Talk:Scandinavia/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Strictest definition

In this edit I added to the complexivity of the term "Scandinavia", showing that, at least in Swedish litterature, the strictest definition does not include Denmark. The edit was reverted with comment: The linked source does not support the claim that it is sometimes "excluding Denmark". What the source claims is that there are two areas designated by the term: (1.) The nations of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and sometimes Finland. (2.) The Scandinavian peninsula. Since Denmark is not on the peninsula it is excluded in the second definition. The revert argument does not stand and I suggest that my edit is reinserted. (I will give time for reactions here before editing it again myself.) /Dcastor (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Reinserting. /Dcastor (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed this, this is utterly misleading and based upon a misinterpretation of the source. The term Scandinavia does never exclude Denmark in Scandinavia. The definition you are referring to is not "the strictest definition" of Scandinavia, but the definition of something entirely different. The (slightly clumsily worded) source refers to the Scandinavian Peninsula, which is not the same as Scandinavia, and which excludes Denmark. The source also points out that Scandinavia as a cultural term (i.e. the topic of this article - Scandinavian Peninsula has a separate article) always refers to Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The appropriate article to refer to this is Scandinavian Peninsula, not Scandinavia.

The idea that Denmark is not Scandinavian is, quite frankly, laughable to any Dane (much like "Germany is not European"), and one clumsily worded Swedish source that is referring to two different things and that is open to interpretation is not enough to establish that this is a mainstream point of view (it's rather a view that 99,99 % of Scandinavians have never heard of) Dijhndis (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Denmark is and always has been and always will be a part of Scandinavia. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And so, until 1809, was Finland. Since then, we'd have to ask the Finns where they feel they belong. I think they are Scandinavians still. Hope so. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

- Denmark is a part of Scandinavia, it was from the very beginning! Someone didn't to their homework, hmm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.156.82 (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me redo the homework then. The cited source, the largest staff-written Swedish Encyclopedia, clearly states that "Skandinavien" (Scandinavia) can be used as a synonym to "Skandinaviska halvön" (the Scandinavian Peninsula). The statement is short and to the point, leaving little room for misinterpretation. User Dijhndis may be right that the idea of a Scandinavia without Denmark appears laughable to most Danes – I don't know about that – but the statement from SergeWioodzing saying that it is almost unheard of in Scandinavia as a whole is contradicted not only by my own experience and the source allready given, but also by the largest contemporary Norwegian encyclopedia, Store Norske Leksikon, and the Norwegian encyclopedia Caplex, both with wording similar to the Swedish NE source. Svenska Akademiens ordbok doesn't handle geographic names, but defines "skandinavisk" ("Scandinavian") as dealing with the Scandinavian Peninsula, most often also including Denmark. "Most often" is of course not the same as "allways". Nordisk familjebok from the 19th century states that Skandinavien "nowadays" consists of Sweden, Norway, and sometimes also Denmark.

This discussion is not like discussing whether or not Germany belongs to Europe, but rather like discussing whether Cyprus does. The minimalistic definitions do not include Cyprus in Europe and they do not include Denmark in Scandinavia. /Dcastor (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no comparison with Cyprus here. Denmark is part of the cultural entity called "Scandinavia", which this article is about, the sources you provide says so themselves. The two Norwegian encyclopedias directly ("Scandinavia, partly the name for the Scandinavian peninsula, partly for Denmark, Norway and Sweden"), the Swedish one indirectly as it includes Denmark as a Scandinavian people in its article on "Skandinavism" and "Nordiska språk". What seems to have confused you is that the geographic entity, the Scandinavian peninsula, can also sometimes be referred to as "Scandinavia" in English as well as in the Nordic languages, but is not the same thing as the cultural entity of Scandinavia.--Saddhiyama (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I am not confused. I have not argued that Denmark is not often included when the term Scandinavia is used. What I am stating is that it is not always included in the term, which is not very clearly defined. All my sorces, as confirmed in your post, agree that the term is sometimes used as a synonym to the Scandinavian Peninsula. /Dcastor (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

