Talk:Finnish Civil War/Archive 1

message: Moved since I (googling) believe the name Civil War in Finland to be more in accordance with Wiki-usage, aswell as common English language usage. -- Ruhrjung 06:31 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:I'm afraid I disagree.  Cf. Civil War. - Hephaestos 06:39 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::Still, given the context of both the Finns and Swedes of Finland being represented on both sides? -- Ruhrjung 08:36 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:I'll have to disagree too. "Civil War in Finland" gets 111 hits on google, "Finnish Civil War" gets 171 717 hits (with this wikipedia article as #2!). And calling the war "Finnish" doesn't exlude the Finland-Swedes. -- Jniemenmaa 11:46 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::Well, well, maybe I've done yet another mistake then. My intention is/was to avoid confusing terminology. I'm definitely not arguing for "Finnish" excluding "Finland-Swedes", but in the context of the tensions between so called "Swedes" and "Finns" before and after the war, I feel the term "Finnish" might confuse other foreigners not so well informed about Finland, like how also I during many years remained pretty confused on this matter. -- Ruhrjung 12:06 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:::I'am not really following you here. There is no mention of Swedes of any kind in the article... 
:::Note that I got the google hits above wrong. And I agree with google here, I've never heard the term "Civil War in Finland" before. -- Jniemenmaa 12:19 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:::I've no prestige digged down in the Finnish/of_Finland issue, and even less problems to admit that I might have acted imprudently, but I don't see what you aren't following.  ;-))) 
:::In some cases "in/of_Finland" might be prefered of NPOV-reasons, with reverence to the Finland-Swedes. That's not the case here. In other cases foreigners' understanding of Finnish history might be less confused if, when suitable, "in/of_Finland" is used instead of "Finnish". That was my thought here. A clarification in the text would be much less needed if described as a war within a country instead of a war of a ethnicity/nationality. - In particular as there actually was one, two or three conflicts of ethnic/national character involving Finns going on, but the Civil War not being one of them, and as it seems to be a matter of terminology whether the Finland-Swedes at that time were "Finns" or not. 
:::The terms "Finnish" and "Swedish" can be used, without qualification, for different denotations, between speakers with the background knowledge of a Finn or a Swede. But for a foreign reader with limited and maybe distorted references, it is less than optimal. One doesn't discover this at once. It takes some time. Meanwhile, one's confusion has led to a bunch of misunderstandings. That ought to be avoided, when possible.
:::-- Ruhrjung 15:27 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::::Ok, I understand what you mean, but I don't think changing the name of the article will solve anyhing. If there is something that can cause misunderstandings, then surely it should be dealt with in the text of the article itself, or in the article which links to this one.
::::How about moving the article back and keeping Civil War in Finland as a redirect? -- Jniemenmaa 09:04 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:::::I'm actually, within hours, on my way to the traditional mid-summer holiday in Finland next weekend, and won't sabotage more for the next two weeks.
:::::But I would like to tell, that it was exactly so I thought (although with the opposite outcome, than yours). I considered writing something along the line: 
::::::The Civil War was a conflict between Socialists and non-Socialists of Finland, although also marketed as a continuation of the conflict of Sortovuodet between Russians and Finns (in the sense citizens of Finland), as Russia with the October Revolution had turned Socialist. The contemporary conflicts between Finns and Swedes (in the sense the governments and public opinions of Finland and Sweden) and between Finns and Swedes (in the sense promoters of the Finnish or Swedish language in Finland) were not directly connected to the Civil War, {and then maybe anything about  Finland's language strife coming in the background during the Sortovuodet, the Civil War, and the Åland crisis}.
:::::However, I felt the needed definitions of Finns/Finnish resulting in an awkward prose, making the whole project highly sensitive of prose-improvements by kind Finns who don't realize that these terms actually are, or might be, a problem for non-Finns. Not to mention the probability of repeated rewrites due to different political opinions on the Civil War (War of Liberation, etc, etc, etc).
:::::My reaction then was to reduce the confusing use of Finns/Finnish, which you in turn have reacted against.
