Talk:Finland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Finland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. (comments)

Finland is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.

	To-do list for Finland:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
More information about the Finnish nature – Flora and fauna section needed There is nothing mentioned about the Finnish cuisine either Sport in Finland Energy policy ISBN numbers for the books in the "Further reading" section Tourism in Finland Transportation in Finland

For discussions before June 2006, see Archive1.

[edit] Population density in intro...

I'm not sure if the population density of Finland is really that notable, given the precedent that most countries (even those topping the list of the least dense) don't reference this fact in the introduction... eg Mongolia, Namibia, Canada, Russia (see List of countries by population density). I'm not sure if this is really a big deal, but it might mean that we should either correct the less dense ones or put this fact under geography. ekrub-ntyh ^talk 02:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Finland is not even in the top 20, and even Canada, which has even lower PPD rating, doesnt have such an intro at its start. It could be mentioned at some point of the article, but I dont see any sense in having it at the Intro Arctic-Editor 17:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia Britannica: Finland in 1911

I copied the article on Finland from the 1911 edition of Encyclopædia Britannica and wikified it. Some parts make fun reading:

The complete article is available at User:Petri Krohn/Finland 1911. -- Petri Krohn 23:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Nowadays this would be considered stereotyping and you'd get a whole bunch of human rights organisations complaining if someone wrote like this in an ecyclopedia. :) HJV 02:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, nowadays this is considered made-up. 1911 was an age of rising nationalism; the Swedes wanted to prove their inherent superiority as the purest of the Nordic race, and made up theories of Mongol ancestry of the Finnic peoples. Ironically, the highest proportion of blondes in the world is in Finland. --Vuo 09:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, that may have implications that Finns may not like... ;-) --Janke | Talk 15:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

 :) I wonder if it was the other way around. That Europeans would mainly speak languages belonging to the Finno-Ugric group (or languages that are now known as Uralic) with a handfull of speakers of languages from the Indo-European group - somewhere south-east perhaps... Would these Finno-Ugric speakers have regarded the Indo-European speakers for example Indic or Iranid or so because of linguistic connections (or going even furher towards South-East Asian)...? I wonder what the Encyclopedia Britannica from 1911 has to say about Irish people... or Celtic speakers in general. I wonder if it was difficult for a 1911-Encyclopaedia-Britannica-Finn to eat (or nowadays talk to a mobile phone) with his protruding mouth... ;) Clarifer 11:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cross-cultural psychologists today often feel able to make similar statements, with research to support their claims. Having said that, I believe they'd be a lot less likely to make an absolute statement, and say things along the lines of "People in Swedish culture, compared with those of other cultures, TEND to be...". NZUlysses 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Nordic Countries

Template:Nordic Countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Night Gyr 23:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indo European languages

Considering Turkey as a country of Europe would mean that Turkish should also be included in the introduction as a non IE language. ekrub-ntyh ^talk 02:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus that Turkey would be an European country. Without consensus, such edits can't be done. --Vuo 15:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long lists

Long lists do not belong in the main article. I moved the "well-known people" and "well-known bands" to their own articles. The links are under the "related articles" heading. Please try to keep the lists on this page as short as possible, thanks! --Janke | Talk 05:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finland vs. Scandinavia

The introduction states that Fin is one of the Nordic countries. I think this is an uncontroversial statement and it also already implies an association between Scandinavia and Finland. Some people seem to want to see a sentence about Fin being part of Scandinavia as well. As this idea seems to divide opinions both locally and outside (see: Talk: Scandinavia) I think it should not be in the intrduction but perhaps some place else. Clarifer 07:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not disputed. People aren't just aware of the general term Fennoscandia. Scandinavia is an area defined by the Scandinavian Mountains and Scandinavian peninsula. The very north of Finland stretches to the Mountains, but the rest of the territory is not in Scandinavia. --Vuo 10:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Scandinavia is a cultural/social/political/historical term as well as a geographical one. If it was defined strictly geographically as the Scandinavian peninsula, it would only include Norway and Sweden. Culturally, socially, politically and historically it may also include Denmark, Finland and Iceland. Being much more inclined towards the social sciences myself, I tend to agree with the wider definition, but I still don't think it should be handled that much in this article (especially not in the slightly awkward way it was put into the intro). - ulayiti (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have askend about this from my teacher.. And she said Finland is not really part of scandinavia..

