Wikipedia

Talk:Scandinavia/Archive 3

< Talk:Scandinavia
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Iolar Iontach in topic Summary

Dispute: What is Scandinavia?

Latest comment: 18 years ago45 comments17 people in discussion

Finland IS part of Scandanavia proper

Seems to me that the terms differs from English and the DNS-languages. In Denmark, Norway and Sweden, Scandinavia seldom includes Finland, but in English it seems that Scandinavia is what we in DNS call "Norden". From the Norwegian encyclopedia Caplex http://www.caplex.no/Web/ArticleView.aspx?id=9332364, it's written that Scandinavia often is incorrectly used for Norden. This propably means that Finland should be included in the English article about Scandinavia, but not in the Norwegian: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandinavia - Written by Marit. jan. 08.2006.

This entire article will have to be rewritten to account for the fact that Finland is as much a part of Scandanavia as are Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Finland is simply a former part of Sweden; it became "Finland" as a sovereign nation in 1917. J.R. Hercules 21:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Most Finns would object strongly to their nation and culture being coined "simply a former part of Sweden". The Finns (and before them, the lapps) have inhabited the region since the 6th century (Britannica 1910), and was only invaded and subdued by the Swedish King Eric IX in 1157. Merely being ruled by the Swedish king for 650 years does not make neither Finland nor current-day Estonia (nor Swedish Pomerania for that matter) part of the geographic, ethnic and linguistic region of Scandinavia -- just as Australia is not part of the British Isles, nor is Brazil a part of Iberian Peninsula. Geira 18:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC) (A Scandinavian-talking Scandinavian living in Scandinavia!)
Hello Hercules. Please present your suggestions for how the article should be rewritten here in the talk page, along with sources and references to support your interpretation of what and where Scandinavia is. For your information, Finland was ruled from Saint Petersburg from 1807 to 1917, when it became a sovereign state (not nation). //Big Adamsky 23:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion is that a) Finland should be "bulleted" in the beginning as are the other three countries; b) the "Greater Scandinavia" section can be modified to reflect that; c) special explanation as to why Iceland isn't/is considered part of Scandinavia by some. The references for defining exactly what Scandinavia is will have to be a group Wiki effort. In the meantime, Finland should simply be bulleted.
As for "state" and "nation" -- the two are used synonymously today. The Merriam-Webster dictionary has identical definitions for both as part of their entries. So people should feel free to use either "state" or "nation", unless they want to get an ulcer worrying about how other people might nitpick their choice of words.J.R. Hercules 00:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, you will still need to substantiate any proposals to alter or widen the "simple" (narrower) definition that the intro gives. Alternative usage is already given in the section that you've mentioned. //Big Adamsky 00:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
If you include Finland it's called Fennoscandinavia Fornadan (t) 09:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Several comments: Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are a language group qute distinct from Finnish, which along with Estonian is a Finno-Ugaric language. This is one factor why Finland is not part of scandinavia but is part of the Nordic Union. Also state and nation are clearly not synonymous whatever the Merrian Webster dictionary might say. It is niot just a matter of nitpicking, but of political theory. e.g. there are many Irish people who live in the UK but consider themselves part of the Irish nation . . .Harrypotter 14:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I know about the differences in language, but it really doesn't matter in this case; the history, politics, and culture of all four countries have been intertwined for ages, enough to make language differences pretty irrelevent. Is Quebec not a part of Canada because the people speak French? Makes no sense. As for the "nation", "state", "country" issue: I know about the technical differences of the words. But it's more than acceptable to use the words interchangebly in regular discourse -- it's expected. That's why the dictionary defines them equally. Correcting someone's choice of words in this case is like correcting someone's grammar because it doesn't exactly follow the Queen's English as laid out in some textbook.J.R. Hercules 17:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You should be aware that the arrogant Northamerican habit of using SCANDINAVIA as a synonym for NORDEN or NORDIC COUNTRIES (and viceversa) is considered extremely ignorant and insensitive in all of the Nordic countries. Its like saying that America is the USA or that England is the UK. Just so you know. - PETER

"Arrogant" only to someone laughably immersed in political correctness. In the meantime, you should learn how to sign your name correctly on Wikipedia. J.R. Hercules 17:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

there is no matter of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS - its a simple fact that some of you YANKS oversimplify and expect others to accept this, even when its incorrent if you go to the original source and ask them. Everyone in Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland plus the islands with homerule know which countries is covered by these words, and they are not synonymous. Read the articlesection about GREATER SCANDINAVIA one more time. There is no ""difinitions"" for them (such as this and this language belongs in this group), we just know because of tradition and convention. Very simple. Merry Christmas from PETER!

Good point, and there may very well be a measure of "Anglo Cultural imperialism" of sorts (which is actually politically incorrect) in the sense of certain English users insisting that Nordic language users are wrong in how they use their own terms. Try for instance browsing the Finnish, Icelandic, Faroese versions of this WP article or the Scandinavian language versions, for that matter. On the other hand, I would say that in some cases - although clearly not this one - the meaning of a word may change over time and place, especially when its original users become extinct. By the way, to sign your comment, just type four tildes (like this: ~~~~). //Big Adamsky 02:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Simplification doesn't equal "cultural imperialism," folks. If you want simplifications, the United States is by no means the only offender (ask people from Spanish-speaking countries about their designations of other countries and peoples, for example). The very use of the term 'America' for 'United States,' just as an example, is far more prevalent in the UK (where the terms are considered synonymous by most) than it is in the U.S. And while I'm only speculating, I would say an overwhelming majority of the globe's population say "England" when they mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Simplification isn't always evil or imperialistic... if it is, then your beef should be with everyone else, too. 38.112.113.242 17:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am Swedish, and to me the term "Scandinavia" does not include Finland - mainly for ethnic/historical reasons, although it must be stated that Finland certainly is an important part of Scandinavian history and Finland certanly needs to be mentioned - and mentioned well - in the article in this capacity. I should point out that I am a great friend of Finland and the Finnish people. Moreover, I have absolutely nothing against being associated with Finns and Finland - it's just that I technically shouldn't be and it happens to be ethnically incorrect to say that Finland is part of "Scandinavia" as such. Please remember that Finnish belongs to a very different langauge group. Finnish is not even remotely related to the Scandinavian languages (Icelandic, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, etc.) which are Germanic and Indo-European. Finnish is Finno-Ugric. In light of this, I don't really mind the article as it is currently written, except for the passage which reads "and occasionally some people may take offence at such usage". Again, this is not a matter of being PC or not. I would never take offence against someone including Finland in the term "Scandinavia" nor do I know anyone who would (in fact I would venture to claim that the majority of Finns and Swedes/Scandinavians are quite proud and caring of the factual historical connection between Finland and Sweden/Scandinavia). The point is that such inclusion is simply not correct. That's in fact why we have the terms "Nordic Countries" or "Fennoscandinavia" - i.e. in order to include Finland.

