Talk:Finland/Archive 1

National anthem

As you know, Finland does not have an official national anthem. There have been two suggestions, maamme and finlandia, both rejected by parliament. Half of the finns thinks its Finlandia more than maamme.

Whether official or not, it is the de facto national anthem. See Maamme or virtual.finland.fi. --kooo 12:19, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

If national anthem is de facto only, then you should say it is de facto, like united states language is none but de facto english. You should also respect opinions of those who thinks Finlandia hymn is national anthem. It is de facto a better song than maamme both by its music, words and origins :) 193.65.112.51 21:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't come up to any source saying that Maamme is not the official national anthem. Maamme says [...] is the title of Finland's national anthem. I'll assume that it is official also. Someone with actual knowledge could verify this. By the way, Finland-hymn is extremely difficult to sing. Hence it might not be a good choise for a national anthem. ;) --kooo 00:54, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

There was two competing law suggestions to the parliament something like a year ago. One said maamme is the national anthem and other said finlandia hymn is the national anthem. Parliament rejected both. So there is no official national anthem. No law book says maamme is national anthem, like in many countries. It is just a habit of sport events to play maamme. Some of the sportsmen wanted to play Finlandia instead at ther beginning of 1900-luku. I heard this from my (yläaste-)school sports teacher, who was living at that time. so it is not even a "historical fact", at least not a self evident one, that maamme, that drunk song of war party is a "national anthem". I am a finnish person and my national anthem is Finlandia. I have a right to select. I am not the only one who has selected this. Very many Finns thinks Finlandia would be better national an them. So you are lying here to people from all over the world if you tell them maamme is national anthem. Here should be a NPOW badge, but i think it would be also unfair.193.65.112.51 00:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds right, I changed the article to display it is De facto. --kooo 07:00, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that "Half of the finns" think Finlandia should be the national anthem.

The Finnish Foreign Ministry only recognises "Maamme" as the Finnish national anthem and it is the only one used officially. "Finlandia" has never been used as an official anthem, and nobdy has the right to choose for it to be used as such. These are undisputed facts. If "Maamme" is to be labeled as a de facto anthem only, stronger evidence is needed than faint recollections of what are believed to be parliamentary debates -- but which in reality seem to refer to a column by the pseudonym KK on the Finnish parliament website -- and reminiscences of what PE teachers may or may not have said about the question. The issue once again highlights the main and very serious problem facing Wikipedia as a credible source of reliable information: it is too easy it is for people with an axe to grind to gain publicity for their views.

I wanted to get a clear answer, so I emailed virtual.finland.fi and asked them about this. Here is a quote from their reply, in Finnish:

"[...] Laulun erikoispiirteisiin kuuluukin, että se saavutti tämän aseman itsenäisesti. Maamme-laulua ei virallistettu eikä sen asemaa määritelty lakiteitse - ylhäältä alas - vaan se levisi ja otettiin käyttöön aluksi Suomen ylioppilaiden toimesta ja myöhemmin myös kansakoululaitoksen myötä.

Runebergin runo ja Paciuksen sävellys on niin ilon kuin murheenkin päivinä rohkaissut lukemattomissa tilaisuuksissa suomalaisia ja saavuttanut itsenäisessä Suomessa kansallislaulun aseman.

Tänä päivänä Maamme-laulu on vakiinnuttanut asemansa valtiollisissa seremonioissa, isänmaallisissa tilaisuuksissa, urheilujuhlissa, koulujen päättäjäisissä etc. Tässä mielessä Maamme-laulu on Suomen kansallislaulu.

Yleisötilaisuuksia voidaan juhlistaa myös muilla isänmaallisilla lauluilla, joita ovat esim: Finlandia, Oi kallis Suomenmaa, Suomen laulu, Porilaisten marssi ja Siunaa ja varjele meitä. Jos Maamme-laulu kuuluu ohjelmistoon tulee se vakiintuneen protokollan mukaan esittää joko tilaisuuden alussa tai (kuten yleensä) lopussa yleisön seistessä. Maamme-laulun jälkeen ei taputeta."

Ei ole olemassa mitään universaaleja kansallislaulun kriteerejä, vaan kansallislaulun määritelmät luultavasti vaihtelevat valtioittain ja kansakunnittain. Maamme-laulun kohdallakin on siis tarpeetonta pohtia de facto/de jure -problematiikkaa, jos kansallislaulua ei tarvitse virallistaa lainsäädännöllä. Maamme-laulua voidaan siis kuitenkin pitää Suomen 'virallisena' kansallislauluna.

