Talk:Governorates of the Grand Principality of Finland

Point of this article?

First time ever I heard them called "governorates". In all languages they are called counties, and articles of them already exist as current day Provinces of Finland (rest were disbanded in 1997) and Historical provinces of Finland are the same. Yes, the title "County lord" was changed to "governer" in 1837 (not 1809), but it never changed the other terminology. Other than that, since the articles cover the "governorate" till 1917, it is erroneus to call Governorate of Uleåborg Uleåborg (it is Oulu) because Finnish had been an official language for 50 years by then and most likely over 95 % of the "governorate" spoke Finnish as native language (today only ~200 of Swedish speakers live in 130,000 people's Oulu) and breaks the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#Finland guidelines. --Pudeo⺮ 18:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In Finnish and Swedish they are called län, lääni which is province (or region) today. Russian language was the official language of the duchy only for a while, and had equal status. Still the article Guberniya says it can be translated as province as well, so is there any reason not to move this article to Provinces of the Grand Duchy of Finland or somehow merge with Historical provinces of Finland or current provinces of Finland? ie. Oulu Province is the same as the "Uleåborg Governorate" here. Why not just mention it in the history section there? --Pudeo⺮ 18:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the point?

Well, to anyone living in a city were languages other than Finnish are rarely or ever spoken it may be unavoidable not to Finnisize whenever, or whatever is translated into English, but that is just not how Wikipedia works. Not by policy, guideline nor convention.

For the second part, I'm not exactly sure what you mean, as some of what you say may seem to discourage against adding content to Wikipedia or even being against writing new articles. I'm quite sure that is not your intention, but please feel free to elaborate. Cheers, -- Domino theory (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Finland has had language strife and today is officially bilingual. If over 50 % of a municipality's population speaks Finnish it's majority language is Finnish and that form is used in English. Vice versa if the majority language would be Swedish, that's what the official language regulator of Finland says. So if we're talking about the provinces of Finland in 1917, is it appropriate to use Governorate of Uleåborg when the province didn't have Swedish-speakers and all languages were equal? All of the provinces had a Finnish-speaking majority (today only 5 % of the population speaks Swedish), with only Åbo-Björneborg (Turku and Pori) and Nikolaistad (Nikolainkaupunki) having a noticeable Swedish minority.

It's a quite complex question, but I would move them to Finnish names as the articles cover the period of a "Finnish-speaking Finland", not just the provinces up to 1850s. The other thing is, "guvernorate" has not been used of the provinces before, both Finnish and Swedish use län/lääni (same word) and therefore speaking of Uleåborgs län / Oulun lääni is the exactly same, you are only making a distinction here with the word choice. "Governorate of Uleåborg" for example doesn't result in any real Google hits, so is it proper to use the term "Governorate" (taking from Russian, only one of Finland's languages at the time) or from Swedish and Finnish?

I really do appreciate your efforts with the new articles, no doubt, but there are some questions of principles. --Pudeo⺮ 21:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the recent split of Governorate of Vyborg from Viipuri Province. It doesn't make any sense to me. You are wrong that [t]he province was established from the Governorate of Vyborg of the Grand Duchy of Finland, following the declaration of independence on December 6, 1917. Nothing happened to the province in 1917. Colchicum (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed Colchicum, the system of the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland did not differ and it still was the same province of Finland. The "term" governorate isn't even distinguished in Finnish and Swedish, and it can be translated as province in English as well, so "Province of Viipuri" (Viipurin lääni, Viborg län) covers the whole period. The office of governor was just handed again and coat of arms stayed the same, same with borders and so on until 1997. --Pudeo⺮ 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the point of these articles. The Finnish system of mid-level state offices was extremely continuous from 1640 to 1997. There were no abrupt changes which would merit their own articles. The governers of the provinces did not change in 1809 or in 1917, and the only change was the change in the office name of the governer himself: in 1830's from landshövfding to governör and back to landshövding in 1919 (I think). However, the laws concerning the provincial adminstration underwent major changes at quite different times. The idea of the läns being different from governorates is an artificial construction. Although the owner of these provinces changed in 1917 and in 1809, the provinces remained the same. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Move

As Colchichum has added the mergeto-template to the articles, I fully support the move on all cases. Perhaps the names should be changed to "Turku and Pori Province" from "Province of" to be consistent. That is, after the move later maybe. --Pudeo⺮ 17:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been two weeks since they have been marked and (understandably) no major interest here but three so far supporting the move, we should go ahead unless someo other people have to disagree. --Pudeo⺮ 12:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead, I am a bit too lazy right now. Colchicum (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Separate states, separate subdivisions

I can't help but wonder if what is being professed here is a desire to post-facto create what once were Governorates of the Russian Empire, and even Counties of the Kingdom of Sweden, into provinces as historical parts of the current Republic of Finland. There also seems to be a misguided effort in this undertaking to apply standards relating to current conditions, rather than allowing Wikipedia policy relating to historical conditions to persist.

