DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Jean Sibelius

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Good articleJean Sibelius has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 6, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 27, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that by composing music such as Finlandia, Jean Sibelius boosted Finnish patriotism in the face of Russian oppression?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 8, 2021, December 8, 2022, and December 8, 2024.

'Jean' pronunciation.

[edit]

Could someone expand the lead pronunciation guide to explain how 'Jean' is pronounced in Finnish? Masato.harada (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, as a Finnish-speaking person, I would say ˈʃɑːn. However, I wouldn't consider this as a "Finnish" pronunciation, since it has sounds that do not exist in the Finnish language. Perhaps it is "Finland Swedish pronunciation" if we have to categorize. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added that. We'll see if anyone challenges it. It's better than having zero guidance, and pronouncing it like Jean Simmons. Masato.harada (talk) 11:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth in infobox

[edit]

Hi, I propose adding "Russian Empire" to |birth_place= in the infobox (like what we've already done on Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim). Sibelius was a citizen of the empire for 51 years, and MOS:INFONAT requires us to make sure these people's countries of birth visible if we omit |citizenship=. Let's not misuse MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Thedarkknightli (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't - the present version is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree. Please see this argument. Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, I've just opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. The thread is #Grand Duchy of Finland. Thanks, Thedarkknightli (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
In 1809 - 1917 Finland was an autonomous state within the Russian Empire, so, it is very accurate to list his birthplace as the Grand Duchy of Finland or Finland. Finland had it's own separate identity, even though country wasn't fully independent yet.
Sibelius was also born as a citizen of the Grand Duchy of Finland, of a country which had its own constitution, currency, and diet (parliament). The infobox aims for the most precise and relevant information.
I don't agree with your proposal as I would hide special status of Finland under Russian rule.
Alternative sources are also mentioning his birth place as Finland [1] Dresson354 (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we would still write "Austria-Hungary", not "Austria" or "Hungary", even though there were separate systems, including citizenship. Mellk (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think, each case is individual, we also would not say "Finland-Russia". Grand Duchy of Finland was statehood with special status ruled by Russia. I think using the same techniques for Grand Duchy of Finland as for provinces or regions or even USSR republics is not correct. Dresson354 (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, we would not say "Finland-Russia" because Finland existed within Russian subjecthood. Even though the republics of the Soviet Union later declared state sovereignty towards the end, we would still mention the Soviet Union in the infobox. Mellk (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I think you're overshadowing historical facts of Finland.
Finland was not Russia. Finland existed as a country distinct from Russia. Yes, it wasn't independent before 1917, but it was a country. Yes, it was tied to the Russian Emperor thus it was formally part of Russian Empire, but it still wasn't Russia.
I think it is not reasonable to compare to USSR. Soviet SSR's were integral parts of Soviet Union country. Finland's case was unique and completely different, and in general it's not a good practice to compare different historical facts to each other.
I know that there's a lot of disputes about that, because of Finland's special status. I even know historians who state, that it was a personal union between two countries. Dresson354 (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not compare the status of Finland to that of the republics of the Soviet Union. You mentioned those republics, so I mentioned that towards the end of the Soviet Union's existence, there were union republics that declared state sovereignty (this was not the case for most of the USSR's existence, because it was highly centralized). However, we would still include the Soviet Union in the infobox and those republics did not declare outright independence yet. There is an important distinction here. Mellk (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think it might have been a misunderstanding from my side.
However, I must still disagree on your point about the info box. As I have mentioned, every historical case is unique.
I think it's good to note that most of the sources also include Soviet Union in their short descriptions about republics. While most of the alternative sources about 19th Finnish people are including just (city, Finland). The same format has been used in Wikipedia. It's about simplicity and more details are always written in the main text. Dresson354 (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the format Hämeenlinna, Grand Duchy of Finland, Russian Empire. No-one seems to be disputing the fact that Finland was part of the Russian Empire at the time, so I see no reason to omit it. And using the long name for the Grand Duchy makes it more explicit that this is the predecessor state. It makes the target of the link clear (in the sense of WP:EASTEREGG).
