Talk:Nordic countries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nordic countries article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Misc

I'm not skilled enough within Wikipedia to dare to change this, but in the list 'Largest metropolitan areas in the Nordic countries' the population of Copenhagen is bigger than the one of Stockholm yet Stockholm is number one on the list.

Do we have permission to use this image from www.lysator.liu.se? (See today's discussion in talk:Nag Hammadi, and also "Article content policies" in Wikipedia policy.) --Zundark, 2001 Nov 1

Probably. See [Lysator/Talk].

Germany is also one of the Nordic lands. Many of the myths originated in Germany. The flag may differ from the others, but keep in mind that Germany has had many government changes in the past.

The term Nordic countries refers to the group of countries collaborating in the Nordic council. The term is recent and arose out of need after the second world war when the Nordic Council was formed. Another term is the Scandinavian countries which refers to the ambitions to unite Sweden-Norway and Denmark politically. While it is possible to talk about a single Scandinavian country or even a single country as a member of the Nordic council, the term Nordic countries is merely used to describe the countries collectively. The term Nordic country describes at best something enterely different than one of the Nordic countries, or is else a non-term. /mic 14:31 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Including local name for area

In other Wikipedia articles of similar nature, the local name of the area is included in the article. It is my understanding that the term Norden is the one used in at least Scandinavia. Should we include this term in paranthesis in the first paragraph of the article?

I have created a redirect for Norden to this article.

Bosse Klykken 17:22, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is Germany actually one of the Nordic lands? I posted that before and thought I was right, but now I'm not sure.Mauipsyko 23:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not in this sense...

What about the norwegian/swedish union? This is the 100th anniversiary of its ending, it ought imho be mentioned (but I'm not knowledgable enough to write about it).

[edit] Estonia - "Nordic with a Twist"?

It should be noted that in Estonia there is a rather popular movement in identifying Estonia as a Nordic country. This has even included half-serious calls to change the Estonian flag to a Nordic cross (some examples of the Estonian cross-flag can even occasionally be seen in use) as well as propagating the use of the word Estland as the name of the country in English.

Some of the arguments for alignment as a Nordic country what has been forwarded are: the cultural and linguistic closeness to Finland; the lack of similar strong cultural and linguistic ties with Latvia or Lithuania; the historical and cultural ties with other Nordic countries; example of Finnish success which made a conscious transition from being a Baltic country to a Nordic country; example of Nordic welfare state as a goal for Estonia (mostly promoted by the Social Democratic Party); example of Nordic political conservative tradition (sometimes promoted by conservative politicians agreeing with the need to identify Estonia as a Nordic country, but rejecting the socialist welfare-state model)

Some information about this can be found here: http://www.flag.de/FOTW/flags/ee-ncros.html http://www.norden.org/ncba4/sk/kortgott030429.asp#Estland http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/kultur/did_6547214.asp

Whilst welcoming any self-designation and identification of a country or people - and bearing in mind that all of these "groupings" are just arbitrary polarities which have changed during history, I can't refrain myself from making a few comments. 1. Finland has not made any "conscious transition from being a Baltic country to a Nordic country". First of all, Finland is the very reason for a specific northern European polarity (and a term) outside of a solely Scandinavian mindset. Due to its close historical, cultural, economic and judicial association with Scandinavia (and vice versa), Finland, with both Finnish and Swedish as official languages, is a fundamental part of a similar cultural sphere. 2. Finland has never been considered a "Baltic State", not even as a part of imperial Russia (it was considered "Russian with a twist" ;). 3. The terminology is unambiguous in the Scandinavian languages and Finnish: Pohjola-Norden has for a long time (long before the establishment of the term Scandinavia) meant the entities that later became the countries known as Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. This concept has been translated into English under the term "Nordic Countries" (originally from French: pays Nordiques) with varying success as English speakers tend to confuse the concept with the concept of Scandinavia. Clarifer


Clarifier,

1. In the 1920s Finland chose to distance itself from the so-called baltic entente and to associate itself closer with Scandinavia. In Estonia Finnish policy of that time is interpreted as a conscious step to become a Nordic state in stead of a Baltic State. Ironically at that time it was Estonia which was the most active proponent of the Baltic entente. 2. The current application of the term Baltic States to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania stems from the Soviet occupation of these countries in 1940. At least the 1939 abridged edition of Estonian Encyclopedia defines the Baltic States as the states on the eastern shore of the Baltic sea that gained sovereignty at the break-up of imperial Russia. The word Baltic States originally surfaced in imperial Russia as reference to the German dominated Estland, Livland, Courland and Latgale provinces (the territories of current Estonia and Latvia) with their own "Russian with a twist" regime. 3. In Estonian, Estonia is historically and consistently referred to as põhjala and põhjamaa (for example in songs "Õnne, Eesti rand ja saared", "Laul Põhjamaast or even the more recent "Põhjamaa Neid") which are the equivalent of Finnish pohjola (which has several meanings). The Estonian version of Wikipedia defines "põhjala" as a territory including Scandinavian peninsula, Finland, Carelia, Kola peninsula, Ingerland and Estonia with possible inclusion of Latvia. The Estonian translation of Nordic Countries/Norden/Pohjoismaat is Põhjamaad.

Greetings! Again, one should not confuse Pohjola-Norden with Skandinavia-Skandinavien. 1. The interpretation from a Nordic country point of view seems to differ from the Estonian one. After the Finnish independence of 1917 it was only natural for it to simply RE-ESTABLISH its age-old ties with its closest neighbours and vice versa. The Estonian interpretation of this seems to be that Finland consciously turned itself away from something it had previously been part of (?). However, to my knowledge, Finland has never associated itself with e.g. Latvia and Lithuania, countries alien to Finland when comparing them with e.g. Norway and Sweden. This point of contacts, to my understanding is quite different with regard to Estonia which shares a great deal of cultural and historic past with Latvia and Lithuania. 2. Yes, the term "Baltic states" stems PRIMARILY from imperial Russia as you point out. Under the Russian empire, Finland, however, was never considered a Baltic state. 3. I was previously not aware of the meaning of Pohjala in Estonian. It seems indeed that the current usage of Pohjala is not equivalent with the current usage of the terms Pohjola/Norden in the Nordic countries. With all this said, I again emphasise that this terminology is nothing absolute and subject to changes in their interpretations across history. Clarifer

I agree that Scandinavia should not be confused with Pohjola-Norden. The Estonian movement to identify Estonia as a Nordic Country is clearly based on the premises that while whether Estonia is or is not a Nordic Country is not established, such terminology is not absolute and is subject to change. And if it is subject to change then it is possible to influence how it changes. Also I would like to stress that there is no real consensus on this subject in Estonia. While most Estonians would agree that Estonia is definitely a Põhjamaa, however the issue becomes murky when Estonians would be asked if Estonia was one of the Põhjamaad, i.e. Nordic Countries. Most would probably answer no or not yet. Still, as this movement is existing and as the slogan "Nordic with a twist" is used in advertising by the Estonian state, I hope this discussion is interesting to some.

1. Finnish ties with Sweden are obvious, but its ties with other Nordic Countries are really not that tight. There is nothing unusual or surprising in Finland wanting to highlight and re-establish its ties with Sweden after gaining its independence, but Finland could have made also other choices.

Likewise Estonian ties with Finland are obvious. On grassroots level these ties are easily comparable to ties between Finland and Sweden, and possibly even exceeding those.

