Talk:Karelia (historical province of Finland)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Finland High‑importance Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History / Human geography Low‑importance Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force. Sweden Low‑importance Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This article about Karelia, the historical province of Sweden should not be the main article. I demand we make Karelia a disambiguation page. This article is in the past, the current Russian republic is NOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Nagy (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 March 2004 (UTC)

Please see the discussions at Talk:Republic of Karelia and Talk:Karelia for closely related topics. (See also User talk:Daniel Nagy.) -- Mic 19:55, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

KARELIA SHOULD BECOME A DISAMBIGUATION PAGE!

If no one responds, I will take matters into my own hands, as I have done with Avars. -User:Dagestan 07:11, 24 March 2004 (UTC)

There is already a disambiguation page for Karelia at Karelia (disambiguation). Like before you are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Republic of Karelia. Taking part of a discussion means that you not only will have to present some form of argument where you try to convince the other participants, but also that you take the trouble of getting yourself acquainted to what stage the discussion has progressed at what arguments has been made. You then have the opportunity to support, oppose or develop these arguments further. When engaging in a discussion you are also more likely to get results in making proposals rather than making unilateral demands. Good luck and welcome to join in on the discussion. -- Mic 15:02, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

The problem IS, that the discussion on Talk:Republic of Karelia is dead! No one has been posting there since January. Please, there are more important things than the historical povince of Sweden. -User:Dagestan 16:03, 24 March 2004 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Republic of Karelia. Have you even tried posting there yourself? There was a posting only yesterday and it would be courteous of you to at least try to get acquainted with the discussion. -- Mic 13:02, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

distinction between the Finnish and the Swedish province?

Is it really a good idea to lable this article "Karelia (Swedish Province)? Should there come one "Karelia (Province of Finland)" also?

I really don't know what's best, but I lean at thinking that Finland (the Grand Duchy aswell as the independent republic) was a direct successor of the undivided Sweden, and hence that the loss of Old Finland is insignificant in this case, and that Karelia (province) would be to prefer. /Tuomas 16:21, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Renaming this Karelia (province) would be the best choice. Historical province Karelia is a redirect and might also be an acceptable name. -- Jniemenmaa 19:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

That name is not well chosen and as is discussed at Talk:Republic of Karelia a new location for this page has to be decided before and if it is decided that it will be moved. It will possibly be replaced by the new article at temp and if so the 70 or so links needs to be disambiguated and it is a very good idea to agree on a new location first. I know that Karelia (province) has been suggested, but personally I think Finnish Karelia or Swedish Karelia would work better. -- Mic 23:20, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't Finnish Karelia be a good choise? It was, I believe, never Swedish in any other meaning than being part of the Swedish kingdom until 1721 (not insignificant, of course). Culturally and linguistically it could maybe be argued that Finnish≠Karelian, but that objection surely carries less and less weight in the 19th and 20th centuries.

— But what's the disadvantage with Karelia (province)? That there existed a parallell tsarist entity that could be called the same? Or something I don't come to think of?

Ruhrjung 11:43, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I could live with Finnish Karelia. I proposed West Karelia on Talk:Republic of Karelia, maybe it is a bit more neutral? -- Jniemenmaa 09:24, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Swedish Karelia is not a faulty label, but it rather limits the extent of the article. In this sense Finnish Karelia is less limiting, since it would also be a workable name covering the Swedish period. West Karelia is perhaps a bit more generic, but still definately applicable. However, to what extent has the area been refered to as "West Karelia", as a name? In my mind Western Karelia sounds more appropriate, since that has the character more of a designation than as a name label. It represents "western Karelia", rather than being named "West Karelia". An outcome where "western" is favoured should probably also affect the current location of East Karelia to "eastern".
Relating to this are the Finnish regions where North Karelia and South Karelia represent names, or name labels. Conceptually "Northern Karelia" and "Southern Karelia" would not refer to the same geographical areas. -- Mic 12:10, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

While the term East Karelia really was in use in historically significant contexts (1917-1944), Finnish Karelia and Western Karelia are both lesser used terms that Wikipedia take in use due to our needs. I wouldn't disagree to continue to use East Karelia also if the current Karelia article was renamed to Western Karelia.