Read the comment by Ulayiti, it pretty much says it all. Technically speaking, Finland is not part of Scandinavia. Finland is Scandinavian in culture, but not linguistically. ---Majestic- 11:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (from Finland)

Actually Finland is also geographically part of Scandinavia. And I wonder why nowadays it´s in fashion to claim bull.. that Finland would not be a Scandinavian country when it is. I wonder who´s idea it was to go claim this kind of lies... unbelieveable how people agree without any critic that Scandinavia would not include a traditional Scandinavian country like Finland. And about Denmark, it would not be at all part of Scandinavia because it has no mountains of Scandinavia, but Finland has (and area is in fact bigger than some people try to make us believe)

Finland is a part of Nordic countries, no doubt about it. Now, should we consider Finland a part of Scandinavia, seems to be much more controversial. Geographically, only northern part of Finland might be included to Scandinavia. Linguistically, only some swedish-speaking regions could be included to Scandinavia. Culturally Finland seems to have traits both from Scandinavia and from Eastern Europe, e.g. lutheran and eastern orthodox churches are the only official churches. Politically Finland is without a doubt more close to Scandinavia than any other region, althought being a republic when others are kingdoms. In Finnish politics, term "nordic" seems to have prevalence over "scandinavia" when considering mutual matters of these countries. Quick search on google gives 969 000 hits for "pohjoismainen yhteistyö", "Nordic collaboration", whereas "skandinaavinen yhteistyö", "Scandinavic collaboration" gives only 31 600. Of course, these searches were made in finnish, but as the first page what "pohjoismainen yhteistyö" gives, is official, mutual organisation of Nordic issues, [www.norden.org], it seems to me that at least in Nordic countries there is understanding that we should classify Finland as a Nordic country, not Scandinavian. Woden 10:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is rather simple, Scandinavia can be taken to mean Sweden and Norway and in that case Finland is not included. If one includes Denmark, then Finland should be included as well. It should also be pointed out that the term "Norden" is far more common in our countries than the term "Skandinavien". In English, it's the other way around. In other words, using Scandinavia to refer to just some of the Nordic countries can easily give the wrong impression and especially if one starts to apply one's own rules. The term "Skandinavien" is a geographical term from the beginning and includes parts of Norway, Sweden and Finland. JdeJ 02:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, except even if Denmark is included, I wouldn't classify whole Finland to be part of Scandinavia, only those regions with scandinavian heritage, for example Pohjanmaa. After all, Finland is quite diverse culturally, and in some parts of Finland eastern european culture takes prevalence over scandinavian. Should we then talk about Finland as part of Russia? I wouldn't dare to make such allegiations to any Finn! So I rather speak of Norden, when refer to SWE, NOR, DEN, FIN, ICE, and Scandinavia, when the question is about geographical region of NOR, SWE and northern FIN. Now, the whole point here seems to be, that in english speaking world the word Scandinavia means mostly Norden. So why not introduce word Norden to those people? We have good articles here in WP about both, Norden and Scandinavia, so i personally think it is not so much of a matter where does Finland belong, rather than people change their view to a more modern one. Woden 10:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics and demog.

"The Swedish People's Party represents Finland Swedes, especially in language politics. The relative strengths of the parties vary only slightly in the elections due to the proportional election from multi-member districts"

This gives a false impression, since only the three previously named main parties have a slight variation of strengths with each other, and the Swedish People's Party is one of the significantly smaller parties.

The text in demographics had some irrelevant length, and also gave a slightly wrong impression of the topic, but is now corrected.