Estonian ties with Sweden are weaker than those between Finland and Sweden, but are significant nonetheless. Estonia has been part of the Swedish kingdom (the time generally referred to as the "old good swedish times" in Estonian folklore - note how this differs from Finnish view of these times), Estonia does have/has had a native Swedish minority (which almost completely destroyed in WWII, but does shows some small signs of revival, of course this was not and will never be comparable to the proportion of Swedish population in Finland), Estonian economy is dominated by Swedes and Finns alike. Estonian culture is an eager recipient of Swedish imports - the latest example being another Swede chosen to represent Estonia at this year's European Song Festival (if that qualifies as culture).

Estonian ties with Denmark are arguably stronger than comparable Finnish and Danish ties. Various parts of Estonia have at various times been part of the Danish Kingdom, the Dannebrog allegedly originated in a battle for Tallinn (and the name of our capital is still short for Danish Town - Taani Linn), Estonian-Danish defence cooperation has long traditions (hailing from Danish volunteer battalion serving in the Estonian war of independence in 1918-1920) and of course Danish economic interests in Estonia are considerable.

Estonian ties with Norway and Iceland are not that strong. The old sagas seem to refer to Aests, Laps and other Finnic people with approximately the same frequency. At least one Norwegian royal had to spend time as a slave in Estonia after being caught captive by Estonian vikings/slavers, a small group of Estonian volunteers participated in the defence of Norway against German invasion in 1940 and similar anecdotal ties are easy to find.

In comparison:

Estonia does have clear historical ties with Latvia, but these ties are mostly through shared conquerors - Germans, Swedes and Russians. On grassroots level the ties are limited (while most Estonians living in northern Estonia speak at least some Finnish and there is considerable number of Swedish speakers, the ability to speak Latvian is a novelty - unlike Swedish and Finnish, Latvian is not taught in any public high schools in Estonia - nor is Estonian taught in Latvia).

Estonian ties with Lithuania are limited to the shared experience of Soviet occupation. Lithuania wasn't part of the Baltic special regime in the Russian empire and is a predominately catholic country.

Per Högselius has done a good job of describing the criticism and arguments for the Estonian bid in Svenska Dagbladet (the link above). I urge all Swedish speaking readers to take a look.


Estonia is without a doubt one of the Baltic states. It is not a Nordic country and thus, for example, doesn't have a place in the Nordic council ("Facts about the Nordic Region and Nordic Co-operation"). Estonia's attempts to change from Baltic to Nordic seem strange. What's wrong with being Baltic? Do'Urden 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't seem the least bit strange to me that some Estonians feel they belong to the same cultural "block" as Finland, given the similar language and recent large Finnish influence. And they can be both Nordic and Baltic, there are already large cooperation between the groups. I'd certainly not personally oppose full membership for Estonia to the Nordic Council. For Wikipedia it doesn't matter though, it should just notice the existence of the movement, and the fact that they are not currently considered a Nordic country by anything resembling an institutional autorithy.--Per Abrahamsen 21:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
To me it's strange but in a way understandable. You bring up an interesting point about the relations between Finland and Estonia, but in reality the relations are not particularily close. Not even remotely comparable to the relations between Finland and Sweden, for example. The languages (Finnish and Estonian) are also so distantly related that without studying each others languages, neither nationalities are able to understand the other. The real reasons for the Estonian aspirations to become Nordic must lie in something else. I'd wager that most likely the reasons are in internalized stereotypes of Baltic nations being "inferior", "Eastern European" and "Soviet", and so the Estonians want to make a social distinction upwards in relation to Latvia and Lithuania by defining themselves Nordic. That kind of thinking is of course utterly ridiculous as all of the three Baltic states have strong identities and rich, interesting cultures and histories of their own, and are in no way whatsoever inferior to anyone, but could it perhaps be the case that some of them think so themselves anyway?. --Do'Urden 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finno-Ugrics vs other North Germanic peoples

How do Finno-Ugrics have more part in this world and the UK doesn't, when the Finno-Ugrics were people who were Crusaded against and not full participants in the Nordic world? There is a sort of bias against the Anglophones, with some falsified differences. Religious architecture in Norway and Denmark was early influenced by England, while the Norwegians went with the English to the Holy Land. What was the Danelaw? Who was Canute the Great? Who are the Normans? WTF?! Why are the special cases of Scots-Irish lands included, but the very large position of England ignored? Just think; the English are almost the exact same people as the Danish, save for differing concentrations of certain tribal heritages! The Anglo-Saxons came from Schleswig-Holstein, which was totally Danish between 737-19th century! Jutes from Jutland and Danes from Zealand. Why do some occasionally pick the Frisian lands as Nordic, but not the English? Gee, let me think? The Franks were from Frisia! Even Poland-Lithuania is Nordic! Some of this is due to Lutheran prejudices, but their churches and Anglicanism are equally Episcopal! If one wants to make it a case of those peoples beyond the Danevirke, count the English in and rest of the Continent OUT! BTW, don't mistake the English for Romano-British Welshmen. This clique is anti-Roman. 68.110.9.62 04:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Just think; the English are almost the exact same people as the Danish, save for differing concentrations of certain tribal heritages!"
I believe that the above statement is ridiculous, based upon your obvious "race oriented" attitude. If something is clear then it is that (Northern) Germans appear to be much closer to Danes than English. English people are a very special case, clearly different from Scandinavians; they may have a few nordic traits, but all this is mixed up with lots of traits from Southern Europe as well. And the Celts themselves are not nordic at all, but of completely different heritage than the Germanic peoples, linguistically anyway. Ancient Roman authors described part of the Ancient inhabitants of the British Isles as dark people, and in no way as the same kind of "nordic" people they found in "Germania" - if we really are going to discuss those "race" topics.
But anyway, apart from characterics of welfare system, relationship with the surrounding nature and some common political history, I consider _language_ to be much more important than "race". And clearly, while English is a Germanic language, it is neither a North Germanic language nor even a mere West Germanic language, for it is the one special language (among the Germanic languages) which has lots and lots of Romance characteristics (stemming from (older) French and only indirectly from Latin) - some claim that about 40% of modern English is French by its origin and/or nature.
As a Dane I cannot see how anyone would consider the British Isles as part of the nordic countries.
212.227.103.74 16:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


