Talk:Finland/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2020

The speaker of the parliament is Matti Vanhanen Sakari Ojanen (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sakari Ojanen:  Done! You didn't provide a reliable source, so I figured I could just copy one from another article, but there isn't one on Parliament of Finland, Speaker of the Parliament of Finland, or Matti Vanhanen. Vanhanen's article doesn't even mention his speakership outside the infobox. Lots of opportunities for improvement. GoingBatty (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Finlands hotels are very weird there like igloos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.177.72.45 (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

regions why different names frm offical english

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Regions lists name as DIFFERENT from the Official English names. Why? Where do these names come from - surely this is original research to construct new names for no good reason and no reference. Can we alter all the names to the current official english ones?

Also it says in the lead the population - as this is in the side bar this is not needed twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

populous does not mean of the population BUT INSTEAD of the population density

Finland has a population of approximately 5.5 million, making it the 25th-most populous country in Europe.

AS I THE article is not correct. It is not the 25th most populous as the populous means in English a level of crowding i.e. population density and Finland is more like the 45th most populous i.e. NOT VERY POPULOUS https://www.worldometers.info/population/countries-in-europe-by-population/

Please rephrase to say this not very populous - as this is edit protected I do not do this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Bad example video of spoken Finnish

Unfortunately, the person in the video from Wikitongues speaks broken Finnish, because (like she admits in the video) she hasn't lived in Finland for years. The video has value as an example of someone speaking broken Finnish, but it's not a good example of Finnish as it is spoken in Finland by native speakers. 85.156.250.103 (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I took it off. The language was broken and she used English words etc.Velivieras (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Trim the lead section?

The current article lead seems to be longer than is recommended for Wikipedia articles. As per Wiki's Manual of Style, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

We currently have seven paragraphs in the lead in total, including three rather long paragraphs about history. How about summarizing the three into a single, shorter paragraph and moving the rest to the article body? Then we're left with five paragraphs, which should be borderline ok. Blomsterhagens (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The introduction is too long. However, the summary of the history can be kept as three or two paragraphs, although much shorter. The other ones can also be trimmed. Per W (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The lead is now informative and all the main aspects are well presented. Of course shorter is better, but as I read the text I can see maybe only a few parts that can easily be shortened. Now the lead is 800 characters. If we compare it to e.g. Italy (958 characters), France (864), Norway (674), China (661), Turkey (771) Spain 701, India (714), we are more or less there. I can check the history part asap.-Velivieras (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Mention climate change?

Would it be acceptable if we add a sentence or link to the issue of climate change in Finland? (most of the other country articles do mention climate change for that country at least once; this article does not mention it at all). FYI @User:PlanetCare EMsmile (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation?

I read a little bit of the section Swedish era. The following seems very strange, and as far as I know, it doesn't sound very similar to what mainstream histroians have to say:

Due to the Swedish conquest, the Finnish upper class lost its position and lands to the new Swedish and German nobility and to the Catholic Church.[53] In Sweden even in the 17th and 18th centuries, it was clear that Finland was a conquered country and its inhabitants could be treated arbitrarily.

I have read the book that is referenced here, by the way. It doesn't portray things similarly. This sounds more like a fennoman version.

81.26.240.168 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed?

In section 2.5 (History; World War II and after) there is the following claim "However, in the hope of preserving Finland's independence, the United States provided secret development aid and helped the Social Democratic Party." And for this there is one citation which links to http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Hidden+help+from+across+the+Atlantic/1135223633788 from 29.1.2007, which can be reached with the Wayback Machine. Well I read the whole thing, and the text makes absolutely no mention of the Social Democratic Party. It only talks about the aid that the United States provided to Finland in the post-war years. Perhaps the claim about aiding the Social Democratic Party should be removed, or an additional source should be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyamisooru (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of "Template:Largest cities of Finland"

Template:Largest cities of Finland has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

Update the graph for "Supply and total consumption of electricity in Finland" to an newer version (Sourced below)