[edit] Intro

Unnecessary repetition with both 'Finland' and 'Republic of Finland' removed putting it in line with other country introductions. Estonia wasn't mentioned as Finland's neighbour and has been added. "Officially bilinguar country" removed because reader can clearly see it already twice from "(Finnish: Suomen tasavalta, Swedish: Republiken Finland)" in the first sentence and official languages in the summary table.

[edit] Location map of Finland

The map doesn't show Aland Islands, so if anyone has a map with them included, it would be better.

I changed it to "Image:Europe location FIN.png" which shows the Åland Islands. It is also higher resolution if you click on it. ---Majestic- 01:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This new map is strange. It shows Vojvodina as a separate state but doesn't show Montenegro at all. --80.186.158.146 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of a Greater Finland?

Such a map has very little to do with this article - especially with no references to it in the actual text (which in turn would make this article too long and overlapping). The map's place is in the article on such an irredentist idea of the early 20th century (see Greater Finland). Clarifer 11:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nordic council / European Union

The ending of the Finland page is slightly misleading because most Finns see Finland primarily as an EU-country instead of a Nordic council country. This should be fixed by either collapsing the Nordic country to a small box with a "show" button or by simply removing it. It should be replaced with a big box (with hide-button) of the "European Union members and candidates" and/or "Countries of Europe" that the other European country pages also have.

[edit] The oldest MODERN democracy in the world

ref change by 67.142.130.22 (Talk) (→The oldest modern democracy - Changed section name because finland is clearly not "the oldest modern democray". That would be America.)

USA was not a _modern_ democracy in 1907, with equal voting rights and equal rights to be elected for all citizens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs).

I would like to see references to a research in this area. Before this, more vague version should prevail. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 10:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What kind of research is is that you want. That Finland granted women the right to vote prior to the election of 1907 is a well-known fact. New Zealand had done so before, but the Maori population was not allowed to vote. I guess you also know that women did not have the right to vote in the US in that time, nor did all races. JdeJ 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand women could not be elected. The Maori were unrepresented. The lack of Maori representation is a bit similar to the old estate system that was abolished in Finland. --Vuo 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Research that there were no other regions where women and other groups were not discriminated during votings. Anyway, "The first modern democracy" is a very bad term for an encyclopedia, it is more suitable for an advertisment or a touristic booklet. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 18:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem here? It's fairly well known that New Zealand was the first country giving the vote to both men and women. Finland was the first country giving it to all citizens, regardless of sex and race. I don't know why you (Vladimir) takes a problem over that issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isber (talk • contribs).

Used wording is a good indicator of Non-NPOV. I would be happy if Finland really was the first country not discriminating voters, but it should be expressed in more precise wording that advertising-like "The First Modern Democracy". And a little notice - despite it had a huge autonomy, Finland was not an independent country in 1907. So I'm still unsure about correctness. If it is so easy to demonstrate, why wouldn't you put references here? Thank you in advance! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 19:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference for 'A reform of the parliamentary system and electoral law gave Finland the first modern representative institution in the world. Universal and equal suffrage was introduced and Finnish women became the first in the world to enjoy full political rights.' from the finnish parliament. http://uutisruutu.eduskunta.fi/dman/Document.phx?documentId=hs11506184651281

from the web page http://uutisruutu.eduskunta.fi/Resource.phx/ek100/index.htx?lng=en

At least New Zealand was invited and represented during the most important 100-year session in the finnish parliament.

The word 'representative' should maybe be included, or even 'fully representative' to be more specific. However, the word 'representative' also tends to associate to 'proportional representation' which might, or would cause more debate..

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.215.75.17 (talk • contribs).