the anglo-scandinavian racial, cultural, historical links are undeniable.
and so are the Romance and Celtic ones.
i agree with you that british territories can't really be considered nordic (nowadays), because i think that the concept is ultimately a modern political invention - which i fully endorse! - but which has nothing to do with england.
but i feel bound to reply to your post because you have the facts all wrong! england and the british isles were intimately bound up in nordic and scandinavian history until this was broken by the norman invasion in 1066.
No, I don't have my facts wrong, and no need to shout! In spite of the (potential or obvious) links you mentioned there is not much left today, or not enough to justify any classification together with the Nordic countries.
oh, i'm sorry, i didn't mean to be rude :s no, as i said, i don't intend for england to be classed as nordic - only to demonstrate that 'nordic' has no rigorous historical/linguistic/etc roots, and that 'nordic' is really just a modern political idea. kieron 20:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"race"
  • i'm sure you're aware that the inhabitants of britain in ancient times were celts, and that after the fall of the roman empire, the island was invaded by angles, along with some other tribes (including saxons and jutes (i.e. tribes from jutland)). the angles kicked out the celts (pushing them out to wales, cornwall, scotland, ireland and brittany) and formed the kingdom now known as 'england.' the angles originated only just to the south of jutland. so yes, the english do originate from the same racial stock as the nordic and german peoples, "if we really are going to discuss those "race" topics."
I don't deny that origin, but you seem to deny or underestimate the Romance and Celtic impact. Not to mention the fact that many people appear to confuse the Celts with Nordic people which they were not, though those same people stress that very Celtic character of the British Isles. That's a little bit funny.
language
  • well, for a start, finland is classed as nordic, yet does not speak a north germanic language. unless you claim that finland is only considered nordic cos of its swedish-speaking minority. which most would disagree with, i think. like, come on...
Oh no, I didn't think of the swedish-speaking minority. And yes, I am not that satisfied to see Finland included. But here we come to the field of geographics and nordic character of the societies and political systems, I would say.
precisely. kieron 20:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • as i said, when the angles invaded (what would later become) england, they were accompanied by a significant number of jutes. the north-germanic influence was already present, therefore, at this point. even before that, old english shared many features of north germanic languages, as it has its origins only just to the south of jutland, even though it is 'technically' classed as west germanic. (note that any attempt to classify languages into
What you call "technically" classed is still common consense, isn't it? In spite of some north germanic impact, it is essentially west germanic, I am sure. Of course, one may think of those "sk" forms, such as in "landscape" which according to west germanic rules should rather be "landship"... And there are words coming from north germanic, like "sky". True. But that's about all there is to say.

genetic trees (such as 'north germanic' versus 'west germanic') always ends in failure. there can be no rigorous, scientific classification of languages in this way; linguists who attempt to do so simply choose the evidence that supports their case and ignore the rest of the evidence. the division of the romance languages into east/west romance is a major case in point.)

No doubt about it, but those models make some sense (to a degree).
no - the very fact that there are exceptions shows that the genetic models do not work. these are exactly the sort of
I don't (fully) agree.

exceptions that linguists have glossed over in making their tree models - they have made arbitrary decisions. plus these models are unable to take into account the effects of adstrate influence. sure, they make sense when you compare a germanic dialect from northern scandinavia with a central european one. but they stop making any sense when you come to borderline dialects - such as old english itself, not satisfactorily classifiable in any of the linguists' neat categories, and sharing features with both (as well as having innovative features of its own). catalan presents a similar problem to romance tree models. kieron 20:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So northern German dialects wouldn't be clearly westgermanic either, since they share with the nordic languages the absence of an important vowel shift (diphthongization of those ancient long vowels); in fact, this phenomenon can still be observed throughout large areas all over the German speaking territories, namely in Switzerland as well - and it is something that has been lost in English and which for those German speakers who don't use it in their own language is something very strange or maybe hard to understand. Yet I rarely hear about classifying northern German dialects as north germanic.
  • in the late 8th century (though the process began many hundreds of years before this with viking raids, etc) the danes conquered two-thirds of england (see danelaw) and brought over the old danish language. their cultural and linguistic impact on the area was immense, and many consider this to be the beginnings of the fairly strong north/south linguistic divide in england which still exists to this day. soon after the danish invasion, what we call 'old english' was in fact a mix of old danish and old english - that is, the very central elements of the language (the morphology and syntax) of english and danish (as brought over by the invaders) mixed together to form a hybrid language (or rather, a single, unbroken continuum of dialects, i.e. a diasystem).
  • about the romance influence: this does *not* language convergence as norman (and later french) were not mutually intelligble with english. yes, a english absorbed a ton of words from french (much higher than the 40% you cited, i believe) but this is not language convergence - the morphology and syntax of the language, i.e. its central elements, remained untouched by norman/french. it is therefore incorrect to say it has "has lots and lots of Romance characteristics". it doesn't. it only has lots and lots of romance lexis.
Sure, it does! Don't assume that this kind of lexical change doesn't count. It completely changed the character of the English language by mixing it up with huge amounts of "foreign" terms. This is very different from the north (and other west) germanic languages where this didn't happen (or not really to a higher degree). - And regarding syntax: Don't you see that English lost a lot of its flexibility in word order, one could easily see this as a French influence, in fact, in many ways word order is like in French (though there are exceptions, of course). But I am not well informed enough about the history of the English language to give a 100% statement here.
i totally disagree - being english and having studied the romance languages in great detail - danish and english word order etc. share much more in common with each other than english and the romance languages. just in the syntax - prepositions left
You may be right, of course. Danish and English share a lot (more), but there is still the fact that word order (nowadays) in English is more restricted and actually not so different from French, in many aspects.

alone at the end of a sentence when their governed noun has been dislocated (e.g. 'det kan jeg ikke tælle med'), inversion of verb/subject with a left-dislocated adverbial (e.g. 'der afgår et tog klokken 7')... do correct my danish if it's poor hehe. yes,

Actually my Danish is poor, too, being raised elsewhere (most of the time). Also sorry for my poor English... - Dislocations(?) such as in your above examples are nothing limited to nordic languages and English, they are also normal in Dutch and German, even more so in the numerous dialects of these two languages. Thus they could be called a "germanic" marker, but not a "nordic" one. German example: "Da habe ich nichts von" instead of the formal "Davon habe ich nichts" etc. or "Wo kommst du her?" instead of "Woher kommst du?" (where do you come from?).

english has lost some of the flexibility in its word order, but that is only very recent, and so can't be put down to french influence - a lot of the typically danish inversions like 'det vil jeg gerne have' (rather than english-style 'jeg vil gerne have det') can actually still be heard in the speech of living english speakers, particularly older ones or those from less urbanised areas. kieron 20:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's interesting to know. But those inversions are not typical of nordic languages, they are the most natural thing in German and Dutch, too. So why talk about being nordic, if all you imply is "germanic"? (unless you include all that in "nordic). - By the way, word order in Spanish, for instance, is also much more liberal than in French, right?
history
  • in the 10th century, english kings reconquered the danelaw and established a unified kingdom of england (with some difficulty; the kingdom split and reformed several times). later, in the 10th and 11th centuries, the crown of england passed to danish/norwegian kings a number of times; for example, england formed part of the empire of canute (knut) the great, during which time scandinavian influence on english culture became very strong. even at the time of the norman invasion of 1066, an english and a dano-norwegian king had a claim to the throne of england (as well, of course, as the norman king).
  • it's maybe also worth noting that, although normandy spoke norman, a romance language influenced by germanic superstrate, it was a viking kingdom in origin and its kings were scandinavian. the name 'normandy' is a romanicisation of the old norse word for 'northmen.'
so, emm, it's hard to understate how closely linked english/british medieval history is with scandinavia. we must note that finland is only considered nordic because it was part of the swedish empire for a long while; estonia's claim to be nordic also rests in large part on its history as a fiefdom of the danish and swedish empires. so it's really just a question of timespan'. how long ago does a country have to have been ruled from scandinavia to be considered nordic? lol ^_^
kieron 17:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, you brough some interesting points. But you can't convince me (or most northern europeans) that the UK should be seen as part of the Nordic countries, I guess.
212.227.103.74 19:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
well, as i said, in no way would i call the uk 'nordic'. but i was attempting to demonstrate that, if you want to base "nordic" on a linguistic, historical or racial basis, then you have to start including countries that you would rather not ^_^ "nordic" is a modern political construct, which is why (for example) danes are reluctant to include (for example) the uk within the term.kieron 20:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, being in a hurry, I can only state that I will have to think about it...


