Talk:Scandinavia/Archive 7

Encyclopedic article
This article is more political than encyclopedic. This article is really biased. Some people still still thinks that Scandinavia is like race of people, like Aryans. This article doesn't answer the most important question: why Nordic countries are so similar. Why Finland was part of Sweden and Finnish people never questioned it, and why in Finland Swedish is still one of the official language. And most important of all historical questions, why Finnish town Turku was second important, after Stockholm in Swedish empire. You can't change the history because of political reasons. It's not encyclopedic. Kulipoika (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * These questions are more related to Finnish history than Scandinavia; but do see the Finland section and you may add some information to that section if you want. Secondly, the article isn't particularly 'political' (could you explain?), you see that the opening sentence reads "is a historical cultural-linguistic region in northern Europe that includes the three kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, characterized by their common ethno-cultural heritage and related languages.". The idea of Scandinavians as a race of people... perhaps is more suited to the Nordic countries article. -- Peter (Talk page) 16:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I dislike that this argument is political rather than geographic, and that regional political arguments are trumping actual documented sources relevant to English usage. I dislike that the included maps attempt to establish the "fact" that Finland and Iceland are somehow not part of Scandinavia rather than just accepting the fact that the word has multiple meanings and not a "correct" one and an "incorrect" one. This is an attempt to define the region by proscriptivist linguistic fiat instead of being a descriptivist article about how the word is actually used in English. What the various people of the region consider "correct" is not relevant to English usage. 2601:4:B80:550:5D7E:AF56:880E:23BF (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

English sources
Hello. I am from Denmark, but not residing in Denmark currently. As I have seen a few English dictionaries (which is the stakeholders of the truly English meanings), here are the definitions for the terms Scandinavia and Scandinavian: Compare to Nordic:
 * 1) Cambridge (British), Scandinavian: (a person) coming from Sweden, Norway, or Denmark (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/scandinavian) DK + NO + SE
 * 2) Oxford (British), Scandinavia: a cultural region consisting of the countries of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark and sometimes also of Iceland, Finland, and the Faroe Islands (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Scandinavia) Note the first definition correspond to the Peninsular, which is of no interest DK + NO + SE, sometimes FI, IS and Faroes
 * 3) Oxford (American), Scandinavia: a cultural region consisting of the countries of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark and sometimes also of Iceland, Finland, and the Faroe Islands (same as British) DK + NO + SE, sometimes FI, IS and Faroes
 * 4) Collins (British), Scandinavian: Scandinavian means belonging or relating to a group of northern European countries that includes Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, or to the people, languages, or culture of those countries.(http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/scandinavian) DK + NO + SE
 * 5) Free Dictionary, Scandinavia: A region of northern Europe consisting of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Finland, Iceland, and the Faeroe Islands are often included in the region. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Scandinavia) DK + NO + SE, sometimes FI, IS and Faroes
 * 1) Cambridge (British): from or relating to the people of Scandinavia, Finland, or Iceland. (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/nordic?q=nordic) Scandinavia doesn't include Finland/Iceland
 * 2) Oxford (British): relating to or denoting Scandinavia, Finland, and Iceland (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Nordic?q=Nordic) Scandinavia doesn't include Finland/Iceland
 * 3) Oxford (American): of or relating to Scandinavia, Finland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/Nordic?q=Nordic) Scandinavia doesn't include Finland/Iceland/Faroes
 * 4) Collins (British): Nordic means relating to the Scandinavian countries of northern Europe. ADJECTIVE...the Nordic countries (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/nordic) No information
 * 5) Free Dictionary: Of, relating to, or characteristic of Scandinavia or its peoples, languages, or cultures OR A native or inhabitant of Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, or Finland (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Nordic) No information

Note: I have removed all peninsular/racial/sports definitions unrelated to this article. By peninsular I mean those starting with "a peninsular".

This sample covers the largest dictionaries of the world (Cambridge & Oxford), covering both British and American English. All of them implies that Finland and Iceland are not part of Scandinavia. It indicates that the stance is also present in English, specifically recognised by English dictionaries-makers and even universities with linguistic departments (Cambridge/Oxford). The sources stated my opinion, I have nothing to say but to inform everyone that this page must not include Finland just because of common beliefs. Not only Scandinavians, but even the Brits agree to this. 117.0.181.241 (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, your own sources demonstrate that Finland, Iceland, and the Faroes are sometimes included without any qualifying information such as "Greater Scandinavia" or some such. The term is ambiguous in English, in the general context. If what countries are meant is important, then it should be qualified in the text. Norway and Sweden are always intended, Denmark is usually (but not always!) meant, and Finland also quite often at least enters the mind when Scandinavia is mentioned, though we might not think of it as belonging to the area.--Wlerin (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Or biased warning
This article is generally good but it seems there are many views as what scandinavia is and it seems that people who moderate this site are trying to find sources supporting their views on the matter. I would suggest putting on the top of the article warning about this article that may be biased or not neutral and may not be up to wikipedia standards. Frankly, I don't believe that this article never will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.236.53 (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you will have to be more specific about what it is you percieve as POV in this article for a template to be warranted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Prescriptivism from the strict definition side is pretty blatant in the article, and that is certainly POV.--Wlerin (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding Immigration to Scandinavia Page
Hi I am interested in creating an additional page about Immigration to Scandinavia and the specific details of the conflicts that rise regarding access to the social services offered within welfare states and issues of recent cultural and racial diversity in nations that have historically been very heterogeneous. I am also considering adding a page on Immigration to Denmark since one has not been created yet.

