Talk:Baltic states/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Newly independent countries on the Baltic Sea (Interwar period)

This section should be greatly expanded now to show the common history of the three in the interwar period. Economic development, construction, etc. Latvia had lots of industry and economic development, etc. What should the agreed structure be here? I'd propose a mix of political history and economic development SørenKierkegaard (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be a useful addition. --Nug (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

A section that could be titled something like "Evolution of the term" or similar

• The Germans who are the elite of roughly what is now EE and LV decide to start calling themselves baltendeutsche, one way or another their presence calls for defining a specific cultural area -- the "Ostsee provinces" which would be translated into English as "Baltic provinces" distinguished by the highest literacy rate in the Russian empire, Reformation, etc... [probably better to keep this short]

• After the WWI the definition of Baltic states expands considerably (also called payses litoranees (I don't know hot to spell it) in french, meaning "coastal countries") including Finland which for centuries has had a Swedish elite and Lithuania which has had close ties with Poland (often turbulent)

• After WWII Finland has escaped incorporation into the Soviet Union and becomes a Nordic country not the least of reasons being its centuries long ties with Sweden. The 3 smaller Baltic countries are annexed by USSR, after its collapse they re-establish their independence giving rise to what is today most commonly understood as the Baltic states, 3 countries who despite their Soviet passed are determined to re-establish themselves as a part of the West.

^this is a very rough draft. Soeren, would you be happy with such a "Evolution of the term" section? Is this what you want? (i.e., showing that the definition has been somewhat fluid.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, thank you! I would just add to your draft that the overall structure would be something as follows. Some details can be left out or some added. I’ve tried to keep this as clean from any nationalism or POV as humanly possible.

The geopolitical term “The Baltic states”:

1) The name came from the sea (early middle age references)

2) The term came to mean “the countries around the baltic sea”, mostly Sweden and Denmark, sometimes also Prussia and The Russian Empire. Also sometimes called the Baltic lands.

3) In the East, there were the Baltic (Sea) Provinces of Sweden - Estland & Livland. After which they became the Imperial provinces together with Finland - at which point Finland first started existing as a separate geopol entity from Sweden.

4) Throughout the period from the early middle ages, Estland, Livland and western Lithuania had the local baltic germans who also called themselves by the sea. The term “balts” also then got started. For a long time, the terms “The Baltic states” and “The Baltic provinces” existed simultaneously as two different terms.

5) After WW1, a new set or countries emerged from the russian empire on the Eastern Baltic, which also became known as The Baltic states - Finland included

6) At the same time - starting a decade earlier - Sweden, Denmark and Norway were looking to form closer bonds and evolved to call themselves Nordic during the advent of Nordicism (A successor to Scandinavism). (PS: interesting read on the massive debates between being “Scandinavian” or “Nordic”. Sweden pushed for “Nordic” because it also wanted Finland included.)

7) Finland decided on a nordic integration course and gradually stopped being defined as baltic

8) Occupation - "The Baltic states" kept existing as a term for the occupied three countries of EE / LV / LT

9) Three newly independent states on the Baltic who fought for freedom together - colloquially known today as “The Baltic states”.

SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Source linkings for future reference: nr5

No. There is no need to repeat the same content over and over again and stray into discussing something that is the subject matter of other articles. ~~Xil (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Your comment does not address anything. You are also showing 0 good faith towards improving the article. This above is the evolution of the term. "Baltic languages" have nothing to do with the term. That is all there is to it. You seem to be having a very strong POV towards having this article looking something like "The Baltic Union". I'm sorry, this is not an article about a Union, this is an article about a geopolitical term. The Union has never existed. The tendency to be against showing the real history of the term might be explained by an editor having a connected Identity to the concept of "The Baltic States" as common union. Which I can understand. But this is hindering to show the geopolitical term in it's correct context. This is still a historic geopolitical term. This is not the "History of Livonia". You can always add a section to the article, quoting sources which say that for many people in the three countries, the term also constitutes a part of their identity. For example this survey:

"We studied this in the 2010-2013 (Valk et al 2013) project ‘Different Nations - Shared Experiences’ led by Foundation Unitas, which examined the identity, attitudes, awareness, and knowledge of history of high school students in Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Sweden. A clear distinction between the identities of Estonian-speaking and Russian-speaking pupils was shown by the study, which is why these two groups are presented as distinct on Figure 4.5.2. In the identity of Estonian-speaking pupils, just like in those of Sweden, Finland and Latvian-speaking pupils in Latvia, the most important element is being a citizen of the country. This is followed in Estonia by the identity of being a citizen of the European Union; in Finland by the identity of a Nordic person; in Sweden by the identity of being a Scandinavian; and in Latvia by the identity of being a Baltic person."

SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. ~~Xil (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I made a bad call, devoting a section to the slight fluidity of the concept is not going to placate this user. He has just now removed a history section spanning 700 years (what I would very roughly call the "Baltic German era" which happens to be shared by Estonia and Latvia) with a false statement of "consensus on the talk page" as edit summary.

Looking at some of his other edits, my guess would be that his thinking goes something like "if only Estonia could disassociate from dirty Latvia, maybe then Sweden would accept us as Nordic!"

(this also shows a fundamental lack of understanding how instrumental Scandinavian language is for Nordic identity, it is 1st and foremost about no/se/dk being mutually intelligible varieties of one "macrolanguage", alternatively it being a mandatory school subject in areas where non-mutually intelligible languages are spoken, this is what's at the core of Nordic identity. I don't mean Northern European (which Estonia is) I mean specifically *Nordic*. Instead of vandalizing wiki you should be petitioning your gov't to introduce mandatory Swedish, I promise you, it will make all the difference ;))

You will say assume good faith but this situation is bizarre and extremely disruptive. Descriptions of Latvian history should not suffer because because it happens to be shared with Estonia. The least he could do is limit it to Estonia-specific articles (i.e., deleting any events between 1200-1900 except for the ones involving Denmark and Sweden) Something tells me other Estonian editors wouldn't be too happy with this though.

I truly wish Estonia luck in un-becoming Baltic and becoming Nordic (although my personal opinion is that both of these labels will become less important in the future), is it one right now though?

• there are thousands upon thousands of articles defining Baltics as exactly: ee, lv and lt
• Estonia being classed as Nordic is marginal to nonexistent in sources.

This user seems to think that he is going to "wish it into existence" by editing Wikipedia articles, extremely disruptively at that. Not only "filtering" Estonian history but deleting coverage of other countries' history.

How can this situation be remedied? Neitrāls vārds (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Remedy? Try WP:AE. Regards, Nug (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Neitrals Vards, Estonia obviously has a lot in common with Latvia throughout history. But is this an article about "Livonian history" or "Latvian history" ? "The Baltic states" as a geopolitical term to link EE, LV and LT as a single group started in 1918. I'm sorry, I don't understand the issue here? This doesn't have anything to do with Estonia's "nordic identity" - I haven't added a single word on this here. Yes, Estonia is commonly grouped as a "Baltic state".

Focusing on this article - what are the sourced arguments for listing pre-1918 history here? If the governorates of Estland and Livland were not "Baltic states", why should they be here? Why not add Finnish history as well then? And Lithuanian. Again, this is not "History of Livonia", this is a historic geopolitical term that in the context of this article spans three (not two) countries. I suppose a region could technically be here pre-1918 if sources claim that the current use of the geopolitical term "The Baltic states" developed from those regions.

And it's commonly known that "Baltic" is the sea. So if "Baltic" is the sea, then for any other term you can use the formula [Sea] states, [Sea] Germans, [Sea] governorates, [Sea] languages, [Sea] region. It isn't a synonym for EE-LV as some appear to think. And I have nothing against Estonia being referred to as a "Baltic state". Don't know why this comes up. Obviously it is often grouped as a "Baltic state" and wiki should reflect that. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Søren, do we really need to go through arbitration and get you banned as Nug suggests? I've encouraged you multiple times to cover the idea of Estonia being Nordic in a different article, yet instead, you made half-assed attempt at writing it full of unobjective propaganda that almost got deleted and are back disrupting this article. Like it or not there is this parallel concept of there being a Baltic region that includes Estonia and an article on it is not a soapbox for you to preach why it's wrong or remove content from it out of spite. And for the rest of you - do we really lack consensus about something here? ~~Xil (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Why are you even mentioning this "Nordic Estonia" topic? There has been 0 content on this here and I've not written a single letter on it. This is absolutely mental. I'm addressing real issues on the article page that have nothing to do with what you are talking about. Did the "Baltic states" as a geopolitical term for grouping EE, LV and LT exist before 1918? If not, then why are you adding this content here? You guys are unable to even talk about this. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