Clearly, you are confusing Norse heritage with the concept of Norden/Pohjola, the equivalent of which the term 'Nordic Countries' is meant to be in this article. Nordic is not from Norse. Nordic is from nordique or simply northern. No-one argues against the fact that Norse culture with its roots in Scandinavia is one of the many influences on the British Isles and has contributed to "Englishness". However, the concept of Nordic Countries (Norden/Pohjola) is of a more local nature. No-one in Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Denmark or Norway would consider England or the British Isles as part of Norden/Pohjola. Also, note that Scandinavia (closer association with Germanic speakers) is a different concept. Come to think of it, Finnic speaking peoples and Germanic speaking peoples of Fennoscandia share a past which is older and more fundamental than the short Norse period of the British Isles. However, the modern concept of Nordic Countries plays on a more social and cultural level. It's just a designation for countries in Northern Europe that have similar social structures, GDPs, school systems, legislation and health care systems etc. etc. (resulting from centuries of close interaction) and thus harbour a feeling of overall similarity over other countries in the same region. Clarifer 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a misinformed perspective you hold. Then again, do you believe that those countries you mention have a monopoly on the terminology? Besides, Britain's mountains are part of the Scandinavian chain and Ireland was never part of Rome. As it stands, the Northmen learnt of Iceland from the Celts. English are not Welsh, who WERE Roman. It would be a mistake to see the Welsh who provided the Tudor dynasty and the Church of England to Britain, as some Southern Europeans. These are Protestants just like the other countries you cite as central to the North, even some more fanatically so in the case of Scotland (it once was so dramatically Fundamentalist in England to behead the king over it). Celtic peoples have never considered Finno-Ugrics to be part of the North in the way that the Germanic lands are, in the same way that Finno-Ugrics don't see Celts. Why see it from a mere geographical way, when both land and blood fit in this case of Britain and Ireland? 68.110.9.62 19:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

In no way is the term 'Nordic countries' (as an equivalent of Norden/Pohjola) meant as an anthropological classification (of whatever kind) as your comment seems to suggest. And again, Scandinavia is understood as a different (geographic and cultural) term locally. As to religion: The Nordic countries are all specifically Evangelic-Lutheran because, due to political arrangements, all took part of the reformation set forward by Martin Luther. This is but one of the issues that makes these 5 countries in Northern Europe similar in nature. Not all Fenno-Ugric speakers inhabit the 'Nordic countries' (most do not!) nor do all Germanic speakers (most do not!). The term 'Nordic countries' IS primarily a classification of similarly structured states harbouring cultural similarities and, if you wish, hence also a geopolitical term. Clarifer 17:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Great Britain and Ireland are considered Nordic by LOCATION as well as heritage, in the minds of all its inhabitants and also the perceptions of Southern Europe...which puts them in the same batch as the Nordic Council, etc. When Julius Caesar invaded Britain, he was looking to annex a Nordic land. The Romans went by sea to the Baltic for amber. If you want to make it a case of environmental features, then only the coniferous forested lands are Nordic. This excludes Denmark and Iceland, much of Norway, some of Sweden and would limit it to areas which have had Finno-Ugrics predominate. This is just a Uralic vs Celtic bias dispute, Germanic as the middle axis. 68.110.9.62 02:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

See, when I take my English dictionary and look under Norden/Pohjola it says clearly 'Nordic countries'. This has nothing to do with some historical and apparently ethnolinguistic (?) interpretations of the term 'Nordic' which I'm very slowly becomming aware of. I fail to see how the term 'Nordic countries' relates to language groupings. Great Britain and Ireland can be said to be NORTHERN but the current usage of the term Nordic has more or less been reserved for Nor, Swe, Fin, Den and Ice. No, the term 'Nordic countries' has little to do with flora and fauna. Once again, it is just a name for a bunch of nation states which are so similar in their policies, bureucracy, welfare, labour structure, health care etc. etc. that their governments have already for decades (long before the EU!) granted their citizens freedom of movement across the national borders in terms of labour, residence, capital etc. etc. Clarifer 15:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you must be referring to what remains of the Kalmar Union? 68.110.9.62 16:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, read the first line of the section History of Scandinavia#European integration. --Palnatoke 08:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That explains nothing. 68.110.9.62 14:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear what you are referring to by "remains of the Kalmar union". (Maybe you could specify that?) It was dissolved when Sweden left, and Norway and Denmark made a new union. One could of course speculate on how Scandinavia or Norden would have been like if the Kalmar union never happened, but none of the Scandinavian/Nordic relations today are based on the Kalmar union.Inge 15:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[I disagree]. All constituent parties of the Nordic Council were once part of the Kalmar Union and this region has taken on the description of "Nordic countries" today. I do not believe the focus should be limited, but should centre on the North Sea and outwards. The UK has a cross flag, like the other Nordic countries do and these are the only ones besides Greece. Nordic is much more than post-Kalmar. 68.110.9.62 18:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. Engaging in a discussion with you was obviusly a mistake. I apologize for wasting your time.Inge 20:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

How is it alright for you to engage in this condescending attitude of "who fits in and who doesn't"? How is it that you believe your own self and those just like you are part of this world? That smacks of the very arrogance related to not knowing what you're talking about. It's offencive to be treated the way you and those like you have done to me and those like me. Wisen up please. 68.110.9.62 03:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

All this aside, is there not a more compelling case for mentioning, at least, Shetland (Norn, Með lögum skal land byggja, the Shetland bus et al.) and perhaps also Orkney? In a similar context to the passage on Estonia, at least ... TheVenerableBede 11:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No objections, so done. TheVenerableBede 08:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
While principally not opposing any self-designation (and bearing in mind that these groupings are rather arbitrary) there are a few questions one could ask before designating a geographic area "Nordic" (as an equivalent to Pohjola/Pohjoismaat or de nordiska länderna/Norden. 1. Is the (or one of the) official languages in that geographic area a Nordic language (i.e. a North Germanic or a Baltic-Finnic language)? 2. Is the geographic area represented in the Nordic Council or the Nordic Council of Ministers? 3. Has it been part of the Nordic Passport Union? 4. Is the (or one of the) state church(es) (or has it been) the Evangelic-Lutheran Church for 500 years? 5. Does the area have a long tradition of a generous welfare system mixing a freemarket economy and a heavy taxation with the principle of trying to equalise incomes? 6. Is its politics traditionally heavily influenced by a social democrat party? 7. Are there minorities in that area that a) speak the language of another Nordic country or b) have traditionally lived a mobile life form across open borders between some Nordic countries? 8. Is the surrounding nature a dominant theme in the life style of that area (shown e.g. in the sparce population in comparison with the land area)? Etc. etc. (I hope this isn't overly simplified and wrong. Who can come up with more common traits?). No-one in Swe, Nor, Fin, Ice and Den would designate Orkney or Shetland to be part of Pohjola/Norden but they might say that sure, they have been influenced by a Norse heritage. However, this is not the basis of "Nordic". Clarifer 15:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the simple problem here is that there is no simple English-language translation - and thus no page - for Pohjola/Pohjoismaat or de nordiska länderna/Norden? I'd be happy to accept that my Northern Isles additions would belong better on another page - but which page? If the different concepts cannot be distinguished adequately in English, then we might have a problem ... TheVenerableBede 16:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
We should either remove both Shetland\Orkney and Estonia or keep them both, preferrably in a spescial section on close associates or something similar. From my viewpoint in Western Norway it is quite strange to hear Estonia referred to as part of Norden and not so strange to include Shetland at least. The reason being of course that people in my part of the Nordic countries have lots of cultural and economic interaction with the people of Shetland and particularily their maritime industries and none with Estonia. I of course understand from this debate that some people feel Estonia belongs in Norden. Many of the same arguments can be used for both. History, culture, language, current social and economic interraction...So if we keep Estonia we should in my veiw certainly keep Shetland. Inge 20:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
If you understand Finnish and Swedish (perhaps Finnish only is enough), you will most likely be able to read Estonian newspapers and understand pretty much everything they say. Estonians are also ethnically related to Finns/other nordic people, and have a similar culture. That's why I think they should be mentioned in the article. I won't comment on whether the Scots should be mentioned, as I don't really know anything about Scottish language, culture, ethnicity, and their similarities/relations with nordic peoples (However I doubt that the languages are very similar, after looking at Wikipedia's language articles - Swedish languages are North Germanic whereas Scots is West Germanic). --HJV 22:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...I'm not sure what the problem here is. Just type in "Nordic countries" in google and see what you get. Sure, Estonia and Orkney/Shetland may have close contacts with some Nordic countries but the life style, the structure of their societies, the bureucracy, internal politics etc. etc. just aren't very similar with the Nordic countries... I'd say we title a paragraph on this in the lines of "areas with traditional connections with the Nordic countries" or so...? Clarifer 15:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Clarifers suggestion.Inge 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree, and well implemented. TheVenerableBede 08:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nordic countries = Nordic region ?