But the answer to that would not be to state that "Scandinavia sometimes includes Denmark", that would only add to the confusion most people seem to have about the subject. The answer would be to expressly state that it has two different meanings, one defining the cultural entity of Scandinavia, which is the subject of this article, and the other is the Scandinavian peninsula, which we have a separate article on. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavia always includes Denmark. I am over 60 years old, have worked with this subject quite a bit and I have never heard or seen Scandinavia used synonymously as the Scandinavian Peninsula (excluding Denmark). All Danes are Scandinavians. Since the peninsula has an article of its own, why continue this rather moot discussion? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not yet forty, but have often heard Scandinavia used for Norway/Sweden only (often enough for it to be my first reference). Many on the talk page of the Swedish article state the same. Personal experience often is not enough to say that something does not exist. I have given several sources for my claim. Saddhiyama suggests changing the wording, which obviously is a possibility. I do, however, believe that saying that people in their use of the term deliberately distinguish between the "cultural entity" and the geographical peninsula is overly structural. Reality about this word, which is not clearly defined, is confusing. Including this in the article doesn't add to the confusion, but rather shows that it exists. /Dcastor (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the later years of the Sweden-Norwegian chimera, the word was tried redefined, and Sweden didn't stop its national history rewriting program until the 1970s. This is the same reason you will find Swedes who believe Scania has always been part of Sweden, because they were taught so in school, but cultural bias doesn't have any place on wikipedia, especially cultural bias based on historical propaganda. We are better than this, even modern Swedes are better than this. You are simply advocating spreading misinformation because it is common misinformation. The Scandinavian peninsula is named after Scandinavia (the fictional island), not the other way around. Scandinavia is neither a culture nor a region, it is the political unity of Sweden/Norway and Denmark named in the 1800s after an old Roman mistake that Scandinavia (including Denmark) was an island. Carewolf (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to make moral decisions on which definitions are right or wrong. We are not better than the society we describe. (Off topic, but Swedish schools do not teach that Scania has never been Danish.) /Dcastor (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Carewolf - thank you! You've got it down just the was it was and is. Ideological motivation in editing WP should be questioned more often. Any claim that Danes are not Scandinavians, and have not always been, can only be made by a person whose POV is not worth commenting on even. I don't often see a POV I would have to call inappropriate, but that one is hogwash, at best. And I have read through the Swedish talk page. Many on the talk page of the Swedish article state the same. [sic] (above) is a bluff. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've read through this discussion with great interest and must say that Dcastor appears to be completely correct. His arguments are based on several very well-respected sources, all showing that in the strictest definition, Scandinavia is only Sweden and Norway. The arguments by SergeWoodzing and Carewolf come very close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT since they are more or less stating that in their understanding, this is not what Scandinavia is. That may well be true (and I even agree with that view to a large extent) but it completely irrelevant for Wikipedia. What Dcastor is putting forward, on the other hand, is very well-sourced and should be reflected in the article.Jeppiz (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not one of his sources claims that Scandinavia categorically excludes Denmark. No such source exists anywhere. I challenge and defy anyone to provide one. What some sources say is that Scandinavia can mean (1) the Scandinavian Peninsula (usage virtually unheard of, in my opinion, but I have been wrong before) and (2) Denmark, Norway and Sweden, sometimes including Finland and Iceland (standard usage in my opinion). Why on earth (or a nothern part of it) isn't everyone satisfied with the dsiambiguation page which hardly could be clearer or more comprehensive? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the disambiguation page to light. I hadn't noticed that before but it seems to cover this issue nicely. Furthermore I would like to add that I think it is a blatant misreading of the sources for Jeppiz to claim that "Scandinavia is only Sweden and Norway", not even DCastor seems to propose that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You missread Jeppiz, who started the quote "in the strictest definition...". Noone has claimed that only this strictest definition should be used, only that it shouldn't be completely ignored. Hints that this notion would be rooted in some kind of prejudice against Denmark is just rude. It is also not satisfactory to mention this only on the disambig page (which, by the way, obviously supports what I am, with several respected sources, claiming here). /Dcastor (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing accuses me of bluffing above. My response to that is, to anyone who can read Swedish: [1][2][3][4][5] /Dcastor (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I read each of those links again, very carefully this time, and I do know Swedish and German (one of your links). You claimed above, very clearly, that many people are of the opinion that Scandinavia only includes Norway and Sweden. Your use of the word "many" in the context where I quoted it from your comments above, can only be interpreted as intentionally incorrect (if you know Swedish and German). What is intentionally incorrect and/or seriously exaggerated in a debate is normally called a "bluff" in English. And that's what you tried on us, as I see it, when referring readers of English to debate material in Swedish and German.

If I had read them carelessly last time, and thus were wrong here, I would apologize sincerely. That's always a good idea when someone proves us wrong (hint).

Very few people anywhere, if anyone at all, feel that Scandinavia only includes Norway and Sweden. I have challenged the opposing users above to show us any reliable source - just one single one - that would disprove that assertion of mine. Nothing so far.

Hope everybody is satisfied now anyway, with the article's new intro - before this all gets even nastier. Bluffing is nasty. Calling a bluff is nasty. Let's all stop! SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing: I have never claimed that Scandinavia includes only Norway and Sweden. I have claimed that the word is used in different ways, where that is one of them. The problem is that you ask for sources saying that "Scandinavia" can never include anything but Sweden and Norway, a claim that has not been made. The claim I have made is that sometimes when the term "Scandinavia" is used, it only includes Swe/Nor. That claim finds support on the Swedish talk page. I have also given several sources, but you still ask for "one single one". We do, however, still have nothing but referals to personal experience when it comes to opposing my claim in this thread. (I am also growing tired of your insinuations. You know very well, from your activity on the Swedish Wikipedia, that I am very fluent in Swedish. I also have no problems with the meaning of the English word "bluff", nor with simple German quotes.) /Dcastor (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Quoting you, as above:

• "I have often heard Scandinavia used for Norway/Sweden only (often enough for it to be my first reference). Many on the talk page of the Swedish article state the same."

They do not, as a matter of fact.

You have not given one reference to show that that is ever done in any reliable work (which is what we are trying to get done here), regardless of what you have heard or read by one other user on svWP. And you will never be able to give such a source, simply because there are none. You wrote that to sway this discussion to support that POV of yours and of Swedish user Benkeboy's. That was not a very nice way, in my opinion, to try to push your POV through about many people using 'Scandinavia' for Norway and Sweden only.