Have any of you considered creating a page or a heading about trends in Scandinavian immigration and the similarities and differences in country policies? Do you foresee any issues in creating either of these pages?

Thank you (Rloftis5672 (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC))

English usage versus Scandinavian usage
Reading this article, it's hard not to feel that some users confuse Scandinavian usage of Scandinavia with English usage of Scandinavia. In all Scandinavian languages, Scandinavia is completely unambiguous. It refers to Denmark, Norway and Sweden and is probably understood in that way by all three of them. In English usage, it is much more ambiguous and it is exceedingly easy to find sources using Scandinavia to refer to Denmark, Norway and Sweden only, but it's at least as easy to find sources including Finland, sometimes but less often Iceland as well. In its current stage, the article reads quite much like an attempt to "explain" to English-speaking readers what Scandinavia "really" is, based in the definition in the Scandinavian languages. That's a pretty fundamental mistake. The definition of Scandinavia in Scandinavian languages is irrelevant here (although certainly worth mentioning in the article). This is English Wikipedia, and we follow English usage (WP:UE). As it is abundantly clear that English usage of Scandinavia is ambiguous, sometimes coinciding with Scandinavian usage but sometimes coinciding with what Scandinavians call Nordic countries, the article needs to reflect that ambiguity much better right from the start, not trying to explain what Scandinavia "really is" based on non-English understandings. If common English usage was to include Botswana in Scandinavia, then that's what the article should say. Any Scandinavian conception of what is "right" or "wrong" usage is moot. (For the record, I'm Scandinavian and I always use Scandinavia in the Scandinavian sense, but my personal usage is of course just as irrelevant).Jeppiz (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't this covered in the article already? It deals a great deal with the diffinition and possibly interpretations of it and how those interpretations should be more accurately termed.Carewolf (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad, I was unclear. The article deals with it quite extensively, but the introduction seems to present just one view, as does the infobox. It states what Scandinavia is (according to one of the possible definitions) with no room for the actual ambiguity that exists in English usage.Jeppiz (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Infobox and intro
I have (temporarily) removed the infobox based on the concerns above. Given the ambiguity in English usage, having an infobox that defines that this view is what Scandiavia really is seems to favour just one WP:POV. Sources can definitely be found to support the infobox, but good sources can just as easily be found that define Scandinavia differently than the infobox. Read the text above for further details. Unrelated but also problematic is the infobox and its repeated insistence on "Germanic peoples". This is never defined and never sourced in the intro, and remains very unclear. What does it even mean? If a genetic study found that most people in Blekinge have a considerable Lithuanian/Polish heritage (as large numbers of them were taken as slaves to the region 1000 year ago), would then people in Blekinge no longer be Scandinavians? And quite a large number of people in Värmland do have Finnish origin. Are they not Scandinavians? In short, the descriptions are both unclear and unsourced.Jeppiz (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a different article for the other usage, it is under Nordic Countries. Add a link to it at the top if you must, but don't vandalize this article. Carewolf (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Carewolf, please read WP:NPA and then stop making personal attacks. You may disagree with my edits, which I explained in detail, but that gives you no right to call them vandalism. Your edit, however, definitely is vandalism. You removed a large number of tags without providing any justification. And once again, this is English Wikipedia and we follow English usage. The difference between Scandinavia and Nordic countries may be clear-cut in some other languages, but it's not clear-cut at all in English.Jeppiz (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an issue that has come up several times on this page, and you decided to change it one-sided without considering previous discussions on the subject or getting a new consensus. Your edit was not constructive. Carewolf (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As for usage of the term Scandinavia, it can be considered analogues to the use of America to mean the USA. It might be the single most common usage, but that does not make it suitable for an encyclopedia. It makes it slang. Carewolf (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not change a thing, I inserted tags for controversial and unsourced claims, and you deleted them twice. That is vandalism pure and simple. You do not WP:OWN this article and you have no right to decide for yourself what is the "good" version." By the way, there is no "consensus" for the infobox, it's a recent addition. Regardless, I leave that in but the tagged claims have to be sourced or removed. The article is full of strong claims, often controversial ones, that are almost never sourced. Quite a number of those claims appear to have been inserted by you. Deleting tags because you don't like them is not allowed. And your personal interpretation of what Scandinavia is and how it related to America is completely irrelevant. Once more, Wikipedia is about sources WP:RS and not personal opinions (WP:POV and WP:OR).Jeppiz (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You added tags after I reverted your deletions. You started by deleting and ironically you reverted the deletion of the deletion and then reverted the deletion yourself, apparently realising it was a mistake. Stop making up your own history, anyone can see the article history and see what you did, your lies here doesn't help.Carewolf (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Carewolf. As carefully explained already in the hatnote, this is the article for the cultural-linguistic area of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. There are separate articles for all the mentioned alternative groups of countries, that is, the Nordic countries and the Scandinavian Peninsula. Hence, this is not the article on all the Nordic countries, but specifically on the cultural-linguistic area of Denmark, Norway and Sweden. A defining feature of this region is the use of mutually intelligible Scandinavian languages as majority languages (and not only small minority languages or foreign languages, as in the other Nordic countries). The article that deals with the group Scandinavia + Finland, Iceland and the dependencies is the Nordic countries article, not this article. This has been the subject of extensive discussion over many years and reflects a clear consensus. Scandinavia has one, and only one, universally accepted meaning, and occasional errors made by foreigners with hardly any knowledge of the region doesn't make it correct usage any more than some American politicians' belief (as pointed out by someone above) that all of Africa is one country, or many, many other widespread but totally inaccurate beliefs about other countries held by the American populace (such as the guy who bought(!!!) the post as ambassador to Norway before being forced to withdraw). Dijhndis (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Still no sources
I originally removed the infobox back in October as it's pure WP:OR. To avoid edit-warring when it was restored (with all the OR intact), I just tagged it (and the same user removed the tags several times, contrary to all policies). Despite waiting for months, no sources has been given so the infobox goes. Further edit-warring over it and all the OR will be taken to ANI.Jeppiz (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Scandinavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140508224810/http://diis.dk/sw13149.asp to http://diis.dk/sw13149.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150205205923/http://www.kb.dk/elib/noder/hcamusik/skandinav/index_en.htm to http://www.kb.dk/elib/noder/hcamusik/skandinav/index_en.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130516152245/http://www.visitscandinavia.or.jp/en/scandinavia/general_information.aspx to http://www.visitscandinavia.or.jp/en/scandinavia/general_information.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100406031959/http://www.northvegr.org:80/lore/langobard/001.php to http://www.northvegr.org/lore/langobard/001.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081228105150/http://www.smhi.se:80/cmp/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=7522&a=20978&l=sv to http://www.smhi.se/cmp/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=7522&a=20978&l=sv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Finland as part of Sweden 1150-1809
The caption of the picture on side of the History chapter says "The traditional lands of Sweden (Finland was a part of Sweden, called Österland, until 1809)" can be seen uncomfortable. The term "traditional" includes the view that Finland belongs to Sweden. It compares to phrase "Estonia is traditional part of Russia". The timeframe 1150-1809 is long, but the history of Finland and Finnic people is much much longer. Also the nation-state kind of view where "Finland is traditionally" part of Sweden is also wrong in the sense that strict boarders of nations are idea of 1700s and the actual Swedish influence in early phase of Swedish empire (1100-1500) can strictly been seen in couple of bigger cities like Turku and Viipuri and on the western coastline of Finland. These are some reasons why the whole picture is actually wrong and should be deleted, because it creates false images of the reality in 1100-1700. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.30.132.219 (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Scandinavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927192752/http://www.kongehuset.no/dt_kongehuset_allAtOnce.asp?ogid=20&mgid=20&gid=51&aid= to http://www.kongehuset.no/dt_kongehuset_allAtOnce.asp?ogid=20&mgid=20&gid=51&aid=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Tedious
