Talk:Baltic states/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Soviet effect on GDP per capita

Would be great to create a table of the three countries' GDP per capita in the 30s and in the 90s up to 2016. Compared to Finland, Poland, Russia, Sweden for example. This would be a factual, visual graph that shows how badly the soviet occupation affected the three countries. I don't know where to find GDP data for latvia and lithuania in the 30s though. Maybe someone can help? JonSonberg (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Look here they had some materials about this. But the thing with GDP in particular is that it apperently was not a common statistic back then, so you could only get it from calculations of modern academics, but those too appear to be of questionable quality and precision ~~Xil (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Adding this table here as a placeholder for future reference: GDP of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania compared to other European countries up to 1939 ; This information can be used together with modern GDP per capita data from the world bank, starting from 1990 or 1991 to generate a graph. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I would like to warn that including this is likely to be WP:OR to at least some extent. We should leave it to academics to try and estimate the GDP effects of Soviet occupation and then report their findings, not try to do research ourselves (and yes, making a graph that implies something is research). The reason that no respectable academic seems to have done it is because it is bloody difficult. No longer a penguin (talk) 11:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
In addition, some personal blog with clear POV-pushing is not reliable. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The table there is directly sourced from The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe: Volume 2, 1870 to the Present. The blog has nothing to do with the GDP per capita topic. WP:OR is indeed relevant, and will be solved. No-one has directly calculated the costs of the soviet occupation - True. But we do have realistic GDP per capita data from the periods before & after the occupation. No rocket science there. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
There's a good table by Bairoch in wikipedia already: List of regions by past GDP (PPP) SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Full Source: The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe: Volume 2, 1870 to the Present SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The actual source for the table is good (although, funny enough, it specifically states right below the table that the estimates for Latvia and Estonia are on the high side, which might make comparison difficult). The problem is, however, that you want to combine that source with another source to make or imply conclusions (those stated in the header here) that none of those sources make. That's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH unless sourced, and the sources that make these conclusions are all as unreliable as that blog (as Sabbatino rightly pointed out). It's not the underlying data that's the issue, it's what you do with it. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I want to say same thing: adding GDP stats (although better with some specialist's explanations) of Baltic states from reliable source is ok, but interpreting those numbers by wiki editor is clear original research, just as arbitrarily choosing some non-Baltic countries for comparison. And by the way, evaluating economic impact of complex 50-year long event is pretty much rocket science if we want to say more than that in year 1940 GDP was X and in 1991 GDP was X% higher. --Minnekon (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
"in year 1940 GDP was X and in 1991 GDP was X" - in comparison to neighboring countries from both the communist and capitalist systems, for example adding finland - this is all that is needed. No-one has to "translate" anything here. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Somebody wrote previously: "graph that shows how badly the soviet occupation affected the three countries" - that is original interpretation of data. Adding non-Baltic states to graph is by default off-topic, unless some authoritative source says it's for some reason relevant. If just Wiki editor says it is relevant, then it's original research. --Minnekon (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The bad or good can be interpreted by each reader themselves, the graph itself will not make good/bad connotations. It will simply show the changes of GDP or GNP in comparison to the macroenvironment, which is the average of western europe or neighboring countries like Finland - Which was widely considered a baltic state before WW2 - google scholar will get you the resources. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

lead

The titular populations of Latvia and Lithuania are known as Baltic people. Those of Estonia are Finnic people.

Latvians are known as Latvians. Lithuanians are known as Lithuanians. Estonians are known as Estonians. There are Balts, not Baltic people - a concept that supposes that at some point in prehistory speakers of Baltic languages formed some kind of common group. Prehistory has nothing to do with modern geopolitics.

. Sure, so change it from "Baltic people" to Balts SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Linguistic matters are not integral part of concept of Baltic states. It can be mentioned in demographics subsection just for background info, but I don't see justification for it in lead. Old lead version is downright ridiculous in that sense, half of it discussing linguistics. --Minnekon (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Following the Northern Crusades during the Middle Ages (i.e. the Livonian Crusade), additional nationalities, such as the Baltic German and Estonian Swedes, emerged.

They didn't emerge, they migrated here and then migrated away. Baltic Germans at least have relation to how the region got it's name. What do Estonian Swedes have to do with the modern geopolitical region? Especially given that you deleted everything about Livonians who are native to Latvia, still exist in nummbers simmilar to Swedes in Estonia (250 in 2011 vs 300 in 2000) and have been major influence on Latvian ethnogenesis, culture and language - I take it doesn't serve the great new Nordic cause for someone to learn that Latvians have mixed with Baltic Finns.

I have no objection towards eliminating estonian swedes and baltic germans from the lead. Livonians vs Estonian Swedes is a disastrous comparison- Livonian is extinct and you have some people who claim to be livonians by ancestry. Swedish and estonian swedes are not extinct. But yes, it's a small minority and can be deleted. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Again, not significant for lead, probably not even significant for history subsection (except Baltic Germans). --Minnekon (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Linguistic and historical considerations intersect in defining the concept of "Baltic states": for example, while Latvian is phylogenetically related to Lithuanian (both belonging to the Baltic group of the Indo-European language family), Estonian belongs to a completely different family – the Finnic languages, also spoken in Finland

There are no linguistic considerations. Thats's Estonian propoganda. And "completely different" is complitely unencyclopedic emphais obviously intended to make a point.

Obviously there are linguistic considerations, if the entire region is called baltic, but one of the countries in the region does not have a baltic language or culture and it's people are not called balts (yes i know the difference between balts and baltic - my issue remains). In my world, LV & LT editors who are trying to desperately keep away all mentions of estonia's historical & cultural difference seem to be engaging in propaganda. Interestingly only LV&LT editors seem to have an issue with this topic. I've never had to debate with an estonian editor. Why do you think that is? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
If there are "linguistic considerations" it must be proved with reliable sources. And to add it to lead it must be proved that those "considerations" are widespread and important. Also, let's stick to arguments, not pointless accusing each other for doing "propaganda". --Minnekon (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

At the same time, despite considerable linguistic proximity, politically Latvia and Lithuania have gone different ways for most of their history. Lithuania formed a commonwealth with Poland, giving rise to one of the largest countries in Europe at the time. Latvia and Livonia were ruled by the Baltic German elite for over 700 years.

Oh, this is good, now Latvia and Livonia coexist in time just to avoid mention of Estonia. And again this has nothing to do with the modern geopolitical situation.

You can also say livonia + the names of the regions encompassing nowaday's southern latvia. Or, you can say areas of southern estonia + nowaday's latvia. But Estonia as a historical name and region has existed independently from those regions for most of it's history. It encompassed half of estonia - the northern part of estonia + the islands. This part had nothing to do with livonia. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
More linguistics :D "Linguistic proximity" does not presuppose political proximity, so the introduction is nonsense. Rest of it can be in history subsection if worded more neutrally, without emphasizing differences. Theoretically we could have a sentence about pre-independence history in lead, but history of that region is too complex to express it shortly. --Minnekon (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Northern Estonia constituted Danish Estonia during the 13th–14th centuries and again in the 16th–17th centuries, until transferred to Sweden in 1645.

In first case it was for 127 year and in the other it was just one island for 86 years, wording suggests 200 years each time. And yet again this has nothing to do with the modern geopolitical situation.

If you dont like danish estonia (which pretty much created all of tallinn's old town and gave the city it's name + the flag - or TLL gave the flag to denmark?), then the lead should not say that the areas of nowaday's estonia and latvia were both governed by baltic germans for 700 years. That is not true. The lead has been using livonia and estonia interchangeably - which is wrong on both historic and cultural levels. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
As already pointed out, quote has vague dates and incorrect claims about territory (no Danes in northern Estonia after 14th century). It is definitely not vital info to write in lead. --Minnekon (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

After the collapse of Livonia, parts of Latvia and Estonia came under influence of the Commonwealth and Sweden. This lasted until the 18th century, when the lands of all three modern countries were gradually absorbed into the Russian Empire.

Not lead material, should go to history subsection. --Minnekon (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Which three countries Livonia, Latvia and Estonia? :D At any rate at this point it seems the concept of there being a common region may have emerged, but that is not explained here, so it's hard to see what it has to do with the modern geopolitical situation. So from all text the on ly thing that is kind of relevant to modern concept of there being geopolitical region consisting of three independent countries is this:

The Baltic states gained independence after World War I, but were occupied by the Soviet Union during World War II, regaining independence in the early 1990s.