Had you written "...for Norway/Sweden also [not only], as the peninsula", that might have held up. What you wrote will not. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have given several major encyclopedias as sources. I am still waiting for you to provide a single one, rather than repeatedly and deliberately misunderstanding my posts. Maybe I haven't in every single sentence been distinct enough in my choice of words, but from the sum of what I have written it should be clear what I mean. There are indeed several posts on the Swedish talk page, linked above, which claim that many people use "Scandinavia" when they mean only Norway and Sweden. More important, though, are the encyclopedia links. /Dcastor (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't in every single sentence been distinct enough in my choice of words - right and we can only react to what you write, we are not mindreaders. What you wrote in several places means, in English, that many people assert that Scandinavia only means Norway and Sweden. Nobody does. Write distinctly in future please! That is an obligation we all have here, and you can hardly expect to be understood otherwise. Look at what happened this time! SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not being distinct enough in every sentence means that I may have written sentences that, taken out of context, are ambiguous. Read in context they are not. When you quote those sentences and choose to read them in a way that do not correlate with the sum of my writing, I think you are being dishonest in your argument. The fact remains that the term "Scandinavia" is often used for Norway/Sweden only. That is well sourced. If you hear someone say "Skandinavien" in Swedish, you can not, without further information, be sure that they include Denmark. /Dcastor (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You have perhaps shown that the term Scandinavian, when referring to the Scandinavian Peninsula, is sometimes used by Swedish people - You have not shown that it is used often in any extent or that you couldn't just assume that they're using it to describe the actual Scandinavia without any further information because you haven't shown that they use it often, just because it's mentioned in encyclopedias does not make it used often. You still have not provided any sort of motivation to show this distinction on THIS article when there already is an article called the Scandinavian Peninsula. Infact if you want to do it, you should do it there, because the Scandinavia they're referring to is the Scandinavian Peninsula, not the actual Scandinavia. For example: "Sometimes in Sweden the term Scandinavia can be used to refer to the Scandinavian Peninsula" and then provide refs that are not from an encyclopedia, but actually in any sort of meaningful context, because you could search on Google for the word 'Skandinavien' and you'd get results for the actual Scandinavia, not the Scandinavian Peninsula. Others might disagree and revert you, which isn't my problem because you have not demonstrably shown anything other than that it's in a couple of encyclopedias. Some of those encyclopedias also say that the term Scandinavia is used for when referring the the 'Nordic countries', you don't seem to be all hyped up about that. Atheuz (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The strictest definition of Scandinavia is always Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Some people(I've personally never heard it be used in that manner) might use the term Scandinavia to refer to the Scandinavian Peninsula, which includes just Sweden, Norway and the northern part of Finland. This changes nothing though when considering the 'strictest definition' of Scandinavia, as people who are infact referring to the Scandinavian Peninsula when they say Scandinavia, still are just referring to the Scandinavian Peninsula. If you want to describe this, then you need to make sure there is no unambiguity in the description, that it's separated from the introduction of the article and that it won't confuse people because the vast majority of people who say Scandinavia, do infact mean Scandinavia: the cultural, linguistic, ethnic and regional construction developed over 1200 years of mutual history between peoples in three different countries. Not the actual Scandinavian Peninsula. Given the fact that there's already an entry for the article on the Scandinavian Peninsula, I don't see the need to do it. You might view it differently though. Atheuz (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster disagrees.

Andejons (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as you can see it says "1 peninsula N Europe occupied by Norway & Sweden", ie it refers to the Scandinavian Peninsula and there already is an article for that, if you want to make changes to that article you'll be welcome to, but this article is about the cultural, linguistic, ethnic and regional Scandinavia that contains Denmark, Norway and Sweden. That is always the strictest definition. Atheuz (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Denmark is the very core of Scandinavia. Comparing it to Cyprus is plain ridiculous, the proper comparison is the question concerning whether Germany or France - or maybe Greece - are part of Europe. Scandinavia is named after an historically Danish region (Scania). Scania is the ancestral home of the Danes. Denmark was for centuries the cultural and governmental centre of Scandinavia, originally of all three kingdoms, then of Denmark and Norway. The ridiculous suggestion that Denmark is not part of Scandinavia is both an irrelevant obscure fringe theory and apparently motivated by some strange Swedish desire (from a very small minority within Sweden) to rewrite history (for some Great Northern War-era nationalistic reason?). It has no place in Wikipedia.

Denmark is more Scandinavian than most of Sweden. Core historical Scandinavia is Denmark and Southern Sweden, i.e. the area surrounding Scania. While most areas of Sweden (Northern Sweden) are definitely peripheral within Scandinavia, Denmark (Danish islands and Scania in particular) is where the Scandinavian peoples, culture and language evolved.

The name of the Scandinavian Peninsula (which is, btw., NOT the topic of this article) is derived from the cultural term Scandinavia, not the other way round, and is a more recent invention. Scandinavia is first and foremost a term based on shared language and culture, and all other usages of the term are derived from that one. Scandinavia always means Denmark, Norway and Sweden (as a Google search demonstrates, Denmark is usually mentioned first - which has a reason, it is the core of the region). Dijhndis (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The current Danes are descended from an ancient North Germanic tribe originating and residing in Scania and on the Danish islands. Dijhndis (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The strictest definition excludes Denmak as it is a purely geographic definition, that is often one talks about the Scandinavian peninsula. Normally, however, Denmark is included. The people of Island and the Faroe Islands speak a Scandinavian languages, but are not really part of Scandinavia (just as the USA are not part of England, even though they speak English). About Finland, this is a totalt misunderstanding. Finnish is a totally unrelated language. Finland is Nordic, but not at all Scandinavian. This is a misunderstanding. I have never heard anyone in either Norway, Sweden, Denmark or Finland that consider it Scaninavian. Still, however, Finland has close ties to Scandinavia,and especially to Sweden, and a minority of the Finns have Swedish as their mother tongue. --Oddeivind (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that is wrong. The strictest definition of the "Scandinavian peninsula" excludes current Denmark, but not the strictest definition of "Scandinavia". --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ops, seems like I have edited the discussion while you answered. I didn`t expet anyone t answer that quickly. It is actually quite common, at least in Norway to use "Scandinavia" as a synonyme with the Scandinavian peninsula. --Oddeivind (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read the rather lengthy discussion above; the issues you raise in your post have been debated quite fiercely throughout and it doesn't really provide new information.

Indisputably, the strictest definition of the Scandinavian Peninsula does indeed exclude Denmark. However, as the discussion stands now, with respect to the strictest definition of the term Scandinavia, it appears that a claim that excludes Denmark rests entirely on 'personal experience' and lacks any proper sourcing.