And YES, let's go through arbitration. You have been unable to discuss these topics and answer the relevant questions. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Frankly having a discussion with you is annoying when you flood the talk page with walls of text that you constantly edit and then on top of it create multiple sections. It also makes it very hard to follow what anyone besides you is saying. So really I'd like to find out now if anyone else thinks there really is a problem with the content ~~Xil (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think the article really needed radical change, after all, it had evolved over the years to its present state. I agree that starting multiple sections with walls of text does make it difficult to follow what is going on. --Nug (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I missed something in previous long discussions but I don't see how etymology of "Baltic languages" are part of etymology of "Baltic states" - so I think that should be removed. Relevance of "Baltic Germans" also remains unclear. Kasekamp book (referenced above) has vague wording and don't directly say that "Baltic states" has (some of) its roots in Baltic Germans. If Baltic states or Baltic countries marked some area (lands around Baltic sea?) already in 19th century it should be mentioned. --Minnekon (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I support Minnekon here SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Foreign language on the page

I don't understand why foreign letters are used on the page. I also don't understand why examples from foreign languages are used in the english wikipedia. This should only be used when there's proof that the names in russian or german have influenced the english names. That is not the case though. Again - Finland and Lithuania before 1918 were never "Baltikum" for the germans, nor was Finland "pribaltiiski" for the russian empire.

Example 1: the Baltic governorates of Russian Empire (Russian: Остзейские губернии, translit. Ostzejskie gubernii).. - what does this have to do with the english term "the baltic states?"

Example 2: [3] During 19th century "Baltic" started to surpass "Ostsee" as the name for the region.[citation needed] -- firstly that sentence probably means the german "Baltikum", not "Baltic states", which are two different things historically. Baltikum, historically = Livonia. Second, again - what does this have to do with the english term "the baltic states?"

Example 3: Officially its Russian equivalent "Прибалтийский" was first used in 1859.[3] - what does this have to do with the english term "the baltic states?" And why are we using foreign letters here?

--

All those three in etymology make no sense to me. What on earth has this page got to do with how a region was/is called in Russia? Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

English name obviously isn't neologism coined by English speakers, but a borrowing from languages spoken in the region. It's also normal to discuss foreign influences in an etymology section. For languages not written in Latin alphabet it is a normal practice to state the names in alphabet they use as well. It isn't suggested that Finland and Lithuania were part of Baltics prior to 1918. It is suggested that the term didn't magically come out of thin air in 1918. Also if you insist on removing discussion on the terms origin being related to Baltic Germans and them refering to themselves as Balts influencing evolution of the term then discusing that Balts only later started to be used for Latvians and Lithuanians is not relevant in any way ~~Xil (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no credible proof that term Baltic states appeared following Baltic germans. -- Ke an (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ke an. Also - Xil - Nobody is saying that the term did not exist before 1918. Exactly the opposite, the term has existed for hundreds of years. What we're saying is that the term first applied for EE + LV + LT in 1918. These are two separate topics. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

And also - to quote you Xil - "English name obviously isn't neologism coined by English speakers, but a borrowing from languages spoken in the region. " - 1) You have no sources for your claim that the english language term "the baltic states" came from the german "baltikum". And you couldn't have, because that did not happen. Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Lithuania were never a part of the german "Baltikum". There are no sources for this and plenty of sources that claim otherwise. Were Estonia and Latvia called "Baltic states" in english because of the german "Baltikum"? Maybe - but that would not explain Finland. And there are no sources that claim this either. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I have never claimed it came from German "Baltikum". What sources say is that terms that initally had to do with name of the sea in Germanic languages got replaced by terms based on the modern name of the sea in 19th century and it was due to adoption by local Germans. Obviously after WWI the usage expanded to include countries in simmilar geopolitical situation. I find the idea that the term refered to Scandinavian states but replaced it due to them renaming themselves Nordic to be dubious given your past attempts to promote the idea that Estonia is Nordic, but if "Baltic States" have been historically used simmilarly as "Baltic Sea States" are now I guess there is no harm in noting it. And you have not explained why it has been crucial to copy paste etymology from the article on Balts ~~Xil (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