This article seems to be a never-ending edit war in which Scandinavian users keep reverting to what Scandinavia means in their languages. That's irrelevant here, this is English Wikipedia. In English usage, Scandinavia always refers to Denmark, Norway and Sweden and sometimes to Finland and Iceland. There are two ways to violate NPOV. One is to say that Scandinavia is all five countries, the other is to say that Scandinavia is just the three countries. Both of those opposing views, which people keep edit warring about, fly in the face of the well documented fact that English usage is less clear cut, and good sources can be found for both usages. That being the case, we report that situation and we do not take sides for one version or another. Jeppiz (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong, and this has been established by longstanding consensus here. There is an article specifically on the concept including Finland and Iceland, and it's not this article, as already the hatnote explains. That article is called the Nordic countries. Whether the Nordic countries are (allegedly) incorrectly referred to as "Scandinavia" by a fringe minority of foreign sources is really a matter for the article on the Nordic countries (whether it should mention that), and not a matter for this article, which is specifically about the cultural-linguistic region of Scandinavian-speaking, culturally Scandinavian countries. --Dijhndis (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Failure to WP:HEAR that this is English Wikipedia
It's starting to get seriously disruptive that some Scandinavian users are unable to understand that even though the topic of this article is Scandinavia, it's still an article on English Wikipedia. I'm Swedish myself, I know perfectly well what Skandinavien means in Swedish and I'd never confound it with Norden. What some (many) of my fellow Scandinavians apparently fail to understand is that it does not mean anything  on English Wikipedia what our national usage is, and the continued insistence to impose Scandianvian usage here is just as misplaced as all Muslim users who demand us to censor Muhammad because it does not sit well with their sensibilities. It's a matter of fact that English usage is hesitant on Scandinavia. As has been exceptionally well explained over and over again, it's possible to find English sources conforming to Scandinavian usage (only Denmark, Norway and Sweden) and to find English sources using Scandinavia for the Nordic countries. What some fail to WP:HEAR is that the latter is not "wrong". It's fairly common English usage whether we agree or not. Which is why we cannot use one definition of Scandinavia and pretend it to be the only one. The infobox and all other sections should make it clear that Scandianvia is always Denmark, Norway and Sweden and sometimes also Finland and Iceland. This should be simple enough to understand. Moreover, Swedish though I am, I find it strange that some users insist on placing Sweden first everywhere. This is exactly the kind of behaviour explaining our "popularity" (or lack thereof) in Denmark and Norway. Alphabetical order is by far the best option. Jeppiz (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a good way to make everyone happy and reduce confusion could be something like:
 * In the Nordic languages, Scandinavia refers to the three kingdoms of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark; however, in English, the term also sometimes includes Finland and Iceland.
 * I strongly support this - with the counries named alphabetically, of course! - as the article's very first sentence. Now, it's as if we're beating around the bush and many readers must wonder what on earth (!) is going on. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong support - this is not only supported by sources, it's the WP:TRUTH. What a silly fight. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also support the above, and agree with SergeWoodzing on alphabetical order. Jeppiz (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Or some better wording of that. This way it's made clear that the original definition of Scandinavia (before it got taken into English) was just SE/DK/NO. Yes, there is section #2 which explains more, but I think the clarification in the 2nd sentence would be a positive change, and it will also increase enrichment by giving users quicker insight into the "Scandinavian version of Scandinavia". Thoughts? PS: I think the previous flag orders were based on population. Harry- (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good points. I have no problem with any of the above, although I think the introduction is clear already on the double meaning. In the etymology section, I think the meaning in different languages could be expanded. As for the order, I guessed it might by based on population, but I think alphabetical order makes more sense; I'm of course open to counterarguments. Jeppiz (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed it around now, hopefully that looks fine? I also like how ethnic group pages (t.ex Arabs) sorts based on population, but that's up to you, and I guess 5 million isn't too much different from 10 million. Harry- (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Harry-, that looks good to me. I restored your version. Jeppiz (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam, and the consensus is that Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and that this article needs to identify these countries clearly in the lead section as such. Already the longstanding hatnote explains that this article is "about Scandinavia as a historical and cultural-linguistic region" and that readers interested in a concept incorporating Finland and other entirely non-Scandinavian countries need to head to the article on the Nordic countries. We cannot make this into an alternative article on the Nordic countries, because there is already an article specifically on the Nordic countries. This is specifically the article about Scandinavian-speaking, culturally Scandinavian countries, not on the peninsula and not on the broader group of Nordic countries. Explaining WP:FRINGE inaccurate usage among some foreign sources confusing two (or three) concepts twice in the lead section, thus making this article seem mostly about the Nordic countries and far less about Scandinavia, is WP:UNDUE and POV. --Dijhndis (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, the Scandinavian countries are always mentioned in the order Denmark, Norway and Sweden (alphabetically), not with Sweden first. --Dijhndis (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Dijhndis, thanks for so vividly illustrating my point about failure to WP:HEAR. You continue to deride the consensus, and your whole argument is that there are errors in "foreign" sources, as if Scandinavian sources were better. You fail to understand that concepts vary between languages, and English Wikipedia follows English usage. Jeppiz (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Your arguments have been thoroughly rejected by longstanding consensus here, even if you fail to WP:HEAR it. Your attempt to add an explanation of your preferred WP:FRINGE usage twice(!), no less, in the lead section is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. The longstanding consensus version already explains the confusion with the Nordic countries once, but we cannot make this article into an article (or a POV fork) on the Nordic countries because there is already an article on the Nordic countries. --Dijhndis (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What consensus are you talking about. We've discussed this for a month with SergeWoodzing and Harry- in a civil and constructive manner, before you come in to WP:OWN the article and starts edit warring and talking about "foreign" sources as if English sources were less relevant on English Wikipedia. I've reported this to ANI as it's obvioue Dijhndis is a SPA account only here to right great wrongs. Jeppiz (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that you are taking part in this debate only to right great wrongs, and that your POV pushing has been rejected time and again by numerous users over many years, yet you fail to WP:HEAR it – you even mention yourself in this discussion that "many" editors "apparently fail to understand" that you are right and they are WP:WRONG. As has been explained to you several times, by me and other editors, e.g. by User:Carewolf above, this is not the article on the Nordic countries. There is already an article specifically on the Nordic countries (i.e. the group including Finland and Iceland). If the Nordic countries are (allegedly) referred to as "Scandinavia" by a tiny minority of low quality sources (typically by authors with little expertise on the subject), that's a matter for the Nordic countries article, whether that term ought to be mentioned as an alternative name in that article; it is not a matter for this article which is about an entirely different, distinct concept, namely a linguistic region. You are attempting to make this article (which is specifically about the cultural-linguistic region which is defined by Scandinavian languages, and where noone speak Finnish) into your private POV fork of the Nordic countries article. You even insist on adding a definition of the Nordic countries twice(!) to the lead section of this article, which is about the cultural-linguistic region of Scandinavia. You have already been told by User:Carewolf above to stop your onesided editing here and that your lack of respect for previous discussions is unhelpful. --Dijhndis (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Could I suggest you stop that rather silly behaviour of taking policies I cite and then throw them back, I can assure you it's not impressing anybody. As for your what you call "my" definition, it was not written by me. I've tried to explain to you that this is English Wikipedia and we use English definitions, but apparently you're not listening. Jeppiz (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the editor who refuses to listen to what other editors have been telling you here for years, as you indeed point out yourself. --Dijhndis (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Both of the claims you make above are false. If there hasn't already been an RfC on this, I recommend one to clarify the issue and stop this nonsense. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

