Talk:Nordic countries/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Latvia in Nordic sphere

One can talk pages about it but as I suppose articles should be compendious I am trying to make it very short. Beginning around the 6th century Vikings crossed the Baltic Sea and entered the Daugava River, navigating upriver into the Baltic interior. This was their main route shuning the areas of Estonian tribes.

During the Viking Age the indigenous tribes lived in the area of present-day Latvia the Baltic Couronians, Semigallians, Latgallians and as well Finnic Livs - both fought and traded with Scandinavian Vikings. The chief items of barter were bees-wax, furs, amber and silver. The Vikings travelled their so-called Eastern route, across the Baltic Sea, along the Daugava and Dnieper rivers and across the Black Sea towards Constantinople.

The seafaring Couronians "Latvian Vikings" from Courland were the most active. There are records of Curonian attacks against the Vikings. Chronicler Sax the Grammarian tells the about the Curonian attack on island of Öland. Danes rushed to confront the Curonians. They met them at the port of Jarnlock. Curonians prevented the Danes from successful landing; they killed many Danish royals and left them in complete panic. People in Denmark prayed: "save us Our God from the Couronian pirates". The Couronians participated in the Battle of Bråvalla on Swedish side against the Danes. Courland (or Kurland) and the Couronians (or Kurs) are mentioned in the Old Norse sagas, such as the Heimskringla and Egill Skallagrímsson's (being according to it´s text from "Kúrland".

Seeburg, now Grobiņa near Liepāja in West - Latvia was a Scandinavian settlement in Courland. Weapons, ornaments and large cemeteries of mixed Baltic and Viking character prove Swedes and Gotlanders were dwelling among the native population. Boats of the Couronians and Vikings were similar in construction and decoration. The settlement at Grobin was excavated by Swedish archeologists Birger Nerman, as well Karl-Alfred Gustavsson and Hans Hansson. Nerman found remains of an earthwork stronghold, which had been protected on three sides by the Ālande River. Three Vendel Age cemeteries may be dated to the period between 650 and 800 AD. One of them was military in character and analogous to similar cemeteries in the Mälaren Valley in Central Sweden, while two others indicate that there was "a community of Gotlanders who were carrying on peaceful pursuits behind the shield of the Swedish military". From findings it appears that Grobina was the site of an early Scandinavian colony from Gotland. It is thought that in this age loanwords were adopted, for instance word for king or lord: in Swedish kung, Danish konung and in Latvian kungs.

The Northern Crusades, undertaken by the kings of Denmark and Sweden and German Livonian and Teutonic military orders, brought Christianity to the pagan tribes of Latvia. The Reformation brought Protestant Lutheranism. Between 1560-1585 the Bishopric of Courland belonged to king Frederick II of Denmark, his brother Magnus of Holstein lived and died at Piltene. Between 1561-1721 the Duchy of Livonia, which constituted the southern part of modern Estonia and northern part of modern Latvia, became Swedish Livonia, a dominion of the Swedish Empire. These times became known as "the good Swedish period", although the local Baltic German upper class kept their strong political, economical and cultural dominance over the peasant people. Alongside Finns and Estonians, Latvians fought with the Swedes in the Thirty Years' War against the Holy Roman Empire. Livonia, Sweden and Gothland were part of the same Hanseatic League trading chamber, with first Visby and later Riga as its chief city. Duke Jacob (1642-1682) of Courland leased iron and copper mines in Norway to support ship building and global seafaring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krakeni9 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Great, you also need to add references to your sentences. You're writing about medieval history of Latvia. This is a nice addition to the "latvia" page on wikipedia and maybe also "swedish history" if you also have references for each sentence. And a perfect page for this would be sweden-latvia relations. Nobody questions the historic and trade ties of latvia and sweden. And latvia is also defined as a northern european country. How does this connect to modern-day nordic integration of latvia though? If the latvian government (prime ministers? presidents?) is actively working to define itself as a nordic country then that's great but you need proof for that in the form of references to sources. Otherwise your content will get deleted. Are they saying that latvia is a nordic country? Are they not using the word baltic? You need references for that. As far as I can see, they are defining the country as a baltic country right now. They even named their airline airbaltic? Remember that references are your allies in wikipedia :) JonSonberg (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

And a completely different topic is the sharing of nordic values. Latvia has banned LGBT cohabitation / marriage and has high levels of business corruption. Latvia is also not allowing it's russian non-citizen minority to participate in local elections. These are not nordic values, I'm sorry....You and many latvian people probably belong to the nordic sphere with your values but it doesnt seem like the latvian government or the population in general does. Also, does latvia have free university education for everyone and a progressive income tax? The nordic region is defined by these values.... What is "nordic" in modern-day latvia? JonSonberg (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

As I commented before, you are arguing against Latvia.

Latvia has done steps toward Nordic integration then and now. Latvia made an application to join the Nordic Council as far as 1991. Since the achieving of independence Latvia has striven for tighter integration with the Nordic countries. Latvia is member of the Nordic battle group, the Nordic Investment Bank, the Nord Pool Spot energy market, the Nordic-Baltic Eight (the so called NB8) and as observer in the Nordic Council.

Latvia is a member of NORDEFCO since 2011. Latvian president Andris Bērziņš has defined the Nordic and Baltic region as the Nordic-Baltic family what shares common values and mentality.

A Latvian choir conductor has started the Nordic-Baltic choral festival. The economic bonds between Latvia and Nordic countries are strong and the joining of Latvia the European Union has led to intensified economical relations between Latvia and other Nordic countries.

Norwegian chain of convenience stores/news agents, Narvesen exists in Latvian market with 249 stores Swedbank Latvia is the largest bank in Latvia which nearly 1 million people and over 71,000 companies have chosen as their partner in financial matters.

Nordic direct investments in Latvia has been growing steadily in recent years, Nordic countries are the largest foreign investors in Latvia. Riga International Airport, the largest airport in the Baltic states is connected by direct flights to 13 destinations in all Nordic countries.

Krakeni9 —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against latvia, i don't have a personal opinion on this. I'm a wikipedia administrator and care about correct referencing, not personal opinions. If there were no administrators, the "latvia" page on wikipedia would be overrun by content from pro-kremlin trolls for example. Happens every week. Ok so the only reference that relates to nordic integration here is the reference to the speech of your president. There are 0 lines about him saying that latvia is a nordic country though. I cannot see a reference for latvia trying to join the nordic council. Most of your text is trivial. You cannot talk about economic integration because latvia's main export partners are: Lithuania, Russia, Germany, Estonia, Poland. And then follows sweden with 5.1%. That is not defined as economic integration, I'm sorry. If we are not talking about economic integration, what are we talking about instead? JonSonberg (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

And one more remark, JSonberg.

You are systematically arguing against Latvia.

As for LGBT marriages- Estonia has not adopted a law what allowes it.

As for corruption- what about Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves corruption? For some reason you have not been eager to talk it, instead of it bashing the others. You have to go on with it, EU supervisory institutions are much interested in the case but and editor from "corruption-free" Estonia is silent as grave. That is the highest level of corruption ever. Krakeni9

I'm not arguing against correctly written and referenced sentences. Yours are not referenced and consist of trivial statements like talking about kiosks. In statistics you need to differentiate between macroindicators and random outlier examples. I don't know what corruption you're talking about. When it comes to corruption statistics, you can refer to trace matrix which I've referenced before. On LGBT, refer to LGBT rights in Europe. JonSonberg (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You're also not answering to any of my referenced comments about latvia, like the high levels of corruption, problematic civil rights and an export structure which is disconnected from the nordic countries. Instead you are accusing me of being against latvia. I'm not against latvia, i like the country. I just see 0 evidence of anything "nordic" about the country. JonSonberg (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I will stop debating with you now. You are not answering to any referenced feedback about latvia, instead you are adding more unreferenced or trivial opinions. Please refer to Dispute Resolution for learning how to debate edits. This dispute is currently unresolved. You need to add referenced claims that fit the topic of the article on the article page. If you wish to debate with other administrators, you can bring this topic up on a neutrality noticeboard. Thank you. JonSonberg (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, too. However, I think there are more neutral editors needed than Estonians to decide is the issue unresolved or not unresolved. You can not dictate the content.

