I'm increasingly convinced that awful public restrooms are mostly a North America thing. Travelling in Iceland a few years ago I was shocked at how nice the restrooms at the major gas stations were (N1 stands out). Full-height doors and stall walls, meticulous cleanliness, no weird smells.
At a gas station off the ring road in the middle of nowhere.
> 1. The original and locally preferred view is that Iceland, Finland, Faroe Islands, and Greenland are all countries considered to be part of the Nordics, but not technically part of Scandinavia (which would only be Sweden, Norway and Denmark in this case).
> 2. The international and more commonly preferred view is that the Faroe Islands, Finland and Iceland are part of both Scandinavia and the Nordics, leaving Greenland as the only non-Scandinavian country in the Nordics (along with the Norwegian territories of Svalbard, Jan Mayen and Bouvet Island).
I don't think it the more common perspective outside of Scandinavia either. It is common, but lots of people from outside the Nordics are perfectly aware that it annoys us.
In the Nordics the terms are not just "preferred" but unambiguously used this way.
The word I used, "Scandinavian", can be used both to mean "part of the Scandinavian peninsula" and "part of or relating to the culture originating on the Scandinavian peninsula". Calling Iceland Scandinavian easily satisfies the second definition.
You're right, in that Scandinavia is a peninsula and Iceland being a far off island is not part of it.
English is a weird and inexact language where there are a lot of different things words can mean. Seizing upon a single obviously-incorrect definition is not the whole story.
I'm sorry this bothers you; however I fear that you face the same battle as would a German trying to get Americans to call their country "Deutschland" instead of "Germany".
The term Scandinavia includes Denmark, which is not on the peninsula.
The use to include any country other than Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, is something that will tend to really annoy Scandinavians, as we're generally consistent in that use and it's foreigners trying to tell is what names to use for ourselves.
It may be a losing battle, but it's not one we'll give up on.
In Scandinavia or categorically always includes Denmark.
Only English speakers ignorant of the history of Scandinavia sometimes excludes it.
Tjere is no English language authority that has any business redefining what Scandinavia means at all. It's just insulting when English speakers believe they get to decide to redefine the names of regions that don't belong to them. It's rude.
> Tjere[sic] is no English language authority that has any business redefining what Scandinavia means at all.
Right, and none exists.
> In Scandinavia or categorically always includes Denmark.
> Only English speakers ignorant of the history of Scandinavia sometimes excludes it.
These two sentences are contradictory.
Maybe this is a translation error for you where what you mean when you say "Scandinavia" and what others mean when they say "Scandinavia" don't match up, and this upsets you?
Like I said above; what you're doing is tantamount to a German fighting to get English speakers to call their country "Deutschland". Who are we to redefine them as "Germany"? The difference here being that the English word in the "Scandinavia" case actually does have a slightly different meaning than your own native word, but this is upsetting to you because unlike with "Deutschland" it is pronounced the same.
"Scandinavia" is an English word as well despite its resemblance to words in your native tongue. Who are you to tell English speakers what their own language means?
As an English speaker, just stop you're embarrassing us. You didn't know Scandinavian meant what it does. That's ok, just learn. Don't make it like nonplussed, where Americans gave it a new meaning out of stubborn ignorance, just learn
> Don't make it like nonplussed, where Americans gave it a new meaning out of stubborn ignorance
I do believe you are mistaking how the English language works for stubborn ignorance.
There are many dialects of English, and the way I speak mine doesn't change how you speak yours.
It's very colonial of you to think that your way of doing things is the best and must be forcibly pressed upon others. That you feel embarrassed by the (correct!) use of a word in a different dialect means you have some work to do on yourself.
Okay, but ignorance on whose part? Because as has been repeatedly shown via links to dictionaries, wikipedia, etc by both myself and others, using "Scandinavia" to refer to Iceland is not incorrect.
Britannica lays it out for you, and yet you tilt at someone that lives there (vidarh) telling you the same?
> Scandinavia, part of northern Europe, generally held to consist of the two countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Norway and Sweden, with the addition of Denmark.
You've been found wanting in your claims.
> Some authorities argue for the inclusion of Finland on geologic and economic grounds and of Iceland and the Faroe Islands on the grounds that their inhabitants speak North Germanic (or Scandinavian) languages related to those of Norway and Sweden. Typically, when these other areas are added to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the group is called the "Nordic countries.”
The second quote you posted appears to directly support my stance, and that you think it shows my claim wanting throws your comprehension of the discussion into question.
Britannica is not authoritative, it is one view. It attempts to promulgate One Answer, not to capture the breadth of all English usage in all countries. It hedges itself with words like "generally".
I've never argued that the Britannica interpretation is invalid, just that mine is also valid. Nothing you posted contradicts that.
This all is like a French person getting annoyed at a Quebecois because they're using a different word. Or a Spaniard getting annoyed at an Argentinian. Different places use different words differently, and thinking it isn't so is simultaneously arrogant and ignorant.
Speaking of comprehension.. do you feel that Typically, when these other areas are added to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, the group is called the "Nordic countries.” supports your claim and not that of the person you're fighting with?