The Scandinavia House in New York is a Scandinavian Cultural center in North America. It has received monetary support from the Nordic Council and official representatives from all 5 countries participated in the opening ceremonies in 2000 [1]. Another link to the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs pages [2], where President Halonen (Fin) states, that the Nordic Council's official agenda during the 2001 was to "inform the citizens more of the possibilities of being a Scandinavian". On the same page the Finnish foreign minister is referred to when he was talking in an official meeting of the Scandinavian Social Democratic Parties meeting in Oslo later that same year. The phrase "These three countries have recognized each other as parts of a political and cultural region..." used in the introductionary part of "Scandinavia" is partially correct, but not comprehensive.Prefixcaz 20:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually I would take offense, not in the sense that I as a Norwegian take offense at being assosiated with Finns, but in the sense that I take offense, or strongly dislike, that a term defining my cultural identity is being changed by people from outside this culture because of ignorance on their part. Finland is not part of Scandinavia:
  • Not geographically (the Scandinavian peninsula)
  • Not linguistically (the Scandinavian languages)
  • Not ethnically (the Germanic origins of the people of Norway, Sweden and Denmark)
  • Not culturally (stronger cultural similarities between Norway/Sweden/Denmark than between these three and Finland (with Sweden providing the strongest link in the latter case))
They are assosiated with Scandinavia on all of these subjects, but not part of Scandinavia. If american ignorance were to hijack the term Scandinavia to mean what we today call the Nordic countries, we'd have to coin a new term for what we today call Scandinavia, because there is an absolute need to distinguish between the two. --Kvaks 19:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Not geographically (the Scandinavian peninsula) - Nothern Finland is a part of the Scandinavian peninsula. Denmark is not.
Not linguistically (the Scandinavian languages) - Swedish is an official language in Finland. Finnish has been recognized in both the Swedish and the Norwegian legislation.
Not ethnically (the Germanic origins of the people of Norway, Sweden and Denmark) - According to DNA studies, SWE and DEN, are the closest relatives of the Finns with Estonians and the Dutch. A population can change their language, but not their genes.
Not culturally (stronger cultural similarities between Norway/Sweden/Denmark than between these three and Finland.- Already Fundinn Noregr and other sagas says otherwise. Interaction with Norway and with Denmark are proven by history and arheology proven to be as old as with Sweden. Scholars in Scandinavia and elsewhhere agree to these facts. Links to the facts are easily found on this TALK-page. All your arguments have already been proven wrong earlier on this page. But if other arguments are presented, I will be happy to answer. Prefixcaz 10:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
"Nothern Finland is a part of the Scandinavian peninsula. Denmark is not." Whether Northern Finland is part of the Scandinavian Peninsula is certainly open for debate.
"Finnish has been recognized in both the Swedish and the Norwegian legislation." I don't know what this means specifically, but the Finnish language play no more significant role in Norway than, say, Russian or Polish does.
"According to DNA studies, SWE and DEN, are the closest relatives of the Finns with Estonians and the Dutch." I don't know how to interpret this sentence correctly, but if you are implying that Fins are not genetically more distant from their Nordic neighbours in Scandinavia, than the peoples of Norway, Sweden and Denmark are from eachother, I'd be very surprised if you were right. I can often guess a Fin's nationality by his or her physical looks, something I can hardly ever do with Swedes and Danes (I'm Norwegian).
"[Re culture] Already Fundinn Noregr and other sagas says otherwise.". I'm sorry I didn't make it clear that I was talking about present-day culture.
You do not prove anything other than that there are connections between Finland and the Scandinavian countries. You will find similarly strong ties between, say, Ireland and Great Britain, but that does not make Ireland part of Great Britain. --Kvaks 11:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have only used facts that can be checked backing up my counter-arguments. I provide approved links, but in return I get IMO's. Please come with arguments based on something else than just IMO's. I have already asked you this before. Shold we not strive to knowledge and facts when modifying Wiki instead of IMO's? Prefixcaz 11:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
(I edited my above post after your follow-up.) I do acknowledge that my viewpoints are largely "IMO". I could not, however, find any of your facts (when searching this Talk-page) to significantly alter my views. There are strong ties between Finland and Scandinavia, not doubt, but documenting these ties "factually" does not make them any more than ties. It does not make Finland part of Scandinavia.
I know that some Fins consider their country part of Scandinavia, certainly more so than Norwegians, Swedes and Danes consider Finland part of Scandinavia (virtually none do). This attitude will sometimes be reflected in official Finnish statements and documents. I don't know exactly how strong this attitude is in Finland, but I'm sure you'll find many Fins that do not consider themselves Scandinavian, as well, and even if they didn't the Fins cannot unilaterally include themselves in Scandinavia. --Kvaks 12:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
-----
1. The Scandinavian peninsula goes to point X in the north and then the Koala peninsula starts. The Scandinavian peninsula on the southern side borders the Gulf of Bothnia. What's in between? Not much room for debate, is there?
2. Finnish and Finnic languages have been recognized in recent years in both Norway and Sweden as minority languages. This because they're original languages in certain regions of these countries. Swedish is recognized as an official language in all of Finland.
3. The recent studies in European genealogy have shown that the closest relatives of the Finns are the SWE, DEN, NOR, EST and Dutch (sorry, missed the NOR previously). This is not my opinion but a proven fact. Your argument about you being able to recognize someone from their looks is again an IMO. [3][4]
4. I won't even go into the 'ties' more than stating, that it's exactly the 'ties' that makes something part of something else by definition. Prefixcaz 13:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kvaks' arguments. Finland has in the middleage, and since they got independent from Russia, been oriented towards Scandinavia and Western Europe. But Nor,Swe&Den has looked moore to England and the continent, rather than towards east. The fact that finns wants to be a part of Scandinavia rather than a baltic comunity, does not, as Kvaks say, neceseraly make it so. As to the Finnish-speaking minorities in Norway and Sweden and the swedish in Finland, that does not tip the scale in any direction, no more than the english-speaking people in Eire or the norwegian-speaking in Minnesota, USA.
Prefixcaz wrote that the finns, were mentioned in Scandinavia by Tacitus 2000 years ago, well the finns in Tactius' work could very well be sami, and there is no certainty that Scandza is Scandinavia either.--Njård 13:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Been oriented to Scandinavia? :) The Finnic tribes are one of the oldest settlers of Scandinavia. Finns in general don't care if they are considered Scandinavians or not, so that much for your IMO again :) All the tribes in Tacitus could very well be anybody, as only educated guesses exist. Jordane was using the same definitions a few hundred years later. Again, it's the old ties, normally proven by scholar's opinions, that define whether something is a part of something else, not whether private persons want it or not. Prefixcaz 13:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes been oriented towards Sweden and Norway, rather than Russia/Soviet.. You are using Finnic tribes interchangingly, Finns/suomi are the majority in Finland, other Finnic tribes like Lule, Pite, Northern, Southern and Inari -Sami and the suomi sub-group of the Kvens lives scattered around the Norden. Please clearify withc one you are refering to. The "centre of gravity" of the Finnic tribes would historically have been in eastern Finland, with Estonians to the south and karelians to the east and with the sami tribes as outposts to the west. No one challenges that Sami people are indigenous to Scandinavia, but you can't by that, also take in the rest of the Finnic tribes.--Njård 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I am using the Finnic tribes interexchangeably just as you are generalizing NOR, SWE and DEN being genetically only close to each other, and refusing to admit the fact, that among the Finnic tribes we find: a) same genes, (NOR-SWE-DEN being closest) b) linguistical ties to the oldest population in the area :) One could conclude, that Finns have lived isolated but are genetically closest to present day Scandinavians and linguistically to the ancient era Scandinavians. This also vice versa.Prefixcaz 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I have not mentioned genetics in this debate.. I don't see where you are going with tis argument..?--Njård 10:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