Ok, I won't change the title myself, but I strongly recommend to consider replacing it with something like "Celebration of the world's first equal rights parlamentary elections" or something like that. "The First Modern democracy" is a vague and incorrect term... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 09:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what user DrBug said here. The wording "the oldest modern democracy" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, because it is not neutral in style and it is also hopelessly unclear - the concept of 'modern democracy' does not have any clear definition. I can't see any justification for keeping this heading in the article. --AAikio 09:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the term is vague, I don't think there is any standard by which Finland could be considered the first modern democracy. Other countries had universal adult sufferage for men and women before Finland did. Ordinary Person 11:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Finland was part of Russia has to be taken into consideration, because that means that the Russian Emperor could veto all laws that Finnish Parliament enacted. Doesn't that kind of mean that Finland wasn't a democracy because it was ruled by autocratic Emperor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.222.50.237 (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

The section should really be deleted. The only source is the Finnish Parliament itself, the entire section is fairly vague. I could assert that the Soviet Union had a form of 'modern democracy' that was completely different from Finland's--both were technically democracies, and both could be considered 'modern'. Arguably there is no such thing as the 'first modern democracy' because every democracy is different. Many of Finland's 'modern' innovations, such as open list voting, have yet to be adopted in most democracies. To say that 'modern' democracy involves open list voting would assume that at some point in 'modern' history, past or future, democracies 'modernize' and adopt open list voting. If they don't, Finland's 'modern' reform of open list voting will really have been a mere political experiment rather than a globally-imitated blueprint for 'modern' democracy. And even if this is considered to be true by anyone outside of Finland, this crap doesn't deserve to be in Finland's main article. Do we need three paragraphs of: "The theme of the centenary is "The right to vote – trust in law. One hundred years of Finnish democracy. The anniversary festivities focus on the parliamentary reform of the early twentieth century and the introduction of equal and universal suffrage and full political rights for women." If you want an article on the celebration, make one. If you want to discuss Finnish history in the history section of Finland's main article, go ahead. But don't dedicate three paragraphs to a celebration in Finland. If you want, talk about the reforms themselves, but three paragraphs is too much for the discussion of the celebration. Nothing against Finland--quite the opposite. I really think more important things have occurred in Finnish history than this celebration. I know it's probably not my place, but I'm deleting the section. If someone really and truely thinks it needs to be there, put it back. But think about it first. The article's getting too long, and this tidbit is too stupid for three paragraphs—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.140.239 (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

The elections of 1907 used closed list voting. (I do not know when open list voting was adapted.) -- Petri Krohn 03:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

Is it necessary to mention so many books of the Second World War in this article? Every people who is interested in further reading of Finland might not be a military historian.217.112.242.181 14:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopaedia Britannica: wrong about languages

I am currently doing a project on Wikipedia's editing style and was cruising in encyclopedia Britannica's site for comparison. I decided to do a search about Finland as it is my home country. Let me quote something that I found out about my country: "Finnish and Swedish are national (not official) languages." This is wrong because according to Wikipedia and to a Finnish site I checked (http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=27443#lang), Finnish and Swedish are official languages of Finland. I was amazed to see this basic mistake. Therefore I can conclude - Wikipedia won and Britannica lost; Wikipedia 1 - Britanica 0. Inkarima 17:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Britannica is more accurate here. Language act [1] is about "kansalliskieli" (national language), official language would be "virallinen kieli". However, the definitions of what is official language and what is national language have large overlap, and considering that Finland is still quite a strong nation-state, it is in my opinion safe to speak about official languages. Also, if Wikipedia would list languages that are now listed official in the article as national, the distinction between official and national languages would have to be made for every other WP country article too. SGJ 11:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prehistoric Finland

That Finland was not settled until a few thousands of years ago is most certainly incorrect. The oldest human (humanoid) settlings in the Nordic countries is in a cave on the cost of Ostrobotnia in western Finland. Modern analysis indicate the caves was habited 120 000 years ago, i.e. before beginning the modern (Weichsel) ice age. For further reading go to: http://www.susiluola.fi/eng/index_eng.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.251.168.147 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The findings from "Susiluola" could well be "findings". It has been disputed whether any proof of human habitation quite that long ago exists.