Finland supply of energy statistics graph 2020

The information was from Statistics Finland, the same source as the previous graph. https://www.stat.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_energia_en.html#Total%20energy%20consumption Quote42 (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! hemantha (brief) 13:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Coordinate error

ğ{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—89.106.164.27 (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to supply a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

History

21st Century

Second paragraph should easily be reduced to a single sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: Didn't you add that? Feel free to reduce it either way. TylerBurden (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm referring to the entire paragraph. The whole section could be reduced to three or four sentences with proper editing. Avica1998 (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Again if you want to have a go at trimming it whilst maintaining the important bits, then go for it. I am not sure about your reasoning for adding that tag, that whole section has been treated like a newspaper recently when the best thing to do is probably just wait until Finland officially joins NATO and everything can be solidly established without altering it everyday. TylerBurden (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I added a tag because its turning into a newspaper article and its just a matter of time before there's an entry on what the prime minister had for breakfast the morning of NATO accession. I agree with your suggestion. Avica1998 (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, we're in agreement then. Well it can either be trimmed now, or it can be sorted when Finland officially joins. As long as this constant updating which violates WP:NOTNEWS stops, I'm good. TylerBurden (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed text:

21st century

See also: COVID-19 pandemic in Finland and Finland–NATO relations

The first women served as President and Prime Minister of Finland in 2000 and 2003, respectively. Financial crises paralyzed Finnish exports in 2008, resulting in weakened economic growth throughout the decade.Sauli Niinistö was subsequently elected the President of Finland in 2012 and served for the next decade. Finland joined NATO on __, ________, 2022 after nearly 65 years of neutrality,largely in response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: Looks good to me, well done. Please though, start signing your talk page edits. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe once (which is 99.9% at this point) Finland joins, this is the wording that should be used for this paragraph. TylerBurden (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Wrong date format in summary

It shows dd/mm/yyyy

Should be dd.mm.yyyy as stated in the linked source as well.

Nobody in Finland uses the slashes. 176.93.152.60 (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you be more specific and tell us what sentence has the incorrect format? TylerBurden (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems the thread author was referring to the infobox's date and time notation, which has been edited to reflect the apparent desired changes. CraigP459 (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@CraigP459: Ah, I see. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

English is not an official language in Finland

User @Asdasd123qwerty has edit warred that English is an official language in Finland into the article, which is incorrect as can be seen here: https://www.kotus.fi/en/on_language/languages_of_finland. Someone should remove this objectively incorrect information as soon as possible. TylerBurden (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Linking of Russia in introduction

@Groznia and I have both recognized the absence of a wikilink to Russia in the introduction to be a flaw. However, there seems to be some disagreement on this.

