User talk:Shubi

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Mandatory Swedish & Students opinions
Hi, and thanks for the input, just for the record I'd like to keep it in English here on the en.wikipedia.

Lisäsin myös opiskelijoiden mielipiteisiin sen yksinkertaisen tiedon, joka oli lähdetutkimuksessakin, että opiskelijat eivät pitäneet ruotsin opiskelusta.

"Pupils’ attitude to the Swedish language was quite positive. By contrast, their attitude towards the study of Swedish was ambivalent: the study of Swedish was perceived as important in view of the future, continued studies and the working life but it was not liked."


 * Yes i tried to rephrase this with "According to a study published in 2002 students are interested in the Swedish language, and find it as an important part of education, but they are unmotivated because it is compulsory" which pretty much sums up that sentence, although it does not explicitly say it was due to it being compulsory.


 * But your rephrasing does not say that students did not like studying Swedish, rahter that they are unmotivated, which is a different thing. I see no reason why not to mention that students are unomotivated and dislike studying Swedish.


 * In fact just as well this could be interpreted as that it is simply not liked because how it is taught in other means (eg. uninspired teachers or something like that), to get the full picture one would have to need the whole paper and not the sum-up that was available online or so.


 * Interpreting is not our job. If the study says that Swedish tuition was not liked, we musn't intepret why, but rather just say that it was not liked.

Mielestäni opiskelijoiden mielipiteistä kerrottaessa on varsin aiheellista kertoa, että opiskelijat eivät pitäneet ruotsin opiskelusta. Maininta, että pakollisuus vähentää motivaatiota ei ole sisällöltään sama, sillä motivaation puute ei ole sama asia kuin ettei pidä opiskelusta. En siis näe syytä, miksi tuohon tutkimukseen viitatessa pitäisi jättää mainitsematta, etteivät opiskelijat pidä ruotsin opiskelusta, kun artikkelin kyseisen osion titteli kuitenkin on "student's opinions".


 * But in case the article also states it was regarded important education and also important in the view of the future.


 * Yes, and it still should be in the article, as it currently is.


 * I again think the study is a bit vague in its wordings, what exactly is "not like" in this case. Of course we could have the direct citate you used put into the text saying "a study concluded that ..."


 * The study was quite clear in expressing what was not liked:
 * "Ruotsin kielen opiskelu nähtiin tärkeänä tulevaisuutta, jatko-opintopaikkaa ja työelämää ajatellen, mutta siitä ei pidetty."


 * "Ruotsin kielen opiskelu" and "siitä" are subjects of their sentences with the former being the main subject and the latter referring to the main subject. Henche 'mutta ruotsin kielen opiskelusta ei pidetty".


 * No I didn't mean that, i meant that "what in Swedish is not liked" and how is that different from how pupils are taking a stand towards other subjects, did the study compare for instance how much pupils disslike geography (although they might see it as important for their future). But then again i think that's something missing in teh study itself.


 * But currently the article doesn't even state that the students did not like studying Swedish, which is pretty relevant. Comparsion with student's view on other subjects would bee something good to have in the article too, but since we don't have information about that, we should stick to what the study said.

Lisäksi sanamuoto "part of education" ei nähdäkseni ole sisällöltään/sävyltään täysin sama, mitä tutkimuksessa ilmaistiin opiskelijoiden ajattelevan. Opiskelijat pitivät ruotsin opiskelua tärkeänä (mikä on melko yleisellä tasolla sanottu), mutta viittaaminen ruotsin pitämiseen "tärkeänä osana koulutusta" saattaa antaa kuvan, että opiskelijoiden mielestä ruotsin kuuluu olla (pakollinen) osa koulutusta.


 * i was implying it in the form of "important for their education/education in general" which the research claims "the study of Swedish was perceived as important in view of the future, continued studies and the working life"


 * Yes, the study said that concerning the Swedish tuition per se, but not concerning the role of Swedish in the education. It is a different thing to say "important subject" than it is to say "important part of education".

