Talk:Scandinavia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Scandinavian countries[edit]

The web-site wrongly states that Scandinavia consists of 3 countries: Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Scandinavia gets its name from the Scandic mountains running at the border between Norway and Sweden reaching Finland up north in Lapland. Scandinavia: Norway, Sweden and Finland. Denmark is one of the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland), but not a Scaninavian country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3AC0:E400:D0BF:E3BB:F182:B49E (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is the mountain range that got the name from Scandinavia, not the other way around. Most likely the term Scandinavia is derived from Scania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.58.190 (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scandinavia has various meanings in English, which, hopefully the article makes clear - those meanings are not necessarily the same as the 'local' or 'original' meanings - much as 'Balkan' has a number of uses distinct from the original meaning.Pincrete (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica says the same as us: "Scandinavia, historically Scandia, part of northern Europe, generally held to consist of the two countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Norway and Sweden, with the addition of Denmark. Some authorities argue for the inclusion of Finland on geologic and economic grounds and of Iceland and the Faroe Islands on the grounds that their inhabitants speak North Germanic (or Scandinavian) languages related to those of Norway and Sweden."[1] --Chuka Chief (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not it's not, you confuse the Scandinavian Peninsula with the cultural region knowns as Scandinavia. You do know that the name "Europe" for instance do apply the British Isles, despite them not geographically being a part of the European continent? It's not that straight forward - easy, but also false of you base your whole argument on geography. 81.161.157.240 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locals shall always have the right to define the term they wish used of themselves. Especially in a global age. People in the Nordics use the term for a reason, and frankly for a Finn to be called Scandinavian is offensive and ignorant. English speakers can do better! Bjananas (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bjananas, the article records, but does not adhere to local use. There are countless examples around the world of such variations. Are you sure that you use the word 'Balkan' in strict adherence to local use? How about 'British Isles'? We are not here to tell English speakers how they OUGHT TO use a term? Recording how locals use it is useful info though. Where exactly would we stop? Deutschland rather than Germany? Firenze rather than Florence? Where? Pincrete (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete The point is that if the locals problematize the use of a certain term, then others ought to listen, learn and adapt. As English is a lingua franca, the language stands to an even higher standard than the rest. Bjananas (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete In what major literature is Finland and Iceland included in Scandinavia? I have never ever seen that in Scandinavian literature. Is it possible to stress that including Finland and Iceland is really unusual, by removing them from the infoboxes or using other fonts, parentheses or or similar? Tomastvivlaren (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tomastvivlaren, in pretty much all English dictionaries and encyc's, the broader English usages are noted. We cite OED in the article. Not in 'local' use of course, which we record. The best analogy I have ever come up with is the word 'Balkan', which has a fairly precise local use, and a much looser use elsewhere. Also, calling Ireland part of the "British Isles" is anathema to most Irish, but is commonplace in geographical - especially geological and metereological - usage. Pincrete (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tomastvivlaren, sorry but this is really getting a bit tiresome after more than years of repeating the same argument. On English Wikipedia, we follow English usage. What we may have seen in Swedish literature, or Turkish literature, or Burmese literature is all irrelevant. Om jag hade en krona för varje gång någon dykt upp med uppfattningen att den svenska definitionen är "den rätta" och andra definitioner behöver "korrigeras" så att de motsvarar den svenska... Det fungerar inte så. Jeppiz (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete and Jeppiz: Ok you are right, the English definition should be the main one, but why not mention both views? Is it totally uninteresting that the definition differs between researchers and authorities from different countries? Showing several POV:s is the usual Wikipedia way of dealing with surprised readers and avoiding edit conflicts. Tomastvivlaren (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomastvivlaren: Not quite sure I understand. Our local usage is already covered in detail in the article, making it clear what we mean by 'Skandinavien'. Jeppiz (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made an attempt to fix the problem.Tomastvivlaren (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem[edit]

Iceland and Finland is NOT Scandinavia! Norway, Sweden and Denmark are! 78.156.8.155 (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again! --Surfo (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem2[edit]