And I did restore that sentence, plus rewrote the information on languages as neutral information on the current situation. Lead section should serve as summary of the most importan points on the subject matter, not a lenghtly description of entire histories of three countries, especially when most of that history has nothing to do with subject matter, which is giving it undue weight. There's a seperate history section in which more general history has been discussed at lenght ~~Xil (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You've managed to only keep the absolutely worst part of the region's history in the lead, which is the soviet occupation. This is to imply that the region did not have it's own life before the Russian rule and would fit in perfectly with the propaganda needs of modern russia. I'm sure they'd be happy to see a lead like this. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You are right Xil about the length of the lede – it is too long. It would be OK if it was applied to one specific country, but not now when we have 3 (!!!) different countries in mind. There is the reason why "History" sections exist in political entities' pages. As for the user that keeps reverting your version – he is prone to Nordic Estonia or Estonia POV-pushing. He was was warned many times to stay neutral, but fails to do so most of the time and tries to make Estonia superior to Latvia and Lithuania. Restoring your version. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Who said superior? If you think finnic vs baltic is a topic of superiority, then that's something in your own head. No-one has claimed that. This topic is about the historical accuracy of the lead (including cultural accuracy). SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
But you DO the POV-pushing and your such behavior makes it look like that. I will also remind that this is not the first time. Why do you have the need to insert Estonia's "uniqueness" and "Nordic"-ness in almost every argument? As for the historical accuracy – why would we list the lengthy pre-20th century history, when Lithuania was the only country out of the 3 Baltic states that was independent before (for ~150 years if you start counting until Union of Krewo (c. 13th century–1385), or for ~350 years if you start counting until the Union of Lublin (c. 13th century–1569))? – Sabbatino (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Where do I constantly bring in nordicness or uniqueness? Again that's something that you have constructed yourself. Of course estonians define themselves as finnic - because they are not baltic. That should be no surprise to anyone. No-one thinks they're baltic here. Often being "finnic" also translates over to "nordic", which most people here think they are. But I have not mentioned "nordic" during this topic here even once. And this has nothing to do with being superior - where on earth did that even come from? And uniqueness? I dont know what you mean. I have not used this word once. Each country is unique. Obviously estonian history has been different from that of LT and in some cases also from LV. That's no surprise either and should not be a fringe theme. What's wrong is that we're acting as if things are the same. From an estonian viewpoint, that's impolite. It makes it look like LV and LT are forcing their own definitions & names on EE. Obviously it's not accepted with a happy face here. About the lead's 20th century & Lithuanian independence being old - Absolutely, congratulations. As is written before - there is not much in common between LT and EE. So I really dont know what the lead should even look like if we are to only list common things. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not care what the lead looks like, as long as it doesnt give the impression like the baltic states grew out of the russian empire. Which is what xil's change will now do. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I strongly prefer Xil's version, at least as the starting point. If anything should be added, it should be added to that version, instead of working down from the earlier version bloated with irrelevant details. Of course, the region has a long and complex history, but the region acquired it's distinction (and hence the article) though its shared history of repeated cycles of Russian rule and independence. It's only fair that that is what should be reflected in the lead. No longer a penguin (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I took away some sentences and fixed some phrases according to Xil's comments. I dont object to a new lead but only mentioning russia/CCCP will be unfairly biased. In that case, we should not mention history at all. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Look, I initally had deleted the entire section, but added post WWI (and not just "Mother Russia") bit because it is mostly relevant to modern geopolitical situation with it being international region with independent countries, perhaps a bit earlier history could be covered to explain shortly how the term emerged, but not much else - I think the issue with this article, besides Estonian nationalism, is that initially people just threw in random stuff about each country, the reasonable thing to do would be to focus just on things that have to do with region as a whole with anything else added only, if some background needs to be explained. But as far as I am concerned it can simply be deleted entirely again ~~Xil (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
At this point, the lead on this article is shorter than on the pages of Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
"the reasonable thing to do would be to focus just on things that have to do with region as a whole with nothing else added" - I agree and it sounds reasonable. BUT and this might sound negative, which it is not - What have all three countries had in common before the occupation? Specifically, what have LT and EE had in common before the occupation? As far as I know, there is nothing else in common than just having been occupied together. If common aspects do not exist, then i dont know what the lead should say. LV has common history with both countries but EE and LT are not really connected to eachother. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer new trimmed version of lead (old one was really bad), thanks for editors. Still, I have few issues. First, both Xil's and SørenKierkegaard's versions over-emphasize linguistics, which is not integral part of concept of Baltic states, but rather background information. And even if I would accept mentioning languages spoken in region, going into details of linguistics and bringing out into which language tree branch each of them belongs (by the way, there are other different classifications too) - hardly important info for lead. Also if languages are mentioned, we should add Russian to list, I think it is even more widely spoken than Estonian. My second problem is with pre-Russian Empire history in SørenKierkegaard's version. It is not integral part of concept of Baltic states and not important for lead. Right now it's opposite - most unimportant part takes biggest part in lead. Justification for such version - particular Wiki editor dislikes Russia/Soviet union - is hardly serious. --Minnekon (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I've trimmed the lead more and the linguistics part has been taken off entirely.The lead now is more than 2X shorter than on the articles of Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania. Each country does deserve a short mention of their pre-russian history. The lead is already short. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Linguistics part has been taken off entirely? What is this then: "The titular populations of Latvia and Lithuania are known as Balts. Those of Estonia are Finnic people"? Don't know what's your point with comparing lead length to specific country articles. We can make lead longer or shorter, but it must contain only most crucial info about concept. So if pre-Russian history is not crucial to Baltic states concept, then sorry, it does not deserve mentioning. --Minnekon (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Pre-russian history IS crucial to the concept. The article describes the three countries, which makes their history relevant. It it not just a "concept". The concept of "anything before russia isnt important" is both infuriating and indicative in the same time. As I understand you want the russian minorities to get a mention so I added it now. And linguistics have been written about way more in the Nordic Countries article than here by now. Who on earth decided that linguistics dont go here at all? A mention of the ethnolinguistic groups does belong here. The lead has received enough compromise and is now very short. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Baltic states did not exist before (19/)20th century. How for example "Northern Estonia constituted Danish and Swedish Estonia until the 18th century" (besides being factually wrong) crucially (or at all) impacted development of concept of Baltic states? If you want to write more about Baltic history, start from period when they actually existed.
It does not matter what is written in the lead of other articles, we have different concept here which needs separate justification. By the way, Nordic countries article lead includes very short mention of history and it's about how the concept emerged. Why you don't follow its example in that question? Looks like cherrypicking. Anyway, talking about Nordic countries, common language was one of the basis for their grouping, but concept of Baltic states has nothing to do with languages that happen to be spoken in Baltic states. --Minnekon (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I object to adding minority languages in the lead. It means that we are again introducing a way to go off-topic by introducing opportunity for people to think "Oh, hey, this language was unjustly left out", there is, for example, a good case for at very least adding Livonian and Latgallian, which both have a special status in Latvian law, I would guess that Polish may be wanted for Lithuania and probably some dialects in Estonia would qualify as well. And this all even though languages have nothing directly to do with what the region is about, contrary to allegations of people supporting idea that Estonia is Nordic. There is a section on languages in article text where non-official languages, dialects and whatever else can be discussed. My version didn't include linguistics at all, I just added back in two things that were kind of relevant to the topic, because I got reverted and I figured it would be a good compromise. And, Søren, the article should not describe three countries, but the region, each country has it's own article where country specific things should go, the concept of the region only begins with Swedish Empire as far as it is possible to tell, but in modern geopolitical sense only in 20th century and just because sentence on when countries gained independence mentions later Soviet occupation doesn't make it Russian history. Also can we perhaps all avoid lenghtly discussion? All we really need is yes or no answer - would you mind, if the information about languages and history was removed complitely? Because we only need to discuss, if there is a feeling that some of the content needs to remain, but it doesn't acctually seem it is deemed important by most people here ~~Xil (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I give up on this article and will be neutral from now on SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Definition added as a sub-paragraph

Edit: The proposal is to add a sub-topic that details how the definition has evolved and the criticism of the current definition. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There is enough criticism about this definition to make it notable. Either on this page or as a separate wikipedia article.

While the previous section was deleted and probably rightly so, there's no denying that the definition of "baltic states" has received criticism, at least inside Estonia. Is it right to not talk about this at all on the article page?