To my understanding the term 'Nordic countries' is the most coined in English language equivalent of the local terms 'Pohjola' and 'Norden'. I'm not sure if emphasizing yet another term, such as the term 'Nordic region', makes things less complicated... To my understanding the 'Nordic countries' are the STATES of Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland, while geographically one can speak of a "Nordic region" and include the dependent areas of Greenland, Aland, Faroe etc. etc. Clarifer 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nordic countries as "Scandinavia"

"The Nordic countries, sometimes also the Nordic region or Scandinavia..."

I have added the word "(incorrectly)" in front of Scandinavia in the above sentence because, while it is true that the Nordic countries are sometimes referred to as "Scandinavia", that usage is incorrect. Scandinavia is generally accepted to be a part of Continental Europe only. I don't support deleting the reference to Scandinavia in this sentence because it helps readers to see a term that they might well use, and also to see that it is inaccurate as a term for the whole Nordic region. Tamino 10:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

somebody has removed your addition. I did put it back, as you are 100% right, NCs to S is like GB is to England.
In North American English, that usage isn't incorrect though, and say "incorrect" may be unnecessarily exclusive? -- JHunterJ 11:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"Compact Oxford English Dictionary" (retrieved 2006-12-13) use the adjective Nordic for "Scandinavia, Finland, and Iceland" and the noun Nordic for "native of Scandinavia, Finland, or Iceland". The North American mixed use of the terms might be similar to many other languages' colloquial use of England for GB or America for the U.S. So at least in British English there is a difference. Norrefeldt 12:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
We are not required to be 'bug for bug compatible' with Microsoft. Beginning the article with "In English, Scandinavia is sometimes used as a rough synonym for the Nordic countries.[1]" in the lead implies that we at Wikipedia believe that Scandinavia is sometimes the same. We don't want to do that. Perhaps we should say, somewhere, that sometimes people who don't know better use the phrase as a vague catchall for that bit up the top of Europe where vikings used to come from. On the other hand, some people think that dolphins are fish, but we don't discuss that in fish and we certainly don't start the article on fish with "sometimes used to include dolphins". Regards, Ben Aveling 00:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It implies nothing of that sort. The article states up front that the word in its title is sometimes (often, actually) used in with a different meaning from the one the article describes. This is a relevant piece of information for an encyclopedia to give early. It would be a grave disservice to our readers to pretend that the meaning that we describe is the only possible one, when in fact the reader may have come here in an attempt to understand a text that uses it with the other meaning. We're here to produce a reference work, not to make life hard for readers who Stray From The Truth. And frankly, the notion that a word has a single True and Unchanging meaning, fails utterly to work for any natural language. If there is a widely-used usage of "fish" with a meaning that includes dolphins, and that usage can be properly sourced to Wikipedia's standard, then that information certainly belong early in the fish article (which in facts starts out with a lengthy discussion of what the word encompasses). –Henning Makholm 23:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It implies exactly that, once you take out the padding. "In English, Scandinavia is sometimes used as a rough synonym for ..." means exactly the same thing as "Scandinavia can be used as a synonym for ...". We have two choices. Either we say "Nordic means X" or we say "Nordic sometimes means X and sometimes means Y". We can't say that "Nordic means X. And sometimes it means Y." The current version said that Nordic does sometimes mean Scandinavia, so I've made it explicit that it doesn't always mean what I would consider Nordic to mean. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your edit, which changed the meaning into a complete falsehood. "Nordic countries" always unambiguously means all of Iceland+Denmark+Norway+Sweden+Finland. It is "Scandinavia" whose meaning varies; sometimes "Scandinavia" us used to refer to all of the Nordic countries, but at other times "Scandinavia" means only a subset, usually Denmark+Norway+Sweden or Norway+Sweden. –Henning Makholm 23:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, good call. My edit was not an improvement. I still don't like it though. Remind me again why we are talking about what Scandinavia is in the article on Nordic? What we have there doesn't help the reader understand what the Nordic region is. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The sentence presents an alternative words for the article's subject, with discreet caveats that it is not unambiguous. It is a heads-up to the reader who has been sent here (by a piped link, say) to learn about "Scandinavia", lest he will be confused if the article he gets does not at all mention the word he clicked on. –Henning Makholm 10:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Henning, I'm sorry to ask this, but are you a native English speaker? Because the sentence does not say what I think you think it says. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) My native language is Danish. However, the sentence is not difficult to understand, and I have trouble grasping why you should think it means something other than what it does. Can we agree that all of the following sentences have the same meaning?

  1. In English, Scandinavia is sometimes used as a rough synonym for the Nordic countries.
  2. In English, the word "Scandinavia" is sometimes used as a rough synonym for "the Nordic countries".
  3. In English, people sometimes use the word "Scandinavia" as a rough synonym for "the Nordic countries".
  4. In English, people sometimes use the word "Scandinavia" as a synonym for, roughly, "the Nordic countries".
  5. In English, people sometimes use "Scandinavia" as a word that means the same as, roughly, "the Nordic countries".
  6. In English, people sometimes say "Scandinavia" when they mean "the Nordic countries".
  7. In English, people sometimes say "Scandinavia" when they want to refer to the Nordic countries.

I hold that all of these sentences denote (roughly!) the same idea, that neither of them suggests any variability in the meaning of "the Nordic countries", and that all of them explicitly claim that "Scandinavia" may mean different thing to different people. –Henning Makholm 02:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that all of those sentences, to differing degrees, say "Scandinavian is synonymous with Nordic". The problem word is 'sometimes'. If I read you right, by 'sometimes' you mean "some people use Scandinavia to mean 'the Nordic Countries', and some people don't". (They use it to mean something else, something quite distinct which cannot be considered to be the same thing.) If so, then at least we are trying to say the same thing. But a more intuitive way to read these sentences is "all people use the word Scandinavia to mean 'the Nordic Countries', some of the time". (And sometimes they use other words, such as Nordic Countries.) We should perhaps acknowledge such minority viewpoints, but the way we are currently doing that, we have written the majority viewpoint out of existence. As someone else said earlier, England and Britain are sometimes used as synonyms for each other, but that don't make it so for the rest of us. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't describe specific language usage as "incorrect", it is nonsense as usage defines language. In any case, it is not our task here to pass judgment on what is correct and not. (And yes, as a true Scandinavian I also get annoyed when Americans describe Finland as Scandinavian, or exclude Denmark because it is not on the Scandinavian peninsula, but Wikipedia is not the right vehicle to make others use the terminology I grew up with, especially when they speak another language). --Per Abrahamsen (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nordic North?

