Talk:Scandinavia/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Unsourced additions and changes

Many of the recent additions to this article are unsourced speculations and changes to sourced text. I have sourced one section (about Finland and Iceland), but the following problematic edits remain to be dealt with:

1. Self-styled (unsourced) comparative study added about Scandinavia/Scandinavians vs. "the Orient"/"Indian": While the former occupancy of Finland and shifting rule of Norway may have made this usage efficient, if not convenient – even after Norway and Finland resumed their national independence – this usage appears to be no more grounded in respect for the nations themselves than the term "Orient" is as a reference to various nations in the Eastern Hemisphere or "Indian" is as a reference for various tribal nations in the Americas. Please attribute these speculations, using WP:reliable sources. Wikipedia is NOT a publisher of original thought.
2. Cited text altered. A section that cites a published source has been altered. The original text read: "Being a purely historical and cultural region, Scandinavia has no official geopolitical borders. The region is therefore often defined according to the conventions of different disciplines or according to the political and cultural communities of the area.<ref name="olwig">Olwig, Kenneth R. "Introduction: The Nature of Cultural Heritage, and the Culture of Natural Heritage—Northern Perspectives on a Contested Patrimony". ''International Journal of Heritage Studies'', Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 3–7.</ref> Please add a direct quote from the source in the ref tag which confirms that the source is not being misrepresented/misquoted by the changes implemented. See WP:BURDEN: "The source cited must directly support the information as it is presented in the article.[2] When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference."
3. The article's lead has been made into a single paragraph. See the style manual regarding desired length of leads for articles around 32 kilobytes. This article is 59 kilobytes long! The two important paragraphs that summarized what the articles spends so many sections on, namely how the usage differs (in for example different disciplines) has been deleted. This aspect has also been chopped out of a direct quote from Encyclopedia Britannica. In the supporting footnote, EB is quoted as saying: "Some authorities argue for the inclusion of Finland ... and of Iceland and the Faroe Islands ....". The full quote reads: "Some authorities argue for the inclusion of Finland on geologic and economic grounds and of Iceland and the Faroe Islands on the grounds that their inhabitants speak North Germanic (or Scandinavian) languages related to those of Norway and Sweden. These issues are essential and need to be mentioned in the lead.
4. Peripheral issue inserted: a strange and totally irrelevant discussion about the adjective Nordic has been added to this article: "Some American-English dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, do not include the names "Nordic Countries" or "Nordic Council". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary instead defines Nordic as an adjective dated to 1898 with the meaning "of or relating to the Germanic peoples of northern Europe and especially of Scandinavia."<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nordic "Nordic"]. In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved 9 January 2008.</ref>. Please explain the significance of the 1898 definition of Nordic for this article (named Scandinavia), as well as the importance of the lacking coverage of Nordic Countries/Nordic Council in a particular dictionary? Does the dictionary perhaps list the Nordic Council as the "Scandinavian Council"? That would be odd enough to mention, but otherwise I fail to see why these two observations about Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary would be even remotely relevant here. Wikipedia already has an article about the Nordic countries. Please add it there. I'm removing it from this article.

As for the other problem spots mentioned, I will tagg them {{dubious}} and {{citation needed}}, and make them invisible for the time being. When they are properly sourced, please feel free to remove the invisibility tags. 71.107.15.189 (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I have a beef about the section regarding 'Terminology and usage': The author writes about the incursion and occupation of Finland by Sweden. Finland was never an entity before it was seperated from Sweden in 1809. Swedes and Finns were of one nation for almost 800 years. Finland was a mere region of Sweden and nothing else. In the section 'Variations in usage' it's mentioned when '...Norway and Finland resumed their national independence' Finland had never been a free country until 1917, when Finland declared themself independent, so therefore making it impossible to 'resume' anything. /A --Azygos (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Weasel

The article starts off by boldly telling people what Scandinavia is "generally" consiedered to be. As the talk page makes very clear, this is a contested issue and anyone claiming that their own view is the general view is merely POV-pushing. Regardless which definition one goes for, sources can be found to support it, so not even by using a source is it possible to claim what Scandinavia "generally" is, not as long as other sources can be used to contradict it. JdeJ (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical political structure

Under "Historical political structure" it says that there were Pict/Celt minorities in Iceland and Faroes. There were in reality slaves that intermarried within few generations. There were never any minorities as there are of Finns in Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.184.146 (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Additions to Historical political structure

It think that we should add column for Estonia and perhaps for Latvia too to the Historical political structure scheme. As there are already countries such Iceland and Finland covered there, I don't see reason why Estonia should not be there. To be more precise, I propose that: 1) 13th century: Northern part of Estonia was part of Denmark from early 13th century to mid 14th century. 2) 16th century: Denmark again obtained foothold in Estonia by acquiring the island of Saaremaa in Livonian War roughly in the second half of 16th century, as did Sweden. 3) 17th century: Sweden obtained full control over Estonia at 17th century and controlled Estonia until Great Northern War at begging 18th century. It think it is therefore justified to add at least Estonia the Historical political structure scheme.

Are there any objections to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rdi (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Culture - Metal Music

Scandanavia, particularly Sweden and Norway are known world over as the central points for extreme metal music, especially black metal, and this important cultural export should probably be mentioned in the article somewhere. Many great bands such as Marduk, Gorgoroth, Mayhem, Dimmu Borgir, Carpathian Forest, Bathory, Dark Funeral, Immortal, etc etc all hail from Scandanavia and are famous around the world on all continents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.63.116.221 (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Fennoman movement

The paragraph about the Fennoman movement (at Finland and Scandinavia) is horribly wrong, missinterpreting the source. The people in the Fennoman movement in the 19th century were mostly Swedish-speaking upper class and the movement was not about lingual or ethnic rights but about forming a new nation. The opposing Svecomans had worries that emphasizing Finnish would weaken Finland and its the bounds to the western world, while the Fennomans regarded the Finnish language as essential for the new Finnish nation.