So I looked into that copy-paste from Balts page and found that source given does not support the claim. It actually comes from another source there - a book which makes it very clear that the statement in question applies only to usage in liguistics. It also seperatelly discusses other conotations of the term and not only supports my sources in Latvian that state that Baltic replaced earlier terms for the region due to Baltic German influence and that the same term came to be applied to independent countries in 1918, but also states that in general usage of "Baltic" in modern languages comes from usage in German. I updated the text here accordingly ~~Xil (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Your own Endre Botjar reference on page 11 claims the same thing - that "Baltic" started to be used for defining the Baltic language family after they became known as the baltic states. Yes it's about linguistics but from my POV, it's relevant on that page. But I can live with a compromise to not talk about linguistics on the etymology section. But now - why do we have Russian examples on the etymology section? What has that got to do with anything? How is russian more relevant than how the region was called in icelandic or finnish? Blomsterhagens (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It says that the term became prevalent after independence i.e. it discusses how one proposed term won over other historically used terms. It belongs to a wider discussion of how naming for that language group developed, not how naming for this region developed. The source also very clearly distinguishes between discussing origins of these different terms. Russian is more relevant because the region used to be part of the Russian empire, official terms changing both demonstrates adoption of the term and could have further influenced wider adoption of it. ~~Xil (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Helsinki-Tallinn twin-city region

Estonia and Finland have quite a considerable cooperation nowadays. Talsinki, Same databases, Upcoming common public transport, + the economic side. I don't really know where this should be mentioned. Estonia-Finland relations page? A subsection on this page? A new wiki page? Officially Tallinn & Helsinki are called a twin-city region. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you have an article on this twin city region that's an obvious place to start. Estonia-Finland relations and articles on the countries and the cities also would be relevant. I don't see how bi-lateral relations each country has with other countries are relevant here (unless it touches upon some wider issue e.g. Rail Baltic being conected to Finland or policy in all three countries to maintain good relationship with US) ~~Xil (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Rename: Baltic states >> Baltic countries?

Any idea on why is it that we list "Baltic states" and "Nordic countries"? Why not "Baltic countries"? It almost seems to me like the reason it's called a "state" is from the period of being under bigger powers. "State" makes sense when for example Latvia is an autonomous state under the russian empire. "Baltic country" would be a more independent definition? Because we don't say "the nordic state of sweden" unless the nordic countries would have been united under a single Nordic Union or something similar. In the same way, we use "the state of minnesota" in the US, not "the country of minnesota". Just wondering... SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

My proposal is to rename the article to "Baltic countries" to respect the independence of the three countries. Calling them "states" makes them sound like they're being ruled by a bigger power to any native english speaker. Or that they're somehow united, which they're not. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Role of Wikipedia is to reflect how certain subject is described in reliable sources, not to push someone's personal idea how it "should be" described. So to change title you need to provide proof that "Baltic countries" is more commonly used than "Baltic states". See more WP:TITLE. Minnekon (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

A quick search at Google is clear – article's name should be Baltic states (3,420,000 results against 531,000). – Sabbatino (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the complainant should explain to the Organization of American States that it should change its name as it currently implies that Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, etc. are all subnational entities...--Ermenrich (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Starting the article from 1918

Did the "Baltic states" as a geopolitical term for grouping EE, LV and LT exist before 1918? If not, then why are some (Latvian) editors insisting on having this content? Does anyone have a legitimate explanation for this?

Is this an article about "Livonian history" or "Latvian history"? If the governorates of Estland and Livland were not "Baltic states", why should they be here? Why not add Finnish history as well then? And Lithuanian. This is not "History of Livonia", this is a historic geopolitical term that in the context of this article spans three (not two) countries. I suppose a region could technically only be here pre-1918 if sources claim that the current use of the geopolitical term "The Baltic states" developed from those regions. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"State" implies a soveign entity, prior to their independence in 1918 Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were not states but provinces. That said there should be some historical context of events prior to 1918, the Baltic state didn't suddenly appear out of thin air in 1918, there is also the history of the rise of national consciousness prior to 1918, so some earlier history is needed. --Nug (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes but that is the national consciousness of EE-LV-LT; not the common national consciousness of “The Baltic states” - it’s a geopolitical grouping term.SørenKierkegaard (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, the term "Baltic states" is a geopolitical term, but all three (and Finland too) have a common history starting around the 18th century when this region was absorbed into Imperial Russia, then national consciousness developed in the 19th century in the respective countries, followed by the emergence of four independent countries in the 20the century in the wake of WW1 with the end of the Russian empire. Then around WW2 we have the Soviet Union attempting to recover these territories (unsuccessful in the case of Finland), followed by the post-war occupation of EE-LV-LT while FI transformed itself into a "Nordic country". I think we need that historical context to explain why we have the geopolitical concept of the "Baltic states" today. --Nug (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This whole issue is troublingly Procrustean. But if independence is such a huge problem, perhaps the article could be renamed to "Baltics", which appears to be popular lately, it would also address concerns some people have about the meaing of this or any other second word. On other hand it feels a bit slang to me ~~Xil (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Baltic states", since it is about the former Baltic provinces that became independent states in 1918 (interesting to note second spike around re-independence)[1]. --Nug (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"The Baltic states" has a much wider historic meaning than "Baltics". They're not synonyms historically. I agree with Nug that the wider historical context, including Finland, needs to be brought in - in the histories of the regions. And maybe also the 18th and 19th century Sweden-Denmark, in the context of the development of the term, not the histories of the two countries. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not think removing earlier history in necessery, but support trimming it down. Especially as pre-13th century is currently completely missing and if we add that too it all gets really long. Part of earlier history connected to evolution of "Baltic states" concept is of course more important and should be covered in detail. --Minnekon (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that if it ever gets added back it can be removed just as easily as it was few years ago, leaving only a little bit of early history needed to understand further developments. I don't see how that's an argument for trimming some unspecified information now ~~Xil (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