In short it says that Maamme has not been officialized by law, but the de facto/de jure -problematics do not apply here, because national anthems do not need to be set by law; thus it can be considered to be the national anthem. I'll change the article back accordingly. Originally I didnt consider the non-official position a rumour, because I remembered (vaguely) it not having been set in the law. --kooo 20:07, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

This is slightly off topic, so forgive me. In the hymnal of the church I belong to (Unitarian Universalism), there are at least two hymns to the tune FINLANDIA. One is "We Would be One," which I believe was written about the consolidation about of the two founding denominations, and the other is "This Is My Song (Oh God of All the Nations)." Oddly, the music (that is, the hymn tune) is copyrighted by the Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, at least for North America (and is used by permission). So I'm curious as to the original lyrics of FINLANDIA (or "Finlandia;" the custom being to capitalize the names of hymn tunes, versus the names of hymns, which typically are unrelated). The second of these, as I think of it, may in fact be related to "Finlandia," so I'm curious. The second verse, or at least the second verse in our 1993 hymnal (Singing the Living Tradition) speaks about the "our sky" is as blue as the ocean, and the pine forests being full of clover and sunbeams, but then goes one to say that "in other lands" the skies are blue and clover grows too. It occured to me that there indeed be some resonance with the original words in Finnish (or ....Swedish?) 199.196.144.16 22:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Blondlieut 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone in Finland knows that Maamme is our national anthem. There is no other possibilities. If you do not belive, come here to see. That is what we learn children at school. And this is not only my opinion: Finland is so little country that we do not have too many opinions... :)

Everyone in Finland knows that Maamme is our national anthem.

Its not that simple. Almost everyone is taught this in school, but it does not necessarily make it the first national anthem of everyone. I know people who thinks the real national anthem of their finnishness is Finlandia. Somebody else sees Maamme as symbol of their finnishness. This is a subjective matter, because the national anthem is not set by the law. There was even a recent attempt to make Finlandia a legal national anthem, so it is at least a real candidate. I dont know is it studied that how many supports Maamme and how many supports Finlandia, but the results could suprise you who support Maamme and never thought otherwise. Propably for the most Maamme is is the national anthem, but there can be a significant number of people, many of them feels themselves real patriots, who rather sees Finlandia as a song of their national feelings. The suggested law to legalize Finlandia was just a tip of the iceberg.

Finland is so little country that we do not have too many opinions... :)

It is really not that simple. 193.65.112.51 20:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: Maamme is also sung in Swedish, as Vårt Land. It is indeed a de facto national anthem, it's the one played when (if) Kimi Räikkönen wins the F1, or at any other international sports event. Finlandia is dear to many people, but it is not the one played in official situations. (BTW, the Estonian national anthem is set to the same music as Maamme, and one country in Africa has (had?) their anthem to the tunes of "Finlandia"... Go figure...) --Janke | Talk 07:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Finlandia can also be sung in swedish, because it has a good swedish translation. 193.65.112.51 16:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Quote from broshure from the Ministry of Labour

I removed a piece of text which was added under the header "People". I seems to have been cut-n-pasted from this [1] (found it via google). The anon user 62.78.138.108 who posted this also added the dubious "Finland facts" which is now on VfD. -- Jniemenmaa 09:26, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

Good, very good!

Not only is it a probable copyright violation, but it's inserted on the page without regard to the disposition of the page. It seems rather thoughtless to me. (...and then, of course, is it possible to have opinions on the actual content too...)
--Ruhrjung 10:49, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This was posted on my user-page by 62.78.138.108:

Why did you remove People-text from Finland page? I had a permission to copy it to there. And also deleting Finland Facts-page wasn't understandable.

"HEI!

Kappaleita voi käyttää, kunhan lähde mainitaan.

yst. terv.

Arja Saarto/Työministeriö"

I'll reply here so that everyone can see. The text was removed because you didn't indicate that you had permission to copy it. The text you quote above actually says "You can use the text as long as you mention the source". You didn't indicate the source in any way. About the "Finland Facts" article, it was posted on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion. See the discussion there to see why it was deleted. -- Jniemenmaa 14:18, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

---

Growing summary of Finland's history

According to the country template, which we try to apply here, the sections should be an introduction/summary for the main article (in this case History of Finland) and hence not be longer than, say, three paragraphs. The current history section for Finland is getting a bit too large and detailed. I will remove the section regarding the difference in social classes (too detailed for a summary) and try to trim the rest of the text a bit. However, I'd like to know if somebody has any objections to that. Jeronimo 15:06, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

The history section IMHO lacks the demographic description during the very interesting "iron age" period

---

As a russian I'm somewhat concerned with somewhat anti-russian sentiment of this section, pre-1917 issues (i'm not touching The Winter War stuff, I know what a hot topic that is :). IMO a more unbiased opinion would be more appropriate. Oh and I absolutely love the country :).