Example one from Diplomaatia Translation: "Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are often grouped under the concept of "the baltic states". This defintion is artificial, because our histories have been very different." The article goes on to talk about how the three countries were not able to form a meaningful partnership during the interwar period and how the first commonalities / common contacts between the three peoples really emerged in the 1970s.

The article also criticizes the effectiveness of the baltic assembly, saying that the political declarations have had no real-life outcomes. It also mentions how Estonia has been reducing it's members in the baltic assembly and how the importance of BA itself has been decreasing over the years. It does however say that we still need BA to have unity in the political topics that affect the three countries.

Example two from Diplomaatia Translation: "Old and new europe, the visegrad, benelux and baltic countries are joined by one thing: they dont exist".SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Some more updates:

Baltic Facades: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania since 1945

Everything from pages 9 and 12 could be brought over here as it fits the topic perfectly.

Excerpts:

The baltic states suffer as a cliché, untrue, but repeated precisely because it is a received idea. - Toomas Hendrik Ilves

.

"Estonia and Lithuania, on the other hand, are entirely bound by unhappy experiences and little else."

SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I will remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum and it is not the place to discuss your or someone else's views. This is not the first time that you are not neutral. Whether you like it or not, but many people and organizations refer to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as Baltic states, which has been around 100 years, and you can not just come and remove that from these countries' histories. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
My proposal was to add a sub-topic that discusses the definition. There's enough content on the criticism of this definition to make it notable. If it's notable, it should belong in the article or as a separate article. Indeed the term has existed for a long time. It also included Finland in the interwar period. So the term is fluid and changing in time. I don't see why the definition's history and current criticism should not be listed. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I just fail to see how it's encyclopaedic to not include criticism that the estonian government or the media itself has voiced. Or the fact that estonia has decreased it's funding for the baltic assembly SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it's fair to include criticism of the concept of Baltic States if there is such in reliable sources. However, there are two mistakes that are easy to make when writing such a section and the sources you suggest already reflect that.
One, it's easy to include issues that are not actually a criticism of the Baltic States as a concept but you interpret them as such (hence, OR). You examples on reduced funding to the Baltic Assembly and its declining standing are perfect examples of this: they can be included in the article on the Baltic Assembly but not here, unless reputable sources state that these events are a challenge to the concept of Baltic States. Likewise, articles outlining different historical background of the three Baltic States are just that, and not a challenge or criticism of the concept of the Baltic States unless such claim is made by the author.
Also, it's easy to find supporting quotes from someone for just about anything these days and give an impression of widespread acceptance. However, other than quotes from extremely prominent statesmen, quotes from primary sources should be left out and secondary sources should be used to demonstrate that the criticism is prevalent. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I understand and thanks for clarifying the differences. So quotes from presidents / prime ministers would work? Also, what about public attitude surveys? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This "criticism" baisically is WP:FRINGE view of some Estonian politicians. As such it should not be given much coverage here, both because it would be WP:UNDUE and because Estonia being Nordic or not doesn't really have anything to do with Baltic States. That such views exist has allready been mentioned in this article and there are links to Nordic identity in Estonia article in which this issue can be discussed ad nauseum. ~~Xil (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I suppose the nordic topic actually doesnt have that much to do with it. We have sources for the estonian president, prime minister + academic sources criticizing the concept of "the baltic states". How is that fringe? I agree that the topic should not be given prominent visibility but it should be included. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This is what few people in one country who are not experts say because they have a political agenda. That's how it's fringe ~~Xil (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

political agenda or not - if it's been expressed by the leaders of the country, it makes it notable SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC) SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

And hence there is an article about this view. That something is notable in itself doesn't mean that it also gets to be at the center of all articles on vaguely connected concepts. The concept of the Baltic States also is notable and that is what this article is about, not what some Estonian people think about it. This is encyclopedia, people come here for concise information on particular topic, not political discussions ~~Xil (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
the nordic identity of estonia has nothing to do with the criticism of the baltic states as a concept by notable people / academics. These are two completely different topicsSørenKierkegaard (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC) SørenKierkegaard (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with No longer a penguin - if there are reliable (like Aldis Purs) and notable (like foreign minister and president Ilves) authors criticizing Baltic states concept then they should be in the article. I also agree with warnings not to give it undue weight. --Minnekon (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It allready is in the article. How is it due to have a large section on history and etymology showing exactly as proposed how the definition has evolved and then have another section about the same, but from "critical" POV? ~~Xil (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
You should rephrase your sentence because it's not understandable right now. Where does the article currently list Concept Criticism? I dont see any. It should be a separate paragraph in the end That way it's findable but it is not given too much weight. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Baltic Assembly

The article states in the lead: "The Baltic states cooperate on a regional level in several intergovernmental organizations, principally through the Baltic Assembly." - According to what source? I've never heard that the baltic assembly is the main cooperation location SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This was added by @Rob984 few months ago. Personaly I don't see why that particular institution needs to be emphesised, if the idea is to link in the article, maybe sording could be "such as" or something ~~Xil (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I just thought it was worth mentioning, but I agree "principally" is not correct. Rob984 (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I took BA out for now. Seems WP:UNDUE in the lead SørenKierkegaard (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Baltic Sea Dominions vs. Baltic Dominions

The correct translation from both Swedish and Latin is "Baltic Sea Dominions". I fail to understand why a user keeps reverting this change. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Because the English name clearly is just "Baltic", not a direct translation. ~~Xil (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Russian Language & Ethnicity

The Russian language & ethnicity seems to be underrepresented in this article. If you take the three countries together as a geopolitical region, there are more people with Russian ethnicity than people with Estonian ethnicity. So it seems weird to me that it's listed in a couple sentences next to actual minority languages like german or swedish or polish. Although I don't really know how to better represent it either. Just seems unfair in general.

Observations:

1) Russian is an official minority language in Estonia. It also seems to be an official minority language in Lithuania, but not in Latvia. So what to make of it De Jure I don't know but de facto the topic deserves a proper mention.

2) In Estonia the local russophone community defines as Estonian Russian, not Baltic Russian. I don't about the other two countries but assume it's the same. And I guess Russians in the Baltic states is the wider definition to include all three.

SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you know any source that says Russian has official status in Estonia and Lithuania? Do you have some suggestion what to cut or add to make presentation more fair? --Minnekon (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I just realized it's surprisingly hard to find direct sources - maybe I erroneously took the mention of "minority language" as a sign of an official status. But it's listed in Languages of Estonia and "the possibility of creating a cultural autonomy" is mentioned on the government's page. Also listed here. This site mentions it as "vähemusrahvuse keel". But I'm still trying to find if it's an official minority language. This article claims it has an official status and follows by a long Q&A by some people. It connects the status to the Peipsi Old Believers. This debate sort of seems to say yes and no, hard to understand. They agree that Russians are an official minority in Estonia but the language topic stays unclear to me right now. Need to keep looking. I'm not sure how to best present this. Maybe bar charts that display ethnicities by count in the region and include a paragraph about the Russian ethnicity and their history and accomplishments. I would be shocked and ashamed as an Estonian if the Russian language does not turn out to have an official minority language status. Never even thought about the possibility that it might not actually have an official status. Hope it's not true. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Edit: If I search the constitution for "vähemus", then it does return the official minority rights. I'm sure the Russian ethnicity is an official minority in Estonia. Although it was hard to find sources with a direct claim about including russians in the term as well. Really a surprising problem to be facing. This page I think has the most content on this. Even if it turns out that the language (very unfortunately) does not have an official status, the ethnicity absolutely does. Which obviously allows to have the ethnicity to be further mentioned on this page. On an equal footing with the other main ethnicities. And I think also on the Estonia page. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Edit2: This article claims that Russia is critizing Latvia for the absense of an official status on the russian language. It then says it criticizes Estonia for something else. So again, there must be something but really hard to determine what exactly the legal context is. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Russian language like all other languages have only semi-official status in Lithuania. They can have schools, radio stations, newspapers, websites and all other media in their languages, but all official documents and public announcements are supposed to be made in Lithuanian language. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