To clarify: you want to keep 13th-20th century history basically as it is now, but want very little or no pre-13th history? If so, why such discrimination against first 10 000 years of Baltic history? --Minnekon (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Discrimination? Seriously? This article is not about territory, but modern geopolitical concept, information on pre-history clearly is irrelevant and would needlesly duplicate articles on particular countries and their histories. I still don't get what you want - do you also suggest to delete relevant information just because the term in the past didn't have exactly the same meaning as it does now, but also insist on adding info on nomadic deer hunters, if your demamds are not met? Seems a bit trollish ~~Xil (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I explain my position once again: overview of era when Baltic states geopolitical concept has been used and explanation how that concept emerged is important and should be covered in detail. Earlier history of Baltic states territory that is not directly related to concept is less important and should be covered briefly. Now about your position. You seem to say that pre-13th century is irrelevant and not worth covering, but post-13th century history is worth covering. I asked on what basis do you make such differentiation, but you did not answer that question. Maybe there is good reason, but you should explain it. --Minnekon (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think we all agree that history section should reflect evolution of the concept and it allready does. You were saying that you want to trim something, but keep talking about content that isn't here. Without knowing what you're talking about I can only say that some details on historical background are needed for readers who may be complitely ignorant about the topic ~~Xil (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about trimming first 3 sections of history paragraph ("Northern Crusades", "Baltic dominions of Swedish Empire", "Baltic governates of Russian Empire") because (despite word "Baltic" is used there) they don't seem actually to talk about evolution of "Baltic states" concept. But if we would agree that this material is still somewhat relevant for general historical background, why exclude pre-13th historical background? --Minnekon (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's pretend for a second that after WWI somebody didn't just come up with the novel idea of grouping random set of new countries under same exact name as used before for the provinces without knowing anything about it. Now we have this part that tells about what the term was used to refer to in the past and a bit of detail on historical background needed to understand other things covered in the article. There is no evidence that term was used during the stone age and that period isn't directly related to occurances in early modern and modern history - it isn't relevant information ~~Xil (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the term was used during the northern crusades either (not even baltic provinces). Baltic provinces are not the same as baltic states. And you do not need to assume anything. Wikipedia works with references. It makes perfect sense why "baltic governorates" would become "baltic states" when a governorate becomes an independent state. As is listed so many times before - a baltic state = a state on the coast of the baltic sea. It used to also mean Finland. And Sweden-Denmark in further history. "History of Livonia", Northern crusades, etc - they belong under the history of EE and LV. They are not integral topics in the article of the geopolitical term of "The Baltic states". The article ignores the relevant history of the term right now. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"Now we have this part that tells about what the term was used to refer to in the past" - can you point out where exactly this part is in those 3 sections that I mentioned? I see only "historical background" and usage of same word, not term (WP:NOTDIC). I'm totally open to idea that for example "Baltic dominions of Swedish Empire" was early evolutionary stage of current Baltic states, but we need evidence for that. --Minnekon (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

If this is about a modern geopolitical concept then why is there livonian history on this page and not Sweden-Denmark? I fully support listing the history of the geopolitical term (how Sweden-Denmark were included in the past and Finland in the near-history). As a sidenote, we can also list a summary of the histories of the countries that are currently under the term. There are two separate topics here:

1) History of the term (including SE-DK-FI)

2) Histories of the countries currently under the term (histories of EE-LV-LT)

Under the history of the term, the baltic languages and baltic germans are completely off topic, as far as I can gather. There is not a single resource that connects those two topics to the development of the concept of "the baltic states". "Baltic" is the sea and everything else came from that. Sea languages, Sea germans, Sea states

SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the term was used during the northern crusades either

Read the entire comment

It makes perfect sense why "baltic governorates" would become "baltic states" when a governorate becomes an independent state.