I do not have good sources at hand and my English is not good enough for correctly describing the subtleties if the matter, but this should be corrected.

--LPfi (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

you tell me nothing

i looked at this website for homework that i coudn't find in the book and you told me nothing of the question that i asked you............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.6.50.132 (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole website o.O That's quite a feat. Try our reference desk - Kingpin13 (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Denmark & the definition of Scandinavia

Denmark should not be considered a part of Scandinavia as Scandinavia is the name of the mountain-range/half-island that only Sweden and Norway is a part of. Danes have a Norse/Scandinavian culture but that doesn't make it a part of Scandinavia. Finland has a greater claim to being part of Scandinavia then what Denmark has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.132.174 (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you actually read the article as well as the article on the Scandinavian peninsula. That may straighten out the incorrect notion you hold about the term "Scandinavia". --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Scandinavian Peninsula is named after Scandinavia (Den, Nor, Swe).

Bahrain is located in the Persian gulf, that does not mean Bahrain is Persian. Neither is Finland Scandinavian. --JHF1000 (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Another Definition Gripe

I find one line in the introduction particularly poorly worded: "in Scandinavia the term [Scandinavia] is used unambiguously to refer only to Denmark, Norway and Sweden...". I don't want to continue the debate about which countries comprise Scandinavia and which do not, but this is certainly more confusing than it is helpful. It's not at all clear what this sentence actually means, though the implication is that in DK, NO, and SE the term refers to those three nations together. Given the disagreement surrounding the definition of Scandinavia, it would likely be best to reword this or remove it.

Nlacara (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"While some authorities argue for the inclusion of Finland and Iceland,[3][4] in Scandinavia the term is used unambiguously to refer only to Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which share a mutually intelligible language (a dialect continuum), ethnic composition and have close cultural and historic bonds, to a degree that Scandinavians may be considered one people (see scandinavism)."

In addition to the circle definition there is the problem about the (unsourced) description that follows. Finland Swedes share the same language (as much as the others do) and the cultural and historic bounds. On the other hand the sami people probably do not share them, at least not in the same way. And what is the shared ethnic composition supposed to mean? I think nobody regards the Scandinavians as one people these days.

The close cultural bounds are used in Nordic cooperation, where Finnish and especially Icelanders use a second language (Swedish and Dannish respectively) to take equal part in the cooperation.

--LPfi (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Scandza/Jordanes

"In Jordanes' history of the Goths (AD 551) the form Scandza is used for their original home, separated by sea from the land of Europe (chapter 1, 4). Where Jordanes meant to locate this quasi-legendary island is still a hotly debated issue, both in scholarly discussions and in the nationalistic discourse of various European countries."

This isn't true, and the references don't support almost any of it. First: There doesn't seem to be any dispute whatsoever on whether Jordanes' Scandza was Scania/Scandinavia or not. Goffart (the better reference) is skeptical on whether Scandza really was the original home of the Goths, but he does not seem to dispute that Jordanes meant Scandinavia. (In fact he argues that Jordanes may have based Scandza off existing sources on Scandinavia, such as Ptolemy.) Also, the majority opinion would still seem to support Jordanes claim though (and Goffart seems to acknowledge that). Second: It's not part of the 'nationalistic discourse' anywhere, AFAIK. Gothicism has been stone-dead for over a century now. In any case, controversy over the Goths origins belongs in the article on the Goths. This article is about Scandinavia and Jordanes is still considered about as good as any early source on that. (unlike the hyperborean ideas) --Pykk (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

B-class really?

Really? REALLY?! Anyone read NPOV guidelines or noticed that this article has huge amounts of non-cited material? Not to mention the plain WRONG and misleading information? Fareoes and Aland are not independent countries, so the timeline on what countries where in what political structure, while interesting and very cool, need to be updated regarding that Aland IS Finland and the Faeroes ARE in Denmark, not independent. The lead (or lede as some like to be stupid about it) reads very much like two squabling authors who are arguing about Finland and whether it matters what the people outside Scandinavia consider Scandinavia to be (btw- yes it does matter ALOT, and even in many cases MORE important what people outside Sc. consider to be in Sc. than it does what the Scandinavians say). That's where the POV problems are. There's alot that needs citations and cleaned up. B-class is unacceptable the way this is currently. Please clean it up, or change the rating.Camelbinky (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A dubious quote

The article contains a quote and the quote is probably correctly attributed, but its content is dubious. It's correct that Finland started out as a part of the Swedish empire, but it's strange to say that is passed from there to "Eastern Europe". Finland past from being a part of the Swedish empire to being an autonomous region of the Russian empire. Saying that Finland has "recently" been included in Western Europe strikes me as a minority view; while Sweden and Finland were both neutral during the Cold War, they were usually described as Western European already back then, due to their status as democratic welfare-states rather than communist dictatorship. I'm skeptic to the value of this quote in the article, and especially skeptic to having it stand unopposed. It does not seem to represent a mainstream view.128.214.107.221 (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