Incomprehensible sentences

"The others while on other hand did single-minded work to oppose the communists." ... What does this mean?

"Finnish standard of living is high, partly because it has rough and cold weather." ... How does this follow?

--/Mat 21:20, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Been trying to figure that one out for myself. Maybe because they all have to work harder at getting comfortable?! Lee M 02:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Mongolians have rough and cold weather but their living standards dont seem too high... 8)

Haha those senteces made me laugh, worth keeping just for a laugh :P? I think that the first sentence is the result of somebody doing a straight translation from his/hers language to english, the grammar gets messed up. The second sentece is just plain stupid, funny as hell none the less. --Hazzlehoff 20:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Flag flying days

Should here also be official flag days (or what is in English liputuspäivä) of Finland? Kahkonen 07:54, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

liputuspäivä roughly is "flag-flying day". Maybe something should be written about it as it's not something we really have in the UK. A bit of a Finnish keksintö.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 00:47, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

parties etc

What on earth is this supposed to mean?

"The parliament has, since equal and common suffrage was introduced in 1906, been dominated by Agrarians, Social Democrats and Communists; although all of the political spectrum is more influenced by anti-Socialist currents than in similar countries having less contacts with the Soviet Union."

The Communists didn't even exist before 1918, and after that, far from dominating the parliament, were highly marginal until 1945 -- and for much of the period illegal.

The three-party domination referred to above is true of the late forties and early fifties, when the Communists were among the big three of Finnish politics, but even at the time they only held office for a few years in the immediate after-War period, and spent much of the era in impotent opposition.

Since the sixties their support has been declining rapidly, and the party was wound down in some fifteen years ago. Its successor, the Left-Wing Alliance (Vasemmistoliitto), gets below ten percent of the vote at elections and has lost the position of the fourth largest party to the Greens.

The incorrect reference to the Communists should therefore be omitted, as should probably the second half of the sentence which doesn't seem to make any sense; a better précis of Finnish politics would probably be to say that despite the distortions caused by the proximity of the Soviet Union, and the relatively strong position of the Communists (as in Iceland), Finnish politics and party structure remains very close the those of other Nordic countries.

/213.122.191.13 16 Jun 2004

huh?

the article contains the following line:

Finnish standard of living is high, partly because it has rough and cold weather.

Huh? This doesn't make any sense. Since when does rough and cold weather have anything to do with a standard of living? Eskimos in the Northern Yukon have rough and cold weather and I don't see them minting millionaires. In fact, they tend to be quite poor. Could someone either explain this or fix / change / delete the line? I would, but I'm pleading ignorance here as I don't know that much about Finland.

Hwarwick 17.55 PST 30.JUN.04

Anon note: I guess the line of thinking: In Finland houses have good heating systems and hot showers any time of day without the need to switch heating on. As a finn I have been surprised abroad seeing a car for each member of the family but no hot water any time of day.

Outstanding territorial dispute

I removed the following sentence that was given a section heading of its own.

Finland has outstanding territorial disputes over the Karelia Karjala, administered by Russia.

As far as I know, Finland's governments have recognized the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. Credible sources establishing the opposite would be interesting to see.
--Ruhrjung 13:38, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

Finland's govenrment recognize the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947 and in 1992 they signed an Naapuruussopimus with new Russia. They allways say that "there are not a need for return of Karelia, but if Russia will offer negotiations, we will think over it..." and so on... But interest into Karelia question in Finland are increasing among common Finns. Kahkonen 18:15, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the issue of the ceded territories only continues to exercise a small but vocal minority of Finns -- as witnessed by the above link which will take the reader, not to any research on Finnish opinions on Karelia, but to a rather intemperate debate column frequented by what appear to be hard-line nationalists.

But however 26% (and in earlier gallup 38%) of Finns supported the returning. Not so "minority". Kahkonen 14:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes that might be but it still doesen't mean that there is a legal territorial dispute. The finnish government makes no claims over Karelia and the parliament has accepted the Paris Peace Treaty.

