I told you twice already, the middle and dark blue shades are where Swedish speakers have a majority (not light blue, though), this is from the Finnish government statistic website.
And I Will tell you that again: Swedish is a minority language in that place spoken by an infinitesimal proportion of people there, you can tell me there are many places with dark colors, it wont change the fact about it, and you will keep being irrelevant as long as you refuse to accept the obvious.
*Most lands on this map are named after one borough.
*As it seems, it has not proven that I am wrong, or maybe I have failed to see it (show me if I have).
*You're not even bringing up any actual figures ("infinitesmal") except Turku has 5.2% Swedish, which is why I said that the land should not be named Turku, but something like Jakobstad, while I have shown you.
Now I do understand now why you brought up this earlier beach exemple, but it's a very small change to do, landwise, but very tedious and hard, and you can say this of very many lands on this map.
As for now you have never proven at all Swedish was spoken by a majority of people in the Finnish regions that were added, you just provided an irrelevant source, a map without even legends on it and the example of only one city where Swedish is dominant, so unless you prove me I am wrong, you can say what you want, I start to know you and how you behave, you will always refuse that what you say is wrong, as you cannot curb at all your arrogance.
Passing off a claim as axiom, and very much exaggeration...do you see one land that you disagree with its inclusion besides Finland?
Aren't you doing the same, even worse, you pass claims with wrong sources, whereas I at least provided actual data's showing that Swedish was spoken by an infinitesimal group of people. Again prove I am wrong and bring datas about the entire region showed in Imperator's map and I will start to consider your statements.
First, irrelevant does not mean the same word as wrong, something wrong can be very relevant. You've yet to show anything for this. You did show some teaching slide with unknown source talking about total speakers of Alsatian in all France, which is obviously lower than mother speakers in Alsace, while I (right me if you think different) have a pretty safe. Another: http://www.insee.fr/fr/insee_regions/alsace/themes/cpar12_1.pdf
« L’alsacien est parlé en Alsace par 39 % des adultes, soit 500 000 personnes » (p. 1) (and evidently, the mother speakers will be lower than total speakers, which is already minority)
Irrelevant usually leads to wrong claims and answers.
Now, I already explained you that making stats about languages in France is hard, that's why you have different estimations about Alsatian.
Did you even opened the link I provided? I guess not, a different survey was led by a French organism and their results were published by a Canadian university, and they found 53% of people spoke Alsatian in Alsace! (hence a majority), not only elder people but younger generations! 53% of children were studying Alsatian in some degree in Langue Régionale classes. Well you aren't from France so perhaps you believe regional languages are all moribund, but for younger generations (after the 90s) such as me, we had the opportunity to have some teaching in regional languages! And it is even a majority of people nowadays in Alsace, Corsica or Iparralde!
But let's agree to disagree, even if I consider your own estimation, which is the lowest one, it still proves there is more people proportionally speaking a Germanic tongue in Alsace than the current regions of Finland where Swedish is spoken by a infinitesimal group of people. This is why adding these Finland regions were wrong if you do not add Alsace at all, you have to choose between not adding them both or adding them both, but not just one between the two which is actually where there is a even fewer percentage of people speaking a Germanic tongue!
Edited 5/13/2016 06:44:16