Is this really used in English? Clarifer 15:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If the question was: "Are 'Nordic' or 'North' used in English?", then (in my experience) the answer is:
    • Nordic as adjective: quite commonly (e.g. Nordic light)
    • Nordic(s)/Nordic region as a noun: rarely; I have occaisionally seen "the Nordics", but it is rarer than "the Baltic States", for example.
    • The North in the sense of the Nordic region: I have never heard or seen it used in that way; in British English "the North" means the North of England or everything north of the Fosse Way (i.e northern England and all of Scotland).
I am by no means an authority on English usage but I think that I am reasonably close. Tamino 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I meant 'Nordic North'. See the current opening of the article. I've NEVER heard of a 'Nordic North' so what is it? What is a non-Nordic North then? Clarifer 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I haven't heard of "the Nordic North" either. What a strange term. Perhaps someone was thinking that with the world being divided into North and South (rather than the Cold War East-West divide) the Nordic countries/region needed to be renamed to avoid confusion with the global North. But it sounds really odd. I'll remove it. Tamino 16:16, 11 May 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] Angry Norwegian

I removed the following inline commentary from the article. It provides a rather unconventional viewpoint on the difference between "Nordic countries" and "Scandinavia". - Henning Makholm 13:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The text over is wrong!
The difference between Scandinavia and nordic contries comes from the viking age. The vikings where barbarians from denmark, Sweden and Norway. Iceland is included in the nordic contries because the viking was the first people to settle there. Howewer the vikings where not the one to discover or settle Greenland or Finland, thats why thoose areas is not included in the nordic contries.
Scandinavia concist of Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Greenland, Finland and all the island that belongs to them. The nordic countries (or Norden in Norwegian) concist only of Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway! Not Greenland and Finland or any island exept Svalbard!
(An Angry Norwegian wrote this)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.172.250 (talk) 2006-07-09 08:15:21

[edit] Two questions

What do the "¹" in the peoples row signify? And shouldn't Greenland also be included in the table of political history? —Nightstallion (?) 14:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

the "1" used to refer to a footnote explaining that the Icelanders and Faroese originally came from Norwegian and Celtic background, at some point this seems to have been removed. I don't really understand why it was needed in the first place. I can also see no reason for excluding Greenland from this table, it is included in the Icelandic version at is:Saga Norðurlanda (History of the Nordic countries). --Bjarki 23:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The 1 foot note in the table originates from the table in Scandinavia and could be removed perhaps. Greenlanders are not included in the table because this article is (or at least used to be) primarily about the Nordic countries (=the states of Den, Fin, Ice, Nor, Swe) and not the Nordic region (the states + their dependencies such as Greenland, Aland etc. a more geographical term and a less geopolitical one) Adding the Greenlanders would mean that the table should feature Alanders too? Also, please note that this article is not about a "Saga realm" but a real life construction of modern times. Clarifer 08:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
oh and how about the Sami? Clarifer 08:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Aland should be added as well. Then we would have a table that depicts the historical background of the 8 political entities in the Nordic region that were more or less independent at the turn of th 21st century. The Sami don't have such an entity for themselves so I'm not sure how that should work. In the Icelandic version I linked to before, they are listed in the bottom row as one of the nations that make up Norway, Sweden and Finland. --Bjarki 12:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Strictly speaking this article would then not deal with the 'Nordic countries' anymore but the 'Nordic reagion' so the article's title should be changed? Either that, or we stick to the topic 'Nordic countries' here... (There's a difference between the coined in term 'Nordic countries' and a less defined term Nordic region I think.)Clarifer 13:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The Sami do enjoy some local autonomy in the three Nordic states in terms of culture, language and mild governing bodies (the Sami parliaments). Clarifer 14:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Still nowhere close the autonomy enjoyed by the Faroes, Greenland or Åland. I'm also unused to the concept of a 'Nordic region' as something distinct from the Nordic countries, in fact I have never encountered such a distinction outside Wikipedia. --Bjarki 14:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
In any case, "Nordic region" redirects here so what's the issue exactly? --Bjarki 14:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Here on the www-pages of the Nordic council [1] you can somewhat perceive the difference between the terms 'Nordic countries' enlisted in the left (=the states) and the map featuring the whole Nordic region (=states+dependencies). 'Nordic countries' is indeed a coined in term in the English language that can usually be found separately in a dictionary. The term Nordic region is not as defined. There's no issue. Just trying to set the scope of this article. I think we should decide whether we PRIMARILY want to write about the Nordic countries (Den, Fin, Ice, Nor, Swe) or the Nordic region and all the peoples associated (Den, Fin, Ice, Nor, Swe, Gre, Far, Aland, Svalbart? Sami peoples). I don't think Greenland is particularly a part of the Nordic countries as these are both Geographically and culturally a subset of Europe whereas Greenland is part of North America in both ways - through Denmark, of course, Greenland becomes part of the Nordic region though. Clarifer 06:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm not opposed to extending the scope of the article and adding Greenlanders and Alanders in the table. I do think that in this case we should add the Sami as well, if not for autonomy but then for being an indigenous people? Clarifer 06:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm strongly in favour of adding Åland and Greenland, and pretty much disinterested regarding the Sami. They don't have a formal region allotted to them, but they are certainly their own people... —Nightstallion (?) 11:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

*bump* Noone interested any longer? —Nightstallion (?) 11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms

In the section Flags and Symbols there is made a claim to the Commom coat of arms of the nordic countries, The source referenced is 'European Voice' (a subsidiary of The Economist), 16th March 2006, however it is a login newssite. Does anybody have another source for this bumblebee coat of arms and can some opload af picture of it, perhaps even create an artilce for it? --Angelbo 19:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This story sounds very odd in my ears. The Nordic Council compared the Nordic welfare system with a bumblebee in a recent publication [2] (page 19: Den nordiske velfærdsmodel som en humlebi), and although I agree that the "European Voice" did indeed print a story this day ("Hear the buzz as the Nordics bumble ahead", index page: [3]), I still think this comparison was supposed to have been understood figuratively, not literally. It would also make little sense to chose a second symbol, considering how many years it has taken to get the symbol of the Swan (somewhat) known. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just going to be brave and delete the paragraph. It's obviously just an overextended and/or misinterpreted metaphor. At the very least, it's certain the Nordic countries aren't about to change their national coats of arms anytime soon. If any such thing had been seriously proposed there'd have been a lot more 'buzz' about it. :) --BluePlatypus 19:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population statistics. Should either be sourced or removed completely.