Might be, but they are not Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens followed the ice in both Finland and Sweden so they are at last 10 000 years old. Seniorsag 16:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted

The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.

Please support me in maitaining Finland's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Finland deserves no less! JamesAVD 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has decided to remove references to the EU from the page of every member state. See his talk page for more details. yandman 15:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not discuss here, but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries so a uniform decision can be reached. Kusma (討論) 15:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The users above are misrepresnting my actions. Certain non-standard items have been included in the infoboxes of the pages of some European states. I have removed the undiscussed and unsupported changes and started a discussion here on the best way forward. I have in no way 'removed references to the EU'! The EU is an important part of the activities of the governmenance of many European states, to the benefit of all. That does not mean that an encyclopedia should go around presenting potentially POV information of the constitutional status of the EU in the infoboxes of states which are supposed to be standardised across Wikipedia. I'm interested in what users here feel? Please feel free to comment at any of the various pages Yandman might suggest. JamesAVD 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location_Maps_for_European_countries--_discussion_continues as it involves more than just this country.

Thanks, —MJCdetroit 20:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defence Forces

I think there should be a mention about people who choose to go to prison instead of military or non-military service and also a mention about the criticism Finland recieves from Amnesty about the problems in finnish military.

I don't find myself objective enough nor do I think my english is good enough.80.222.69.196 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and the article should also mention that the government will punish tax evaders and collect tax debts, with force if necessary. And that parents aren't allowed to decide whether their children goes to school, but the government forces the education. And that the government forces fathers to pay child support dues. And so on. All citizens have the constitutional obligation (Perustuslaki, 12. luku, § 127) to assist the defence of the nation. The government has the legal obligation (Asevelvollisuuslaki 1950/452) to enforce this. This is perfectly democratic, and no serious challenges have been brought against these obligations during the independence of the nation. It is worth mentioning that the constitution forbids expeditionary wars, which are the main function of the militaries of colonialist powers^W^Wmany countries. --Vuo 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Input requested

Hi. Over at Talk:Yleisradio, there's some discussion about moving the page to the title Finnish Broadcasting Company. Since the two editors currently contributing to the discussion seem to be at an impasse, I wonder if we could get some more informed opinions weighing in there? Input from anyone with some knowledge of this subject would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What year did Sweden invade Finland?

I have various sources saying 1150, 1154, and 1157 are the years King Erik IX of Sweden led a crusade against Finland. It is a quasi-historical legend. I think it would be better if the year 1150s was used instead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

All years regarding king Eric and bishop Henry are later speculations, as no historical record has survived of either one. The expedition might as well have taken place in the 1140s. --Drieakko 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

But the speculation had to be based on something. So Sweden has no official record on this huge piece of land becoming a part of them for hundreds of years? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.103.81.226 (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

They have no surviving official records. It is usually speculated in Finland that most of the related documentation was kept in Turku, where it all was destroyed in 1318 when Novgorod burned the city, cathedral and episcopal palace. From foreign records it is quite likely that still in the 1230s there was no official Swedish presence in Finland which was ecclestically under the same supreme command than the Livonian dioceses. Pope also 1232 asked Teutonic Knights to invade Finland to protect the church there. The first time Bishop of Finland is listed among Swedish bishops is 1253. Article Second Swedish Crusade summarizes what evidence is left of the probable Swedish conquest in 1249. --Drieakko 10:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

The section on health reads "The life expectancy is 82 years for shemonkeys and 75 years for monkeys." Is it safe to assume that this is an instance of vandalism? I've always been a reader, and not a contributor, so I'm a little leery about editing the page directly.

70.67.160.196 05:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Inter

[edit] Possible Shortening?

When i went to include some information on the Finland page last night. It stated this article is over 85kb perhaps consider re-organising it. I have noticed it is exceedingly long. Far more so than many other country's articles I have seen. Perhaps it COULD be considered. By the way was anyone intending on doing the flora and fauna section because if not i will?

