Talk:Scandinavia/Archive 2

Origins of the name

It seems pretty clear that if this page exists and so many people have commented and argued, there is perhaps some ambiguity about the term. What do we mean when we say anything? Do we mean what the original meaning implied? If this be so, then Scandinavia should refer only to "the unknown" that was thus named, one small region of the peninsula. If we mean the common perception, then I think it's clear that there is room to argue. For example many tour-books about "Scandinavia" include Finland and exclude Greenland, which is part of Denmark. On the other hand, though below someone said that the Faroes are obviously Scandinavia since they are part of Denmark, I do not think many would agree. Why can't you just put on the main page that the exact definition of Scadinavia is subject to controversy and give some possible interpretations of the term. After all, scholarship is so rarely one sided it seems dishonest to try to present a unified definition of Scandinavia. -TY

I understand that etymology is not fun for everybody, but why do certain contributors insist on removing any mention of the origins of the name Scandinavia and the use of the name before the 19th century?--Wiglaf 19:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think there's also an article Scandinavia_(etymology) or some such. // OlofE 22:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but I am thinking of this article. There are loads of information about the use of the name during the 19th century, but its use before the 19th century is apparently considered irrelevant.--Wiglaf 19:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can only contribute with that Jordanes wrote about "the island" Scandza. How this evolved with the suffix inavia, I dont have a clue. Dan Koehl 17:16, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It has been suggested that a(h)vi-o, supposedly an old Germanic word meaning 'island, land by the water', could lie behind the suffix (Prof M. Dreijer - Det åländska folkets historia, Vol. I:1. Mariehamn 1979, p.141-42). Thus 'Scand-in-a(h)vi-o' could be translated as 'the land of the Scands by the water', 'the island of the Scands' or 'the shores of the Scands'.Prefixcaz 00:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep the etymology and pre-19th century usage in the etymology article. Swedes and Danes remained arch-enemies well into the 18th century, why earlier usage is irrelevant for this article. --Johan Magnus 18:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are apparently thinking of Scandinavism.--Wiglaf 19:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Someone suggested that the etymology article be merged with the main article. I agree and have done the merger. It only occupies a small section, and having a separate article would only give wikipedia one more stub.--Wiglaf 17:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edited. Finland is a part of Scandinavia. I have a friend who is Finnish and she says so.

A 'friend' is not a valid source here.

-P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 18:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Many Fins consider Finland part of Scandinavia. People from Norway, Sweden and Denmark generally don't. Kvaks 22:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a majority opinion to me. It also reflects scholarly opinions in general.

- -P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Please find the link below with reference to the scholarly opinions.Prefixcaz 03:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

As a little correction, usually Finns don't consider Finland as a part of Scandinavia anymore. Norwegians and Danish don't mind, but the Swedes do not consider Finland as a part of it.Prefixcaz 00:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

That does sum up the situation from the common citizens' POV as I understand it, yes. It is interesting to see it verified once again.

-P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

My personal experience is that Fins often consider their country part of Scandinavia, eg. the organizers of the 2005 World Championships in Athletics in Helsinki. But I may have the wrong impression. As a Norwegian I dislike it when Finland is included. I think it undermines the value of the term to indicate the more than thousand year old historical, ethnic, and lingustic close ties between Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Finland has close ties with Sweden, but this is seperate from the ties between Norway, Sweden and Denmark. -Kvaks 02:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It is separate only since the 1850's. Meaning the Finnish ties are roughly more than 850(?) years. May I remind you that Ynglinga, Fundinn Noregr and Bardar sagas indicate the ties being even older, especially between Norway and Finland, and to some parts even with Denmark. Whatever be the case, Denmark does not fulfill all the requirements of Scandinavia, but is considered a part of it. Finland does fulfill all of the requirements, but according to some, is not considered a part of it. Only due to the political climate in the area about a 150 years ago.Prefixcaz 02:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Denmark is not part of the Scandinavian peninsula, but neither is Finland, strictly speaking. Danes speak a Scandinavian language, Fins don't. Yes, I know Finland has historic ties to Norway as well, but so does Iceland. Finland does not fulfill the following "requirements": Language, ethnicity, geography. I don't take offense by the inclusion of Finland, I just think it's less useful, so much so, in fact, that if Finland was included I would like another term for just Denmark, Norway and Sweden. -Kvaks 11:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right, the whole region of Finland is not a part of the peninsula, but a significant region is. Hundreds of thousands of Finns actually do speak a scandinavian language as their mother tongue and the language has an official status everywhere in the country. I agree to your opinion about Iceland, but the matter of defining Scandinavia will be a matter of debate for years to come. The fact is, all of the five states share many, if not all, of the clauses represented for the definition of Scandinavia. When it comes to a term for just Den, Nor and Swe, I cannot answer. This is about the usage of the term Scandinavia.Prefixcaz 13:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to make it confusing, when I think of Scandinavia, I think of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Lappland, the Faroes, the Orkneys, and Gotaland. Pretty broad, but I look at them from their history rather than as their modern incarnations as nation-states. ::shrug::