Re 1. How far east the Scandinavian peninsula goes is open for interpretation. One might argue that the land as far as St. Petersburg belongs to one and the same peninsula. The point being that defining the area belonging to a peninsula is always more debatable than, say, defining the area belong to an island. But even if one agrees that certain parts of Finland is part of the peninsula, while no part of Russia is, the geographic criteria is obviously not all-inclusive or all-exclusive. None of the criterias are. Iceland qualifies on the ethnic critieria, but is still not part of Scandinavia.
Re 2.: The Finnish-speaking minority in Norway must be extremely small, probably almost exclusively consisting of recently immigrated work-immigrators. If there is a Finnish-speaking community of samis in the North, I'd be surprised if it counted more than a houndred people. Can you provide a reference to this so I can see if it contains any useful information?
Re 3.: Even if Finland's Scandinavian neighbours are the Fins' closest genetic neigbours (why would this be surprising?), does not make Finland part of a Scandinavia ethnic community. The three Scandinavian countries' peoples have a smaller mutual genetic distance, compared to their genetic distance to Finland.
Re 4. Excatly, but the point is that the mutual ties between Norway, Sweden and Denmark are much closer than Finland's ties with these countries. That's why we have a word for the entity of NOR+SWE+DAN, and another word for the looser entities of NOR+SWE+DAN+FIN and NOR+SWE+DAN+FIN+ICE. Similarly to why Ireland is not part of Great Britain.
.--Kvaks 14:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


1. To St Petersburgh? Yes, maybe if it jumped over another peninsula in between :). Normally that is not how geographical areas are defined. I can't help wondering whether your definition of the Scandinavian peninsula and the Scandia mountains would be, that both of them finish where the Finnish border starts :)
2. Finnic language speakers in other Scandinavian countries have been under governmental efforts for norwegianization/swedefication from these 2 states. There has been laws in both countries even forbidding the speaking of Finnic mother tongues etc still in modern times. These new legislations in both countries, even if giving very minor rights, are facts proving that the Finnic languages are finally being officially recognized and they indicate, that these languages are at least one of the original languages of the peninsula. They are the last remains of the language-based Scandinavian movement in the 1850's when the usage of the term 'Scandinavia' changed. Nevertheless, Swedish has an equal status with Finnish in Finland.
3. Maybe you should read the links provided about the geneaology, instead of offering IMO's again. And btw, you started talking about the germanic origins. I just proved that Finns share them :)
4. Could you specify these 'much closer' ties and then let's see if they apply to Finland also. Worth mentioning is, that your comparison between Ireland and England is not very favourable for your point of view. If the comparison was done using your logics, it would be 'Ireland is not part of the British Isles'. Plus Denmark is not part of the geographical Scandinavia, so your comparison has quite some flaws in it.
So far you have only offered IMO's and no proof, no scholar opinions, no links and still you say your opinion is the correct one. I'd say that's either ignorant or a little arrogant.Prefixcaz 17:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
1. The border of the peninsula is debateable, especially since the peninsula is not narrowly connected to the rest of the continent.
2. Are you thinking about the sami language?
3. Your links does not contradict my proposal that Fins are further genetically removed from the Norwegians, Danes and Swedes, than Norwegians, Danes and Swedes are from eachother. I have never said that Fins does not have common ethnic traits with Scandinavian people, only that Scandinavians have more in common with eachother than with the Fins. I thought this was common knowledge.
4. Specify? That's what I have been doing.
My reason for listing several critierias was not for them to be all-exclusive or all-inclusive, as already stated. When they apply to Fins as well, they usually apply to a smaller extent than among the Scandinavian countries. Say we were to give a score of 0-3 on how well each country fits the criterias for belonging to a Scandinavian community:
  • Geographically: Sweden 3, Norway 3, Denmark 1, Finland 2, Iceland 0
  • Linguistically: Sweden 3, Norway 3, Denmark 3, Finland 1 (because of Swedish minority), Iceland 1
  • Ethnically: Sweden 3, Norway 3, Denmark 3, Finland 1, Iceland 3
  • Culturally: Sweden 3, Norway 3, Denmark 2, Finland 2, Iceland 2
  • Total score: Sweden 12, Norway 12, Denmark 9, Finland 6, Iceland 6
These "scores" are subjective and obviously highly debateable, and the criterias should probably be weighted by relevance, but illustrates my reasoning behind setting up various non-absolutely-exclusive, non-absolutely-inclusive criterias.
Re The British Isles. My point exactly. Ireland is part of the British Isles, but not part of Great Britain, despite close ties with the nations of Great Britain. Similarly Finland is part of the Nordic countries, but not part Scandinavia, despite close ties with the nations of Scandinavia.
Lastly I would like to suggest that it is easier to provide evidence of ties between countries, than it is to provide evidence of lack of ties. You have documented ties between Finland and Scandinavia. Your mistake is to put too much emphasis on these ties. There are usually close ties between any neighbouring countries. That doesn't mean they have to share some common group identity. The ties between Norway, Sweden and Denmark, however, are unusually tight, especially linguistically, but also on the other areas mentioned above, which make that group of countries worthy of a common identity, namely Scandinavia.
.--Kvaks 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