For the benefit of readers of this discussion unfamiliar with the Nordic countries: Scandinavia is a term for the three countries where the population speak mutually intelligible Scandinavian languages. In Finland the vast majority speak Finnish, a language entirely unrelated to Scandinavian languages. Finland is part of the Nordic Council and the group of countries called the Nordic countries, which is mainly a political term. It is not part of the linguistic region called Scandinavia, which is characterized by Scandinavian languages to which Finnish bears no resemblance (in the same sense that Gibraltar is not part of England). The Scandinavian languages are more closely related to Urdu than to Finnish. --Dijhndis (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, all of the above is true and all of it is utterly irrelevant. This is not the article Dijhndis definition of Scandinavia, it's Scandinavia on English Wikipedia and should reflect how Scandinavia is used in English language sources. Jeppiz (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia already has an article on the concept you are advocating/interested in, and it's called the Nordic countries. You are merely trying to make this article into a POV fork of the Nordic countries article. We cannot have two articles on the same concept and the exact same group of countries. You even find it necessary to have a definition of the Nordic countries TWICE in the introduction of a different article, this one. --Dijhndis (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've responded three times to your comment already. As you refuse to even listen, refuse to answer my comments and just keep repeating the same comment over and over again, I see little point continuing. All your comments have been thoroughly addressed, your refusal to WP:HEAR is disruptive. Jeppiz (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you have not responded at all, particularly 1) not to my question of why you think we should have two articles (see Content forking) on the exact same concept and group of countries (as you have been asked by other users in the past as well), as the article on the Nordic countries already covers the concept you are advocating, and 2) why you insist on having a definition of the Nordic countries twice(!) in the introduction of this article (which is specifically about something else, namely the cultural-linguistic region). You are indeed the editor who refuses to listen to other editors, over a period of many years, and who is behaving in a disruptive way here. --Dijhndis (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * # We should not have two identical articles, and we don't. However, your whole argument is WP:TRUTH over sources. You argue we should go by your POV because it is the truth. That's not how WP functions, we'll pick reliable sources over the truth every time.
 * # I already explained that it's not "my" version, I didn't write the version you repeatedly edit war against.
 * # Scandinavian articles are hardly 2% of my WP history, 98% of yours. So much for your claims about me. Jeppiz (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the claim that 'these are actually Nordic countries', which was directly contradicted by the source (Ency Brit). The source unequivocally states that the definition of 'Scan' is 'flexible' in English, and this is not simply a 'tourist source', which it is later suggested are the only ones using the term more loosely. I have to say that there is a lot of repetition and muddle in the lead and article, much of which simply recycles the 'definition' argument. I don't know the topic well enough to address these. Pincrete (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Sweden first" edit warring by User:Thomas.W
A user Thomas.W, who apparently stresses his "ethnic Swedish" heritage on his user page, is involved in (has started) an edit war to add "Sweden" first, before the other countries, instead of the alphabetical order which is the most common (and the established order in this article as well), in blatant disregard of talk page consensus here (even among other editors who say they are Swedish) and previous discussion of that issue.