What about the ethnicity being official? I found it really hard to find a source that directly says that "russian ethnicity is an official ethnicity in Estonia" or something similar. I don't really know if something like an "official ethnicity" or an "official minority" even exists or is needed though. The law for minorities clearly states the rights for minorities though in Estonia and it's obvious that Russians are a minority. For example all minorities in cities where over 50% of the population is from that specific minority, the minorities have the right to be serviced in their own language by public services. I suppose that would constitute as an official status for the language. Although there's an added level of complexity with the word "russian", as it can mean many things. Language: Russian; Ethnicity: Ukrainian; for example SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Edit: This page of the Lithuanian government does list all minorities so I'm sure they have an official standing as an ethnicity, even if the language is not official. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Re public announcements - like notifications in supermarkets? In Estonia the announcements are in Russian as well, but usually together with the same announcement in Estonian. All government sites are in Russian as well. I don't know what that says about the status of the language de jure though. I suppose it at least says that the language is not forbidden by the government and is in de facto use. It appears it's the same way in Latvia. It also says that the governments acknowledge the Russian ethnicities. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Umm no. All official announcements (notifications included) are made in Lithuanian. Whereas, unofficial announcements like advertisements (selling an apartment or similar) are sometimes made in other languages if a person does not known Lithuanian language or they do not use it on purpose (the biggest problem with Russian population in Lithuania). To be frank, in Lithuania national minorities and ethnic minorities are two different things. National minorities have their own countries (Russians – Russia, Poles – Poland, Ukrainians – Ukraine, and many others), while ethnic minorities do not (Crimean Karaites, Romani people, Tatars and others). However, there are Russian, Polish, Belarusian, Ukrainian and other national minorities' schools and they have the right to learn their own language in addition to Lithuanian, but they all must take state exams in Lithuanian since it is the only official language of the country. As for ethnicity, you can freely write your ethnicity as Russian or other in passports. Some municipalities like Vilnius district municipality] have their websites in Russian and Polish, because there is a huge number of non-Lithuanian speaking population. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems to me that Russian does not have special official status in any of the Baltic states. Official status would mean that Russian has by law some privilege compared to some random languages. Government web page versions and supermarket announcements are in Russian for practical reasons, not because law demands it. This Estonian cultural autonomy law [1] in some sense recognizes Russians as special minority, but does not give to Russian language no more real rights than to any other language. --Minnekon (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
1) What about derivations? If the minority rights law states that if the % of a specific language group in a region exceeds 50%, they have the right to be served in their own language by public institutions. This means that de facto, derived from de jure, the Russian language does in fact have more real rights for example in Narva and Ida-Virumaa than other languages. 2) Luckily the language de jure question does not mean that the ethnicity should not be mentioned here on an equal footing with the other main ethnicities SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
1) In which Baltic country such law exists? 2) If some section talks about ethnicities and linguistic situation then Russian is one of the major languages and should be covered as such. But languages is just background information and i see no point writing about it in detail. --Minnekon (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is meant as an advise, not criticism. "If" indicates that you do not know. This page is for improving the article, i.e. bringing and adding reliably sourced facts. Please, get the facts first. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 22:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Structural quality of this article

I find the entire contents layout of this article to be seriously lacking. An example of a good article for a geographic grouping of countries is the Nordic countries article.

Problems:

1) The history goes back too far, way beyond what is common between all three countries. Why are we listing medieval history like the Swedish Dominions, when the current concept of the three "Baltic States" was first seriously used after the Soviet Union broke up? The concept of "The Baltic States" is a 20th century geopolitical concept. The Swedish Dominions only included Estonia and Northern Latvia. If we are to really push it, the current concept started in 1945. Which would mean that these are the timeframes the article should cover politically. This article is not about the medieval history of Livonia. The current article is heavily tilted towards Livonia and ignoring Lithuania and Northern Estonia. Including the etymology talk about baltic germans.

I have now added the main points and sections as best as I could, relative to other Wikipedia articles. Hoping others will now help to improve this article with more content. Especially with content from the interwar period and nowadays. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

2) Too much focus on history and not enough on culture, nature & the societies. Looks like a history article right now. If we are to follow what a decent article for a geopolitical grouping of countries looks like, we can follow the Nordic countries. First off it only lists political history that is common between all countries. Also it's short. Second, it lists Politics, Nature, Economy, Demographics, Culture in a much more in-depth manner. Like notable art, writers, etc. A greatly improving section for this article would be Nature, which lists the nature of the three countries separately. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

Century
North Estonia South Estonia North Latvia South Latvia North Lithuania South Lithuania
10th Finnic tribes Baltic tribes
11th Ancient Estonia
12th
13th Danish Estonia Livonian Order Duchy of Lithuania
14th Grand Duchy of Lithuania
15th
16th Swedish Estonia Duchy of Livonia
17th Swedish Livonia
18th Governorate of Estonia Governorate of Livonia Duchy of Courland and Semigallia
19th Courland Governorate Government of Kaunas Vilna Governorate
20th Republic of Estonia Republic of Latvia Republic of Lithuania
21st Republic of Estonia (EU) Republic of Latvia (EU) Republic of Lithuania (EU)

SørenKierkegaard (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


Edit:

I've started from creating a shared timeline graph, similar to the one on the nordic countries page. To show the histories of the 3 countries in visual context. May have some inaccuracies that need to be ironed out but I believe it's correct in the grand scheme of things. Hoping other editors will point out areas of improvement if they notice anything. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This timeline is completely trivial and should not be added per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT. Just because it was added to the Nordic countries page that does not mean that such list should be added here. As for the history, you were the one who used to push pro-Estonian, pro-Nordic and pro-Finnic POVs in this page, so you should ask yourself why you added some of that information. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I have not once mentioned anything nordic / finnic POV in this section. I want to add an honest, exact historic timeline on the article page of the three countries and I'm looking for help from other admins to improve this timeline table. Not from you though apparently. I want to improve the Baltic States article because it's lacking in it's depth compared to the nordic countries article. Also the trust in your care for balanced information in wikipedia was shown to be hypocritical by your reluctance to do anything to remove marketing spam from the Lithuania article. Hence I'm not taking your comments seriously. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not have a problem. The better question would be – why you keep editing the pre-1918 history if it should be removed? Go ahead remove it and if there is opposition then discuss it. The term "Baltic states" was first used in 1918 when Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia became independent, and history of this page should start from then. Everything else should be removed. P.s. this is not Lithuania's page so do not mention the problems there. I can freely choose what to edit and what to not edit. Due to huge additions to that page I did not have time to look through them, but I will when the time comes. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I have now added the main points and sections as best as I could, relative to other Wikipedia articles. Hoping others will now help to improve this article with more content. Especially with content from the interwar period and nowadays. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@SørenKierkegaard: You cannot just remove the pre-1918 history of Baltic states and change it with a table, which gives the exact same information. While WP:Settlement says that timelines should be avoided in main pages, but that WikiProject is about cities. However, it does not mean that a different treatment should apply to anything different from cities. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This timeline table and the previously listed "history of livonia" are two completely different things. The timeline table is a compact visual overview of the entire modern history of the region, without going into detail. A timeline table is also an accepted form of visual summary, as evidenced by the opinions on the nordic countries talk page. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Content or opinions in other pages do not justify the addition of similar timeline table per WP:OSE. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Your attempt to remove the timeline table from the nordic countries article has gotten a clear response from other editors. I believe the feedback also applies for this table, as it's exactly the same in concept. You called my addition of the timeline table absurd. What I find absurd is that you are against adding a neutral historic table which will undoubtedly give the readers a better overview of the history of the region. And you keep going against other editors as well. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you please just stop trying to insert your agenda in this article? We've already talked about how there are other articles where discussing Estonia wanting to be Nordic is appropriate, instead, you just keep on wasting your and everyone else's energy by trying to prove that well documented concept of there being Baltic region is wrong, Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for promoting your views ~~Xil (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
What exactly constitutes a "nordic agenda" here? First off, as Sabbatino him/herself agreed, the history of the baltic states as a region of three countries started in 1918. No "nordic propaganda" there. Second, listing definitions in the etymology is a completely normal approach as is on the nordic countries article page. You deleted all text about wars of independence, economies, interwar period, etc. That had nothing to do with a nordic POV. Show me a single line that has a "nordic agenda". And how exactly is the timeline a "nordic agenda" ? You are just blanket-deleting content that has existed on other wiki pages (linked to as "main article"), that has nothing to do with anything nordic, with the accusation that I have a nordic POV. How? My goal is to improve the "baltic states" article. And "livonia" does not == "baltic states" which is what the article is about, as the old history suggestion suggested. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
First of all, looks like I will have to repeat myself and say that opinions on other pages do not apply here. I called your addition of timeline table absurd, because you removed the history of pre-1918 and changed it with a table that has the exact same information. If that is not absurd then you should think it over. Secondly, if you had any knowledge of Italian language, you would realize that I am a "him". Furthermore, I said that history of the Baltic states should start from 1918, BUT I quite clearly indicated that if there is any opposition, which clearly is then you should discuss it (I am trying to help so you would not get blocked again as last time). I will also remind you again that WP:OSE is not the justification to add something that is added to other pages (timeline in this instance). The page should be restored to last stable version until the discussion is over. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
They can always add back the "livonian history" section but I fail to understand how it has anything to do with the modern concept of "the baltic states". It excludes both north estonia and lithuania. And it does not mean that the sections about wars of independence or interwar periods should be removed. Which are essential to the entire concept of the three countries as "the baltic states". I have zero "nordic agenda" here. I don't understand why I'm being accused of this. I do get annoyed if the article is listing livonian history as something that has defined the current concept of the baltic states. This implies that the countries have somehow grown out of that concept. Which they have not, besides Latvia. In addition - why is Livonia more important than the grand duchy of lithuania or historic Estonia (not Livonia)? And if we are to add sections about the histories of both then the article would again change into something else. So that's why starting from 1918 makes sense. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
You completely misunderstood the whole point. What I meant was that changing text into table is the worst way to go. I did not say anything about the histories of Lithuania and Estonia, which should both be there. In addition, I do agree that the history of Baltic states page should start from 1918, but I specifically wrote that if there is opposition then you should refrain from making these change until there is an understanding. Is it so hard to understand? – Sabbatino (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