While Eastern Europe is in itself a contested term, it is at least for me mainly a cold-war term more or less synonymous with the Warsaw pact countries under communist rule. I'm not sure how much the term was used prior to WW2, or if it's correct to apply it during the time frame Finland was under Russian rule. I agree that this quote (the entire section actually) seems a bit dubious, but I'm not much of an expert. henrik•talk 11:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is what I thought too. Wikipedia has this to say about Eastern Europe: "main characteristics consisting in Byzantine, Orthodox and limited Ottoman influences.[3][4] Another definition, considered outdated by some authors,[5][6] was created during the Cold War and used more or less synonymously with the term Eastern Bloc, including the countries that historically and geographically belong to Central Europe.[7] A similar definition names the formerly Communist European states outside the Soviet Union as Eastern Europe". None of those definitions applies to Finland.128.214.107.221 (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally it is offered as a direct quote but there are errors in the transcription. The passage at the sourrce reads:

The construction of a specific Finnish polity is the result of successful

decolonization. The politico-cultural location of Finland is a

moving one. It has shifted from being a province in the Swedish

Empire to an autonomous unit in ‘Eastern’ Europe, then to an independent

state in ‘Northern’ Europe or ‘Scandinavia. After the joining

the European Union, Finland has recently been included in ‘Western

Europe’.

The bolding is mine to illustrate the substantive differences in the text. Additionally the quoted material is actually found at the follow on link: http://www.jyu.fi/yhtfil/redescriptions/Yearbook%201997/Introduction%201997.pdf rather than directly at the linked to page. If there are no objections I will at least correct the quote but I agree it may not belong here at all. DSRH |talk 14:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I went there and checked. As the title is "Reflections", it is clear that this is offered as a personal view, so who is this person of such importance? :) And as it's published in 1997, what was "recently" then may not be so recent any more. I would suggest we remove the quote altoghether. Apart from the problems it has I do not see what it adds to the article.128.214.107.221 (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally got around to fixing the quote (real life intervened). I am inclined to agree that it does not really add anything of substance to the article. shall we remove it and does something need to replace it? DSRH |talk 21:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Language description in lead

I changed "The Danish, Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, and Swedish languages form a dialect continuum and are known as the Scandinavian languages" to "The Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish languages form a dialect continuum; along with the closely related Faroese and Icelandic languages, they are known as the Scandinavian languages." This seemed like a closer summary of the discussion in the Continental Scandinavian Languages section and agrees better with source 51 (Nordiske sprog i fortid og nutid. Sproglighed og sprogforskelle, sprogfamilier og sprogslægtskab). I have never met someone in Norway who claims to understand Icelandic--certainly they will recognize a fair amount, but probably more like an Italian speaker will recognize a lot of Portuguese. (The other direction of comparison, i.e. do Icelandic or Faroese people understand Norwegian etc, is more complicated since they study Danish in school.) Alternatively, it might be enough in the lead to just say the five form a group of closely related Scandinavian languages. StephenHudson (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeh i think that for the lead, all that is needed to be stated is that they are in the same language group (which implies some mutual intelligibility). the article has more detail on how closely related they are if the reader wishes to know this. Note that another wikipedian has stated that they are (without qualification) mutually intelligible. This isn't correct. If they were mutually intelligible then they wouldnt be languages, but dialects of the one language and many references and parties would argue for this (see the contentious issue of galician and portuguese being separate languages rather than dialects). Some mutual intelligibility, yes, but complete, no. Not important detail for a lead on scandinavia anywayUtopial (talk)

The lead originally said "all of which share a degree of mutual intelligibility with each other", which you removed. It is important to note the mutual intelligibility of the languages as this is one of the defining characteristics of Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Sweden). Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish have a relatively high level of mutual intelligibility; Icelandic does not (even though it is a North Germanic language). Mutual intelligibility does not mean they are the same language, and "a degree" clarified this. The lead was discussed previously and this was agreed upon. Please read mutual intelligibility. Hayden120 (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 'degree' is an important word. Any languages classified in the same language family/group share a degree of mutual intelligibility. Stating this is redundant. It's like saying that im wearing a suit and im wearing a suit jacket.

A few lines above, I linked a section on the mutual intelligibility of these languages: "Various studies have shown Norwegian-speakers to be the best in Scandinavia at understanding other languages within the language group... Icelandic and Faroese speakers (of the Insular Scandinavian languages group) are even better than the Norwegians at comprehending two or more languages within the Continental Scandinavian languages group". i.e. danish/swedish/norwegian dont share some exclusive mutual intelligibility relationship. It is best to stick to what the experts say and that is through genetic linguistics - i.e. the same linguistic classification as north germanic languages. Linguistic classification is directly related to mutual intelligibility, as well as other important factors that mutual intelligibility ignores. If norwegian, danish and swedish had some special relationship, then genetic linguistics would classify them as an exclusive group within the north germanic language family (and they arent a group), the way that Finnish and Sami are classified in the Finno-Lappic group in the Uralic language family.Utopial (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Genetic linguistics is about common ancestors, not intelligibility, and as Hayden120 says the mutual intelligibility is important for Scandinavia. This is not only linguistics, but also politics (and in fact it is thought that the three are different languages mostly for political reasons: many Norwegian dialects are easier to understand than some Swedish ones, for me as a Swedish speaker). The main reason for Icelanders understanding other Scandinavian languages (as also stated above) is probably that they study (studied) Danish – to my knowledge "non-domestic" Scandinavian languages are not taught as separate subjects in school in the other countries.

Comparing Finnish and Sami to the continental Scandinavian languages shows a big lack in knowledge: meetings and seminars in the Nordic countries are often carried out without translation, with people speaking Danish, Norwegian and Swedish with only some effort at speaking clearly, while Finnish and Sami might be more like English and Swedish (wild guess, but understanding Sami is not possible without studies).