Further incidents involving Thomas.W:
 * 1) Pincrete adds a clarify tag to the wording "foreign usage" (which I agree could be better)
 * 2) I change it to "outside the Nordic countries", hopefully resolving the issue
 * 3) Thomas.W reverts back to "foreign usage" and removes the clarify tag without specifying a reason

Thomas.W is also involved in content forking by adding Internet TLDs and whatnot for all the countries in the Nordic countries article, thus duplicating that article to promote his own POV.

Furthermore, Thomas.W is edit-warring against the established version which has been stable for years to enforce his own peculiar POV, including the examples mentioned above. His edits also include adding his content-forking definition of the Nordic countries (which has its own article) not once, but twice, to the introduction of this article, in blatant disregard of years of discussion and previous consensus on this article's introduction. --Dijhndis (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This is getting silly. Thomas.W is a good and responsible user, and it begs belief that you have the guts to claim Thomas.W is edit warring "to enforce his POV" and "against consensus" when you who has imposed your own version over and over again by reverting several different users. Jeppiz (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Thomas.W has been disruptively edit warring to add "Sweden" first, in blatant disregard of talk page consensus (after that particular issue had been addressed here several times), among other things. He has certainly not contributed in a productive way to this article, and has ignored talk page discussion and consensus. He has also not offered any explanation of why he insists on the term "foreign usage". --Dijhndis (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's just a load of cr*p, the only one who is edit-warring here is you (just check the page history, you actually had four reverts within 24 hours when I gave you the 3RR warning...). People here don't support your edits, so just stop. Thomas.W talk 07:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Re changing "foreign" to "outside the Nordic countries", unless you are fairly sure how the term is used in French/Chinese/Xhosa etc. it doesn't resolve anything. It is fairly clear (now) that the meaning is 'in English usage' and I have changed accordingly. Pincrete (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just reverted Dijhndis's edits, i.e. returned the page to its previous version, with the intention of going through the material later. But you beat me to it. Thomas.W talk 13:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Greenlandic?
Since when is Greenlandic used anywhere in Scandinavia? The Kingdom of Denmark's increasingly limited sovereignty over that North American autonomous territory doesn't mean mean it is part of Scandinavia, which is not a country, but a historical and cultural-linguistic region in Europe. For example, English editors will probably insist that the Falkland Islands or Australia are not part of England either. --Dijhndis (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still nominally a part of Denmark, and hence Greenlandic is a language in Denmark. Which you admit is a part of Scandinavia. I'm more surprised by "German" in that list. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact that Greenland is under Danish sovereignity does not make it any more a part of Scandinavia than Pitcairn is a part of the British Isles; Greenlandic is not necessarily spoken any more in Scandinavia than Pitkern is on the British Isles. German is a regional minority language in Denmark proper, which neither Greenlandic nor Faroese is. Meänkieli has stronger claims to be on the list than those two.
 * Andejons (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Arguments about whether Greenland is part of Scan are fruitless, do RS mention the territory as part of Scan? I have seen none and therefore the 'Pitcairn' analogy is apt. A seperate question is which languages are used in Scan and to what extent, but that also needs RS.Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm with you on this one, Greenlandic is not spoken in any part of Scandinavia even in its broadest definition, unlike official minority languages like German, Sami, Meänkieli or Yiddish. Jeppiz (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed Greenlandic and added the missing minority languages that I know. I left Faroese, by the reasoning that if someone consider Iceland a part of Scandinavia they would probably include the Faroes as well (here is an actual example of such usage).
 * Andejons (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * None of the sources explicitly exclude Greenland, which is unfortunate. I think this interpretation is reasonable, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The OED actually does: (it explicitly includes the Faroes).
 * Andejons (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"only mainland Denmark, Norway and Sweden are commonly included"
This statement in the introduction is unclear:


 * In Nordic languages, only mainland Denmark, Norway and Sweden are commonly included in the definition of Scandinavia.

It reads like it is referring to the mainland of all three countries. The "mainland" generally means the main territory of a state, excluding surrounding islands. I'm also not aware that Denmark, excluding Greenland and the Faroes, is called "mainland Denmark". Mainland Denmark would be Jutland to me, and I assume, a lot of others will interpret it that way.

I clarified this statement to:


 * In Nordic languages, only the mainland and close surrounding islands of Denmark, Norway and Sweden are usually included in the definition of Scandinavia.

I don't see the problem with this clarification. It clearly excludes Greenland, the Faroes, and Svalbard, while including close surrounding islands such as Zealand, Funen, Hinnoya, Senja, etc. However I was reverted by User:Carewolf. Do you have a better solution? Rob984 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Jutland is only referred to as "the mainland" jokingly by Jutlandic people.Carewolf (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rob984, would a solution be to remove 'mainland'? Then, if necessary, add text as to what is excluded. I think, (compare GB), small close islands would legitimately be considered as not excluded from 'mainland', but there is an ambiguity. Equally, distant dependent territories would not generally be considered part of De/No/Sw, and therefore not of 'Scandinavia', which I suspect is the reason for adding 'mainland'.


 * A long term problem with this article (and the reason it is on my watchlist), is that we are dealing with at least two distinct definitions of 'Scandinavia', one clear local definition and a second looser definition prevalent in Eng-speaking world. Pincrete (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Carewolf, many readers probably wont even know that half of Denmark's population live on islands.
 * In the UK, "the mainland" is generally used to exclude Northern Ireland, the Northern Isles, and the Western Isles, which are very remote, while it includes Anglesey and the Isle of Wight which are only separated by simply a river-like channel. In France, "the mainland" excludes Corsica and overseas France (the latter being the parts outside of Europe). Whereas, "metropolitan France" includes Corsica and only excludes overseas France. I don't believe "mainland Denmark" is the equivalent to "metropolitan France", or at least I've never seen it used in this way.
 * Pincrete, I agree, "Denmark" means only Denmark proper, not Greenland or the Faroes which are nominally separate countries. However, the point of the statement is to state explicitly that Greenland, the Faroes, and Svalbard are excluded in Nordic languages. "only Denmark, Norway and Sweden are commonly included" is ambiguous on Svalbard (which is nominally part of Norway). But it's better then the current wording which is plain misleading.
 * Still, I don't see a problem with my proposed wording. If there is a problem with it, surely we can come up with some other wording that clarifies this? We're only excluding three jurisdictions, we could state them if needs be?
 * Personally I think the looser definition is given too much prominence. If anything we should just mention "Scandinavia" as an alternative name at Nordic countries and be done with it. Though apparently it doesn't include Greenland, which is bizarre. I mean, why does a broader definition of "Scandinavia" not include Greenland, even though Greenland is considered Nordic like Finland? Possibly someone is cherry picking sources here?
 * Rob984 (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Rob984, my Portsmouth-based nautical grandfather, would probably turn over in his grave if he heard the Solent being descrobed as a 'river-like channel' ! However I agree with your analysis, which is that small-ish close islands may not be technically mainland, but no one is likely to think they are excluded. I think that removing 'mainland' and qualifying as necessary would be a good solution, whereas 'close islands' is a bit vague.