The Kingdom of Sweden, the Russian Empire with the Grand Duchy of Finland, and the Republic of Finland all were separate sovereign states that during different historical periods held control over of the territory that today constitutes Finland. The kingdom, the empire and the republic are and were separate. If this has not been clear let me state that the counties, the governorates and the provinces are and were separate for that very reason.

Just as it can be said that there is an unbroken tradition in the history of Finland, regardless of what state or government has held control over it, so should the traditions in the country's regional histories also be accounted for. The County of Åbo and Björneborg, the Governorate of Åbo-Björneborg and the Province of Turku and Pori were all separate subdivisions and parts of separate states, but I would welcome seeing an integrated History of Turku and Pori covering all three periods from the first half of the 17th century to the late 20th century.

It has been mentioned that the distinction being made here would somehow be artificial, and to some changes in state or government may seem illusory, but to the people who experienced what it was like to be conscripted into the Royal Swedish Army, or lived under the policies of Russification by the authorities in the Grand Duchy, it would certainly have seemed quite material at the time. The accountability of the current provincial governors to the democratically elected Government of the Republic of Finland is much preferable to having governors that once answered to Russian Tsars or Swedish Kings. The assertion that provincial authorities established by the Republic of Finland, would somehow eclipse authorities existing prior to it's own establishment is absurd, and belongs in the realm of constitutional fiction. -- Domino theory (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that these subdivisions were exactly the same before and after 1809 and 1917. Any changes happened at quite other times. In the provincial offices, the same bureaucrats kept carrying out exactly same duties applying the same law. The Finnish Grand Dukes did not establish a new provincial system of governorates. The old Swedish counties remained and worked quite the same as before, and the name was changed only decades after 1809. The independent Finland took over the old provincial system, and the only change effected was the name change, which took place in 1918. The governors held their offices, just like all the other civil servants. So, there were no "separate subdivision of separate states". I'd like to see you give a single non-Wikipedia source which holds your view on this matter. --MPorciusCato (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy relating to historical conditions are you talking about? I wonder why we haven't yet split Leningrad Oblast into Leningrad Oblast (Russian Federation) and Leningrad Oblast (Soviet Union), even though changes there were much more dramatic. By the way, do we need separate province articles for the Kingdom of Finland (1918)? Could you please back your pont of view about "separate subdivision of separate states" with any reliable sources? To my knowledge, not a single source describe the governorates and provinces as different entities. Most (if not all) authors consider them continually. Colchicum (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I maintain that the fact that they were parts of separate states is reason enough to distinguish between the different time periods and the separate historiographies. -- Domino theory (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

For different time periods and separate historiographies you need sources. Wikipedia is not a place for your original research. Colchicum (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And no, we don't need a consensus to merge them, because you had no consensus to split them in September. Colchicum (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Grand Duchy of Finland and the Republic of Finland were not "separate states", as you suggest, but shared the same identity. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you just haven't figured out the languages. Provinces of Finland, 18th Century-2008, always been called:
Swedish:Län
Finnish:Lääni
Russian:Guberniya (губерний)
Swedish has been the official language of Finland (including Grand Duchy) always. Russian was official in the grand duchy until 1863, and Finnish became official in 1883. The names for the provinces of Finland are still the same. Nothing has changed in the names. Nothing has changed in the borders (that has something to do with separate states, other changes yes). Nothing in coat of arms. What makes you think separate state means the subdivisions have to be different? That's exactly what did not change, that's what makes Finland Finland today. This distinction can't be even made in Finnish, Russian or Swedish. It's just misuse of different translations into English. --Pudeo⺮ 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

One user has unilaterally claimed that there is consensus on this talk page and has started to change and redirect articles without any material consent, or consensus being achieved. I maintain that consensus has not been achieved, quite the contrary.

When action is being taken by a single user not agreeing to the content of a created article, and as matters of discussion has not been resolved, I do not feel that such action is being taken as a measure to contribute with a productive effort, or even in a cooperative spirit. Therefor this may be a case when an external dispute resolution effort is needed.