--LPfi (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the mutual intelligibility is an important point to make, as a defining characteristic of modern Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Sweden). Dijhndis (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What is this talk about border-areas

"the population in the border areas of Norway and Sweden usually understand each other's language. A similar situation exists near the border between Sweden and Denmark"

The reason the population of Sweden, Norway and Denmark can usually easily understand each others languages has little to do with shared borders and that unsignificant detail should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.241.52 (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Done. Cheers, Hayden120 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that detail being unsignificant [sic], but certainly obvious bordering on tedium and anything but notable. Well done being removed in any case. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Denmark was also part of the "Scandinavian peninsula"

Scania (the region Scandinavia is named after) was Danish until the late 17th century/early 18th century (Denmark liberating parts of the region during the Great Northern War), and culturally Danish well into the 18th century. It didn't became part of Sweden (Sweden proper) until 1720. Until then, Sweden considered it "foreign land" they had conquered (like WWII Poland) and treated it like a kind of colony, ruled by a military governor. The population of Scania, ancestral home of the Danes and a core region of Denmark, was subjected to a policy of forced assimilation[1].

For this reason, I changed

(Scandinavia is) a region in northern Europe that includes Denmark and the Scandinavian Peninsula's two nations, Norway and Sweden.

to

(Scandinavia is) a region in northern Europe that includes Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Modern Norway and Sweden form the Scandinavian Peninsula.

Dijhndis (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the peninsula is referred to as "Scandinavian" of course doesn't mean that, say, the Danish islands, are not Scandinavian. On the contrary, the peninsula is a subset of Scandinavia, and the name "Scandinavian pensinsula" was invented after the name Scandinavia as the name of all the three Scandinavian countries. The term Scandinavia is predominantly used in its primary meaning (Denmark, Norway and Sweden), because distiguishing Sweden/Norway from Denmark is usually of little relevance. What makes Scandinavia into an entity is shared language and culture, not whether one are part of an "peninsula" (and you can almost swim from the peninsula to the islands). The relationship between Scandinavia and the Scandinavian Peninsula can be illustrated like this:

• Scandinavia (general term for Denmark, Norway and Sweden, named after Scania - formerly Danish, now Swedish region)
  • Scandinavian Peninsula (a more recent name for a geographic area named after Scandinavia)
  • Danish islands (part of core historical Scandinavia, that used to be the same "country" as Scania)
  • Jutland (became part of Denmark)

Dijhndis (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You claim that Scandinavia was named after Scania looks like local patriotism (POV-pushing?) to me. If I am wrong I'm sorry. Please source it reliably, in any case, if you put it back in there! SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in contributing to this article, how about reading the article for starters? It includes a large and well sourced section on etymology, that states, among other things: "Scandinavia and Scania (Skåne) are considered to have the same etymology" and "It is believed that the name used by Pliny may be of West Germanic origin, originally denoting Scania." I do not need to source something that is already in the article, in great detail and well sourced. Dijhndis (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Lede wording again

This was restored again on July 22:

• Scandinavia is a region in northern Europe that includes Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Modern Norway and Sweden form the Scandinavian Peninsula. The name Scandinavia is considered to have the same etymology as Scania.

Two problems:

1. The previous wording about the peninsula was clearer and worded better - nations do not form a peninsula but are formed on a peninsula.
2. The allegation about Scania's relevance to the etymology seems to me to be speculation and needs a source if it is to be added again ~ as worded now it is more distracting and confusing than informative, and I respectfully question the relevance, especially without a source (who has claimed or "considered" that and who even cares if so?).

I am restoring the previous wording. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gah, there is so much vandalism going on in the edit history that it is hard to tell what is constructive and what is not. Cheers for restoring the wording. Hayden120 (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

POV - This is English Wikipedia

I realize that most users editing this article will be Scandinavians themselves and that they probably are unaware of their own bias, but that doesn't change much - this is English Wikipedia and English usage is what matters. It is perfectly true that Skandinavien is almost exclusively (and I say almost to allow for doubt though I'm unaware of any) taken to mean Denmark, Norway and Sweden. That is how the argument should go in those Wikipedias, but not here (WP:UE). In common English usage, Finland is almost always included in Scandinavia, and Iceland is not rare either. Look up any guidebook to Scandinavia in English (or most other languages) and it will include Finland. Are guidebooks reliable academic sources? Definitely not, but they are certainly indicative of common usage. For every person looking up a definition of Scandinavia in Britannica, there will probably be 1000 looking at a Lonely Planet, Rough Guide, Frommer's, Fodor etc. Now, this article is firmly rooted in the Skandinavien view. Already in the introduction this is made evident, and then a large amount of space is spent on explaining how The Nordic Countries differ from Scandinavia. This is relevant in Swedish, but irrelevant in English where Scandinavia is almost always used instead of The Nordic Countries. What people need to understand is that the Skandinavien-view is not the corect point of view. Using English does not only mean to use English words and grammar, it also entails following English usage. To virtually all English speakers, Scandinavia is the Nordic Countries, sometimes without Iceland. The definition of the word in Scandinavia itself can be mentioned in the article, but devoting half the article to that mean and even implying that that usage is "correct" and the English usage somehow "mistaken" is plain POV, although the users doing so probably are in good faith. Being Swedish myself, I'm well aware of how well-rooted we are in the belief that the Swedish way of thinking by definition is the correct one and that we should "explain" to the rest of the world how it really is. This article falls into that very trap, making it highly POV.Jeppiz (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should always remember which language version of Wikipedia we are editing. When it comes to Scandinavia, it really does depend where you are. Until very recently, the overwhelming meaning of the term in the German-speaking world referred to Norway, Sweden and Finland (i.e. notably excluding Denmark). In Finland, usage often includes Finland - especially when used by Swedish-speaking Finns. I would also point out that the following sentence, in the introduction, does not make sense as it contradicts itself. It states both that Scandinavia does not have a single fixed meaning and then goes on to state that in 'Scandinavia' there is some form of unambiguous usage. That's problematic if, for instance, a Finn considers himself as being in Scandinavia!