-P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 17:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, while the inclusion of Finland and Iceland can be much debated, I really don't understand why you speak about these other areas. Notably Lappland, the Faroes, Gotland, and the Orkneys. Gotaland is a region in Sweden, and ONLY that. Not an autonomoys region, nor a region that is considered special politically in any way. The same goes for Lappland, it is a region in Sweden, and a region in Finland. This region stretches from northern Sweden to northern Finland, but has NO autonomy whatsoever in any of the two countries. The Faraoes is an autonomoys region belonging to Denmark, being settled many hundreds of years ago by Scandinavians, sharing culture aswell as linguistic ties, why I see no reason why it should NOT be included in the term "Scandinavia". The Orkneys were once settled by Scandinavians aswell, but does not today belong to any Scandinavian country, nor do they speak any of the north germanic languages anymore, why it should NOT be included. As for Finlands inclusion in the term Scandinavia, I say a big NO. For many of the reasons that have been previously stated (" think it undermines the value of the term to indicate the more than thousand year old historical, ethnic, and lingustic close ties between Norway, Sweden and Denmark") And for the record, I am Swedish.

Also worth mentioning about Lapland is that a big part of the old Sapmi-lands are called Finnmark (the Finnish coutry) in Norway.

Could the opposing party please try to specify how Finland being part of Scandinavia would "undermine the value of the term to indicate the more than thousand year old historical, ethnic, and lingustic close ties between Norway, Sweden and Denmark" when it's a well proven fact that all these ties with Finland are at least equally old? (Even according to Swedish historians :) ). I would like to have some kind of arguments backed up with facts instead of plain IMOs. I am more than willing to discuss the matter.Prefixcaz 00:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The Finn in Finnmark comes from Fennir, the old norwgian word for sami. It has the same root as Finne (Finland), and actually means "stranger". So Finnmark does NOT mean "Finnish country" as you say, but rather "sami-land" or "the land of the others". The same root is found in fiende, "enemy". And for the main discussion, Finland is not a part of Scandinavia.--Njård 00:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the norwegian wiki contains false information about the etymology of Finnmark, as it states the same thing as I did [1]. Also, please give some grounds/explanation/proof for your last argument instead of just bluntly stating another "IMO-fact" as the absolute truth.Prefixcaz 02:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you speak Norwegian? The norwegian wiki says: "Finnmark betyr finnenes/samenes land", if you have any knowledge of the topic you would know that the word same is a relatively new word in Norwegian. The sami people has traditionally been refered to as finn, fjellfinn finn-lapp or the (swedish) word lapp all of those are today seen somewhat degrading. Same is the sami's own word for themselves and is the prefered term in modern norwegian. But finn is sometimes still used in most dialects (Trøndelag and north). The southern dialects does not use this word so often simply beacause there are no sami people there. And the word finn there refers to the Finnish immigrants to Finnskogen in the 17th century. See also this searchresult from the norwegian dictionary.. In Finnmark and Troms immigrants from Finland were kalled kvæn when a distinction were needed. See also this searchresult from the norwegian dictionary..

