Talk:Scandinavia

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

Retrospectively etc.[edit]

I don't think this edit[1] ("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)

Scandinavia vs Nordic countries - based on Monarchy or Republic ??? Total rubbish ![edit]

What 's concidered Scandinavia and Nordic countries has absolutely nothing to do with question of Monarchy or not ! Total rubbish. We can discuss what's meant by the different geographical definitions, but not based on Monarchy or Republic ! Boeing720 (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Also Removed part
"In English usage, Scandinavia sometimes refers to the geographical area, also known as the Scandinavian Peninsula.[1][2] The name Scandinavia originally referred vaguely to the formerly Danish, now Swedish, region Scania. The terms Scandinavia and Scandinavian entered usage in the late 18th century as terms for Denmark, Norway and Sweden, their Germanic majority peoples and associated language and culture, the term being introduced by the early linguistic and cultural Scandinavist movement."
An English definition used SOMETIMES leads to the Scandinavian movement ??? The "Skandinavismen" occured in the mid 19th Century, around the Revolutionary year 1848 (as 1776 in America, and 1789 and in 1830 in Europe). While Scania is a province, originally Danish, since 1720 a part of Sweden. But these are just fractions of a little geography, history and various other subjects without obvious connections. The aim appears to be an English definition of the Scandinavian peninsula - but then totally derails.

Boeing720 (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Definition of Scandinavia in English". Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved 3 May 2016. 
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ostergard was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
I think you need to read more carefully, nowhere was it suggested that monarchy/not was a factor in deciding whether a place was Scandinavian, a coincidence is not a cause. Nowhere was it implied that the def led to the movement. You may be right about additional languages, but "Finland is not a part of Scandinavia" is nonsense, in English it often is and we need to say that clearly in the lead. 'Scandinavia' like 'Balkan' has both a precise original local meaning, and looser English usages and this needs to be said clearly in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The Monarchy/Republic issue is out of scope for this mainly geographical article. It belongs in a political article or in a list preferably ! Here is it suddenly a very big deal. And a part that begins with a definition of the Scandinavian Peninsula, is in a few lines twisted around to the Scandinavian movement, and confusion between Scania and Scandinavia - it's rubbish when written together. Boeing720 (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC) And Finland is the main difference between Scandinavia and the Nordic countries. This is third grade primary school knowledge. It's a bit difficult to read everything careful, when so much trash is found everywhere. There are by the way two Sami languages, a southern and a northern. They are to my knowledge very different, but both may possibly be Uralic languages. And even if Estonian also is so, and Latvian and Lithuanian are not - is Baltic issues also entirely out of scope for an article about Scandinavia Boeing720 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore - a dictionary explains words. No dictionary can be used for any kind of geographical definition. Dictionaries (even from Oxford) is not even up to common encyclopedic standard. And encyclopedias are we only to use in cases where good secondary sources are hard to obtain. Boeing720 (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually no, Scandinavians insist that the term is ONLY a historical-cultural-linguistic area (which is the main subject here, though it probably shouldn't be on Eng WP), and traditional political system is relevant to a cultural area. In English use the term embraces 'looser' geographical definitions. I think Oxford (and others and encycs) knows that the term has both a cultural and geographic meaning, even if they cannot 'map' the geographic area precisely.
I really don't see the confusion between 'peninsular' and the history of the term, but agree they would be better separated. This unfortunately is a long-term bone of contention on this article, the difference between local and Eng use. I don't have an 'axe to grind' on this subject apart from noting that various definitions exist in English, and they need to be recorded alongside local ones. The Sami link is already to Sami languages plural. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Languages[edit]

I'm not sure of criteria for inclusion of a language, however, given the modern world, it would be a bit silly to include languages without official recognition, or only spoken by recent immigrant communities. For this reason I removed Yiddish and Romani (without knowing whether these were 'established'). What should the criteria be? Size of group? Legal status? Extent to which language is 'indigenous'. Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yiddish and Romani are official minority languages of Sweden. German is an official minority language in Denmark. I see no reason why these should not be included, even if the number of speakers are not quite as large as for e.g. Meänkieli.
Andejons (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Is there some consistent, verifiable criteria we could adopt? I looked at a few 'place pages', GB lists only English, Scots, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Cornish. Cornish has reputedly 100 fluent speakers, which is obviously tiny compared to number of Jewish/Urdu/Hindi/Turkish/Greek/Somali/Polish etc. speakers in GB. The criteria used there appears to be EU recognition as a regional language. Is there some verifiable local official recognition? Pincrete (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Pincrete: This is a source for Finnish, Meänkieli, Sami, Romani, and Yiddish being recognised minority languages (though only in certain geographical areas for most, and mostly as a symbolical gesture for Romani and Yiddish...) in Sweden (see also Minority languages of Sweden), as for German being a recognised minority language in Southern Jutland (and there only), see European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which lists which minority languages are officially recognised where in Europe. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
And this (the official website of the Nordic Council) can be used as source for German being a recognised minority language in Sønderjylland. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that makes sense, to list ALL with official recognition, regardless of numbers, since anyone coming to the article is unlikely to need to be informed that English, and recent migrant languages are spoken almost everywhere, but might be interested in historical use. Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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) 17:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)