The standard work discussing Finland's status within the Russian Empire is Jussila, Hentilä, Nevakivi (1999): From Grand Duchy to a Modern State: A Political History of Finland Since 1809. The concept of a "personal union" between Finland and Russia Proper was an idea that was embraced by the Finnish elite starting from mid-19th century, and which caught wind in the late 19th century. It was never accepted by the Russian administration or the emperor. In some sense it became reality when Finland declared itself independent (the emperor abdicated and the "personal union" was broken). But even those promoting the idea of the personal union and a separate Finnish statehood did not dispute the fact that Finland was a part of the Russian Empire, although they emphasized that it was not part of the Russian state. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that most of the sources are stating "Hämeenlinna, Finland" as their quick explanation. Here or Here
More information about that Finland was a Grand Duchy under Russian Empire definitely should be included in the general text.
Most historical sources refer to Jean Sibelius's birthplace as Finland because, despite being ruled by the Russian Empire, the Grand Duchy of Finland was an autonomous entity with its own distinct identity.
Formats of (Hämeenlinna, Finland), (Hämeenlinna, Grand Duchy of Finland) are more compact and still correspond MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. These formats has been used in Wikipedia for a very long time, plus same formats are used in alternative sources. I don't really see a point to change that now. Dresson354 (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many sources also place Sibelius in the context of Finland's struggle for independence,[2][3][4] which makes the "Russian Empire" designation significant. Regarding identity, the Finns were emphatically loyal subjects of the emperor in mid-19th century, and that was also part of their identity. By the end of the century, they were not-so-loyal subjects, but the struggle against the empire still shaped their identity and helped to fuel Sibelius' art.
The infobox documentation also recommends the format |birth_place=city, administrative region, country, where "country" is a sovereign state; Finland was not sovereign. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your point, I would like to point out that the format |birth_place=city, administrative region, country, might make an impression to an average reader, that Finland was a province or region. While not an independent one, Grand Duchy of Finland was a country. [5] [6]
Finns were emphatically loyal subjects of the emperor because the emperor was supreme head of state or Grand Duke. This didn't mean that the identity and statehood of Finland was integrated to Russian Empire. The tiles of Russian Tsars were officially both Russian emperor and Grand Duke of Finland [7][8] Dresson354 (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the template documentation, "country" refers to sovereign state. Mellk (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For historical subjects the place name "most appropriate for the context and our readership" is used - here that's Finland. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic we do not have to include "Soviet Union" in the infobox for someone who died in one of the republics since this is a historical subject (I would have imagined this would be more relevant for someone who lived during the Middle Ages, for example). Mellk (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, we don't have to; it would be up to discussion at such an article to decide whether we do. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How we do we define "modern" and "historical"? Whether someone is alive or not? Mellk (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#cite_note-recent-13. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Mellk (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please not compare to "Soviet Union".
As I have already discussed with you, each case is unique. The case with Finland is not close to USSR republics. Most sources include 19th century people's birth as "Finland". Dresson354 (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the status of Finland was comparable. Finland's status in the 19th century was more ambiguous and it was part of a traditional empire, rather than a modern federated state. That does not mean we cannot think about consistency. Mellk (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but your statements like "By this logic we do not have to include "Soviet Union" in the infobox for someone who died in one of the republics" made me think that you compare. Dresson354 (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From MOS:PLACE: Avoid anachronism. An article about Junípero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico, not in California, because the latter entity did not yet exist in Serra's time. The Romans invaded Gaul, not France, and Thabo Mbeki was the president of the Republic of South Africa, not of the Cape Colony. For clarity, consider also mentioning the current name of the area (for example, "in what is now France"), especially if no English name exists for that area in the relevant historical period.
Tl;dr - no, a plain "Finland" is by no means appropriate. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that the entity "Finland" already existed at that time.
Trusted sources such as Britannica are including plain "Finland". [9] Dresson354 (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An entity existed at the time. The independent country Finland (the country of birth being what we ultimately reflect in the infobox) did not. Chile also existed in colonial times, but it was a subdivision of the Spanish Empire (at one point even being classified as a kingdom!). In an article about someone born in 1790 it would be anachronistic to use only Chile and suggest that they were born in Chile the country. Finland may have enjoyed a special (one could say privileged inasmuch as it enjoyed a high degree of autonomy) status within the Russian Empire, but it was by no means an independent country.
