Talk:Uusimaa (historical province)

The naming of this article is a bit confusing. Is there a better reason to latinize "Nyland" into "Nylandia" for the historical province than the current ones ("län" and "landskap")? Hhowever, during the Swedish time I suppose the name really was Nyland, not Uusima. I suggest this article be moved to Nyland (historical province). / Habj 19:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about my last edit. I didnt notice that article was about HISTORICAL.... 212.16.102.108 16:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to Nyland (historical province)
Since this article is about the historical province it seems strange to use a modern Finnish name for it. The Swedish province was called Nyland and not Uusimaa. Närking (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The population of the province was, even during the Swedish time, predominantly Finnish-speaking, and the Finnish name, Uusimaa, was used even then. I disagree with the proposal. --MPorciusCato (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The official name was Nyland in Sweden just like Helsingfors and Åbo were, which also were their names in other languages at the time. Note for example that Helsinki was called Gelsingfors in Russian also during the Russian period. Närking (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And please explain why Nyland is used at Governorate of Nyland? Was the population suddenly predominantly Swedish-speaking under Russian rule? Närking (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article in question was made by a rogue editor, who sports an extremely unconventional idea that the län had different identities in Finland under Swedish rule, in the autonomous Grand Duchy and in the independent republic. Such idea has no support in any outside source, and there exists an ongoing discussion on the merging of the articles. I would not use the article names used in "governorate" articles as prejudicates. --MPorciusCato (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's wellknown fact that Swedish language was used also during the Russian period. Thus Governorate of Nyland, for the same reasons we have Chernigov Governorate and not Chernihiv Governorate. Once again we are talking about historical Swedish provinces not modern Finnish ones. Närking (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We also have Nyland and Tavastehus County Cavalry Regiment and not Uusimaa and Hämeenlinna County Cavalry Regiment. There also should be an article about the Swedish regiment Nylands Infantry Regiment and not Uusimaa Infantry Regiment (if the article is about the historical Swedish regiment). Närking (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This article discusses a historical province which is a geographical (not administrative) territory NOT restricted to the Swedish era.--130.234.68.225 (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please check the name of the article. It´s about the "historical province", which was called Nyland, never Uusimaa. If you want to create an article about the geography of the area you are welcome to create such, but that's another article. Närking (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And right now I'm looking at a Dutch map of the area from the 1700s. And guess what the area is called? Nyland. Närking (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And F. de Wit's map from 1710, where geographical names are given in Latin, has the name Nylandia. Närking (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you do not understand at all what "historical province" means in Finland. These provinces are not just regions of the Swedish era. In many ways, these provinces are still existing in Finland as a kind of traditional cultural regions, a traditional geographical framework, and identity-referring territories of the present-day Finns. They certainly have traditional Finnish names. In other words, there is absolutely no reason to use Swedish minority names of these provinces in English Wikipedia. Uusimaa (historical province in modern Finland) and Nyland (pre-1809 Swedish province) are different conceptual entities. You present yourself as a historian, so you should be able to understand the situation even if it is a bit complicated: historical entities (which do not exist any more) and historical legacy actively used in the present-day culture are different things! It is out of question to rename this article, but perhaps you can start a new article Nyland referring to whatever functions the province had in the administrative structure of the Swedish state.--130.234.68.223 (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've pointed out Nyland or Nylandia has also been the name used in other languages, not only Swedish. And it would be more natural to call your article Nyland (cultural province), than the present name of this article. And secondly Nyland was the name of the former Swedish landskap also. It's a pity to see the almost total denial of a Swedish past here and in so many other articles. Just look at the article about Åbo. It doesn't even mention that the city was known under that name during most of its existence! Närking (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Swedish past is certainly addressed in this article. I hope we are not living the 1930's anymore, so there should be no room for this kind of petty nationalism. Names on 18th century Dutch maps do not determinate how the province should be called in a Wikipedia article in 2009. The province does not have an established English name. Why on earth a Swedish name of a Finnish province should be used in an English context? The province is still existing in some respects, it existed as an administrative district until 1997, and Finnish has been the first administrative language in Finland since the late 19th century.--130.234.68.223 (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Edit The article discussing Turku actually mentions right in the beginning that Swedish name of the town is Åbo.--130.234.68.223 (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question about nationalism (from my side), it's just that history shouldn´t be rewritten. Not even Soviet historians would have written that Peter the Great founded Leningrad. Regarding the article about Åbo, it does mention that in Swedish it's called Åbo, but give no explanation at all of its origin or that the city was known in the whole world with that name until the late 1800s. That's surely a good example of rewriting the history. Should we also write that Immanuel Kant lived in Kaliningrad? Närking (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And why do we have Tavastia (historical province) and not the Finnish Häme (historical province)? Would be much more logical with Nylandia than Uusimaa. Närking (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me answer first to the later question. Tavastia and Finland Proper have established English names, wheras Uusimaa/Nyland does not have such a thing. Wikipedia cannot coin new names just because of consistency.