---

1. We know approximately where the Scandinavian peninsula starts in the North, or at least we know that it has to start before the Kola peninsula starts. We know the Bothnia Gulf is another border. We know from geology and geography that the mountain range in the are goes from southern Norway/Sweden through northern Finland all the way to Kola peninsula. Certainly Kola cannot be a part of Scandinavian peninsula as it is a peninsula itself. This means Scandinavian peninsula ends/starts where Kola ends/starts to the opposite direction, yes? Now, whichever point you want to mark as the starting point for the Scandinavian peninsula in the north and respectively another point in the northern top of the Gulf of Bothnia, when you draw a line between these two points, you have a lot of Finland, Sweden and Norway in that area. You can debate what is/is not a part of it, but there is no debate denying the fact that these three countries aren a part of it. Please provide a link to an educated discussion or debate, if you feel otherwise.
2. I'm thinking of all the finnic languages in the area. Just as all the germanic languages are one combining factor in the area.
3. Swedish gene pool in the northern Sweden[5] Even the Norwegian gene pool carries remains of distinguishly Finnish ancestry [[6]]. The Finnish gene pool carries even bigger amounts of the other Scandinavian genes than vice versa. I think it's pretty safe to say, that depending on the regions, there is closer relativeness across the borders than in another part of the same country. All this proves of ancient interaction in the region. The Danish-Finnish connection is also already known (one example [7]
4. You give IMO's again. However, you do forget history and apparently the genealogy for instance. Both proving very very close ties. I would say the main point in your arguing is, that in your opinion Finland is not a part of Scandinavia, because the majority of Finns don't speak a germanic language.
5. The British Isles is a geographical region. So is Scandinavia, not a country as you suggested with your referral to Great Britain. Kalmar Union was something you could compare to Great Britain. Even if Scandinavia is also a political, economical, ethnical, historical and linguistical region. It is easily proven that Finland is and has been a part of all of these.
You talked about evidence, or the lack of it. I was quite amused about your expression about the difficulty of finding evidence 'proving the lack of ties'. I'm sure you agree that in case Wiki is to be based on facts, the additions we make have to rely on evidence. Science is based on evidence. Science evolves with new evidence. New evidence has been provided to you. I get the impression that you have no evidence at all, but that still your preset opinions should be more valuable than the evidence talking against them. I am not hiding my sources and I've only used recognized instances from different fields of science.
Please provide links or quotes from scholars or politicians. It would add something to the debate, as now I'm the only one using educated opinions and studies in my comments and you are constantly answering them with IMOs.Prefixcaz 02:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
1.
  • Encarta: "[...]Norway and Sweden (which together form the Scandinavian Peninsula)[...]"
  • Britannica: "[...] the two countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Norway and Sweden [...]"
2. Portraying the samis in the North as a Finnish minority is misleading.
3. Once again you have only showed evidence of Finnish ties with Scandinavia. Documenting these factual ties does not make Finland part of Scandinavia. Documenting genetic, historic, economic ties between Scotland and Scandinavia does not make Scotland Scandinavian.
4. History, fine. The NOR+DEN+SWE connections are obvious. Finland's historic connection with Sweden is obvious. Finland's historic ties with Norway and Denmark are no stronger than you could expect from any neighbouring countries.
5. Great Britain is not a country. The United Kingdom is. Ireland is not concidered part of Great Britain.
.--Kvaks 09:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Finland

I added Finland to the earlier bullets. My reasoning- The article states this is the most common usage -"In recent years "Scandinavia" has again increasingly been used by scholars and teachers, in Scandinavia and other regions, in the broader sense of Fennoscandinavia, with Finland included.". The majority viewpoint should be first addressed, and then seperate sections, if warrented, to explain the minority view. -AKMask 21:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed it again, as per policy. If you want to challenge the position expressed in the article as it stands by claiming that the secondary definition given is actually the first (or sole?) definition, then you must show that you and Hercules are not the inventors of this position. In order words, you'll need to show that the link to a school in New England is more right, and that these are less right or not right at all:
  1. Encarta.com encyclopedia
  2. Britannica encyclopedia
  3. Britannica for kids
  4. Answers.com, a search machine
  5. Enter Scandinavia, apparently a private enterprise
  6. Everythin2, apparently a blog or discussion group not unlike Wikipedia
  7. Celsius Centre for Scandinavian Studies, Flinders University, AU
  8. Factbites, a search machine
  9. What is Scandinavia?
  10. HomeAtFirst, a private company
  11. RecipeLand on Scandinavia
  12. The difference between Scandinavian and Nordic
  13. On Scandinavian stereotypes
  14. Who are the Scandinavians?
In my honest opinion, the phrase about "mutually recognizing each as other as Scandinivian" in our article's intro, sums up the Scandinavian and Nordic view on the usage ambivalence quite well. And the secondary usage is generously accomodated and discussed at length further down ("Greater Scandinavia") or explained elsewhere ("History of Scandinavia"). //Big Adamsky 03:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


I just assembled a gigantic slew of links that will basically establish once and for all that "Scandinavia" is understood around the world -- and within the Scandinavian countries themselves -- to comprise 1)Sweden, 2)Denmark, 3)Norway, 4) Finland (yes, Finland), and 5) Iceland. I will post them here tomorrow night, because it's late and because it's Christmas. 70.111.35.160 07:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