As for triviality of statements -if I have to say the whole your story, or in fact the whole series of stories with slogan "just look, ee is so veery nordic!" what are edited or made by some estonians consists of those trivial statements. T.Ilves made a random speech in somewhere 20 years ago when he said something... Mr Dag Hartelius... and so on. It looks like you use stickers, even typing errors are the same. As well Ee related articles in wiki have been goodly "nordified up". If to open an academic paper book about Ee history then the percentage of connections with Sweden is much less capacious than one can see in wikipedia articles. If to believe wiki Ee is even more swedish than Sweden itself.

I am not going to debate any more either although your concern about civil rights touched me and I think there is something urgently needed to do in Ee with civil rights. Estonia has the highest gender pay gap in Europe -glaringly big compared to EU not talking about the Nordics. Women in Estonia suffer from EU's worst gender pay gap http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-pay-gap/situation-europe/index_en.htm

Equality between women and men is a fundamental value in the Nordic countries says the site norden.org

Krakeni9 —Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you being so hostile towards Estonia and other editors? Estonia has a very long paid maternity leave (2 years), the longest in OECD. This unfortunately also creates the gender pay gap. A similar problem exists in Finland, which also has a very long paid maternity leave. Yes, it is a problem but it's caused by social guarantees and is not atypical to the nordic region. But this does not matter, this topic should be about latvia. Try writing a referenced section which shows how latvian politicans have been trying to integrate latvia into the nordic region and have stated that latvia is a nordic country, not baltic. If they have not been doing that, this discussion is futile. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

User SørenKierkegaard, you are same as JonSonberg. I had looked at JonSonberg´s profile some days ago- his and your profile are the same, old vintage photo with a man with camera. Now you are trying to show that there is an other impartial editor who completely shares JonSonberg´s views but he´s not JonSonberg and to create some disturbance and confuse other editors. I already explained to you SørenKierkegaard aka JonSonberg that I was not hostile. That was you who deleted all my edits. Krakeni9 —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you think I changed my username because of you? If I wanted to trick you I would have created a new account, not change my username. And that is obviously something that is not welcome and respected here (and will be caught & banned if someone tries that). I changed my username because I don't like administrating newcomers under my real name anymore.

When it comes to debating, please refer to the pyramid in Dispute Resolution. You are constantly answering with ad hominem (personal) attacks, which is not very nice. If you wish to debate something, keep your answers in the top two levels. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Estonian nationalist soapboxing

This article is about the Nordic countries, not about Estonia. I see that the attempt to include tons of Estonian nationalist soapboxing and fringe POV has been rejected in the past as well; certainly there is no consensus to include it. --Gaduse (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Why are you being insulting? In reference for others, this topic is about the "nordic identity in estonia" section. Where do you see the soapboxing? That single piece of content has been in the end of this article for a year. It does not claim Estonia to be anything. It (very briefly) references the widespread phenomenon in Estonia of defining itself as a nordic country on a governmental & everyday level. As per consensus, see the talk page before being blanked of old content. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this talk page (including archives) to include this WP:UNDUE fringe POV material; in fact it was rejected before. This is NOT an article about Estonia, as was already pointed out to you by other editors (archive 1). Clearly it's time for you to stop your POV editing of this article. --Gaduse (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

of course it's not an article about Estonia, hence why the topic youre talking about is mentioned shortly at the end of the article. Wait for other editors to comment on this. I will not debate with you. The fact that the estonian government defines the country as nordic is not a POV but referenced fact. I'm sorry it doesnt fit your world view. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

it is also extremely unfair to raise this topic on the nordic countries page, and then go and negatively edit the topic in question on it's main article page. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The term Nordic, as used in the context of this article, has a specific and completely unambiguous meaning, both in English and in the Nordic countries themselves, and refers to the countries (with dependencies) that are members of the Nordic Council, which Estonia is not. Is is totally unrelated to the meaning of Northern Europe, which is a much larger region that often even includes the British isles. Noone, literally noone, in the Nordic countries consider Estonia to be "Nordic" in any way whatsoever and very few have even heard of this bizarre idea, which seems to be a nationalist fringe POV advanced by a few voices in Estonia (although, unsurprisingly, most Estonians seem to disagree with it) and nowhere else, who want to "redefine" their country because they are unhappy with being Baltic and Eastern European (despite actually being Baltic and Eastern European). Why can't you leave the articles about the Nordic countries in peace, since you obviously have no knowledge on the topic? This is not the place to advance your personal views. There is no consensus to include the fringe POV material, as seen in the archives of this talk page, and furthermore, the material is worded in a totally inappropriate and biased way, and even includes a ludicrous POV map.

This article is about the Nordic countries. Estonia is not a Nordic country. Estonia has nothing to do in this article, except in the context of briefly mentioning it together with the other Baltic states and Schleswig-Holstein as one of the observer states in the Nordic Council. We do not need a whole section devoted to a fringe nationalist POV in Estonia here in this article which isn't even about Estonia. --Gaduse (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you are being professional here? Personal insults towards editors and entire nations are not very nice. Why do you assume that you have a monopoly on speaking on behalf of everyone in Scandinavia? I have spent my entire life in Copenhagen, so I don't know why you think you're somehow superior in this discussion. Wait for others to comment here, I'm pretty sure you've already said everything you've wanted to say SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You used to sign your comments with an Estonian name here on Wikipedia, including on this very talk page (archives 1, 2). The person in question openly identifies himself as living in Tallinn, and writes prolifically about Estonian issues mostly in Estonian, with the same ideological agenda. So whether you have in fact spent time in Copenhagen (which I doubt), it doesn't make you a spokesperson for Scandinavia anymore than I could claim to speak for the Estonians if I moved to Tallinn. Not that I have claimed to be any kind of spokesperson for anyone either, but at least I don't misrepresent my background to score points in debates. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and based on the sources cited in this article, it's clear that Estonia is not, as in never, defined as part of the Nordic countries. No encyclopedias I have seen even mention Estonia in their articles on the Nordic countries/Norden. There is no mention of Estonia at all in either Encyclopedia Britannica, or the Nordic countries' main encyclopedias, Store norske leksikon, Den Store Danske Encyklopædi, or Nationalencyklopedin; they all consistently define the Nordic countries exclusively as the sovereign countries Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Finland, with their dependencies. --Gaduse (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

At first I posted a longer text here to respond to another personal attack but instead I will quit answering your personal attacks altogether, because they are off topic, do not belong to wikipedia, have no basis and are insulting. I'm half swedish and half estonian by birth. This is the last time I'll answer to any of your personal insults. As I have written before - you are not addressing the integral topic here. No-one claims that estonia is a nordic country. The sub-paragraph on this article nor the main article itself - none of them claim that. The article observes the phenomenon of such identity taking place among the estonian government and people. And those two things are sourced and factual. The article directly sources the estonian prime minister, the foreign minister and ministry, over two decades. I understand that you do not personally like what they are doing and do not agree with them. That is another topic and does not belong here. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In case the sources listed in the earlier article are not enough for you to prove that the government is defining the country as nordic, here are some more. Brand Estonia 01 (governmental site) , Brand Estonia 02, Ministry of Education SørenKierkegaard (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What you are citing are examples of "brand strategies" that are most similar to traditional foreign branding strategies (essentially, an Eastern European country trying, unsuccessfully, to hijack the established name in English and other languages for another, clearly separate group of countries in Western Europe, to sell airline tickets and whatnot; such behaviour isn't likely to win Estonia any friends in the Nordic countries). It doesn't matter if a company or organisation or some other entity wants to brand itself in a particular way (lots of companies based in Nigeria claim to be British or whatever), if this doesn't get accepted by any third parties at all, and there is no doubt that such claims are not at all accepted in English language usage (and not in the Nordic countries either). We already have a source (in the article on the phenomenon) that explicitly states that this is a fringe opinion; every encyclopedic definition of the Nordic countries, in English and the Nordic region's languages, also excludes Estonia. Even the vast majority of Estonians seem well aware of the non-recognition of the bizarre attempt/PR stunt to rewrite the history and definition of the Nordic countries emanating from a few voices in Estonia in the last few years.