Why are you making fun of people telling you the truth?! I'm from Norway and Norway is, together with Sweden and Denmark SCANDINAVIA! The Nordic countries are SCANDINAVIA + Iceland and Finland! So edit it NOW or be deleted and thrown out! 78.156.8.155 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As will be clear from reading the article, and from reading the archives here, there are plenty of reliable sources in English calling all five Nordic countries Scandinavia, just as there are plenty on reliable sources in English defining Scandinavia as just Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. It is exactly because English usage is somewhat inconsistent that the article reflects this situation. Keep in mind that English usage is the only usage that matter on English Wikipedia, so our own definitions in Scandinavian languages (Swedish in my case) really don't matter. Jeppiz (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the usage is wrong, it’s wrong. In most of Europe, the usage of England and English is synonymous to Britain and British. That doesn’t make it correct. Much in the same way when someone is referring to an US citizen use the term “American”
So it really doesn’t matter if the usage in English often refer to the Nordic countries as “Scandinavia” 87.53.91.170 (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And to correct you: it matters a lot to Wikipedia what English usage is. Jeppiz (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In most of Europe, the usage of England and English is synonymous to Britain and British. That doesn’t make it correct. That's also fairly common among Americans - but I'm fairly certain that 'European' and US dictionaries don't say English = British. This makes the difference between established usage and common mistake. Many languages adapt or misappropriate 'foreign' words. Pincrete (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem3[edit]

So you mean that only english people is worth anyhing? You are reportert! 78.156.8.155 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, we mean that English-speaking people get to decide what words mean and how they are used in English. Just as French/German/Danish/Swedish etc people get to decide what words mean in THEIR OWN languages and most alter and sometimes mis-appropriate some words. I'd bet any sum you like that you 'misuse' Greek words on a daily basis - including the word 'Greek' itself - which is an invention by other nationalities. Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of thoughts[edit]

I noticed that almost the entire (short) lead is about the English usage of the term as a word, I assume this is the result of content disputes over the years, but what does this show readers about Scandinavia itself? The lead is supposed to be a brief summary of the article content and subject (in this case Scandinavia), not fixation on what definition to use or the word itself (this is discussed in the content of the article so I am not saying it doesn't belong in the lead at all, but English usage of the word Scandinavia shouldn't be more important than Scandinavia itself which is what readers come here to learn about). So instead of bickering about what definitions to use, why don't we try to actually create a good lead (or lede, for the fancy)?

Another thing that seems almost remarkable is that despite it being such a popular part of Scandinavian history, the Viking age is not discussed at all despite there actually being sources in the article about it. It was a significant part of the history of the region so surely it deserves some space in the article. Let me know what you guys think. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, yes. The short lead looks as it does because of all the disputes and failures to understand that English usage is what counts in English, but you're right that's hardly what most readers come here to see. What short lead would you propose instead?
Also agree the Viking age is almost ignored. As I'm sure you know, that reflects current trends as the dominating Swedish attitude to the Viking age is to either ignore it or try to downplay it. So it's actually the same problem as with the definition of Scandinavia: the article too much reflects local trends. I'd be happy to see the Viking age given more prominence. Jeppiz (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeppiz: Well, we could start with actually making it about Scandinavia. I think it's unfortunate that editors let disputes get in the way of making a good article but let's let bygones be bygones. Like I said right now the lead tells the reader virtually nothing about Scandinavia other than it ″is a subregion in Northern Europe, with strong historical, cultural, and linguistic ties.″ The rest of it is focused on enforcing English definitions of Scandinavia. I had a brief look around for inspiration of what other articles have done and I found Ireland to have a pretty good lead offering a summary covering geopolitics, geography, history and cultural influence. I think a similar model would be a million times better than whatever it is we have now. As for the Viking age, thankfully Swedish media efforts should have little bearing on what is written on the English Wikipedia or any Wikipedia for that matter, it's a significant part of Scandinavian history and something I'm sure people seeking the article out would be interested in reading about. I am far from some great article writer but I will do my best to improve the article on both of those fronts, I would greatly appreciate any help from anyone willing though. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerBurden: Good points, thanks. I agree the definition is exaggerated in the lead. My suggestion is this: the first short paragraph is fine and should stay. The 2nd is also relevant and should stay (as it defines Scandinavia), but should perhaps not be the 2nd. The 3rd paragraph should just go. It's irrelevant for the lead how Scandinavia and Norden overlap. Should still be in the article, sure, but not in the lead. So yeah, we could keep the 1st paragraph. Also keep the 2nd - but add a couple of paragraphs before that, in line with your suggestions, and remove the current 3rd paragraph entirely. Jeppiz (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeppiz: That seems sensible to me, since the lead should generally draw from the main body of the article I think now with a Viking Age section we have enough to form a decent lead covering the things I mentioned. The first sentence you mentioned is a good introduction that can be expanded or lead into the next part, the second one can also be kept but that should probably be about it in terms of definitions in the lead. You could write this if you have time/want to, otherwise I'll do it at some point when I can sit down and fully focus on it. --TylerBurden (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This ultra fixation on definitions in the lead is just causing disruption on the article, I'm gonna start remaking it shortly based on these discussions, feel free to help. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My sole involvement or understanding is because of an RfC. I hung around to defend the consensus opinion. I think the error goes back all the way to the creation of both this and the "Norden" article - which very substantially overlap. I would applaud anyone trying to make sense of this article. Cynically, I think there are too many Scandinavians who are deeply offended that we Anglosphere types have failed to properly understand 'their' self-descriptive term! Good luck though. Pincrete (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point honestly, Nordic countries is basically a better version of this article. So it's no wonder that this article turned into a such a focus on the word Scandinavia itself, for this article to have a sort of ″single focus″ as most articles do the more narrow or ″local″ definition would probably have to be used. Because with the broader definitions it would be exactly the same as the Nordic countries article as that means pretty much the same thing. I'll try and make something out of this (whilst keeping some of the whole definition topic since it's cleary a very, very hot and debated topic) but it won't be easy that's for sure. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"most commonly"?[edit]