AFAIK, the finnish government does not recognize parts of the Paris Peace Treaty of '47. For example, the military restrictions (except for the ban on nuclear weapons). (Anon editor at IP 85.49.228.162)

What??? Please explain, anon 85.49.228.162, thanks! --Janke | Talk 18:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think what was meant is that the treaty is considered obsolete by the Finnish govt. E.g. Article 13 (quoted below) has been declared obsolete (please see http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1948/2.html for the texts of the articles). Currently the finnish air force has 63 fighter aircraft, 51 trainer/fighters, etc. (note clause c). Also article 17 is currently being "violated" (not really violated, as the other side of the treaty doesn't exist anymore) because a new naval mine is being developed. Same goes for article 18 (Finland produces weapons systems for other countries too). Article 21 forbids aquiring of aircraft of German design! The state-owned Finnair just signed a deal for ~10 airbus planes, partially designed in Germany. Therefore it can be said that the treaty is no longer followed by the Finnish govt (as the other side doesnt exist anymore).--85.49.226.153 02:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC) //HJV, couldnt be bothered to sign in

It's true, Finland does, since the fall of the Soviet Union, not recognize some parts of the Paris Peace Treaty. I think the government has made som official statement about it in 1992 or so. If I remember it right Finland doesn't recognize those parts of the treaty that makes restrictions to for instance how big an army we're allowed to have or which kind of weaponry we are allowed to use, but the boundaries of Finland are fully recognized, even though some organisations claim Karelia shoud be part of Finland. --Alexej 11:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

President Koivisto made a statement in September 1990 that those part of the Paris Peace Treaty, which affected to the sovereignty of Finland, are not valid anymore. I think that Finland also sent diplomatic notes to the parties of the treaty. --Ekeb 11:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Autonomy of Åland

Why does it say "high degree of autonomy"? Åland is not a state, and Finland is not a federation, as per the constitution. The law that rules Åland is set in the Finnish parliament. They don't have their own police forces, courts or anything, the law is the same, and it's ultimately only the Finnish parliament that upholds the demilitarisation. None of this would justify "a high degree" of autonomy.

User:Vuo, 00:28, 2004 Dec 1

Vuo: That statement was a complete slap in the face to residents of the Åland Islands, and full of blatant factual errors. Lagtinget, the local parliament, has competency to pass laws in many many areas. For a complete list see http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1991/en19911144.pdf . This is not the most recent revision, but at least the most recent translation. You'll at least get the idea - Åland _has_ a high degree of autonomy by any standards, the law is in large portions _not_ the same as in the rest of Finland. --Nappilainen 13:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Åland also has a "tingsrätt", in finnish "käräjäoikeus", the lowest kind of court in the hierarchy of courts in Finland. --Nappilainen 14:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It says "high degree of autonomy" because the autonomy of the åland islands is not only declared by the finnish Eduskunta (parliament) but by also international treaties. Also in similair manner the demilitarisation of the islands- Finland has a treaty with Russia that orders Finland into securing the demilitarisation of the islands in all times and also to defend this demilitarisation against possible foreign attacks. The Islands also actually have their own police force along with many other independent departments such as their own Post Department and their own stamps. The Autonomy of Åland is secured in the finnish constitution, and the laws regarding the Autonomy of the Ålands islands can only altered with the permit of the local admistration. You are right Finland is not a federation, but a centrally governed state which has an internationally declared autonomical maakunta/landskap (region) of the Åland islands.

User:195.156.245.37, 00:24, 2004 Dec 28 

It may be added that the relevant comparison is with other autonomous territories around the world. --Ruhrjung 23:23, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Bicontinental?

The article was recently added to the category of bicontinental countries. Since when is Finland bicontinental? — JIP | Talk 13:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Globalization Merge

I started to merge Finland and Globalization into Finland.

Holidays

Public Holidays section says "Easter, Ascension Day, Pentecost ... are holidays". I would like to clarify thisl you mean here those holiday of Western Christianity according to Gregorian Calender? --Aphaea* 15:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes.

globalisation

"Free from the fear of Soviet influence, Finland was able to begin pursuing goals that better fit Finnish ideology. "

This sentence would imply that

a) there is a 'finnish ideology', but there isn't.

b) That the goals pursued were in some way equal to the beliefs of Finland's citizens.

b1) eg. the Eu, which I doubt since the government decided not to hold a referendum on the EU constitution,

fearing that people would vote against it.

b2) eg. Finland's government has since taken a run towards neoliberalism, the popularity of which is in great

doubt; a popular strike by bus services against privatisation; research proving most voters and appointed

politicians have opposite views (about the Helsinki city council);voter apathy; public debate about the surge

in part-time jobs and cuts in public spending that have brought down the standard of living for the majority of

finnish people and having been part of the major trend in government policy.