I personally think that Russia should be linked for consistency's sake, but I'm not too familiar with MOS:OL. What criteria make Norway linkable, but not Russia? Powwu (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Powwu The difference is that one of them is the largest country in the world, and one of the most well known, and the other one is a small country you can't easily assume everyone knows of. Per MOS:OL major examples of countries like the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom etc are generally not linked, since most people will at least be somewhat familiar with them, making them overlinks. On top of that, I don't see what relevance there is for the reader to be linked to the entire country article of Russia, there are much more specific articles related to Russia that are relevant to Finland such as the winter war. TylerBurden (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think being well known is a valid reason to not linking Russia. It just seems odd.Groznia (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That's in line with the manual of style, otherwise everything will be linked on articles and all text blue links. We don't need to link every single thing with a Wikipedia article. TylerBurden (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the links are quite relevant in a sentence describing the borders of the country. Linking just to Sweden, Norway and Estonia would be extremely strange. There's no overlinking here. --Surfo (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Link to the entire country of Russia, which definetely falls into the definition on MOS:OVERLINK as a major example? The context is the border, if the Russia-Finland border has an article that would make sense to link, otherwise what are readers gaining from this link given that the vast majority of them will be somewhat familiar with Russia but may not be with the smaller border countries? If anything it would make more sense to possibly remove the link to Sweden, since the same could be argued though not nearly to the same extent as with Russia, rather than adding this blatant overlink. TylerBurden (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I think Sweden and Norway are very notable countries too. Anyone who knows about Russia is definitely going to know about them too. The only exception is Estonia, which isn't well known. So either links to all these countries should be removed or the link should be added to Russia too for consistency. I prefer the latter option and 2 other editors agree with me too.Groznia (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a very bold claim to say that anyone who knows about Russia, one of the most well known countries globally is going to automatically know Norway or even Sweden. In terms of Norway, you are talking about a country with a population of only 5 million. Compare that to Russia's 144 million, along with historical relevance and you get two very different countries in terms of how many people know about them. If you read MOS:OVERLINK, this should be pretty clear, but evidently people still want to link Russia for whatever reason (no one has yet to answer my question about what that link actually offers the reader). Perhaps an RfC could be held to get some more uninvolved editors. TylerBurden (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous. By your standards the majority of the links in the article should be removed, for instance Northern Europe, Stone age, universal suffrage, lakes, World War II, European Union, Nazi Germany, tsar, United Nations and so on, words that "the vast majority of [the readers] will be somewhat familiar with". If your only criteria is "being somewhat familiar with" you are nor helping the reader. The linking is nor just for providing more information on certain words but to make it easier for the reader to find information helping to understand the subject of the article. If I'm reading an article about a country it definitely makes sense to look at articles about its neighbours. Before trying to remove the link to Russia, please try removing the link to the United States in the article Mexico. Surfo (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not need to try to remove it, you are the ones trying to add it, because it is not on the article. Other articles are a strawman argument anyway, please stay focused on this article and more importantly the manual of style, which says nothing about the terms you mentioned. It is not my only criteria, it is the critera of the manual of style commonly used across the site. TylerBurden (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Sports

Ringette should be mentioned as Finns hold 8th consecutive wcs 2001:14BB:CC:5BAF:1989:78DF:E2DC:CA83 (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2022

The current commander of the Finnish Defense Forces is General Timo Kivinen (since 2019) and not Jarno Lindberg 2001:14BB:A5:C07C:0:0:E2F:A301 (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

https://puolustusvoimat.fi/en/about-us/commander-of-the-finnish-defence-forces Surfo (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC about Russia country link

Should the country Russia be linked? TylerBurden (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• No: Per MOS:OVERLINK, Russia clearly qualifies as a major example of a country that does not need to be linked, the relevant topic is the border which would be a more appropriate link, not the entire country. TylerBurden (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That seems rather arbitrary. You consider Russia a major example, but the other neighboring countries of Sweden and Norway can be linked? What makes those countries not a major example? Besides, I'd argue that mentioning and linking to the Finland–Russia border in the lead is too specific. Likewise, by your argument, we'd have to mention Finland–Norway border instead of Norway and Finland–Sweden border instead of Sweden. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Read the discussion above, though Sweden could reasonably be considered an overlink. You think the border link is too specific, despite that being what the context is, but an article about a whole foreign country that 99.9% of readers will know about is somehow more relevant? TylerBurden (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

For the lead, yes, we don't link to articles on the borders of countries. Linking to a neighbouring country is most definitely more relevant, that's just WP:COMMONSENSE. Norway isn't an overlink, Sweden possibly but Russia definitely? Seems nitpicking to me. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not common sense, that's your personal opinion which seems like flawed logic to me. If anything, you would think common sense is knowing that Russia is a far more known country than Norway or Sweden. TylerBurden (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE is having links to the United States in the article on Mexico, to China and to Russia in North Korea, links to France, Germany and Belgium in Luxembourg, to Brazil, French Guiana and Guyana in Suriname. There's clear precedence. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

So in other words, WP:WHATABOUTX. If other articles do not follow the manual of style, that doesn't automatically mean this one also shouldn't. Just as some country articles have awful referencing standards, that doesn't mean we should start introducing poor references into other articles. Either way you are not going to change my mind and it is clear I am also not going to change yours, so it is better to let it play out without further discussion between us. TylerBurden (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Let me ask you one more question: if you are of the opinion that we shouldn't link to Russia or any other what you consider to be "major examples" of countries in geographical articles, in what articles can they be linked to? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The ones where we link foot, hand, or perhaps earth. If you want to have a discussion with me on the philosphy about links, you can ask me on my talk page. Because everything relevant in this case has been said. TylerBurden (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