anon, can you stop edit-warring about it? Scandinavia is a term similar to Levant or Siberia, where cultural and geographical definitions overlap. Yes, Finland is sometimes included in the term. And then again sometimes not. We can have an intelligent and pleasant discussion about how to best present the case, and which, if any, definition should be considered "primary". It just isn't as simple as you seem to think. In my "Central European" usage, I do tend to include Finland in the term, but I am aware that this may be different depending on place, time and context. I might add that in my understanding, Iceland is not part of Scandinavia (not any more than Greenland) -- it is "North European", if you like, and it was colonized by Scandinavians, but Scandinavia is too much of a geographic term for me to include something as far off as Iceland. I am not saying that it may not have been included in the term by other people on some occasions, of course. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I am Icelandic. To me Scandinavia usually includes Finland. It sometimes includes Iceland and the Faroes as well but often it does not. - Haukur 11:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I am Swedish, and to me the term "Scandinavia" does not include Finland - mainly for ethnic/historical reasons, although it must be stated that Finland certainly is an important part of Scandinavian history and Finland certanly needs to be mentioned - and mentioned well - in the article in this capacity. I should point out that I am a great friend of Finland and the Finnish people. Moreover, I have absolutely nothing against being associated with Finns and Finland - it's just that I technically shouldn't be and it happens to be ethnically incorrect to say that Finland is part of "Scandinavia" as such. Please remember that Finnish belongs to a very different langauge group. Finnish is not even remotely related to the Scandinavian languages (Icelandic, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, etc.) which are Germanic and Indo-European. Finnish is Finno-Ugric. In light of this, I don't really mind the article as it is currently written, except for the passage which reads "and occasionally some people may take offence at such usage". I would never take offence against someone including Finland in the term "Scandinavia" nor do I know anyone who would (in fact I would venture to claim that the majority of Finns and Swedes/Scandinavians are quite proud and caring of the factual historical connection between Finland and Sweden/Scandinavia). The point is that such inclusion is simply not correct. That's in fact why we have the terms "Nordic Countries" or "Fennoscandinavia" - i.e. in order to include Finland.
IMO, the whole issue discussed here is, what are the clauses that need to be met for the correct usage of the term "Scandinavia" regarding a country/region. My point has been, that the usage of the term changed during the 1850s based on claims that are not unanimously accepted even among our own present day scholars or politicians. The present day usage points towards a direction, that the terms "Nordic" and "Scandinavia" are increasingly being used as synonyms. In North America the term "Scandinavia" is even clearer in it's meaning than "Nordic", as the latter term could cause confusion. The Nordic countries are not the only countries in the geographical north. Prefixcaz 18:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The term "Scandinavia" obviously causes confusion as well - as opposed to the term Fennoscandinavia (then again "Fennoscandinavia" doesn't necessarily include Denmark). Perhaps there should be a clearer section explaining the various uses of the terms "Scandinavia", "Nordic Countries" and "Fennoscandinavia". Again, I would be very careful with using the word "offence" in this context as we are - as compared to many other parts of the world where there is real controversy and real offence - a rather happy family up here in Scandinavia/the Nordic Countries/Fennoscandinavia. What we should be talking about is mere actual usage of the terms in question in the English language.

Dispute tag gone for now

Hey folks. I have now taken the liberty of removing the "disputed accuracy & neutrality" label from this article for the time being. Put it back if you can substantiate that it is really warrented. Refer to this talkpage's archive for insights on past disputes.

Also, do review these pages at your own leisure:

Cheers! =] //Big Adamsky 12:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Scandinavia is Denmark, Sweden, Norway...and Finland and Iceland (part 1)

The very short answer is this: Most the rest of the world outside of the Nordic region considers Denmark, Norway, Sweden -- and Finland and Iceland -- as "Scandinavia". This has been the prevailing view for centuries. Only in some intellectual circles of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (hereafter referred to as "DNS"), and only recently, is Scandinavia thought of as a land of only three countries. But their's is the minority view in the extreme.

Let me first review the links that Big Adamsky posted last week.

  1. Encarta.com encyclopedia

This is an open-edit source like Wikipedia, and therefore has zero authority. In fact, someone very recently has changed the article to reflect the minority view held here.

  1. Britannica encyclopedia

This article is an example of what is generally written in all authoratative encyclopedias and geographical dictionaries: That "Scandinavia" refers literally to Norway and Sweden, but is often grouped as DNS on linguistic grounds, and just as often as DNS + Finland and Iceland on every other ground. The article doesn't clear up the issue.

  1. Britannica for kids

Same as above

  1. Answers.com, a search machine

A small grouping of definitions. Notice that the non Wiki entries have wording to include F and I.

  1. Enter Scandinavia, apparently a private enterprise

This entry from a Swedish site muddies the issue, but is important nevertheless. It says that Scandinavia is "usually" considered DNS within the Nordic region, and that outside the Nordic region, views of what Scandinavia is vary. However, it's not correct to say that within the Nordic region "Scandinavia is usually DNS", because I found plenty of evidence to indicate just the opposite (which I'll link to later). In fact, even some Wikipedians from the region posting here believe that Scandinavia is DNSI or DNSF (in addition to the DNS posters here who say Scandinavia is just DNS).

  1. Everythin2, apparently a blog or discussion group not unlike Wikipedia

Another open-edit entry that Big Adamsky annoyingly tries to pass off to the rest of us here as some sourch of authority.

  1. Celsius Centre for Scandinavian Studies, Flinders University, AU

This Norwegian-written article tries to answer the question, "What is the difference between a Dane, a Norwegian and a Swede?" It then says "The Scandinavian countries are usually considered a homogenous cultural region." It makes the point that DNS languages are almost one-and-the same, but then says that DNS are culturally and historically similar in every regard. The problem with that: the writer fails to point out that Iceland and Finland are also culturally and historically similar to DNS in every regard. "During long periods of history the countries were joined together in unions. The societies are almost entirely protestant, there exist only small ethnic minorities and the modern political systems were formed by strong liberal and social democratic parties." And that description differs from Iceland and Finland in what way???

  1. Factbites, a search machine

Another compendium of open-edit and academic sources. Notice the academic sources all refer to Scandinavia as being DNSFI.

"But those Scandinavian Studies departments are American! Their view doesn't count!" Is the usual response from the DNS elitists. Unfortunately for them, Scandinavian Studies departments in other nations ALSO include I as "Scandinavia", and only omit F simply because they have no one on staff that can teach Finnish. (However, they all include F in their Scandinavian history classes).

Canada: #[http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/%7escand/} 

       #[20]

(Canadian Institute for Nordic Studies uses the words "Nordic" and "Scandinavian" interchangebly) 

       #[21]

"FIN 260H - Scandinavian Cinema

Major developments of cinema in Scandinavia in the 20th century with concentration on the major film makers of Denmark, Sweden, and Finland. Screening of films by directors such as Victor Sjostrom, Mauritz Stiller, Alfi Sjoberg, Ingmar Bergman, August Bille, Carl Th. Dreyer, Gabriel Axel, Nils Gaupe, Aki and Mika Kaurismaki."

This description of Finland being part of Scandinavia isn't just some Canadian interpretation: It was written by Professor Börje Vähämäki, who came to the UToronto straight from Finland. (As if turns out, if one wants to learn about Scandinavian languages and history, the best places to go are Canana and especially the US, because there's much less interest in Europe. Most of the best Scandinavian studies scholars travel to America to find academic jobs).

  1. What is Scandinavia?

Link doesn't work.