The topic of this article is by definition Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland and depedencies, which form a clearly defined, clearly distinct, region, that is very much different from the three Baltic states; therefore a whole first-level section devoted to an Estonian PR stunt/fringe POV/attempt to rebrand the country in a demonstrably false way is WP:UNDUE, and a see also link and/or a brief mention in a section on relations with neighbouring regions including the Baltic states and Schleswig-Holstein (which has far closer ties to the Nordic countries, even a Nordic language, namely Danish, as one of its official languages) would be more appropriate; all of these entities hold the exact same status in regard to the Nordic countries. --Gaduse (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Gaduse is perfectly right. His offer of “a see also link and/or a brief mention in a section on relations with neighbouring regions” is more than generous but acceptable. The separate article “Nordic identity in Estonia” is more than enough on this matter. – The first thing we must do is removing the totally misleading map “Nordic countries including Estonia” from the article Nordic countries. --Surfo (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed the map and some content SørenKierkegaard (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

While a small step in the right direction, the title of the whole section should be changed so that it covers relations with at least all the Baltic states and possibly also Schleswig-Holstein, and material that deals exclusively with Estonia should comprise a single paragraph instead of five. In the Nordic countries, Estonia isn't considered much different from the two other Baltic states, which are likewise observer states, as far as their relations to the Nordic countries are concerned. Furthermore, the mainstream opinion, namely that Estonia is not considered Nordic in any of the Nordic countries or by common international definitions, should also be mentioned if we mention this idea of some Estonians that their country is "Nordic." --Gaduse (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You're still arguing against estonia being nordic, but the text does not even claim that. It claims that this phenomenon is happening in Estonia. If you have a problem with the estonian government defining the country as nordic, take it up with them. Wikipedia is about referencing what is happening in the real world. We also have articles about genocide, syphilis and boat accidents. Regarding relations with countries - this section was here for a while, it got massive and was decided to be deleted by an overwhelming consensus, which I also supported. Schlewsig-Holstein, Latvia or Lithuania do not define their regions/countries as nordic. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That is untrue. The text includes the following statements, repeating the very same (and certainly cherry-picked) fringe claim over and over:

• "Estonians often define themselves as Nordic"
• A politician "has defined the country as nordic"
• "Estonia has defined itself as a Nordic country"
• Some guy "delivered a speech entitled "Estonia as a Nordic Country""
• There was a conference "discussing Estonia's identity as a Nordic country"
• And then this bewildering/confusing statement: Some guy "defines the Nordic and Baltic region as the "Nordic Benelux" (whatever that means???)

That is not encyclopedic. It would be sufficient to mention it once that some Estonian figures have called themselves "Nordic." But the article must also mention that Estonia is not considered a Nordic country by mainstream definitions in English or in the Nordic countries.

Also, if there was already a decision to remove relations with other (namely Baltic) countries, that decision certainly also covers the material about Estonia. --Gaduse (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you're joking or if you're seriously not grasping logic. The text does not claim that estonia is nordic, the text talks about the phenomenon of this movement happening in estonia on a governmental & societal level. These are two very different things. Your criticism would be valid if you were to claim that the estonian politicians are actually NOT saying this. Or you could also claim that this topic is not notable enough. Which has already been discussed before on several levels and the topic has been deemed notable. Right now you're just trying to remove content that you dont personally agree with. It's also amusing how you're turning the quotes of two consecutive presidents of the country into "some guy" SørenKierkegaard (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the basic way Wikipedia works: It is not sufficient to only include the views of one side in a debate, especially when that view happens to be a fringe view. We have seen some evidence that a few voices in Estonia have, during the last decade or so, voiced what amounts to a fringe view on the definition of the Nordic countries, that is not recognised in English language usage or anywhere outside Estonia. The material about that is indeed WP:UNDUE because the same point is repeated over and over in five(!) paragraphs, when a sentence would suffice to convey this idea. The repetitions don't add any informational value either. The encyclopedic way to deal with this would be to add some context after mentioning the claims by Estonian politicians that they are "Nordic", and mention that the Nordic countries don't consider Estonia to be Nordic. We could also quote Svenska Dagbladet which noted that Estonia yearns to be seen as Nordic instead of eastern European. --Gaduse (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That source is obviously already quoted~on the article page and added. So I don't know why you're even bringing it up. Also, you keep using that one single source from 2003 over and over again. It is a source that I myself have added a while back. The fact that you aren't using any other sources on this topic means that you have not researched the topic. I would gladly see more sources that include constructive criticism on the topic, because it will help improve the article. You are offering none of that. And yes, estonia does wish to be seen nordic instead of eastern european, also instead of baltic. I just visited a large conference that talked on this topic for hours - many (most?) estonian companies use the word "nordic" in describing their products or services both internally and when exporting. For the exact reason of leaving behind the words eastern european and especially baltic. There are so many sources on this... thousands. Here's a very fresh example (in estonian). The "nordic identity" article could easily be 10,000 words long but instead I have to argue with you here. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to help to help Estonian nationalists or companies to "leave behind"(!) the word "Baltic" (despite universally being considered a Baltic state). This bizarre phenomenon of companies and so on in an eastern European country falsely claiming to be Nordic and hijacking a term that describes, in English (and other languages), an entirely separate group of countries in western Europe, is no different at all from all those companies in Nigeria that insist they are British, European or American. This phenomenon is largely unknown in the Nordic countries, where Estonia is seen as a Baltic and Eastern European country, final stop. --Gaduse (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Besides the fact that your comments are unintelligent and also insulting, I'm amused by them. Your answer has nothing to do with the topic, you're just voicing your unapproval towards what the country is doing. There's no intelligent conversation to be had here SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I've also added the position of the nordic council. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Claims that Estonia is Nordic country are indeed fringe, but claim that Estonia should become (recognized as) a Nordic country is made by few leaders of Estonia and scholarly discussed. That is certainly worthy of mentioning. I propose to phrase it something like that:

The beginning of the attempt to redefine Estonia as "Nordic" was in 1999, when the idea was proposed by then Estonian foreign minister (and President of Estonia from 2006 until 2016) Toomas Hendrik Ilves, with potential political calculation behind it being wish to distinguish Estonia from more slowly progressing southern neighbors, which could have postponed early participation in European Union enlargement for Estonia too. Andres Kasekamp argued in 2005 that relevance of identity discussions in Baltic states decreased with entering to EU and NATO together, but predicted that in future attractiveness of Nordic identity in Baltic states will grow and eventually five Nordic states and three Baltic states will become a single unit. Idea of Estonia as a "new Nordic country" was again promoted by Taavi Rõivas during his election campaign and following prime minister period (2015-2016).

I think that covers most important developments, detailed info can be read from main article. No need to mention here how some low level official labeled Estonia in EXPO, some exhibit or single conference with unknown relevance/results (might suit to Nordic identity in Estonia). Also, president Kaljulaid talks about Nordic Benelux, we have no right to say "actually she meant Nordic". And finally, we should not specially mention that mainstream definitions of Nordics don't include Estonia. It's pointless because 99% of the article already shows it doesn't and "Nordic Estonia" section doesn't indicate opposite. But if we find reliable source that comments on "Nordic Estonia" idea and then says a la "aspirations of Estonia have been rejected by X" then that's relevant --Minnekon (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