As for Britannica using Finland, they are free to do so, they do not have to follow our manual of style. If they want to prioritise simplicity over accuracy it is entirely up to them. We do not have to follow their decisions, however, especially when it is an anachronistic proposition against which our own MoS warns. Whether you like it or not, the Grand Duchy of Finland was a part of the Russian Empire. This is neither good nor bad, it is purely factual. If that hurts someone's patriotic sensibilities they can go read Britannica. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree with your statements.
  1. I never claimed that Finland was an independent in 19th century.
  2. I also never disagreed that Finland was part of the Russian Empire. If viewed in general, yes it was part of an Empire as whole system.
My point is different, I try to explain the fact that Finland even being under Russian Empire, had a separate entity that was not integrated into Russia. It was not a province of Russian Empire. Let's not confuse the status of Grand Duchy with autonomous regions or colonies.
Britannica is not only one using "Finland", most of the sources that I've checked are doing the same thing.
May I ask, what you'd like to achieve with this sentence: "If that hurts someone's patriotic sensibilities they can go read Britannica"?
You're claiming "that is purely factual" yet, you haven't provided any sources that prove your words. I on the other hand, have already provided sources to prove my words. Dresson354 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your message is incomprehensible. You claim not to claim that Finland was independent, while at the same time demanding that I prove the factual claim that Finland was a part of the Russian Empire. Ostalgia (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that, you didn't understand my comment.
You keep repeating "Finland was a part of the Russian Empire". You can keep repeating "Finland was a part of the Russian Empire" and ignoring other stuff such as Finland's unique tatus. It won't really help you much. It does not open the whole context. Dresson354 (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly there is absolutely nothing that will help, either much or even a little, in discussing with you. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree,
I think there's no reason to argue with you anymore.
However, it is really sad that you keep ignoring historical facts about unique status of Grand Duchy of Finland within Russian Empire. I really suggest you to check out some of the historical materials regarding that matter. I'm not trying to humiliate, I just generally think it'll be quite interesting and useful. Dresson354 (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious doubts that you could humiliate anyone even if you tried. I do apologise if me not pandering to your chauvinism made you uncomfortable. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dresson354: The distinction between a province and a state is actually not clear in this case. In the early 19th century, as Jussila notes in the above-mentioned book, the concept of a "province" and a "state" were not mutually exclusive terms; the empire was formed out of several "states", i.e. provinces with separate administrative machines. When Russia started to move towards an integrated state in the latter half of the century, the status of Finland became disputed between the Finnish and Russian officials.
Finns believed in a "real union" between two states, and believed the Tsar was bound by Finland's constitutional laws. The Russian view was that Finland was a privileged province, and the Tsar's power was absolute. The latter view was enforced by the February Manifesto of 1899, which in turn was considered almost like a coup d'etat in Finland.
The two viewpoints were never reconciled, but neither of them is incompatible with including "Russian Empire". On the other hand, omitting "Russian Empire" altogether seems to assume the Finnish interpretation. On this issue, the well-established textbook by Jussila et al. (6 editions in Finnish, 11 translations) is more reliable than various websites, which may just be repeating the received wisdow. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, your points doesn't seem to sound right to me.
The Grand Duchy of Finland was an autonomous state with its own legislative body (the Diet of Finland), a separate legal system, its own currency etc... In fact, Grand Duchy of Finland had a lot of qualities of an independent country. The Russian Emperor, as the Grand Duke of Finland, governed the territory. However, the Emperor's power was not absolute within the Grand Duchy as it was in the actual Russian Empire. The Emperor was bound to uphold the old laws of Finland, which dated back to the period of Swedish rule.[10]
Yes, as you mentioned the Finns viewed this arrangement as a real union between two separate states, where the Tsar was the constitutional ruler of Finland and the absolute monarch of Russia. I am not disputing whether it was such union or not. The opinions on that are quite mixed.
But let's not forget about Finland's unique status. The distinction between a province and a state is very clear in this case. Finland's unique status is somehow comparable to Congress of Poland at the beginning of 19th century.[11]
So, claiming that Finland was "autonomous province" is not incorrect by all means. See more about Grand Duchy.