 * Where I disagree strongly is about local/broader definition. The problem is this, the article content is mainly about the places covered by'local' use, no one wants to change that content substantially. However, the schoolboy in Australia who comes across the term 'Scandinavia' in some context and comes to WP, needs to have it explained clearly in sentence 1 that in English, this is often synonymous with what are locally called 'Nordic countries', then told that there is also a more precise local definition which this article is about. At present, this is not the case, but rather a hotch-potch compromise about the two uses. Many 'local' users insist that the English usage is simply wrong. Even if this were the case, the usage is so widespread (and used in very RS), that we need to take account of it if we are to inform the Melbourne schoolboy, rather than confuse him by assuming that he, and the book he is reading, OUGHT to know correct usage. Pincrete (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it is pretty clear from context what "mainland" is supposed to mean here. It follows after a paragraph that discuss territories which are parts of Norway and Denmark which are sometimes excluded from Scandinavia. We also have the article mainland, which uses the term for Norway and Denmark in exactly the same way as this article.
 * Andejons (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Scandinavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114212929/http://diis.dk/sw13149.asp to http://diis.dk/sw13149.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114212929/http://diis.dk/sw13149.asp to http://www.oresundstid.dk/dansk/engelsk/oresundstid/1800/side03-02-tekst.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212134140/http://www.pgi.gov.pl/pgi_en/index.php?option=news&task=viewarticle&sid=4&Itemid=2 to http://www.pgi.gov.pl/pgi_en/index.php?option=news&task=viewarticle&sid=4&Itemid=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826081952/http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/temperatur/1.2484 to http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/temperatur/1.2484
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001152130/http://www.stm.unipi.it/Clioh/tabs/libri/3/01-Halfdanarson_1-14.pdf to http://www.stm.unipi.it/Clioh/tabs/libri/3/01-Halfdanarson_1-14.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207061449/http://www.vifanord.de/index.php?id=1&L=1&rd=243343734 to http://www.vifanord.de/index.php?id=1&L=1&rd=243343734

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * I think you need to read more carefully, nowhere was it suggested that monarchy/not was a factor in deciding whether a place was Scandinavian, a coincidence is not a cause. Nowhere was it implied that the def led to the movement. You may be right about additional languages, but "Finland is not a part of Scandinavia" is nonsense, in English it often is and we need to say that clearly in the lead. 'Scandinavia' like 'Balkan' has both a precise original local meaning, and looser English usages and this needs to be said clearly in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The Monarchy/Republic issue is out of scope for this mainly geographical article. It belongs in a political article or in a list preferably ! Here is it suddenly a very big deal. And a part that begins with a definition of the Scandinavian Peninsula, is in a few lines twisted around to the Scandinavian movement, and confusion between Scania and Scandinavia - it's rubbish when written together. Boeing720 (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC) And Finland is the main difference between Scandinavia and the Nordic countries. This is third grade primary school knowledge. It's a bit difficult to read everything careful, when so much trash is found everywhere. There are by the way two Sami languages, a southern and a northern. They are to my knowledge very different, but both may possibly be Uralic languages. And even if Estonian also is so, and Latvian and Lithuanian are not - is Baltic issues also entirely out of scope for an article about Scandinavia Boeing720 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Furthermore - a dictionary explains words. No dictionary can be used for any kind of geographical definition. Dictionaries (even from Oxford) is not even up to common encyclopedic standard. And encyclopedias are we only to use in cases where good secondary sources are hard to obtain. Boeing720 (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually no, Scandinavians insist that the term is ONLY a historical-cultural-linguistic area (which is the main subject here, though it probably shouldn't be on Eng WP), and traditional political system is relevant to a cultural area. In English use the term embraces 'looser' geographical definitions. I think Oxford (and others and encycs) knows that the term has both a cultural and geographic meaning, even if they cannot 'map' the geographic area precisely.


 * I really don't see the confusion between 'peninsular' and the history of the term, but agree they would be better separated. This unfortunately is a long-term bone of contention on this article, the difference between local and Eng use. I don't have an 'axe to grind' on this subject apart from noting that various definitions exist in English, and they need to be recorded alongside local ones. The Sami link is already to Sami languages plural. Pincrete (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Yiddish and Romani are official minority languages of Sweden. German is an official minority language in Denmark. I see no reason why these should not be included, even if the number of speakers are not quite as large as for e.g. Meänkieli.
 * Andejons (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there some consistent, verifiable criteria we could adopt? I looked at a few 'place pages', GB lists only English, Scots, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Cornish. Cornish has reputedly 100 fluent speakers, which is obviously tiny compared to number of Jewish/Urdu/Hindi/Turkish/Greek/Somali/Polish etc. speakers in GB. The criteria used there appears to be EU recognition as a regional language. Is there some verifiable local official recognition? Pincrete (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a source for Finnish, Meänkieli, Sami, Romani, and Yiddish being recognised minority languages (though only in certain geographical areas for most, and mostly as a symbolical gesture for Romani and Yiddish...) in Sweden (see also Minority languages of Sweden), as for German being a recognised minority language in Southern Jutland (and there only), see European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which lists which minority languages are officially recognised where in Europe. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And this (the official website of the Nordic Council) can be used as source for German being a recognised minority language in Sønderjylland. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that makes sense, to list ALL with official recognition, regardless of numbers, since anyone coming to the article is unlikely to need to be informed that English, and recent migrant languages are spoken almost everywhere, but might be interested in historical use. Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Scandinavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326122905/http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation to http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326122905/http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation to http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005152013/http://www.eng.samer.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=1185 to http://www.eng.samer.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=1185
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090120081140/http://www.eng.samer.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=1186 to http://www.eng.samer.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=1186