At most, you could argue that you have a problem with this section:

---

"The Baltic States" is mainly used as a geopolitical term. The three countries do not form a union as do the Benelux countries, nor do they form a common cultural region as do the Nordic countries.

---

Fine, so delete all mentions with the word "Finnic". But how will you include Estonia then? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary for listing definitions. That Estonians are Finnic is mentioned in the article several times. And I don't get what it has to do with including Estonia - is this some smart argument about how only countries inhabited by Balts can be in region named after the Baltic sea? ~~Xil (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC
If the term is confusing, term definitions are added. The list defines the terms. "It's already mentioned somewhere inside the other texts" is not a real argument if your actual interest is in the clarity of the article. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The term is not confusing just because you disagree with its use. It doesn't need to be clarified over and over again just because some people have decided they do not want to understand it due to some nationalistic agenda. And generally, prose is preferred in Wikipedia articles, not lists ~~Xil (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd say it's you with the nationalistic agenda of not wanting to make the distinction between different uses of the word "baltic" clear to everyone reading the article. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Etymology, part 1

Is there a reason why adding term definitions is not allowed on the Etymology section?

Proposed list:

--

This has been deleted by user Xil several times now. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are disambiguation links on top of the article. It's been mentioned several times in article what are the main ethnic groups and what languages they speak. It's clear to most people what Baltic sea is. This has nothing to do with the origin of the term. Basically, you're trying to solve problem that doesn't exist for anyone else ~~Xil (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
You have absolutely no grasp of how big of a problem this is for Estonians. But either if there is a problem or not, this is a discussion that is outside of the scope of proof. My question stands. Why is a clear area for term definitions not allowed. Obviously you're not interested in the clarity of the article, otherwise three sentences would not be a problem for you. I mean I understand the emotional reason why someone from latvia might not want to have this listed but that's not an encyclopaedic point. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I gave you a very clear reason why it is not acceptable encyclopedic style. Don't tell me how I feel just because you cannot come up with a valid argument ~~Xil (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
You don't have a valid argument. You're just looking for arguments to remove any notion about Estonians not being Baltic people or that (north) Estonia has had a history separate from Latvia for most of it's history. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, do you think it's ok that the etymology of an article that supposedly contains Estonia, has 0 mentions about Estonia ? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
1. I have not tried to remove numerous references to these facts that already are present in the article. 2. Yes, because as I allready have tries to remind several times this article is not about Estonia and etymology is linguistic origin of the term, not definition, that's what lead section is for and definition in the lead mentions Estonia ~~Xil (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Timeline 2

I will list the proposed timeline again. Now that the editor Xil has made it clear they prefer to list full history before 1918, I would like to know why exactly a timeline can not be added. A historic timeline has been an accepted format on the nordic countries article page. I don't understand why adding a timeline is not allowed on this article. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Century
North Estonia South Estonia North Latvia South Latvia North Lithuania South Lithuania
10th Finnic tribes Baltic tribes
11th
12th
13th Danish Estonia Livonian Order Duchy of Lithuania
14th Grand Duchy of Lithuania
15th
16th Swedish Estonia Duchy of Livonia
17th Swedish Livonia
18th Governorate of Estonia Governorate of Livonia Duchy of Courland and Semigallia
19th Courland Governorate Government of Kaunas Vilna Governorate
20th Republic of Estonia Republic of Latvia Republic of Lithuania
21st Republic of Estonia (EU) Republic of Latvia (EU) Republic of Lithuania (EU)

SørenKierkegaard (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Because this is article about region, not seperate countries. We could do ths:
Century
Estonia North Latvia West Latvia East Latvia North Lithuania South Lithuania
17th Swedish Baltic dominions Duchy of Courland and Semigallia Polish Livonia Grand Duchy of Lithuania
18th Baltic governates
19th Baltic governates Vitebsk governate Government of Kaunas Vilna Governorate
20th Baltic States