Exactly, therefore it makes sense to point out to previous concept, even if is not exactly the same thing as it is now - that's why it is history section

As is listed so many times before - a baltic state = a state on the coast of the baltic sea.

Baltic Sea States clearly are an entirely different concept. ~~Xil (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

And what exactly makes the northern crusades the magical stopping point then? Why not Estonian mythology? Or how about the Östersjöprovinserna section? Fine to add them if there are academic sources which say that the current grouping happened because of those swedish provinces. If no sources say that, this section should not exist. Currently that section does not have sources for this claim. The link to the Council has no relevance to anything in this discussion. It's a name for an organization. You seem to inherently think that "Baltic" has a deeper meaning than just the sea and the geopol. term that came from it SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The whole article is written in a very poor structure. Instead of using historical timeline - Prehistory, Medieval, Modern. etc., the article was written from a prospective of a colonial thinking - crusades, provinces of empire number 1, provinces of empire number 2. At least Lithuania doesn't fall into this schema. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ke an (talk • contribs) 17:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The article has serious problems. That's caused at least partly by the three countries being looked at as a similar / common region before they actually were one. What has been agreed by at least three editors on this talk page though is to start the article from 1918, as this is the first time when the current grouping under the name existed. Anything before that has no relevance to the term. For example how are the swedish dominions relevant to Lithuania, etc. Southern Latvia and Lithuania have a longer common history, as do Southern Estonia, later full of Estonia an Northern Latvia. But in no times were all regions together before 1918 as common "baltic states" so it's pointless to list pre-1918 history on an article page about a geopolitical term Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite difficult to project the current concept into the past. But there are more meaningful choices like 1) writing the history following classical time line of historical periods 2) write the history form a prospective of nation formation. As it is now - I find it even insulting to Estonia and Latvia being depicted like some faceless colonies being teared to pieces and sewed by empires coming and disappearing. Maybe the article really should focus more on 1918 and later periods.. - Ke an (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Well the fact that they were torn to pieces and owned by different empires is true, that's just a fact. But there's no point in listing this on the "Baltic states" article page, because it's about a geopolitical term that first applied to EE + LV + LT only in 1918. "Estonian-Latvian history" or "Livonian history" would be a different topic for a different page. It's a tricky subject though, because part of Latvia was also together with Lithuania, etc. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

History

The history section on this article is ridiculously bad for the three countries, completely ignoring their first and current independence periods. It only focuses on invasions. There’s so much more to talk about than only suffering. Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Error in map

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_states#/media/File:Baltic_states_regions_map.svg Vilnius is placed incorrectly in this map, in which it's not even in the Vilnius County, lol. Compare with other maps: http://annamap.com/lithuania/lithuania-map.jpg MKW100 (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are we using an infobox on the article?

Can anyone explain why the infbobox is used on this article? The infobox is generally used in geopolitics for official countries, states, unions, etc. "The Baltic states" is only an unofficial geopolitical term / grouping. The infobox makes it look like it's some sort of an official association. Examples of other comparable articles: Northwestern United States, Intermarium, Northern Europe, Southern Europe. Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit: I've switched out the "country" infobox for a geography infobox. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Focus of the article

What should the focus of this article be? I think the content is lacking right now. It seems like since "The Baltic states" is first and foremost a geopolitical term, the focus of this article should be on political cooperation & history, like the Benelux article is. Listing medieval "provinces of the Swedish empire" should not be connected to this article, because "The Baltic states" as a term did not exist back then. This article should focus in-depth starting on the periods when the term first appeared. Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Add on the main table euro as the common currency

Some British who don't have euros claim "don't include currency in the main table; the European Union should break apart in order we look clever".

in or on the main table? both are correct prepositions. Usually we use on for websites, but this table has specified boundaries.

The history section in the article has a lot of WP:OR

In the lead, the topic of the article says: "This article is about a geopolitical term used for grouping the three countries on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea in Northern Europe"

If it's about the geopolitical term "Baltic states", then I don't understand why there is history listed on this page from time periods when this term did not exist. The term "Baltic states" should not have much to do with the history of Livonia or the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth.