It's so long because this article contains information on more topics than other countries' articles, for example Sweden (67 kilobytes long and also considered "too long" if you try to edit it) which lacks Tourism section among others. Finland is just a more comprehensive article and should not be shortened too radically IMHO. If you compare to United States, it is currently 99 kilobytes long. If I remember correctly, all articles over 30 kilobytes are considered "too long" by this wikipedia software. ---Majestic- 14:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is very comprehensive which is great but perhaps segments such as Health, Education, Tourism, Energy Policy, Presidents of Finland, Administrative Divisions, Sports, Cuisine, Cinema, Media and Communications, Public Holidays and Music could all be compiled into the 'See Also' section to make the article concise and objective allowing the reader to redirect to other sub-categories if necessery. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rory for suomi (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Religions in Finland

"The remainder of the population consists of relatively small groups of other Protestant denominations, Catholics, Muslims and Jews (1.1%) beside the growing population of unaffiliated (14.7%)." This is sort of ambiguous. The fact that a person is not a member of any registered religious community does not mean he/she does not have a religion. Most Finnish muslims (~90% of them) and many pentecostals, for example, do not belong to any registered religious community. They cannot however be classified as "unaffiliated" as the term kind of implies a secular/nonreligious view. More adequate listing could be something like: - Evangelic lutheran church 83.1% - Orthodox church 1.1% - Other/non-affiliated 15.8% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.222.50.237 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Legally, it doesn't matter whether one is religious or not, but whether one registers one's membership and pays taxes to the church. "Unaffiliated" doesn't imply anything, it's just a catch-all category. --Vuo 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not legally, but actually it does, because I think many countries do not have this system of registering religious communities. Many countries do not have any sort of "official" statistics about different religions in their country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.222.50.237 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Images

There should be a discussion about the images in the article. My opinions. 1. The Finnish soldier of choice is the sissi, since ski warfare training for most conscripts is something unique to the country. All major armies have special units with MP5 or other special weaponry, it's the same everywhere. The information value of the special troops picture is nil. 2. More pictures of Finnish people is needed. In the article, there are many (too many) postcard views, one old photo of Sibelius, and Kekkonen with a Soviet citizen. That's not too great. 3. Finnish-peculiar collection of objects would be cool. See United States of America: apple pie, baseball, and the American flag. We could have sauna, Koskenkorva, salmiakki, and so on. --Vuo 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you ask to delete the Kekkonen & Hruštšov image? There are other pages besides Finland that are using it (other language wikis too) and that is just breaking those pages' layout because they have not asked for you to delete it. What's wrong with this "kekkonen and a soviet citizen" image? It's part of THAT history. As for pics of Koskenkorva bottles on Finland, I disagree. ---Majestic- 23:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not delete, but replace with something more representative. Kekkonen surely is, but it's one of very few images with Finnish people in it, and the only one depicting modern people. --Vuo 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually replaced the picture of Former President Kekkonen with Hrustov image with another, not because of this discussion but because that particular image was deleted off the wikimedia datbase. Also as to the Finnish-peculiar collection of objects, perhaps Vuo would like to create a new page about this at a different location and simply provide a link in the 'See Also' section, as the Finland page is already quite substantial and comprehensive... Thanks Rory for suomi 04:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Majestic, a topographic map should be in the topography section, not in the population section. If there are too many images in the geography part, then image removal is the solution. --Vuo 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