PS. User:Gaduse, check Talk:Estonia. There are questions about your latest contributions. --Minnekon (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Minnekon on everything that was said. Edit: The beginning was really in 1918, not 1999. The push towards the nordic union was active until WW2 SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The proposed text is too lengthy for this article which isn't about "identity discussions" in Estonia. Also, the speculation about the Nordic countries and the Baltic states being "a single unit" (what does that even mean? One country?) is undue and extremely fringe. It would be sufficient with a sentence that states that: "Some Estonian political figures have proposed to redefine Estonia as a Nordic country rather than a Baltic and Eastern European country, but this idea has not gained any international acceptance and is regarded as a fringe opinion" (or something along those lines). You're welcome to use 90% of the article Estonia to discuss its internal debates about its wish to not be defined as Baltic or Eastern European, but this article is by definition not about Estonia in any way whatsoever and any mention of Estonia in an article about Norway/Denmark/Sweden/Finland/Iceland should be brief (the article doesn't once mention Schleswig-Holstein, which has 100 times closer ties to the Nordic countries, even a Nordic official language and the exact same status as regards the Nordic Council as Estonia). --Gaduse (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Article is by definition about countries identified as Nordic, which obviously includes countries currently widely accepted as such, but also proposed identifications, just like for example in NATO we talk in addition to current members also about proposed members. You worded your objection like someone wanted to add here random info about Estonia, which would be off-topic, but suggestion was strictly about Estonia's proposed identification as Nordic country, which is on topic. Also, missing mentions of Schleswig-Holstein is not argument against mentioning Estonian case. If Schleswig-Holstein is also proposed to be Nordic, you are welcome to add that info. Then it's better to change title of subsection to "Nordic identity in other countries" or "Proposed (other) Nordic countries". --Minnekon (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Now about your criticism on my proposal. First, few sentences at the very end of long article is hardly lengthy or undue. Second, you describe Kasekamp's future speculations as "undue and extremely fringe". I was not aware that there has been lot of debate about future of Nordic state concept. Can you provide those other authoritative sources which show that Kasekamp's assessment is indeed fringe? Anyway, his opinion can be taken out, because if it's not fringe, it's then a lonely voice, which might not suit for paragraph giving most basic overview. But I propose here another addition for article, fact that Estonia has applied (but rejected) for membership in Nordic Council in 2000 seems important and mention-worthy. --Minnekon (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

About your alternative proposal. First, "some Estonian political figures" sounds vague and diminishing formulation for prime minister and foreign minister (later president). "Some top political figures" would be more precise. Second, "...idea has not gained any international acceptance and is regarded as a fringe opinion" would be relevant addition, but what sources say that? --Minnekon (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"but this idea has not gained any international acceptance" - this is wrong. It has. "Some Estonian political figures" - this is also wrong. It's a governmental position. And also the estonian business sector does this. You have a POV on this topic and are not interested in encyclopaedic accuracy at all. It's meaningless to spend time discussing with you SørenKierkegaard (talk) 10:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

What are examples of international acceptance? What is the proof that making Estonia into Nordic state is governmental position? I think we have discussed same topic in past, but I recall your explanation was "prime minister's opinion = governmental position", which is fallacious. --Minnekon (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Examples of international acceptance of how the term "Nordic countries" is defined are third party reliable sources, such as the definitions in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Store norske leksikon, Den Store Danske Encyklopædi, or Nationalencyklopedin; neither of those mention Estonia once, not with one word. SørenKierkegaard's claims are contrary to all sources that Wikipedia relies upon. --Gaduse (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You proposed following claim: "...idea has not gained any international acceptance and is regarded as a fringe opinion". Which source says that? --Minnekon (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This here is the description of the conference organized in part by the Nordic Council itself. We cannot say that the idea has been totally unaccepted by relevant parties, if the topic is being discussed on relevant levels. Claiming something like that would be incorrect and also degrading. We can indeed say who the full members of the nordic council currently are and also how the encyclopaedias currently list the nordic countries. Edit: This here is the full summary of the conference, on the website of the Nordic Council itself. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That link leads to the website of some obscure department at a university in Estonia which hosted an obscure conference (and all the participants/speakers seem to be Estonians). It's not evidence of any international acceptance of a revision of the meaning of the term "Nordic countries" and it's not a good source for Wikipedia's purposes. Even this all-Estonian conference didn't claim outright that Estonia is Nordic (because all Estonians know how ludicrous the idea sounds to the outside world). The page furthermore states that this obscure conference was organised by the University of Tartu Centre for Ethics and that various organisations merely were "cooperating partners." That's doesn't mean they endorse claims made by participants there. Furthermore, the conference explicitly refers to the Nordic countries and the Baltic states as the "Nordic-Baltic Region," clearly indicating that they are two separate groups of countries. --Gaduse (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

At this point you're just making stuff up. The second link is on the website of the nordic council itself. Who said that the conference is obscure? What is the definition? It was organized as a partnership between the university of tartu, the nordic council and the embassies of sweden, denmark, finland and norway. The attendance included ministers, the president of estonia and ambassadors. Your own personal opinion on this is indeed obscure. The rest of your sentences is off topic again. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not evidence of any international acceptance, particularly not in English language usage, but just SYNTH and OR, and this all-Estonian conference was indeed obscure as far as a definition of the term Nordic countries is concerned. Why is it that no encyclopedia on the planet includes or even mentions Estonia in the context of the Nordic countries? Not even that conference claimed that Estonia "is" Nordic, it was more about Estonia's relations with the Nordic countries. Furthermore, the other website was the website of the local office in Estonia of the Nordic Council of Ministers, not the Nordic Council, and it was merely a summary of the conference (written by a local Estonian employee), and not an endorsement of any claims (that the conference didn't even make). (The Nordic Council of Ministers has offices in Lithuania, Latvia and Germany as well, and they describe their Estonian office as an office "outside the Nordic Region" tasked with Nordic-Estonian co-operation, clearly indicating that the Nordic countries and Estonia are two separate things[1]) --Gaduse (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

We can't assume that holding a conference means acceptance of Estonia being/becoming Nordic. On the other hand, from the perspective of topic "Nordic identity of Estonia" it is relevant event, even though better to mention it in specific article.

Note to Gaduse: you wrote incorrect facts about that conference. I don't know how you came to conclusion that it was all-Estonian event, but given webpage lists all presenters, 4 of which were non-Estonians, plus 2 Estonians, but from foreign Universities. Also calling organizer an "obscure department" of university is weird wording (how you determined that and what it even means) and important is content, not organizer. --Minnekon (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A department at any university would be considered fairly obscure for the purposes of most Wikipedia articles, especially on broad, high-profile topics. The use of this "source" here is really just a form of original research and synthesis. Also, even if some of the invited participants might have been based in Finland, it did look like a mostly Estonian event. --Gaduse (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Still not true, lecturers were from Estonia, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Please check what actually is in source before you comment on it here. Talking about "obscure" department, I still don't follow. Why universities shouldn't organize conferences? Who should have organized it in your opinion? Can you cite Wiki policy about obscure and non-obscure event organizers? --Minnekon (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding international acceptance, we also have The Economist in 2010, Eurovision Song Contest where Estonia has been in the Nordic category for several years now, The Economist in 2016 SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A blog about Eurovision Song Contest is not a reliable source. In fact, Eurovision Song Contest itself (which people in western Europe have mostly stopped caring about anyway) is not a reliable source or relevant to the definition of the Nordic countries. The other link is not actually to The Economist, but to a page explicitly designated as a "blog" and written by an anonymous "Cassandra." --Gaduse (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The Eurovision Song Contest is the largest media event in the world. I agree it's not extremely important as a legitimizing authority but it's enough to dispel your claim that estonia's nordic identity has not been accepted anywhere internationally. Both of The Economist links are correct. These sources are not enough to say that estonia's nordic identity is internationally accepted. But they are enough to dispel your claim that it "has not been accepted anywhere". SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The perception in the Nordic countries has long been that Eurovision Song Contest is utterly dominated by Eastern Europeans and has been for quite a long time now; see e.g. this NRK article: [2] (which also, btw., specifically describes Estonia as Eastern European and mentions it in the same breath as Latvia, Ukraine and Russia, which are seen as a related group of countries [Eastern Europe] from a Nordic perspective). In any event a blog about Eurovision Song Contest is not a reliable source. --Gaduse (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

off topic SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That as well, but you were the one who brought it up. --Gaduse (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

No, the article is about a clearly/unambiguously defined entity/group of countries, which does not include Estonia according to any of the sources we accept as reliable here on Wikipedia (e.g. the examples mentioned above), and which happens to be known as the Nordic countries in English (although quite often, perhaps even more often, also referred to as just Scandinavia in English language usage). The claim that one can squeeze anything and everything that suddenly start calling themselves "Nordic" (without being recognised by any reliable sources as part of the well-defined entity called the "Nordic countries") into the article is a form of original research and WP:SYNTH; in the same way, a Nigerian journal that calls itself the "British Journal of Medicine" doesn't belong in an article about academic journals in the United Kingdom, but we could write about it in the article on the journal itself (if it was notable), or in an article about publishing in Nigeria. Even if it can be reliably sourced that the journal calls itself "British" (which is comparable to what we are discussing here), it cannot be reliably sourced that the journal actually has anything to do with the entity that is the topic of the article called the United Kingdom.