Best,

Sir Tanx (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Finnish is a totally unrelated language. But, Finnish is not the only language in Finland. We're a country with two national languages that are equal according to the constitution. Thus, Finland is also a Scandinavian-speaking country as Swedish is a national language. Many of us Swedish-speakers in Finland consider our country to be a part of Scandinavia. Many Finnish-speakers like to disassociate Finland with Scandinavia as they see it as a link with the past period of Sweden's rule, which they often seek to downplay for nationalistic reasons. In much of the rest of Scandinavia - even Sweden - there is a high level of ignorance towards the fact that Swedish-speakers exist in Finland. In any case, there is a dispute as to whether or not Finland is a part of Scandinavia. It certainly is not clear one way or the other, even if the majority opinion might be that our country is not. 130.243.209.39 (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Schleswig-Holstein

The German state Schleswig-Holstein with its historical relationships to Denmark and its cultural similarities to Northern Europe is often considered to be a part of Scandinavia. This might be mentioned in the article. I've heard the definition that Scandinavia begins north of the river Schlei. However, I don't know if this is common sense. 85.179.139.0 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It could probably be interpreted as part of a greater Scandinavia or a historical Scandinavia, but the definition of Scandinavia as it is are the areas that make up modern day Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I do not oppose adding Schleswig-Holstein to the definition, but it seems like original research - Do you have any sources supporting the assertion? That would help the process. Atheuz (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, as long as Finland and other non-Scandinavian countries are aggressively pushed in the article due to their extremely small Scandinavian minorities, Slesvig and Holsten definitely should have its place. For centuries, Slesvig and Holsten provided more government officials in Denmark-Norway than Norway did. Danish is still an official language in the current German state of Schleswig-Holstein. The state still has a Scandinavian minority, just like Finland. And the royal family has its roots there as well, being more connected with that area at least until the 19th century. Dijhndis (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent developments: Finland versus Scandinavia

This map illustrates the core area (during the Bronze Age) of the peoples since known as Norsemen and Scandinavians (from Scania). The term Scandinavia (as a cultural/ethnic/linguistic region) is derived from Scania. The term Scandinavian Peninsula is a recent invention derived from the cultural/ethnic/linguistic term.

Around 5 % of Finland's population are Scandinavian. This number has been declining constantly since the 19th century. The current Prime Minister of Finland is in favour of abolishing the Scandinavian language (Swedish) as an official language in Finland. Finland is becoming increasingly non-Scandinavian, and is comparable in this respect to Slesvig-Holsten (Schleswig-Holstein). Describing Finland as a whole as Scandinavian is as problematic as describing for instance a former British colony with 5 % English-speaking/ethnically British population as "British".

Recently, a far-right party won the election in Finland. This party is opposed to Scandinavian language and culture in Finland ("The True Finns support the abolition of bilingualism and an end to Swedish as a compulsory subject in schools") [6]. There is a widespread perception that Scandinavian language and culture in Finland and Finland's Scandinavian minority are under threat[7]

The only fact that adds legitimacy to the claim that Finland is somehow "Scandinavian" (a term referring to the (Germanic) peoples of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (Danes, Norwegians, Swedes) and their language and culture, ultimately derived from Scania formerly in Denmark, now Sweden) is the use of Scandinavian language in Finland and the presence of an ethnically Scandinavian minority of around 5 %. In the Finnish context, Scandinavian refers to the culturally/ethnically/linguistically Scandinavian minority, whereas the majority population are Finns, not Scandinavians, and speaks a language entirely unrelated to the Scandinavian languages as their primary language. Dijhndis (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No it is not the only fact. The Finnish speaking people of Finland share the same history and, to a very large extent, the same culture. A significant minority feel at home reading Swedish. Most Finnish speaking people grew up reading Astrid Lindgren and Tove Jansson - translated, yes, but as part of the common culture. They sing texts by Evert Taube, Zacharias Topelius and Johan Ludvig Runeberg. Translated, yes, but the more ignorant do not even know that. Some of those songs are central elements in celebrating e.g. Midsummer or Christmas. A populist party denying or ignoring this does not make it less of a fact. (But this issue does not necessarily have any bearing on how Scandinavia is defined.) --LPfi (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am quite sure the same can be said about a number of former British and French colonies, with respect to English and French culture and language. But this would not make them part of England or France. Noone is denying that Finland is both historically associated with a Scandinavian country and influenced by Scandinavian culture and language to a significant degree, and still having a small ethno-linguistically Scandinavian minority living there. But noone can deny, either, that the influence of Scandinavian language and culture in Finland has been declining enormously during the last hundred years, and that Finnish is the primary language of the vast majority of the Finnish population and Swedish is usually a third language for the majority. Dijhndis (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Svalbard

Svalbard is quite different from the rest of the countries and areas included in the map (even by extended usage), because

1. Svalbard has no native population (it's populated exclusively on a temporary basis by Norwegian and Russian mine workers, some researchers and other groups, who come and live there for a few years and then return, it had no population at all until the 20th century. It's not possible to continue living there if you become in need of care due to age/sickness.)
2. Norway only obtained the sovereignty over Svalbard in the 1920s, and its legal status is different from the rest of Norway and regulated by an international treaty giving other countries a number of rights there

For these reasons, it's clear that

1. Svalbard would not in any event have anything to do with Scandinavia until the 1920s (it was no man's land in the Arctic not under any country's sovereignty)
2. As Scandinavia is a cultural-historical-linguistic region, which is relevant as such because of its history spanning two thousand years, I'm somewhat sceptical (to put it mildly) to the possibility of a new area joining Scandinavia as recently as the 20th century. Also, as noted, large parts of Svalbard's (temporary) population have been Russians who live in their own Russian-speaking mining communities, and people from other countries also live there, so it's not an exclusively Norwegian-speaking area.
3. In closing, there is an incredible distance from Scania to Svalbard. Dijhndis (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to restore back to the previous picture (exluding Svalbard AND Greenland) Peter (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

'achlis'- a word that has fascinated me for a long time.

If anyone knows more about the occurrence of this hapax legomenon in Pliny, would they please be kind enough to tell me more about it? I think its significance is greater than one would first suspect, as it is one of the earliest attestations of a North Germanic language I can presently think of.