As the dispute concerns several parameters it would seem like a good idea to tentatively agree upon the points a dispute resolution needs to address. Add your name under a heading to establish whether there is an actual dispute on the matter, in order to rule out the possibilities for differences of opinion that may not exist. Remember this is not a vote.

Historiography

When describing the conditions for the Grand Duchy of Finland and it's subdivisions, what standards should be used:

1. Describe them according to the conditions at the time.
   • Domino theory (talk)
2. Describe them according to current conditions.
   • Are you sure you understand "the conditions at the time"? The conditions in 1910 and 1920 were not very different. It is up to you to show what is the difference. Colchicum (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
   • Indeed, what was different? Coat of arms same, same office of governor, same borders. Finland just declared independence, nothing changed with provinces. --Pudeo⺮ 13:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
   • As I inquired before, could you show a single work of history concentrating on these subdivisions that considers the provinces as different entities before and after 1809/1917? --MPorciusCato (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
   • Merge! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
   • Merge subdivisions, nothing changed there legislation-wise in 1809 and 1917; historical periods described in the articles should be separated by legislation reforms. The Grand Duchy should have its own article to discuss the pre-1917 entity; after all, it was formed already by the Wasa kings of Sweden. Österland should have its own article as well. --XoravaX (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Terminology

Which English language term is the most appropriate to translate the name губе́рния (guberniya), län, lääni for the Grand Duchy of Finland (1809-1918):

1. Governorate (Used in the Russian Empire at the time.)
   • Domino theory (talk)
2. County (Used before becomming a part of the Russian Empire in 1809.)
3. Province (Used for the Republic of Finland, after 1918.)
   • Colchicum (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
   • Län/lääni=province, 1600-2008. Trust the natives.. Simply, they were always called län/lääni, and in Russian governorate (which even wasn't an official language for most of the time!). And governorate can be translated as province as well. --Pudeo⺮ 13:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
   • Merge! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
   • Finnish primary administrative language was Swedish during the Russian rule (though over time it transitioned to almost equal level with Finnish, while Russian was used very sparsely), and the laws were written first in Swedish and from there translated to Finnish and Russian. The said original laws call them län (just like they're called before and after the Russian rule), and thus should be translated as provinces. --XoravaX (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Articles

Which is the best way to describe the history of the subnational entities of the Kingdom of Sweden, the Grand Duchy of Finland as part of the Russian Empire, and the Republic of Finland:

1. Create separate articles in order to allow coverage according to the historiography for each state and time period.
   • Domino theory (talk)
2. If possible try to integrate the historical periods without bias into a single article.
   • Very biased formulation. There were no such periods. Nothing changed w.r.t. the Finnish provinces in 1917. Colchicum (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
   • Merge! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
   • Definitely so. --Pudeo⺮ 12:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
   • The provinces are the same, no need for separate articles, different periods of time, with border changes of the said provinces should be reflected within the articles. Even the Swedish legislation stayed in place for the whole Russian rule if there were no need to change it, even the Finnish constitution was the Swedish constitution of 1772 until 1919, and some laws of the Swedish 1734 recodification are still in place in Finland. --XoravaX (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

If you feel that there may be additional areas where a dispute may needs to be resolved, state what you would like to add below. -- Domino theory (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a democracy and should stick to reliable published sources. What is your source for such periodization? Colchicum (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So Dominy theory, are you just ignoring all arguments and concensus here until no-one would care? Well, it won't work. :) In other words, your reply would be appreciated. It's been over a month now since the "voting", and it was September when this was first brought up.. --Pudeo⺮ 16:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently he just quitted editing Wikipedia, but before doing so he reverted all my edits on these articles. I'm fed up with this kind of behavior. I will redo the edits some time soon, but you can help as well. --Pudeo⺮ 20:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems you started merging. Well done!. --MPorciusCato (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Took a while, heh.. It's a job done. Though the articles could use some expanding when they're now of the province's complete history. Category:Former provinces of Finland gives a clearer view. --Pudeo' 19:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Should this article and the provinces mentioned in the content of this article be renamed as well - I think so? The primary language used back then by the people was Finnish and the primary legislative language Swedish, and both would support changing this article to use the Finnish/Swedish-derived terminology. Calling them governorates here is artificial and anachronistic. --XoravaX (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the point...

...of showing a silent map here ? Not that helpful. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)