On Talk:Nordic_identity_in_Estonia, User:JonSonberg writes that "[the] Estonian word põhjamaalased doesn't mean only Nordic people, it also - and I would say more often - means just Northern people." Sharing a similar name doesn't make something the same topic in an encyclopedic context. There is a clear difference in English between the well-defined entity/topic called the Nordic countries (with the words Nordic/Scandinavian), and Northern Europe (with the word Northern). Similarly, there is a clear distinction within the Nordic countries themselves, between Nord-Europa and Norden, and between nordeuropeisk, nordlig and so on, and nordisk.

The Nordic countries are a cultural region; it's not an organisation that one can join like NATO. It's really bad form for Estonian editors like User:SørenKierkegaard in particular to force everyone to waste endless time on fruitless discussions about Estonia (and more particularly this anti-Baltic Estonian nationalist agenda, which seems to be directed against the two other Baltic states to a large degree) here. It's really all quite irrelevant to the Nordic countries. --Gaduse (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

What the type of phenomenon and exact nature of "joining" process has to with it? Your argument has been "...article is about a clearly/unambiguously defined entity/group of countries, which does not include X ..." - so mentioning X is off-topic. NATO is clearly defined group of countries (much more than Nordic countries), so proposed new members there are off-topic by given logic. But that has not been Wikipedia logic - if look other concepts, you find that mentioning proposed members of certain group or other phenomenon is common practice and I see no reason to do exception here. --Minnekon (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not true at all; the membership of NATO changes regularly as it accepts new members, while the Nordic countries have just one totally unambiguous definition used by every encyclopedia in the world. Some Estonians seem to believe that the Nordic countries is a group of countries they can decide to "join", like NATO. But nobody in the Nordic countries or anywhere else on the planet sees it that way. The way everyone else sees it goes like this: A country cannot decide to be part of Europe unless it is in fact located in Europe (and not South America), and it cannot decide to be part of the Greek-speaking world unless Greek is in fact widely (or at least to an extent that isn't negligible) used in the country. --Gaduse (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Yes, process of getting into club differs, but how exactly that leads to conclusion that in one case we should mention proposed members and in another case not? --Minnekon (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You're still off topic. Also what has this got to do with latvia & lithuania is beyond me - They are not mentioned anywhere. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict, written before you removed your strange claims about me being Latvian and reworded your comment): Oh, I see you delve into conspiracy theories. I've been active on the Norwegian Wikipedia for years. I don't know a word of Latvian and have never even been to Latvia, and didn't know that my user name even meant anything in the language. I have no interest in any of the three Baltic states at all. But, Latvia certainly has just a good a claim on being Nordic as Estonia, as they are both observer states in the Nordic Council and located in a neighbouring part of the world, and it's not like Estonian is any more closely related to Nordic languages than Latvian. (Also, as far as I can see, I haven't mentioned Latvia specifically at all on this talk page until you brought up your conspiracy theory about me being Latvian) --Gaduse (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

off topic SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, so I don't know why you are suddenly talking about Latvia. --Gaduse (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The disruptive attempt to force Estonian nationalist debates on this article

I have now looked more thoroughly at the archives of this talk page, especially Talk:Nordic_countries/Archive 1. Over the last year or so, it's clear that a whole bunch of editors have strenuously objected to the Estonian editor User:SørenKierkegaard's (aka User:JaanMatti and User:JonSonberg) attempt to "overload" (as one editor said it) the article with stuff about Estonia, and that User:SørenKierkegaard has engaged in disruptive edit warring (basically he blanket reverts everyone he happens to disagree with) to keep his non-encyclopedic section consisting mostly of original research and Estonian nationalist POV in the article. For example, Minnekon wrote in March this year that "It's also worth mentioning that similar discussions have already taken place in Talk:Nordic Estonia, Talk:Estonia and Talk:Baltic states because of same user's (User:JonSonberg alias User:SørenKierkegaard) disruptive edits". It's clear from the archives of this talk page as well as the most recent discussion that there is no consensus to include User:SørenKierkegaard's proposed (and horribly non-encyclopedic) text in the article.

It's rather bizarre to see the talk page of this article about the Nordic countries, a region in western Europe, entirely dominated by nationalist debates in eastern Europe about the Estonians' relations with the Latvians and so on, which seems to be a main motivating factor behind the revisionist attempt to "redefine" Estonia as part of a well-known and well-defined, clearly separate region in western Europe. (Also judging by User:SørenKierkegaard's comments; for example he writes that "It seems very strange to force the Baltic identity on Estonia"[3]), although all mainstream opinion considers Estonia a Baltic state (compare: the Baltic states, where User:SørenKierkegaard apparently unsuccessfully tried to edit war over Estonia's inclusion and got blocked for it).

I think it would be acceptable to briefly mention the existence of this peculiar debate in Estonia, in the context of the Nordic countries' relations with all the Baltic countries, and have proposed the following text[4] (although changes are welcome). It would not be acceptable to have a section solely about Estonia, while not mentioning the other Baltic states (with which the Nordic countries have the exact same ties), and written entirely from a one-sided Estonian nationalist and fringe perspective about their wish to be "redefined" to avoid being associated with "those dastardly Latvians" or whatever, and that repeats the same point over and over using a low-quality synthesis of low-quality "sources," such as how Estonia branded itself at an exhibition and so on. --Gaduse (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You're the only one debating here. This page was quiet for a year before you showed up. You clearly have a POV on this and have no interest in encyclopaedic accuracy whatsoever. You also keep arguing against two other editors. Nor do you seem to understand how Wikipedia works. You have also been adding unsourced / untrue claims on the Estonia page and been reverted. You have not answered or sourced any of your claims here. You keep arguing against estonia being a nordic country, when no-one is even claiming that. Another editor - Minnekon - had already offered an acceptable version and you are the only person here disagreeing with it. And how exactly is all of this "nationalist", whatever that means? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You have repeatedly shown yourself incapable of contributing in a constructive manner; this is in fact something that other editors have noted on this very talk page. There is no consensus for the non-encyclopedic text that you proposed, which is not the same as the proposal by Minnekon. I think Minnekon's proposal needs more work, but it's a usable starting point for a discussion about a possible text. It seems clear, though, that you have a habit of refusing to cooperate with other editors or accept sources or anything other than your own personal opinion. Also, what would your description of the following comment (I'm not going to say by whom) be: ""baltic" is something that has been forced on us by others - sometimes by latvia and lithuania themselves - which makes me hate that word even more" --Gaduse (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

off topic again. The only editor I have an issue with is you. Minnekon's proposal is good and I agree with it. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, two editors, or possibly more when taking the archives into account, think this material shouldn't be in the article at all (at least, for my part, not until a decently written section is agreed on). --Gaduse (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Estonia and Finland are related to each other, both from a perspective of linguistics, and as former Swedish settlements. There was a Swedish speaking minority in Estonia as late as after the Second World War. Hence could well some Estonian matters be included here. But not really to the extent of Estonian conflicts with Latvia or other countries. Personally do I find Scandinavia to be a better article for "pure Scandinavian" matters. Boeing720 (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Observer status of the Baltic states