  1. HomeAtFirst, a private company

Says "HOME AT FIRST offers 6 independent itineraries to 3 Scandinavian countries:DNS". Notice there is no "the" before "3 Scandinavian countries". In any case, many of the major Scandinavian travel vehicles refer to Scandinavia as the five countries. Example, Scandinavian Airlines:

  1. [22]


  1. RecipeLand on Scandinavia

Refers to "Continental Scandinavia" and "Insular Scandinavia" when categorizing languages: "Norwegian with Danish and Swedish as Continental Scandinavian"/"Faroese and Icelandic as Insular Scandinavian". I thought Iceland and the Faroese Islands weren't Scandinavian...

There's also this revealing sentence: "The language group is often also called either the Scandinavian or Nordic languages. The latter term is the most commonly used by both scholars and laymen in the Nordic countries and is often favored by these when writing in English."

In other words, the words "Scandinavian" and "Nordic" are used interchangebly and mean the same thing.


  1. The difference between Scandinavian and Nordic

Now we're getting to links where there's some serious discussion. Scandinavica.com says both that DNS "is considered to be the most commonly accepted definition of 'Scandinavia'" AND that "One more time, these five countries are perceived as an unity by some and therefore called by the same name: 'Scandinavia'. It then says that the word "Nordic" was invented to encompass DNS (Scandinavia) along with I and F, as a way to clear up confusion.

But something's wrong here, because in the rest of the Scandinavica.com site, F and I are constantly referred to as being "Scandinavian"; "Nordic" is given a backseat. The issue is summed up by the website as thus-

"Although in the rest of the world the words "Scandinavian" and "Nordic" are happily used in similar manner and are interchangeable, in northern Europe they are not. Europeans love to magnify even the smallest difference between neighbouring countries and you will probably be corrected if you don't use the words in their appropriate context. The problem comes when even northern Europeans can't agree themselves on the meaning of "Scandinavian" and "Nordic"..."

'Even northern Europeans can't agree themselves on the meaning of "Scandinavian" and "Nordic"...' So the site is forced to contradict itself -- there IS no consensus even among the people in that region about the correct word, after all.

.............................................

Whew. I've got a lot more to write; I haven't even begun to list down my own arsenal of links. So this little essay of mine is incomplete. In the meantime, someone should get a hold of some Wiki mediators and notify them that their mediation will be necessary in the near future to decide this issue once and for all. I'll reinsert the "neutrality" banner. J.R. Hercules 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wowzers, I have to say that I am utterly impressed, Hercules! I should give you credit for all your effort and enthusiasm in researching this name's usage/meaning. Obvioulsy, I was little too fast in removing the accuracy/neutrality tag before you had had a chance to respond, my apologies for that.
I can see that you are right about [www.encarta.com encarta.com] being an open-edit encyclopedia (just like our own Wikipedia), and therefore not quite as authoritative - but still worth a peek. I had just done a random search and didn't check each page as thouroughly as you evidently have done. You will have to bear with me for not taking too literally your assertions that you speak for "the whole world" and that you have "several centuries" of usage on your side. But I do look forward to seeing what you have come up with, and I shall try — if at all possible — not to cause you too much "annoyance" with any internet references I may provide on this subject later on. ;) //Big Adamsky 00:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm by no means an authority on this subject (I'm not big about geography) but as a Finn at least I use terms Nordic Countries (Pohjoismaat) and Scandinavian Countries (Skandinavia) interchangeably. On the other hand, there is a certain difference in meaning as to these terms. Nordic Countries include DNSFI + autonomous areas and Scandinavia includes only DNS. This usually comes up only in exams and when the terms are used to really make the difference between them for example in the same sentence. As a perfectly subjective personal opinion I think that the DNSFI definition, or at least a mention about it should be near the beginning of the article, so that it would show without the need to scroll the page. It is used quite commonly. --Khokkanen 04:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe the truth lies in whatever these countries different articles on Wikipedia about Scandinavia says. All of the Danish, Norwegian (bokmål and nynorsk), Swedish and more importantly Finnish says DNS as the primary definition. There has been several Finns who haven't objected to this. However I do feel like Khokkanen that the article should mention the variations right after DNS has been mentioned. The text about the similarities of DNS could easily be mentioned later. --Maitch 15:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Just as an example of the usage of the terms "Scandinavia" and the "Nordics" as synonyms, please visit this link to Aalborg University's Hum Fac [23]. I think it is safe to say that even in Scandinavia we are not completely sure if there is a difference between the terms. - Prefixcaz 19:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that despite all this evidence to the contrary, we all seem to believe that there is a definitive opinion to be found on this matter. Perhaps rather than arguing as such we should incorporate the disagreement on what constitutes Scandinavia into the article itself i.e. "Scandinavia is made up of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and (depending on who you ask) Finland and Iceland"

i second this, this talk page could actually have material for a whole article just about the debate ;) But i say there are many cultural aspects putting Finland in scandinavia, and as noted in the original definition of scanza the finns were noted as part of it. Also the definition to rule out finland by the germanic/scandinavian langues is a bad move, as fenno-ugric languages have by many theories been around longer, not to mention sami languages. Also what people have failed to note here is that Finland in fact has two official languages, finnish, and swedish as a minority-language.
A couple of small corrections. Sami-language is a Fenno-Ugric language. Swedish is not a so-called minority language in Finland, but has an equal official status with Finnish protected by the constitution. Interestingly, Finnish received an equal status with Swedish as an official language in Finland only in the beginning of 20th century. - Prefixcaz 15:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course this would need to be in a much more formal, wikipediaesque tone and go into more detail but I think you get my idea.

This disagreement is sort of mentioned in the article but not in a very clear manner Hew 03:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Defining the extent and limits of an exotic region

Hm.. the more I click my way around on these pages, the more I come to realize that perspectives and understandnings on all these exotic regions and continents vary and are highly subjective and even biased. Perhaps the English usage is much more inconsistent, unprecise and overlapping than the native-speakers' usage. If so, this is similar to other vaguely-defined regions that are found in the minds of distant groups of people and mean different things to them. See also Talk:Siberia, Talk:Latin America, Talk:Middle East and Talk:Balkans, and also exonym versus autonym for similar discussions of namings and meanings. //Big Adamsky 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

well said. the terms are fuzzy. It is up to us to document this fuzziness with exactitude :) dab (ᛏ) 16:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Greenland

I won't go into whether Greenland should be considered part of Scandinavia (or Greater Scandinavia, or Norden), but it should definitely be included in the Scandinavia#Historical_political_structure table. It was settled from Iceland in the 10th century, became a part of Norway in the 13th, and followed Norway's fate until 1815, when Denmark ceded Norway to Sweden but kept Iceland and Greenland. Unlike Iceland, it did not gain independence in WWII, and it is now an autonomous province of Denmark. 80.232.36.160 09:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