Motto

Suomelle ei näy kirjatun mottoa. Ehdottaisin lausahdusta "Sibelius, sauna, ja sisu - Se on made in Finland." (finengelska) Minusta tuo olisi kyllä aika lähellä toimivaa sellaista. Tosin sanojen monimerkityksellisyys tekisi lausahduksen selityksen ehkä tarpeettoman pitkäksi. t. rekisteröitymätön, mutta Wiki-kiinnostunut, tapio #

• Well, the "Sisu, sauna, and Sibelius" is certainly well known, but it's not an official motto. But, if someone wants it there in the empty space of the info box, I won't object... Somebody else might! ;-) --Janke | Talk 16:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• I am 19-year old Finn, who studies in University of Joensuu but still, I never even heard of that kind of motto and, AFAIK, there certainly isn't an official motto in use.

Correct, it is NOT official, but I've seen it in many places. Sounds sibilantly satisfactory, doesn't it? ;-) --Janke | Talk 12:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been a suggestion in the 1920's for Finnish motto to be "vapaa, vankka, vakaa." This translates "free, firm, stable." I have seen this written under the Finnish coats of arms in books about the history of Finnish state symbols, but it propably was never in greater use.

Minority languages

User:Alreadyinuse added Sami to the list of official languages. However, it's not an official language (see that article for definition). It is official minority language. I'll take Sami out of the official languages list and mention its status in article text.

Now there are three official languages in the intro. I think the whole language issue should not be mentioned there, as Finland is 92% Finnish and this topic belongs to Demographics section.

Attempt to delete Finnish musicians stub

Have you seen this discussion: Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7BFinland-musician-stub.7D.7D_.26_Cat:Finnish_musician_stubs?

It may be worth Finnish Wikipedians time to set up a Wikipedia:Finnish Wikipedians' notice board, which would allow you to monitor and contribute to such debates methodically. I recently set up Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board, nicking the template and ideas from the Wikipedia:Norway-related topics notice board and Wikipedia:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board, and others. Worth some consideration.--Mais oui! 18:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Swedish name for Finland

Is there a reason why the first paragraph has the Swedish name for Finalnd in it? Isn't this a bit of unnecessary clutter or am I missing something? Monkey Tennis 13:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If you read the article further, you'll see that Finland is bilingual, and "Finland" is one of the two official names for our country. Greetings from a Finland-Swede, --Janke | Talk 14:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for enlightening me! You're right - I should have read on! Cheers Monkey Tennis 12:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Western Europe

Finland is a part of western Europe? What the hell? Not really.

Isn't that mentioned only in the "economy" section? Politically, economically and historically Finland is a part of Western Europe. Geographically Finland is, of course, in Northern (or Northeastern) Europe, as is said in the very first sentence of the article. SGJ 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Little, yet somewhat disturbing element in the pages.

This is maybe a minor note, but something that catched my eye. In the Culture-section the first thing to appear is a finnish hiphop artist Mariska. I do like her, but this can be seen as quite deceptive first picture as finnish culture. Mariska, as much can be seen from her looks already, bases much of her art into other cultural regions for example the rasta-hair influence from caribbean culture. It would alot more fitting to use for example the picture of Sibelius, who is a real flag carrier of finnish culture. Thanks.

For your info: Finland, as any modern country, is a multicultural place featuring many kinds of trends and ethnology. Sorry, but the claim that good old Sibelius be somehow more of a Finnish "flag carrier" than e.g. Mariska is a load of cr.. ;) Clarifer

It took me a while to make out what was being said here. The expression in English is standard-bearer, regardless of who is going to be bearing it.Blondlieut 04:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon user's POV additions

An anonymous editor (apparently pushing an agenda against Finland-Swedes and the Swedish language in Finland; see contribs at Special:Contributions/84.231.217.70), repeatedly re-inserts POV material in articles about Finland. In the article Apartheid_outside_South_Africa the same anon. repeatedly inserts a section about Finland, claiming our country's constitutional bilingualism constitutes "Åpartheid". This is utter nonsense, and has been repeatedly removed by logged-in editors. The anon. also posts mock vandalism warnings on reverting logged-in users' talk pages. Please keep an eye on this, thank you. --Janke | Talk 07:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Prehistory