A correct solution would be to list more in-depth history starting from the time periods when this term was actually used. Beginning with a short section about pre-1918 and then a longer section starting from 1918. Otherwise, if all of the middle age is listed here, it distorts the history, essentially creating WP:OR.Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, including the older history of these three countries here just doesn't make any sense as this concept, nor the suggested similarity of these three countries did not exist before that era. 2001:1530:1010:FA81:6191:FE40:B9E2:2FC3 (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Blomsterhagens: Are you serious? You were the one who expanded the history section in the past. Please make up your mind for once, because there were many back and forth edits by you (not to mention all the edit wars and other things). – Sabbatino (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what? I have always been advocating for removing or only very shortly summarizing the pre-1918 history. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I do think that the post-1918 history does need expanding, yes. The first three decades of freedom were instrumental in the histories of all three countries and all of that content is missing right now. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Blomsterhagens: You are right. Sorry then. I was certain that you were the one who expanded the history section due to your past behavior in the article. However, there was no consensus reached on shortening the history section last time so that is the reason why the section looks like that. I am not against trimming the history section but it needs to be decided where is the breaking point. – Sabbatino (talk)

I'd assume the breaking point should be WP:OR. As in, until when do we have sources that directly about the history of "the baltic states" in unison, not as the histories of latvia + lithuania + estonia talked about separately. There are loads of sources that talk about the history in unison since 1918, but very few before 1918. And then there's also the fact that the term "the Baltic states" had a different meaning altogether in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, which is currently not listed in the history section at all. Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to define the article by the lead description, it does say that the term is "typically used" etc. This doesn't exclude anything, and a I don't see a case for editing the main text on the basis of such a broad definition. Tammbeck (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR comes in as an issue regarding most of the pre-1918 text, because the sources are mostly not mentioning "Baltic states", the sources are talking about specific Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian history. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps for consistency we should follow the example of History of the Baltic States which is a disambiguation page with links to the three national history articles. Tammbeck (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense. I've trimmed the page and added links to individual history pages + an historic overview timeline for the region. The post-1917 section should be greatly expanded now. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Political POV

I see political POV in at least one part of this article. Baltic states#Ethnic groups gets quite ideological in parts, not objective as an encyclopedia should be. It and probably much of the article needs NPOV work. Zaslav (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Itzhak Rosenberg:‎ Undid revision 976475998 by Zaslav. By the same logic no country was ever occupied. Naming occupation as occupation is the objective thing to do. Blackmailing countries into surrendering and marching in with armies is hardly included in "incorporated", but more so in "occupied".

Your objection shows that you don't understand what I wrote and the article's stated point about nationalism. "The same logic" exists only in your mind, not in my edit. The fact that the Baltics were occupied is not disputed and it is not relevant to this sentence, which makes the point that they were incorporated 20 years later than other parts of the USSR. The occupation, more relevantly the forcible incorporation as opposed to a temporary occupation like that of Germany and Austria after WWII, is a separate point that may also be added to the article but it is not the point being made about timing in this sentence. Your objection is due to emotional involvement, not objectivity, as is proved by your emotional complaint about my edit.

Please adhere to NPOV guidelines and do not insult people when you do not understand their "logic". I think there is a compromise possible that achieves both our goals. Are you willing to discuss it? Zaslav (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Itzhak but Zaslav is very correct here. As much as I secretly also sympathize with the Baltic States' faith in the 20th century, but those countries were indeed incorporated into the USSR; this is a fact. Our personal perspective doesn't matter. How about this: The Baltic States were incorporated into the Soviet Union but considered occupied by the international community (or something along these lines?). I know this is not needed, but maybe this will make Itzhak sold? :) - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Zaslav, the Baltic states#Ethnic groups only lacks references, but it is truthful.

As for what I changed your previous statement into "occupied later than other countries", it is still valid and objectively factual, as indeed, much of the territories gained by USSR were not gained by democratic elections or referendums, but instead brute invading force - e.g. First Republic of Armenia#Turkish and Soviet invasions, Democratic Republic of Georgia#Downfall, Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic#Establishment, Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus, I would even dare use Basmachi movement as an example. All of these (and more) were occupied by USSR during the Russian Civil War, and the Baltics were occupied in 1940.

"Emotional language" or "involvement" seems little more than ad hominem, but whatever - it has no argumentative value. Furthermore, I am puzzled about how you feel my statement as emotional, as after rereading it multiple times, it can be interpreted as neutral if you are calm when reading it. I have a suspicion that you might have been not in a very zen mood when reading my comment ;) (then again, the internet is not the place for zen...)

