with longstanding consensus regarding this article's introduction. Finland and Iceland have not been "removed"; rather, a very misplaced and confusing repetition of the same point has been fixed (regarding Scandinavia being used synonymously with the Nordic countries by a minority of English sources); there is clearly no reason to have a discussion of that point twice in the lead (as discussed previously as well). Also, such alternative usage is not very central to this article, because this article is specifically about the linguistic-cultural region and because the Nordic countries have a separate article, so if we are going to mention it (which we are and always did), it belongs where it is currently addressed in the lead, and not in a context which portrays Finland as part of the linguistic region which is the topic of this article (of course, a nuanced discussion of Finland's 5% Scandinavian minority later on in the article, and of Finland's relationship with Scandinavian language and so on, is appropriate). --Dijhndis (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict
I don't believe SergeWoodzing is being hysterical, in fact very restrained. Saying 'don't worry, English usage' has been moved down is simply disregarding that this is Eng Wikipedia (look hard and you'll find YOUR use of the word later, in the meantime we'll tell you what we mean'). I'm sorry but whatever 'ownership' Scandinavians feel they have of this term, belongs on one of the Scandinavian WPs where they can happily put as a footnote, or omit altogether, that other countries do not necessarily share the same usage. I believe that BOTH uses should be clearly, concisely stated in the opening sentence. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Nobody said anything like that, there was no ownership, the problem has already been solved, you are fighting windmills. Seriously, both of you, calm down. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, hang on, no it hasn't been fixed! I misunderstood. OK, can @Andejons: suggest an alternative wording since he removed it? I have temporarily restored it. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Dijhndis, the 'minority of English sources' you refer to include (as has been pointed out) OxEngDict, EncyBrit, MirrWebEncy, these I have discovered simply by reading the article. I think these authorities are probably more reliable on Eng usage than anyone here, inc me. They don't btw say it is a synonym of anything (that's your interpretation). I don't have a 'dog in this fight', I have no opinion as to whether the article should just be about the 'main 3'. I do have an opinion about disregarding sources locals don't like and also about confusing the reader, or treating them in an insulting way because s/he has just read an article (about economics? culture? politics? transport? weather?) in which the term is used in a perfectly standard Eng manner, that doesn't happen to coincide with DaSwNo 'linguistic' use.
An admin suggested you initiate an RfC, I would endorse the suggestion that someone here do so. Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not the one advocating any major changes after the recent improvements (or indeed in regard to the version that has been stable for years). Of course I cannot rule out the possibility that an RfC could be useful at some point in the future, but right now I personally see no reason to initiate one. I haven't even edited this article since April. --Dijhndis (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence that this is "English usage" in regard to the topic of this article, the linguistic/cultural region (as opposed to the Scandinavian Peninsula and the Nordic countries, which are separate topics and articles). And even if this is allegedly English usage of the word in the article title (which is not the same as the topic), it's still a minority usage ("sometimes included" and so on), as noted by the English sources which even mention this usage (quite a few English sources even point out that this is an imprecise or inaccurate usage). The recents edits were a clear improvement of the article, in line with recent (and less recent) discussion, by fixing an introduction that had become very badly structured and confusing in recent days, by having two discussions of the same point, the first one in a way that contributed nothing of substance and apparently confused the topic at hand and made it seem as if Finland is part of Scandinavia as a linguistic region (and not as a synonym of Nordic countries, which is already addressed in the lead). --Dijhndis (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Dijhndis, since you have not yet come up with a source that say's that the Eng definition is linguistic/cultural region, it's hardly surprising that there isn't such a source for the broader definition, though OED does say 'cultural region'. I don't dispute closely related languages, I dispute this as the sole defining characteristic, certainly outside SwDeNo. EngScWa and NI all speak English predominantly, that doesn't make 'English-speaking' the definition of Britain. The Balkans takes its name from a range of mountains, is that the primary use?
It is difficult to escape the impression some that editors here will use any argument, ignore any source to impose the SwDaNo use as the sole valid use of the term (anyone using a different definition can be dismissed as an idiot, an Americans, or a tourist, as they frequently have been on this talk page, even if they happen to be one of the most notable sources on the subject of the Eng language).
I've already said that the, local understanding should be in the lead and expanded in the article. I've already said that POSSIBLY it would be better to limit this article to the main 3 (with a suitable, civil, explanation as to why the reader is being sent on to another page included in the opening sentence), but that is not for either of us to decide unilaterally. Does the average, reasonably educated English-speaking reader use 'Scan' or 'Norden' when they think of the 'expanded' region? Pincrete (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Um, I cited a source regarding exactly that in this very discussion. The rest seems like a strawman. This article is about the cultural-linguistic region because the peninsula and the Nordic countries have their own articles. It is quite possible that the latter two are occasionally called "Scandinavia", but that has nothing to do with the topic of this article (it could be briefly mentioned, and is addressed by the hatnote, but it should not dominate this article, thereby forking those articles). --Dijhndis (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with SergeWoodzing and Pincrete, this is starting to look downright disruptive. As Pincrete says, this is really quite simple: this is English Wikipedia, and SwDaNo can be mentioned somewhere in the article but does not take precedence. I doubt it even belong in the lead, it would be more appropriate in section two which explicitly deals with this matter. Jeppiz (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
'Local use' should be more than 'mentioned somewhere', I believe it should be in the lede. I haven't seen a source for 'lang/cult' being definition, but no one would dispute it as a characteristic. Otherwise I agree completely, it is pretty absurd to bury somewhere down the article the normal use in the reader's own language. Pincrete (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
No, what is the problem here is that there are different issues brought up that does not need to conflict with each other, but has been doing so because of straight reverting. My problem with the old lede was that it was badly written, with repetitions and different definitions not kept sufficiently clear. If the English definitions are not prominent enough, the better solution is not to insist on repeating it, but rather to rearrange the material. I hope my latest edit is acceptable in that regard.
Andejons (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The attempts by some editors to ignore that this is not an article on the Nordic countries, and fork that article, are indeed becoming highly disruptive. As is the their constant attempts to ignore sources and discussion, and insist on an absurdly badly structured and wildly confusing lead section where the same issue is addressed twice (as now pointed out on this talk page countless times) and where completely different issues are mixed, greatly diminishing the quality of this article. --Dijhndis (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dijndis, you've made that one same point 20 times during several days already. It is obvious the consensus is against you. It seems increasingly unlikely you'll ever even understand why but that does not change much. Your whole argument is a pseudo-argument, as this article is not a duplication of the Nordic countries in any way, so repeating the same point over and over again is just silly. Almost as silly as one single edit-warring WP:SPA-account who insists that it's everybody else who is disruptive. Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
You should take a big look in the mirror. Consensus here has consistently been against you for years, but you never give up, apparently, as evidenced by your recent claim on this talk page that "many" editors "fail to understand" that you are right and they are WP:WRONG. --Dijhndis (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is pointless as it's just going round and round with Dijhndis insisting everybody else (Thomas.W, Pincrete, Serge, OpenFuture, and myself) are disruptive and somehow all of us are against the "consensus" made up of Dijhndis alone. I realize Dijhndis will never understand the point everybody else is explaining, which is why future discussion is unlike to lead anywhere. Perhaps Bishonen, who commented earlier and has long expertise, could tell us at what point failure to WP:HEAR becomes disruptive, as I feel we're fast approaching that point during the last days. I'll be happy to discuss with any serious user, which in fact includes all users here bar one. As for how to deal with Scandinavia in the lead and infobox, it seems clear there is a strong consensus of at least seven established users, with only one dissenting SPA-account, so I'd say the matter seems pretty much settled. Jeppiz (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to just ignore Jeppiz and his disruptive behaviour and constant personal attacks. I for my part am quite happy with the article in its current state (at least the issues discussed here) after the recent rescue action by Andejons (and I have been quite happy with it for half a decade or so), so apparently there is only one single user who insists he is right (which he has done for the past 5 years or more) and everybody else is WP:WRONG. There is a limit as to how much we should engage with a user who is clearly not here to contribute to the discussion in a productive way. If Jeppiz is now advocating any major changes, I fail to see any consensus for it, and he doesn't even bother to explain which changes and why. --Dijhndis (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • When I was pinged here, I was going to say that as long as Dijhndis is done editing the article, anybody can stop the round-and-round by ceasing to respond to them on this page. However, Dijhndis' last post is beyond the pale. Dijhndis, when you speak of "Jeppiz and his disruptive behaviour and constant personal attacks", it just sounds to me like projection on your part, and like an attempt to keep the back-and-forth flowing. Stop it before you're blocked for disruption. I'll crosspost to Dijhndis' page to make sure he sees it. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC).
    • Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Canvassing. If Jeppiz has nothing of substance to contribute in this discussion and is only here to throw around personal attacks aimed at me, I suggest we go forward without letting him derail further discussions with such noise. --Dijhndis (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Does WP:CANVASSING say asking for intervention or advice from an uninvolved admin is in any way improper? Of course not. People do that all the time, it's one of the things admins are for. Referring to an irrelevant guideline (apparently without having read it) is yet more waste of time by you, Dijhndis, and you repeat your attack on Jeppiz, too. You really need to stop digging before it's too late. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC).
        • Uninvolved? Hardly, when taking your talk page into consideration. It is Jeppiz who engages in personal attacks against me, including using words like "troll" in the section above and several previous canvassing attempts as is evident from his contribution history, and who constantly tries to cause conflict on this talk page. His most recent attack above interestingly came when the serious editors working on this article had found a reasonable compromise which I was/am happy to support and which still stands. --Dijhndis (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
nb edit conflict
Dijhndis, it is not canvassing to name a recently involved editor, who probably has enough experience to think for himself. I (broadly) endorse what Jeppiz is saying. I have no idea what the 5-year consensus is on what the subject matter of this article should be, however it seems fairly obvious that it should at least deal with the common use of the term in English, not dismiss it, or tuck it away, or hatnote it without explanation. I approve of the changes Andejons made today, which go a long way to establishing clarity. I note Dijhndis, that you don't seem to object to repeats of 'common-ethno-cultural-linguistic' points and appear quite happy that some of these are uncited, or dubiously cited.
I'm going to try to follow Bishonen's advice and ignore posts that simply cyclicly repeat the same point. If you think that the article should be SOLELY about the use of the term to describe the 'ethno-cultural-linguistic' trio', RfC is the way forward, but I see no support here for your (uncompromising) position. Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Um, I have already made it quite clear that I'm entirely happy with the current version that is the result of recent edits by a number of other editors, and I have never used words like "solely", and I certainly don't have any "uncompromising" position, rather the opposite. --Dijhndis (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Then perhaps stop complaining? --OpenFuture (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
And where, exactly, am I complaining? It is the user who started this section who seems to be complaining about something. I have only offered support for the recent edits and current version (which I have not been involved in writing) in this section. If anyone are complaining, they need to do a better job to reach consensus. --Dijhndis (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The last few days I have seen nothing from you but complaints. You complain about peoples behavior, or about hypothetical issues that does not actually exist in the article. I've not seen you actually address one single problem with the article, or propose one single change. If you no longer disagree with the article, then the issue is solved. You should probably just drop the WP:STICK and back away from the horse. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This complaint section is not even started by me, and evidently you are not someone who should accuse others of not discussing actual content, as evidenced by every single of your previous comments here (quite unlike me, who has contributed both content and with content discussion here for five years or so). Other than that, your comment really seems as a case of projection, so clearly I'm wasting my time even responding to this. And for the record, I'm not the one who has disagreed with the article. --Dijhndis (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
More complaining about other editors behavior, and still no discussion about the actual article. I think we are done here. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