It is hard to argue abouth Finland beeing a part of Scandinavia or not, since the people here, all seams to be sure that their wiev is the right one. In Norwegian use, Finland is not included in Skandinavia, but in Norden. Aparently jugding from some of the other wikipedians the meaning of Scandinavia is a bit different in English. But for instance the term Fenno-scandinavia would be a bit unnecessary, if Finland also is included in scandinavia..--Njård 08:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The same norwegian dictionaries define "finne" as a "Finnish speaking inhabitant of Finland" or a "person from Finland".[2]

Johannes Lilienskiold was an "amtmann" in Finnmark in 1684-1701. He wrote his Speculum Boreale in 1698, where he speaks of "Finner", "Waranger-finner", "Siøfinner", "Nere Tanens Finner", "Rysse-Finner", "Finner som vogter Reen", "Fieldfinner", "Finner som drar ned til sjøen", "Finner aff Peisen", "Østenhafs-Finner", "Pasvigs-finner", "Grændze-Finner", "Finner af Tanen oc Arisby", "Finnerne udj Elfuen" etc. This usage of several kinds of "Finner" is line with Tacitus, who describes several different tribes of Finns 1600 years before Lilienskiold. I'm sure some of them referred to Sapmi, as the language is of the same group as Finnish. Let me rephrase the meaning of "Finnmark" to "Finnic country" instead. I find it it funny that efforts are made to explain things to be "whatever-they-are-as-long-as-they're-NOT-referring-to-Finnish-origins" :)) Just like in this case, even if there's at least circumstancial evidence proving otherwise.

About Fennoscandinavia - the term doesn't cover Denmark and Iceland as neither of them reside on the Fennoscandian field.Prefixcaz 10:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to give a Finn's point of view on this. Finns, in general, do not consider Finland to be a part of Scandinavia. Period. Our culture is very different from Scandinavian culture and the difference between a Finn and a Scandinavian is obvious. Usually you can tell by just looking at a person, whether he or she is Finnish or Swedish/Norwegian/Danish. Yes, we do have a Swedish speaking minority, the Finland-Swedes, but they make less than 6 % of our population and even they do not consider themselves to be Scandinavian but rather an individual ethnic group. Among ethnic Finns one would probably get one's self laughed out of a social situation by referring to Finns as Scandinavians.

There is a reason why someone might have heard a Finn referring to him- or herself as Scandinavian. While Finns don't really think of themselves as Scandinavian, many Finns have always looked up to Scandinavian, particularly Swedish, culture, because (as everyone knows) we were pwned by them for centuries. Also, the Finnish nobility was Swedish speaking (though not Swedish) from the mid-1600's , which made Scandinavia an even cooler place in the eyes of Finns. Another reason why some politicians might have called Finland a part of Scandinavia, is that after WWII it was necessary to clearly separate Finland from the Soviet Eastern Europe, while not annoying the Russians, in order to avoid further pwnage. The most easy way was to try make Finland appear a part of the neutral Scandinavia (ok, Norway and Denmark were clearly in the West but Sweden has been neutral for a long time), because it was necessary to belong in some group. Finnish politicians knew that simply telling we were neutral was not enough; that hadn't saved Finland in the late 30's.

I'm terribly sorry I don't have factual evidence to support my claims, but this is all very common knowledge in Finland. Maybe other Nordic Wikipedians can confirm this kthx? 62.142.70.124 02:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

New comment. I've been looking over this article and I see how interested in it are a large number of people. People want there to be a good article here. This very desire leads to a certain amount of chaos, or shall we say entropy. The article needs system most of all, which means we will have to go over it section by section. Also, it probably will be necessary to break out subsections into new articles.

In the etymology section the characteristic I notice most is the tendency to assume Scandinavia has meant only ONE thing and to argue about what that thing was. That path is a maze without an exit. It clearly has meant different things to different source authors, which, chaotically, are not arranged in any order. We need to procede diachronically starting from the earliest, and addressing the problem of why the place is called an island when it is not now one. Is Finland in there or not? It depends on the time and the source.