Opiskelijathan eivät kommentoineet tuolla ruotsin paikkaa opiskelussa, vaan yleisesti sen opiskelun tärkeyttä. Vrt. "[students] find German as a importat language to study" ja "[students] find German as an important part of education". Siinä missä ensimmäinen vaihtoehto kertoo opiskelijoiden asennoitumisesta saksan opiskeluun, kertoo toinen vaihtoehto opiskelijoiden asennoitumisesta saksan osuuten koulutuksesta. En näe syytä, miksei voisi kirjoittaa "[students] find Swedish as an importat language to study". Sisältö ja sävy ovat nähdäkseni lähempänä tutkimuksessa ollutta, eikä ilmaisu ole niin epämääräinen ja tulkinnanvarainen.


 * I could agree on that yes, as long as the text sounds encyclopedic and flowing.

Nähdäkseni myös on tärkeää mainita millainen Suomen ylioppilaskirjoitussysteemi on, sillä se tosiaan vaikuttaa suuresti siihen, kuinka moni valitsee kirjoitettavaksi ruotsin kielen. Vapaaehtoisuuden aste ei ole verrattattavissa esimerkiksi ranskan kirjoittamiseen, sillä ranska ei ole niiden neljän kokeen joukossa, joista kolme täytyy tehdä. Siten 88 prosentin kirjoittajamäärää ei voi pitää pelkästään opiskelijoiden kiinnostuksen tai mielipiteen mittarina, kuten sitä nyt tunnutaan käyttävän. Jos opiskelija pitää englannista ja reaalista, muttei matematiikasta eikä ruotsista, on opiskelijan valittava silti joko matematiikka tai ruotsi kirjoitettavaksi. Se, valitseeko hän matematiikan tai ruotsin ei kuitenkaan tarkoita, että hän pitää matematiikasta tai ruotsista. Opiskelijan on vain pakko valita kahdesta pahasta pienempi.


 * Well i think its good enough if we wikilink the matriculation examination (might also place it under see also, and expalin this there. otherwise it just becomes too much information. i think something like "part of me but not compulsory (see finnish matriculation examination)" is enough for the article about mandatory swedish.


 * I think not. As the NPOV example page says: "go with more detail rather than less". I think it is relevant to mention the role of Swedish in the system and it's relation to other subjects. After all, this is an encyclopedia, where people are seeking for information.


 * Yes i know, but the idea of wikipedia is also to make good readable articles, and teh idea of the wikilinks to other articles is to give more background for people unfamiliar to concepts relating to a certain article, this way information redundancy can be kept into a minimum.


 * But it is not just background information to explain the role of Swedish in the matriculation examinations and how it relates to other subjects. It is information about the status of Swedish teaching and testing in the Finnish system.


 * What excatly was messy and/or unreadable in this: "a recent reform in the Finnish matriculation examination system however made it possible for students to decide themselves wheter or not to take the second domestic language test as one of the four mandatory tests"?


 * And since the Finnish matriculation system has an effect on how many students choose to take the Swedish test, it is very relevant to mention in the article how the system works. As I said, the Finnish ME is a complex system as is the role on Swedish in it, so it must be explained. We do not even know how many students from the 88% choose to take the Swedish test because they like the subject, so the 88%-figure cannot be under the "student's opinions" section.


 * Like it or not, tehy chose it for whatever reason although having a choise, that's stating an oppinion to me.


 * No, it is not neccacarily stating an opinion. When I matriculated (2002) I had to take the mandatory Swedish test. If I would have had the choise, I would have choosen math instead of Swedish, since I'm better in math. That does not mean that I liked mathematics (I hated it). I simpy would rather have had an average grade in math than a poor grade in Swedish and it would be just plain wrong to say that I like mathematics just because I chose it. So, you cannot use the 88%-figure as a demonstration of opinions, since it has many other factors affecting it.


 * BTW I found the source for the 88%-figure: http://www.lukio.fi/service.cntum?pageId=115142. The 88% comes from all students who chose to take the second domestic language test, inlcuding Swedish-speaking students who chose to take the Finnish test. We do not know how many of the 88% are Finnish-speaking students who chose to take the Swedish test (allthough they must be a majority of the 88%). Also I wonder the wording "succesfull". It is not neutral, but seems to advocate that it is succesfull if majority of the students choose to write Swedish, which seems to imply as a fact that it is importat that as many people as possible choose to learn Swedish. And since we don't know the amount of Finnish-speaking students who choose to take the Swedish test, I think we should simply drop the 88%-figure. It seems to serve no real purpose.