The first paragraph currently states that in English usage, Scandinavia is "most commonly" used to refer to Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. This would seem to be WP:OR, or do we have a source with frequency analysis? Please note, I'm not making a comment on what Scandinavia is (we've done that to death for over a decade on this talk page), merely on whether we can state what usage is "most common". Jeppiz (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source used in the opening sentence (Oxford Dictionaries) says "A cultural region consisting of the countries of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark and sometimes also of Iceland, Finland, and the Faroe Islands." "Sometimes also" meaning it is less common to include the last three, that's how I'm interpreting that at least. TylerBurden (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that seems to be to use a source related to accuracy to make a claim about frequency, wouldn't you agree? I'm sure we both agree with the definition of Oxford Dictionaries, but my impression is that the wider usage is every bit as common. Obviously my impression is not something to include (would be wildly WP:OR) but it would probably be better to use the wording of the source rather than to make unsupported claims about frequency. It's a small detail, with no real change in how readers will read, but just to make sure we represent sources accurately. Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind if it was changed to reflect the source more specifically, feel free to edit it. TylerBurden (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem - the majority of English dicts and encycs and similar, use the 'English' definition, ie "most commonly"= most Eng sources. In one sense it is superfluous since obviously the definition used on Eng WP will be that ordinarily used in English. The phrasing exists to allow for the secondary point of information, that there is a 'stricter' definition used in the region and by some Eng sources. I think it is informative to say - as we do - that English speakers have 'got it wrong' somewhat. I think this is an instance where WP:IAR applies in the interests of clarity. I don't see a problem but am open to other phrasing which is equally clear and informative.Pincrete (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, I pretty much agree with all you say. The pedant in me needs to point out that it's not that English speakers 'got it wrong' but rather that (in English), "we" often get it wrong ;-) This is far from the only example of different languages using the same name for at least partially different regions. Many languages use Asia for the entire continent though the original 'correct' usage is restricted to Anatolia. In Swedish, we use Storbritannien to refer to the 'United Kingdom', and that usage is also 'wrong' in that 'Great Britain' is the main island of the United Kingdom, not the country. Numerous other examples abound. I mention this as, throughout the years, I've seen so often the discussion circle around 'English usage is wrong', when it should be 'English usage is somewhat different to ours' (common usage, that is; as the article makes clear, English encyclopaedias do tend to favour a definition more or less identical to our (Swedish) understanding of the word. Jeppiz (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'got it wrong' was in quotes. My recollection of the RfC which brought me to this article in the first place (a few years back) is that practically all English dicts and encycs used the looser - English - definition, whilst acknowledging both usages. Pincrete (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]