For example official website of Finnish parliament says: "Finland was an eastern province of the Kingdom of Sweden for more than 600 years, until it was annexed to Russia as an autonomous grand-duchy at the Diet of Porvoo in 1809. Tsar Alexander I announced that “Finland had been raised to the status of a nation among nations”. [12]
I think that it's not respectful towards Finnish history to wipe out it's separate identity during Russian rule. Dresson354 (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finland had some qualities of independent country, but not all of them. I do admit that by the end of the century, Finland's status was quite unique in the empire. The other provinces were being integrated to the state, while Finnish institutions were getting stronger. But that seems beside the point, as it did not actually become independent before 1917.
The first link you gave does not support the claim that the emperor was bound by the law. Whether the Tsar was bound by the law was exactly one of the issues debated between the Russian and Finnish administration. Jussila p.43 states that [...] when, confirming the same pledge to the Finns as his predecessors had made, Alexander II changed the word ‘constitution’ into ‘statutes’, he wanted to emphasise very clearly the principle that his power was indivisible. In short, Finland did not have a constitution in which there was to be a separation of powers.
The interpretation of what the emperor meant by those words in 1809 has been debated. Let me quote the Eduskunta page you gave above: A critical reading of the events maintains that while the Tsar admittedly promised to retain the former laws and faith, he did not recognise Finland as a separate state. The relations between Finland and Russia during autonomy were not a personal union between two separate states, as Finland was simply its own administrative jurisdiction, forming part of the Russian empire.
This is not about respect/disrespect or Finnish identity, but about historical accuracy, and is also compatible with what is written on the Finnish Parliament site. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that clipping particular statements will give a full understanding.
Eduskunta page text's structure is thoughtful and it also states:
"According to general opinion, the state of Finland was born at the Diet of Porvoo. This view has, however, also been contested. According to some opinions, it was only in hindsight and as a result of national awakening that the year 1809 came to be seen as the birth year of the state of Finland."
or
"The establishment of a state is not just a legislative and legal matter. For a state to be acknowledged, it is required that people living within its territory are conscious of being members of the state. Initially, the status of Finland as a state was debated within a very limited circle of intelligentsia, and mainly in Swedish and Russian.
It was not until 1848 that the Finnish term for state, valtio, was first introduced. That same year, at festivities organised by university students on the 13th of May, the Finnish national anthem, Maamme (Our Land) was first heard, and Finland’s national flag was unveiled. Gradually, the ordinary Finnish speaking population became aware of the existence of a state. By the time the national railway company of Finland was established, Finland’s own currency launched and the 1863 Diet convened, Finns had learnt to view their country as a state."
It is true that Alexander I didn't necessarily "recognize Finland as a separate state" when Grand Duchy of Finland was established. I also agree that the position of Grand Duchy of Finland wasn't always stable. It is also true that the position of Finland was debated (mostly before 1848) , that's totally normal giving that Finland had such a unique case.
But, it is also good to remember that there wasn't just one Tsar during that period. Let's not look only from Tsar's perspective. For instance attitude of Alexander II towards Finland was different than his predecessor's (Alexander I). The fact that, let's say the first ruler, Alexander I didn't necessarily "recognize Finland as a separate state" or last ruler Nicholas II wanted to integrate Finland into Russian Empire, doesn't change the fact that Finland was de-facto a separate entity and the nation was already developed. [13] Dresson354 (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also correction, by separate entity, I don't mean it was an independent country. Dresson354 (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you gave does not really support your message here. It is quite critical of the "narrow national history where the empire did not exist". Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't really agree with you.
I have provided numerous different sources that are explaining exactly what I do. I understand that you might have a different view, but I believe it is clear that sources I provide are supporting my point. Dresson354 (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This might also be useful. Mellk (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You do not currently have access to this chapter."
I think sources that are easy to access are more useful. Dresson354 (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have access. See WP:LIBRARY. Mellk (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my bad. I am sorry!
May I confirm, on what point you disagree with me? Dresson354 (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of crossing up with WP:OTHER, one thing to look at might be MOS:IRISHBIOPLACE. Finland, like Ireland, covers the full history of the place and is acceptable in most instances. However, there are also times (per MOS:IRISHBIOPLACE, after 1922) when a piped link is more acceptable. Paralleling that for Finland using [[Grand Duchy of Finland|Finland]] would be appropriate for Finland in 1809 to 1917 in an infobox. (There is the WP:EASTEREGG argument against that, but I don't think Grand Duchy of Finland in this instance would violate WP:LEAST by surprising or confusing readers.) The other parallel here between Ireland and Finland's situation is that, per MOS:IRISHBIOPLACE, we simply use "Ireland", not "Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" for someone born in Cork between 1801 and 1922. There is no MOS:FINNISHBIOPLACE standard, but opening a discussion about formalizing something like that would be a good path forward. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we do not write "United Kingdom" in the infobox, even for modern subjects. Mellk (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit around here as much as I used to due to RL constraints, but I have done a lot of work on Wikipedia matters related to Sibelius (although I've left his bio page more or less to others). This doesn't make me more 'right' than others, but I thought I should weigh in at a minimum. I think it should be Grand Duchy of Finland, full stop ... not only because this is the geopolitical entity into which Sibelius was born, but also it appropriately highlights Sibelius's status vis-a-vis Russia without giving the latter visual 'credit' for his art. As a compromise, I'd support Finland with the piped link to the GDoF. I certainly wouldn't prefer to see Russian Empire in the infobox. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 13:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand how making it clear in the infobox that Finland was part of the Russian Empire (or 'subjected', 'ruled by' etc., whichever wording one prefers) at the time means giving credit to Russia. You might as well suggest not including a link to a page about a Russian-ruled entity for fear that it'll give credit to Russia. Mellk (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points.
If there is any change to make, then I also support proposal regarding the piped link to the GDoF. Dresson354 (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk: The golden rule, in my opinion, for an infobox is "a) Convey accurate information without b) conveying too much information, while c) providing easy access for the curious reader to key related pages." Here, we appear to have five options for the infobox:
1) [[Russian Empire]]
2) [[Grand Duchy of Finland]], [[Russian Empire]]
3) [[Finland]]
4) [[Grand Duchy of Finland]]
5) [[Grand Duchy of Finland|Finland]]
Option 1 neglects any reference to Sibelius's Finnishness (to which he certainly would have objected); it feels de facto inaccurate due to the omission of such key information. It leaves the curious reader in the lurch with respect to the relationship between Finland and Russia, because the GDoF page is not linked to.
Option 2 is obviously the most exhaustive, and hence accurate, but it lacks brevity and parsimony ... it's needlessly redundant, in part because the link to GDoF would take the curious reader to a page that immediately mentions (and provides a link to) the Russian Empire in its opening sentence. Plus, on a Sibelius bio page, the curious reader is, I hazard to guess, more likely to find the GDoF page useful relative to the Russian Empire page.
Option 3 is inaccurate because the link would take the curious reader to the page of the modern state, and they would then have to scroll to get to the key section about the GDoF. Thus, it is also inconvenient to the reader.
Option 4 is my preference, because it is accurate ('GDoF' relative to 'Finland' and 'Russian Empire') without being redundant ('GDoF' relate to 'GDoF, Russian Empire') and gets the curious reader immediately to the most relevant page.
Option 5 is the compromise that seeks to solve the issue with Options 1, 2, and 3. Yet, a number readers and editors have a negative view of piped links due to the need to hover. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 23:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk: Oh and, in response to: "I do not understand how making it clear in the infobox that Finland was part of the Russian Empire (or 'subjected', 'ruled by' etc., whichever wording one prefers) at the time means giving credit to Russia." Using GDoF makes clear in the infobox that Finland was part of the Russian Empire, as GD conveys 'Finns are subjected.' "But by whom?" the curious reader may ask. Then click the GDoF link! ;) ~ Silence of Järvenpää 00:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand that using your logic we could, in our infoboxes, just forgo mentioning any country in the world and throughout the entirety of human existence, mentioning instead merely, say, the province a person was born in, because if users wanted to know "a province of what?" they can click the link? This is not the only flawed aspect of your logic. The idea that the term "Grand Duchy" conveys that one entity is subjected to another a) presupposes a certain attitude and knowledge on the part of a reader that may be completely unacquainted with the history of the region, which in itself makes this a bad choice for an encyclopedia, and b) is not born out by history: the Grand Duchies of Lithuania and Tuscany were sovereign states for long periods.