 * Leningrad and Kaliningrad are poor analogues in this case. Turku is a Finnish name of medieval origin and cannot be compared with brand new names coined by revolutionary governments and conquerors during the 20th century. I must say I am bit disappointed to see a historian using so silly examples.
 * I think it is quite obvious that almost all foreigners knew Finnish towns with their Swedish names until the late 19th century, but if it is really necessary to state the obvious, you can do it yourself in the article of Turku.
 * However, I must say that I find the accusation of rewriting of history quite weird in this case. If a present-day town has a direct continuity to the 13th century and its present, official Finnish name dates from the same century, it is certainly reasonable to use the Finnish name even in historical contexts. It is just a way to avoid the completely unnecessary confusion that would arise if a town is called Åbo in one century and Turku in another. It is also the established custom, and cannot be objected just because there might be different practices regarding the names of some individual towns such as Köningbeg/Kaliningrad or Constantinople/Istanbul. Naming customs are never consistent, and there is absolutely no reason to view the case of Köningsberg/Kaliningrad as a model to be emulated.--130.234.68.224 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You forget that Åbo was the official name of the city which Turku never was. You can also compare it with Danzig/Gdańsk. I don't think there should be separate articles for Åbo/Turku, but the article needs to clearly state what the town was known as for most of its existence. People looking for the city in historical documents would look in vain for Turku.
 * This article was also called Nylandia before a Finnish editor moved it without discussions. Närking (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Being a historian, you should realize that there was nothing truly "official" in the pre-modern world. And in any case, the point is quite irrelevant. Besides, foreigners usually spelt it Abo, not Åbo. I am not going to continue this discussion, but I must say that I am astonished by the thinly veiled chauvinistic colonial attitude you are expressing.--130.234.68.224 (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to remind that the articles with a connection to Finnish Swedish-speakers have suffered from editors with such an attitude both here and in fi-Wikipedia. In one case, an editor was rather convincingly shown to be a person who speaks neither Finnish nor Swedish as a mother tongue. It is possible that there are groups which try to enflame the long-dead language strife from the outside of Finland, using Wikipedia as a tool for it. --MPorciusCato (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And what does that have to do with this article? Nice technique to kill discussions. Have been used in more eastern countries. And secondly why don´t you take a look at what's been decided about Danzig/Gdańsk? . Närking (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Danzig/Gdansk has nothing to do with this case.--130.234.68.223 (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you even care to read? Närking (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no, as I cannot understand how it is related to this case.---130.234.68.223 (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Anyway, the article is called Gdansk, and Danzig is a redirect. Apparently Wikipedia is favouring names that can be justified by present-day demographics. Turku is a overwhelmingly Finnish-speaking town and Uusimaa a Finnish-speaking province. Närpes and Nykarleby are predominantly Swedish-speaking towns in Finland, so it is fair to refer them with Swedish names. --130.234.68.223 (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you show your ignorance so openly. It also explains that you still haven't understood that we are talking about historical names and not present usage of names. If you had cared to read about how Danzig/Gdansk are used you would also understand what this is all about. Närking (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I understand perfectly well what this is all about. I just disagree with your arguments. Many towns and provinces in different countries have several alternative names in different languages, and all of those names are historical. Present day demographics usually determine what name is used in English contexts. Turku and Uusimaa are present-day entities and not just historical spaces. And the Finnish names are just as old and historical as the Swedish ones. [Special:Contributions/84.251.4.253|84.251.4.253]] (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you understand, why do you talk about present usage of names and present day demographics? And yes, it's a complete waste of time to discus with you since you apparently don't even care to read answers. You still haven't read about Danzig/Gdansk. Närking (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note that Uusimaa is not a historical entity, but a conceptual one. There never was a historical administrative region called Uusimaa in the time Sweden has a province-based administration. Instead, one talked about the Raseborg slottslän. However, the concept of historical province of Uusimaa developed in the 19th century, with the other semi-historical Finnish provinces. Therefore, the "historical province" is a present-day phenomenon, not a historical entity and it is useful to name the article as the province is presently named. (Gdansk/Danzig has no applicability here: that is about a historically German city, which is nowadays Polish. Now we are talking about a province where the majority has been Finnish-speaking since prehistory.) --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Check any geographical book or map from the 1600s and 1700s and you will find Nyland or Nylandia. Just like you will find Närke/Nercia, Österbotten/Ostrobotnia etc, even though there also were administrative units like Örebro län etc. And by the way Nyland had a significant Swedish population. Närking (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you understand, why do you talk about present usage of names and present day demographics? Because I do honestly think that it is an extremely stupid idea to use Swedish names in an English text when referring to Finnish entities which 1) are still existing as conceptual spaces (Uusimaa) or physical sites (Turku) and 2) have historical Finnish names. You do not seem to understand that there is no naming convention according to which we should consistently use the names present in original documents. Otherwise, we should alternatively write of Åbo, Abo and Turku when referring to a same 18th century town. And why the f--k should I read about Gdansk/Danzig when it is quite obvious that Gdansk has very little to do with the subject under discussion?