Talk:Finland
|
|
| Contents |
National anthem
As you know, Finland does not have an official national anthem. There have been two suggestions, maamme and finlandia, both rejected by parliament. Maamme should not be called national anthem, because it is not such. Half of the finns thinks its Finlandia more than maamme.
- Whether official or not, it is the de facto national anthem. See Maamme or virtual.finland.fi (http://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=27080). --kooo 12:19, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
- If national anthem is de facto only, then you should say it is de facto, like united states language is none but de facto english. You should also respect opinions of those who thinks Finlandia hymn is national anthem. It is de facto a better song than maamme both by its music, words and origins :) 193.65.112.51 21:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I haven't come up to any source saying that Maamme is not the official national anthem. Maamme says [...] is the title of Finland's national anthem. I'll assume that it is official also. Someone with actual knowledge could verify this. By the way, Finland-hymn is extremely difficult to sing. Hence it might not be a good choise for a national anthem. ;) --kooo 00:54, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)
- There was two competing law suggestions to the parliament something like a year ago. One said maamme is the national anthem and other said finlandia hymn is the national anthem. Parliament rejected both. So there is no official national anthem. No law book says maamme is national anthem, like in many countries. It is just a habit of sport events to play maamme. Some of the sportsmen wanted to play Finlandia instead at ther beginning of 1900-luku. I heard this from my (yläaste-)school sports teacher, who was living at that time. so it is not even a "historical fact", at least not a self evident one, that maamme, that drunk song of war party is a "national anthem". I am a finnish person and my national anthem is Finlandia. I have a right to select. I am not the only one who has selected this. Very many Finns thinks Finlandia would be better national an them. So you are lying here to people from all over the world if you tell them maamme is national anthem. Here should be a NPOW badge, but i think it would be also unfair.193.65.112.51 00:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence that "Half of the finns" think Finlandia should be the national anthem.
The Finnish Foreign Ministry only recognises "Maamme" as the Finnish national anthem and it is the only one used officially. "Finlandia" has never been used as an official anthem, and nobdy has the right to choose for it to be used as such. These are undisputed facts. If "Maamme" is to be labeled as a de facto anthem only, stronger evidence is needed than faint recollections of what are believed to be parliamentary debates -- but which in reality seem to refer to a column by the pseudonym KK on the Finnish parliament website -- and reminiscences of what PE teachers may or may not have said about the question. The issue once again highlights the main and very serious problem facing Wikipedia as a credible source of reliable information: it is too easy it is for people with an axe to grind to gain publicity for their views.
- I wanted to get a clear answer, so I emailed virtual.finland.fi and asked them about this. Here is a quote from their reply, in Finnish:
"[...] Laulun erikoispiirteisiin kuuluukin, että se saavutti tämän aseman itsenäisesti. Maamme-laulua ei virallistettu eikä sen asemaa määritelty lakiteitse - ylhäältä alas - vaan se levisi ja otettiin käyttöön aluksi Suomen ylioppilaiden toimesta ja myöhemmin myös kansakoululaitoksen myötä. Runebergin runo ja Paciuksen sävellys on niin ilon kuin murheenkin päivinä rohkaissut lukemattomissa tilaisuuksissa suomalaisia ja saavuttanut itsenäisessä Suomessa kansallislaulun aseman. Tänä päivänä Maamme-laulu on vakiinnuttanut asemansa valtiollisissa seremonioissa, isänmaallisissa tilaisuuksissa, urheilujuhlissa, koulujen päättäjäisissä etc. Tässä mielessä Maamme-laulu on Suomen kansallislaulu. Yleisötilaisuuksia voidaan juhlistaa myös muilla isänmaallisilla lauluilla, joita ovat esim: Finlandia, Oi kallis Suomenmaa, Suomen laulu, Porilaisten marssi ja Siunaa ja varjele meitä. Jos Maamme-laulu kuuluu ohjelmistoon tulee se vakiintuneen protokollan mukaan esittää joko tilaisuuden alussa tai (kuten yleensä) lopussa yleisön seistessä. Maamme-laulun jälkeen ei taputeta." Ei ole olemassa mitään universaaleja kansallislaulun kriteerejä, vaan kansallislaulun määritelmät luultavasti vaihtelevat valtioittain ja kansakunnittain. Maamme-laulun kohdallakin on siis tarpeetonta pohtia de facto/de jure -problematiikkaa, jos kansallislaulua ei tarvitse virallistaa lainsäädännöllä. Maamme-laulua voidaan siis kuitenkin pitää Suomen 'virallisena' kansallislauluna.