The primary definition of "incorporated" according to Merriam-Webster is "1 : united in one body", whereas the relevant definition of "occupied" is "3a : to take or hold possession or control of". From what I put forward in this discussion, it seems natural to prefer the latter over the former.

After some thought, I do notice that calling it incorporation is not factually incorrect, but my comment that occupation is a better descriptor of that situation is undeniable.--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Itzhak Rosenberg, thank you for your thoughtful reply. First of all, I am not in any way trying to whitewash or justify the Soviet seizure of the Baltic states. Yes, they were occupied.

Then they were incorporated. Those are not the same thing. Germany was occupied after WWII but it was not incorporated into any other state. Parts of Germany were not merely occupied but were incorporated into Poland, mainly. There is a difference between occupation and incorporation. The point of the later acquisition of the Baltics by the USSR is that they were incorporated into the USSR, which implies permanence, rather than merely being occupied, which implies a temporary status. As another example, Israel's "occupied territories" are called that because in principle the occupation is temporary. Of course, "temporary" has no time limit, but they have not been incorporated into Israel, which would imply permanence. (I hope this doesn't touch a nerve with anyone. It's meant to be purely factual.) With the Baltic states, they were incorporated and I think it is fair to say that being incorporated was important to their subsequent history and is more relevant to their subsequent nationalism than a temporary occupation would have been.

In short, the occupation is how they came under Soviet control, but the incorporation is what gave them 50 years of Soviet control. That is why I think "incorporation" is the most appropriate term here. Zaslav (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zaslav Israel’s occupied territories..I hope this doesn't touch a nerve with anyone - don’t envision that lol! Very good example thou. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Zaslav Thank YOU for your thoughtful input. My main objection to "incorporation" was all along that it seemingly whitewashed the situation, but I after looking through how many times the word "occupied" is already used in the article, I realised that if someone's purpose was to whitewash, they were doing it incredibly bizarrely ;) So, if you wish to change to "incorporated", it doesn't detract from historical accuracy.

Also @User:GizzyCatBella, please note that "thou" is not "though", but instead "you" (e.g. O Brother, Where Art Thou?) :)

The final verdict from me - you can revert it if it pleases you so. Best, --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

yeah :) I like spelling it this way thou. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

To Itzhak Rosenberg: That is my point. "Occupied" is appropriate in the discussion of how the Baltics came to be incorporated. But in the present context, "incorporated" is the relevant concept. Thank you for a rational discussion.

To GizzyCatBella: Are you hinting that English spelling is not highly regular? Zaslav (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Mainly in these crazy times of instant smartphone text exchanges, yes. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image :) [2] hahaha! My fan saw it too. LOL! - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Itzhak Rosenberg, these countries were occupied, and this is supported reliable sources. Incorporation implies legitimacy, but reliable sources state that the majority of the world did not recognize the annexation, but instead viewed the Baltic states as de jure independent states under occupation. --Nug (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Nug and Itzhak Rosenberg's original position. We need to be consistent with the articles Occupation of the Baltic states and State continuity of the Baltic states. "Occupation" refers to the entire 50-year-long military occupation of the Baltic States, and not simply the act of claimed "incorporation".Tammbeck^talk 12:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, both Tammbeck and Nug are right. Incorporation would only be applicable de facto, and hence would also apply to any and all countries occupied by Germany/Soviet Union in WW2, so in fact it should be clearly stated as "occupation". I am back to my original proposition, as it is the truthful one.--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Itzhak Rosenberg, some areas were merely occupied (and Nazi German Reichskommissariats were an example of that; eventual annexation of these areas was planned but not carried out due to Nazi defeat), that is, seized but not claimed by invader as its own territory. Some were annexed (occupied and claimed by invader as its own territory) - which doesn't necessary imply legality. So, not to "any and all countries occupied by Germany/Soviet Union in WW2". In this particular example, "Because the three Baltic states had been annexed by the Soviet Union later than other territories..." would have actually worked, but as long as the relevant article is called occupation of the Baltic states, retaining of current wording would be consistent with it. Seryo93 (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Seryo93 your objections are truly valid, however please do note what I wrote: "Incorporation would only be applicable de facto" and I continued "hence would also apply to any and all countries occupied by Germany/Soviet Union in WW2". I didn't argue that Reichkommissariats were de jure incorporated into Nazi Germany, instead I pointed out their subservience to their respective systems and hence incorporation in that manner - as part of a system. I hope you understand :) For your last point, I fully agree. Best --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)