--Ruhrjung 22:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, West Karelia has not been used very much, and doesn't have a well defined meaning. It can be used as a synonym to "Finnish Karelia", but can also mean the area aroung Vyborg. I only thought it would be good as the "opposite" of East Karelia, but now, when I think about it, it seems quite bad. The term Finnish Karelia, as in "Suomen Karjala", is used much more and it seems like everyone can accept it, so I say we go with it.
BTW, Here is a quite comprehensive explanation of all the Karelias: (in finnish). -- Jniemenmaa 07:47, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Good! (No, I don't read Finnish, but a map says more than a thousand words. :-) If you say that this is a credible source, then it confirms my understanding of Ladoga Karelia which has evolved thanks to you here at Wikipedia.

Shall we wait for User:Dagestan and User:Mikkalai before we make a move, maybe?

(If I'm around at the time, I'll be happy to take part in the work with updating links to the page.)

--Ruhrjung 09:01, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I like the approach in Karelia/temp. I have no clear opinion on the term Finnish Karelia. But at the moment it seems reasonable to make a move and see what to do further. Mikkalai 21:57, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

On moving this page

There is ongoing discussion at Talk:Republic of Karelia on what the content at [[Karelia]] should be. I believe that this process is working well and there is an alternative article at Karelia/temp which is coming along nicely. Any attempt to unilaterally circumvent this process and disallowing participation with a proper resolution is unacceptable. It is unfortunate that the individual generally wishing to disrupt this page seems to have very little to contribute or to articulate when it comes to dealing in a cooperative mode on resolving the question. -- Mic 23:13, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

What "individulal" are you talking about here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagestan (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

The page was moved once more, this time to [[Karelia (Swedish Province)]]. To engage in move wars, either directly or via the use of proxies in the form of sockpuppets, is idiotic and highly unproductive. It seems a bit futile having to explain this over and over. Either there is someone who really doesn't have the capacity to understand this or else just refuses to engage in cooperation with others. -- Mic 08:52, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

...and once again, now to Karelia (historical province). ;-/

--Ruhrjung 03:50, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Moved

IMO the page may sit for a while under the neutal title Karelia (historical province). It doesn't say whose province it was, and it is good, since we have 3 (or 2, if one thinks taht Sw/Fin are not really competitors) contenders here over quite a time. Also, it is convenient to make links to this name from simply "Karelia" via the "|" trick. If better ideas pop up, we can move again. Also, as you may notice I cleaned the wealth of redirect litter. It still remains to disambig the direct Karelia links, but these are of no big harm. Mikkalai 05:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

As far as I am informed, the Tsarist régime considered this area "Old Finland" from the conquest in the early 1700s, which makes a good argument for Finnish Karelia.--Ruhrjung 03:50, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

The idea to have articles to "sit for a while" under intermediary titles is nothing I would approve or applaud. Quite the contrary. It only means extra work. Please move this page to Finnish Karelia, which as far as I can tell is the outcome of the discussion on which name to chose for the article.

Please move the article at Karelia/temp to Karelia at the same time. (One has to be administrator to do that. Actually, this is the first time I can remember during my time at Wikipedia that I would have been glad to have that capacity.)

Then there are dozens of links to Karelia that has to be changed to [[Finnish Karelia|...]].
--Ruhrjung 03:50, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

You might have noticed that I moved it after someone else moved it to an incorreclty constructed name, and to prevent futher impatient moves. Guess how many pages I deleted that were created by "movers"? I will gladly move it to a better place. I agree the name (historical province) is not the best (after all, Russian Karelia is a "historical province" as well). And I agree that "Finnish" attribution would be a good compromise. But please notice that this term is an informal one, although is in use. I'd suggest to deliberate about two more, related, choices, which are formally more correct: Karelia, Finland and Karelia (Finland). I am in favor of the second version, since you may link from it both full [Karelia (Finland)] and shorter [Karelia (Finland) | ] "displayed" name. The second move, to 'Karelia', I'll do it right away. As for re-redirecting, I'll do the ones I am 100% sure. Mikkalai

I'll do redirecting later, when the name will be finalized. Mikkalai 05:11, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Who decided to throw consensus out the window?