:::::The choise of title for the article has, I believe, an impact on the usage in other Wikipedia articles. Isn't then Civil war in Finland, Russification in Finland  and Language strife in Finland superior to the alternative Finnish Civil War, Finnish Russification (or Finnish oppression years) and Finnish language strife, contributing to clarity and counteracting confusion?
:::::-- Ruhrjung 10:57 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
To Ruhrjung:
Just coming back to this discussion. I forgot to answer before.. 
But anyway. Your first argument was that "Civil War in Finland" was the most common term (according to google). I disagree. "Finnish Civil War" gave about seven times more hits. 
Do you want to change all the wars on Civil war to the form Civil War in XXX? All those civil wars involve different ethnic groups and other internal conflicts that might confuse someone. Is the "Finnish Civil War" the only one you want to change to the form "Civil War in XXX"? 
Just curious :) -- Jniemenmaa 10:18 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
To be honest (not that anyone get any happier by that!), I do not really want anything. I was merrily writing, trying out different wordings. Noting that a link to the Civil War was red, I was about to write a redirect page, when I started to "think"...
After a brief period of that, I'd come to the conclusions you see above, most of which for sure is based on my accumulated contact with Finns in English.
- To answer your question, I would say that lesser known events might be on my agenda. See my thoughts on Talk:Battle of Hemmingstedt which rather much reflects a similar background: There I came to Denmark in my early twenties, half-by-half fell in love with the country (or at least certain aspects of Copenhagen), to discover that my slappy knowledge and wordings regarding Schleswig-Holstein were not only false, but actually wounding people.
...and definitely contributing to misunderstandings and bad feelings. I was, and am, in no ways looking for a finlandization of Germany's history writing. I do not want anything like propagating lies to please Germany's victims - admiting the blame for wars the enemy started is a terrible nightmare - but I want to escape from blurry conceptions when they have potence to confuse and hurt, like the projection of Danish nationality on these Dukes of Schleswig and Holstein, ...or a slappy usage of Finnish when a less blurring term would do better. 
I must in this context confess that my googling obviously was done with questionable methods.
-- Ruhrjung 12:17 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Two mistakes 
-It is a mistake to claim that communists were waging war in red side, since Finnish communist party was only founded after the war. 
For sure some social democrats considered themselves as communists even before, but meaning of this term was not established. 
-National guard splitted to protection guard and red guard only after general strike of 1905.
===Question===
I edited some of the writing because a few parts seemed very, very awkward to me. I just wanted to verify in addition that "The svoboda appeared to the Finns as merely the Russian military going out of control" was correct. Was this view held by all, or would the "Red" Finns have been sympathetic to the Russian troops? Also, is there any chance that "Thus it turned out, that from the point of view of the poorest Finns, Oskari Tokoi's Senate's attempt was as much of a failure as universal suffrage had been." doesn't conform to NPoV? 
I'm not leaning either way, because I genuinely don't know, but someone who knows more about the subject could probably give a ruling. - Small Profit 12:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I edited some of the writing because a few parts seemed very, very awkward to me. I just wanted to verify in addition that "The svoboda appeared to the Finns as merely the Russian military going out of control" was correct. Was this view held by all, or would the "Red" Finns have been sympathetic to the Russian troops? Also, is there any chance that "Thus it turned out, that from the point of view of the poorest Finns, Oskari Tokoi's Senate's attempt was as much of a failure as universal suffrage had been." doesn't conform to NPoV? 
I'm not leaning either way, because I genuinely don't know, but someone who knows more about the subject could probably give a ruling. - Small Profit 12:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I'd like to see maps here to clarify the situation during the fighting. F.ex. three small maps, initial frontlines, Tampere offensive and final offensives. Opinions? --Whiskey 09:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if they are needed ,here are some. Not sure about their copyright status if they were released for a book years after the war. They're quite unclear also but we might have map graphicists that may be interested? --Pudeo (Talk) 20:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, they are correct. The Petsamo area (that "arm" between Russia and Norway) was ceded to Finland 1920, as a compensation on the border change near Saint Petersburg during the previous century. --Whiskey 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps?