 * We'd rather have an article with more detail and less room for (mis)intepretations than a vague article with less detail and more room for (mis)interpretations, right? I still don't see "too much information" as an argument why not to include relevant information on an encyclopedia.


 * No don't get me wrong, all data should be added, but i'm not sure if its such a good idea to explain everything in "mandatory swedish" starting from where Finland is and what sort of climate it has.


 * Climate is irrelevant when it comes to mandatory Swedish. (Location as the neighbour of Sweden is somewhat relevant BTW.) But exaclty how is the status of Swedish in the matriculation examinations in relation to other subjects irrelevant to the article? It should be explained clearly, not vaguely. Saying "it is voluntary" does not convey the whole thruth because of how the system works. Someone who does not know the system could misinterpret it, and could also skip the article on matriculation examination because he might think he understood how the Finnish ME system works.


 * Also to quote NPOV-pages "Fairness of Tone": "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present"

Ja silmiini sanamuoto "experiment" ruotsin vapaaehtoisuudesta tässä yhteydessä on hieman outo, kun ohessa ei kerrota selkeästi mitä itse asiassa siinä vapaaehtoisuudessa testattiin. (Oppilaiden tuloksen paranemista? Oppilaiden osallistumismäärää? Kirjoitusten organisointia? Asenteiden muuttamista?). Lisäki nykyisellään sanamuoto vaikuttaa siltä, että testi tehtiin pysyväksi, ei että vapaaehtoisuus tehtiin pysyväksi (sillä kyseisen virkken subjekti on "experiment"). Virke siis vaikuttaa siltä, että vapaaehtoisuudella testattiin jotain, mitä ei kerrota, ja se testi tehtiin pysyväksi, testi siis jatkuu edelleen.


 * Well i think this is splitting hairs but...

Mielestäni olisi vain selkeämpää mainita, että suomalainen yo-kirjoitussysteemi uudistettiin ja kertoa miten se vaikutti ruotsin asemaan sekä opiskelijoiden osallistumiseen.


 * Well the informatio nthat there indeed was an "experiment" is a good idea to include?


 * I think it would me more relevant to say that the whole Finnish ME system reformed partly because students were unhappy with the old situation.


 * Well... i dare say that the student's themselves did not have a very big role, "lukiolaisten liitto" etc. don't really have much to say after all. But it could be noted that the reform was indeed supported by a number of students (which would be great to have figures for since i doubt it's encyclopedic to say all students supported it).


 * I'm not saying that the students had any power to change things by themself alone, but they kept on campaignin for the ME system to reform, especially in the spring of 2004, when the decicion to reform was finally made. Teachers also supported the reform.

Noin yleisesti ottaen artikkeli kaipaa selkeämpää jaottelua. Nähdäkseni esimerkiksi ruotsin asema yo-kirjoituksissa tulisi selittää artikkelin alussa samassa yhteydessä kuin ruotsin asema muussa koulutuksessa, ei siis opiskelijoiden mielipiteiden yhteydessä.Shubi 12:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can agree with you on the fact that at least the student's opinion clause should be reformed or renamed. Gillis 19:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So, when I'm reforming and you revert I'd rather hear detailed arguments on why those reforms weren't good rather than vaguely saying "messy", "too much information" or "no new information", but of course I'll mention and discuss the reformatting on the talk page before doing them.Shubi 11:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, but also do remember to put much attention in how the article is written, when i read around wikipedia and stumble uppon a "messy" article it usually does not wake my interest and i jump to another one, and the message someone was making doesen't get to me. Gillis 13:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Still, you didn't really specify what was messy.Shubi 14:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

On suomalaisuuden liitto and closure
Okay, well i'll start of by pointing out this will be my last rhorough answer to something very idnirectly liunked to the article "mandatory swedish". Why? am i not open for debate? I am, but not here, this is wikipedia where articles are written and certain parts of them can be discussed. This is not HS.fi and i am not going to waste my time on useless never ending discussions.