All right. About the military image, I put an image of FNS Pohjanmaa, the flagship of the Finnish navy, but it was replaced by this soldier image two days later. Would it be good to put the Pohjanmaa picture back, or what would you suggest? Look at the commons category of the Finnish military]. There are not many good quality alternatives. ---Majestic- 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Although the ship is a better choice than a "all countries have them" special forces soldier, then again, there are too few pictures of people, in my opinion. Ski warfare, like sauna, is something that's special elsewhere, but common in Finland, and what Finland is militarily famous for. -- Also, this picture is a great one: what it is, in practice, to defend Finland. --Vuo 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is it that has some sort of infatuation with the image of Lake Paijanne? Its been in almost every category with any mention of nature. I fail to see any direct relevance to the article pertaining to Finnish Flora and Fauna. The image of a Wolverine was far more appropriate as it is a rare, endangered Finnish predator. An icon of the Finland's natural world if you will. And in my opinion, the military picture should either be the special forces member with the mp5, the surveillance team which is on skis or the vertical fa-18 with the highly visible Finnish Air Force roundel. The 'FNS Pohjanmaa' is quite ambiguous. Rory for suomi 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture of the lake is supposed to represent the lakes of Finland. I don't like it, because it's not very clear. But topography should be represented. There is little room for pictures, so something must be chosen. --Vuo 20:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and I do not like the picture of Lake Paijanne either. There are better images of lakes and national parks, for instance the picture of Koli National Park which for some reason was removed. The picture of lake Paijanne is more like a postcard photo than something which demonstrates the immense labyrinth of lake in Finland.Rory for suomi 04:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the Archipelago Sea picture (Image:SchärenTurku.jpg) is better, and it's something special in the whole world, nothing like national parks and lakes that (almost) every country has. ---Majestic- 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I like the image of the archipelago. Also I thought this picture of a traditional, chimneyless sauna in country side Finland would be better than the current image under Culture. See Image:Smoke sauna.JPG Rory for suomi 05:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The beginning of the Swedish reign (year)

The title "1150–" was edited to "early Middle Ages–" because "no exact year is known"? I got this year from the article Sweden (not the discussion page) so I thought it is pretty accurate if they are including it in that article. "Finland was still a part of Sweden from 1155 until 1809." ---Majestic- 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Swedish conquest was a gradual process. Actual reign did not start earlier than 1249. Sporadic raids certainly took place earlier as well, possibly even temporary conquests in certain parts. Placing the conquest to 1150s is generally dismissed today as it is only based on medieval political propaganda. --Drieakko 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not really a conquest, it was part of the Swedish unification. East Uppland (north of Stockholm) Åland and SouthWest Finland was one cultural area at least since wiking ages. Water unifies, Land separates. Seniorsag 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there were a lot of contacts and connections, but "one cultural area" is exaggeration.--130.234.5.136 15:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

[edit] Article is getting too long

Article is by now already 108 kilobytes long, which according to Wikipedia rules is not practical anymore. For example, similar article for France is just 70 kilobytes. Kindly list issues that should be shortened in the article and their content be left to linked articles. IMHO, the current history section could be cut half. --Drieakko 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, article size is no longer a BINDING RULE, but it was before because of earlier browser compatibility issues with articles over 32kb. This is no longer an issue. Also, the article about Sweden is currently 103 kb long, and United States is even 117 kb long. Although the article should nonetheless be kept short where possible, the history section IMO is not yet complete especially regarding the wars (that doesn't mean making them considerably longer), and I think not many people care to look at the sub-articles for more information. If a long article is good for a topic, then it's good. Not many people nowadays are using old browrsers that can't handle 100kb pages, and even if you reduce this to 70 kb, even it would be too impractical for mobile phone browsing. There could be some places where you can trim the size down, but nowhere near 70 kb without reducing the quality and information content of the article itself.

Also, only the main body of the article (excluding wikipedia coding, links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size. This can be done by copying and pasting the encoded article into a notebook software and saving it as a text file, and checking the size. This makes it a 80+kb article, including the tables but excluding the internal coding (they don't contribute to readability), "see also" and "external links" sections. ---Majestic- 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The part on history could be summarised a lot. Cut it down to, say, 1-2 sentences per existing paragraph. To avoid current major overlapping, shouldn't this article be primarily about the contemporary Finland as there is an own article on Finnish history? Should we vote? Clarifer 09:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Eivat.Rory for suomi 07:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)