Since when is Greenlandic used anywhere in Scandinavia? The Kingdom of Denmark's increasingly limited sovereignty over that North American autonomous territory doesn't mean mean it is part of Scandinavia, which is not a country, but a historical and cultural-linguistic region in Europe. For example, English editors will probably insist that the Falkland Islands or Australia are not part of England either. --Dijhndis (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's still nominally a part of Denmark, and hence Greenlandic is a language in Denmark. Which you admit is a part of Scandinavia. I'm more surprised by "German" in that list. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The fact that Greenland is under Danish sovereignity does not make it any more a part of Scandinavia than Pitcairn is a part of the British Isles; Greenlandic is not necessarily spoken any more in Scandinavia than Pitkern is on the British Isles. German is a regional minority language in Denmark proper, which neither Greenlandic nor Faroese is. Meänkieli has stronger claims to be on the list than those two.
Andejons (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Arguments about whether Greenland is part of Scan are fruitless, do RS mention the territory as part of Scan? I have seen none and therefore the 'Pitcairn' analogy is apt. A seperate question is which languages are used in Scan and to what extent, but that also needs RS.Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm with you on this one, Greenlandic is not spoken in any part of Scandinavia even in its broadest definition, unlike official minority languages like German, Sami, Meänkieli or Yiddish. Jeppiz (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed Greenlandic and added the missing minority languages that I know. I left Faroese, by the reasoning that if someone consider Iceland a part of Scandinavia they would probably include the Faroes as well (here is an actual example of such usage).
Andejons (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
None of the sources explicitly exclude Greenland, which is unfortunate. I think this interpretation is reasonable, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The OED actually does: [3] (it explicitly includes the Faroes).
Andejons (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"Danish is considered much closer to Norwegian"[edit]