with perhaps some local history mixed in ~~Xil (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, and why 17th century not 16th or 14th or 10th? You've also "forgotten" that Estonian and Livonian governorates were different in the russian empire. Your comment about "region not countries" has no meaning in this context either. Did the 17th century suddenly make it a region? Not according to that same timeline. If you want to use east/west you should also add in the Danish Saaremaa to the 17th century. You also can't end the table with "baltic states". It's a geopolitical term not a union. Estonia or Lithuania do not define themselves as a "baltic states". They define themselves as the independent republics. I mean I understand what you're doing. It's just quite disgusting. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I will repeat myself for the third of fourth time – WP:OSE is not the justification to add something. Just because it exists in the Nordic countries page that does not mean that it should be here. It would not add anything that could not be presented in prose. There should as less tables as possible per Wikipedia's whole point. When you open an encyclopedia (book), do you see hundreds of tables? No. Same here. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Prose by it's definition can not give a visual overview. And yes tables are used in encyclopaedias, especially when talking about history. Example, Example, Example, Example, Example. Britannica even lets you create your own timelines. Wikipedia has a table tutorial. Pleistocene is a great example of using tables for a visual overview. I suppose WP:OSE is meant to avoid copy-pasting dumb things. Using tables to visualize history isn't a single dumb approach on a single article. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
You completely misunderstood the whole point. I was having an actual book in mind. A book that you can hold in your hands and not e-books. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how a book has anything to do with Wikipedia's online format. And books also have history tables. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Right, then I am going to agree with Sabbatino on this one. This article is not about some POV contrasting of Lithuanian and Estonian histories and this table is not particlarly necessary ~~Xil (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
POV contrasting histories? This IS the history. Unbelievable. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Main part of history section should obviously be about time when Baltic states concept has been used, but very brief overview of earlier history for context is ok (if it's presented correctly). I'm also in principle (but not necessarily) ok with history table suggested by SørenKierkegaard. I don't agree (or understand) Sabbatino's arguments against history timeline: WP:INDISCRIMINATE - it's less important, but not unimportant or random info; WP:LISTCRUFT - not really connected to our case; WP:Settlement - hard to bring that guideline over here, it lacks reasoning why it's good rule. --Minnekon (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Now about content of history table. Xil's version seem to suggest that Baltic states concept evolved from Swedish Baltic dominions and Baltic governates of Russia. Is it true? Also, better to have consistent content - all named entities should be states, subdivisions of states or supra-state entities not mix of them (unless there is good justification for exception). SørenKierkegaard's version: most of the table is about political history, but why older part is suddenly about linguistic history? For consistency we should have just one logic in same table. Concept of Baltic states is about politics not language, so I think we should show just political history. But here I have different problem: isn't history of Baltic states too complex to create simple and useful synoptic timeline? Some things that proposed table lack: parts of Lithuania belonged also to Teutonic Order, Duchy of Prussia, Suwałki Governorate, Germany and Poland; part of Latvia (Latgale) had different history than other parts of modern country: south-eastern part of Estonia has always (up to 20th century) been part of different Russian states. Is it realistic to show all that in one table? --Minnekon (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I just used finnic tribes because it suited the "baltic tribes" next to it and seemed equal. Otherwise it would say Ancient Estonia, which also had it's political history. To show also the eastern / western regions, we can add those columns to the map. We can also divide the rows by 50 years, not 100 to make it more exact. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid there will be too many columns and table becomes too wide and uncomfortable to read for Wiki users. Ancient Estonia was not political entity, it is (somewhat misleading) synonym for prehistory of Estonian territory. If no states yet existed why not just say "pre-state societies". --Minnekon (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that's probably right. Although I'm not sure at which point something becomes a state. Estonia did have "counties" before the danish invasion. Also tax gathering and fort areas. And at least one of the counties even had a king :) Or four kings according to another source. But the counties indeed did not form a unified "Estonian state", they were rather rivals. Lembitu indeed try to unite all Estonians to unite against the invasion but it did not result in a common state. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
What historians say? As far as I know only Jersika and Principality of Koknese in Eastern Latvia are considered "real" states (although both were in turn vassals of Principality of Polotsk) in pre-13th century Baltics. There is probably too little information about exact nature of political relations in other areas, but I haven't heard anybody outside nationalist romanticist circles calling "counties" states. If we should have timeline, maybe exclude older history altogether. --Minnekon (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I checked and the counties are indeed not defined as states (estonian: "riik"). We can keep the pre-state era out if needed. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks like I quite clearly wrote that WP:Settlement applies to cities. However, we can still relate it to this situation. And yes, this timeline table is WP:INDISCRIMINATE since it is not relevant to the topic. Furthermore, you said it yourself that it is impossible to reflect all the history correctly in the timeline table, and we do not need to insert inaccurate content. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
What I meant is that we may in principle apply guideline from different topic if the reasons for its existence are valid in our case too. But WP:Settlement don't seem to give any reason why such rule is made, so it's useless for us and WP:OSE. What exactly in WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy indicates that pre-20th century history is inadvisable in this article? Do you think that pre-1918 (or whenever modern concept was adopted) history of Latvia is also WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I didn't say it definitely is impossible to reflect all the history correctly in the timeline table, I just doubted (and still do) if it's possible and would want first to see how it would look like. --Minnekon (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Current proposed timeline table format just isn't very good. Chopping period into pieces per century is too inaccurate, not to mention that in this proposed table has some questionable choices. Like why is 14th century North-Estonia counted for Denmark and in 16th century it is counted for Sweden, even though on both those centuries it was clearly more than half of century under Livonian Order rule? I would say that a relatively good example of timeline table is the one used in Estonia article: [2]. Also I would note that this table shouldn't be allowed to become too huge because it would both look aesthetically just ugly and at same time be problematic for people who read wikipedia on smaller screens.--Staberinde (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with using Staberinde's proposed timeline for the Baltic States article. I think it has worse readability than a proper table would have but it will eliminate the question of exact years, because the code-based table is in the accuracy of 100years, while the autogenerated timeline proposed by Staberinde has the accuracy of 1px . It should also remove objectivity claims, because it's autogenerated from wiki articles. Any exact timeline is better than no timeline or a POV-influenced timeline. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I see a couple of problems with the proposed timeline:
  • The "Baltic states" is a 20th century construct[3]
  • Finland was considered a Baltic state before WW2, after it decided to become a Nordic state.
--Nug (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with Nug here. Ideally we should only start from the 20th century and maybe also include Finland. This means that the article in general should start it's history from the 20th century (1918). Actually it's really strange that the article currently lists livonian history (how does it have anything to do with the concept of the baltic states?) but not Finland, which was officially considered a baltic state? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Minnekon Staberinde Sabbatino do we have consensus on starting the article from the 20th century? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it should start from the 20th century. However, I am still not sold on the timeline idea (if that is even considered at this point). – Sabbatino (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Starting the article from 1918

As several editors have previously mentioned, the concept of "The Baltic States" (update: meant "The Baltic states") started in 1918. Hence the article should not be talking about history of the previous times in this length. The geopolitical term also included Finland, which the current article does not mention at all. It would be professional to remove the older history sections because they have nothing to do with the geopolitical concept of "the baltic states". The article can then focus more on the history from 1918, especially the political history and also briefly mention Finland. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to emphasise, that Baltic States is not the same as Baltic states. There is no such thing as Baltic States. Secondly, the history is absolutely not irrelevant to the term Baltic states. The Baltic states are the results of centuries with Baltic Germans ruling the lands, especially in what is now Estonia and Latvia. The Baltic governorates were, until the end of 19th century, not a subject to the common civil and administrative laws of the Russian Empire, but did not have monetary, fiscal and passport system of their own. If we leave that out, it will be hard to comprehend why independence was worthwhile. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 19:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
If some older aspects of history explain how Baltic states concept emerged then it is obviously important. But are Baltic governorates earlier evolutionary form of Baltic states or just it just happens to have similar name? What is the connection?--Minnekon (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The best you can do is to follow the links I gave and read the articles. It does not give you all the answers, but I do not have the time to chatter. After that, go deeper into the 700 years of German feudalism in the Baltics. This is were you will find out why the label is called Baltic states. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 22:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not find answers from linked articles. Do you claim that whoever initially started to use term "Baltic states" used the name "Baltic governorates" as an example or grouped 3 countries together because Baltic Germans were living there? --Minnekon (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Just commenting on the previous editor's addition. "The Baltic states" is a geopolitical term, hence the history should be within the timeline and within the context of the term. Finland was also a "Baltic state", which had nothing to do with the baltic germans. The word itself is more connected to the "baltic sea". "The Baltic states" as the geopolitical concept did not exist before 1918. Ref - (Updated ref to case-sensitive) SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The chart does not confirm your statement of "did not exist". The chart clearly shows results prior to 1918, even though minimal when comparing to after 1918. The use of Baltic states exploded after 1918 in English sources, but they did exist prior to 1918. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 12:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
You can check a random book result from prior to 1918. The Baltic States was then sometimes used to define the countries around the Baltic Sea. Quote: "“In 1780 the Baltic States, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, being neutrals in the war then raging, had combined to assert……”". Source It had nothing to do with EE-LV-LT, as they were governorates inside the Russian Empire. . This can be mentioned in etymology if needed - would actually be a good addition. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
You have picked a result showing Baltic States, which is not what we are discussing. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 12:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Have you considered, that the term Baltic states through out history might have changed geopolitical meaning according to geopolitical realities? For instance, (the territory now being) Lithuania did not have access (harbours) to the Baltic Sea for centuries until independence with the Memel Territory. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 12:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the point of your comment. Please expand. The goal is to figure out when the current geopolitical concept of "The Baltic states" appeared. Sources will help on deciding on this. If the sources will say that the meaning has changed throughout time then maybe that info should be included. And we can mention Denmark, etc. But there is no source I have found that says that LV & EE were in that definition before 1918. Which makes sense because they were under the Russian Empire. So listing Livonian history from the middle ages has no context here. As you said before - this is "The Baltic states", not "The Baltic States", and this is an important distinction. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Here is another source from the 19th century that uses "the Baltic states" in discussing about Sweden and Denmark. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so now you know what to write about. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 13:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Okay, but this will be my last comment for some time. You have an interesting way of finding sources, and use a lot of energy on discussing sources that might be refuted by sources you have not found or looked for. My approach would be to read a number of books on the subject, many of them are available for loan in libraries. Create an overview of whatever was written and let the sources come to you. Personally, I am not interested in spending time discussing things to death, when reliable sources can be found in a way that demands some physical activity. Life is simply too short. Cheers. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 13:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
If we are to leave out the sentences with Condescension from your answer, then the point of finding notable research literature is correct. It would help avoid WP:OR, so yes that's a very important point. But you could have also written that in a single sentence. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Very well, condescension was not intentional even though received as such. I will try with a one-liner: "What are we discussing, we haven't found the reliable sources, yet". Ciao. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 14:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I will definitely do that. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Definition of the article / term ?

I'm confused on what exactly the article (or any article about a geopolitical term that encompasses an X amount of countries) should be about. If it's a geopolitical term that encompasses specific countries, then should the content be about:

  1. the development of the term?
  2. cooperation between the countries within the term?
  3. a factual overview of their current situation? Like nature, population, economies, etc
  4. histories of the individual countries within the term from the start of the term?
  5. history of the mentioned region in general from the start of the term?
  6. history of the mentioned region in general from the start of history?
  7. all of the above?