Nihil impossibile arbitror. 02:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Iceland

Some Icelandic IP keeps adding Iceland to the core definition, as if this was the widely accepted position. Iceland is not part of Scandinavia per the most common definition, and needs to be mentioned in the context of the extended usage only. Even though Iceland was largely (but not exclusively) populated by people from what became known as Scandinavia a millennium later, Iceland as a country is not part of Scandinavia, just like Australia is not part of England even though its population is mostly descended from English people and speaks English. What makes Scandinavia, a term that entered usage in the 18th and 19th centuries and which refers to Scania, a relevant entity, is the common (mutually intelligible) language, which Iceland is not part of. Dijhndis (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I started reverting a couple of your edits until I realised you were entirely right (so my edits have been reverted). Obviously there is a lot of confusion as to the definition of Scandinavia which is why I think it would be wise to keep the colour-coded map showing the various definitions. The core definition I agree should be kept to "Denmark, Sweden & Norway". The additional definition can extend to Finland and Iceland (and Faroese?). i think, until someone can put up a good case, this should be final.I apologise for my reverted edits (now changed back). Peter (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like that map because it pushes the fringe theory that Greenland is Scandinavian. Greenland is an island in North America. Scandinavia is a region in Europe. The theory of Greenland being included in Scandinavia is not mentioned at all in the article (except the image), for good reasons. A map including Scandinavia proper (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden), and the occasional extended usage outside Scandinavia (+Iceland, Faroe Islands, Finland) would be better. Dijhndis (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I reinstated some material that I think is too essential to be removed from the lead. In terms of natural geography, it would be misleading to focus only on the Arctic and alpine tundra mountain areas, which are both peripheral and sparsely populated, in the lead. The core area of Scandinavia, both in terms of its historical origin and in terms of modern population density, is southern Sweden (Scania in particular), Denmark and a small area around Oslo, which is more similar to England and Northern Germany than to the Arctic. Dijhndis (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I like what you've done with lead - same information, but shortened. When I shortened the lead I mostly tweeked a previous version and added in a paragraph. Although this lead is longer it does convey the point much better, so kudos. Of course, I might tweek it a little (making it ever so slightly shorter if I can), but it looks good right now.

As for the map, I'll try and get a version created which omits Greenland. Peter (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Good work with the map! Dijhndis (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Scandinavia[1] is a cultural, historical and ethno-linguistic region in northern Europe that includes the four kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Iceland," - Iceland has been a republic since 1944. BrianRed (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and is an unambiguous term

I'm a bit fed up by ignorant foreigners who have misunderstood the meaning of the name Scandinavia. In Scandinavia, the term is used unambiguously for Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Other countries are not included. It's simply incorrect. Instead, the term Nordic countries cover Scandinavia + Finland and Iceland. Scandinavia share a language and a culture which neither Finland nor Iceland are sharing (except for small culturally Scandinavian minorities living in those countries). Lindatavlov (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that this is an encyclopaedia for everyone, not just you. I have heard many times Scandinavia to also include Finland, even within the narrower definition that you declare. As a Swedish-speaking Finn, I consider Finland to be a Scandinavian country. However, I realise that does not make it one in the eyes of everyone in the same way as your strong belief that Scandinavia does not include Finland will not be shared by all. The fact that there is more than one definition to be found shows that there is a considerable degree of ambiguity! 94pjg (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It is of course possible to speak a Scandinavian language without living in Scandinavia, just as it is possible to speak English without living in England! Icelandic is a Scandinavian language, but still, Iceland is not a part of Scandinavia! --Oddeivind (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not quite that simple. In English, as opposed to some Scandinavian languages, the term Scandinavia is relatively often used to include both Iceland and Finland. Looking at books in English, this usage seems to at least as common, if not more common, than using Scandinavia to refer only to Sweden, Denmark or Norway.JdeJ (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitions are hard. Especially if you consider how they used to be defining. Dolphins are often called fish for instance. Does that mean fish includes dolphins? or does it mean a lot of people don't understand what Dolphins are or where Finns come from? Carewolf (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is just like some people say "England" when they actually mean the Great Britain. The fact that people outside Britain use the word "England" this way, doesn`t mean that Scotland and Wales are parts of England! The same thing is true with the word "Scandinavia". Many people say "Scandinavia", when they actually mean the Nordic countries. --Oddeivind (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, you may also be wrong Mr. Oddevind, at least not consequente. Many refer to Great Britain, when they mean United Kingdom (which also includes Northern Ireland). Do you see my point?

130.225.178.27 (talk) 13:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only is Icelandic a Scandinavian language, but the culture and heritage is also Scandinavian, so the only reason not to include Iceland in the term "Scandinavia" is its geographic location. If you want to play the geography card then the definition of the Scandinavian peninsula does NOT include Denmark, making the only truly Scandinavian countries Sweden and Norway. Furthermore, many Icelandic people refer to themselves as being Scandinavian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.105.22 (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What's utterly tiresome is the never-ending, relentless, dogged, blatant, argumentative, exclusive (as in excluding) nationalism displayed in these dicussions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again from one angle or another.

Why don't all of you just stop it?

Let's all just break down completely and start showing some empathetic respect! Anyone west-east from Greenland to westernmost Russia and south-north from the roots of the Jutland peninsula to Santa's North Pole has the right to call h-self a Scandinavian, if h/s wishes, and to find that broader definition prominently covered by Wikipedia's article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Norway's Independence

The article states that Norway has been independent since 1905. Given they were occupied during the second world war, wouldn't 8 May 1945 be a more sensible date to show? 94.168.152.85 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, "independent since 1905" is too simplistic in any event. Norway has been "independent since 1905" in the exact same way as Sweden has been "independent since 1905", that is, no longer in a personal union with another country. The Swedish-Norwegian personal union is comparable to the union of Austria and Hungary prior to 1918, and the countries were legally equal, although Sweden played a somewhat more dominant role in foreign affairs given its larger size. Norway has legally been a souvereign kingdom since 872 AD. AFAIK, Norway continued to be regarded as a souvereign country during WWII - military occupation is temporary in its nature (and by its legal definition) and different from whether a country is regarded as a souvereign state. Dijhndis (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Norway never surrendered during the war, continued to operate a government-in-exile, and resisted the Axis to the extent that it could. It is common practice not to consider a country to have lost its independence when it is militarily occupied during a war--especially as a victim of aggression. In a much more dramatic case, when the USSR forced the Baltic States to join in 1940, the United States and several other countries never recognized this. Diplomatically, the U.S. regards all three nations as independent since 1918, but under unlawful occupation by foreign powers from 1940 until 1991. Jsc1973 (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

Scandinavia has several definitions depending on the country where it is used, and the context the term is used in. In Australia for example I grew up understanding Scandinavia to be Finland, Sweden and Norway, as the landmass was used for the definition, not the culture or history. Likewise if the culture and language are used to define the term, Finland is excluded while Denmark is then included. The term is not an absolute, and this should be made clear on the wikipedia page.