"While some authorities argue for the inclusion of Finland and Iceland,[3][4] in Scandinavia the term is used unambiguously to refer only to Denmark, Norway and Sweden." 94pjg (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Scandinavia has a very clear meaning. Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden. "Some authorities" should probably be changed to "some foreign sources". Keldjylland (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Ignorence is not a source of information, and we can not base definition based on the average level of ignorance of an english speaking person. Taken to the extreme that would mean wikipedia would have to present denmark as the capital of sweden. Carewolf (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As this is an encyclopedia, we should be correct, not present misunderstandings as facts. If 90 % of the world population believed Earth to be flat, should we accept that as a fact even it's wrong just because some ignorant people believe it? Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden. It's an unambigous term, there is no question which countries are part of Scandinavia. Just like Russia is not part of Africa, Finland is not part of Scandinavia. A lot of ignorant Americans believe Norway to be the capital of Sweden and hold similar ignorant beliefs. It doesn't make it correct. Keldjylland (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for so splendidly illustrating my point. If you cannot tell the difference between a statement such as the world is flat (a statement that is true or false regardless of human perceptions) and a human made term that may or may not differ, but has nothing to do with natural laws, then you are perhaps not the person to comment on how "ignorant Americans" are.Jeppiz (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were not an improvement of the article, for this reason I have restored the stable text in the lead section.

Your addition "In English, the most common usage is to include all five countries in the term Scandinavia. In the Scandinavian countries, the name "Skandinavien" applies only to Denmark, Norway and Sweden while the German definition of "Skandinavien" consists of Finland, Norway and Sweden but not Denmark." makes no sense. 1) There are several English language speakers who know perfectly well which countries that are part of Scandinavia. Just because some American politicians are ignorant about geography and believes Africa is a country (which doesn't make Africa a country), it doesn't mean all English speakers are ignorant. 2) "Skandinavien" is not something different than Scandinavia, and is not the name of Scandinavia in all Scandinavian languages (Norwegian Skandinavia) - Scandinavia is simply the Latin (and English) form of the same name. 3) This is not the German Wikipedia, I seriously doubt there is a separate "German definition of Scandinavia" and such a definition that excludes Scandinavian Denmark and includes non-Scandinavian Finland is utterly ridiculous. This is an encyclopedia, our duty is to present factually accurate information, not misunderstandings held by some foreigners ignorant about geography. We Scandinavians all know Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden, just like Angola is in Africa and not a part of Russia. End of story. Keldjylland (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your brilliant post, you have splendidly demonstrated that it is only you and your people who know the WP:TRUTH and that we Americans are "ignorant" and stupid. Your reference to Sarah Palin is particularly strong, she is really very relevant to this topics. On a serious note, I've restored the information you deleted and will report you if you continue this rather racist campaign towards other nationalities. It is a fact that Scandinavia is understod somewhat differently in different languages, and if you're not aware of that and refuse to accept it, well, that's your personal problem and nothing that concerns us. It has nothing to do with being "ignorant", it is simply a matter of definition. Look up any major English guidebook to "Scandinavia" and see what countries are included. Once again, this is English Wikipedia and we follow English usage WP:UE, not Danish usage.Jeppiz (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So that means that I should go and change "Great Britain" in almost all wiki languages to "England"? Since when did England become Great Britain in Spanish, Danish, German, Swedish etc etc etc? If it is WRONG, tt will still remain wrong regardless of what language is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.28.19.178 (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavia in Common English Usage

I had a look at the largest and most widely published guidebook series in English, and this is how they threat Scandinavia:

• Fodor's include Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden but not Iceland.
• Frommer's include Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden but not Iceland.
• Insight Guides include Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden but not Iceland.
• Lonely Planet include Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
• Rick Steves include Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Norway and Sweden but not Iceland.
• The Rough Guide include Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden but not Iceland.