We can link to Russia in articles that also happen to link foot, hand, or perhaps earth? Just those three? I don't follow. In what articles is linking to Russia an option? As there are 159,521 links to Russia in article namespace. But feel free not to reply. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It was not a serious answer. The point is that it is not something that needs to be linked, unless it is extremely relevant, say History of Russia. Hope that answers your question. TylerBurden (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes: of course, per the above discussion. In the discussion, you are the only one opposing the linking and you only have a formal argument. --Surfo (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  A formal argument meaning an argument supported by the widely adopted WP:MOS? As opposed to personal interpretations or claims of "ridiculousness"? TylerBurden (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes: This is a geographic article about a country; therefore, links to its neighboring countries are relevant to the reader. The link conforms to the manuel of style guideline as concerns linking. Specifically, MOS:OL:

  "A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked:"

  --Guest2625 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  While I see where you are coming from, I do not believe the entire country article of Russia is particularly relevant to the reader, more so specific events in Finnish history and geography covered by specific articles. TylerBurden (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes: As already explained in the discussion about.Groznia (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
• No, as per TylerBurden. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. WP:OVERLINK doesn't apply here, as it states to not use an excessive amount of links in an article. I'd argue that one link more or less in the lead doesn't apply. Linking is always in context, we're talking about articles on countries here: Finland is a country and so is its neighbor Russia (a bit MOS:DRAFTNOLINK). So yes, I believe it should be linked. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  That is not what WP:OVERLINK says.

  "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked:

  Everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river)

  Common occupations (e.g., accountant, politician, actor)

  The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of:

  countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian)"

  The key term here is major examples, which Russia clearly is, whereas a country like Norway or Estonia is not. TylerBurden (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The very top of WP:OVERLINK starts off with "An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding", excessive being the keyword. I believe you are misreading its meaning. Russia can easily be linked without it making it difficult for the reader's understanding of the subject, that single link isn't excessive. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

A link to a country that most people will already know about is excessive, a link to the border specifically mentioned within the context is not. TylerBurden (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. My yes vote remains unchanged. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, logically as neighboring country.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, it should be linked like the other neighbouring countries.--Finlandestonia (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, the link to Russia should be added. Mnair69 (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, to be consistent with other countries being linked to. Prcc27 (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
• ’’’no’’’ not necessary F117IS (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment struck out as F117IS (talk · contribs) is a blocked sockpuppet. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes obviously. Why is this even a problem? It should be against Wikipedia policy to make disputes out of such ridiculous issues. Super Ψ Dro 11:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Although I would not automatically link Russia in all articles, because this is a geographical article, I can see the value of linking to all neighbouring geographical entities, regardless of their 'general familiarity'. Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

"Approximately 500 women choose voluntary military service every year." This number is fairly old, current number is closer to 1000. Last year it was 1211 volunteered and 1040 became reservists. Source: https://puolustusvoimat.fi/-/ennatysmaara-vapaaehtoisia-naisia-suoritti-varusmiespalveluksen-kotiutuneita-yli-1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenchmeister (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 DoneThanks for your request! Wikipedia is better when users work to improve it! Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

First paragraph typo

“Finnish, alongside Swedish, are the official languages.”

Grammatically, this reads as “Finnish are the official languages.”

Suggested fix: “Finnish and Swedish are the official languages.” 50.242.118.169 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

About Thi user's action in here

Hi. I've been following Finland article for a while, because this Thi user keeps deleting text from here. Now I couldn't keep quiet when I saw that he had deleted a whole section about etymology. Isn't this already going too far?! 91.154.37.255 (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The etymology is in section about History. See Wikipedia:Article size. "A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers." A 100 kb page is considered as long. Current page size is 215,040 bytes, plain text is about 14 000 words and 90 000 characters. Some of the statistics are still from early 2000s. The Economics, Energy and 21st century politics need more updated text. --Thi (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

"Finalnd" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Finalnd and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 13 § Finalnd until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sami or Sámi?