One example is the European Union article. It does not go into the histories of it's individual countries. And that is an article for an actual Union. It talks about the history of the union itself. nr 1 & 3

Benelux which is also a union and where the three countries are much closer aligned than LV & LT & EE, is only strictly about the term itself. nr 1 , 2 & 3

Nordic countries form both a passport union and a common cultural area with a common history (starting from the kalmar union). The article page lists a brief common history + is mostly about present-day affairs. nr 1, 2, 3 & 6.

But the Baltic States do not form a union and also do not form a common cultural area. If it's a geopolitical term, I'm not sure what the article should list. Strictly encyclopaedically speaking, the article should be about the development of the geopolitical term. The article should be about history and population and other XYZ elements only when the encompassed countries form a union. Nr 1 Baltoscandia sort of has that approach. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the article gives the impression that the Baltic states are part of some sort of official or semi-official state-building. Especially the infobox gives this impression. Baltic states is only a geopolitical label used for the area. The history section should be shortened down and only contain information elaborating the geopolitical label Baltic states. Please, no tables on the history of Baltic states, they just dumb down facts. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 22:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I think nr 1 and 2 (development of the term and what Baltic states have done as Baltic states) are main part of the article. Rest is background info that is ok, but should be mentioned briefly. --Minnekon (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
About history table. If same info as in table is presented in form of usual text instead, it is just as dumbing down. If text version covers history more deeply, then function of the added table is just to give quick more easily absorbed overview (like infoboxes). --Minnekon (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Changes that seem should be made so far:
  1. 1) Starting the article's history from the start of the term. Focusing more on the history of the term itself and cooperation of the countries within the term. First time of the term seems to be 1918, as it's the first time the term "The Baltic states" has been used for the current three countries EE & LV & LT. It would also need Finland to be mentioned. The history should be about how the term started and has developed and about cooperation of the three states within the term.
  2. 2) Removing the infobox in it's current form, because it should only be used for countries / unions and gives the wrong impression of a union / united states right now. An example of pages similar to the "baltic states" concept would rather be Northern Europe or Baltoscandia or Balkans or Midwestern United States that do not use infoboxes in that way. Although they are also not ideal examples as those are geographical regions (like the Baltic region, not geopolitical terms SørenKierkegaard (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Question: What are the official capitalisation rules for this term? Wondering if there are any good sources specifically for the current article. Current status: The article is about "The Baltic states", which is a term for grouping countries. University of Western Australia has a clear example of the capitalisation rules for the word "state", which supports the current naming of the article. "The Baltic States" would traditionally mean that the three countries somehow form a common governing body / form a union. The current naming practice is also supported by all other wiki articles about the Baltic states, where the S is not capitalised. Problem: There are many cases on the internet where "The Baltic States" has been (erroneously?) used. I can understand when States has been used for book titles. But aside from book titles, this seems to be a bigger problem than it seems at first, as in english, especially for an American, reading "The Baltic States" would undoubtedly mean that the three countries form a common governing body. The capitalised version seems to be used a lot online in body text. Just wondering what the consensus on this is. Even the site of the Latvian government seems to be inconsistent in this and often using the capitalised version. The Estonian government's site apparently gets confused as well. The constitutions of the three countries do not say anything about being baltic states, so it's hard to find direct sources. Can this really just be a mistake in spelling? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit: This article quoting Andres Kasekamp mentions the topic. And notice the disclaimer in the end: "Because norms for the use of uppercase and lowercase have been shifting in most dialects of English — especially UK English — so that many terms traditionally capitalized are now lowercase, that which in this article is referred to as “the Baltic States” is actually more and more often denoted by “the Baltic states” (indeed, this is the practice that Baltic Worlds follows — though an exception obviously needs to be made in this article)." SørenKierkegaard (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting and worthwhile article on two books. Just a shame that you did not read the article in its entirety before moving on with the etymology section below. Have a nice weekend. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 15:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The meaning of "The Baltic states" before 1910?

"Baltic states" before the 20th century = Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Russian Empire ?

Starting a separate section on this. This new find should make a case for starting the article before 1918. But not with the history of the "Baltic provinces" of Finland, Estland, Livland - instead possibly about the countries that bordered the Baltic sea. Interestingly, there are many mentions of "Baltic states" in the context of Sweden, Denmark and Germany up until around 1910. The listed mentions then suddenly disappear.

This Google resource graph is fairly interesting. According to what the search results are, the "Baltic states" or "Baltic countries" used to mean all or some of the independent countries around the Baltic Sea at that time. Sounds unintuitive today but makes sense in the 19th century. Example 1 ; Example 2 - Google results ; Example 4 - Baltic states defined as the countries bordering the Baltic Sea; Example 5 - Sweden and Denmark being defined as "the Baltic states". Example 6 - Page 339 - Defining the "Baltic states" as Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Germany. Page 391 - Defining them as the "Baltic states" (see "Army and Navy of the Baltic states"). ; Example 7 - Defining "The Baltic states" as Russia, Sweden and Denmark.

Quote: "“This same policy, known as “the Rule of 1756”, had been adopted in the present war, greatly to the annoyance of the Baltic states, prevented under it from sending to France and Spain their timber and naval stores, for which the pending naval hostilities created a great demand. To resist interference with their traffic, Russia, Denmark, and Sweden, early in the year, had formed a combination, called the “Armed Neutrality”……”" More on Armed Neutrality here and here.

Example: "The Baltic States" being defined as Russia, Sweden and Denmark

Example - Baltic provinces (of the Russian Empire) being Finland, Estland, Livland - a distinction being made between "baltic provinces" and "baltic states".

This all makes sense as the "Baltic states" of nowadays were not states back then and so the states bordering the Baltic sea were just referred to as the "Baltic states" .

This map also supports the observation.

Many maps about "The Baltic lands" here

Baltic states until 1910 is fairly interesting. According to what the search results are, the "Baltic states" or "Baltic countries" used to mean all or some of the independent countries around the Baltic Sea at that time. = Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Russian Empire. Sounds counterintuitive today, but makes sense in the 19th century.

"Nordic countries" starts to then suddenly get results from 1920, as the results for "baltic states" suddenly stop including Sweden and Denmark. Hypothesis: Sweden and Denmark were called Baltic states until the independence of Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. "Nordic countries" then came into use to separate Sweden and Denmark from the "new" Baltic states. Norway could also be added then. This coincides in years with the advent of Foreningen Norden and Nordicism. Clearly this is all WP:OR until there are no direct sources for this claim but I'm sure direct sources will not be an issue. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Contents of the infobox

Since this is not a union or a country, the infobox should not contain elements that are calculated and displayed for political entities like capitals and GDP per capita, HDI, etc. (as even calculating those are WP:OR) It leaves a wrong impression of this being a union. Benelux and Nordic Countries have this content in the infoboxes because they form a union and have the data calculated for the entire union. The Baltic states is more like Western United States or Baltic region with connected regional identity in one or two of the associated countries. The Baltic Entente would have been a union. I was WP:BOLD and took off some of the more problematic elements. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Etymology, part 2

Etymology = "The study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history."

If we are to conclude that "The Baltic states" existed as a term independent from EE, LV & LT long before the three countries became independent, the "etymology" section should be rewritten. Or at least this information should be added. I cannot find a single source that says that "The Baltic states" got their name from the Baltic Germans. "Baltic" is the name of the sea. The name comes from the sea, not baltic germans or balts. Written here as well. This map from 1912 about 1661 about "baltic lands" is an example of the name coming from the sea.

The content to list under etymology besides the baltic sea is how Sweden, Denmark, and sometimes Germany and the Russian Empire, used to be listed as "The Baltic states". The history of baltic germans or balts has nothing to do with the term "The Baltic states". All three got their name from the sea. Let's not confuse the sea that came first with the baltic states, baltic germans and balts who all got their name after the sea. But this is the "baltic states" article, so the baltic germans and balts are completely off topic in etymology. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. I partially agree, the etymology of Latin Mare Balticum which is usually connected with some Germanic word "belt" (i.e., sea strait) should take precedence and Baltic "baltas/balts" should be more of an afterthought
  2. Baltic Germans are definitely not irrelevant, I guess one would need to research the history of the notion Baltikum, I think this is where the English language notion Baltic states stems from (as it is understood by most everyone) and I'm pretty sure Baltic Germans have a lot to do with Baltikum
  3. In a post above you say that NO/SE/DK where called "Baltic states" until Finland gained independence which prompted the need for new term -- Nordic. I'm pretty sure NO/SE/DK where 99% called Scandinavian(!) which they continue to be called to this day and being called "Baltic" is marginal at best.
  4. Lastly I want to ask you, did you even look at the survey that you yourself posted? After "Estonian citizen" the next most important identity, with almost 70%, is EU citizen, down the list a Nordic identity and a Baltic identity have roughly the same share(!) with around 50% each.