Earlier versions of this page did in fact do this, with a lengthier section on terminology, even giving examples that in Germany they often used the landmass definition. The current article seems to be written by a heavily biased dane who won't admit the possibility of other definitions even existing. I would like for this page to be reviewed as needing a neutraility overhaul and fact check, and even being reverted to an earlier, more factually correct and objective version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.136.86.181 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an article on the Scandinavian Peninsula/Fennoscandia; Finland, Norway and Sweden - This article is about Scandinavia; Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The article makes it clear that the definition is based on the cultural, historical and linguistic aspect, not the geographical region.

Scandinavia in it's strictest sense is Denmark, Norway and Sweden - The definition is sometimes expanded to include all the Nordic countries, but never to include Finland but not Denmark and because you grew up with the wrong definition does not change that, it seems you were told Fennoscandia or the Scandinavian Peninsula was Scandinavia, which they are not.

If you feel the boilerplate definition is unclear about the distinction between Scandinavia and the Scandinavian Peninsula/Fennoscandia, then you can add information about that, but if you're suggesting that the definition of Scandinavia excludes Denmark and you want the article to reflect that, then I think you're out of luck as it has been discussed before and the current article reflects those discussions. I will revert attempts to muddle the definition. Atheuz (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Most people think that Scandinavia consists of Sweden, Norway and Finland, and a Scandinavian is a person coming from Sweden, Norway or Denmark, often also Iceland, Finland or the Faroe Islands (from Cambridge dictionary). Maybe, it would be better to focus on Scandinavian people in the aspect of the cultural, historical and linguistic relations. In all these situations, there is no need to exclude Finland, which is a part of Scandinavia, both culturally and historically. Don't think of this matter in the aspect of racism. In the meantime, there is no need to mention two pages like Scandinavia and Nordic Countries, because most people know that Scandinavia are the Nordic countries. For all these reasons, I'm surprised as I encountered such a biased article without a neutral point of view.Barayev (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Just no. The point is that there are several definitions of Scandinavia, and the term is defined differently in different countries. This page used to reflect that, and now it just reflects the arrogance of the last person who posted it. For example, in Australia the definition was based on the landmass, not the history. An accurate unbiased article would reflect these varying definitions, not assert that a particular one is soley correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.240.250 (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making blanket allegations against editors or groups of editors. Since the information in Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, it is a requirement that you can provide those to back up claims that you wish to include in the article. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not making allegations, I am referring to a previous revision of the article and how it has now changed to be biased. You only have to check this history of about 1.5 years ago or so to see the article made mention of the fact that there were varying definitions for Scandanavia.

If Australia has its very own definition of Scandinavia, then they are ignorant and need to be educated. Scandinavia is a cultural and linguistic region comprising Denmark, Norway and Sweden. A Scandinavia without Denmark, which is Scandinavia's core, but on the other hand including Finland, which is a very peripheral in relation to Scandinavia and only including a very small Scandinavian minority, is preposterous.

Scandinavia is an unambious term. It's universally recognized by those who are educated on the topic to consist of Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

Would it be OK for you if we Scandinavians had our own definition of Australia, then? I would like to define Australia as comprising also New Zealand and Indonesia. Dijhndis (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Australians, and other countries who have a varying definition are not ignorant, rather anyone making the claim that there is a single correct definition for Scandinavia are arrogant. It tends to be people from Scandinavia that are convinced that there definition is solely correct, however this simply isn't the case. Scandinavia is sometimes defined by landmass, by culture or by history. It is not and has never been only defined by cultural ties in every country. You talk about being educated, but those who are educated understand that while the term is not ambiguous, it has a different definition depending on context.

Comparing the term Scandinavia to the name of a single country is a flawed analogy. A much better analogy would be comparing Scandinavia to Oceania, which like Scandinavia can and does have multiple definitions. However by your reasoning, since I am from Oceania for one definition of Oceania, I have the authority to correct everybody elses definitions of Oceania. Which is nonsense.

Core Scandinavian areas (Bronze Age). Note that Denmark is the only country that is included in its entirety. No country is more Scandinavian than Denmark. Scandinavia was also dominated politically by Denmark in the middle age.

This is modern Scandinavia: Denmark, Norway and Sweden

Since when exactly has Oceania had a common language, ethnic heritage, religion, culture and history? Since when is there an Oceanic people and an Oceanic language from which Oceania takes its name? At which point in history was Oceania united under one king/queen? At which point was there an oceanist movement that sought to reunite the countries of Oceania due to their shared Oceanic heritage/culture and common Oceanic language, which gave the term Oceania its modern meaning?

Scandinavia as an ethno-cultural-linguistic-religious region is more homogenous than Germany, France, the UK, Italy, or Australia. Scandinavia is first and foremost a cultural-historical-ethno-linguistic term, and was introduced as a term referring to shared language, culture and heritage of the Scandinavians in the 18th century. Its name is derived from Scania, one of the core areas of the Scandinavians from time immemorial. Until this day, the sole correct use of the term in Scandinavia is Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

This is not the article about the Scandinavian Peninsula, which has nothing to do with Scandinavia (the subject of this article), except for borrowing its name from the cultural-historical-ethno-linguistic region that is named after the core region of Scania now in Sweden, formerly in Denmark, and only partially including some of the same countries, as well as some countries that are peripheral in relation to Scandinavia at best.