Regarding the sentence "Danish is considered much closer to Norwegian". I don't think we need this level of detail in the introduction; written Danish is indeed closer to Norwegian, but on the other hand, spoken Norwegian may have more in common with spoken Swedish than with Danish. If we were to start having such a comparative discussion, it would be natural to address other issues than just Danish and Norwegian written language. In the larger scheme of things, the three Scandinavian languages are all fairly close to each other, from a linguistic point of view and in comparison to other languages of Europe. --Dijhndis (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Bokmål is largely the same written as spoken. Saying that spoken Bokmål is closer to Swedish but written Bokmål is closer to Danish is pretty nonsensical. The pronunciation is however for most Swedes much easier to understand. But that's largely personal, and I know Swedes who have a big problem understanding Norwegian. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Bokmål is based on Danish, so it should really be "(written) Norwegian is closer to Danish"; but historically Swedish and Danish are closer relatives. Today, Swedes and Norwegians both make jokes about how difficult spoken Danish is to comprehend, and the varying pronunciation of Norwegian dialects makes it hard to generalize about how easy it is to understand spoken Norwegian. I think this issue is more complex than can be easily summarised in a form suitable for the lede beyond the simple statement that there is a dialect continuum and that the languages are to a large degree mutually comprehensible.
Andejons (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Andejons last sentence (enough to summarise), partly because we are going into anecdotal (WP:OR) territory. Also point out that mutually intelligible means 'capable of being understood' it doesn't mean 'universally understood', since any sizable language group is likely to have regional spoken dialects which are sometimes incomprehensible to other regions. Pincrete (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrospectively etc.[edit]