You argued people weren't bringing sources. Now you're arguing your sources are infallible while any that refute you are open to interpretation?
When you feel the need to argue and fight with the people who are from the area you want to rename, then you should consider that as much as you're technically free to include whatever you want in whatever words, that also means I'm technically free to mean you when I use the term asshole. That doesn't mean it isn't rude and insulting.
It's already an English word with multiple meanings. I'm correctly using one of those meanings, in English.
I'm just informing people apparently unaware that the language I speak has that meaning for that word. If they don't care to learn about how the English language works, that is their choice. The learning opportunity is there.
No, the setences are not contradictory. One refers to what Scandinavia includes. One refers to what ignorant English speakers insist it includes.
What you're doing is different to translation, it is insisting on a different grouping. It's rude and insulting.
But even when it comes to translation, then yes, a lot of people take offence at that as well, and you'll notice there is a trend back towards the official spelling of names that has been ongoing for decades for exactly that reason.
No no, both refer to the same thing. Asserting there is one "what Scandinavia includes" is refering to what ignorant unskilled English speakers insist it includes.
I'm insisting on the word refering to multiple groupings in the English language. This is a matter of fact not opinion, and is obvious to anyone who understands how the English language works.
I'm sorry it insults you that other people in another part of the world use a word in their language to refer to a region, when you strongly feel it should refer to a smaller region. If I have further questions about your opinions on words in my language, I'll be sure to ask.
I wish Americans would stop conflating some small part of Europe with the entirety of Europe. Scandinavia is of course within Europe, btw. Things may be handled vastly different depending on where you are in Europe. One small part of it does not define the rest of Europe. This is why you can't really compare "the EU" to "the USA" (Norway, while being part of Europe, is outside the EU btw). Not directly, anyway. Maybe some day, Europe will be much more homogeneous, but for now it's a pretty culturally, politically and economically diverse continent. Some European countries have epic public toilets. Others, not at all. It all depends on which country or culture you visit.
My claim: Has epic public toilets. Free wasn't part of that claim. But Norway does indeed have epic public toilets that are also free. If you know where to find them. Norway is also a fairly big country. Would you mind driving for four hours to said epic location, with the epic public toilet? If so, enjøy! If not, then... Oh well. Tip for you: Hotels usually have pretty good toilets no matter which country you're in. If you sneak past the concierge, for instance by claiming that you forgot some luggage, perhaps you might enjoy it. Epic view not guaranteed. All the best! :D
Personally, I rather enjoyed the roadside German toilets. Though they aren't free. But for a small fee you get a reasonably clean toilet while driving somewhere.
Worst public toilet experience in Europe? Hands down, Bulgaria. Sorry, Bulgarians, I love you guys, but your toilets....... Ugh!
My conflation comes from the fact that in Canada, you're almost guaranteed to have terrible washrooms at gas stations (and frankly, in most public venues outside of really nice hotels and restos) coast to coast to coast.
A washroom at at an Irving in rural New Brunswick will have the same weird smells and nonspecific grossness as a Petro in North Vancouver.
Granted, I also haven't visited most of Europe since being a kid, though at that time I remember a few Orlans in Poland and Elfs and Mobils in France having a much cleaner vibe than the gas stations back home.
Canadians are kinda like honorary Europeans. :p Your experience sounds like something you should perhaps consider photographing. Serious photography only. Recommend large format. Macro might also be interesting. Eager to see your work!
Gas station restrooms in Germany are possibly bearable, but annoying since you need to ask for keys - I have used them about twice in 25 years of driving. Autobahn restrooms are either pretty disgusting or paid.
Defintely not. Good toilets are a rarity. In NZ they are not fancy, but ALWAYS has toilet paper and generally aren't trashed.
In Eastern Europe almost always stinky (aka people don't clean up after themselves nor does regular cleaning happening) and occasionally have a toilet attendant for whatever insane reason.
Paid toilets in western europe also sounds insane and doesn't help with people thrashing them.
IMO toilet culture is simply a reflection of society - are you able to keep things clean or not.
> I'm increasingly convinced that awful public restrooms are mostly a North America thing.
There used to be a fairly robust rest stop program here, but it's been basically replaced by exits with large gas station chains and fast food.
US and Norway seem to have roughly the same number of government rest stops per mile, not including the more common "commercial exit" I guess you could call it.
Awful everything is an American thing. We are cheap and boring in the name of lining some rich wackos pockets. It’s pathetic how gross most of the bathrooms are at national and state parks. These are the Crown Jewels of outdoor areas and we have disgusting, under maintenanced toilets with single ply (if you’re lucky).
Free market is something America will never see nor know what it is except as funny term people throw around (along with many other “free(dom) _____” but especially market
Isn't this a private gas station? Certainly some brands differentiate on rest room availability and cleanliness (I'm partial to Love's when traveling) but I believe parent was referring to state run rest areas.
Yeah, service areas between between PA-NJ-NY were always pretty good, I miss those today driving here in FL today, where its mostly shitty gas stations where you have to ask for a key to use the restrooms.
You don't get the Norway views but its also not a complete mess.