I believe that all parties, less one individual, are trying to be constructive here. I have also operated on the basic assumption that all parties that working constructively on the case have had the best intentions, aiming to resolve the matter in a consensus fashion. I believe that we were about to achieve consensus on moving the Karelia article, setting a new designation for it and finally replacing it with the article developed at Karelia/temp.

In my opinion, we had (even if we were close) not arrived there. The clearest example of this is that we currently have the original article hanging in the balance, without a clear designation. I think it is unfortunate and highly inappropriate to circumvent the decision making process in this way. Unilateral action, taken even with the best intentions is a breach against consensus.

Appreciating that consensus and resolution on the issue is likely to have been very close, it would be a pity having to call in mediation at this stage. In some sense we are also past the voting stage, since that really is what should have been called in instead of taking unilateral action. For the voting to have any sense of meaning, it would presuppose a restoration of the articles to their original positions and I think that it would be less than desirable, even though it might be the most appropriate course of action.

The present situation is untenable however and the given designation is neither neutral nor appropriate. The article will be relocated to Finnish Karelia. Should there be any objecting calls to this move I can see no recourse than to restore the articles to their original places and take a vote on the issue. The designation of the article can however be raised again, but from within that location.

Even if we have been plagued by vandalism and general uncooperativeness from one nameless party I think that most actions and input have been of a constructive nature. However, I am very sorry to see how we ultimately resort to resolving the matter in this sloppy fashion. -- Mic 17:16, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

You are taking this a bit too emotional. This page was was moved at least 7 (!) times, and I am sure it was not the same "one individual". My move was done immediately after a move to a grammatically incorrect name. I did it fast, so you probably even didn't manage to notice this, otherwise you would have been even more passionate :-). I had two options: (1) to revert the move. (2) To move elsewhere. I decided to temporarily move to a neutral place. At the same time I did a significant clean-up of consequences of previous moves. Please look at the "What links there" for Karelia and Finnish Karelia. Please also consider my arguments (above) why I think "Finnish Karelia" is inappropriate. Mikkalai 17:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I did not intend for you to misinterpret me. When I refer to the uncooperative party I am not referring to you, but to our nervous and intransigent friend. I feel that you have mainly contributed in a very constructive and cooperative manner and I think that is very good! I can also appreciate the difficulties in dealing with various types of vandalism, and that all (admins) need not be in perfect agreement on what methods to use in combating this.

What is intolerable is the way that this circumvents the consensus decision process. There are several actions that you could have taken before acting and settling the issue single handedly. If you felt that the discussion had reached a stalemate, you should have requested a vote on the issue and the voting alternatives could have been formulated. If you felt that the threat of vandalism to the page was too great you should have, taken action against that user. I am very sorry to see this have happened and for me this is an issue on principal grounds not emotional. -- Mic 17:56, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Here I beg to allow me to disagree. In some cases it is much more productive to yeild a bit and go on with the main job, rather that to engage into administrative procedures. Especially bearing in mind that our impatient friend was basically harmless. Besides, history shows that many people just come in and start editing without reading talk pages, simply from not knowing the rules of the game, rather than from a malicious intent. I admit, my fault was that I didn't notice that there was kind of consensus on the new name, although the deliberations were not marked as completed. Mikkalai 18:23, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I might be more emotional than Mic. I saw with considerable grief how virtually all knowledgeable Wikipedians who'd contributed on Finland-related matters disappeared after bold actions by some English speakers last August. After all, such events are detrimentiuous for Wikipedia, as very few non-Finnics can read Finnish/Karelian/Estonian. The demonstrated disrespect, which the title changes and, even more so, the overriding of the consensus decision process were clear signs of, is no good foundation to get competent contributors willing to engage in improving the articles. What will be left? The young, the dumb and the angry? That must be avoided!

--Ruhrjung 21:01, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

See also: Sami music

So why this link is in this page? Kahkonen 18:40, 2004 May 26 (UTC)

Because it is part of (the possible future article about) the culture of Karelia, where quite a few sami lived and live (if I am not wrong), and thus contribute to the culture of the land. Mikkalai 00:46, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Samis living in Finnish Karelia? Yes, quite a few (maybe even 10), and more when Finnic tribes wandered towards Finland.