The difference between Denmark and Finland is that Denmark is a core Scandinavian region (as you can see from the map below) whose population are over 90% ethnically Scandinavian and Scandinavian-speaking, while Finland's Scandinavian population only make up 5,6% and Finland is not part of the area originally inhabited by the Scandinavians, it's the country predominantly of an Uralic people unrelated to the Scandinavians that was more of a colony of Sweden a long time ago, that is now independent and mostly using its own language that is unrelated to Scandinavian. Denmark is also much closer to Scania (a region that was part of Denmark for most of its history), the namesake of Scandinavia.

I don't believe Scandinavians need to be educated about Scandinavia by someone from the other part of the world who has obviously very little knowledge of Scandinavia. Dijhndis (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Being a Scandinavian I have given several good quality Scandinavian sources showing that the term Scandinavia can be used in different ways also in Scandinavia. It is obvious that Scandinavians need to be educated. I would say the ones who claim the cultural definition as being the only one. /Dcastor (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

People being confused about the definition and somehow thinking Nordic countries, the Scandinavian Peninsula or Fennoscandia are somehow the Scandinavia does not warrant a change of definition on this page. It has been discussed before, in discussion archives 3 and 4 and the current page reflects the outcome of those discussions. In the last couple of days Dijhndis has made changes to the article so that it more accurately clears up the misconceptions people have about the definition, there are articles on the other constructs but this article is on the "cultural, historical and ethno-linguistic region" and not the other constructs. Atheuz (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never ever seen any Scandinavian sources claiming that Scandinavia doesn't include Denmark (which is similar to claiming that Germany isn't part of Europe). It is possible that some foreigners unfamiliar with Scandinavia confuse Scandinavia (the cultural region, original usage of the term) with the Scandinavian Peninsula (a geographic region that takes its name from the cultural region), or imprecisely use the term "Scandinavia" as a short hand term when actually referring to the Scandinavian Peninsula (although noone in Scandinavia would do this). However, these two regions, which are completely separate, each have their own Wikipedia article, and this is the article about the cultural region, not about the peninsula. The appropriate article to address such usage is the article on the Scandinavian Peninsula, not the article on the cultural region. The predominant usage of either term relates to the cultural-linguistic region, the "peninsula" thing is really only relevant to cartographers who are not interested in peoples, languages and cultures. A "Scandinavian peninsula" excluding (modern) Denmark is very seldomly mentioned in Scandinavia except in cartographer settings. Dijhndis (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A really good comparison is England vs Commonwealth of Nations. Scandinavia is comparable to England, it's the ancestral land(s) of the Scandinavians. The Nordic Council is comparable to some extent to the Commonwealth, in that it is a political construct that includes a number of countries that were formerly ruled by Scandinavian countries, some of them as colonies. Describing, say, Greenland, the former Danish colony on a different continent now only associated with Denmark much in the same way as Commonwealth countries are associated with the UK (having the Queen as head of state), and inhabited mostly by a North American aboriginal people, as "Scandinavian", is preposterous in the same way as describing Cameroon as English or part of England. It would even be more justified to call Australia English (as the people living there are ethnically English to a larger extent than the peoples of Finland or Greenland are Scandinavian). Dijhndis (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dijhndis why am I not surprised you are Danish. It is only the Danish who think their definition of Scandinavia applies to everyone. The fact is that the term is ambigious and has different meanings, something the people of Norway and Sweden can at least acknowledge. 82.45.163.30 (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a text book example of how prejudiced ethnic generalisations should not be applied as an argument in a factual dispute. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to point out some flows in this argumentation, without taking any stand in the subject matter:

• Finland was not ruled by Sweden. It was part of Sweden, and as such ruled by the king of Sweden. See Sweden proper. It was not a colony any more than other remote areas of Sweden, and well integrated already in medieval times.
• The common language, ethnic heritage, religion, culture and history of Scandinavia is shared by Iceland. It is also shared by Finland, which defines Swedish as one of its two national languages. It is to a very little degree shared by the Sami people in the north of Scandinavia.
• When Scandinavia was united under one king, Finland was under the same rule.
• Talking about Scandinavia as the region of the Scandinavians is something I thought was left back in the 19th century. It is no way modern mainstream.

For most of those matters, the relevant unit is the Nordic countries. That is the region sharing a common history and culture (Greenland to a lesser extent, but I think that is not central to the discussion).

--LPfi (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, as it happens, both the Nordic countries, the Nordic Council, the Scandinavian Peninsula and Scandinavia, which are all separate but related topics, each have their own articles. This is the article about Scandinavia, the ethno-linguistic-cultural region. I suppose there are different opinions as to whether being part of a region/community sharing the same language, or whether being a "Nordic country" involved in very loose (looser than EU) political cooperation is most important.

• I never said Finland was a Swedish colony in the formal sense, but it was like a colony in many respects. It was literally colonized by people from Sweden, and the colonizers formed the upper class. The majority people living there did not share the language/culture/heritage of their Swedish rulers, so it was not like the normal provinces of Scandinavian countries. After independence, the Swedish/Scandinavian culture is Finland is becoming increasingly marginalized and Finland is not a predominantly Scandinavian country today, it's predominantly a Finnish (in the ethno-linguistic sense) country. No, Finland as such does not share the ethnic heritage or language of the Scandinavians to a greater extent than 5,6% of their population being ethnically-linguistically Scandinavian. To most Finns nowadays, Swedish is their third language (i.e., a second foreign language). German is my second foreign language, but does that make me German?
• The fact that an area is ruled by a particular king doesn't automatically make an area part of an ethno-linguistic region. During the same period of history, the Swedish king also ruled areas in Germany and the Baltics. Are Germany and the Baltic countries Scandinavian too?
• The population of Iceland is indeed to a large extent (60-80 %) descendants of Scandinavians who settled there in the first millennium, but this point has already been addressed in all relevant articles. The term "Scandinavia", however, is an 18th century invention, named for Scania (it previously only referred (vaguely) to Scania), and does not include Iceland as a country (much like Australia doesn't become part of England because descendants of English people live there).
• Talking about or writing history was definitely not "left back in the 19th century" and is certainly modern mainstream. Or perhaps you are just using a straw man implying that I somehow said that "Scandinavia is for Scandinavians" (which I never said) in some political sense, when I was only addressing the history of the name of a historical/cultural region? Scandinavia is the lands of the Scandinavians in the same sense that England is the "land of the Angles" from the historical point of view. The terms Scandinavia, Scandinavians and Scandinavian language are clearly linked. Dijhndis (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fix the ambiguity, make it accurate

I'm am tired of people from Scandinavia pushing their definition as the only correct one, which is what has happened to this page. Scandinavia is an ambiguous term, and in different languages and countries it has had different meanings. It's that simple. Just because when you grew up you were taught that the term referred to countries with common cultural and linguistic roots, does not make that the universally correct definition, especially NOT on the English language Wikipedia.

