Talk:Finland/Archive 3

BCE
What on earth is this 'BCE' nonsense? Oh, of course, it means 'Before the Christian Era'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T A Francis (talk • contribs) 19:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be superhuman, or maybe only too human, to want to be the "Overman", but adding new comments at the bottom of a page, rather than over older comments, is considered good form. It helps keep threads in chronological order (no matter if your personal preference is for a continued use of a Christian Lord as naming convention in chronology matters, rather than the common era chronology name). "What on earth is BCE?" Well, I suspect it it is an acknowledgement that Western time has become World time, by unabated habit and domination in terminology issues such as this - although the name is merely constructed around guess work about the date of birth of a Jewish man whom the Romans gave religious lordship to in Latin only after having grown tired of the fun and games at the Colloseum. The answer to your question is, I suspect, that BCE is a nod at the fact that this is how time is commonly divided, but less of a declaration of religious convinction than the old-timers' abbreviation which declares that we are now and always "In the Year of Our Lord" era. Afv2006 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

To repeat, what is this BCE nonsense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.70.120 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 30 November 2007(UTC)
 * To repeat: The discussion page about the article Finland is not the appropriate place to campaign for AD usage. Rather, the appropriate page to discuss the use of BCE and CE on Wikipedia would appear to be the discussion page of Manual of Style (dates and numbers), although advocacy is not generally considered an appropriate modus operandi anywhere on Wikipedia. Complaints about "this BCE nonsense" is therefore ultimately best leveled at influential English usage trend setters in real life, such as, to pick a few on random, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the College Board, the National Geographic Society, the United States Naval Observatory, Smithsonian Institution, etc., etc. (But please note that repetitive personal belief-based rantings against the modern use of BCE and CE certainly does not lend much support to the claim that AD has no religious connotations). And to repeat: The campaign for or against AD has no relevance whatsoever to the subject of this article - in spite of odd claims to the contrary by certain dollar-rich cults of Christian denominations, such as the one that liked to claim Finland's position as the central location where "Scientists Discovered Hell" in 1989 (as reported by California-based Trinity Broadcasting Network in 1990, based on findings in "a respected Finnish scientific journal" [i.e. a letter to the editor in a Finnish Missionaries Newsletter] that TBN's initial 1989 story about howling heard from condemned souls from a hole on the Kola Peninsula had lead scientists to discover a connection straight down to hell from Finland). Perhaps 1990 could be forwarded as a contender to 1950 as the Before present starting-point in archeology - the year hell on earth was revealed to archeologists could perhaps be considered just as malevolent and emotional to the global atmosphere in some quarters as the date atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons altered the global ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. ;) Afv2006 01:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.72.18 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rate
I changed the rate from A to B because I didn't found out if the article had already passed the GA assessment. Coloane (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal?
Who, who has a beef with Finland? Why this abuse? They are the most inospicuous peoples Radio Guy (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism
I would like to point out that the aim of Wikipedia is to present a neutral an unbiased view. Recently, user Pudeo has taken to vandalising this article to remove views he doesn't seem to like. There is currently no agreement on when speakers of Finnish and Swedish first arrived in Finland, and I've tried to edit to present that lack of concensus, keeping both the theories of Finno-Ugric speakers arriving thousands of years ago as well as recent research putting their arrival at a much later stage. Neither of these theories are so-called fringe theories, they are both put forward and accepted by many specialists. My edits build upon the views of the Finnish professor Juha Janhunen, the edit is sourced back to an article by Janhunen and makes it clear that this is Janhunen's view. Despite this, Pudeo keeps deleting it to present his version and the only one, and I can only see this as an act of vandalism. To make matters worse, his comments to me makes it perfectly clear that he is making this edit out of nationalist reasons, bringing up a lot of completely irrelevant things about Swedish speakers. Just to make it clear, modern science does not argue that Swedes were the first in Finland, far from. Neither were Finns. Before the arrival of Finnish and Swedish, other languages were spoken in Finland just as in almost all of Europe. This is nothing new nor remarkable. Janhunen presents this research and rejects the idea of Finnish having been spoken in Finland for thousands of years. I can understand why some Finnish nationalists may not like this, but there are ideas presented by Finnish researchers. I don't see the problem in saying that other languages were spoken in Finland before the arrival of the languages spoken here today. As this goes for Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, the UK and every area in Europe with the exception of the Basque Contry, it's hardly controversial. I hope Pudeo will start contributing in a more NPOV way and not delete sourced information just because he doesn't like it. Especially not if he does so to try to give the idea of a consensus where there is none. JdeJ (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Now half of the history section is of one historian's theory. According to Janhunen, Juha Janhunen describes is very, very stiff in a top level country article. Such things have no place here. It is incredibly ignorant to say Swedish has been in Finland as long as Finnish (or Finnic). --Pudeo⺮ 10:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Folktinget's report, Swedish-speaking populations arrived to Finland in late Middle Ages, in 12th and 13th Century. While we can find references for the fact Finnic has been around for thousands years, stating Swedish and Finnish have "arrived" at the same time is very questionable. Finnish did not arrive, it evolved from indigenious Finnic language. Swedish arrived from Sweden as part of the Middle Agean movement. --Pudeo⺮ 10:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some corrections. It's not even close to half the history section, it's around half of the pre-historic section, which is just one of many parts under the heading History. Secondly, this is not just "one historian's theory". No offence intended to you, but I assume that you're not very familiar with academic writing? This is a proper way to reference. This view is far from just Janhunen's view, Janhunen describes where the research currently is. Every piece of writing has one or a few writers, that doesn't mean that they are the only ones behind the idea but it is these writers you mention when you source the idea. And with due respect to Folktinget, and to Virtual Finland, they are politicians and not academics and have very little relevance. I read that report years ago and it used old sources already then. That is not to say that it's necessarily wrong, but it's not very relevant. The article by Janhunen is just a few days old, written by an expert in the field and telling what reseachers (not politicians) currently hold to be correct. JdeJ (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Familiar enough to know one historian's recent attempt to get publicity in media by such claims doesn't overwrite hundreds of other academic works. Introducing very recent research, that is without scientific concensus, is a very bad idea to a top level country article (again). Maybe then if this would be Languages of Finland or something. So what then? Should I just line up 10 references stating Finnic presence? Or perhaps someone else will notice this and revert you as well.