A bit further down the road I will be doing some of this work if no one else does it but right now I'm trying to elucidate the climatology of the region so we can see more clearly when and how it was settled, and by whom, and whether it was ever an island in the memory of man. But, some of you seem to want to refight in words all the battles that led to the creation of three or four nations there. It might lead to more clarity if we don't muddy the waters. We're at peace here. The governments of Scandinavia don't need Wikipedia editors to defend them. If you have a valid point of view it will get expressed.Dave 13:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The tone

I note the tone tag. You are probably right. I can do better. I will tackle this pretty quick, unless someone else takes it on. I love that definition as the dangerous island, but if we present it as "the" etymology of Scandinavia, we are going to lose a lot of sincere people and good scholars. When I finish with the tone, I will take the tag out. If you think it needs more work, put it or another back in. If you can say what makes you uncomfortable, please do.Dave 15:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits of political content

1. "Curiously enough, the percentually most Swedish speaking city in the world, Korsnäs, resides in Finland."

This line added by an anonymous contributor today (IP 81.83.41.146) would need substantial revision to be placed back into the article. As it is written, it appears to be inaccurate.

If that anonymous editor returns (IP 81.83.41.146), I ask that he/she consider that the implication of the first sentence is that Korsnäs has more Swedish speakers than any Swedish cities or towns. I get the impression that something else was intended to be conveyed in writing the sentence, so it is placed here and removed from the article for now. P.MacUidhir 00:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Please check the links offered to verify the facts instead of blindly removing something. The phrase used was 'percentually most swedish speaking municipality in the world'. I offered a link to the official pages of the municipality and to Wikipedia article of Korsnäs. Prefixcaz

I did check the link. It is a bit of trivia, no more. 2,219 residents of the village? It being unilingually Swedish is trivial. If you want to include this in the article, feel free, but my opinion is that this factoid is not worth bothering with in the main article here. Also, I would love to see where the unilingual assertion comes from. Source? P.MacUidhir 23:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The municipality does not say it's unilingually Swedish. It is is proven, that this municipality has the highest percent of native swedish speakers of the population in the world.

I'm pretty new to the whole editing thing and I'll gladly admit that this sentence does not make much sense (in terms of syntax I mean). I think the masic point this person is trying to make is that it is curious and noteworthy that, as the person before me said, "this municipality has the highest percent of native swedish speakers of the population in the world." While we can argue all day over whether that is trivial, I think it's fair to say that many many facts on Wikipedia can be termed trivial; that's what makes it so glorious! Personally, I find this to be a very interesting tidbit and says something about the fluidity and commonalities of Scandinavia (or if you wish you exclude Finland from Scandinavia, between Sweden and Finland. The biggest problems are (a) the sentence is incomprehensible and (b) requires factual verification. If it's true, I say by all means include it.

  http://www.korsnas.fi (The municipality's official pages)
  http://www.acc.umu.se/~fsn/lankar.php (subpages of Umea University in Sweden)  
  http://www.csc.fi/kielipankki/aineistot/fsfo/korsn_228_s-N.phtml (CSC Finland, governed by the Ministry of Education in Finland) 

Just a few quick links, shortly stating the same thing. If necessary, I will try to find the study.

The fact is, it's no trivia, but an example of the importance of the Swedish language in Ostrobotnia and of course an extreme example of the linguistic ties mentioned. The article's introduction speaks of 1) historical 2) cultural 3) political 4) geographical 5) linguistic and 6) social ties of these countries. Eg the Scandia mountains do not reach Denmark, but it is undisputedly a part of Scandinavia due to the fact that the rest of the clauses are met. All of the clauses are met when it comes to Finland, but the political climate in the 1850's suddenly changed the usage of the term.

It is also a fact, that the term is again increasingly being used by scholars and teachers in Scandinavia and other regions referring to it's original historical meaning, with Finland included.

http://www.h-net.org (International interdisciplinary organization of scholars and teachers)

Please type Scandinavia in the search box. Most of the participants in the discussions are represented by their actual names, titles, faculties and contact information, and quite an amount of reference literature is mentioned.