I don't think this edit[4] ("to a significant extent descended from other peoples and were generally not known as Scandinavians when the term originated") made it clearer at all. What was meant by the original wording was that Iceland was largely populated by Scandinavians from the 9th century, but that the term Scandinavians wasn't used until around a millennium later. Generally they were known as Norsemen. In modern historical scholarship the settlers are also called Scandinavians, and of course the language of Iceland is considered Scandinavian in genetic lingustics. --Dijhndis (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The original sentence was largely incomprehensible to me, I suggest someone who understands your point rewords, I'm afraid I don't. Everyone in Scandinavia descends from people who, prior to the origin of the term, were NOT known as Scandinavian. Pincrete (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I welcome a rewording of the sentence to make it clearer (the one I cited, about "not known as Scandinavians" etc., wasn't my wording). Perhaps something along the lines of "Iceland and the Faroe Islands were largely populated by Norse settlers from the 9th century", or something like that? --Dijhndis (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense to me, I leave it to others to judge whether it is RS fact. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
We have articles on the Settlement of Iceland and the Norse settlement in the Faroe Islands which could be linked in such a sentence. --Dijhndis (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The people later known as Scandinavians is in this context best known as "Norse". I changed the lead to that effect, as the last changes ended up saying the exact opposite of what it said before. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Apologies once again for the mis-phrasing, I originally put a What? tag, the response led me to think I had the correct meaning. 'Norse' is much clearer. Pincrete (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is Finnish a minority language list and non of the other immigrant languages are not? I don't think there were Finns in Scandinavia only as part of Nordic countries— Preceding unsigned comment added by RealFinn (talkcontribs) 10:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Because Finnish is an official minority language in Sweden, along with Meänkieli, Sami, Yiddish and Romani chib. Finns have been living in Sweden (that is, the area that is today Sweden) for hundreds of years.
Andejons (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