 * Out of curiosity? Where did those "ancient Swedes" live? There is no archeological evidence besides in Åland. We all know where Tavastians, Lapps and other Finnic tribes lived. First inhabitants of Finland Proper and Uusimaa were Tavastians who did not live there permanently, but went there to hunt and fish. Some great information available at National Board of Antiquities. --Pudeo⺮ 10:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To begin with your first point, Janhunen hardly needs any "publicity". He's one of the best-known experts on Uralic languages in the world and has written and edited multiple article and books. If this would be an academic paper, that is the only valid reference in the section whereas virtual Finland isn't. Having said that, I'm the first to admit that not all experts agree. And that is precisely why I've made it clear in the section that there is disagreement. I really don't see the problem here, unless you want to present only one version as the truth. As for your question out of curiosity, I wouldn't have the wildest idea. Once again, I'm not putting forward my own version. Personally, I don't think Swedish speakers have lived here for very long, and that is precisely what Janhunen says. Probably earlier than the 12th century and perhaps then in some of the areas where Swedish speakers still live. Please note that I'm guessing now and I wouldn't put any of that in the article without sources.
 * I think you may have misunderstood the theory here. It's not a very long Swedish presence, it's a relatively short presence of both Finnish speakers and Swedish speakers. I've never understood why Finns (some few Finns, but very active on the Internet) have such problems with this. In Europe, Finns and Turks seem to be the only societies where we constantly find new ideas that their own people are the origin of everything. To be honest, this does more disadvantage to the picture of Finland. I'm mainly French myself, and have no problem whatsoever accepting that before my ancestors started speaking French, they spoke the Celtic language Gaulish. And before they spoke Gaulish, they spoke some now extinct and unknown language. Such was the case in every European country, including Finland. Indo-European and Finno-Ugric languages arrived relatively late in Europe and gradually replaced other languages being spoken here. JdeJ (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the page you posted to, the National Board of Antiquities, I too think the information is interesting. Please note, though, that it says that the Comb-Cheramic people may have spoken Uralic languages. That's consistent with what many experts say, it's one of the options but certainly not the only one and definitely not a known fact. So it would be percetly consistent both with Finno-Ugric languages having been spoken in Finland for a long time or with Finno-Ugric languages arriving late and replacing other languages. JdeJ (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I inserted a proper version with all theories, and telling the real consencus. There was more text about Janhunen than Tarja Halonen in the earlier version. :) Oh, and don't call Virtual Finland's Dr. Pirjo Uino, Docent, Curator, Department of Archaeology, National Board of Antiquities "a politician". It is a valid source. --Pudeo⺮ 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, don't assume ownership of the article. It not for you, nor for me, to decide which version is "proper". You seem to be very unwilling to accept that there is no consensus on when any language arrived in Europe. Including Finnish. Dr. Uino is certainly a valid source but that information on Virtual Finland is very old, it's at least five years since I first read it. Science progress, and there is no consensus today. And I object to you constantly trying to accuse me of putting in only one version. I have consistently tried to provide room for all versions, whereas you twice have deleted the version you don't like and the last time written that "your" version is the consensus-version. JdeJ (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Still the article says Finnish "arrived" at the same time as Swedish. Ridiculous.. --Pudeo⺮ 14:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article makes it clear that that's one theory, it doesn't claim it's the only accepted theory. And with all due respect, neither you nor I are as knowledgeable about the matter as professor Janhunen. JdeJ (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I, too, find it curious that bringing up questions about an "arrival" seems, to some people, especially justifiable in issues regarding Finland and the Finns. This seems a recurrent theme in both Finnish nationalistic spheres and in non-Finnish nationalistic spheres in their attitudes toward the "odd man out" which the European Uralic speakers seem to be. I don't, however, think that claims of the own primacy are unique to the Finnish and the Turkish nationalists. On the contrary, most Germanic speaking nationalists seem to claim a primacy, not only on their location but also within the German speaking world. Most Swedish nationalists, for example, seem to think that Proto-Germanic is especially a "Swedish thing" and was first spoken in Sweden or southern Scandinavia (this simply isn't known). There are plenty of examples. I think what seems especially odd about writing about an arrival of the Finnish and the Swedish languages in Finland is the great anachronism and the apparent confusion of terminology. 1000 years ago there simply were no Finnish or Swedish languages as both are the result of a linguistic evolution. I must confess I'm not familiar with Janhunen's work, I can only comment on some of the interpretations made of his claims here in Wikipedia. I bet the question at hand really runs: when was a Uralic language first spoken in Finland and when was an Indo-European language first spoken in Finland. The answer is: it is not known. We only know that a Baltic-Finnic language was spoken in Novgorod in the 13th century and we know that Swedish had differentiated itself from Danish by the 13th century. To speak of "an arrival" of Finnish and Swedish into Finland really sounds corny in this light... The Sami claim a culture continuum ranging thousands of years locally and have been accepted in the ILO convention as an indigenous population... Does the fact that they speak a Uralic language mean anything? As far as I know, there aren't any people in the ILO list Living in Finland, Scandinavia or the whole of Europe that are considerend indigenous and speak an Indo-European language? Clarifer (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Many good points in there. I must admit that I know next to nothing about different origin theories popular among nationalist speakers of Germanic languages, but I'm sure you're right. Nationalists of all kind seem to like "discovering" that their own origin is especially ancient. I've simply run into exceptionally many cases among Finns and Turks, but I'm sure it's not restricted to them. Regarding the "indigenous" peoples, it's important to keep in mind that it is about a way of life and says next to nothing about how long a certain people have lived in a given area. Had the Sami people not lead a nomadic life until fairly recently, they would probably not be considered indigenous. Besides, the whole idea of speaking of different peoples when discussing languages is rather absurd, as it would be hard to find a single people in Europe (with the possible exception of the Basques) that has not changed language, often many times. Neither Indo-European nor Uralic languages are native to Europe, and neither of them have spread in Europe as the result of an ancient mass-invasion, the like of which has never been seen again. Most scientists agree that a fairly small group of Indo-Europeans were responsible for bringing the languages to Europe. As they were technically superior at the time, their language carried prestige with it. Not unlike the use of English as an international prestige language today. None of us are English-speakers, but given the dominance of English, we're discussing this in English. Uralic languages spread to Europe in much the same way. So different peoples all across Europe adopted the new languages that arrived, so no "people" in the modern sense is more or less indigenous to Europe than any other. This is something that nationalists, regarding what kind of nationalists they are, would hate to admit but it doesn't make it any less true. Genetic research in our time has confirmed this, there is no genetic limits that would correspond to language limits. As I'm sure you all know, the Sami people have changed their language into the present Sami languages, while the original Sami languages is pretty certain to have been a form of Samoyed. Of course, saying the "original" Sami language is just a guess, what I mean is that the earliest form of language known to have been spoken by the Samis was a kind of Samoyed but of course they could have spoken yet another, or multiple, languages before that. And as Clarifer correctly points out, both Swedish and Finnish are less than 1000 years old in the sense of being differentiated from other languages. In the article, Janhunen states clearly that both Germanic and Finno-Ugric languages (in an unspecified form) were present in Finland before either Swedish or Finnish existed. What is important is that he states that also these languages were relatively recent newcomers and that other and now extinct and unknown languages were spoken in Finland before the establishment of these languages. JdeJ (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, let's speak nationalism, shall we? Just look at this:

"...more recent theories according to which Finnish arrived at about the same time as Swedish and spread in Finland during the last thousand years.[11]. Likewise, there is no consensus on when Swedish speakers first arrived, their arrival has been suggest both to coincide with the arrival of Finnish or to arrive later."

Does it really matter if Swedish came at the same time with Finnish? It matters to Swedish-speaking nationalists. What that is really saying, is "Swedish is spoken at least as long as Finnish, so Swedish-speaking Finns are not invaders!" To non-nationalists, whatever Swedish came with Finnish is totally and absolutely irrelevant. Believe me JdeJ, even as early Finnish language came before early Swedish language, it doesn't make Finland-Swedes invaders or something not belonging to Finland.

I include this higly unlikely theory, but as shortened. Timing to Comb Ceramic culture is the most common though I have seen experts having made, so it must be included.

And please don't call me a nationalist. I have fixed claims of Finns being mighty riding conquerors because it's not true, like it's not true to hint this theory being commonly accepted.

Wikinist (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I'm sure you're aware, I haven't called you anything. Before today, I haven't met you on Wikipedia and hold no opinion at all regarding your beliefs. All I've done is to point out that when a fact is attributed to a source, changing that fact is incorrect. That is a general principle for all articles, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and has nothing to do with nationalism, Finland or when certain languages arrived. JdeJ (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the europa.eu portal had a text about Finland which said that Swedish language presence in Finland is just a result of Swedish occupation starting from the 12th Century. The ethnonationalists very furious especially about the word "occupation", and the portal was criticized in Huvudstadbladet. The portal promised to change the text. Too bad I can't find the news articles. --Pudeo⺮ 12:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to say JdeJ, but you are mistaken. Mainstream science supports and have supported different theories, but they all place Finnish related languages earlier than Swedish. I have studied this subject, and i know there is no any kind of relevant controversy about this. Only some irrelevant and marginal Swedish or Germanic ultra-nationalists oppose this. Even the old and partially pro-Germanic theories stated that Finnish-related languages have been spoken in Finland for at least 2000 years. Modern theories suggests different dates of "arrival" from 2000 years ago to more than 10 000 years ago. Finnish is clearly indigenous like Bascue. Tuohirulla puhu 10:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to break in on your nice little feud, but it seems to bring out the worst in the Wiki project: arguments between dilettantes with scant knowledge of the field they are writing about, brandishing "names" whose political and scientific standing they are either unaware of or choose to ignore, and choosing sides based on their own background (JdeJ, I see, is Swedish, Pudeo is Finnish) instead of trying to present some form of synthesis on what the general consensus among actual experts currently is.