On Wikipedia, the article on the Sami people uses the Sámi spelling. However user @Finnusertop recently changed the spelling on this article from that to Sami, so rather than changing this back and forth could we establish which should be used for this article? Are there any specific reasons to use one over the other? TylerBurden (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Pretty obviously it should be Sami without the accent. This is the overwhelming choice of sources *in English*, which is pretty much the only thing that counts at English Wikipedia. (example 2) Mathglot (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden and Mathglot: my motivation in this was simply internal consistency (previously this article used Sami more than 20 times and Sámi just four times). I had also harmonized the Sámi article to use the spelling Sámi. If either of you think Sami is the more common spelling then that article should be moved. Right now the article simply states that Sami is an alternative spelling, so not having individual articles mix the two spellings is the best we can do. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Finnusertop:, yes, that's a totally legitimate approach, and given your explanation I approve of your change, and also agree that the article should be moved. The article should be left in a consistent state wrt accented letters, until the move happens. I'm too busy right now to initiate, but I pre-!vote as "support". Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Forestry

The sentence

The Finnish climate is suitable for cereal farming only in the southernmost regions, while the northern regions are suitable for animal husbandry.

seems to be neglecting massive forest cover and forestry industry.

Idyllic press (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Misnaming of Finnish Regions (Maakunta) as "Counties"

In Administrative Divisions under Geography, there is a map showing the Municipalities and Regions, but is labeled as "Municipalities (thin borders) and counties (thick borders) of Finland (2021)" rather than "Municipalities (thin borders) and regions (thick borders) of Finland (2021)" FYIU ROCK (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Misquoting Arvidsson

According to most sources in Swedish, the quote ascribed to A. I. Arvidsson is as follows: "Svenskar äro vi icke längre, ryssar vilja vi inte bli, låt oss alltså bli finnar." A proper English translation should thus be: "We are no longer Swedes, we don't want to become Russians; let us therefore become Finns." This is an idea quite different from the misquoted version that specifically lacks the "no longer" part. It is a statement that reflects a new political reality after 1809 - not a pre-1809 quote that would propagate a wish to secede from the Swedish realm (as the current handling and its context in this Wikipedia article might suggest.)

Whether the quote is directly from Arvidsson, or if he merely published it, or if it's arcribed to him for other reasons is another debate, but in the oldest reiterations (such as the one written by Yrjö Koskinen in 1860) the phrase nevertheless includes the "no longer" part, and that's how it was originally understood.

Further reading: https://politiikasta.fi/sv/hur-slutade-vi-vara-fore-detta-svenskar/ Kyyyni (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

No opinion on the merits, as I don't know Swedish. @Surfo: who did you mean to ping here? Because you pinged me, and not User:Kyyyni, as I suspect you intended to. If you did mean to ping me, please don't do it that way, per WP:TRANSPARENCY. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry, Mathglot. I have no idea how I succeeded in creating such a mess. I'm simply removing the comment because it seems I can't do it right. Surfo (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kyyyni Any more references on this (preferably in English)? That quote is from the book cited inline with the text, "Architecture of Regionalism in the Age of Globalization: Peaks and Valleys in the Flat World". It is possible the authors got the quote wrong, but we would need a different source to correct it. TylerBurden (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kyyyni@Mathglot@Surfo@TylerBurden: I am the one who added that source. The quote itself was already in the article in that exact form, but quotes always need to be sourced, and I found one that renders it in English the same way that we do.