But in Eastern Karelia there are some in northern parts of it. Kahkonen 05:22, 2004 May 29 (UTC)

Standing issues

There are a number of standing issues for structure of the article and its relations to corresponding articles. It belongs to the series of Swedish and Finnish historical provinces and which by template make reference to current, either Swedish, or in this case Finnish administrative entities. At one point there was an idea of being able to carry both Swedish/Finnish as well as Russian aspects of Karelia and also Russian entities and various other aspects were added. As this no longer is the case the article reverts to covering the Finnish administrative entities by template. Russian entities will still remain in reference on several locations in text. The article should also accomodate reference to the various different articles related to Karelia, not currently covered. -- Mic 17:59, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

Name: After additional thinking I am withdrawing my objections posted above. But there is another one: aren't the definitions "Russian Karelia" and "Finnish Karelia" are degrading or humiliating in a way? I think not really, but could that be an isuue to a more involved side? Mikkalai 18:23, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

The area should be..

refered as occupied terretories as they are no less so than Chechnya, East Prussia, Palestine, Iraq so on, taken by force and injustice by brutal nation of barbarians under yoke of the most brutal dictator that ever poised this earth, a wrong yet to be corrected. Ethnic cleansing also took place there and the area in now infested with colonialists, pretty much like Russia would have been dealt with had Germany won the war, you know, the population deported away or eliminated and the lands infested with their own population that is unnative to the lands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.215.244.106 (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Name of the article

If this article must exist, it should remain where it is. WP:Names is very clear: English names must be used. Karjala is in English Karelia, thus the article must be located according to its English name. This has been discussed before with Turku and Pori County and in Toponyms of Finland. --MPorciusCato (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Historical province of Karelia in Finland.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Historical province of Karelia in Finland.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Karelia (historical province of Finland). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040602001752/http://www.kotus.fi/verkkojulkaisut/julk129/karjalat_kartta1.shtml to http://www.kotus.fi/verkkojulkaisut/julk129/karjalat_kartta1.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991004124230/http://www.internetix.ofw.fi/opinnot/opintojaksot/8kieletkirjallisuus/aidinkieli/murteet/kaakkois.html to http://www.internetix.ofw.fi/opinnot/opintojaksot/8kieletkirjallisuus/aidinkieli/murteet/kaakkois.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19991006021001/http://www.internetix.ofw.fi/opinnot/opintojaksot/8kieletkirjallisuus/aidinkieli/murteet/savolais.html to http://www.internetix.ofw.fi/opinnot/opintojaksot/8kieletkirjallisuus/aidinkieli/murteet/savolais.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Why the Swedish name?

Why the Swedish name is mentioned in the introduction? Velivieras (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Because Finland is now a bilingual country and Swedish has been the administrative language for a long period. Per W (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

But most parts of historical Karelia are not in Finland and Finnish Karelia is not bilingual? In Karelia Swedish was (one) administrative language only in the years 1617-1809. Velivieras (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

In 1863 Finnish started to be used in the administration and only in 1892 it became official together with Swedish. Nova Scotia is not bilingual, but since it is a part of a bilingual country, it is given in the other language as well. Per W (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

An additional reason for having the Swedish name in the lead is that Karelia was a Swedish province before being ceded to Russia. Finland, as a political entity, wasn't created until after Sweden had ceded its eastern provinces to Russia in 1809, before then all provinces in what is now Finland, plus a number of provinces south of the Bay of Finland, were provinces of Sweden ("Finland" originally referred only to the southwestern part of what is now Finland, i.e. Finland Proper, "Egentliga Finland" in Swedish and "Varsinais-Suomi" in Finnish, with the "collective name" for all provinces east of the Bay of Bothnia, in today's Finland, originally being "Österland" in Swedish). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Sweden occupied all of this historical region actually only between 1617–1721. I don`t know what was the administrative language in Sweden that time. Latin most probably had a big part especially among clergy and in international affairs and German was likely used in commerce. After this period Swedish was officially used in the region alongside with Finnish during the short period of 1918–1944. Under the Russian rule 1809–1917 the administrative language was officially Russian (from 1818 onwards to be exact). Clergy had to use Finnish from 1824 onwards. We also have to take into account that this historical region ceased to exist 74 years ago. So is approximately 130 years of (only) administrative language at some point of history enough? Can this be applied to other articels also?