JdeJ begins this chain with the assertion that "the aim of Wikipedia is to present a neutral and unbiased view." This goal is somewhat at variance with his basing his arguments about the relative ages of the Finno-Ugric and Indo-European languages in Finland solely on the authority of professor Juha Janhunen. Janhunen is professor of East Asian cultures and languages, but he is also chairman of the Finlandssvensk samling, an organization active in the cause of Swedish-speaking Finns, and is known for presenting very strong statements concerning, e.g., the position of compulsory Swedish language teaching in Finnish schools. Janhunen's theories on the lateness of the spread of Finno-Ugrian languages into Finland are not widely supported among Finnish linguists; most consider the Uralic area to have extended to the Baltic at least by 4000 BC. An overview of current ideas about the origins of the Finnish language and the Finns may be found in, e.g., P. Fogelberg (ed.), Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153, Finska Vetenskaps-Societeten - Suomen Tiedeseura 1999.

The section on prehistory is extremely limited in scope; this is unfortunate because archaeologists also have an opinion on the language question. In short, the evidence suggests that there have been no notable prehistoric population changes in Finland at least since the Typical Comb Ware Period (c. 4000-3600 BC), with the exception of the Corded Ware culture which spread from the eastern Baltic (Lithuania and Latvia) to the western coast c. 3200-3100 BC. The Corded Ware culture has been considered Indo-European (Note: NOT the same as Indo-Germanic). According to the present archaeological consensus, the population of Finland spoke a Finno-Ugric language at least from the Typical Comb Ware Period onwards and the eventual amalgamation of the coastal Corded Ware people with the inland Comb Ware people into the hybrid Kiukais culture also produced the direct ancestor of present-day Finnish, while the unaffected Comb Ware people further inland spoke a language that eventually developed into the Sámi language.

What language was spoken in Finland during the Mesolithic and the Early Comb Ware Period is less clear; certain place names that do not conform to normal Uralic word structure suggest an unrelated language, but a Uralic language is also considered possible. The first postglacial settlers in Finland came from the southeast, from the sphere of the post-Swiderian cultures of the eastern Baltic and northern Russia, so the latter is not improbable.

Since JdeJ considers it commendable to present all points of view, I would also like to see the ideas of professor Kalevi Wiik given their fair share of publicity. According to Wiik, Finno-Ugric languages were in fact originally spoken by all populations of northern Europe, including all of Scandinavia, northern Germany, Poland, and the Baltic countries, and were only later replaced by Indo-European languages spreading from the south through diffusion rather than population displacement. Wiik's theories are about as generally accepted as Janhunen's are, so both should get equal treatment.--Death Bredon (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Language accuracy
Which one is correct, or are they both wrong? Check them up and correct?

Quote from Finland: "The largest minority language is Swedish, which is the second official language in Finland, spoken by 5.5 percent of the population."

Quote from Sweden: "Swedish, the first language for about 7 percent of the population of Finland..."

Xertoz (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto_en.html


 * Wikinist (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"The first verifiable written documents appeared in the twelfth century." I wonder what these might be. Any suggestions, sources? (12th century = years 1101-1200) Clarifer (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hufvudstadsbladet quotation
Under the paragraph 'Time span of the modern languages' the Swedish language newspaper Hufvudstadsbladet is quoted. The source is an opinions page and a comment by professor Janhunen there. This is a portion of the text in Swedish (sorry for the lack of the correct keyboard):

"Alec Aalto citerar i förbigaende den gamla myten om det FINSKA sprakets tuseariga rötter i Finland. ... Det FINSKA Finland som nu firar sin självständighet är resultatet av det FINSKA sprakets expansion i landets inre delar under det senaste artusendet. ... Sprak som VAR SLÄKT med svenskan (germanska) och finskan (samiska) hade nog talats i landet lite tidigare, ... ". Here's the translation in English (by me):

"Alec Aalto quotes in passing the old myth concerning the thousand year old roots of the Finnish language in Finland. ... The Finnish speaking Finland that now celebrates its independence is a result of the Finnish language's expansion in the land's inner areas taking place during the last millennium. ... The languages that were related to Swedish (Germanic) and Finnish (Sami) were probably spoken in the land a bit earlier, ..."