Do we have any source for the claim that the Baltic states actually have any formal "observer status" at the Nordic Council or that such a status exists (as opposed to informal cooperation)? I can't really find anything about such a status on the website of the Nordic Council, only information about the offices for cooperation with countries outside the Nordic region in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Schleswig-Holstein. David Smith writes that the Nordic countries were unwilling to grant the three Baltic states observer status within the Nordic Council, "arguing that this would dilute the specifically 'Nordic' character of the organisation." (David Smith (2002), Estonia: Independence and European Integration, p. 157, Routledge, Postcommunist States and Nations series, ISBN 9781136452208) --Gaduse (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

David Smith is out of date, see the section titled "Nordic Councils" on page 404 in International Human Rights: A Comprehensive Introduction, by Michael Haas: "The Sámi minority (Laplanders living in the northernmost countries) has de facto observer status. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are also formally recognized as observer states. The headquarters for the Nordic Council is in Copenhagen." [5]. --Nug (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of the fact that some books and so on have mentioned, in passing, an observer status of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Schleswig-Holstein, but what I was asking for was an official source which confirmed this claim. The website of the Nordic Council doesn't seem to mention anything about an observer status, whether formal or de facto. I haven't found it in other publications of the Nordic Council either. According to official sources it would appear that the Nordic Council only has members, but of course it cooperates with other countries in an informal manner, as seen in the establishment of some offices outside the Nordic region. Particularly since other sources explicitly state that an observer status was rejected, it would be helpful to find a formal source confirming the existence of such a status. --Gaduse (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

An official source would be a WP:PRIMARY source. The other source you mention was published in 2002, while the source I provided is more up to date, being published in 2015. When--Nug (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A WP:PRIMARY source is perfectly acceptable when used correctly, and really preferred in some circumstances. A passing mention in a book that's really about another topic is not a sufficient source when other sources directly contradict the claim, and there is no trace of any official status on the official website of the Nordic Council, or in other official publications. I have now also searched in newspaper archives in the Nordic countries to find evidence of a possible observer status, with no result. If an official observer status actually existed, it should be easy to verify it, for example by finding an official description of it and/or a more in-depth third party source than a passing mention in a book about another topic that didn't offer any details or proof; if the Baltic states had been granted this status at some point after 2002, after having been rejected at least 2 times before, it should be possible to find a source that described when and how this happened. --Gaduse (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You are also using a passing reference to a 2002 book to claim observer status was denied. Here is another book published in 2015 Arctic Human Development Report: Regional Processes and Global Linkages by Larsen and Fondahl that confirms observer status on page 215:

"The NC was established 1952 as an inter-parliamentary forum for elected representatives from the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The membership of this organisation has expanded over the years to include the Faroe Islands, The Åland Islands and Greenland. The three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania currently have observer status." [6]

--Nug (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not a passing mention because it elaborates on why they were denied such a status. Simply mentioning in passing in a book about an unrelated topic that they "have observer status" (a claim I'm well aware of), but without any further information/discussion/sources, isn't sufficient for the reason I mentioned above. I have now trawled Norwegian books, official Nordic Council publications, Norwegian newspaper archives etc. without finding any trace of an official status; all I found was that their wish to join the council had been discussed a few times and rejected because of their non-Nordicness. According to the chapter "Nordic Institutionalized Cooperation in a Larger Regional Setting" (which includes the subchapter "Nordic adjacent areas policies and Nordic–Baltic cooperation") in the book Nordic Cooperation: A European Region in Transition (Routledge, 2015), the Nordic Council/Council of Ministers define the three Baltic States and Russia as "Adjacent Areas" (numerous other sources for this can be found, incl. official ones) and have established local offices, but it doesn't mention anything about an observer status, in an in-depth discussion of the Nordic countries' institutionalized relations with the Baltic states. I think therefore we must conclude for now that they don't have "observer status," but that the Nordic Council/Council of Ministers have established cooperation with the three Baltic states and Russia in the framework of the Adjacent Areas policies. (I think the root of the confusion may be the establishment of the Nordic information offices, to function as some sort of "cultural embassies", in the Baltic states in 1991; this wasn't a granting of an "observer status" which was explicitly rejected in the same year.) --Gaduse (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be cherry picking sources to suit your POV, one outdated and another to synthesise the claim that being designated as "Adjacent Areas" is somehow proof that the Baltic states don't have observer status and bizarre unrelated claims about "cultural embassies", while I have provide two sources that directly assert the Baltic states do in fact have such observer status. Here is a third source, from Radio Sweden:

"In the twilight zone of the Nordic council are the eastern Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania - Nordic country cousines, not formally members of the council but always present as observers at the sessions - and all members of the Nordic Investment Bank - with little Estonia a member of the Nordic Brigade for international peace-keeping action." [7]

--Nug (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be cherry-picking low-quality random sources which only mention the issue in passing and which don't offer any in-depth discussion or proof, in stark contrast to the high quality in-depth discussion in the source I just provided. I have asked for sources that they have a formal observer status, and in view of the sources directly contradicting the claim and the obvious lack of support for the claim on the website of the Nordic Council itself, I have asked for at least one official source; so far you have offered none. Furthermore, I'm not aware of the existence of an entity called the "Nordic Brigade". Perhaps you are confusing it with the Nordic Battlegroup, whose membership includes Ireland and the Netherlands, and which has nothing to do with the Nordic Council or its members (so I don't know why you would even mention it here)?

The Nordic Investment Bank is also an entirely separate institution and utterly irrelevant to the question of whether they have membership as "observers" at the Nordic Council. The fact that you bizarrely refer to the discussion of the formal relations between the Baltic states and the Nordic Council/Council of Ministers, which is both the topic under discussion here (unlike your irrelevant comments about a "Nordic Brigade") and of which the establishment of the local offices was the first major step, as "bizarre," only shows your bizarre POV. You also clearly misrepresent what I wrote above and the source; a long chapter about Nordic institutionalized cooperation in a larger regional setting and Nordic–Baltic cooperation from a book from 2015 doesn't once mention the existence of an observer status when specifically discussing which relations the Nordic Council/Council of Ministers have with the Baltic states, as of 2015.

Also, informally being present is not necessarily the same as a formal observer status as a membership category; any member of the public is welcome to attend sessions of the Norwegian parliament as an "observer" in the public gallery (but that doesn't make them members of parliament), and it could very well be that the same is the case with the Nordic Council, which consists of members of the Nordic parliaments and which meets in the countries' parliaments on a rotating basis; I assume the other countries also have public galleries in their parliaments. The formal minutes of the last session[8] don't show any evidence of any Baltic participation whatsoever. I have also looked for evidence of a Baltic informal presence at the council's sessions in Norwegian newspaper archives and books, and so far found none. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources; so far reliable sources don't offer any credible support for a claim that the Baltic states have any formal observer status. If they do travel to the council's sessions (which are mostly held in Scandinavian, a language few Estonians understand, and only with translation to Finnish and Icelandic if specifically requested by the relevant delegations), they do so in an informal capacity. --Gaduse (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Your claim that the sources I've provided are "low quality" is absolutely laughable, because the source that asserts "The NC was established 1952 as an inter-parliamentary forum for elected representatives from the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The membership of this organisation has expanded over the years to include the Faroe Islands, The Åland Islands and Greenland. The three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania currently have observer status." is actually a publication of the Nordic Council of Ministers! [9]. You are disputing the Nordic Council of Ministers' own published assertion that "The three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania currently have observer status." as "a low quality source"!! --Nug (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The Nordic Council of Ministers acts as a publisher of a large number of reports on scientific and other topics; this is one of them and essentially a book about Arctic human development, a topic unrelated to this discussion, and written by researchers in that field, which includes a single sentence with no further discussion or sources, and which doesn't even specify whether the authors mean a formal status (the question was specifically whether they have a formal observer status). The claim that this is an assertion "of" the Nordic Council of Ministers itself is patently false. It is a low quality source in this context, because it is a book about an unrelated topic that mentions it in passing, with just a single sentence, with no context, discussion, or sources; the book could very well be a good source in other contexts, relating to the book's actual topic. Whereas I have provided a directly relevant source that specifically discusses in-depth the relations between the Nordic Council/Council of Ministers and the Baltic states. If they had observer status in a formal sense, you should be able to point me to where on the website of the Nordic Council this status is mentioned and/or a source that explained when and how this status was granted, with more than one single sentence.