The early inhabitants of Scandza

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Geira wrote The Finns (and before them, the lapps) have inhabited the region since the 6th century (Britannica 1910), and was only invaded and subdued by the Swedish King Eric IX in 1157. This theory is outdated and wrong. According to almost any present archaelogist or other new source about the subject the linquistic ancestors of Finns have been living in Finland and also in some areas that are now Sweden, since the ice age more than 10 000 years ago. Germanic language is quite a new in Scandinvia compared to that. Germanic languages are called scandinavian languages, but that is only a linquistic term. Actually in Scandinavia fenno-ugric is a lot older form of a language. Linquistic term "scandinavian language" is not a reason to count something out or in Scandinavia, there is also history and pre-history that makes Scandinavia. As a Finn i can lighten this about how we use the term in Finland. In Finnish language scandinavia means other nordic countries, but this is only about Finnish and maybe in Swedish and some other Nordic languages. But maybe it is not so in English or German and other big languages. I have heard many times non-scandinavian foreigners to speak about Finland as a part of Scandinavia. In linguistic terms i am not a "Scandivian speaker", but still, i speak a language that is originally from Scandinavia, I look Scandinavian (if Lapps are excluded), and geographically belong to scandinavia rather than baltic region, if these are the options Tuohirulla 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Roman and greek historians recognized the fact that there were "Fenni" or "Phinnoi" living in almost all parts of Scandinavia (Tacitus ca 100AD, Ptolemy ca 150AD) and this is also indicated in the oldest maps that can be found over the region. The terms "skridifinn" , "skidifinn" and "skrifinn" (skiing finns) are also found. According to Jordane (ca 550AD), the "island Scandza" was inhabited by several tribes, as he mentions Scerefennae (skiing Finns, wandering Finns), Suehans, Theustes, Vagoth, Bergio, Hallin, Liothida, Ahemil, Finnaithae (Finns of the heath, Finns of the plains), Fervir, Gauthigoth, Evagre, Ottingis, Ostrogothae, Raumariciae, Finni mitissimi (gentle Finns), Suetidi, Heruli and others. If the origin of Scandinavia is derived from the "island Scandza" and finnic tribes are mentioned among one of the first inhabitants, if not the first, I don't see any grounds for excluding Finland from Scandinavia based on false claims, that the finnic ties to Scandinavia are merely a few hundred years old. Here's a link to one of the earliest know cultures in Scandinavia [24]. You might want to notice, that the team studying the findings in 2004, consisted of norwegian, swedish and finnish scholars from the universities of Helsinki (Fin), Oulu (Fin), Uppsala (Swe), Tromsø (Nor), and Oslo (Nor). All the references are mentioned in the bottom of the page. Being provocative, one could say, that the swedish and norwegian ties to Scandinavia could be interpreted as being only around 1500 yrs old :) - Prefixcaz 17:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The only problem being, of course, is that Wikipedia tends toward being a descriptive resource rather than a prescriptive one. It is a nice idea to consider Finland to be part of Scandinavia, but a lot of Finns educated in the universities of Finland during the latter half of the 20th century might have a few issues with such a blanket generalisation as being considered 'Scandinavian' (nationalistic trends have been increasing according to some evidence). Even a shallow understanding of the socio-political (and the linguistic for that matter) interactions between the respective governments of Sweden and Finland, and the relations of their peoples, over the course of the past three centuries would incline me to consider carefully whether we should describe the Finns *en masse* as being Scandinavians. It reminds me somewhat of the tendency to consider Scots, Welsh, and Cornish folk as being somehow 'British'- there are arguments for and against the term in that usage, and one should be careful how one applies it so that it is precisely used.
Just a few thoughts. For myself, when I think 'Scandinavia', I include Finland, Iceland, the Faroes, Orkney, and a few other places in addition to that big peninsula looming over Europe- but I look at it from being generally familiar with a few thousand years of history for that region and its peoples rather than considering it for what it is at this time- which is a bit different in being a subset of that large span of time. My POV is technically inaccurate as far as an encyclopaedia is concerned, and that is why I am trying to avoid this discussion- I might get yelled at a bit by the 'Denmark-Sweden-Norway-only' adherents, and I would not blame them for doing so. ;)
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you to certain extents. Still the fact remains, that both scholars and politicians both in- and outside of Scandinavia are increasingly AGAIN using the the term "Scandinavia" with Finland included. In fact, the terms "Scandinavia" and "Nordic" are being used as synonyms in universities around the region and the usage is increasing still. I think the issue here is whether we rely on the opinions of scholars/politicians or private persons. Prefixcaz 15:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Particularly your last statement there: without a doubt, yes.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c)

I just must add that as a finn learning this is very cool. ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US :D