Should the Susiluola achaeological diggings be mentioned in the history section? They have found stone tools dating back around 120 000 years, meaning that the first humans arrived in Finland around that time, or before it. --HJV 12:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Not so much with the English making too much with sense here so much not really

"Treaties signed in 1947 and 1948 with the Soviet Union included obligations, restraints and reparations on Finland vis-à-vis the Soviet Union as well as further territorial concessions by Finland (compared to the Moscow Peace Treaty of 1940). Finland ceded most of Finnish Karelia, Salla and Petsamo. The reparations to Soviet Union forced Finland to transform from primarily agrarian to industrialized economy, after they were paid Finland continued to supply Soviet Union. (Russia has assumed a large part of the unpaid national debt which is slowly being remunerated with raw materials(oil, ores) and electricity)"

Okay, what does this mean, umm, in English? I've been trying to rewrite this article in something vaguely approaching idiomatic English, but I'm stumped by this.Blondlieut 04:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and yes. Finland is the 162nd most densely populated country. This, oddly, is not a helpful fact for me. Perhaps ... I'm just dense. Does someone want to put this in a little bit more context before I delete it as .. completely useless?Blondlieut 04:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be picky, but someone, to save me the trouble, could remove every (bizarrely misplaced) occurrence of i.e., e.g., and "for example" in this article with no loss in meaning, and make it sound 100% better, and a good deal less "foreign." Otherwise, I'll get to it eventually.Blondlieut 05:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Since most of the article is written by people having English as a second or third language, it's nice of you to correct the mistakes. The "dense" obviously refers to population density, but I agree that it sounds a bit odd. Perhaps "Finland is sparsely populated and ranks 162nd in population density" would be better - in fact, I changed it to that?. Also, I think the remuneration refers to the fact that Russia assumed the debts of the dissolved Soviet Union, and is paying off that. --Janke | Talk 06:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, mentioning that Finland is sparsely populated puts it in context. Remuneration, regardless of whatever "technical" definitions it may have, is a fancy word for "pay" or "salary." A job for which one is "handsomely remunerated" is a job for which one is well paid. I suspect, but don't know, that "remuneration" might be an attempt to translate the idea of "reparations" (literally "pay-backs," although this delightful Anglo-Saxon phrase is used in metaphoric ways too, rather than in finacial senses... "pay-backs are hell" is suddenly on my lips ... though it is proper to say "loans are paid back" too; it is not proper to say "loans are "remunerated" nor "reparated"). The "restraint" part is a total mystery, and is so vague as to be meaningless (I mean, a seat belt is a form a restraint, as a handcuffs, and there are restraints on trade, and free speech .. so what this means is beyond imagining). Then there's the the idea of comparing the latter treaties to a former one, again without context. How do the latter treaties compare with the former document, when there is no basis for comparison? Certainly one is expected to read all about the former document to learn the basis for the comparison being attempted. Blondlieut 15:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, as with the idea that weather played a roll in industrialization, I'm tripping over the word "forced" in this paragraph too. Finland's sole impetus for industrialization was to repay its debts to the Soviet Union? This isn't part of my attempt to make this idiomatic English, but this can't be right. Perhaps the editor means to say something like "without industrialization Finland would have been unable to repay its debts to the Soviet Union." I mean, did Finns during the post-war period wake up every morning and say, "Huh, I'd like a better life for myself and my country and my family," or did they say, "Gosh-golly, I must get to work quickly and begin repaying Finland's debts to the Soviet Union"?

"without industrialization Finland would have been unable to repay its debts to the Soviet Union." A large part of the war reparations were to be paid in steel products, which meant creating a steel industry from cratch as there was none (or risk being invaded for not following the peace treaty). However there were probably bigger factors in the industrialization it self, like excess population pouring into cities from the countryside. Venti 00:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As to the comments on the weather (I hate to reprise that, but there still seems to be muddy thinking going on there), I'm still confused on what folks are trying to say. Okay, yes, well, no doubt cold weather "forces" folks to do things to survive. I'm not sure how it necessarily forces more than subsistance, however. And to the extent that folks in not-cold places might expend resources for an automobile for every person in a houseland (as opposed to heating for showers), I'm not sure how these various desiderata would not each lead industrialization (certainly the wish to automotive transportation for every person and home-heating could both be causes for industrialization, leaving aside whether either or both are "good" things to have). All this to say, Climate doesn't equal Culture doesn't equal Economic Development.Blondlieut 15:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

rm dab template

I have removed the disambig template. It was added on 26 July 2005 (with this edit) immediately after Suomi had been turned into a redirect. {{Redirect1}} would have been a better choice than {{for}}, but in any case, since that article is now a disambig page instead, I decided to remove it completely. Hairy Dude 22:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Defending.. major issue