This paragraph seems like a very bad idea to me, and it is next to useless in its current form. Either we have to find an entire list from ONE very good source (and add a very good reference to this source) or the entire paragraph should be removed. Seing numbers being added without sources and arguments on the pages about Stockholm and Copenhagen about which city is larger is merely a waste of time. If this paragraph simply jumbles together numbers counted in different ways, then what's it good for? It'll simply be comparing apples with pears.Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 20:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think those two lists are particularly enligthening. However, a simple list of major cities with approximate sizes would potentially be useful. Even with the understanding that the edges of metropolitan areas are always fuzzy and that the administrative areas for which statistics exist usually have a somewhat incidental relation to those fuzzy edges, this would help readers get a rough idea of how large those cities are. Say, people from the other end of the world might reasonably expect an encyclopedia to give them an idea about whether a "major" city in a Nordic context is more like Sydney or Canberra. If only such lists did not have a tendency to turn into my-city-is-bigger-than-your-city battlegrounds... Henning Makholm 01:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll buy that suggestion. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then which cities should be on the new list? Since metropolitan area is a bit "fuzzy" - and I agree about that - how about using urban area as a refrence point? Urban area is probably the best way to mesure a city's size since the municipality can be a small part of an urban area and metropolitan areas are mesured in diffrent ways in all countries. If we go by urban area we have 5 cities with a urban area of approximately 500.000 inhabitants or more. The stats for Göteborg is - 199 km² urban area with 495,849 inhabitants and a density of 2,491/km². --Krm500 13:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you work with a strict distinction between "urban area" and "metropolitan area"? I confess to using them interchangably in the sense of "more-or-less contiguous built-up area" with the larger such ones more likely to be called "metropolitan", but am willing to be educated. Henning Makholm 15:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Metropolitan area sounds like something with denser population, more like London or Paris, than the areas we are discussing here. Otherwise I agree with the suggestion by Henning Makholm. Right now it doesn't look good. Norrefeldt 11:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
A city with a population of 50 000 inhabitants has a metropolitan area. A metropolitan area doesn't have to be a large city like London, New York or Paris. A metropolitan area is the area of which a urban area (city) have an affect on. For example if X number of people travel on a daily basis to a city to work they live in that city's metropolitan area. An urban area is the are with a high density settlement, for example, Gothenburg's administrative (City of Göteborg/Göteborgs stad ie: the municipality) size is 487,000 inhabitants on an area of 400km2. But the urban area is 500,000 ingabitants on an area of 200km2 which stretched through 3 diffrent municipalities, Göteborg, Mölndal and Partille. --Krm500 13:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Should I gather from your example that the "metropolitan" area neither includes the entire "urban" area, nor the other way around? (As one is the larger and the other the more populous). In that case I must confess continued confusion. Anyhow, my main point is not to elevate municipal boundaries to a level of importance they cannot sustain. Just as we would not list London anywhere as having the area or population of the City of London, we should not pretend that, e.g., Copenhagen or Stockholm consist only of the so-named municipalities. Henning Makholm 09:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that the metropolitan area had such wide distinction, Krm500. In that case the metropolitan areas are Western Skåne or the whole region around the lake Mälaren (around 100km radius from Stockholm/Malmö). I don't think we should bother listing the metropolitan areas at all in an article about the Nordic countries. It's rather far away from the topic. Norrefeldt 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger from Largest cities of the Nordic countries

I proposed that one for deletion, but JIP did not agree. I, for one, think both that article and the section over here should be deleted. What do you say? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Both should go. Nobody seems to be editing this page except people arguing over whose town is bigger. As long as we don't have any universal set of defintions, this list will be unsalvageable. I suggest we remove the entire "population" paragraph one week from today, unless somebody finds a new list from somewhere reputable. A list from an encyclopedia would be nice. Valentinian T / C 10:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that's talk page consensus. I'll go ahead. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's pretty easy to define the population of a metropolitan area as the population of the municipality ("kommune"). It includes suburbs to a certain degree, but it's a convenient way to compare city sizes.
That being said, I don't see much purpose in such a list either. --dllu 16:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it ought to be easy. The problem is that almost the entire greater Copenhagen area skipped the Danish administrative reforms of 1970 and 2007, so there is a massive confusion about which suburbs to include or not. We still have a similar bad list on Scandinavia. I've proposed that we remove it one week from today unless we can find a list from a reputable source before then. Valentinian T / C 11:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --dllu 13:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

First of all, I don't see the point of that chronology table. Secondly, what's up with the "Denmark/Sweden/Finland (EU)" boxes?! The EU is not a federation with member states as autonomous provinces (yet). --dllu 16:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Nordic cross" link

I reverted this edit, but my browser somehow submitted the edit while I was still typing the edit summary. Here is what I had intended to write:

I don't see the point of "X (see X1)" instead of just linking X when X redirects to X1 already. Linking directly from X is The Hypertext Way; it makes the reading smoother and has no disadvantages that I can see. This is the kind of thing that redirects and/or piped links are for.

–Henning Makholm 23:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly one way or another. My thinking was that it was nice to be explicit that the Nordic Cross Flag page was being linked to, since (at least to me) it's not obvious from the "Nordic cross" redirect. But if you prefer the way it reads as-is, I'm happy just keeping it--this is a trival point and not worth arguing over. -- Krinsky 06:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic edits concerning U.S. definition and "usage"