This has very much to do with the definition and the usage of the term "Scandinavia", wouldn't you say?Prefixcaz 01:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

2. "On the other hand Finland has had a very similar cultural development with the other Scandinavian countries, largely due to the fact that Finland was under Swedish rule between the 12^th and 19^th centuries. These ties, especially to Sweden, were "bent" under the Russian rule for roughly a hundred years, but were quickly re-established after the country became independent in 1917. During World War II thousands of volunteers from the other Scandinavian countries were again fighting side by side with Finnish troops against a common enemy, as during so many centuries before. Sweden's role in helping thousands of Finnish children escape the war to Sweden is widely respected and remembered as a concrete sign of common history and close ties."

This section was inappropriately placed under the "Languages" subheading in the article. It could be useful for the "History" section, though, if anyone wants to use it. P.MacUidhir 00:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, my mistake. Prefixcaz

Apparently the same anonymous editor is either unaware of or is ignoring this articles's discussion page. I ask that a Wikipedia admin take a look at his edits and verify whether I and others are correct in removing the edits. The latest IP for that user is 81.83.162.198. I have posted a request for their attention to be directed to this page at their IP address talk page on the off chance that they might see it before their IP address changes. P.MacUidhir 18:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit: Yes, my IP is a dynamic one, however I have now registered as a user. Contacting me is easier. The reason for no response from my part was unawareness of the discussion page. Notion taken. Prefixcaz

I figured as much, yes. :) All is well now. No harm done. P.MacUidhir 23:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

postscript- It appears he/she has a user account now. I will post another message and ask for their attention here. P.MacUidhir 19:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit: Thank you. Prefixcaz

No problem. I am not the most friendly of humans (my prose style comes across as abrupt and irritated quite often, but I rarely intend to convey those emotions), and I try to help here whenever I can. ::smile::

The main problem with many of the Scandinavian-themed articles are lots of supposed facts with very few cited sources. Since you seem to have an interest in Finnish history and languages, and Finnish being an uncommonly known language, could you help us with this problem by mentioning good sources in discussion pages whenever possible? I find it rather difficult to locate good sources on Finnish topics written in English, Deutsch, or Irish Gaelic (heh...), so having someone with knowledge of such would be very useful here and in most other articles in Wikipedia that deal with Finland. P.MacUidhir 23:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

-- If I can help, I'd be happy. I speak both Fin and Swe as my mother tongues.Prefixcaz 02:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The notes concerning Iceland an Faroes

At the bottom of the page, as a note to the table "Historical political structure", this sentence apears: "1/ The original settlers of the Faroes and Iceland were of Pictish or Celtic origin (from Scotland or Ireland), then Nordic origin (mainly Norwegian)." This is at best unprecise, at worst inncorrect. As far as i know arceologists has found remains thought tio bee pictish on the Hebreedes and Orkneys, but not on Faroes an certanly not on Iceland. There has been speculated that irish muncks might have wisited theese islands before the norse, but no evidence has been found. The high number of British maternal mitocondrial DNA on Iceland and Faroes is explained by the fact that norse setlers in many cases stopped by Brittain and "snatched" a bride/ brought thralls. The way the artickle stands today it looks as if the islands were allready inhabited when settlers from Norway came there.

If no one has any valid sources for the claim that Iceland and Faroes were settled by Picts or Celts, I strongly suggest this section be removed! --Njård 14:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is widely accepted that the original settlers of Iceland at least were a mixture of Norse and Celtic people, modern day genetic studies have supported this. However I would support dropping this footnote altogether, I don't think it is relevant. --Bjarki 16:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the footnote had changed since the last time I edited this, I reverted it back to its earlier state and agree that it was unacceptable as it was. --Bjarki 16:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree to the changes you have made..--Njård 21:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Scotland

Perhaps we should have a section here on the strong connections between Scotland and Scandinavia? The now Scottish islands of Orkney, Outer Hebrides, Shetland Islands, and Caithness and Sutherland on mainland Britain used to be ruled by Norway until the Kalmar King Christian I 'lent' them to Scotland in the 1400's. There were numberous intermarrages between the Scottish and Scandinavian royal houses. The Scandinavian influence can be seen in, amoung many other things, the Scottish flags: [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|20px]], , , . And there's also Leif Larsen and the Shetland bus. Seabhcán 16:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Scotland just celebrated their annual Shetland Isles Viking Festival. So yes, I believe a section detailing the history between Scotland and Scandinavia would be brilliant! ~Mandy