What way is it a official minority language? What is the definition? And btw, when was that ratified and where is the transcripts?

How can you edit the beginning of the page. You cannot say

as sometimes are Iceland and Finland, because of their historical association with the Scandinavian countries and the Scandinavian peoples and languages

There is no relationship with Scandinavian languages and Finnish? Iceland yes but not Finnish

Historial association yea. Language Not — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealFinn (talkcontribs) 10:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The reasons are not there to justify why Wikipedia describes "Scandinavia" as sometimes including Finland, Iceland and the Faroes, but to explain why it is sometimes used in that way. Even if the inclusion of Finland is not based on linguistic reasons, this does not mean that it is never included, or that the inclusion is necessarily wrong.
Andejons (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You can't say sometimes yes and sometimes no. It either is part of Scandinavia or its not! I believe you can say, sometimes people include Finland as part of Scandinavia, but that is not true(wrong/false/misconception). The countries listed in the Scandinavian countries say (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) unless Finland is on than list its not a Scandinavian country. Not sure what/why people use nordic countries but that can include Finland as well as Russia/Canada right? All of them are in the north. Anyone outside Europe won't know the difference. Even some europeans have no clue what is Nordic countries. Prev comment left unsinged by RealFinn

Scandanavia has a precise definition (largely a common linguistic heritage), it is also used more loosely in English to denote a larger geographical area. This is perhaps comparable with the Balkans, which has a precise definition, but is also often used more loosely, even 'British Isles' sometimes is used by meteorologists etc to include Ireland for example. These are all technically 'wrong', but we can't ignore actual usage. Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
You can always say sometimes yes and sometimes no. There's a reason words have more than one entry in the dictionary. This is yet another case of the same word being used slightly differently in different contexts.--Wlerin (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Wlerin, I think that is what we try to do, note that the 'looser' usage is common in English usage, but the more exact usage is normal 'locally'. Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Pincrete, I intended that as a reply to RealFinn. I have no disagreement with what you wrote, at least as far as Scandinavia is concerned. ( British Isles is another story, but this isn't the place for that conversation.)--Wlerin (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"only mainland Denmark, Norway and Sweden are commonly included"[edit]

This statement in the introduction is unclear:

In Nordic languages, only mainland Denmark, Norway and Sweden are commonly included in the definition of Scandinavia.

It reads like it is referring to the mainland of all three countries. The "mainland" generally means the main territory of a state, excluding surrounding islands. I'm also not aware that Denmark, excluding Greenland and the Faroes, is called "mainland Denmark". Mainland Denmark would be Jutland to me, and I assume, a lot of others will interpret it that way.