My earlier adjustments in the paragraph were removed by claiming that my analysis and understanding of Janhunen's opinions were wrong. However, the focus of Janhunen's comment was the Finnish language in Finland. He addresses the other Uralic languages (and Germanic) only in one sentence stating vaguely that these may have been spoken in the country a little earlier. How little, he doesn't say. He does go on to state that neither the Finnish nor the Swedish place names are the oldest in Finland and these, he writes, descend from (an) extinct language(s). I think a) that the whole paragraph is unfortunate and feasts on a need for a primacy. However, if there should be a paragraph on the primacy in this article, it should not focus too much on an opinions page writing, or these opinions should be clearly and truthfully disentangled. Trustworthy quoting from multiple sources is the best approach. I'm reverting closer to my earlier analysis. Please feel free to heavily edit or remove the whole paragraph. Clarifer (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you're making yourself guilty of WP:OR. You choose to interpret the paragraph the way you want to, make yourself the judge of what is relevant in it and rewrite the article to suit your own ideas of what you think the professor means to say. And adding a long resume about who professor Janhunen is and where he publishes? In an article on Finland? Should we add a similar sentence for each source in the article? Surely not. I agree 100% with you about quoting from multiple sources being preferable, though. JdeJ (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are the one who apparently has done an interpretation and what worse: a wrong one. --Pudeo⺮ 19:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No offence Pudeo, but your lack of objectivity in anything dealing with Finland is rather well-known. So what "wrong interpretation" have I made that's in the article but not in the source. JdeJ (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of going behind some guide line why don't you try and systematically show how I may be wrong in my analysis? Did I translate the Swedish text wrong? If you simply count how many times the word FINNISH appears in Janhunen's comment and compare this to how many times he refers to the Uralic languages as a whole, surely you must agree that the focus in his comment is indeed the Finnish language and less the relative languages. If I went and put content from an opinions page by an expert in East Asian studies into the article, say, on the Irish language in Ireland I'm sure people would immediately criticize my source. That I think is justified in the same manner as me asking for sources for the claim that there exist written documents in Finland from the 12th century (see above). I think Janhunen may well be right in his own way. Much of what people nowadays designate as Finnish or as typical for Finland is the result of fairly recent developments (and this is true for most of the current nation states or national identities and languages). However, perhaps we should quote some of his research and not a comment on an opinions page. I still think that such a source is hardly comparable to the other source (a history book) and the reader needs to know this. Again, I'm willing to drop the entire paragraph or severely alter it. Clarifer (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not involving myself in this debate but I'll make a short and general note. The sources in this article are of rather low quality in general. Worse, the sources as Wikipedia are of rather low quality in general. A professor writing in a newspaper would be a terrible source in any academic writing but is a pretty average (=cr*p but not cr*ppier than the rest) source here. JdeJ is right when pointing out that the result would be hillarious if the same idea was employed in every Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.29.33 (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input anonymous user. One cannot justify a bad thing by comparing it to some worse thing. See the reasoning concerning this particular case (above) and counter argue if you are able to. I am reverting to my edits. Sorry. (Once again, I have nothing against removing or seriously altering the whole paragraph in question, but if this particular reference needs to be there, the reader needs to know where it comes from. Yes, even more acutely than is the case with the rest of the bad references). Clarifer (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is my second and last comment on this. Show me some other cases on Wikipedia where this is done. You seem to be doing it only to devaluate a source you don't seem to like. Not very honest, I have to say. This whole article is bad enough as it is, should different users now begin to give us their very own judgement on sources as well? Wikipedia is getting funnier by the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.134.29.33 (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you also agreed such new "research", or should we say a comment in a newspaper by a professor is a bad idea to put into a very broad description of Finland, which shouldn't go into much detail anyway. Scientific theories usually need review by other scientists, not just newspaper comments by the author. Of course they can be told in appropriate articles but this top level country article is not that. Anyway, Clarifier clearly pointed a "manipulation" by JdeJ, who changed the meaning of Finnish language to Finno-Ugric languages. --Pudeo⺮ 12:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahem. One cannot justify the use of a badly chosen source by referring to article technicalities. (Good grief, this is beginning to sound like a law case.) I agree that the input within the parenthesis is a bad step stylistically (or a bold novelty in Wikipedia ;) but the reader needs to know that a) the reference is not scientific writing but an opinions page text and that b) it doesn't really refer to the issue of at hand in the sentence. Besides more info on a simple foot note, the only other option is to remove the entire reference but I tend to lean on an inclusive approach to Wikipedia myself. I just wish whoever put that reference there used some of the publications of Janhunen instead of opinions page writing. I'm adding my analysis at the bottom in the references though I think that this is not enough. Clarifer (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing at the moment is to try and reach an agreement on the talk page, not reverting back and forth. I think the present solution is rather bad, but I'm not going to change it. The problem is that all solutions are bad, at least none are good. Clarifer is completely right to point out that the source is not very good. A huge error of my own, strengthened by others, is that the whole issue has been connected to Janhunen. The ideas aren't Janhunen's, he's only referring on what he described to be an academic consensus in this field. The obvious problem, and I'm sure you all agree here, is that he doesn't present any academic source. Perhaps he thinks this is evident, but we certainly don't. While agreeing with Clarifer that the rerence isn't scientific, let me point out that the other reference, Suomen historia isn't scientific either. What I'd suggest is to delete almost all of the paragraph for now, although parts of it can be restored once credible scientific sources are given. What I'd keep is a sentence saying that "There is no consensus on when Finno-Ugric nor Germanic languages were first spoken in the area of contemporary Finland.". I guess we all can agree on that, right? That sentence could be added to the previous paragraph and we could avoid going into all kinds of different theories about when which language arrived. JdeJ (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Haven't you read the first comment by Clarifier? You have manipulated the meaning of "Finnish" (FINSKA! The article is about FINNISH) to "Finno-Ugric". There are very well known theories about the arrival of the Finno-Ugric languages. None of them suggest a date like 1000 CE. I can't possibly figure out how one can be so ignorant to think Finnish language's separation from other Finno-Ugric languages can be interpreted as the "arrival of the Finno-Ugric languages". --Pudeo⺮ 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent, then just post the scientific sources for those theories. This far you haven't provided any such source but I'm looking forward to reading it. But why is it so important to put a date on something that there seems to be no consensus on? Sorry to say so, but it seems to be the old Finnish nationalism of "we were here first, we built Stonehenge, we were the Vikings." The previous comment is of course only intended to Pudeo, I've never seen Clarifer engaged in any petty nationalism. And by the way, I don't believe in a date like 1000 CE either, neither for Finno-Ugric nor Germanic languages. JdeJ (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody objected to the suggestion above so I've implemented it. JdeJ (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * JdeJ, you are using fairly strong language: "old Finnish nationalism", "your lack of objectivity in anything dealing with Finland is rather well-known", "petty nationalism". Apparently you do not consider that your own Swedishness has any bearing on you opinions? I would refer to my bit in the preceding chain about professor Janhunen's background and ideas. Janhunen's text may give the impression that he is presenting an academic consensus, but if you were able to read the Finnish literature on the subject, you would know this is not the case; he is in fact rather alone with his theories. Scientific sources for more common views may be found in the "Pohjan Poluilla" mentioned above, as well as in, e.g., Matti Huurre: Kivikauden Suomi. Helsinki: Otava 1998, with references, but they are in Finnish. In the scientific world, it is expected that a person writing an article about an issue is able to read at least the main previous contributions to the said issue and to refer to them; so far, I have not seen you refer to a single source in Finnish, though the bulk of the scientific discussion on the present question is in that language. Calling people who actually can read the relevant literature "nationalist" and "unobjective" is a poor cover for one's own ignorance. Can you present one other authority who agrees with Janhunen?--Death Bredon (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV foods
"The food is generally simple, fresh and healthy." This isn't exactly the most objective (or truthful) statement I have read recently. Anyone have objections to removing the 'fresh and healthy' aspect of this? My own experiences of Finnish cuisine (in terms of what is eaten in homes and/or restaurants, particularly in winter) is somewhat at odds with this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjamjak (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but in historical context I would say Finns have been a poor people up until recently. Then if one is poor, there isn't much choices but eat "simple, fresh and healthy", self-grown or whatever (he he you stupid farmers). Besides, what you cited above was under section "Cuisine", and that what people eat in Finland nowadays has nothing to do with the "Cuisine of Finland". --ÖhmMan (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Kosovo
I'm resuming with the inclusion of independent Kosovo in the maps of the countries that have recognised it. Bardhylius (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Jepua
I should be grateful if a Finnish speaker would look at and add any extra info to Jepua, please. TerriersFan (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done - thanks to User:Vuo. TerriersFan (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of curiosity, it might have made more sense to ask a Swedish speaker to check an article on a village that's close to 100% Swedish speaking and where, I suspect, most people aren't even able to speak Finnish. Not that I mind, User:Vuo is one of the best editors on topics related to Finland. JdeJ (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Finnish article is a little bit better than the swedish, so asking finnish speaker is logical, I think. --217.30.176.189 (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation of Finland and Suomi
Pronounciation of the names of Finland in Swedish sounds like spoken by Swedish speaker from Sweden. It should sound like spoken by Swedish speaker from Finland instead. Most Swedish speaking people in Finland speaks their own dialect, "Finlandssvensk", that should be used in the pronounciation of formal names here.

Also the Finnish pronounciation of "Suomi" and "Suomen Tasavalta" sounds like spoken by Swedish speaker. It tries to "sing" too much, while normal Finnish is more steady, strong and plain. Tuohirulla puhu 09:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

National anthem
I think the national anthem name should be mentioned in English too, in the introduction box at the beginning of the article. It is mentioned only in Finnish and Swedish currently, but there is a translation of the anthem in English as well.

After all, this is the English Wikipedia. Any thoughts? (213.28.193.60 (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Divisions
The administrative divisions part is rather misleading, over-edited and needs to be brought up-to-date. First of all, the middle tier of administration, as known elsewhere in the world, is practically absent in the Nordic countries including Finland. (See this World Bank report.) Finland is divided into municipalities; some larger divisions are recognized but used only for special purposes. Practical politics, provision of public services and taxation take place only on two levels, with the exception of some singular issues. Second, the state local district system has been officially abolished. Third, I already removed the speculation that provinces would be abolished. The proposal is real and made by the relevant minister, but hardly necessary for the main general article about Finland. Thus the text needs a major rewrite and objections could be made now. --Vuo (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Could you do the rewrite? Turkuun (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have quite a clear idea what it should include. It's going to be based on the World Bank report as an external source in addition to local sources. --User:Vuo 09:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe and Template:Finno-Ugric-speaking nations
Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe and Template:Finno-Ugric-speaking nations have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you, Tack & Kiitos: — Janneman (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Errors in text at beging of civilwar
Couple of errors in history section of Finland. Especially begining of civilwar is incorrect..

Oddly writen part: "On December 6, 1917, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Finland declared its independence, which was approved by Bolshevist Russia.

Contrary to Lenin's and Finnish socialists' expectations, the majority of Finns voted non-socialists parties in 1917 general elections. Soon in 1918, ..."

Text is writen like real order events was independence, generalelections, civilwar. In fact order was general election, independence, civilwar. Few dates to illustrate error

July 1916, General elections, seats 103/97 socialdemokrats/right wing parties. February 1917, revolution in Russia, Kerenski's provisional government. Summer 1917 Kerenski's government call for new general election in Finland. 1-2nd October 1917 General elections in Finland, seats 92/108 socialdemokrats/right wing parties 7th November 1917, bolshevist revolution in Russia 6th December 1917 Finnish parliament declare independence Early january 1918, Russia and others recognize indpendence of Finland.. 27th January 1918 civilwar begins

This part is much better written in finnish wikipedia.. Could somebody rewrite this? I really don't have time..