message: I struggled a bit with the naming changes. I guessed that the change in name to the Red Guards only occurred in Helsinki, Kotka, and Turku initially and then it was officially changed in January. It's probably not important, but just trying to stay consistent. RelHistBuff 14:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was on a business trip yesterday so no edits were done. I see someone else is working on the article. I will just go ahead with this first pass I am making on the article. RelHistBuff 08:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Escalation

message: I have finished the first pass and I recommend Ilummeen and others to take a look at the last few sections that I edited. There are also some minor cleanups to be done such as was mentioned previously, but in the meantime someone can already nominate the article for GA status again. While the article sits in the queue, the cleanup can be done simultaneously. RelHistBuff 09:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends on the context. If viewed from a political point-of-view, one could claim that Finland was unified previously (albeit under Russian or Swedish control), while from a social/economic point-of-view, one could claim Finland was always divided as you mentioned. So it could be both a first-time unification and a reunification. You could describe both. RelHistBuff 15:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First pass done 

message: I made an attempt to cleanup the usage of terms for the Left and Right. Firstly, I defined the Left and Right in the Background section. Then I used "Social Democrats" for occurrences of "socialists" or "Left" and "Conservatives" for "non-socialists" or "Right". I didn't change every occurrence, of course, because sometimes the original terms seemed more appropriate. Please check if the changes are appropriate and go ahead and correct them accordingly. RelHistBuff 09:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left/Right consistency 

message: Last night I tried to formulate a new lead for the article, using my MSWord progr., but as usual it's long. Still, I might open it to you so you could rewrite it and make shorter. A technical question: can I copy a MSWord text directly to the Wiki-FCW article ?
--Ilummeen 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best thing is to use a sandbox. It is a temporary writing space that has a copy of the lead section. I made one, for example, at User:RelHistBuff/sandbox/FCW. You can modify/add to it and everyone can see and work on the changes while the main article remains untouched. You should be able to copy and paste your new lead, but of course you will have to add in the wikilinks and wiki-formatting. You can make your own sandbox in your own User area or you can go ahead and use the one I just created. RelHistBuff 15:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, now the "Lead" is in the Sandbox that you made. It's long and it was written during the night, as I was coming back home from a journey by train. --Ilummeen 16:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some other changes also, that was mentioned in the peer review. Check them too, please. --Ilummeen 16:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will get to it as well as the other items mentioned. I am travelling for the next two weeks so my internet connectivity may be limited. It may take a bit longer in time. In the meantime I have asked others to take a look. RelHistBuff 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah you added it. As you said it needs to be shortened atleast a bit and referenced cited. Hopefully RelHistBuff copyedits it. --Pudeo (Talk) 10:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Sorry, but Upton 1980-1981 is the most proper. in the first cit. of  Red and White Terror. Arimo 1991 and Aunesluoma & Häikiö 1995 are not correct ones. I will not alter them myself as I would mix up the Harvard system :). --Ilummeen 17:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: As Agne  emphezises on the peer review page, NPOV is important in a sensitive subject like this. Therefore, I have a question to you fellows whether the photo of the Finnish jägers in the template is an optimal choice for this article (?).  We do know that jägers had a major impact for the White victory and we are aware also that jägers did not go to Germany in order to get military training for a war against their fellow citizens. But still for neutrality another type of photo might be better in a such central place of the article ?. The similar article of the Finnish Wikipedia has a photo showing the ruins of Tampere, and is neutral. Ofcourse we do not have to have the same photo here, but something like that.  I do not have anything personal against the jägerphoto. In fact, my grandfather's (may he rest in peace) close relative was a sergeant major in the Jägerbataljon 27 and is standing somewhere in the jägerphoto --Ilummeen 12:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think it's a problem, for example Battle of Berlin, isn't that quite much more sided than this. And the Jäger photo looks nice in the template to me atleast. If you have a better image that looks nice I have nothing against it. --Pudeo (Talk) 10:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nop, I do not have any other or better choices and if  I'm the only one who's worried of this, just forget it and keep the original image. You are right, it looks quite nice. --Ilummeen 12:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template photo

message: Raul has given the article featured status. Pudeo, Illumeen, or someone, go ahead put the star (the  template) on the article page! Congratulations! --RelHistBuff 09:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations to the editors who put this article together. In my opinion, it's one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of the sources, but the article inspires confidence in its reliability because it manages an impressively neutral stance and by using multiple sources constantly hedges against generalisation. It manages to maintain a neutral point of view not just towards the right and left but towards the different factions within each side, and the cumulative effect of this objectivity is, in my opinion, a convincing picture of the complexity of the situation. Many times well done. qp10qp 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: ====Outcome of wrath====
I'm not entirely comfortable with the heading "Outcome of wrath", because this isn't a known phrase in English, as far as I know. An outcome is a result, an ending, but I think this term refers to what followed the ending of the war. Also, "wrath" is an old-fashioned word in English, hardly known outside the bible these days (the title of Steinbeck's novel The Grapes of Wrath was actually a quotation from the mid-nineteenth century Battle Hymn of the Republic). My suggestion, from the context, would be "Bitter Legacy legacy". Would anyone object to that?
====Close Finno-Russian combination====
What is meant by "a close Finno-Russian combination" in the following?
"...the most radical Guards and the Finnish Bolsheviks, though low in number, favoured a close Finno-Russian combination."
As "combination" is not a precise political term, I was unsure whether they favoured the amalgamation of Russia and Finland, Russian hegemony, or a close alliance.
====Social position of crofters====
In the following, the crofters held a better social position than what? Than in the south? If so, it can be added. It's not clear, and I was tempted to cut it, but it obviously contains an important social detail which might not be self-evident to non-Finns.
"...the north... where crofters were few or held a better social position."
====Alongside====
I'm not certain that "alongside" is the right word in the following; could someone have another look at the translation? Perhaps "along with"
is meant, but even that doesn't sound quite right to me.
"After the Civil War, in 1919, a moderate Social Democrat, Väinö Voionmaa, wrote: "Those, who still trust in the future of this nation, must have an exceptionally strong faith. Alongside the war this young independent country has lost almost everything..."
====Activist====
Finally, the word "activist" has a capital letter in one place and not in another. I get the impression that this is the name for a political group rather than just a description of a political type in any party. A link went to the latter, but I removed it as unhelpful. If these activists were a specific political group, perhaps a phrase or note could be added to define them. 
qp10qp 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. I note that you don't have a capital letter on "activists", so I shall go with that style. The trouble is that, as you know, "activists" with a small a is an unspecific word that can apply to any party, including those on the left, so "Conservatives and activists" isn't quite self-evident. I think this can be clarified with tiny changes, and so I will have a go. qp10qp 16:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some copy-edit questions 

