Difference between revisions of "Talk:Scandinavia"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Iceland and Finland)
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
::: Ok, I can understand that.  I think the difference might be a popular vs. an academic view here.  I yield to your experience.  [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:54, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 
::: Ok, I can understand that.  I think the difference might be a popular vs. an academic view here.  I yield to your experience.  [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:54, 2 November 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
:::: It would probably be a good idea to make it clear on the page that the term Scandinavia [i]can[/i] be used to refer to up to all five of them.  I think the current page does so, but sometimes my writing may seem clear to me but not to others.  Feel free to edit it if you think it would be better phrased else-wise.  In the coming days/weeks, I intend to expand the article a good bit.  [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 23:57, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 23:57, 2 November 2008

"have had strong connections with former Soviet Union"

The connections to USA has always bin much stronger than the connections to the Soviet Union. It is correct that some ultra left wing politician had connections to the Soviet Union, however these represented a minority.

Iceland and Finland

I'd like to avoid getting into a revert war. So, I'd like to point out that the Scandinavian Tourist Board consists of members of "Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden." [1] Scandinavian House, "The Nordic Center in America" also lists all five countries. [2] National Geographic's map of Scandinavia has all five countries in it. [3]. If you want more examples, I can find them. The only mention of Scandinavia that did not involve Iceland and Finland that I could find was the ownership of SAS. Given that it was founded in 1946, when Finland was controlled by Russia and Iceland was not in an economic position to support an airline, I do not find this a convincing case for only including three of the five countries of Scandinavia. If there is good reason for excluding Iceland and Finland, I'll hear it, but I'm not seeing one. ArnoldFriend 23:39, 2 November 2008 (EST)

Er, the USSR, not Russia. ArnoldFriend 23:42, 2 November 2008 (EST)
I reverted your most recent edit, because at least one part of it was factually incorrect. Finnish is not solely related to Hungarian. I am a Scandinavian Studies minor at UC Berkeley -- our working definition (and the working definition used in most of academia, including from my experience people out of the University of Lund) has Scandinavia referring to Norway/Sweden/Denmark or N/S/D+F, and "Nordic Countries" used to refer to all five, although Scandinavia certainly can (and is frequently used to) refer to all five. Obviously, if you restrict it to mean the actual Scandinavian peninsula (which I have seen a number of definitions do,) only Norway and Sweden are included. TGeary 23:52, 2 November 2008 (EST)
Ok, I can understand that. I think the difference might be a popular vs. an academic view here. I yield to your experience. ArnoldFriend 23:54, 2 November 2008 (EST)
It would probably be a good idea to make it clear on the page that the term Scandinavia [i]can[/i] be used to refer to up to all five of them. I think the current page does so, but sometimes my writing may seem clear to me but not to others. Feel free to edit it if you think it would be better phrased else-wise. In the coming days/weeks, I intend to expand the article a good bit. TGeary 23:57, 2 November 2008 (EST)