Kalle Konttinen Pori, Finland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.253.55 (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Term for "Soviet Union" in 1917
In the lead section it is said that Finland declared independence in 1917 from the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union did not exist before 1922, so what should the Bolshevik-controlled successor of the Russian Empire in 1917 be called? Soviet Russia, Bolshevik Russia, just Russia, or what? -Victor Chmara (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Crime rate
"Finland has the third highest total crime rate in the world" <- Dubious claim. According to that survey, Finland was 3rd of the 56 countries surveyed. That hardly is "the world". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.99.38 (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I edited that paragraph, removing the reference to nationmaster.com and adding another source that indicates that Finland is generally a low-crime country. The use of national crime statistics in international comparisons is generally discouraged, because definitions of crimes, availability of law enforcement, methods of statistics collection, and the propensity to report crime to authorities vary widely between nations. Statistical comparisons are adequate only when comparing unambiguous crimes such as homicide; otherwise, victimisation surveys, like the one I cited, are preferred. Victor Chmara (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference #80
This source, named "nordicmodel" is used multiple times in the article, but what this source actually is, is not specified; that's why there's an error message in the references list. Is #80 possibly the same source as #62 ("The Nordic Model of Welfare: A Historical Reappraisal", by Niels Finn Christiansen")? Victor Chmara (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"...borders with Sweden to the west, Russia to the east, and Norway to the north..."


OK, maybe this only aesthetically doesn't sit well with me, but Russia is quite the landmass to generalize as what's "to the east" of Finland. I'd like to change that initial line and make it more specific. However a problem arises if we are to be more specific. One cannot say "...the Russian Karelian Republic to the east..." though I thought that might be better; it is more specific but there is more bordering the east of Finland than that territory alone; saying such doesn't encompass the Murmansk Oblast north of that with the Kola Peninsula & the Karelian Isthmus south of the Karelian Republic along the Finnish border with the northern part of Ingria. However that all is still a very specific part of the Russian federation, I see why that is said for simplicities sake, but might we do better? What is collectively the Russian territory north of the White Sea-Baltic Canal? It is all part of Fennoscandia, but one cannot say Finland is east of what it is itself part of. There is a fennoscandian peninsula that begins between the eastern point of the Gulf of Finland and the southern point of Onega Bay in the White Sea. Is there not a collective name ever proposed for the complete Russian territory up into those parts? 67.5.156.47 (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The line is simply supposed to illustrate Finland's location in the world, not differentiate between every province of its bordering countries. Anyone interested in areas other than Finland should just check the respective pages to keep the main article easy to read. 85.217.48.33 (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is a unified term for that region, that does make it easy to read, and properly wikified. That proves my point that other areas surrounding Finland can't be properly wikified if one goes directly to the "Russia" article, how easy is it honestly to find that area bordering Finland if one has to search through the Russia article: it simply won't be found by that extent of wikification alone. So if anyone knows if a generalized term exists for that region, in the future that could be added. 67.5.147.10 (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Article
The user Turkuun has aggressively replaced major portions of the article with his far-right extremist non-NPOV views. Something should be done about this. He is attempting to demonize the public sector, trade unions and the welfare state ideology, all of which are well-respected by the vast majority of Finns. In doing this, the views that he purports are often not sourced or not at all supported by the sources he cites, or when they are, the sources are not NPOV or the support is vague. The POV that he is forcing on the article are worship of the NATO and some form of laissez-faire economism.

Here follows a short list of some of his abuses.

- In the "Cold War" section he writes:

"Nordic countries have since [the 1970s and 80s] been in a economic decline when measured by income level ranking and other indicators"

This is the biggest flat-out lie I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The nordic countries are in the absolute top end of any per capita GDP ranking.

- In the "Judicial system and law enforcement" section he writes:

"Corruption perceptions were widespread at the peak of welfare state in the 70s and 80s.[12]"

The source is anecdotal and does not mention the welfare state. The source relates its view on corruption to the nation's previous decades of poverty.

- In the "Nordic model" section he writes:

"Much of the taxes are spent on bureaucrats, many of which are jobs-for-life and amount to 124,000 state bureaucrats and 430,000 municipal bureaucrats.[57] That is 113 per 1000 residents (over a quarter of workforce) compared to 74 in the US, 70 in Germany, and 42 in Japan (8% of workforce).[93] The Economist Intelligence Unit's ranking for Finland's e-readiness is 13th, compared to 1st for United States and 14th for Germany. Also, early and generous retirement schemes have contributed to high pension costs[57]. Spending on core things such as health or education is around OECD median.[57]"

Here he calls Finland's entire public sector "bureaucrats". The term carries numerous negative connotations - including allegations of inefficiency, and its use in itself is strictly non-NPOV. Included in this section are vague comparisons to several countries with smaller public sectors, but none with bigger ones.

After calling every person in the public sector a "bureaucrat", he proceeds to contrast the size of Finland's public sector with the rather low GDP percentages used on health and education, making it appear as if Finland should use less money on the public sector and more on health and education. As a side note, the low GDP percentage used on the relatively high-ranking health care and top-ranking education system means that the Finnish public sector is superlatively efficient, which is the fact that he is trying to hide by saying Finland uses money on "bureaucrats" and not on "core things".

- In the "Defense Forces" section he writes:

"Finland is the only non-NATO EU country bordering Russia. Finland's official policy states that the 350,000 reservists with mostly ground weaponry are a sufficient deterrent. The military strategy is to hide in forests when attacked.[53]"

Simply "hiding" is not a military strategy and the source does not suggest that it is Finland's plan.

-On the early, 1990's economic depression he writes:

"Between 1970 and 1990; however, taxation and the burden of regulation increased dramatically compared to other Western countries, and delayed liberalization caused Finland to sink into a severe depression in 1992."

This is an extremist fantasy. The general consensus is that the depression was caused by a combination of vanished (Soviet) markets, depressed (Western) markets and economic overheating caused by failed fiscal policy and finance market deregulation.

His general rhetoric has a bitter and biased tone that does not belong in an encyclopedia. He repeatedly writes how people "suffer" from taxes while his cited sources actually say that Finns would want to raise taxes. He seems to like the word "still" and to use it to describe many things he doesn't personally like. "Spend" is another word he likes, particularly when using it to describe actions of the government. Trade unions are portrayed in a solely negative light and the public sector's size is meaninglessly contrasted (only) to countries with smaller ones.

These are just some examples of the fabrications as I do not have enough time to list all of them. In addition to failing to have his sources support his views he also makes several wild claims that aren't sourced at all. I'm not sure if he grasps the concept of NPOV, if he does, he certainly isn't acting accordingly. There is little point in editing the article as it is, as he reverts edits made to correct him. Something should be done about this. A ban on him wouldn't be out of place. 85.77.234.72 (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Long text, but I agree that there are some problems. Here are list of user Turkuun's edits. He started editing on March 18. This article has changed very much in a short period, and not all in a good way. Here's what has changed since March 17 till May 15, and here's what this article looked like on March 17. I think this article, or at least some of its sections, should be reverted back to March 17 state, as presently, I am not interested to participate in this mess. Remember, Wikipedia encourages its users to be bold - "to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc." ---Majestic- (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that User:Turkuun is confused on a subtle distinction, namely the encyclopedic subject "Finland" and the internal-politics state subject "Finland" (sisäpoliittinen valtio-subjekti). "Finland" is, indeed, an ambiguous term in this case, but the difficulty should not distract writers. The encyclopedic subject "Finland" includes only "bare-bones" information. The article should be built around this concept, as it is more helpful to foreign readers who may have never heard of the country before. On the contrary, the latter political subject is defined very similarly as public sector of Finland. It includes policy conducted on the national level, and opinions and debate concerning the same. This is not useful to readers of the general article. The "general Finland" obviously includes this, but it is not the main content of "general Finland". Its right place would be in the Political debate/Opinions section of the specific articles. For example, comments like that the current constitution is "flawed" is an opinion in domestic political debate, not something that defines the country itself.