I believed myself until a few days ago that they did in fact have an observer status, before I started looking at this issue and relevant sources, and found absolutely no evidence of it, rather the opposite. --Gaduse (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. The source I provided is a document officially published by the Nordic Council of Ministers, written by authors employed by the Nordic Council of Ministers, and their assertion that the Baltic states have observer status had been corroborated by other sources independent of the Nordic Council of Ministers. You appear to be in denial and seem to be essentially attempting a combination of argumentum ex silentio – where your conclusion that the Baltic states do not have observer states is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence, and when presented with evidence to the contrary you then attempt a No true Scotsman argument. --Nug (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You have been asked specifically to provide actual sources rather than oneliners from irrelevant works, and you have provided no sources. It is clear that there is no evidence that any observer status exists. It is also clear that you have no knowledge of the Nordic Council's and the Council of Ministers' workings; your claims about the nature of the irrelevant report about Arctic development(!) are also utterly false; the two authors of the one single sentence, and the chapter that it is part of, are two Canadian academics employed by universities in Canada and not by the Nordic Council or the Council of Ministers, and they don't speak on behalf of the Nordic Council of Ministers. Unless you are now able to provide actual sources, this discussion is over, so I repeat my question: If they had observer status in a formal sense, you should be able to point me to where on the website of the Nordic Council this status is mentioned and/or a source that explained when and how this status was granted, with more than one single sentence. --Gaduse (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because you cannot find something on the Nordic Council website doesn't mean it doesn't exist, that is an argumentum ex silentio fallacy. You are relying upon an single sentence from David Smith who mentions a situation from 1991 when the Baltic states were denied observer status, but omit the context that the refusal back in 1991 was because they were still nominally a part of the Soviet Union. I have provided two sources of similar quality as Smith that assert that Baltic states have observer status, and a third source that corroborates that. Here is a fourth source, published by the University of Leuven's Interparliamentary Cooperation in the EU's external action – Parliamentary Scrutiny and Diplomacy in the EU and beyond project [10]. In the Composition section:

"The Nordic Council is composed of national delegations from each member country, into which representatives from each party within the national parliaments are elected. The Danish delegation includes members from the Faroe Islands and Greenland, and the Finnish from Åland. In total, there exist 87 elected members from the parliaments of the Nordic region, including: Denmark (16), Finland (18), Iceland (7), Norway (20) and Sweden (20), as well as the Faroe Islands (2), Greenland (2) and Åland (2). The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania sit as third party, observer states at the Sessions."

I think four recent sources (one published by the Nordic Council, one published by the same publisher as Smith, the third by Radio Sweden and the fourth published by a respected university) that explicitly asserts the observer status of the Baltic states, together outweigh an older source that mentions the situation in 1991 and an inability to find and interpret information on a website. --Nug (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You have found another oneliner, one single sentence with no context or sources from a peripheral work that doesn't corroborate its claims, which is precisely the problem. The most recent oneliner is even more ambiguous in its wording and doesn't even directly assert that this is some kind of formal membership category and refers to the Baltic states as "third parties" (which is correct). You also misrepresent the discussion (again) and ignore the fact that I have, instead of citing a few oneliners from irrelevant or peripheral works like you have, also cited a chapter from 2015 that discusses the institutionalized relations between the Baltic states and the Nordic Council in-depth. When you are the one asserting that such a status exists, you are the one who needs to prove it, and it should be no problem for you to find an actual source that consists of more than one single sentence and that explains when/how this status was granted. You should also have no problem with finding it on the official website of the Nordic Council, which is very extensive and describes the council's workings in great detail and includes minutes of all sessions. What we know so far is that

1. The Nordic Council's official website, which is detailed/extensive and which can be relied upon, and which lists all official members, doesn't once mention any such status for the Baltic states
2. Such a status isn't mentioned in the formal minutes of the council's sessions
3. A high-quality source from 2002 states explicitly that such a status was rejected, with further sources also mentioning that the Baltic states' insistence on joining the council was rejected
4. A high-quality source from 2015 that directly discusses the issue at hand in-depth, the institutionalized relations between the Baltic states and the Nordic Council, doesn't once mention the existence of any such status
5. There is, so far, no other trace of any such status than (sometimes ambiguously worded) oneliners from irrelevant or peripheral works, typically written by people from places like Canada or the Netherlands. The authors of those works, who wrote about unrelated topics such as Arctic development and merely mentioned this issue in passing with a single sentence with no discussion or sources, could very well have found the claim on Wikipedia, even. --Gaduse (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Again you are repeating your flawed arguments, this time with some synthesised embellishments. You are confusing observer status with membership status. You obviously haven't searched the Nordic Council's official website thoroughly enough. The council minutes wouldn't necessarily mention the presence of observers, so that isn't proof of anything. Again, your "high quality source" from 2002 refers to a situation in 1991, a lot has changed since. It is like using a source from 2002 to claim the Baltic states are not NATO members today. Your "high quality source" from 2015 is off-topic, it is just your synthesis to claim it is relevant to observer status. The question here is simple, are representatives of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania formally allowed to attend, observe and participate in Nordic Council sessions, yes or no? The four reliable sources I provided unambiguously answers that a clear yes. In fact there has been a formal agreement since 1992, and updated in 1997, to allow Baltic representatives to participate in Nordic Council sessions, it is on the Council website. --Nug (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I take it that the answer to my question above — which was: "Do we have any source for the claim that the Baltic states actually have any formal "observer status" at the Nordic Council or that such a status exists" — is no, given your failure to provide any sources at all consisting of more than a single sentence from irrelevant works about unrelated topics, your failure to find any sources answering the basic question of when/how such a status was granted (especially since we have high quality sources explicitly stating that both membership and observer status were rejected) and your failure to point me to where on the official website of the Nordic Council where this alleged status is mentioned. --Gaduse (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you understand what the term "Observer status" means? Do you agree that observer status is a privilege granted by organizations to non-members to give them an ability to participate in the organization's activities? --Nug (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I do understand what observer status means. For example in the case of the United Nations it is a formal status that is "granted by a United Nations General Assembly resolution" to quote our article. So if the Baltic states had been granted a comparable formal observer status, this should be verified by a source that explained when/how this status was granted. The Nordic Council cooperates on an informal basis with many countries (not just the Baltic states) and with many organisations. In fact, as far as cooperation with non-Nordic countries is concerned, the Nordic Council has concentrated on cooperating with Russia in recent years as the source (2015) that I cited noted; does this mean that Russia is also an "observer"? --Gaduse (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think I am starting to understand. So you are saying there must exist a written formal agreement allowing a non-member country's representatives to participate in the Nordic Council's sessions, that is the meaning of formal observer status, as opposed to informal? --Nug (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was my question above, I specifically wrote formal "observer status". I'm well aware of the informal cooperation the council has with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which dates back to the establishment of the local offices in those countries in 1991. As far as I have ascertained, the Nordic Council does not have a formal status that is comparable to the formal "observer status" at the UN. --Gaduse (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, setting aside "formal" vs "informal", what is your definition of "observer status", does it align with that defined in the article observer status, which is a privilege granted by organizations to non-members to give them an ability to participate in the organization's activities? --Nug (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I'm aware the term "observer status" (relating to a country's relationship with an international organisation) is originally a UN term, where it is more or less a (limited) membership category and a highly formalized arrangement. But what matters isn't my understanding of the term, but whether the Nordic Council actually uses such a term to describe other states' relationship with the council, which doesn't appear to be the case. I'm not really aware of any regular participation of the Baltic states in the Nordic Council's main activity, its annual session, or any right to participate in the Nordic Council's activities; any cooperation appears to take the form of normal bi- or multilateral cooperation between the Nordic countries on one side and the Baltic states on the other. The Nordic Council is mainly a forum for the Nordic countries' parliamentarians and doesn't really have that much power. --Gaduse (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Your view that observer status "is more or less a (limited) membership category" contradicts the definition in the article Observer status that it "is a privilege granted by organizations to non-members to give them an ability to participate in the organization's activities". The term observer existed long before the UN or the Nordic council was created, and means "a delegate to an assembly or gathering, who is sent to observe and report but not to take part officially in its activities."[11]. Given that english isn't the primary or working language of the Nordic Council, whether or not they use the specific english term "observer" on their website doesn't really prove anything, there are many contradictions on their site, like continuing to imply they have an office in Russia, when they clearly don't[12]. What is important is knowing whether or not they have granted a privilege to a non-member to regularly participate in its sessions and activities, then knowing that we can as english speakers use the english term to adequately describe it. Are you sure there is no formal written agreement to allow the non-member Baltic states to participate in the plenary sessions and seminars of the Nordic Council? --Nug (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