It is incorrect to imply that the U.S. definition of "Nordic Countries" differ from the definition used elsewhere ("is rarely used in the USA to mean the countries listed above" [4]), or that American-English speakers are unaware of and/or not using the names "Nordic Council" and "Nordic Countries", the official translation used by the Nordic Council for the entity to which the member countries belong. Please note that modern publications in the U.S. do in fact use the term "Nordic Countries" for the member states represented by the Nordic Council, and the term is always used in same way as the rest of the world use it — U.S. publications do not appear more inclined than other English-language publications to use "Nordic countries" as a synonym of "countries of the Germanic peoples of northern Europe", or to exclude people from Finland as implied in this edit [5]. The official government usage in the U.S. of the term "Nordic Countries", and what appears to be the most common definition in modern publications, is not the racially centered definition in Merriam-Webster (where the definition includes "of Germanic peoples" and "of a physical type of the Caucasian race characterized by tall stature, long head, light skin and hair, and blue eyes" [6]), but a definition identical with that used by the UN, OECD and the Nordic Council — see for example publications like "Nordic Countries Report on Misconduct Activity in the 90's" by The Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Volume 7, No. 4, September 1999: "The Nordic countries that have established such committees are Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Iceland, the fifth Nordic country, does not have a committee." Most U.S.-based (or U.S.- associated) modern publications also use the term "Nordic Countries" when the official entity is discussed, and with the same meaning, as demonstrated in the following random examples: Nordic Countries Come Out Near the Top in Two Business Surveys in The New York Times, 14 October 2004; Washington Post in various articles (see also how the adjective "Nordic" is used); Comparing Depository Institution Difficulties in Canada, the United States, and the Nordic Countries" in Journal of Housing Research, 5:2 1994; "The five Nordic countries remain defiantly different from the rest of Europe-and from each other" in The Economist (US), 23 January 1999; "Nordic countries top competitiveness ranking" in the International Herald Tribune, 29 September 2005; Nordic Countries Top The World Economic Forum's Gender Gap Index in the World Economic Forum, 8 November 2007. Using a dictionary's etymological definition of the adjective "Nordic" (a definition stemming from a system of race classifications by Joseph Deniker) as proof of the lack of modern usage in the U.S. of the name "Nordic Countries" is insufficient evidence and constitutes original research unless sources directly discussing the issue are consulted and cited. To say that the term "Nordic Countries" is "rarely used in the USA to mean the countries listed above" is obviously incorrect. And to say that "Scandinavia" or "Northern Europe" are the terms normally used is also problematic: there is no indication that the Nordic Council is called the "Scandinavian Council" or the "Northern Europe Council" in the U.S. The edit that states categorically that Finland is not considered Nordic in the U.S. as per the M-W definition is even more problematic. Please note that the Merriam-Webster definition of the noun Nordic includes people of Finland; the first choice for a definition of the noun in M-W is simply "a native of northern Europe", which obviously includes natives of Finland. The racially-inspired definition of the adjective "Nordic" and the changes in definitions through time are better explored and developed in the article Nordic as it would require a rather lengthy diversion from the topic at hand, which is the term "Nordic Countries", not the adjective "Nordic". 71.106.234.83 (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WP editing is supposed to be based on other published sources. I provided evidence that "Nordic" is so rarely used in the USA to mean the countries called "Nordic countries" in this article that some US dictionaries do not record this meaning at all.[7]. You seem to not understand how a modern dictionary like Merriam-Webster is compiled. It does not define the meaning of a word; it records how a word is in fact used, not how it should be used. The usages recorded are nevertheless quite conservative because although the general usage is usually recorded first, even this is not "real" general usage (in the "real" i.e. spoken language) but based mostly on printed, reputable sources and is therefore usage mostly by educated speakers. If there is also a common specialised, technical usage or a common colloquial or slang usage that differ from the general, "normal" educated usage, these are also recorded. When a respected, modern dictionary like Merriam-Webster does not even mention a usage, there is good reason to believe this is not a mistake or an omission but a carefully made decision. It is not correct that you removed this edit of mine and the information provided and the reputable source and the quote from it.
Your first claim is original research, especially since it contradicts the results of the scientific work that went into compiling the Merriam-Webster entry. That entry is based on actual usage in (mostly) published texts, and you're essentially claiming that you're more competent to observe and describe use of the word "Nordic" in US English than Merriam-Webster. Your second claim is a misunderstanding of the dictionary entry and of my edit quoting it. No one said that US publications use "Nordic countries" to exclude people from Finland. The word "Nordic" is used so seldom to mean the Scandinavian countries that this meaning is not recorded in Merriam-Webster; it is completely illogical to claim that anyone would use the expression "Nordic countries" to exclude Finland if it's not commonly used.
Usage in official US government texts is not a good indication of general US usage. Government sources normally follow awkward and even misleading English usage by foreign governments in naming things related to their countries, but they will usually also explain to normal US readers what is meant by the unknown expression or non-US usage.
Your quotes from US publications show that "Nordic countries" is is fact used in US English too and that Merriam Webster may soon include that meaning. Your quotes however prove nothing about how common this usage is in US English or that it is anywhere as common as "Scandinavian" or "northern European". Your claims about frequency are simply OR and are not able to override and annul the information provided by a major US dictionary. Your talk about a dictionary's etymological definition of the adjective "Nordic" shows that you do not know how a modern dictionary is compiled. The meaning of or relating to the Germanic peoples of northern Europe and especially of Scandinavia is listed first because it is the most common current meaning based on Merriam-Webster's extensive collection of quotes from a large selection of printed sources, it is not "only" the "etymological" (original or historical) meaning.
You're collecting data to support your claim; that's OR. I'm providing information from sources that have already compiled data; that's not OR. It is never OK to remove well-sourced information from reputable sources; replacing them with OR is even worse.--Espoo (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[Reformated first comment back to the original as per Wikipedia:Etiquette#How to avoid abuse of talk pages: "Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments [...] it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow."]
The argument about the usage in the US fails on several, very basic levels, the first being that the lack of an entry in Merriam-Webster certainly does not provide "evidence that 'Nordic' is so rarely used in the USA to mean the countries called 'Nordic countries' in this article that some US dictionaries do not record this meaning at all" as claimed. A lack of an entry in a dictionary only provides evidence that that particular dictionary does not list the name. Merriam-Webster does not have an entry for Union of African States, African Union or Nordic Council either. Obviously that does not mean that for instance the name African Union is not in use in the US or that "Nordic Council" means something else when used by American-English speakers. Merriam-Webster, a subsidiary of Encyclopædia Britannica, is but one of many authoritative sources, which also includes other dictionaries and encyclopedias, and it is not the sole authority on "how a word is used in the United States" as implied. Merriam-Webster lists an adjective "Nordic" from the late 1800s which is a synonym for "Germanic people, Caucasian race characterized by tall stature, long head, light skin and hair, and blue eyes". Please note that the modern use of "Nordic" when combined with "countries" does not refer to race in modern US sources (please let me know if you are able to locate one) and the term Nordic countries is not used differently in the US than it is elsewhere in the world; it means countries of the Nordic Council, here as elsewhere. The Nordic Council] was formed 1953 (Finland joined in 1956) and the name Nordic countries was thus not officially adopted for the entire region when the noun Nordic was first taken into use in 1901. To me, it is not very interesting to discuss which dictionary uses the best research methods to find the ultimate descriptive use, or if M-W's are better, similar or different from for instance Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary's and Encarta Webster's Dictionary's methods. I would only like to draw your attention to the fact that countless examples exist, some listed above, that demonstrate the term Nordic countries used by the press, in peer-reviewed journals, in scholarly books, in books for the general public, by the US government and by host of encyclopedias and dictionaries. The term gets 2,127 hits on Google books, and as you can see, many of these books are published in the US. It's not necessary to speculate about M-W's research methods when there are so many other authoritative sources using the name in the same way other English-speaking nations use the term. It is the claim that the term is seldom in use in the US for the countries of the Nordic Council that is surprising and needs to be sourced. Please also note that the examples listed above on this page serve only to rebut your claim that "Nordic countries" is seldom used and used differently in the US, and is not a comment on M-W's research. It is only meant to highlight why that without an authoritative source stating that the term is seldom used or used differently, your use of a dictionary to prove this theory fails to meet WP:V. Also, please note that providing examples of usage as a rebuttal on a discussion page does not constitute WP:OR - original research applies to interpretations inserted into articles. The examples given here are offered as a courtesy to you in order to demonstrate why the conclusion you have drawn is problematic and to explain to you why your addition to the article is slated to be either flagged or removed. Unless a reliable source is introduced that actually argues that "Nordic countries" is seldom used in the US and that the term is instead used in a different way in the US, your edit will have to be flagged Template:Synthesis (= This section may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources.) Please see the policy page for WP:SYNT. 71.107.27.204 (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy ranking

It might be of interest to mention the democracy ranking of countries (where the five nordic countries all are among the top six) as I see is done in the article on Sweden. —Bromskloss (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal icon placement

FYI, you can add a link to Portal:Norway in this article, by placing {{Portal|Norway|Nuvola Norwegian flag.svg}} at the top of the see also section (or the external links section if the article has no see also section). This will display

Norway Portal

Cirt (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carelia

I think Carelia must be added to the part "Areas with close relations to the Nordic countries", because of its historic ties to Finland and Sweden. Aaker (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of Karelia is Nordic (thus not related), and well, rest of Karelia has historic ties, but Stalin's ethnic cleansing destroyed those ties, so its up to what "close relations" means.
Wikinist (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove 2nd map

According to me, The second map on top of the article does not add any value to the first one. Correct me if I am wrong. Otherwise I will simply remove it. Tomeasy (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here I go. I am removing the second map now. Tomeasy (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)