 * As for what to do, I would actually recommend deletion of Turkuun's edits, even if the measure seems excessive. The reason is outlined above. As in the mothertongue test in the matriculation examination, if you write about a different subject than your chosen title, you will receive a failing grade, and it is not a personal attack. --Vuo (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is about Finland, which is a political entity as well as cultural, demographic, and geographic topic. For instance, in foreign policy, the presidential office is pursuing one direction and the cabinet another. Why do you think it's inappropriate to introduce political dynamics in the country? Look at articles about other countries and they too introduce political forces behind particular eras or policies. If you have suggestions, be bold and contribute them to the article. 07:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes
Please contribute and go on with improving the article!

A few points however: Turkuun (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The growth was clearly slowest in the Nordics between 1970-1990 among Western European countries and one of the main topics of the time (except in Finland, for reasons mentioned).
 * The success with getting rid of corruption in earlier decades should really be mentioned. The entire police force leadership in Helsinki was convicted for corruption in the 1970s and saving the politician-filled banks such as Labor Savings Bank cost some billions to taxpayers in the early 1990s. I added more sources and more about the ways Finland fights corruption.
 * If we could find statistics about efficiency, they would surely be valuable to the reader.
 * You are right, adding more about the official defense strategy would certainly have information value. I added something already.
 * All sources say the depression was primarily caused by overheating and depressed markets only launched it and contributed a few percentage points of the total 15%. I haven't seen anything contrary.
 * Good point about using the word bureaucrat. The cited sources seem to use either the word bureaucrat, civil servant or public sector employee. In Google, the words "bureaucrat" and "civil servant" result most hits at around 2 million. Which word would be best used in the article?Turkuun (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Economic growth in Finland between 1970 and 1990 (that is, during the heyday of the welfare state) was some of the fastest in the world. Whether or not at the same time the growth in the other Nordic countries was as impressive, is irrelevant for this article.


 * You try to couple corruption with welfarism, even though none of your sources make this connection. Using similar tactics, one could conclude that there is so much more corruption in, say, Estonia and Ireland than in Finland, because the former have lower tax rates -- which would be an idiotic conclusion, because corruption is caused by numerous different cultural, political, economic, legal, etc. factors.


 * Corporate interests and politicians are and have always been closely connected in Finland. This can easily be seen in the election funding scandal involving many leading politicians and rich businessmen that is currently roiling Finland. The banking crisis that was at the center of the early 90s recession was indisputably caused to a large extent by overenthusiastic deregulation, and the politicians did not bail out (with 50 to 100 billion marks of tax payers' money) just some "politician-filled Labor Savings Bank" but practically the entire banking sector of Finland -- it was a really remarkable case of socializing losses and privatizing profits.


 * Big business CEOs were some of the most enthusiastic supporters of Kekkonen and Finlandization (because of trade with the Soviets), so it's ridiculous to ascribe Finlandization to some KGB and socialist plot.


 * The welfare state is popular among Finns, and many people gradly pay high taxes in order to get lots of public services and equality of opportunity regardless of family background. It makes no sense to say that Finns "suffer" from taxes. The article cannot be written from the perspective that taxes and a large public sector are in and of themselves bad (or good), or that some other economic model is preferrable to Finland's model. Naturally, you can cite somebody who is of this opinion, but you cannot cite some neutral source and twist it to support your agenda.


 * I'm not a big fan of the welfare state, and criticisms of the Nordic model are useful in the article, but your brand of libertarian agitprop is not welcome.


 * Victor Chmara (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody here says that there's anything wrong with welfare state. Isn't it just important to know that the country has 6th highest taxes in the world? Isn't it also significant, that according to World Bank Finland Finland has had one of the strongest property right regimes of any country in the history and a long record of free trade? These are one of the key aspects determining results in history. Do they need to be removed?
 * The Soviet Union utilized several political groups' desire for power and Finland's overall desire to trade. Soviet union gave these in exchange for Moscow's strategic interests (Finlandization, EEC opposition, the rise of Sorsa, the disarmament treaty). There was a lot diplomatic and especially intelligence resources behind advancing Finlandization. Corruption is affected by a multitude of factors, Finland's development is reviewed in the sources.
 * The economic growth was not particularly fast, except late in the 1980s. Did you read the referred studies about the economic crisis? Every single study you find from Google concludes that the main reason was overheating. Finland's exchange rate was politically fixed, as were interest rates (central bank independence was just a joke), and there was no typical banking reforms. For instance, Denmark had implemented reforms already years ago and wasn't affected. You are very correct about socializing losses.Turkuun (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why information about the huge (5% of Sweden's population) Finnish minority in Sweden must be removed? Would it help to understand the deep links between the two countries?Turkuun (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You can insert any sensible sourced claims to the article as long as you follow Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:BLP. The article is very long as it is, so there is no need to add long and detailed paragraphs about all kinds of things -- those matters can be dealt with in separate articles. There is certainly no need to discuss how many Finns there are in Sweden in the lead section. Victor Chmara (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cold War
This part of article is baced on fictional Alpo Rusi's book and it should't be in Wikibedia.

"The SDP suffered from its role in the crisis and politicians such as the SDP chairman Ulf Sundqvist were convicted for economic crimes. Mauno Koivisto and later Tarja Halonen classified documents about their and other politicians' involvement in the crisis. Similarly, documents about Stasi and KGB operations in Finland are still kept classified, though revelations by former Soviet commanders, foreign intelligence services, and self-revelations have consistently pointed to even top names such as Paavo Lipponen, the Prime Minister from 1995–2003.[17] Critics suggest that Finland should openly review its Cold War history like other former Soviet satellites have done."

My points:

-Ulf Sungqvits wasn't SDP's chairman when the bank-crice broke out and he wasn't in Finnish parliament when Holkeri's Goverment was on duty, which by the way was led by a National Coalition(party). - According to Finnish law some documents must be kept as classified and so Mr. Koivisto and Mrs. Halonen couldn't release them. - And by the way Finland has never been a Soviet satellite.

Greetings from Finnland by

Jaakko Heinonen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.128.89 (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a result of a single writer's project to insert domestic political debate into the article (see above). --Vuo (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Images
Hi there. I have to say that I very much disagree with the sudden removal (by the user Turkuun, see article edit: 23:52, 19 June 2008 Turkuun) of the Astuvansalmi rock art, Suomenlinna, and folk dancers images. I think they added interest, depth, and color to the article for those yet unfamiliar with Finland.

Of course, others may in fact disagree with me. What do you think? But regardless, shouldn't these sort of deletes be mentioned and explained on the article's talk page prior to or even after the removal (i.e., is there a policy on this)?

Thanks. Peer Gynt (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just BE BOLD and restore the images. I for one have nothing against that. -- ざくら 木 16:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right images might be illustrative. But exactly what images to choose? The rock art image does not communicate much information (you have to look really sharply to even see anything). Since there is little space, perhaps it would be best to just show the map of Sweden (which is really valuable)?07:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkuun (talk • contribs)

Minority language not approriate term
Hello,

the intro stated that Swedish is the largest minority language in Finland. I clarified that a little. Finland has two national languages, Finnish and Swedish. Thus, Swedish is a national language, not a minority language. A minority language is something completely different and people should realize that. Example: Finnish is a minority language in Sweden (see Languages of Sweden). The status of Swedish in Finland differs greatly from the status of Finnish in Sweden. --84.253.201.120 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"A good point, one that brings to mind a factual inaccuracy of sorts in the article. According to the Finnish Constitution, Finland does not have (an) official language(s), but rather two national languages -- but since the English equivalent is 'official language', I don't think there's any need to change that. Teejaykay (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)"


 * It is spoken by a 5 % minority. It is the minority's language when speaking of national languages. Don't be pathetic.. EDIT: It appears you only changed the term "minority language", which was a good edit. But I can't see why "spoken by a 5.5 percent minority" would be inproper. --Pudeo⺮ 12:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The term minority language is not suitable in this context, just as it's not suitable for French and Italian in Switzerland nor for French in Belgium even though those languages are also spoken by less than 50% of the population. "Minority language" is a judicial term that normally is reserved for languages that are recognised in a part of the country but which are not official on a national level. And Pudeo, your behaviour is once again deplorable. Regardless of whether a user expresses an opinion you dislike or not, that is not any justification to call the user "pathetic". JdeJ (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I said (despite an apparent misunderstanding) that taking away the term 'minority language' away was a good edit. Outside legal terms, it doesn't mean it isn't spoken by a minority when comparing to the 92 % majority. The article can call it that way as it is done now in the lead chapter. --Pudeo⺮ 20:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Minority language is not an improper term as it is used here as a common language word - not as juridical term. Thus, describing Finland, it is clear that a ~5% language is a minority language (i.e. spoken by a significantly smaller than 50% share of people). We should be careful for some interest groups aiming at over emphasising Swedish language and give a realistic view of the country where almost all people speak Finnish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.194.7.62 (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting to other image
I wish to change the location image of Finland in Europe (below right) back to the older version (below left), as I see no reason for the newer image, as in my eyes it is basically inferior to the orange, older one. This same thing has been ddiscussed in this article about the netherlands, and I wish to make the same points made there.