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect sentence about the Sami people in the Toponymy section
Can someone, who can edit this page, edit the following sentence? "A small minority of Sami people live in the extreme north of Scandinavia." I would suggest something like this instead: "A minority of Sami people lives in northern parts and some southern parts of Scandinavia". Even today, there are Samis as far south as Hedmark in Norway (Elgå), so the current sentence is wrong. I would also remove the word "small", not because it's wrong, but because it's an inexact word to use in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.118.128 (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2018
70.48.252.211 (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

According to the tourist rankings and reviews Norway, Denmark and Sweden are ranked as the most visited places from past 3 years, and therefore declared as the best places on Earth.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I doubt that ranking and my doubt is confirmed by looking at World Tourism rankings. Sam Sailor 07:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Usage (once again)
While we've been through this a 100 times, the article keeps getting change. Usually by fellow Scandinavians who think they know how it should be. The problem is that these users fail to understand that concepts may differ between languages. When English usage often refers to Finland and Iceland as Scandinavian countries, it's not because English usage is wrong. What Scandinavia means to us is not the same thing, and actually irrelevant in this article. Broadly speaking, English usage could be summed up like this:
 * Some authoritative sources (such as Encyclopaedia Britannica) states that Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. For this reason we cannot claim in this article that Finland and Iceland are Scandinavian.
 * Common English usage refers to Finland (in particular) and Iceland (a bit less common) as Scandinavian countries. For this reason we cannot claim in this article that Finland and Iceland are not  Scandinavian.

Common usage can not be a source for defining anything. In most non English speaking countries, the common usage of “England” and more specifically “English” is used instead of Great Britain and British. That does not make it correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.106.214.199 (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It's really that simple. I can understand that people may find it puzzling not to have the neat distinction between Skandinavien and Norden that we have, but that's the way it is. We are not here to correct English usage but to follow it. Jeppiz (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All right, thought I was reflecting how the current introduction sounded (not being skandinavisk myself I read the word in the same way the English do). I still think it's somewhat confusing to have that "Languages" list be the most prominent part of this infobox. The "Composition" section is more descriptive and helpful. Perhaps it would be sufficient to only display the "Composition" and not the "Languages" list? – Þjarkur (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Or a collapsed list of languages with a “Sometimes also”. – Þjarkur (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The nearest analogy that I've ever been able to come up with (for what is/isn't Scandinavia in Eng), is 'Balkan' - which does have a precise geograhical definition (the mountain range), but which is frequently used more loosely. At least 'Scandinavian' is usually a compliment, whereas 'Balkan' often isn't! Pincrete (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite right. A bit more complicated still here, as there is one geographical usage (only Norway and Sweden), one usage in the region (Denmark, Norway and Sweden), and one prevailing in English usage (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, ). Looking at such things as guidebooks to the region, they tend to be called "Scandinavia" and include the five countries, when Finland or Iceland are mentioned in English papers, they are usually called "Scandinavian country" etc. So yeah, it's tricky. I think we just have to accept that trying to decide one usage is the correct one will always involve favouring a certain POV. Jeppiz (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Overall, the "sometimes also" is not ideal either and should be used with caution. It tends to imply that there is one correct definition, and another one "sometimes also" used. This brings us back to implying what's right and what's not. I do agree that the languages could be in a collapsed list. Jeppiz (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also agree that language list could be collapsed. Pincrete (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. IF there are people that come up to you saying "Finland is not a Scandinavian country", it is most likely that it actually comes from fellow Scandinavians who wants to tell you the "truth".

Yet, when this is Wikipedia, it is very important not to listen to these too much. The term 'Scandinavia'is actually a term that people that DON'T live in Scandinavia use to descripe people in this specific area. And in majority agreement, it referst to all the countries that the Scandinavian people themselves refers to ask "Nordic countries".

It is also notable to high-light that this IS an English Wikipedia. The term 'Scandinavia'actually refers to all 5 countries, in books, culture, movies.

Just for an example, if western societies would describe indians, we would always describe them in our own terms, and we can of course tell HOW they describe and see themselves.

That IS the point here. In this article we can mention how people living in Scandinavian peninsula sees themselves, but we shouldn't not tell the truth about how they are and are seen in our culture. For almost to the whole world, the term 'Scandinavian'is actually not a term in those specifics that it is for those that lives in these 3 kingdoms.

PS. I am Scandinavian myself. MaraKatti (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Iceland
According to a Reykjavik "City Walk" tour guide Eiríkur (Erik), Iceland is NOT part of Scandinavia. Additionally, he said some Icelanders also find it offensive when people include Iceland as part of Scandinavia. Furthermore, he went on to say that Scandinavia only includes Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. jennasloan (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Scandinavia is about Sweden, Norway and maybe Finland, that's it! Denmark is on the northern German border, and Iceland, sure as heck is not part of this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.63.82.69 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Finland is not in Scandinavia either. Finland is a long way from Iceland with no cultural connections. Iceland has more in common with the British Isles than Finland. DNA found that Icelanders are a mix of Norwegian and Scots/Irish. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:51A:9D63:8D98:68A7 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Other Islands
Could the Orkney and Shetland Islands be considered Nordic or in a similar position to the fareo iles as they have the similar Scandinavian flags? OpenCase (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Orkney and Shetland Islands could be considered Nordic for sure being a pat of Norway at one time. The Isle of Man in the middle if the Irish Sea was a part of Norway at one time. For convenience they are not Nordic being a part of the British Isles. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:51A:9D63:8D98:68A7 (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)