--130.234.68.224 (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, it's Ostrobothnia, with an "h". :-) Of course, in a Latin book, you find Nylandia, in a Swedish book, Nyland, in a Finnish book, Uusimaa. You found these words there in the 17th century, and in the present day, you will still find them. --MPorciusCato (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In articles discussing history of Gdansk they have put the German name in parenthesis. Gdansk (Danzig). I do not object fiercely if similar practice is adopted in articles discussing pre-1809 history of Finland: Uusimaa (Nyland). But I don't recommend it, because it would be a highly idiosynchratic practice and alien to naming customs conventonally used in historiography. And, by the way, how should we name the articles like Priozersk or Vyborg? These towns have successively belonged to Sweden, independent Finland and Russia. Should the articles be titled like "Priozhersk (Keksholm) (Käkisalmi)"? Obviously not. I think it is best to leave only one name in the article titles (i.e. the name currently in use in English) and mention the alternative names in the text.--130.234.68.223 (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC) PS And regarding this article, everybody must have realised by now that these "historical provinces" in Finland have existed after the Swedish rule in Finland as well, so there is not a single reason why a Swedish title should be used here. Unfortunately, Närking seems to think that Finland has only Swedish-speaking history; an astonishing view from a person who claims to be a historian.


 * Using bad words in the discussion won't help. And I'm still waiting to see a historian to write a book about the battle of Volgograd. I doubt there are such historians. And by the way also English travel books from the time used Swedish names of towns, provinces etc, which was natural since they were the official names of the time . You might not like it, but you can't just rewrite history because you don't like it. Närking (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you might not like it, but I just don't see much sense, logic, purpose or expertise in your comments. You cannot expect that anyone takes you seriously as long as you just keep repeating same trivial observations without even noticing the counter-arguments. If you really are a scholar, your disinterest to present an meaningful argument puts you into a serious professional disadvantage. But as this debate is tiresome and makes us both look foolish, I think we should move on towards a compromise. In that pursuit it would help greatly if you actually presented some concrete suggestions.
 * I am very aware that foreign map-makers and writers used Swedish names of Finnish locations during the 18th century. So what? That was 18th century. We are writing here in a 21st century encyclopedia. I ask again: why do you believe that we should always use the names present in original documents? On what grounds? According to which generally accepted practice? And if we do, what name do use then? Åbo? Abo? Aboa? Nyland? Nylandia? What shall do in case of places like Priozersk? I have asked all this before; you did not answer. Volgograd/Stalingrad is a weird comparison. It is an conventional and well-established usage to speak of the Battle of Stalingrad even if the city has been renamed since; I see absolutely no reason to suggest that all historical names should be modelled on that single example. There is no similar established practice regarding the Finnish toponymies. Naming practices are not consistent. And as far as I know, there was no concept of "official name" during the 18th century. I have pointed that out before; characteristically you did not notice it.
 * But this discussion is really waste of time as long as you do not even bother to present a coherent suggestion of improvement. So, if you please: 1) Kindly answer the questions I have presented above. 2) Kindly define what is the problem you are protesting against - I have no clue anymore, as it seems that you mostly keep barking just for the hell of it and have no real point to make. 3) And then make a suggestion of what should be done. How should we modify the articles discuissing Finnish places and their histories so that their Swedish phase of history is not being obscured? No one is objecting the practice that Swedish names should be mentioned in an opening paragraph. Apparently you are not satisfied with that? What on earth do you want then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.68.222 (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you haven't noticed the headline, I suggested a move of the article to something close to the original name of the article. It was previousily moved without discussions. That was my point. Secondly this was just one example of the many other articles related to Finland where everything that gives a hint of a Swedish history has been erased. And this discussion has also shown that it will be very hard to change it. I've noticed that no one else dares to go there since they will be instantly reverted and attacked by bad words.
 * My point is that common practise is to use the contemporary names when dealing with historical articles. No one is denying the Finnish names, but it's simply wrong to talk about medieval bishops of Turku for example. Yes, it was bad that Finnish wasn't used in official documents at the time. And yes, it was bad that Finnish names were changed into more Swedish ones. Also some of my Finnish ancestors got their names changed to Swedish ones, but they were known by their Swedish names and we can't just start to change them now. Of course we should have articles like Helsinki, Turku etc. But when dealing with historical articles we should use the names that was used at the time. You might think it's trivial the Swedish names were used all over Europe until the 1800s, but that's simply the fact.
 * I also think that the solution that Polish and German editors have come down to is a reasonable one. When talking about something during the German period we use Danzig and then use Gdańsk when dealing with something during a Polish period. The same has been done with Ukrainian names like in Lviv and Lwów. Even though some Ukrainian editors keep changing the names, very similar to this case in fact.
 * Now I'm waiting for others to comment except for the one that moved the article and the IP editor. Närking (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it is not yours to decide when I should comment. And I am still unconvinced. First of all, history of Finnish towns and provinces cannot be neatly divided into Swedish and Finnish periods, as there is not any kind of demographical, linguistical, cultural or any other kind of rupture between them. They were both Finnish and Swedish from the beginning, and still are, at least if Swedish is understood in the sense of "Swedish-speaking" and not "ethnically Swedish". So where should we draw the line between the period of Swedish and Finnish names? And, believe it or not, the Finnish names are every bit as contemporary as the Swedish ones. But if "official" documents (and I still don't really believe that there was a concept of "official") determine the name, what language shall we use then in the titles? Earliest documents were written in Latin, not in Swedish. So it is Aboa, not Åbo? And how about the documents the authorities occasionally published in Finnish since the 17th century?
 * Texts written in foreign languages obviously used the Swedish names or their modifications before the 20th century. However, I just cannot understand why that practice should be reflected in the historical articles of English Wikipedia. It would only confuse matters. And I think that your accusation of Swedish history being "erased" from this or any other article is highly exaggerated, to say at least. --130.234.68.221 (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit If someone can present sources that prove that the name Nylandia is commonly used in current English, the title of this article can and should be returned to the original form as suggested by Närking. However, 18th century English texts or maps will not do, as the existence of this province is not chronologically restricted to the Swedish era of Finland's history (it is still existing as a culture-historical and geographical reference area and conceptual space). Otherwise this conversation is unlikely to attract many comments and I think I can withhold myself from this on. Apparently no solution or agreement was achieved.--130.234.68.220 (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This conversation has reached epic magnitudes, so let's stick in the stove a new point of view: a 1926 German map with "Nyland", not "Uusimaa". If this is not historic context, what then? Besides, Uusimaa as a toponym is a word-to-word translation of the Swedish concept "Nyland", and AFAIK rarely used in historic contexts, unlike Nyland or Nylandia (show me an old non-Finnish text or map with the name "Uusimaa" to prove me wrong!). For the autochtonous Finnish-speaking population this area was colloquially known as "eteläinen Häme", ie. "southern Tavastia" as described in Aleksis Kivi's 19th century novel "Seven Brothers", set in Nurmijärvi, which lies in today's central Nyland/Uusimaa. So – forgive my subtle exaggeration – using "Uusimaa" in historic contexts is like talking about Kaliningrad oblast in pre-1945 context. If I cannot be proven wrong, I shall be bold. Ultrix (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm afraid you are misinformed. The Swedish-speaking coast was never known as Southern Tavastia in Finnish - it has been Uusimaa in Finnish AFAIK since the Middle Ages. And in any case, you missed the point completely. Historical examples, like the one you were referring above, are quite irrelevant in this case: the subject of this article is not just a historical concept but a part of the contemporary world.
 * Well, I'm afraid you are misinformed. The Swedish-speaking coast was never known as Southern Tavastia in Finnish - it has been Uusimaa in Finnish AFAIK since the Middle Ages. And in any case, you missed the point completely. Historical examples, like the one you were referring above, are quite irrelevant in this case: the subject of this article is not just a historical concept but a part of the contemporary world.


 * Historical provinces in Finland are still existing as conceptual spaces (administratively, they have not existed since 1634), and they are known by their Finnish names. In other words, these so-called provinces are actually regions. They are not just long-since vanished administrative districts of a medieval kingdom, unlike you seem to think. They were geographical regions and not administrative districts already in the 18th century. People are still identifying themselves and positioning geographical localities in the terms of so-called historical provinces. In short, the historical provinces are actively used territorial categories in the contemporary Finnish language, culture and society. Historical naming conventions do not matter when we are discussing still-existing entities. Those entities should be known by their present-day names and not by names used in centuries-old maps. Please consider this point of view very carefully.--91.152.196.68 (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Afterthought: Maybe we should rename this article as Uusimaa (region) and create a separate article Nyland for discussing the medieval landskap in the Swedish kingdom.--91.152.196.68 (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Another afterthought: the significance of the so-called historical provinces may have been at its greatest during the 19th and 20th centuries, when they formed the framework for developing regional identities in Finland.--91.155.58.34 (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)