 * The colours are less clear and pronounced. In the thumbnail, it is hard to discern the borders between EU countries because of the colour used. The difference between Europe and Asia/Africa is almost unnoticeable. Water is white, instead of blue.
 * Some detail is omitted. This makes the map less pleasing to look at, and decreases function. Blue water, a slightly more 'brown' colour in mountainous areas, and major rivers make a map seem more natural, and allow easier orientation for a reader unfamiliar with the political situation.
 * The map is on a larger scale. While I would agree with, for example, showing more of the Middle East, the addition of more water, more Greenland, and Svalbard to the Northeast serves no function. The larger scale decreases the size of some of the other, smaller countries in europe and also enables less detail on the map.
 * Purely aesthetic, the new map is just drawn worse than the old map. If this were a vector graphics image, I could understand, but it is not. The coastline is "spiky" in a lot of places, and the Finnish lakes appear to have changed in appearance overnight and are certainly not an endorheic sea the size of Belgium. Denmark appears to be an island. Greek islands have disappeared, and finding light green Malta on a white background takes a microscope.



Please tell me if you think this is a good idea. I think that all european countries should be changed back to the orange map, rather than the green. Obviously no map is perfect as the earth is spherical, and cannot be perfectly reproduced in a 2D form. 86.128.117.187 (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Arinzulej (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "oecd2004" :
 * Finland Economy 2004, OECD
 * Economic Survey of Finland in 2004, OECD
 * "Population" :

Sentence Length
Finland currently has the forth longests average prison sentence served, with an average prison sentence of 2,762 years. source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sen_len-crime-sentence-length  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.205.190 (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * somebody had edited the sentence length to say 2.762 years what is not what http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sen_len-crime-sentence-length says. The average prison sentence is 2,762 years or nearly three millenium.  I have reverted it back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.205.190 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like nationmaster.com and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime were not careful and consistent with the use of commas and periods in numerals. While in US English, we use comma to separate periods (factors of 1000) and a period to mark the spot between the whole number and fractional part, much of Europe, and Finland in particular, reverses this usage. If we look at a table of sentence lengths (http://www.rikosseuraamus.fi/11144.htm) published the Finnish Ministry of Justice Prison Service, we see that only about 18% of all sentences served exceed 4 years and values consistent with an average of 2.762 years. We also see the usage of comma as a "decimal point". Furthermore, the UNODC table specifically says it is reporting the average time served; 2,762 years served is inconsistent with Finnish life expectancy.


 * Since we cannot compute the actual average sentence served from the table Prison Service, it seems like the best thing to do is remove the entire Sentence Length statement from the article until a reliable source as defined by WP:SOURCES can be found and cited. &mdash;GrizzlySound (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I was the one who replaced the comma with a decimal point (per MOSDATES, and presuming that sentences served average between two and three years rather than between two and three thousand years), in this edit. The cite I supplied read as follows:
 * The URL of than UN report is http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf and the confusion (if there is confusion) about 2+ year vs 2thousand+ years is present in the UN report. Perhaps the book  might help clear up the confusion over years vs. millennia. Table 3.12, Unconditional prison sentences in Finland 1980, 1996, and 1991 on page 193, gives a figure of 3.7 years for the 1991 average sentence length for all penal code offenses. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The URL of than UN report is http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sv.pdf and the confusion (if there is confusion) about 2+ year vs 2thousand+ years is present in the UN report. Perhaps the book  might help clear up the confusion over years vs. millennia. Table 3.12, Unconditional prison sentences in Finland 1980, 1996, and 1991 on page 193, gives a figure of 3.7 years for the 1991 average sentence length for all penal code offenses. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Flora and Fauna
There has been no wild polar bears in Finnish region in a historical era. This is an unbelievable error in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.181.219 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Border Guards in the military subsection...
...read "Finnish Army" even though the picture is named "Poliiseja ja rajavartijoita" - "Police and Border Guards". I changed the text under the picture to redirect to the Finnish Border Guard article. Viciouspiggy (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Finnish Military F18s
Someone falsely stated that the F18s in use by Finland were produced by Patria, which is entirely untrue. They were claiming this in order to validate the idea that Finland is militarily independent. However, every single F-18 ever created was manufactured in the US by US companies. It is a thoroughly American design. All Patria does is assemble the components. Therefore I decided to edit that part because it's blatantly dishonest and ironic, such a thing shouldn't be tolerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.93.98 (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Numismatics ?
Am I the only one who thinks this section is of minor relevance to a country article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.79.148 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

World War 2
I just noticed quite a big mistake about this subject. According to a few books that I've read, the finns never participated on the siege of Leningrad. They just threw the Sovjets out of their home country until they had their old borders back and then refused to fight further even though the Germans kept trying to persuade them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.61.139 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

False. Finnish troops crossed the old borders and set up a defensive line in Karelia. They helped in siege by surroundin the city, but did not participate in it. 212.149.213.242 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Cold War Neutrality
It should be added that with recent knowledge even if Finland was officially neutral its secret service SUPO was not. It worked with CIA and other western agencies giving information to them about the Soviet Union. --80.221.235.130 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Update needed
See Talk:Provinces of Finland. --Silvonen (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Length
the article is too long, many sections should be summarised especially as they have their own article. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

wp:npov
editsemiprotected

Change

===Swedish era (1249–1809)===

===Russian Empire era (1809–1917)===

to

===Swedish era===

===Russian Empire era===

for more information.174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✔️. Samwb123Please read 16:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Prehistory-The interpretation of refrence 15 (an old school atlas) is not good
There seams to be confusion on different concepts of Finnish tribes

1. The Sami people are not mentioned either in the (wikipedia) article or in the atlas, is this because they did not exist in 814 or are they subsumed under Finnish tribes (in other words what is the definition of FInnish tribes).

2.The atlas shows (the territory of present day) Estonia as part of the lands of the Finnish tribes i.e. it is shown in the same colour and has no border and no name is presented.In contrast the article says that "the inhabited area of Finnish tribes was borderd by: ....... Estland; to the south of Gulf of Finnland". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.105.190 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Leaving out the role of Sami people as Finland area indigenous people is quite a lack indeed. As for your other points


 * 1. Sure they existed. Although I naturally can't speak for the map maker, your reasoning about him including them to other "finnish tribes" appears to me one of the most plausible explanations.


 * 2. I for one don't know what Estland meant to the map maker back then, but to me it seems the name in the map may cover also the present Estonia. Whether we take the map as worthy source, the text must be made more clear anyway. Possibly leaving that Eastland out altogether and using the contemporary geographical names instead.


 * Nevertheless, I'd question using the map as the only reference (even only source?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Sketter (talk • contribs) 05:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not usig the map as the single refrence is OK for me since the map is rather confusing (and has other problems), but how will we find other sources in this speciality subject? Or should we delete this space consuming paragraph altogether?


