Talk:History of Finland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm preparing an article on the concept of Western Betrayal at User:Halibutt/Western betrayal. I need someone to drop in and add facts about the Allied promises to Finland during the Winter War and the overall fealing it gave to the Finnish population. Could anyone help with the data?Halibutt 07:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Ice hockey
(Finland in the post-Soviet era): On July 5th 1995 Finland won the ice hockey world championship in Stockholm, Sweden, beating Sweden 4-1.
Does it belong here? — Monedula 06:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] History articles covering the same subject from different points of views?
Following the Wikipedia policy to avoid concurrent articles covering the same subject from different points of views, I would suggest that Finland's and Sweden's history between 1155 and 1809 are to be coordinated and merged, although framing articles like History of Finland and History of Sweden of course must remain.
I can see one substantial problem: The wikipedia:templates for Swedish history would need to be somehow extended to cover also for relevant overview articles on Finland's history.
Being a foreigner to both countries (although I've lived in Malmö for a couple of years), I'm somewhat confused by the invisibility of Finland on the Swedish history pages.
--Ruhrjung 22:24, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
I don't know if I'll have time by the computer this weekend (it all depends on the sun, the snow, and social requirements) but I consider to split this article into parts that are referred to with the main-template from this framing article. In that respect, it would seem natural for me to manifest Finland's and Sweden's shared history by articles that are not separated for the period of 1155–1809.
Ruhrjung 00:46, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
- In theory a good idea, but likely to become the source of highly unwished and counter-productive strifes between nationalist Swedes on one hand and Finns who read the history with fennoman goggles on the other — I don't know if I advice against it, but I warn against it! ;-) /Tuomas 15:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Anjala conspiracy
The Anjala conspiracy was a movement of officers who opposed the absolutist tendencies of Gustaf III and the war started by him. The small separatist group of Finnish officers was, quite simply, a different thing, although many of its members took part in the Anjala conspiracy. Most of the Anjala men would have been appalled by the though of Finnish indepency - just like most of the Finns would have been.
User:130.232.193.11
- Hello to Turku!
- I do not disagree with you - so far. However, the conspiracy is known under the name of the Anjala conspiracy and the relation between the separatists (who, as far as I understand, more or less hijacked the process) and the signers of the documents (the Liikkala and the Anjala letters) ought to be presented in more detail in the article on the Anjala conspiracy, but mentioned correctly, although briefly, here. I'm sure you can see to that better and more authoritatively than I can. But the hyperlink to the Anjala-article has to be preserved. That's important to keep in mind.
- Johan Magnus 09:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Origins of the Finns
I am also frustrated because of the suggestion made by Johan Magnus that my corrections are not neutral. Actually I made modifications to the prehistory text to steer it towards more neutral direction! The present text gives an improportionate piece of space to a disputed, (according to many Finnish researchers, unscientific, possibly even national-chauvinistic) theory of the origins of Finns, and mentions the more widely supported theories only in passing, or not at all. That is certainly not neutral and unbiased.
User:130.232.193.11
- Yes, I guess you were at least as distressed about my easy reversion of your drastic shortening on the reasoning on when Finns might have arrived in the country. There are two or three aspects on this:
- First of all, sweeping eradications are generally not the very best thing to do at Wikipedia. They tend too easily to be interpreted as bordering to Wikipedia:vandalism. You, and contributors in your position, do not see this so, of course. You had the best intentions, of course. But the issue is: How make this obvious also for other Wikipedians?
- Secondly, the text as it stands has its worst weakness therein, that it lacks references to credible sources and authorities. Your shorter version was not an improvement in this respect.
- Lastly, as I wrote in the edit summary, in my perception the text you tried to edit away was much more in line with Wikipedia's NPOV-policies, that is about as close to a Constitution for Wikipedia as you can come, than your substitute, that had cut away all the stuff on alternative points of view/earlier belief. I realize that I might be more or less wrong here, and I'm sorry for the feeling of rejection that you might have felt, but hopefully this will in the end result in a maybe much improved text! (And, without intending to seem arrogant: I think you made one or a few mistakes that were rather presentational or procedural. I consider these to have been initial mistakes of the kind all of us have made — and hopefully we've become wiser as a consequence.)
- (Finally, a user name could be advantageous for all involved parts. It maybe oughtn't be so, but in reality, one looks a tad more credible with a good username instead of a series of a dozen digits. :)
- Kind regards!