"Defending the country from foreign invaders has been a major issue"

Ok, what the fak... who writes this crap? Has been a major issue? Front page material issue? Oh really? that entire sentence is drenched with anti-Russian sentiment, please remove it from the front page. Major isuue my ass. May be a major isuue in Joensuu and Kajaani but not on the front page of the Finnish wikipedia article it's not.

Why isn't there a picture of The civil-war saying it's a MAJOR issue?

In the last half of the previous millennium, the only wars have been fought with Russia (including the civil war with pro-Russian Communists). Defence policy continues to play a major role in politics, consider the last presidential election. So, it's not inaccurate. And if it's anti-Russian, then it merely reflects the reality of the Finnish mindset. --Vuo 10:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If it was a MAJOR issue we would be hearing about defending the country against foreign invaders constantly, this picture and text clearly reflects a long gone coldwar mindsetby the author. It simply does not reflect reality. Defending the country against foreign invaders couldn't possibly a more non-existant issue to me, and the majority of Finns. Also Jatkosota was taking the war to the enemy, Finland was the agressor. This picture and text clearly reflects lack of objectivity. I demand it be removed. =)

We're hearing about the defence policy in the relevant times, such as with presidential elections. This does not offset its importance. Furthermore, the Cold War may be over for the Americans, but Finland continues to have 1300 km of land border with Russia, which has a precedent of invading small neighboring countries. To illustrate the explaining power of this fact, consider the political attitudes concerning conscription. It is a major issue to the 80% of men who do the military service of 6-12 months. In America, for example, conscription would be instituted to wage expeditionary wars, and is thus a civil liberties issue, etc. In Finland, most men support conscription, because of the need to defend against Russia. Dissenters of conscription are seen as fringe Greens. --Vuo 21:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

So France was the aggressor when it took its land back from Germany..? If you're saying that Finland was the aggressor in the Continuation War, then France must've been aggressive as well. Just like Serbia was the aggressor in WW I (I wouldn't call Serbia the aggressor, just because it didn't agree to crazy demands, same with Finland). Not to mention that the USSR (ie. Russia) took land "back" that didn't belong to it in the first place. --HJV 01:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You guys just don't get it. You can hijack a general article about Finland proclaiming that defending the country against foreign invaders is a major issue. It's not up to you to decide. The image has nothing to do with WW2 or other incidents of foreign invading. There's a time and place for everything and that image with that text most certanly isn't in the general article about Finland. Go push your agenda somewhere else.

It's up to us all to decide. WP is a collaborative work! If the general consensus favors having the image in the article, it will be there. However, I'm not reverting your deletion, since there could indeed be a better caption to the image. It does fit where it was placed, though, in the section about WWII history. You seem to have an agenda, too... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the image didnt have much to do with WWII. It's like... if we put an image of a jetplane in an article about Supermarine Spitfire. The picture is from the 1990s or 2000s, and doesn't therefore have much to do with WWII. An image from 1939 would, but not this. I think [2] or [3] would be better as they're actually from that time and have to do with the History section. --HJV 16:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No it's more the notion that the first picture in a factual and neutral article about Finland in general, should be a soldier with the text below him stating that "foreign invaders are a major issue". Sure, go ahead and add the picture in an article about WW2, Talvisota, Jatkosota or some other war. I simply don't think it portrays reality. Anyway, it's removed now, hopefully no one will go and add it again. And yeah, the picture didn't even fit the text to top it all off.