I think the share of those who consider being an EU citizen an important part of their identity perfectly captures the zeitgeist of today. Things that actually matter: common travel area, eurozone, ban on mobile roaming charges within the EU, consumer protection (e.g., ban on bovine growth hormone, proposed ban on battery kept chickens, etc., etc.) Conversely the similar share of Nordic and Baltic identities goes against the larger point that your trying to make. Your energy would be much better spent improving, e.g., the Nordic identity in Estonia article instead of trying to make a completely uncontroversial geopolitics term somehow controversial. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how any of the "nordic identity" comments are relevant to the Etymology section on the "Baltic states" article. If you believe that the German "das baltikum" generated the English-language concept of "The Baltic states", then you can help your cause by linking the relevant sources here. All sources so far say that the name came from the sea and that the name "The Baltic states" was used a lot earlier than 1920. See the sources above. Also, Finland was a "Baltic state" and had nothing to do with baltic germans. Estonia's nordic identity and the concept of "The Baltic states" are completely separate topics, they can both exist together. So I don't know why you even brought this up. There is no conflict between being a "Baltic state", as in, a country on the Baltic sea, and having a nordic identity, or defining a country as a nordic country. Both can exist together. But this topic is not relevant here. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Edit: The Baltikum link clearly states: "Benannt ist das Baltikum nach der mittellateinischen Bezeichnung für die Ostsee als mare balticum, dem „Baltischen Meer“". = The name comes from the Baltic sea. And even if it didn't, it wouldn't be relevant as this is the English-language wikipedia, not German. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
It's nice to see that you have looked up definition of etymology, but it seems that you do not understand the concept - it analyses where the word comes from, not what it means. Let's take a neutral example - English words green, grow and grass share etymology, despite having complitelly different meaning, it is not wrong to meantion that in their etymology, it is not wrong to mention simmilar words in other languages and what root they share in proto-languages. Contrary to what you claim there are five sources cited in the section. You're the one who has no sources and even if you could find sources arguing that Baltic Germans never used the term or whatever, it would not be a reason to exclude different theories. And it was previously agreed that the varied theories on etymology of "Baltic" should not be here, but rather moved to article on the sea ~~Xil (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are claiming. This is the article about "The Baltic states". Etymology = The study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history. Now, how exactly is the paragraph about Languages connected to the Geopolitical term? It would only be connected if they somehow influenced the development of the term. But the languages did not. Every single source says the name came from the sea. Or would you like to copy-paste a source quote here claiming otherwise? The part you are trying to put back has two random sentences about the Baltic language. How exactly is that connected to this article topic? Very clearly written here on page 8. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I also have to ask, if you even read your sources. It says the same exact thing as the content you are hell bent on removing - it mentions cognates in Baltic languages, there's the same discussion on how the term changed with the name of the sea and how similar terms that might be considered to have something to do with the term's origin are actually not related to it. ~~Xil (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
"and how similar terms that might be considered to have something to do with the term's origin are actually not related to it" - Exactly. So why include the languages here, if they have nothing to do with it? Especially when what you're adding says nothing about the terms not being related. It's just bad content in an unsuitable place overall. Technically what MIGHT fit there is a bullet-point list of explanations for all similar terms to make the reader aware of the differences. Baltic languages, Baltic germans, Balts, Baltic Sea, Baltic region. And then Finnic peoples / language as well, to keep the article in balance. Or, it can stay as it is to focus on the actual origin of the word and not bring in secondary topics. You're welcome to start a vote / ask for other editors' feedback on this. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a normal practice (as, again, you can see from your own source, BTW further in it also covers Baltic German connection as well) and provides more information to readers. I think you might be confusing etymology with definition - one is exact statement on what something means, the other looks into what the word is about, not what the concept it applies to is. And etymology section also is not meant to be WP:DISAMBIG ~~Xil (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Both of you broke the WP:3RR rule and you both should stop this edit war, and discuss this or I will have to report both of you. Not to mention that SørenKierkegaard has already been blocked for the exact same behavior in the past on this page. Please settle down and stop acting childish. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Could you comment on the etymology contents please? I fail to find a single logical explanation for why languages or the baltic germans need to be discussed there. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not quite sure why you would need "a logical explanation" to discuss reliable sources. If reliable sources says something on the etymology of the Baltic states, then it can be presented in the article. It really depends on the reliable sources. Am I to understand your statement in a way, that you want "a logical explanation" for the screening of content? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 13:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The whole point is that it says nothing about the etymology. Can you quote me a single line where the sources say that the term evolved from the languages or the baltic germans? Why are we listing this then? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The article on etymology has a section on different methods on how etymologists apply a number of methods to study the origins of words. Seems to include languages and in its extention Baltic Germans. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 13:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
You did not answer the question. Yes of course the baltic language and baltic germans originate from the root word "Baltic", as in Baltic Sea. But that is not vice versa. Why is this mentioned on this article? If the etymology section was correct, it would mention how Sweden and Denmark used to be called "The Baltic states" until the advent of Nordicism. It would then mention that Finland was also frequently called a Baltic state. It would them mention why Finland is not considered a "Baltic state" anymore. It would mention that the whole term is fluid and has changed in time to reflect on the different countries bordering the Baltic Sea. This is a geopolitical term. It should reflect on geopolitics. But instead of this we have.... two sentences that seem to come from regional Livonian history, which has nothing to do with the geopolitical term. I'm sorry. "The Baltic states" is not a synonym for Latvia or Livonia. But it seems like some editors take it as such. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
If I recall your sentiment correctly, there is a difference in the application of the term Baltic states prior to and after 1918. Etymology of the term when applied in sources pre-1918 (to Sweden, Denmark etc.) are clearly geographical. What about etymology of the term Baltic states post-1918? What does reliable sources mention about this? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 14:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
By the way. I am reluctant to give you direct answers since you have a tendency of moderating your statements in hind sight. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 14:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll try to refrain from editing my responses. It was clearly a geopolitical term before as well. I'll get some more sources on this. And also post-1918 is important, because the article does not mention Finland at all right now. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
My main problem is - are "The Baltic states" a geopolitical entity like a union or a federation of states? If they are not, then this article should not act like it is. It is a geopolitical term / designation, where the meaning of it has changed constantly. The article should reflect reality and not try to build some sort of a pseudo-history for the geopolitical term that is just outright wrong. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
We are not looking for the WP:TRUTH. 16:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok so how about finding verifiable sources for how "the baltic states" as a concept came from balts or baltic germans then? There are none. I've kept linking to one source after another that says the name came from the baltic sea. While there have been zero sources that claim that the name has come from balts or baltic germans. And that's the response you have? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
One of the links you have provided leads to the book by Andres Kasekamp. Kasekamp confirms at least one of the statements that you want to delete from this article. User:Xil has also mentioned this to you. I think Kasekamp's observation should be included to the article. This is my last posting for some time, since whenever I want to post there is an edit conflict. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 17:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Vague answers are impossible to deal with. What exactly does he confirm? On what page? The only question here is: Did "the baltic states" as a concept develop from the baltic languages or baltic germans? If not, the language section has no place there. How is this even an issue? Both of the two statements I tried to delete are correct. But they do not belong in this article. Why would they? ""The term “Baltic languages” - named after the Baltic Sea - was coined by German linguist GHF Nesselmann…”" Source, Preface, first sentence. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Even the etymology on the Balts page makes more sense than the disaster this page currently has. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Please, read the bold quotation of yours and see that it says Baltic languages, not Baltic states. You should read the rest of that page, especially the second paragraph. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 17:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh my god yes. Exactly. It says the baltic languages. So what are languages doing on this page? How are they connected in etymology to "the baltic states"? There is no connection. They can be on the etymology page of the Baltic Sea and probably Baltic Germans. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Some more content on how the term was different in the past. Sweden, Denmark and Finland had nothing to do with the Baltic Germans. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baltic_states/Archive_3&oldid=1085909667"