In other words, out of the six most sold and read guidebook series in English, six out of six include Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden in Scandinavia, further underlining that this is the common English usage. I note that Iceland is missing from five of the six, so its inclusion seems to be more rare.Jeppiz (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I just discovered the Michelin Guide and obviously doesn't include Finland in Scandinavia as its title is "Scandinavia and Finland". Iceland isn't included in the book, so that makes it six out of seven for including Finlande in Scandinavia and one out of seven for including Iceland.Jeppiz (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We're having problems arriving at a definition of how Scandinavia is used in English. I have argued that in common English usage, it usually includes Finland. As I've described above, six out of the seven most common English guidebooks define Scandinavia as including Finland, newspapers in English, when talking about quality of life, education, welfare and similar topics virtually always call Finland a Scandinavian country and the Columbia Encyclopedia states that Finland is usually considered part of Scandinavia. All in all, I find that the case for Scandinavia in common English usage is rather strong. Opposed to this, the Danish users above argue that we should follow Danish usage, and that the English usage derives from "ignorant Americans" and that our definition cannot be "based on the average level of ignorance of an english speaking person". In English Wikipedia, I think we should follow what is common usage in English.Jeppiz (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This matter has been the subject of debate for several years and a stable version has existed for a long time until Jeppiz came along and felt the need that the article should present his own POV. Btw., misunderstandings presented by tourist guidebooks are not adequate sources for an encyclopedia, and the mere fact that misunderstandings are common, as alleged in this case, do not make them correct. It's not surprising that many English speakers are ignorant about details of European geography, but the whole point of an encyclopedia is to learn something. Everyone in Scandinavia (and educated persons elsewhere) know perfectly well that Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden - all of the Scandinavian Wikipedias state that Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden. This is because the peoples of those countries originate from the same people, speak the same language and share the same culture (Scandinavia is predominantly a historical/cultural/linguistical term). Referring to Finland, whose main language is entirely unrelated to Scandinavian, as Scandinavian, is both ignorant and offensive to both Scandinavians and Finns, a people of their own (the fact that a small Scandinavian minority lives in Finland doesn't make the country Scandinavian any more than the United States which has a large Scandinavian population. Its historic ties to a Scandinavian country doesn't make Finland Scandinavian either, just like its more recent ties to Russia doesn't make Finland Russian). This is solely a matter of correct versus incorrect. The Scandinavian Wikipedias do not insist on the United States being a Latin American country either. Keldjylland (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I remember reading in the Lonely Planet guide something along the lines of "Denmark, Norway, and Sweden for the purists". Presumably most guides throw in Iceland and Finland because of the historical/cultural links they have with Scandinavia, and also for the convenience of the traveller with the proximity of these countries. The title of the guides, however, should not be used as an authoritative source for the definition of 'Scandinavia'. Hayden120 (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Tourist guidebooks do not necessarily use precise definitions, and have a different purpose than an encyclopedia. An important difference between a tourist guidebook and an encyclopedia is that the precise definition and its background and details matter here. When people read an article in an encyclopedia about Scandinavia, it's because they are interested to learn something about the region including its precise definition. I think we can assume that most English speakers reading up on Scandinavia would like to know the definition of the term used in Scandinavia itself. If people include Finland, Scandinavians may consider them ignorant about Scandinavia. Keldjylland (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Keldjylland has been vandalising Wikipedia in several languages to impose his own definition rather than sourced ones. While I agree with Hayden120 that guidebooks are not "authorative", if virtually all guidebooks define Scandinavia as including Finland, we have reason too see it as common usage.Jeppiz (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But tourist guides cannot be considered a reliable source. Heck, the Lonely Planet guide "Europe on a Shoestring" includes Morocco and the eastern part of Turkey, but neither of which are part of the traditional definition of Europe. They are only included for the convenience of travellers who may be interested in nearby countries. If you look up 'Scandinavia' in any respected dictionary or encyclopaedia (Britannica for instance), all say something akin to "Denmark, Norway, and Sweden... with Finland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands sometimes included". Hayden120 (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Tourist guides are certainly not reliable sources for facts, but what we're discussing is common English usage of the term "Scandinavia". Not the precise definition found in encyclopedias. That definition is very relevant, but it is already included and nobody disputes it. Encyclopedias also not that the definition is not clear-cut in English usage, Columbia Encyclopedia states that "Finland and Iceland are usually considered part of Scandinavia", contrary to what Keldjylland wants the page to claim. As for common English usage, a single tourist guide is still not a reliable source, but if we find that virtually all tourist guides in English define Scandinavia in a certain way, it is indicative of English usage. Alone, they don't do much but take the time to look around you and you'll see that media in English routinely describe Finland as a Scandinavian country. Here are just a few quick examples from The Guardian [2], New York Times [3], [4] and BBC [5]. In other words, it is by no means just tourist guides that usually describe Finland as a Scandinavian country, the leading English language media does the same thing. Is there any reason this should be denied and excluded from the article?Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends on if Scandanavia is being distinguished geographically, culturally or historically. Many Finns would not consider themselves Scandanavian just as most Estonians would not consider themselves Scandanavian either. Helsinki is closer to St. Petersburg than it is to Stockholm. While I think it is appropriate to have Finland (given the common perseption of English speaking people) as part of the article, it is important to establish the cultural and linguistic differences between Finland and the other countries of the Scandinavian_PeninsulaElmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Two points. I don't know if the geographical distance is very relevant, is it? If we consider Western Europe and Eastern Europe, we would never argue that Finland and Sweden are Eastern European although both Stockholm and Helsinki are closer to St Petersburg than to London or Paris. As for the linguistic differences, I partly agree but we risk falling for an oversimplified picture there. Relatively large parts of Finland are predominantly Swedish-speaking with a Swedish culture while some parts of Sweden and Denmark have majorities speaking a non-Scandinavian language. So is a native Swedish speaker grown up with Swedish culture, having been educated in Swedish and living in a monolingual Swedish municipality less Scandinavian because he lives in Finlande than someone grown speaking, say, Meänkieli, with a Finnish culture and living in predominantly non-Swedish municipality in Sweden?Jeppiz (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a question, are you a Fenno-Swede by any means? It is typical of the Finnish Nordists to insist on including Finland in Scandinavia for ideological reasons, although in Finland, "Skandinavia" and "Pohjoismaat" (Nordic Countries) are definitely separate concepts, and I as a Finnish-speaking Finn would never call myself Scandinavian. This culture idea is also interesting; The Fenno-Swedes supposedly have this some kind of Scandinavian culture that sets them apart and the rest of us don't have it (we're some kind of semi-Russian cultural tabula rasa that aren't really supposed to exist) -- but when it comes time to insist that we *all* are Scandinavian and there are demands that we must behave accordingly (in particular by speaking Swedish), then all of a sudden this Scandinavian culture encompasses us all. It's a conveniently shifting definition. HuckFinn (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved editor. The place to make points is here, not in the lead of the article. This sentence, 'The German definition of "Skandinavien" traditionally consisted of Finland, Norway and Sweden but now also includes Denmark although not Iceland' looks to me more like point-making than justifiable content for the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed that claim, because the linked source does not contain anything that supports it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You were quite right to do so. It was I who added it after reading the source quickly, I went back to check it now and you're definitely right.Jeppiz (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Scandinavian Tourist Board of Australia defines 'Scandinavia' as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. However, travel guides and the media are not academic sources. I don't think we should propagate ignorance just because it is common. I agree that each definition needs to be represented, but using travel guides as a reference to suggest which definition is the "most common" is unacceptable. This is the definition provided by Britannica:[6]

