Talk:Finland

"Fenno-" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Fenno- has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 26 § Fenno- until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

First settlers

The article now reads, "The artefacts the first settlers left behind present characteristics that are shared with those found in Estonia, Russia, and Norway." To be precise, the stone artefacts from the earliest settlements known so far from both southern and northern Finland (The Ristola site in Lahti, the Kuurmanpohja sites in Joutseno/Lappeenranta and the Sujala site in Utsjoki, northern Lapland) represent the so-called post-Swiderian technocomplex (a pressure blade technology NOT related to the Swiderian of Poland, Belarus and Lithuania) that flourished in central and north-western Russia and the Baltic countries after the end of the Ice Age and included "cultures" such as Kunda, Butovo and Veretye. Sites linked with the technocomplex are also known from the northern Norwegian coast (the so-called "Phase 2"), but they are now considered offshoots of the eastern complex that spread to the area via Finland or eastern Karelia. The western European derived, Ahrensburg-related so-called "Komsa Phase" or "Phase 1" of the northern Norwegian coast was at least partly coeval with the eastern-derived "Phase 2" but remained strictly coastal and did not spread inland to Finnish Lapland. The source for the original quote, Herva (ed.) 2005, is 20 years old and somewhat outdated. All of the mentioned early sites and their affinities have been discussed in more up-to-date publications since then. Jarmo K. (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Lead section

The introduction of an article has limited space, so the text must be concise. The reader assumes that every word and link carries important and essential information on the subject. Finland is not at war with Russia, Ukraine is. Yet, the introduction mentions the war between Ukraine and Russia, even though the war does not affect Finland. Mentioning the conflict in the lead creates a misleading impression that Finland is in danger, which is both inaccurate and harmful. Whatever can be misunderstood, will be misunderstood.

Many people never read anything in articles other than the introduction. A biased lead can lead to economic loss for a small nation. The Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs has noted that up to a quarter of foreign investment decisions are based on perception. [https://www.hs.fi/kirjeenvaihtajat/art-2000011586237.html]

The matter is serious, and the communications management of the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs has spoken about the same thing as I have. Ministry officials have stated that some international news wrongly suggests Finns are panicking or preparing for imminent war. This is not the case.

You can keep details in other article leads, such as History of Finland. This article has History section, where things can be framed in the right context. Other non-essential details, such as Finland being among the first to join the eurozone, have already been removed from the lead for the sake of brevity. Retaining the mention of Ukraine here compromises the article's neutrality.

There is also a clear issue of inconsistency. The article on Sweden simply states its NATO membership. In the Russia article, the war is a mere mention in the lead. Treating Finland differently is inequitable, especially considering that NATO membership was a larger policy shift for Sweden than for Finland. While Sweden had to rebuild its military and abandon traditional neutrality, Finland had maintained its conscript army and remained NATO-ready for decades. Finland’s accession was a "plug-and-play" transition based on long-term cooperation. Finland has its own strong military, and Finland could have joined Nato already in 1990s. The year is not essential information for the reader.

A country’s lead section should state the fact of NATO membership without listing every geopolitical catalyst – just as it handles EU membership. Specific dates and background reasons are secondary to the fact of membership itself. For those seeking more information, the Finland–NATO relations link provides all the necessary detail. Thi (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

No one is saying that Finland is at (or will be) at war with Russia, what is included is the actual context for Finland seeking NATO membership, the invasion of Ukraine, which makes sense as the aggressor country is Finland's neighbor. There is nothing biased about factual, widely sourced information. If you choose to interpret the text the way you are, you appear to be in a fringe minority and should not be making assumptions on behalf of others, let alone claim this is somehow harming Finland's economy (which is not Wikipedia's responsibility anyway). I also do not see the point of trimming a lead that is already significantly smaller than many similar articles.

I note this is the second time you do this, you made the same kind of edit over a year ago and multiple editors subsequently disagreed with your assertions. TylerBurden (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

As I explained above, it was not a drastic change except in a day-to-day sense. Surfo hasn't considered the matter from the perspective of the lead section's purpose. Following the accession to NATO and Trump's presidency, Finnish trust in NATO has, according to opinion polls, declined significantly. In contrast, trust in the armed forces and the general will to defend the country remains high and has been for decades. The drastic change was not joining NATO, but joining the European Union. That happened back in the 1990s. The reason for joining was not only economic but also security-related. Many were also against joining because they anticipated that Finland would become closely integrated into the defense alliance of the then-future Western European Union. The fact that the European Union's common defense is not in that same position now is a historical fluke and a secondary point regarding the Finland article.

The final sentences of the lead are only superficially related to the topic. For example, Finland is not known for secularism but for a secular lifestyle. In terms of environmentalism, Finland does not differ from many other countries, even though nature is a part of the national identity. However, these points are not dangerous in the same way, and they may mitigate the damage that has been caused to the previous article lead. Wikipedia has a responsibility to look after its article text. You have demanded justifications for edits yourself, yet you downplay them and refuse to carefully weigh the arguments and the article text. Finland is not under threat of any attack. The NATO accession is explained in the body text and is also referenced via an image. I do not have time for further discussion, and linking a war fought by another country to the body text should be done through a Request for comment. --Thi (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

No, you are edit warring against WP:CONSENSUS at this point, and all of this WP:OR won't change that fact. Do you have any evidence whatsoever for your claims that this lead is somehow causing harm, or is it just a failure to WP:AGF? Like I said, it's basic context, not commentary on the future one way or the other. TylerBurden (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I have added a neutrality dispute template. Please make a request for comment, as I do not have time for that. On the talk page, reasons have been presented for why the addition is misleading and should be avoided in order to prevent misconceptions. Wikipedia should use wording that is on firmer ground. The burden of proof is on you, but you have not presented any counterarguments. Discussion is needed because errors can easily remain unnoticed in articles for a long time. --Thi (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

And everything you said has been disagreed with, by multiple editors, to come back over a year later and try do do the same thing only to edit war and tag the entire page when you don't get things your way seems like an unproductive use of time if you can't be bothered to even create an RfC. It's you with the fringe opinion that including context supported by reliable sources is harmful to an entire country, and it is you who wants to change the stable revision of the article, I do not see how the burden is on me. TylerBurden (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Legislative name

I am here to ask if the infobox name should simply be Finland considering it is legislatively called simply "Finland", similar to that of Ireland, or Japan, etc. Or remain the common unofficial formal name within the conventional long name section. Sarranidian (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The phrase "Suomen tasavalta" is common enough in the legislation to be considered official. Finlex search returns 27334 mentions. Even the constitutional law contains the phrase in the president's oath. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2026 (UTC)