I clarified this statement to:

In Nordic languages, only the mainland and close surrounding islands of Denmark, Norway and Sweden are usually included in the definition of Scandinavia.

I don't see the problem with this clarification. It clearly excludes Greenland, the Faroes, and Svalbard, while including close surrounding islands such as Zealand, Funen, Hinnoya, Senja, etc. However I was reverted by User:Carewolf. Do you have a better solution? Rob984 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Jutland is only referred to as "the mainland" jokingly by Jutlandic people.Carewolf (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Rob984, would a solution be to remove 'mainland'? Then, if necessary, add text as to what is excluded. I think, (compare GB), small close islands would legitimately be considered as not excluded from 'mainland', but there is an ambiguity. Equally, distant dependent territories would not generally be considered part of De/No/Sw, and therefore not of 'Scandinavia', which I suspect is the reason for adding 'mainland'.
A long term problem with this article (and the reason it is on my watchlist) , is that we are dealing with at least two distinct definitions of 'Scandinavia', one clear local definition and a second looser definition prevalent in Eng-speaking world. Pincrete (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Carewolf, many readers probably wont even know that half of Denmark's population live on islands.
In the UK, "the mainland" is generally used to exclude Northern Ireland, the Northern Isles, and the Western Isles, which are very remote, while it includes Anglesey and the Isle of Wight which are only separated by simply a river-like channel. In France, "the mainland" excludes Corsica and overseas France (the latter being the parts outside of Europe). Whereas, "metropolitan France" includes Corsica and only excludes overseas France. I don't believe "mainland Denmark" is the equivalent to "metropolitan France", or at least I've never seen it used in this way.
Pincrete, I agree, "Denmark" means only Denmark proper, not Greenland or the Faroes which are nominally separate countries. However, the point of the statement is to state explicitly that Greenland, the Faroes, and Svalbard are excluded in Nordic languages. "only Denmark, Norway and Sweden are commonly included" is ambiguous on Svalbard (which is nominally part of Norway). But it's better then the current wording which is plain misleading.
Still, I don't see a problem with my proposed wording. If there is a problem with it, surely we can come up with some other wording that clarifies this? We're only excluding three jurisdictions, we could state them if needs be?
Personally I think the looser definition is given too much prominence. If anything we should just mention "Scandinavia" as an alternative name at Nordic countries and be done with it. Though apparently it doesn't include Greenland, which is bizarre. I mean, why does a broader definition of "Scandinavia" not include Greenland, even though Greenland is considered Nordic like Finland? Possibly someone is cherry picking sources here?
Rob984 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Rob984, my Portsmouth-based nautical grandfather, would probably turn over in his grave if he heard the Solent being descrobed as a 'river-like channel' ! However I agree with your analysis, which is that small-ish close islands may not be technically mainland, but no one is likely to think they are excluded. I think that removing 'mainland' and qualifying as necessary would be a good solution, whereas 'close islands' is a bit vague.
Where I disagree strongly is about local/broader definition. The problem is this, the article content is mainly about the places covered by'local' use, no one wants to change that content substantially. However, the schoolboy in Australia who comes across the term 'Scandinavia' in some context and comes to WP, needs to have it explained clearly in sentence 1 that in English, this is often synonymous with what are locally called 'Nordic countries', then told that there is also a more precise local definition which this article is about. At present, this is not the case, but rather a hotch-potch compromise about the two uses. Many 'local' users insist that the English usage is simply wrong. Even if this were the case, the usage is so widespread (and used in very RS), that we need to take account of it if we are to inform the Melbourne schoolboy, rather than confuse him by assuming that he, and the book he is reading, OUGHT to know correct usage. Pincrete (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it is pretty clear from context what "mainland" is supposed to mean here. It follows after a paragraph that discuss territories which are parts of Norway and Denmark which are sometimes excluded from Scandinavia. We also have the article mainland, which uses the term for Norway and Denmark in exactly the same way as this article.
Andejons (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Scandinavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)