- In short it says that Maamme has not been officialized by law, but the de facto/de jure -problematics do not apply here, because national anthems do not need to be set by law; thus it can be considered to be the national anthem. I'll change the article back accordingly. Originally I didnt consider the non-official position a rumour, because I remembered (vaguely) it not having been set in the law. --kooo 20:07, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Quote from broshure from the Ministry of Labour
I removed a piece of text which was added under the header "People". I seems to have been cut-n-pasted from this [1] (http://www.mol.fi/migration/terveen.pdf) (found it via google). The anon user 62.78.138.108 who posted this also added the dubious "Finland facts" which is now on VfD. -- Jniemenmaa 09:26, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)
Good, very good!
Not only is it a probable copyright violation, but it's inserted on the page without regard to the disposition of the page. It seems rather thoughtless to me. (...and then, of course, is it possible to have opinions on the actual content too...)
--Ruhrjung 10:49, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This was posted on my user-page by 62.78.138.108:
- Why did you remove People-text from Finland page? I had a permission to copy it to there. And also deleting Finland Facts-page wasn't understandable.
- "HEI!
- Kappaleita voi käyttää, kunhan lähde mainitaan.
- yst. terv.
- Arja Saarto/Työministeriö"
I'll reply here so that everyone can see. The text was removed because you didn't indicate that you had permission to copy it. The text you quote above actually says "You can use the text as long as you mention the source". You didn't indicate the source in any way. About the "Finland Facts" article, it was posted on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion. See the discussion there to see why it was deleted. -- Jniemenmaa 14:18, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)
Growing summary of Finland's history
According to the country template, which we try to apply here, the sections should be an introduction/summary for the main article (in this case History of Finland) and hence not be longer than, say, three paragraphs. The current history section for Finland is getting a bit too large and detailed. I will remove the section regarding the difference in social classes (too detailed for a summary) and try to trim the rest of the text a bit. However, I'd like to know if somebody has any objections to that. Jeronimo 15:06, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Incomprehensible sentences
"The others while on other hand did single-minded work to oppose the communists." ... What does this mean?
"Finnish standard of living is high, partly because it has rough and cold weather." ... How does this follow?
--/Mat 21:20, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Been trying to figure that one out for myself. Maybe because they all have to work harder at getting comfortable?! Lee M 02:12, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Flag flying days
Should here also be official flag days (or what is in English liputuspäivä) of Finland? Kahkonen 07:54, 2004 May 17 (UTC)
- liputuspäivä roughly is "flag-flying day". Maybe something should be written about it as it's not something we really have in the UK. A bit of a Finnish keksintö.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|TALK]] 00:47, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
parties etc
What on earth is this supposed to mean?
- "The parliament has, since equal and common suffrage was introduced in 1906, been dominated by Agrarians, Social Democrats and Communists; although all of the political spectrum is more influenced by anti-Socialist currents than in similar countries having less contacts with the Soviet Union."
The Communists didn't even exist before 1918, and after that, far from dominating the parliament, were highly marginal until 1945 -- and for much of the period illegal.
The three-party domination referred to above is true of the late forties and early fifties, when the Communists were among the big three of Finnish politics, but even at the time they only held office for a few years in the immediate after-War period, and spent much of the era in impotent opposition.
Since the sixties their support has been declining rapidly, and the party was wound down in some fifteen years ago. Its successor, the Left-Wing Alliance (Vasemmistoliitto), gets below ten percent of the vote at elections and has lost the position of the fourth largest party to the Greens.
The incorrect reference to the Communists should therefore be omitted, as should probably the second half of the sentence which doesn't seem to make any sense; a better précis of Finnish politics would probably be to say that despite the distortions caused by the proximity of the Soviet Union, and the relatively strong position of the Communists (as in Iceland), Finnish politics and party structure remains very close the those of other Nordic countries.
/213.122.191.13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=213.122.191.13) 16 Jun 2004
huh?
the article contains the following line:
Finnish standard of living is high, partly because it has rough and cold weather.
Huh? This doesn't make any sense. Since when does rough and cold weather have anything to do with a standard of living? Eskimos in the Northern Yukon have rough and cold weather and I don't see them minting millionaires. In fact, they tend to be quite poor. Could someone either explain this or fix / change / delete the line? I would, but I'm pleading ignorance here as I don't know that much about Finland.
Hwarwick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hwarwick) 17.55 PST 30.JUN.04
Anon note: I guess the line of thinking: In Finland houses have good heating systems and hot showers any time of day without the need to switch heating on. As a finn I have been surprised abroad seeing a car for each member of the family but no hot water any time of day.
Outstanding territorial dispute
I removed the following sentence that was given a section heading of its own.
As far as I know, Finland's governments have recognized the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. Credible sources establishing the opposite would be interesting to see.
--Ruhrjung 13:38, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
Finland's govenrment recognize the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947 and in 1992 they signed an Naapuruussopimus with new Russia. They allways say that "there are not a need for return of Karelia, but if Russia will offer negotiations, we will think over it..." and so on... But interest into Karelia question in Finland are increasing among common Finns (http://keskustelu.suomi24.fi/show.fcgi?category=114&conference=4500000000000800&subcat=1415). Kahkonen 18:15, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
As I've pointed out elsewhere, the issue of the ceded territories only continues to exercise a small but vocal minority of Finns -- as witnessed by the above link which will take the reader, not to any research on Finnish opinions on Karelia, but to a rather intemperate debate column frequented by what appear to be hard-line nationalists.
Autonomy of Åland
Why does it say "high degree of autonomy"? Åland is not a state, and Finland is not a federation, as per the constitution. The law that rules Åland is set in the Finnish parliament. They don't have their own police forces, courts or anything, the law is the same, and it's ultimately only the Finnish parliament that upholds the demilitarisation. None of this would justify "a high degree" of autonomy.
User:Vuo, 00:28, 2004 Dec 1
It says "high degree of autonomy" because the autonomy of the åland islands is not only declared by the finnish Eduskunta (parliament) but by also international treaties. Also in similair manner the demilitarisation of the islands- Finland has a treaty with Russia that orders Finland into securing the demilitarisation of the islands in all times and also to defend this demilitarisation against possible foreign attacks. The Islands also actually have their own police force along with many other independent departments such as their own Post Department and their own stamps. The Autonomy of Åland is secured in the finnish constitution, and the laws regarding the Autonomy of the Ålands islands can only altered with the permit of the local admistration. You are right Finland is not a federation, but a centrally governed state which has an internationally declared autonomical maakunta/landskap (region) of the Åland islands.
User:195.156.245.37, 00:24, 2004 Dec 28
It may be added that the relevant comparison is with other autonomous territories around the world. --Ruhrjung 23:23, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
Bicontinental?
The article was recently added to the category of bicontinental countries. Since when is Finland bicontinental? — JIP | Talk 13:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Globalization Merge
I started to merge Finland and Globalization into Finland.
Holidays
Public Holidays section says "Easter, Ascension Day, Pentecost ... are holidays". I would like to clarify thisl you mean here those holiday of Western Christianity according to Gregorian Calender? --Aphaea* 15:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)