Summary

Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

The discussion has been lively and without a doubt will continue to be so. In order to make it easier to follow the progress, I think we should try to combine the arguments in shorter form under the "Summary" header. In my opinion a neutral and experienced Wikian, preferably an "outsider" (outside of Scandinavia/Nordics), could try to make a compilation of all the arguments written. Prefixcaz 21:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a decision needs to made concerning this issue. Then we can take down the "Totally disputed" banner. I feel very strongly that "Scandinavia" is -- and it has always been understood by the world -- as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland. I'll post Part Two of my argument (Part One is above) pretty soon (still working on it.) J.R. Hercules 02:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I, however, as a Brit who in a professional capacity deals almost exclusively with the Nordic market, strongly believe that Scandinavia is Sweden, Norway and Denmark only, and that the Nordic Region should be used when including Finland, Iceland and other territories. It's important to note within the article that the term Scandinavia is sometimes used to refer to the Nordic Region as a whole, but that accurately it only describes Sweden, Norway and Denmark, and these are the only countries which should be included in the main introductory description. To say that Scandinavia "has always been understood by the world" to include Finland and Iceland, is, I'm afraid, incorrect. CLW 08:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The questions is whether we rely on the opinions of scholars and politicians of past and present, or do we rely on opinions private persons. Prefixcaz
To add some perspective it could be mentioned that the United Kingdom frequently is referred to as "Great Britain" in Scandinavian languages. Even Norwegian and Swedish Wikipedia versions seem to fail in making a distinction. This usage might be very common in colloquial language, but it still does not make it correct. It is surprising how often sticking ones belief to something like what "has always been understood by the world" resembles just being uninformed.
UK is normally referred to as GB in Scandinavia, Finland included :). The official name of the state is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". In Finnish the official name is "Isobritannian ja Pohjoisirlannin Yhdistynyt Kunisgaskunta" and in Swedish "Förenade konungariket Storbritannien och Nordirland". Now honestly, do you blame us for calling it GB? :) You are using an abbreviation of the name yourself, when calling the country simply by the letters "UK".
However, the term "Greater Scandinavia" I find exceptionally funny, as I have never even heard of the term. I'm afraid we are using an artificial term, or a term recently invented by some eager wikipedians :), on the region (feel free to Google it and inform me if it is found in e.g educational or governmental links). "Norden" literally means "The North" and derives from the French invention of "Pays Nordique" meaning "Nordic country" or "Nordic land". There is no other term for the region "Norden" in English than Scandinavia. Prefixcaz 23:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
What about Fenno-Scandinavia as a translation for Norden? Thus, we can have Scandinavia for DNS, Fenno-Scandinavia for DNS+Finland (or just 'Scandinavia' for short in countries outside the region where people may be less interested in this discussion), and the Nordic Countries for DNS+Finland+Iceland and the Faeroe Islands. (I'm not sure about Greenland.) 80.164.60.6 01:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
"There is no other term for the region "Norden" in English than Scandinavia."
Yes there is: "The Nordic countries".
Like I said earlier, if ignorant people outside of Scandinavia and the other Nordic countries were to hijack the term Scandinavia to mean what we today call the Nordic countries, we'd have to come up with a new word to refer to Norway, Sweden and Denmark collectively, because that is an important abstract entity to have a name for (for ethnic, linguistic, cultural and geographic reasons).
By the way, "Norden" is not one-to-one translateable to "The North", at least not in Norwegian. The word "Norden" is exclusively used for the entity of the Nordic countries. --Kvaks 00:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Following your reasoning, ignorant people inside Scandinavia are neglecting geographical, cultural, linguistical, economical and historical facts in their opinions about the usage of the term 'Scandinavia'. About the etymology of 'Norden', it is a term that has been used in the sense of the Nordic countries only for a few decades. Before that 'Norden', even in Norwegian, referred to the North, whereas the etymology of 'Scandinavia' has a history of roughly 2000 years and has been linked also to Finnic people since Tacitus' days.Prefixcaz 11:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The term "England" is increasingly used elsewhere in Europe to refer to the whole of mainland Britain, i.e. England, Scotland and Wales. But on the basis of this, would anyone seriously propose changing the Wikipedia article for England to say "England is a nation which also includes the nations of Scotland and Wales"? No! Just because the term Scandinavia is frequently incorrectly applied to include Finland as well, that's not to say that the opening definition of this article should be amended to say that Finland is part of Scandinavia. Scandinavia is Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Together with countries such as Finland they make up the Nordic countries. I vote to remove the "disputed" tag and leave the definition as Sweden, Denmark and Norway. CLW 09:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Supported! --Njård 10:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping in my Summary-opening, that people from outside of Scandinavia, who would be the most neutral and without prejudice in this matter, would give their opinions about it, based on the facts, arguments and counter-arguments presented on this page. Prefixcaz 10:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh? So we're not supposed to comment unless it's "based on the facts, arguments and counter-arguments presented on this page"? CLW 14:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought Wiki was an effort to make a web dictionary based on facts. I would assume, that the discussion page is where one can present facts backing up his/her opinions. This is the discussion page, so please feel free to present them.Prefixcaz 17:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
When I use the term "Scandinavia", I am always referring to Denmark, Sweden & Norway only. If I wanted to include Finland and Iceland I would use the term "Nordic". I am not from any of the countries involved. This dispute is similar to the dispute over the nomenclature "British Isles". Iolar Iontach 13:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Progress?

Well, I can see that quite a bit of chatting has been going on since the last time I checked this page. I can also see that the definition and location of "Scandinavia" has been up for debate before in here (btw, I think it's time for this talk page to be archived again, but not sure where to make the "cut"?). If I remember correctly, it all began when User:J.R. Hercules screamed that the whole article must be rewritten and almost demanded that it be merged with the Nordic region article, since he felt they were coterminous with one another. So... has any progress been made thus far?

It might be a good idea to model this article on other region articles on WP and give the reader a multi-layered definition, i.e. from "core" to "periphery". It could look something like this:

  1. Always considered "Scandinavian": Norway and Sweden
  2. Usually considered "Scandinavian": Denmark and Svalbard
  3. Occasionally considered "Scandinavian": Åland, Faroes, Finland and Iceland
  4. Rarely considered "Scandinavian": Estonia, Greenland, Hebrides, Holstein, Ingria, Karelia, Kola, Latvia, Lithuania, Normandy, Orkneys, Schleswig, Shetlands, Sutherland, ... ?

Any thoughts? Well, good luck. =J //Big Adamsky 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What "Scandinavia" is according to other [more traditional] encyclopedias/dictionaries:

The perplexed might want to ponder why it is that the Scandinavian languages are not referred to as the Nordic languages, or why the Nordic Council is not called the Scandinavian Council. Maybe it would help to look up the word "Nordic" (as in Nordic region), as well? Then again, maybe not. Ha! ;) //Big Adamsky 08:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason is the Scandinavian movement in 1850's and of course the Fennoman movement in Finland. It was a tumultuos time in Scandinavia, rise of nationalism etc. Finland was a part of Russia and that fact caused fear and istability in the region. Scandinavization arose from this fear of Russia and in SWE and NOR it resulted in laws forbidding the Finnic languages even in the 20th century and still in the of the 19th century natural Finns were officially seen as a 'lower race' in SWE and NOR. After the WWI the relations started getting closer again, when Finland declared their independence. The Aland crisis cooled them down for a while, but soon the natural close ties took over the politics again. The term Nordic countries ("Pays Nordique") was invented by the French and has been in use for a limited amount of time in the sense that it is used now. The Nordic council was established in 1952, in times of the cold war at it's worst and the Finnish YYA with the Soviet Union, with the Finlandization as a result, was not exactly creating totally trustful thoughts in the rest of the Scandinavian countries. Finnish is still not an official language of the Nordic council, 54 years after the establishment of it. After the termination of the YYA in 1992 and when SWE and FIN joined EU, the term Scandinavia has increasingly been used by scholars and politicians IN Scandinavia to iclude Finland. The terms 'Nordic' and 'Scandinavia' are increasingly being used interexchangeably even in the region.Prefixcaz 13:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The two largest Norwegian encyclopedias and dictionaries:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scandinavia/Archive_3&oldid=1089153088"