ps. The term "Österland" was actually in use only between 1350–1470. Velivieras (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any source for "Österland" being used only between 1350 and 1470? I did write "originally", BTW. Not that it matters, though, considering all the other reasons given here for why the Swedish name for Karelia should be mentioned in the lead. And neither Latin (which lost its standing in Sweden after the reformation) nor German (which was used among merchants, not for official purposes) were official languages in Sweden, and French wasn't an official language either (even though it was spoken by all nobles during the 18th Century...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk

The source is Sveriges Österland från forntiden till Gustav Vasa (2008) by Kari Tarkiainen.

I find it difficult to find the reasons from the aguments provided. Occupation of 1617-1721 (104 years) and then the short bilingual period of 1918-1944 (26 years) are quite short times in history. Taking also into consideration that Swedish was mainly an adminstrative language only spoken by few in the region. One argument is that we cannot generalise this logic to other articles in Wikipedia, it would lead in really awkward results. Think about e.g. only the history of many European countries. Velivieras (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

"an adminstrative language only spoken by few in the region". Well there were Swedish newspapers in Viborg, 9 out of 37 in fi:Luokka:Viipurin_media. I wrote before that "In 1863 Finnish started to be used in the administration and only in 1892 it became official together with Swedish.". Why can't Wikipedia have place for the official names of different parts of the countries? The guidelines tell that "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. " Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Alternative_names Per W (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that there were only "a few" Swedish-speakers in Karelia is outright silly/ignorant, considering that Viborg/Viipuri, which for a long period of time was the second largest town/city in Finland, was founded by Sweden/Swedes and had a sizeable Swedish-speaking population for almost 650 years, from its founding around 1300AD to the early 1940s, when the three largest ethnic groups, Finns, Swedes and Germans, were forced to leave by the Soviets. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

According to census of 1930 in the administrative area of Wyborg 2,9% of the population were Swedish-speakers. You have to also take into account that Wyborg itself, as a commercial city, was an exception. In ceded Karelia the percentage of Swedish speakers was even much lower from the total population of 450 000. So yes, Swedish was only spoken by few, less than 0,05% from the population to be exact. Nobody is claiming that the name of historical province of Värmland should also be in Finnish eventough significant proportion of the population was from Finland in the 16-17th Centuries. Wyborg was not found by Swedes. It was fortified market place of Karelians that Catholic Church and Swedes destroyed and occupied in their campaign in 1293. Grand Duchy of Finland in the 19th Century was part of Russia and civil servants had to use Russian. Velivieras (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I wrote before that "In 1863 Finnish started to be used in the administration and only in 1892 it became official together with Swedish.". Russian was introduced as an administrative language first in 1898 by Bobrikov. Karelia (nowadays only a part) is part of Finland, a bilingual state. Per W (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC) I was wrong the Language Manifesto came in 1900. Per W (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No, civil servants had to use Russian from 1818 onwards. I have to also remind that this article is about Karelia as a historical province that doesn`t exist anymore, and were Swedish was only a administrative language for a short while only spoken by a few. There are dedicated articles for South and North Karelia that still exists. Velivieras (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

According to Russification of Finland it was in 1900 that Russian started to be used in administration. Do you call several centuries (varying for different parts of Karelia) a short period of time? Per W (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Russian was administrative language 1818 onwards and the goal of the Russification era was to erase other languages. I have presented the years that Swedish was the main admnistrative language in Karelia as a historical province and that`s not relatively a long time. Velivieras (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, then some other articles should be changed if your claim is correct about the Russian language. Please, provide a source for it. Per W (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No, Russian was not the administrative language of Finland from 1818 and on, no matter how often you repeat that false claim. Swedish continued to be the sole administrative language of Finland until Finnish also started to be used during the second half of the 19th century. Russian in fact had no official standing at all until the Tsar's "Language manifest" (fi:Kielimanifesti) of 1900, which stipulated that it should be gradually introduced as administrative language over a period of ten years. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In the Grand Duchy of Finland civil servants had to know Russian from 1818 onwards. The source is "Kansalliskielten historiallinen, kulttuurinen ja sosiologinen tausta. (2000)" and the publisher is the Ministry of Justice (Finland). Velivieras (talk) 09:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