"Scandinavia: part of northern Europe, generally held to consist of the two countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Norway and Sweden, with the addition of Denmark. Some authorities argue for the inclusion of Finland on geologic and economic grounds and of Iceland and the Faroe Islands on the grounds that their inhabitants speak North Germanic (or Scandinavian) languages related to those of Norway and Sweden."

Hayden120 (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To give an actual view from Finland: Speaking in Finnish or Swedish, I would not include Finland in Scandinavia, instead I would say "Norden" (The Nordic Countries). Speaking in English, on the other hand, I generally use Scandinavia. The reason is that that is what English speakers recognise for what I call Norden. The term The Nordic Countries is far less known than Scandinavia. As Jeppiz wrote, English media writing about Finland almost always call it a Scandinavian country. The definition Hayden120 has cited is already in the article and so it should be, but I agree with Jeppiz that common English usage is to use Scandinavia in a wider sense. Whether that is ignorance or not is hardly relevant, as all such judgements will be our personal opinions. The fact of the matter is that that is how it is used in English. I could think of few better sources than BBC and New York Times (not a big fan of Guardian, but still) and I've seen it in many more articles. Just the other day I read an article about the success of Scandinavian countries in Press Freedom, with a list topped by Finland.

What I don't really understand is what you're debating: Either you dispute whether this usage actually exists or not, and then that dispute could be settled by providing examples, as Jeppiz already has done though more could easily by added. If there's no dispute about that, then I guess that people agree that this usage is common but want to exclude it because they feel it is ignorant. They are then making themselves guilty of POV by trying to remove a fact because they personally don't like it.128.214.107.221 (talk) 11:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I haven't touched this article since Jeppiz's changes were made. I have no interest in edit warring. I personally associate 'Scandinavia' with just three countries. That is why the term 'Nordic countries' was invented. I guess that makes me have a POV. But my main argument is that we shouldn't use tourist guides as a source for this issue. It is also unencyclopaedic to directly mention tourist boards in the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the contents of the article, not a confusing list of conflicting definitions. A quick sentence or two should mention differences in definitions, whereas the rest could mention culture, history, etc.. Hayden120 (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Having the entire lead discuss the definition of Scandinavia is ridiculous. We should note that the usage of the term is a bit ambiguous and varies among different places and languages in a quick sentence, like you say, and then use the rest of the lead to actually summarize the article. henrik•talk 12:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, the introduction should be short and the discussion about definitions could come inside the article. As Henrik states, a sentence noting the unambiguity should suffice, i.e. not saying that Scandinavia IS these or those countries as Keldjylland does and not going into long definitions as Jeppiz does. My two cents about the tourist guides: It seems as Jeppiz mentioned them as examples among others, not as main sources in themselves. I think the articles s/he mentioned is a stronger case as I expect more rigorous output from BBC and NYT than from Lonely Planet and its likes. To sum up: I agree with Jeppiz about the common usage in English including Finland as a Scandinavian country and I agree with Henrik and Hayden120 about the need for a shorter and neutral introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.107.221 (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What about an introduction along these lines "Scandinavia is a region in northern Europe that includes, and is named after, the Scanian Province. It includes Denmark, Norway and Sweden, while Finland is usually considered a Scandinavian country in common English usage, sometimes also Iceland." That is pretty much what some encyclopedias say so it's easy to source. Then we could add some key points about Scandinavia that aren't related to the definition, that would be more relevant. The following text, currently in the introduction, could be kept but moved down section 2, which discuss precisely this matter: "Some authorities limit it to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.[2] and other authorities including Finland and Iceland,[3][4]. The extension is also different in different languages. In English, the most common usage is to include all five countries in the term Scandinavia (cf. [5], [6]). In the Scandinavian languages, the name "Skandinavien" applies only to Denmark, Norway and Sweden, although the Scandinavian countries may use Scandinavia in the English sense to refer to all five countries, as in the Scandinavian Tourist Board in North America, which use Scandinavia to refer to Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. [7]Regardless of how the term Scandinavia is used outside the region, the terms Nordic countries and Nordic region are used officially and unambiguously to identify the nations of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland as well as the Danish territory of the Faroe Islands and the Finnish territory of Åland as politically and culturally similar entities". That text is relevant but I don't think we should have it in the introduction.128.214.107.221 (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The above suggestion by 128.214.107.221 |talk sounds very reasonable. DSRH |talk 15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Also User 94pjg above said the same thing but worded a bit differently. So far as I can tell, no one has disagreed with this proposal. Blue Rasberry 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I think the suggestion by the IP is reasonable, I agree that the introduction isn't the place to go into details about the definition. The suggested text sounds fine by me.Jeppiz (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, using 'cf.' seems redundant; simply including the citations at the end of the sentence is more standard on Wikipedia. Hayden120 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead rewritten

Alright, I rewrote the lead, based on the suggestion by User:128.214.107.221, trying to briefly summarize the article instead of talking about the terminology. Feel free to improve it!