This is just stupid, you who started this discussion, where are you from? Are you from Finland? I seriously doubt it since in Finland, wich by the way this article is about, this issue is M_A_J_O_R. We got the reds (lefties) on one side who wants to press down the matter and the whites (righties) who still sees a threath. I realize it is not up to us on wiki to take part BUT by having this in the article we shed light on one of the biggest political questions in Finland. Finland actually has a mine belt that covers the whole border to Russia wich is 100 % modern and active. The defence of Finland from forgein invaders (aka Russia) does thus NOT belong in the history section, the protection against Sovjet probably but the memmory of WW2 still lingers fresh in the finns minds. The question is up to date and of outmost importance. --Hazzlehoff 10:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. Some of the more hard core 'righties' would like to see it as a major issue, but it definitely isn't. There are no territorial or other disputes between Finland and Russia, and there certainly isn't a mine field on the border (Finland doesn't have a single land mine deployed anywhere, and I can't even begin to comprehend how you've managed to come up with a claim like that). It's not an issue. - ulayiti (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

National Emblem

The National emblem: The bottom isn't pointed. And there most certanly isn't a fancy photoshop lighting effect in it. Someone change it please?

Correct. I have fixed it, as per [4]. --Janke | Talk 06:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I might be just strange, but I think that some of the pictures in the article are a bit strange. The first picture shown is a picture of some army guys skiing. Is that really appropriate? I mean, if this article was titled Military of Finland it would be, but wouldn't there be a better "starter" picture? Say, some historical picture might suit the section, as after all it is in fact titled "History". Some of the pictures also seem a bit ambiguous. For example, the parliament house picture, just shows a part of the building. It might be an artistically interesting picture, but nevertheless, a nice and clear picture showing the whole front of the building would surely look better. Some of the pictures seem a bit "forced" into the article. I might be just slow, but I don't really understand how Linus Torvalds has anything to do with Public holidays, or Runeberg tarts with Miscellaneous topics. Comments? --HJV 01:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree, the military picture is completely out of place. No other country's wikipedia article as a random soldier on it's front page with a text proclaiming that foreign invaders are a major issue. I'd remove it in a heartbeat but I can't figure out how to do it :D

Religion

Nothing on the religions of Finland. Sicilianmandolin

You'll find it here: [[5]] --Janke | Talk 17:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It's in the demographics section of this article, too. --Vuo 18:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I added, "Of religion," to the beginning of that paragraph under demographics so that it is more easily found with the "Find" function of browsers. Sicilianmandolin

Official languages in Finland

In Lappi is spoken the third official language in Finland --85.156.231.24 20:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC) ( finnish wiki user)]]]]]]]] ==

But it's not a national official language. Therefore, it won't be listed. --Vuo 01:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact it is official national third language as can be seen on road signs or if visited in post or official bureaus ( in Lapland), there one must be served as one of Finlands three official languages ( In Lapland)Please check it out if you don`t believe me.--81.197.98.209 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not very unusual in a global perspective that single municipalities have their own languages. However, a nationstate is, in part, defined by its national official language. Finland is really an exception in this regard, namely that Finland has very few local languages. But larger countries, for example Russia, have these in the hundreds. Listing all of them as official languages of the entire Russian federation would make little sense, since only one (Russian) can be expected to be known nation-wide. The same goes with Finland: you can't even expect service in Swedish in most of Finland, much less Sami languages. --Vuo 01:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see your point of wiew in this case. I just wonder what would an Sami language oriented nothern individual think as ones first language; Sami first and then finnish, I guess. They even nowadays want Wiki in Sami language , so maybe there should be at least a short notification that there is that language in Finland also. You and I know that Sami language is alive, but does the rest of the world know it?--81.197.109.44 22:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sami language and its official status are already mentioned in the article, in the demographics section: To the north, in Lapland, are found the Sami, numbering less than 7,000, who like the Finns speak a Finno-Ugric language. There are three Sami languages that are spoken in Finland: Northern Sami, Inari Sami and Skolt Sami. The right of minority groups (in particular Sami and Roma people) to cherish their culture and language is protected by law, but usually only Sami is considered to be an official minority language. SGJ 22:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You, in Fact it really seems yo be there. Stupid me!--81.197.113.74 18:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

International Rankings (PISA education)

I would like to add: THE FINISH SUCCESS IN PISA - AND SOME RESONS BEHIND IT http://www.jyu.fi/ktl/pisa/publication1print.pdf to international rankings. Not sure how to do this correcly, can anyone help?

--Chihienne 08:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

-- I added the results aswell as little general facts about the education system in Finland. I didn't add any reasons tough since I didn't find any (I wrote it before I read this).

Read the tutorial to find out how to edit the page, feel free to add the reasons.
--Hazzlehoff 17:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Finland/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is one of the great knowledge tank for all the researchers.

Last edited at 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)