"Having to know" Russian does not make Russian an official/administrative language. Most civil servants serving in Finland had to know both Swedish and Finnish already before 1809, in order to be able to translate what was being said during court proceedings etc, but Swedish was still the only official/administrative language (people who spoke only Finnish were allowed to speak their own language in courts etc, and were questioned in their own language, but everything that was said in Finnish was then translated into Swedish, since all official documents, court records etc, had to be in Swedish, the sole official/administrative language). An interesting side note is that everything was translated, even names, so if a "Juha Heikkinpoika" appeared in court, his name was given as "Johan Henriksson" in the court protocols... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Finland was a Grand Duchy of Russia and all the civil servants spoke Russian. I think there is a good argument to call the official language in administration Russian. But that is another question. We have to notice that we are discussing about Karelia as a historical province that was attached as a part of Grand Duchy of Finland in 1812 and that it had been part of Russia in its major parts from 1323 onwards until 1617 and then again from 1721 onwards (in practice since 1710 when Russian occupied the area). Only German and Russian were used in schools and the language in the administration and in commerce was German (Low-German to be precise). This was the case also during the Swedish occupation in 1617–1721, because German had been the language of the administration and the commerce since the Middle Ages until the mid-19th Century, when Swedish started to be used in some degree. The first know bourgeoisie of Vyborg was German Ewert von Balven (1393) as well as the the first known councillor Magnus Schröder (1410), but of course the vast majority of the population spoke Finnish or Karelian language. Velivieras (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

That is, quite frankly, just a load of (unsourced) cr*p. Swedish was the official/administrative language of Karelia, but Russian was not, no matter how you twist it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The source is "Ruotsalais-saksalainen aika Wiipurissa" by Hans Andersin who in his lifetime worked to preserve the traditions and history of Vyborg. Velivieras (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you got it from somewhere, but it's totally irrelevant for this discussion, and this article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Kimi Räikkönen

What the heck is Kimi Räikkönen doing in the people section? Kimi Räikkönen was born over three decades after the cession of Finnish Karelia, in Espoo, which is nowhere near Karelia. Was this vandalism? JIP | Talk 11:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split the article. Renaming conversation brought to here. --Vilutar (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

---

I'm proposing splitting parts of this article ("Inhabitants" and maybe "Culture" as well?) to a separate article, which could be named named something like Karelians (Finns), for example, in similar spirit as we have articles for other Finnish subgroups. It would be an equivalent to fi:Karjalaiset and ru:Карелы (субэтнос финнов). --Vilutar (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Vilutar, as you point out it may be a valuable split to distinguish territory from people. The discussion would however need to address the page Karelians. Should it be renamed also to Karelians (Baltic Finnic people) or something similar? Lappspira (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Lappspira. Currently it seems that Finnish and Russian Wikipedias are naming them so that Finnish Wikipedia calls Karelians "Karelians (people)" and Finnish Karelians only Karelians, whereas Russian Wikipedia calls Karelians Karelians and Finnish Karelians "Karelians (Finnish sub-ethnicity)". Both are fine ways to make a difference between them in my opinion, so whether Karelians remains Karelians or is renamed as you asked about, personally I think they would both work. Of course, it could be made so that Karelians is a disambiguation page with links to Karelians (Baltic Finnic people) and Karelians (Finns). --Vilutar (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

"Karelians" as a DAB sounds like the way to go: while there are clear primary terms for fi.wp and ru.wp, I'm not convinced there is one for en.wp. Not sure what the disambiquated titles would be, tho. "Karelians (Finns)" and "Karelians (Baltic Finnic people)" is probably a reasonable thing to default to, but the titles are a bit too similar for my taste. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The first one could be phrased in many ways if that would make it clearer, since there are options like "Finnish Karelians" or "Karelians (Finnish subgroup)" etc... Though I can't personally think of a good different version to "Karelians (Baltic Finnic people)". --Vilutar (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

To add to the previous message, if we want to compare how similar situations have been handled in en.wp, there are pages called Macedonians (Greeks) and Macedonians (ethnic group). So I guess Karelians (Finns) and Karelians (ethnic group) are also options. --Vilutar (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.