As quite a few Germans have tried to say and it used to be part of the page, In Germany Scandinavia refers to Norway, Sweden and Finland. Not Denmark. That is also what I remember being taught growing up in Australia. Which means at the least that some countries use the term to have mainly a geographical meaning, rather than cultural/linguistically.

This page at the moment is an example of Wikipedia at it's worst. It is being guarded and protected by people motivated in pushing their POV, and not willing to acknowledge the ambiguity and complexity of the topic.

The page should at the least, in the lead mention that there are more than one definition, used by different regions in the world and defined in different ways.

71.183.179.50 (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The de-wiki articles de:Skandinavien de:Geschichte Skandinaviens contradicts your claim about a German definition solely describing the Scandinavian Peninsula. Perhaps it is more a case of "you should not believe everything you are being taught in school"? At least in Wikipedia teacher statements is not considered reliable sources for things like this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My guess is the German language Wikipedia is suffering from the same problems as the English Language wikipedia when it comes to this page. You only need to check earlier revisions of this page or even this talk page to see people mentioning the definition used in Germany. Arrogant/Ignorant people can't accept that there are multiple definitions and revert any attempt to show that. 71.183.179.50 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Scandinavia is indeed not an ambiguous term, but has only one accepted meaning, viz. Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Foreigners who are ignorant about Scandinavia/Northern Europe and its history occasionally confuse the term with the Nordic countries, a different group of countries altogether, or with the Scandinavian Peninsula (which is completely distinct from Scandinavia, and which is not the topic of this article). There is of course an association between Scandinavia and Finland, chiefly because Finland was ruled by Sweden for a long time and remains influenced by Swedish culture to a certain degree, and because a Swedish (=Scandinavian) minority lives in Finland. But the vast majority of the citizens of Finland are Finnish and not Scandinavian, with their own distinct and clearly non-Scandinavian language and culture, and Scandinavian culture/influence in Finland has diminished greatly and is now a small minority + Scandinavian being used as a foreign language (spoken poorly by most Finns). In a similar way, the fact that southern Poland was once ruled by Germans and still may have some citizens of that heritage, doesn't make make Poland part of Germany. Confusing Scandinavia with the Nordic countries is as arrogant as claiming Ireland is part of England, or that Poland is part of Germany. Claiming Denmark (the historical centre and heart of Scandinavia) is not Scandinavian, is as ridiculous as claiming Berlin is not part of Germany. This odd arrogance seems to stem almost exlusively from the most ignorant people of Germany, but is considered factually wrong, ignorant and laughable in Scandinavia itself, and surely does not belong in an encyclopedia, at least not a non-German encyclopedia. If German teachers teach their pupils the Earth is flat and Ireland is in England, Germany has a problem with incompetent teachers and pupils in urgent need of better education. The term Scandinavian refers chiefly to linguistic and cultural heritage and is derived from the Scandinavist movement, just as "German" refers to speakers of German languages and not to Poles and other groups. Dijhndis (Talk) 07:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The very fact that dictionaries do have varying definitions show it is an ambiguous term. What you mean is you personally do not like the fact that it is ambiguous. Indeed, look at your language above. You use terms like "claims" "arrogant" "incompetent teachers" etc shows you are emotionally invested and not looking at the issue objectively. Terms evolve. If not, the Greeks are only a small tribe in Italy, Asia is only Anatolia. The fact is the term has varying usages. You are simply trying to push one. That is inappropriate for Wikipedia. 108.18.76.253 (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not ambiguous. It has a precise definition universally agreed upon in Scandinavia, and among those outside Scandinavia with a qualified opinion as well. Some Americans believe Africa to be a country. That doesn't make Africa an ambiguous term. Dijhndis (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, Scandinavia is obviously not a linguistic or a geographical term when it connotates the three kingdoms - it's 19th century political concept which is based on long since passed ethnic unity. Are Meänkieli speakers Scandinavians? Is a native Finnish speaker who is a Swedish citizen a Scandinavian? So, pretty much what is intended is that a Scandinavian is a Norwegian, Danish or Swedish native speaker citizen of the three kingdoms - which is interesting considering the various minorities, like the Sami - are they Scandinavians? I'm afraid that this 19th century nationalist - pan-scandinavianist - term has some rather unpleasant connotations... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.102.84 (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Sami people are not Scandinavians (a sub group of the Germanic peoples), they are Sami people, an entirely separate and very different people with their own article, name, language and history. The Scandinavians are by definition those descended primarily from the Germanic tribes who settled in southern Scandinavia and northern Germany, who came to occupy most of what is now known as Scandinavia, and who spoke the Germanic language evolving into old Norse and later to its modern Scandinavian varieties (the modern Scandinavian dialect continuum). Of course, a person of Finnish, Sami or for that sake Nigerian ethnic background may be culturally Scandinavian, but that doesn't make the Sami or the Nigerians the same ethnic group as the Scandinavians. And a person of Scandinavian ethnic background who happens to live in Finnmark will not become part of the Sami people just on account of living in the traditional Sami area (if he were to adopt Sami as his primary language and live according to Sami customs, he or the next generation could become culturally Sami though, although this doesn't really happen). Dijhndis (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)