As for the question itself, even the Politiikasta piece linked to by Kyyyni takes the version we use (so without "no longer") as its starting point. That is the canonical version. That is what you'll most often hear. That is what carries the meaning intended by today's historians (including the ones we cite). Yes, we can have a debate about which version is more authentic or represents the historical junction more accurately, but the simplified version is how most of today's reliable sources understand it and we cannot corrupt their meaning. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2023

There's an unclosed parenthesis in the second sentence of "Media and communications": "The largest newspaper is Helsingin Sanomat (its circulation of 412,000". 93.72.49.123 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done - I've just removed the actual number altogether as it's from 2009 and I can't seem to find a newer statistic. Tollens (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tollens: Strictly speaking, the newest circulation figure is 339,437 (from 2019). There is a trend in Finnish press to report readership in other figures, and many papers have ceased to have circulation checked. Would this 2019 number be current enough to be included in the article? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh! That's great - just wasn't able to find that! I've added it in. Tollens (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Happiness report

I would suggest removing the Happiness report from the lead unless it is also going to be mentioned that Finland has one of the highest rates of suicide in Europe due to the well-known effect of winter depression. The Happiness report is based on highly subjective survey data, so the lead here is currently cherrypicking subjective information over far clearer objective metrics. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The Happiness report is reported on by many reliable references, so what you personally think about the data isn't really what should matter here. Is the Wikipedia list for highest suicide rates? TylerBurden (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Finnish. I heard sometimes Finnish teens did suicide more than Finnish adults due to poor mental health. Finland should stop suicide right now. I believe social media bullied them in happened. JimiDragon (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a highly flawed single-item survey of a highly subjective phenomena. See the criticisms. Many economists doubt if it is even valid. And there are better, more objective metrics to feature in county page leads. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I assume "county" was a typo because Finland is an independent country, not a "county. Regardless as you can see the report is no longer in the lead, so this discussion is quite moot. TylerBurden (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's a little help, you can learn and see coun-try or co-un-try because you can see "try". Country. See? I hope you can understand it. JimiDragon (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The English language is not difficult, in my opinion. :) JimiDragon (talk) 07:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Stone Age bear head gavel?

Any sources supporting this description? Yes it's Stone Age, yes it has a bear's head - but surely that's something not used as a gavel? Little grape (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Using Google translate on the second source in the caption gives me "animal head weapon; bear head mallet". I don't know how accurate that translation is, maybe a Finnish speaker can translate "eläinpääase; karhunpäänuija" into English? TylerBurden (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Translation happens to be as good as it can be. Nuija is a common name for blunt tools and weapons like bludgeon, gavel or mallet. It can't be exactly known what the intended use of the unfinished stone head was (it's found as a lone piece). Like other animal shaped stone heads it's classified to weapons, "nuijas" and religious items. Here's a photo taken above: [1]. The National Library of Finland source you translated from uses also "axe" in the text description ("physical description: Bear head axe"). Your pick, English speakers. --J. Sketter (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does NATO have to be mentioned in the infobox ?

It is not included in the infoboxes of other countries which are a part of the NATO Smahwk (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to, but it would make little sense to keep the EU and remove NATO. It seems like a brief list of significant events, Finland making its decision to join NATO was significant. TylerBurden (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion , both of them can be removed as they don't have any impact on the sovereignty of Finland but EU is still more relevant since NATO is a military alliance while the EU is a political union. I think NATO and EU should both be removed from the infobox if there is consensus for it Smahwk (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that the mention of the EU should stay there and NATO removed. My reasoning is that in the constitution it says that Finland is a member of the European Union. The constitution does not mention the membership in NATO. Yökyöpeli (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The most recent version of it I can find is from 1999, since Finland joined the EU in 1995 it makes sense why it is mentioned there and NATO is not, so I don't think that on its own necessarily makes one more important than the other. TylerBurden (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

Hi, my name is Gurseet Singh and I am a student at the LUT University. Today when I was surfing the internet I found a Wikipedia article related to Finland and read it. I had seen the Reference section and thought about adding something over there if you don't mind. y Gurseet Singh (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

References

historical tradition in finland to keep secrets in psychological and medical knowledge for political economic and social purposes

In Finland, as I have understood, topical ways to cope and succeed have been essential. The consept of common wellfare, individual good, from the perspective of the topic. Thank you!

Medical and psychological and economical and political information and the usage of the earlier could be talked. Antti Välimäki 1234 (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)