As for your outline of alternatives, I am not sure they accurately reflect either the discussion or the proposed solutions. Nobody has suggested or expressed support for your option 1, to my knowledge. Putting it out there looks like bait more than anything else. Option 2 is also formatted incorrectly, as Russian Empire would not be a link in the infobox. I would argue that having two additional words does not impinge on the brevity we expect for an infobox, and it certainly is a very small price to pay for accuracy.
Finally, I do not understand how your comment is supposed to answer Mellk's question (which, frankly, I am curious about as well) of why you think having Russian Empire listed as the country of birth gives "credit" to Russia. I find the proposition ludicrous, and even on the off chance that someone might see Russian Empire in the infobox and think "Russian", this would be dispelled as soon as they begin to read the article; if you do not expect them to read the article, however, I can't see how you can then expect them to click on "Finland" to go to the page on the GDoF and acquaint themselves with its position within the Russian Empire. Fundamentally, however, I do not think that this "credit" thing should be an argument at all. The most charitable interpretation of such a position is that it constitutes RGW. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ostalgia: Okay. Yet I distinctly recall seeing a version of the infobox that just said 'Russian Empire', but perhaps it was a temporary change. Therefore, I was mainly responding to that when I made my comment about "visual credit" (i.e., something about Finnishness/Finland should be mentioned). I'd be fine with Option 2 (GDoF, RE unlinked). Your post more or less convinces, despite its general unpleasantness of tone. My only goal is to see that the link to GDoF is, in whichever form, retained. Presently (and at times in the past, too) it is not. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 11:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only entirely reasonable but also desirable that a link to the Grand Duchy of Finland is provided. Going with simply "Russian Empire" would be just as inaccurate as doing away with it altogether. My apologies if my tone comes across as excessively abrasive. Dealing with this area often leads to all sorts of nationalist editors popping up with a combative attitude and usually less than convincing arguments. My fuse has considerably shortened with the years! Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't understand the persistent push to give credit to "Russia" everywhere. Multiple users, including myself, have already made it clear why this isn't necessary, and I've also explained to you that alternative sources agree with that.
You can have your own position and opinion, but that doesn't mean you can ignore historical sources and norms.
Speaking about options, 4) [[Grand Duchy of Finland]] or 5) [[Grand Duchy of Finland|Finland]] are most relevant in this case, because they act as "historical shortcuts" and support general norms. They instantly tell that Finland was a unique, self-governing entity, but that it was still under the control of the Russian Tsar. And if someone's curious about that relationship, all they have to do is click on the link. In addition to that, more detailed explanation can be found from the main text.
Finally, your argument that two extra words are a "small price to pay" misunderstands the function of an infobox. Infoboxes are for quick, scannable information. They are not meant to be a full historical narrative. So, including "Russian Empire" is redundant as the link to the Grand Duchy page already provides that information.
I agree that options 4) or 5) are giving the reader the most precise, relevant info in the infobox without cluttering things up with extra words and making it confusing.
I will not argue with you on this any further as I believe that all other points have already been discussed in our previous conversation. Dresson354 (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does basically every map of 19th-century Europe show Finland as being part of the Russian Empire? If we write Grand Duchy of Finland, Russian Empire, we can convey that Finland had special status at the time but that it was also not independent. If we write just Grand Duchy of Finland or Finland (with a piped link) then this implies that Finland was independent and was simply not a republic then. Similar to a map, it is not really ideal to include excessive detail or to hide this information elsewhere (hence you do not see Finland shown as seemingly independent on a map with small text somewhere else clarifying that it was not actually independent but simply autonomous).
At the same time it may be good idea to have a higher level discussion regarding autonomous entities because I can see some inconsistencies across different articles. Mellk (talk) 11:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I already mentioned many times, it does not mean that Finland was independent at time. I might have again misunderstood your sentence, but, I hope that the sentence "was simply not a republic then" is not comparison to USSR again, as Finland was never a "simply republic within Russia". I don't want to repeat that all the time, but I think the status of Finland at the time can't be compared.
Many maps also distinguish GDoF in the maps of Russian Empire by adding border or having different background. So I don't really see the map argument relevant here.