- Johan Magnus 09:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is one thing more I will try to express:
It may seem as if I feel a certain responsibility for Finland- and Finnish-related Wikipedia articles. This is only temporarily. During the time (years, by now) I've been interested in Wikipedia, it has become very obvious to me, that for obscure fields of interest, there is often not more than one, two or a handful of engaged contributors, but there is a certain rotation. For different reasons, people get more involved in certain pages at certain times, and then there are other reasons, Wikipedia:Wikistress for instance, that make them focus on something else. At the moment, coincidentally, I've mostly come to react on what's happened on Finland-related pages. If such reactions include reading up on a subject and writing/editing an article (Anjala Conspiracy), it tends to become a self-amplifying process... But, as with all such processes, it won't go on eternally. :-))) --Johan Magnus 09:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] YYA-treaty (1948)
The wording of YYA-treaty was very carefully considered, especially it's military parts. It was a military treaty, although it was more written to keep forces out instead of keeping forces in like is typical in normal military treaties.
The only responsibility for Finns is to defend only their own country against Germany (meaning NATO). Any neutral country has responsibility to defend their borders against all aggressors, so nothing damaging there. The treaty specifically stays silent about defending against SU, leaving the point open (Do not wake up sleeping tiger...). Practically meaning that Finland would stay neutral.
There is no section for Finns to send troops to Soviet needs or place Finnish troops under Soviet command. There is no section for Soviet troop placements to Finland or even allowing for Soviet air force to operate in Finnish air space.
The most damaging to Finnish neutrality was the military consultations-chapter in the treaty. In that chapter it was mandated that political discussions will be started for military co-operations if both parties agree. The threat of these discussions were used once by SU (1961 Berlin crisis), but the they were not started because of Finnish reluctance.
[edit] Wars in 18th centuries
I don't understand to this paragraph:
"The 18th century was a relatively good time, partly because the life was now more peaceful. However, during the Lesser Wrath (1741–1742), Finland was again occupied by the Russians after the government, during a period of Hat party dominance, had made a botched attempt to reconquer the lost provinces. Instead the result of the Peace of Åbo was that the border was moved further to the west. During this time, Russian propaganda hinted at the possibility to create a separate Finnish kingdom."
Lesser Wrath page says that this war lasted from June 1788 to August 1790. The whole paragraph is unclear to me. Can abybody, who knows this history, rewrite it? Thank you. Miraceti 17:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
- Lesser Wrath redirected to the wrong place. I've fixed it to point to the Hats' Russian War. -- Jniemenmaa 17:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Susiluola
Should I add a paragraph on the "preprehistory" as well? The article only talks about from 8500 BC onwards, while the earliest marks of human life (or.. well.. stone tools) date back to 118 000 BC (i.e. the Susiluola stone tools: http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=25917 http://www.susiluola.fi/eng/wolfcave.php http://www.susiluola.fi/eng/links.php ) --HJV 12:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Susiluola finds are debated, as the article says. 217.30.179.130 14:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Middle Ages
The section on Viking/Middle ages seems to suffer from misuse of the term "century" all over the place, i.e. assuming "14th century" means the 1400s and not the 1300s. My knowledge of the period isn't extensive enough to fix it with confidence, but I know enough to notice something's wonky there. Hopefully someone who knows more about the period can fix it:).--Snowgrouse 04:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I checked it out, but I wasn't able to find that kind of errors. 217.112.242.181 10:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Viking carvings in Häme
"On the other hand, there are some stone carvings in Häme region made to triumph the victory over raiding Vikings."
Unfortunately, this is all nonsense. Those carvings were natural marks on a rock, found and misinterpreted by an over-enthusiasistic amateur archaeologist, who gained publicity by the silly and uncritical article published in a major newspaper.217.112.242.181 21:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Western betrayal of Finland?
Perhaps some may want to rescure parts of this removed edit.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] EEA Treaty
I have included some information on the Finland's initial drive towards the accession to the EEA Treaty along with most other EFTA members, rather than the European Community/European Union. Several sources also indicate that Sweden's application also played some role in redirecting Finnish attention to EC/EU instead of the EEA. RedZebra 10:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The country that paid its debt
Wouldn't it be worth mentioning in the text, that Finland was the United States’ only debtor country that continued to pay its war-related debt until the end? --213.186.251.24 08:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comb ceramic/Corded ware cultures
This article doesn't mention the important prehistoric comb ceramic and corded ware cultures. The prehistory section could be vastly expanded and moved into a separate article.--JyriL talk 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Neolithic used to be there but someone restored a vandalizing badly and so the section was lost. I have restored the section now. And yes, prehistory should be expanded and if enough material accumulates a separate article should be created. Clarifer 08:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)