Most of the old lead is left under Terminology and usage which got quite long - summarizing and shortening it would be a worthwhile task for someone so inclined. henrik•talk 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Much better, good work Henrik! Hayden120 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Style wise, it doesn't exactly tell a narrative though - it's fairly disjointed. But I imagine we can work on it, if people can focus on the article rather than fighting over terminology. :) Good edits btw! henrik•talk 21:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a huge improvement, thanks guys!Jeppiz (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

The long discussion above resulted in a compromise consensus. Obviously the solution didn't satisfy the POV of KeldJylland (a single-purpose account, just take a look at the edit history). This is his choice, but he was free to engage in the discussion as everyone else. Instead, he seems to have prefered the tactic of waiting for the consensus to be reached just to come back and overrule the consensus compromise by continuing to revert to his own version. If this continues, I'll report the user straight away as his edit warring has already been discussed.Jeppiz (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Technically"

"While the other Nordic countries of Finland and Iceland are sometimes grouped with the region, they are not technically affiliated.": what is that supposed to mean? I can't see any reading of "technically" that actually means something here, other than "it's my personal opinion that Finland and Iceland shouldn't be part of Scandinavia". I'll change this to "The Nordic countries of Finland and Iceland are sometimes grouped with the region" if no one can explain this sentence. - Dingbats (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Retrospectively etc.

I don't think this edit[7] ("to a significant extent descended from other peoples and were generally not known as Scandinavians when the term originated") made it clearer at all. What was meant by the original wording was that Iceland was largely populated by Scandinavians from the 9th century, but that the term Scandinavians wasn't used until around a millennium later. Generally they were known as Norsemen. In modern historical scholarship the settlers are also called Scandinavians, and of course the language of Iceland is considered Scandinavian in genetic lingustics. --Dijhndis (talk) 08:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The original sentence was largely incomprehensible to me, I suggest someone who understands your point rewords, I'm afraid I don't. Everyone in Scandinavia descends from people who, prior to the origin of the term, were NOT known as Scandinavian. Pincrete (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I welcome a rewording of the sentence to make it clearer (the one I cited, about "not known as Scandinavians" etc., wasn't my wording). Perhaps something along the lines of "Iceland and the Faroe Islands were largely populated by Norse settlers from the 9th century", or something like that? --Dijhndis (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, I leave it to others to judge whether it is RS fact. Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

We have articles on the Settlement of Iceland and the Norse settlement in the Faroe Islands which could be linked in such a sentence. --Dijhndis (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The people later known as Scandinavians is in this context best known as "Norse". I changed the lead to that effect, as the last changes ended up saying the exact opposite of what it said before. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies once again for the mis-phrasing, I originally put a What? tag, the response led me to think I had the correct meaning. 'Norse' is much clearer. Pincrete (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is Finnish a minority language list and non of the other immigrant languages are not? I don't think there were Finns in Scandinavia only as part of Nordic countries— Preceding unsigned comment added by RealFinn (talk • contribs) 10:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Because Finnish is an official minority language in Sweden, along with Meänkieli, Sami, Yiddish and Romani chib. Finns have been living in Sweden (that is, the area that is today Sweden) for hundreds of years.

Andejons (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

What way is it a official minority language? What is the definition? And btw, when was that ratified and where is the transcripts?

How can you edit the beginning of the page. You cannot say

as sometimes are Iceland and Finland, because of their historical association with the Scandinavian countries and the Scandinavian peoples and languages

There is no relationship with Scandinavian languages and Finnish? Iceland yes but not Finnish

Historial association yea. Language Not — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealFinn (talk • contribs) 10:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The reasons are not there to justify why Wikipedia describes "Scandinavia" as sometimes including Finland, Iceland and the Faroes, but to explain why it is sometimes used in that way. Even if the inclusion of Finland is not based on linguistic reasons, this does not mean that it is never included, or that the inclusion is necessarily wrong.

Andejons (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You can't say sometimes yes and sometimes no. It either is part of Scandinavia or its not! I believe you can say, sometimes people include Finland as part of Scandinavia, but that is not true(wrong/false/misconception). The countries listed in the Scandinavian countries say (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) unless Finland is on than list its not a Scandinavian country. Not sure what/why people use nordic countries but that can include Finland as well as Russia/Canada right? All of them are in the north. Anyone outside Europe won't know the difference. Even some europeans have no clue what is Nordic countries. Prev comment left unsinged by RealFinn

Scandanavia has a precise definition (largely a common linguistic heritage), it is also used more loosely in English to denote a larger geographical area. This is perhaps comparable with the Balkans, which has a precise definition, but is also often used more loosely, even 'British Isles' sometimes is used by meteorologists etc to include Ireland for example. These are all technically 'wrong', but we can't ignore actual usage. Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You can always say sometimes yes and sometimes no. There's a reason words have more than one entry in the dictionary. This is yet another case of the same word being used slightly differently in different contexts.--Wlerin (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Wlerin, I think that is what we try to do, note that the 'looser' usage is common in English usage, but the more exact usage is normal 'locally'. Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, I intended that as a reply to RealFinn. I have no disagreement with what you wrote, at least as far as Scandinavia is concerned. ( British Isles is another story, but this isn't the place for that conversation.)--Wlerin (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)