I agree that articles don't follow same rules and it may be good idea to have higher level discussions. However let's also not forget that we can't group all autonomous entities in one group, because each case is unique. Most autonomous entities are "autonomous regions", however the definition autonomous for GDoF can not be grouped in the same way. Dresson354 (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am referring to today's republic of Finland. Also, a simple Google search of "19th century Europe map" or something similar shows that this is not accurate. In a few cases there might be a dotted line as opposed to an international border instead or something similar, but I would be shocked to find a map in a source where there is a completely different color for Finland. Mellk (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that.
With quick research, many 19th maps I found include distinguishable elements such as borders, colors or text. While I still agree that some maps don't have these elements at all. There are many different maps and the mapping techniques depends on the purpose of the map. Some of the maps are way too simplified, so I wouldn't stick solely on maps as an argumentation. And it doesn't justify us to ignore what Grand Duchy of Finland was.
Sorry, I understand you have a different position, but I don't really agree with many of your points. Let's not argue about the same thing over and over. Dresson354 (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Examples? It is probably better if we find maps sourced to RS, but the point was that writing Grand Duchy of Finland, Russian Empire or something similar is the best way to convey that Finland had special status, but it is also not misleading in regards to implying that it was independent (most people have no idea what kind of status Finland had at the time, if they can even point to it on a map). Mellk (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your, but,
As other users have pointed about that, I don't think lets say the option [[Grand Duchy of Finland]] is misleading in a way of implying that Finland was independent at the time. The link leads to appropriate page + more information can be found in the article itself + infobox is less cluttered.
Alternative sources also use similar techniques + the same practice has been used also here.
Respectfully, I don't really want to start over with the explanations, as I already have explained my points. Dresson354 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, hiding relevant information from the infobox does not help the reader. But let's agree to disagree. Mellk (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion here became stale, but a simple headcount shows 5-2 support in favour of introducing RE to the infobox. I have added it as well as introduced a link to the GDoF which was also missing. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry "simple headcount shows 5-2 support" isn't accurate conclusion. Let's wait for more mutual agreement. Proposal by @Tcr25 "There is no MOS:FINNISHBIOPLACE standard, but opening a discussion about formalizing something like that would be a good path forward." should be our next step. Thank you! Dresson354 (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are currently the only active editor in the discussion opposing the edit (Nikkimaria hasn't posted here in a long while). The discussion at MOS is also stale and has been so for over a week. I will restore my edit and ask you to cease your obstructionism. Ostalgia (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are OK to maintain the status quo (simply "Finland") and wait until a higher level discussion has concluded or for others to chime in. Although I supported including "Russian Empire", I do not see a clear consensus yet to change this and this does not seem like something worth edit warring over. Mellk (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only opposing editor at this point is a RGW SPA with ~260 edits, the overwhelming majority of which consist on trying to detach Finland from Russia. This in itself is no reason to discount his opinion, even if AGF is not a suicide pact, but having a) seen how the editor posts sources that contradict his own position and, when this is pointed out, proceeds to act as if they don't, and b) browsed through some of his past edits, where at times he has seemingly proceeded to distort cited sources to fit his narrative (for instance, here), I am not particularly confident in this person's ability to hold a fruitful debate. I do not think it is unreasonable, after several days of no actual discussion (or activity at all), to just move on. This is an obscure topic on which we cannot expect to have much more participation anyway. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but I still think we need wider discussion since the fiddling around with the wording regarding the status of the Grand Duchy of Finland has been going on for too long. Mellk (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just confirming my position hasn't changed - I don't find the subsequent arguments persuasive. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again, would you guys mind if I take this to WP:DRN? BTW, IMHO, we should not link GDoF in the infobox cuz we have MOS:GEOLINK. Thedarkknightli (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your point about linking but don't think DRN would be of benefit. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, what about an RfC? Thedarkknightli (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name in infobox

[edit]

Should we include birth name "Johan Julius Christian Sibelius" to infobox as mentioned in the article body. Absolutiva 13:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For whom? - I fill birth name if a woman changed name for marriage, or if the common name is a stage name, but not for one or more middle names that are already in the article. We might think, however, in general if we drop these names as clutter in the lead and have them only in the infobox, as we did with the honorific titles. Max Reger would look much nicer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the note, the birth name was Johan Christian Julius but he used another order. Might be simpler to leave it out because of this complication. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]