message: Finally, the word "activist" has a capital letter in one place and not in another. I get the impression that this is the name for a political group rather than just a description of a political type in any party. A link went to the latter, but I removed it as unhelpful. If these activists were a specific political group, perhaps a phrase or note could be added to define them. 
qp10qp 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. I note that you don't have a capital letter on "activists", so I shall go with that style. The trouble is that, as you know, "activists" with a small a is an unspecific word that can apply to any party, including those on the left, so "Conservatives and activists" isn't quite self-evident. I think this can be clarified with tiny changes, and so I will have a go. qp10qp 16:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Activist

message: I reverted a large set of changes by User:Kelstonian . I believe his edits were an attempt at unfounded POV pushing. His main points:
# Emphasizing that the white side (the Senate) was "democratically elected". I do not belive that it can be said that anyone in 1918 was democratically elected. The Grand Duchy was never a democracy, (although the election process itself was modern). A main issue of contention in 1918 was the legality of the dissolution of parliament in 1917 and the 1917 parliamentary elections. Basicly, it can be said, the whole issue in the war was "who had legitimacy in Finland" or in modern terms "who was democratically elected".
# He has systematically replaced the term "Conservatives" with "non-socialists", stating that "It's wrong to call all non-socialists conservatives, e.g. Nuorsuomalaiset were rather liberal". This may be true, but I feel this choise of words was made to bring POV into the article, by giving additional legitimacy to the white side. The Young Finns were conservative compared to the Social Democrats, besides, I believe this word is an anacronism in the 1918 context.
This is a featured article. The fact that the article reached this status without any major edit wars or content disputes, is an indication, that in 90 years the Finns have been able to reach an consensus this once heated issue. Evidently User:Kelstonian does not want to share this consensus.
-- Petri Krohn 06:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The elections of 1917 were democratic. If you make the unusual claim that they weren't then prove it. All non-socialists weren't conservative as you acknowledge. You're pushing your POV by intentionally including untrue statements in the article. The claim that Finland became independent 1918 following Germany's defeat in WWI is untrue and should not be included in the article. As a comparison, do you think Finland lost its independece after the YYA agreement with the Soviet Union after WWII? Including factually incorrect claims in order to maintain some weird political consensus is the wrong way to edit Wikipedia articles.--Kelstonian 07:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim made in 1917 was that they were illegal, thus by definition, not democratic. -- Petri Krohn 12:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, the Parliament can be said to have acted illegally by not sending laws to Russia to be ratified, which would justify the dissolution of the Parliament. However, even if the dissolution was illegal, it would only make the dissolution undemocratic, not all elections that have been arranged since. There is no basis to call the elections of 1917 undemocratic any more than all the elections in Finland since that.--Kelstonian 19:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's sad to see that FCW still raises these one sided discussions. These edit wars are most frustrating and we all should try to keep in mind the results of the true historians. Those who are interested in FCW should check the list of References and the other scientific literature of the war published and READ them first and then make statements. I will not fall into long explanations concerning the discussion above; the question of conservatives versus and non-socialists may seem difficult but it is finally simple: the main power struggle was fought primarely  between the socialists and "true" conservatives (the most powerfull part of the former estates of the  class society), the latter had most to loose and the first mentioned most to gain. As the destruction of the Finnish society and the fight for power deepened part of the non-socialists (e.g. agrarian party, young finns) turned against the socialists. The question whether the elections were democratic or not is not as important as the fact that in the conditions of the Finnish society in 1917-1918 they (and the political "game" involved) served mainly as a means for struggle of power and the state. In 1917 the Finns were not, and simply could not be "mature" for true democracy and parliamentarism after a very long period of the former political system.  We have to check all the changes made during this edit war and try to correct them first, but if the war continues without a true knowledge of the history, we just have to take off the FA-status of this article. --Ilummeen 09:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are absolutely correct that the initial struggle was between conservatives and socialists. But as socialists managed to antagonize moderate non-socialists (liberal young finns, agrarians), the parliamentary road for their demands was closed. Also it provided much needed mass to the war effort of the senate, which was critical in the opening stages of the conflict. The decision of moderate non-socialists to support senate changed the conflict from conservative vs. socialist to non-socialist vs. socialist. --Whiskey 09:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You make false accusations in this personal attack. Please read and abide by WP:PA. It applies to everyone.--Kelstonian 14:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not making accusations, I am just voicing my suspicions. Saying that you are a liar, would be a personal attack, saying that I do not find you credibile is not. If you want to have some credibiliy, contribute something substantive. Come back here after a thousand more edits. -- Petri Krohn 18:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the Harvard style references. Are you sure, you have only made 10 edits in Wikipedia before this article? -- Petri Krohn 06:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''"Democratically elected"'' and other POV-pushing edits 