 * Anyway sorry for the time it took to respond.00:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.105.190 (talk)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps. As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the '''presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited''' to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option. There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 00:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
 * which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Few Mistakes (I think)
I think Helsinki-Vantaa Airport is nowadays called Helsinki International Airport. And Olkiluoto 3 will be late few years more. 128.214.81.195 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Length
This article is far too long and detailed for what it needs to be: a summary of Finland. The huge sections on "gender equality", "agriculture", "forestry", and "occupational and income structure" are unnecessary. They are also entirely unwikified and unsourced. If they can be sourced, they should be moved to more specific articles such as Politics of Finland and Economy of Finland. Otherwise, they probably should be deleted. Hayden120 (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although the sections don't seem to be unsourced but copy-pasted from an old PD source. I dropped a note to the user who added them. Prolog (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not unsourced. I don't see how agriculture is unnecessary, a good encyclopedia should cover a country's agriculture. Forestry is especially important in Finland's case considering that forest related industries are historically the most important branch of Finnish industries. Occupational and income structure should also be covered in a good encyclopedia, I think. I don't see how the users of Wikipedia would be served if they had no information available about these topics. --Tungsten (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gender equality is important considering Finland's position in world history as the first country in the world to provide full political rights to women and still a global leader in these issues. Again I don't see how readers would be served if there was no information about these issues. --Tungsten (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and moved the sections to the daughter article - this article was huge (143kb) and those sections were simply too detailed (half a dozen paragraphs about forestry, etc.) (I didn't put shorter versions in their place, which should probably be done.) Nobody is saying that we shouldn't mention this stuff, it was simply too long. (See WP:Summary style). Alexius  Horatius  22:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Tungsten: mostly unsourced, then. There were multiple paragraphs with a single citation at the end. I do not consider that adequate. Agriculture, etc. are important, but they don't need to be discussed in that much detail. This article should be a relatively concise summary of Finland with links to more detailed "main articles" or "further information" in each section. Hayden120 (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think readers would appreciate if there'd been left at least a short summary of these topics in this article. The citation is in the end of the sourced text, even if that's long in some cases. --Tungsten (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll work on adding some shorter versions for the three sections tonight. Alexius  Horatius  19:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added back summary versions of the old sections. (I didn't do too much on these, mostly just cut out most of the historical background stuff.) More work could always be done on these, (by more work I don't mean adding more info but rather rewording it and adding sources) but I think this should work as a decent placeholder between having the previously gigantic sections and nothing at all. By the way, I couldn't remember where the Gender equality section had been, so I stuck it at the end of the Demographics section; it seemed like a decent fit there. Again, feel free to mess around or re-word these if you want. Alexius  Horatius  04:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Prehistory
The opening statement "According to archaeological evidence, the area now boreing and peolpe there get alot of humans at the latest around 8500 BCE during the Stone Age as the ice shield of the last ice age receded." seems to have several typos and a general lack of coherence. Specifically "boreing and peolpe" and "alot." Could someone with a clearer view of Finland's prehistory make sense of what this is trying to say? 208.28.13.66 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that nobody noticed what an obvious vandal did. Uikku (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear whether the 8500 BCE date refers to calibrated or uncalibrated radiocarbon years. Presuming the former, the current oldest C14 date, from Orimattila Myllykoski (9480 +/-90), calibrates to a mean of c. 8900 BCE. The oldest dates from northernmost Finnish Lapland calibrate to c. 8300-8200 BCE. All of the earliest sites point to origins in the south or south-east (present-day Estonia or Russia). There is no unambiguous evidence of actual settlement from Norway from this or from any later period; the few known individual artefacts of possible (northern) Norwegian origin found in northern Finnish Lapland may have been imported, since the earliest eastern immigrants to the area are now known to have reached as far as the Norwegian coast. --Death Bredon (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Excessive text
the following text is excessive for a country article. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Finland's climate and soils make growing crops a particular challenge. The country lies between 60° and 70° north latitude - as far north as Alaska - and has severe winters and relatively short growing seasons that are sometimes interrupted by frosts. However, because the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift Current moderate the climate, Finland contains half of the world's arable land north of 60° north latitude. Annual precipitation is usually sufficient, but it occurs almost exclusively during the winter months, making summer droughts a constant threat. In response to the climate, farmers have relied on quick-ripening and frost-resistant varieties of crops, and they have cultivated south-facing slopes as well as richer bottomlands to ensure production even in years with summer frosts. Most farmland had originally been either forest or swamp, and the soil had usually required treatment with lime and years of cultivation to neutralize excess acid and to develop fertility. Irrigation was generally not necessary, but drainage systems were often needed to remove excess water. Finland's agriculture was efficient and productive—at least when compared with farming in other European countries.

Forests play a key role in the country's economy, making it one of the world's leading wood producers and providing raw materials at competitive prices for the crucial wood-processing industries. As in agriculture, the government has long played a leading role in forestry, regulating tree cutting, sponsoring technical improvements, and establishing long-term plans to ensure that the country's forests continue to supply the wood-processing industries. To maintain the country's comparative advantage in forest products, Finnish authorities moved to raise lumber output toward the country's ecological limits. In 1984, the government published the Forest 2000 plan, drawn up by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The plan aimed at increasing forest harvests by about 3 percent per year, while conserving forestland for recreation and other uses.


 * If you need help, I could be the right person. I live in Finland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.112.196 (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

salut vous sais quoi vous voullers quoi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.140.31 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The civil war
I see that little or nothing in the section on the Civil War is in the claimed source A Country Study: Finland — The Finnish Civil War. I suppose the section has been heavily edited since the source was introduced. I think the text is mostly ok now (in fact quite good as a short summary), but it is effectively sourceless.

I removed the dubious statement about the Bolshevik Russia supporting the Red (that was part of war time and after war propaganda, but I have not seen it in any reliable source) and changed "legal government" to "white government", as the legality of the elections was questioned. The socialist actions are characterized as a "coup". I do not understand why, but do not want to introduce any wording of my own on the delicate issue.

--LPfi (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hanko – Nuorgam
The distance from the southernmost – Hanko – to the northernmost point in the country – Nuorgam – is 1,445 kilometres - This is apparently incorrect. According to de:Finnland, it's 1160 km. --Espoo (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think 1160 is the distance by air and ~1445 the distance by road. Prolog (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what they answered on the German talk page. So i changed it to 1160 because no countries dimensions are (should be) given in road distances. --Espoo (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Bias in religion statistics
There is a bias in religion statistics. Those statistics are not about religiosity, but about membership in officially registered religious communities. The term "Not religious" in the table, which is given a value of 17.7 %, is misleading, because the 17.7 % includes many people who are very religious but do not belong to any officially registered religious community. I suggest that the headline "Religion in Finland" be changed to "Membership in religious communities" and "Not religious" be changed to "Not affiliated" or something like that. As far as I know, many immigrant muslims who are religious are not official members in any official muslim communities, because that is not an important custom to them. Branding those people "not religious" is misleading. 82.181.250.242 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mostly true, but not that big a bias. The muslims are probably mostly Arabic, Somali or Kurdish speakers, together 0,5 % of the population. Those and non-registered christian communities might change the "others" column a bit, but would not matter much in the "Not religions" column. And I think quite a few lutherans would count themselves as non-religious.


 * Membership of the lutheran church has traditionally been very high, all though many are not religious. In later years non-believers have left the church in quite large numbers (together with some believers critical to the church) and explain most of the non-religious column. They have not left for other religious communities. The 41% figure of Finnish citizens responding that "they believe there is a God" (and a similar fugure believing in some spirit or life force) describes the situation.


 * --LPfi (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The 17.7 % is given the title "Not religious" when in fact it refers to the number of people who are not members in any officially registered religious communities. So I'd at least change the "Not religious" to "Not affiliated". I'm not sure whether your intention was to oppose this change or were you just voicing your opinion about the importance of the matter. If there is no opposition, I'll do the editing in a few days. 82.181.250.242 (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Not affiliated" is the correct formulation. Even the source given here (official Statistics Finland) uses the classification "Lutheran/Orthodox/Other/No religious affiliation". It is definitely about membership numbers, not about "religiousness". --Surfo (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the change encouraged by the preceding comment. 82.181.250.242 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)