 * Then, don't start, provoke or continue those discussions with unnecessary statements and phrases like "sounds more like neo-nazis" or "self-proclaiemd fennomans wet dream".

but regarding the quote here is the actual one

"Kun ruotsalaisherrat määräsivät meille näitä vieraita nimiä he siten halusivat alistaa meitä ja osoittaa valtaansa. Siinä mielessä ne ovat suomalaisiin lyötyjä orjanmerkkejä, joista olisi jo korkea aika päästä eroon." [snip] "Vapaa suomalainen ei alistu vääryyksiin; hän tekee niin kuin Lalli eli surmaa sortajansa."

Although you surely feel otherwise the person who wrote it clearly was implying on a Finland-Swede in the text, also he implying any oppression.


 * Yes, that is true, but my point was to elaborate that the issue was not to slay Swedish speakers, but rather perceived oppressors, like Henry.

And about the 70's switch of leadership, that was an error. I meant the 80's. And kekkonen was a leader in 1929-32, quite a few years earlier.


 * Yes, but Kekkonen was concidered radical at his time.

And i am not even going to get into a fight over the definition of fascism. I still feel it is an organisation with a goal of a Finland consisting only of what it sees as "true Finns".


 * You're not confusing Perussuomalaiset, "True Finns" with Suomalaisuuden liitto, are you?Suomalaisuuden liitto is not a political organisation or a party. It is a cultural organisation. Suomalaisuuden liitto has members from many different political parties. The thing that unites them is the interest in the Finnish language and the culture of Finland. Advocating those are the interest of the organisation. Nowhere have I seen they demand that Finland consist only of what they see as "true Finns".

Also a legitimate political organisation stands behind their words, and does not not disclose their members


 * And a legitimate voter stands behind his or her words, right? So we should abolish the concept we know as "vaalisalaisuus", right?

But for something to have to be "Fascism" does not mean it has to fill out every part of the definition of the system in a fascist state-system, it is enough that it has fascistical traits to be deemed "as a part of fascism".


 * Oh, so since "Vapaa-ajattelijoiden liitto" has a opinion that the state and church should be separated, they are a part of communism?


 * Or since animal rights were a part of National Socialism, Animalia is a part of nazism?


 * Suomalaisuuden liitto has not enough fascistical traits to be deemed as a part of fascism.


 * And I think that (some) fascistic organisations are illegal in Finland, national socialism at least. If Perussuomalaiset or Suomalaisuuden liitto indeed would be a national socialistic (or neo-nazi) organisation and a part of fascism, they would be outlawed.

I haven't seen much backing of their agendas, such as boycotting companies such as Nordea, Ikea and Viking line because they like to offer service in Swedish.


 * Suomalaisuuden liitto states nowhere in it's page that it wishes to annihilate Swedish from Finland. It just advocates the view that Swedish should be a official minority language instead of a national language, since Swedish-speakers are a minority. It acknowledges that bilinguar cities have the right to be bilingual and offer bilingual service as much as is needed.


 * Also, Nordea, Ikea and Viking Line are private companies, not governmental institutions. I'd say Suomalaisen liitto has no intention to fork on what private companies wish from their workers and offer to their customers.

And about the threatening of the journalists attending their meetings and writing about them, no i am not going to dig up that source, but it was indeed in the news.


 * Sure.

And for your interesting historical trivia it is due notable that bishop henry probably never existed, but if he did or didn't he is portrayed as "a swede" in the myth of lalli (who probably neither existed as the whole story is a copy of similar legends around Europe).


 * I know. That is why I said "supposed Bishop Henry" and "Lalli is claimed to have slain". The dominant view is that Henry (either fictional or real) was from the British islands. Early versions of the poem refers that he is from "Caalimaa", and this has many times been interpreted as meanin Gael. Others view that "Caalimaa" refers to Kalanti, making Henry Finnish.

But this is getting outside of the scope of wikipedia, as i am not going to dig up five years of forum postings by some nut just to prove a feeling as you want me to do. But i never intended to write that onto wikipedia, and that projects the non-relatedness in this discussion and is the reason for me to end it.

Gillis 23:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Salmiakproducts.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Salmiakproducts.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)