message: I find the credibility of user  equal to zero. His contributions before this article, about 10 in all, have mainly been POV pushing attempts, with an anti-socialist, possibly anti-European POV. It is possible, if not likely, that he is a sock puppet of another (banned?) user. His user name suggests he is from Kelston, New Zeeland (or from Kelston, England), but he might as well be the infamous "Kven user". I suggest we find his sock master, if any, and take appropriate action. -- Petri Krohn 04:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make false accusations in this personal attack. Please read and abide by WP:PA. It applies to everyone.--Kelstonian 14:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not making accusations, I am just voicing my suspicions. Saying that you are a liar, would be a personal attack, saying that I do not find you credibile is not. If you want to have some credibiliy, contribute something substantive. Come back here after a thousand more edits. -- Petri Krohn 18:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the Harvard style references. Are you sure, you have only made 10 edits in Wikipedia before this article? -- Petri Krohn 06:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An issue of credibility 

message: Please follow the instructions at FAR; I've delisted the nomination, which is archived here.  Pls approach FAR 3 months after article's promotion date if issues aren't resolved.  Thanks.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR nomination removed 

message: Should we add a section on the description on the FCW in literature? Or should this be covered someplace else? Books like Hurskas kurjuus by Frans Eemil Sillanpää and Under the North Star by Väinö Linna have been crucial in forming an understanding of the war, maybe more than any work by professional historians. -- Petri Krohn 19:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Finnish Civil War in Literature 

message: The lead stated that Finland "achieved sovereignty" on 6 December 1917. I changed this to "declared independence" because, as the article makes clear, it took quite some time before Finland became actually sovereign. Mikko H. 12:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Ilummeen, that the FCW decreased rather than increased Finnish sovereignty. So, from the point of view of this article, Finland achieved sovereignty between December 1917 and January 1918. -- Petri Krohn 05:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Achieved sovereignty" 

message: When mentioning the parliamentary elections of 1916 and 1917, should the voting percentages be discussed? In 1916 it was 55,5% and in 1917 69,2%. As a result some historians (at least Vihavainen) have argued that the parliament elected in 1917 better represented the Finnish people and thus undermines the socialist claims of the time that the dissolving of the old parliament was somehow 'anti-popular' move. Mikko H. 12:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is already too long and in some respects too detailed. In the English article the main thing is to show the large view, so those voting-% and even the number of seats are unnecessary. It's clear that during the power struggle between the left and right there were several political claims and accusations against each other; the right claimed that the left made a coup d'etat by the Power act, and the left that the right made a "counter-coup d'etat" with the Provisional government in August 1917. The left claimed that the formation of private civil guards during summer 1917 was a militant act against the parliament with socialist majority (the left forming the worker guards). In late autumn the right claimed that the red guards were a militant act against the parliament with bourgeois majority, the civil guards as it's army, etc., etc....., the major factor being that the Finns were unable to make compromises in 1917-1918.  --Ilummeen 06:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting percentages? 

message: how do you pronounce Pehr Evind Svinhufvud, audio would be sweet but just phonetic spelling would work SpeakThings:Mellerbeck 04:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My Swedish is really bad, but I quess: Per (or a with dots Pär) Evin Svinhuvuud, in Finnish you mainly pronounce the letters as typed (i is i not ei or ai), but in Swedish -er may be -är. Somebody with better knowl. might help you. --Ilummeen 05:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading help 

message: Substituted at 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment