Talk:Finnish Karelia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article about Karelia, the historical province of Sweden should not be the main article. I demand we make Karelia a disambiguation page. This article is in the past, the current Russian republic is NOW.

Please see the discussions at Talk:Republic of Karelia and Talk:Karelia for closely related topics. (See also User talk:Daniel Nagy.) -- Mic 19:55, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] KARELIA SHOULD BECOME A DISAMBIGUATION PAGE!

If no one responds, I will take matters into my own hands, as I have done with Avars. -User:Dagestan

There is already a disambiguation page for Karelia at Karelia (disambiguation). Like before you are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Republic of Karelia. Taking part of a discussion means that you not only will have to present some form of argument where you try to convince the other participants, but also that you take the trouble of getting yourself acquainted to what stage the discussion has progressed at what arguments has been made. You then have the opportunity to support, oppose or develop these arguments further. When engaging in a discussion you are also more likely to get results in making proposals rather than making unilateral demands. Good luck and welcome to join in on the discussion. -- Mic 15:02, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

The problem IS, that the discussion on Talk:Republic of Karelia is dead! No one has been posting there since January. Please, there are more important things than the historical povince of Sweden. -User:Dagestan

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Republic of Karelia. Have you even tried posting there yourself? There was a posting only yesterday and it would be courteous of you to at least try to get acquainted with the discussion. -- Mic 13:02, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] distinction between the Finnish and the Swedish province?

Is it really a good idea to lable this article "Karelia (Swedish Province)? Should there come one "Karelia (Province of Finland)" also?

I really don't know what's best, but I lean at thinking that Finland (the Grand Duchy aswell as the independent republic) was a direct successor of the undivided Sweden, and hence that the loss of Old Finland is insignificant in this case, and that Karelia (province) would be to prefer. /Tuomas 16:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Renaming this Karelia (province) would be the best choice. Historical province Karelia is a redirect and might also be an acceptable name. -- Jniemenmaa 19:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
That name is not well chosen and as is discussed at Talk:Republic of Karelia a new location for this page has to be decided before and if it is decided that it will be moved. It will possibly be replaced by the new article at temp and if so the 70 or so links needs to be disambiguated and it is a very good idea to agree on a new location first. I know that Karelia (province) has been suggested, but personally I think Finnish Karelia or Swedish Karelia would work better. -- Mic 23:20, May 10, 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't Finnish Karelia be a good choise? It was, I believe, never Swedish in any other meaning than being part of the Swedish kingdom until 1721 (not insignificant, of course). Culturally and linguistically it could maybe be argued that Finnish≠Karelian, but that objection surely carries less and less weight in the 19th and 20th centuries.
— But what's the disadvantage with Karelia (province)? That there existed a parallell tsarist entity that could be called the same? Or something I don't come to think of?
Ruhrjung 11:43, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I could live with Finnish Karelia. I proposed West Karelia on Talk:Republic of Karelia, maybe it is a bit more neutral? -- Jniemenmaa 09:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Swedish Karelia is not a faulty label, but it rather limits the extent of the article. In this sense Finnish Karelia is less limiting, since it would also be a workable name covering the Swedish period. West Karelia is perhaps a bit more generic, but still definately applicable. However, to what extent has the area been refered to as "West Karelia", as a name? In my mind Western Karelia sounds more appropriate, since that has the character more of a designation than as a name label. It represents "western Karelia", rather than being named "West Karelia". An outcome where "western" is favoured should probably also affect the current location of East Karelia to "eastern".
Relating to this are the Finnish regions where North Karelia and South Karelia represent names, or name labels. Conceptually "Northern Karelia" and "Southern Karelia" would not refer to the same geographical areas. -- Mic 12:10, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
While the term East Karelia really was in use in historically significant contexts (1917-1944), Finnish Karelia and Western Karelia are both lesser used terms that Wikipedia take in use due to our needs. I wouldn't disagree to continue to use East Karelia also if the current Karelia article was renamed to Western Karelia.
--Ruhrjung 22:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately, West Karelia has not been used very much, and doesn't have a well defined meaning. It can be used as a synonym to "Finnish Karelia", but can also mean the area aroung Vyborg. I only thought it would be good as the "opposite" of East Karelia, but now, when I think about it, it seems quite bad. The term Finnish Karelia, as in "Suomen Karjala", is used much more and it seems like everyone can accept it, so I say we go with it.
BTW, Here is a quite comprehensive explanation of all the Karelias: [1] (in finnish). -- Jniemenmaa 07:47, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Good! (No, I don't read Finnish, but a map says more than a thousand words. :-) If you say that this is a credible source, then it confirms my understanding of Ladoga Karelia which has evolved thanks to you here at Wikipedia.
Shall we wait for User:Dagestan and User:Mikkalai before we make a move, maybe?
(If I'm around at the time, I'll be happy to take part in the work with updating links to the page.)
--Ruhrjung 09:01, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
I like the approach in Karelia/temp. I have no clear opinion on the term Finnish Karelia. But at the moment it seems reasonable to make a move and see what to do further. Mikkalai 21:57, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On moving this page

There is ongoing discussion at Talk:Republic of Karelia on what the content at [[Karelia]] should be. I believe that this process is working well and there is an alternative article at Karelia/temp which is coming along nicely. Any attempt to unilaterally circumvent this process and disallowing participation with a proper resolution is unacceptable. It is unfortunate that the individual generally wishing to disrupt this page seems to have very little to contribute or to articulate when it comes to dealing in a cooperative mode on resolving the question. -- Mic 23:13, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

What "individulal" are you talking about here?

The page was moved once more, this time to [[Karelia (Swedish Province)]]. To engage in move wars, either directly or via the use of proxies in the form of sockpuppets, is idiotic and highly unproductive. It seems a bit futile having to explain this over and over. Either there is someone who really doesn't have the capacity to understand this or else just refuses to engage in cooperation with others. -- Mic 08:52, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
...and once again, now to Karelia (historical province). ;-/
--Ruhrjung 03:50, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

IMO the page may sit for a while under the neutal title Karelia (historical province). It doesn't say whose province it was, and it is good, since we have 3 (or 2, if one thinks taht Sw/Fin are not really competitors) contenders here over quite a time.

As far as I am informed, the Tsarist régime considered this area "Old Finland" from the conquest in the early 1700s, which makes a good argument for Finnish Karelia.--Ruhrjung 03:50, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, it is convenient to make links to this name from simply "Karelia" via the "|" trick. If better ideas pop up, we can move again. Also, as you may notice I cleaned the wealth of redirect litter. It still remains to disambig the direct Karelia links, but these are of no big harm. Mikkalai 05:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The idea to have articles to "sit for a while" under intermediary titles is nothing I would approve or applaud. Quite the contrary. It only means extra work. Please move this page to Finnish Karelia, which as far as I can tell is the outcome of the discussion on which name to chose for the article.

Please move the article at Karelia/temp to Karelia at the same time. (One has to be administrator to do that. Actually, this is the first time I can remember during my time at Wikipedia that I would have been glad to have that capacity.)

Then there are dozens of links to Karelia that has to be changed to [[Finnish Karelia|...]].
--Ruhrjung 03:50, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

You might have noticed that I moved it after someone else moved it to an incorreclty constructed name, and to prevent futher impatient moves. Guess how many pages I deleted that were created by "movers"? I will gladly move it to a better place. I agree the name (historical province) is not the best (after all, Russian Karelia is a "historical province" as well). And I agree that "Finnish" attribution would be a good compromise. But please notice that this term is an informal one, although is in use. I'd suggest to deliberate about two more, related, choices, which are formally more correct: Karelia, Finland and Karelia (Finland). I am in favor of the second version, since you may link from it both full [Karelia (Finland)] and shorter [Karelia (Finland) | ] "displayed" name. The second move, to 'Karelia', I'll do it right away. As for re-redirecting, I'll do the ones I am 100% sure. Mikkalai
I'll do redirecting later, when the name will be finalized. Mikkalai 05:11, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Who decided to throw consensus out the window?

I believe that all parties, less one individual, are trying to be constructive here. I have also operated on the basic assumption that all parties that working constructively on the case have had the best intentions, aiming to resolve the matter in a consensus fashion. I believe that we were about to achieve consensus on moving the Karelia article, setting a new designation for it and finally replacing it with the article developed at Karelia/temp.

In my opinion, we had (even if we were close) not arrived there. The clearest example of this is that we currently have the original article hanging in the balance, without a clear designation. I think it is unfortunate and highly inappropriate to circumvent the decision making process in this way. Unilateral action, taken even with the best intentions is a breach against consensus.

Appreciating that consensus and resolution on the issue is likely to have been very close, it would be a pity having to call in mediation at this stage. In some sense we are also past the voting stage, since that really is what should have been called in instead of taking unilateral action. For the voting to have any sense of meaning, it would presuppose a restoration of the articles to their original positions and I think that it would be less than desirable, even though it might be the most appropriate course of action.

The present situation is untenable however and the given designation is neither neutral nor appropriate. The article will be relocated to Finnish Karelia. Should there be any objecting calls to this move I can see no recourse than to restore the articles to their original places and take a vote on the issue. The designation of the article can however be raised again, but from within that location.

Even if we have been plagued by vandalism and general uncooperativeness from one nameless party I think that most actions and input have been of a constructive nature. However, I am very sorry to see how we ultimately resort to resolving the matter in this sloppy fashion. -- Mic 17:16, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

You are taking this a bit too emotional. This page was was moved at least 7 (!) times, and I am sure it was not the same "one individual". My move was done immediately after a move to a grammatically incorrect name. I did it fast, so you probably even didn't manage to notice this, otherwise you would have been even more passionate :-). I had two options: (1) to revert the move. (2) To move elsewhere. I decided to temporarily move to a neutral place. At the same time I did a significant clean-up of consequences of previous moves. Please look at the "What links there" for Karelia and Finnish Karelia. Please also consider my arguments (above) why I think "Finnish Karelia" is inappropriate. Mikkalai 17:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I did not intend for you to misinterpret me. When I refer to the uncooperative party I am not referring to you, but to our nervous and intransigent friend. I feel that you have mainly contributed in a very constructive and cooperative manner and I think that is very good! I can also appreciate the difficulties in dealing with various types of vandalism, and that all (admins) need not be in perfect agreement on what methods to use in combating this.
What is intolerable is the way that this circumvents the consensus decision process. There are several actions that you could have taken before acting and settling the issue single handedly. If you felt that the discussion had reached a stalemate, you should have requested a vote on the issue and the voting alternatives could have been formulated. If you felt that the threat of vandalism to the page was too great you should have, taken action against that user. I am very sorry to see this have happened and for me this is an issue on principal grounds not emotional. -- Mic 17:56, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
Here I beg to allow me to disagree. In some cases it is much more productive to yeild a bit and go on with the main job, rather that to engage into administrative procedures. Especially bearing in mind that our impatient friend was basically harmless. Besides, history shows that many people just come in and start editing without reading talk pages, simply from not knowing the rules of the game, rather than from a malicious intent. I admit, my fault was that I didn't notice that there was kind of consensus on the new name, although the deliberations were not marked as completed. Mikkalai 18:23, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I might be more emotional than Mic. I saw with considerable grief how virtually all knowledgeable Wikipedians who'd contributed on Finland-related matters disappeared after bold actions by some English speakers last August. After all, such events are detrimentiuous for Wikipedia, as very few non-Finnics can read Finnish/Karelian/Estonian. The demonstrated disrespect, which the title changes and, even more so, the overriding of the consensus decision process were clear signs of, is no good foundation to get competent contributors willing to engage in improving the articles. What will be left? The young, the dumb and the angry? That must be avoided!
--Ruhrjung 21:01, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] See also: Sami music

So why this link is in this page? Kahkonen 18:40, 2004 May 26 (UTC)

Because it is part of (the possible future article about) the culture of Karelia, where quite a few sami lived and live (if I am not wrong), and thus contribute to the culture of the land. Mikkalai 00:46, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Samis living in Finnish Karelia? Yes, quite a few (maybe even 10), and more when Finnic tribes wandered towards Finland.
But in Eastern Karelia there are some in northern parts of it. Kahkonen 05:22, 2004 May 29 (UTC)

[edit] Standing issues

There are a number of standing issues for structure of the article and its relations to corresponding articles. It belongs to the series of Swedish and Finnish historical provinces and which by template make reference to current, either Swedish, or in this case Finnish administrative entities. At one point there was an idea of being able to carry both Swedish/Finnish as well as Russian aspects of Karelia and also Russian entities and various other aspects were added. As this no longer is the case the article reverts to covering the Finnish administrative entities by template. Russian entities will still remain in reference on several locations in text. The article should also accomodate reference to the various different articles related to Karelia, not currently covered. -- Mic 17:59, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Name: After additional thinking I am withdrawing my objections posted above. But there is another one: aren't the definitions "Russian Karelia" and "Finnish Karelia" are degrading or humiliating in a way? I think not really, but could that be an isuue to a more involved side? Mikkalai 18:23, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The area should be..

refered as occupied terretories as they are no less so than Chechnya, East Prussia, Palestine, Iraq so on, taken by force and injustice by brutal nation of barbarians under yoke of the most brutal dictator that ever poised this earth, a wrong yet to be corrected. Ethnic cleansing also took place there and the area in now infested with colonialists, pretty much like Russia would have been dealt with had Germany won the war, you know, the population deported away or eliminated and the lands infested with their own population that is unnative to the lands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.215.244.106 (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/n/Talk%7EFinnish_Karelia_ea2f.html"