So Gaduse, is there a formal written agreement to allow the non-member Baltic states to participate in the plenary sessions and seminars of the Nordic Council? --Nug (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware, but then again, I'm not the one arguing that this is the case. What the word observer means in its generic sense isn't the point either; the question is whether the Nordic Council has a formal "observer status", a much more specific term linked to its UN usage. Merely attending a few events and having some sort of cooperation is not the same as having a formal "observer status." Seminars would be highly informal events, and it would be extremely unlikely that the council as such had any formal written agreement with participants. Also a range of NGOs, parliamentarians, officials and so on from many other European countries regularly participate in such events. --Gaduse (talk) 06:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I contacted Nordic Council representative Arne Fogt Bergby in this question and got following answer: "The Sámi Parliamentary Council is the only institution with observer status to the Nordic Council (§ 13). However, representatives from the Baltic parliaments are among the invited guests (see § 14)".[13] --Minnekon (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gaduse, you say "it would be extremely unlikely that the council as such had any formal written agreement with participants", yet such an agreement exists[14], permitting representatives from the Baltic states to participate in the plenary sessions of the Nordic Council. This agreement was one of the references cited in the academic source [15] when it stated "The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania sit as third party, observer states at the Sessions.". You dismissed this source, but I am happy to take it to WP:RSN to validate it's reliablity. So while the Baltic states may not have "formal observer status" in terms of the Nordic Council's rules of procedure, they certainly sit as third party observer states at the sessions, formalised by written agreement. This goes beyond your so-called "Adjacent Areas" policy, there are no similar formal agreements to participate in Council sessions with Russia or any other entity. --Nug (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Nordic identity in Estonia

The idea of adding a mention to this to the end of the page has so far been supported by users Minnekon and Boeing720 - possibly more. So the two or three editors who keep deleting it should present their claims

I don't understand why some editors dont want the following text added to the end of the page:

---

53.3% of ethnically Estonian youth consider belonging in the nordic identity group as important or very important for them, according to a research study from 2013 (ref ) In 1999, the foreign minister Toomas Hendrik Ilves's speech in the Swedish Foreign Policy Institute of "Estonia as a new Nordic country".(ref) In 2015, the Estonian prime minister Taavi Rõivas defined the country's narrative as a "New Nordic Country", or "Uus Põhjamaa".(ref)

---

Supporting arguments:

Over half of estonia's youth defines themselves as Nordic. The government of the country defines it as nordic as well. So how does a mention of this phenomenon not belong on the nordic countries' page? I'm not asking to list Estonia there as an official nordic country, so the argument that "estonia isn't a nordic country" is not valid. That's not the point, because the addition does not claim that Estonia is nordic. It mentions the phenomenon. 2) There's also no universal, official definition of what "nordic" is. There are 4000+ companies in estonia that use the word nordic for example. The official airline of the country is called nordica, etc.

It is a fact that the government, the private citizens and the business sector in the country use the word nordic. It's a notable topic and the topic + the nordic countries article page is the correct match. Keeping out a mention of this phenomenon does not seem very fair.

Does someone know how to explain this? Because I'm really failing to grasp the logic why this keeps getting deleted by some

SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This content is WP:UNDUE as opinion polls and speeches by politicians; I'll remove it. See also is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree; this material isn't relevant in an article about the Nordic countries, since Estonia isn't Nordic. This section has now been removed by at least four editors in recent weeks, so I think it's time that the Estonian editor who keeps adding it drops the stick. --Gaduse (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

We have multiple definition of Nordic countries here, we could and I believe should note that Estonians consider themselves Nordic. Just see all the edits that come in by not having that information under definitions.Carewolf (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Term evolution from Baltic to Nordic

"Baltic states" before 1920 = Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Russian Empire ?

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.

"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. The timeline coincides with the advent of Foreningen Norden and Nordicism (which funnily enough also included Finland, Estland & Livland). 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.

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. This all makes sense as the "Baltic states" of nowadays were not states back then and so the "Baltic states" were just referred to as the states bordering the Baltic sea. I suppose this has more use on "The Baltic States" article but worth mentioning here as well.

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 - Baltic provinces (of the Russian Empire) being Finland, Estland, Livland - a distinction being made between "baltic provinces" and "baltic states". SørenKierkegaard (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing the timeline table?

User Sabbatino keeps deleting the timeline table, with the argument of WP:LISTCRUFT / WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I strongly disagree. A historic timeline graph like that is one of the best approaches to visualizing regional history I've seen. This at least needs a vote. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No reason to remove such an informative overview of the history of the Nordic countries. --Surfo (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it wasn't some random list. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course this timeline serves no purpose since there is a prose about the history. Why would you list the same information twice? – Sabbatino (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The timeline gives an instant visual overview of the entire region's history. The reader can visually grasp the history of a country in context with other neighbouring countries. This is something a text-based approach can not do. Especially not in 5 seconds. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sabbatino, why don't you try to remove all the infoboxes in Wikipedia. They mostly contain information that is amply described in prose in the article. Thus, by your definition, they serve no purpose. --Surfo (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes have a completely different purpose from tables. You should know the difference between MOS:INFOBOX and MOS:TABLE by now. But seeing that all you can do is write in a hostile manner just gives an impression that you should read some policies. Not to mention some rogue user coming here and telling others what to do... These tables were mostly removed in the past and just because it stayed here, that does not mean that it should still be here. Not only this timeline table is WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE as nothing relevant is added, but it also has WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues (WP:COLOR in particular).– Sabbatino (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are hating on tables. Like everybody else, I disagree with you, and do not believe any of your references apply in any way here. Carewolf (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not hating on tables. I am against indiscriminate information. And yes, all of my references apply here. If you think otherwise then you ought to read them. I am no longer interested in this discussion, but do not start crying when someone else comes and removes it. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think the timeline is inappropriate. The term "Nordic countries" is a 20th century invention[16]. It is like having a timeline for the European Union including all the history back to the Roman Empire, which is nonsense. --Nug (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If Google Books library does not find term 'Nordic coutries' before 20th century it does not mean nobody used it. And even if nobody used it then, terms sometimes are used retroactively. Also, for example article Estonia should not cover history before term 'Estonia' was "invented"? --Minnekon (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting points on both sides about the timeline. Maybe there should be a distinction made between 1) geopolitical /geographical terms (baltic states / baltic region), 2) unions (european union), 3) unions with a common cultural area (benelux / nordic countries) 4) Federal states (usa/germany/russia) and 5) sovereign countries (estonia/sweden) - as there are four levels of "integration" there.

Definition of the article ?

I think this article needs a clear definition to be listed in the top to avoid confusion. Right now it's missing.

The first sentence of the article currently says: "The Nordic countries or the Nordics are a geographical and cultural region in Northern Europe and the North Atlantic" ; So by that first line, the article should be about the geographical and cultural region, including the development of the term. The article then lists histories and facts of the countries from the stone age, although the term itself is from 1920. It's fine but it makes it really hard to understand the scope as it's fluid. I suppose in general it's currently about "The common history, facts and geography of all countries listed under the term, from before the start of the term and after". Which is fine but would be nice to be defined as such then. Or the definition could also be changed. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Estonia

Estonia is not a Nordic country, as has been discussed many times on this Talk page; please see archives. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that Estonia is currently encyclopaedically categorized as a Nordic country. This is not the point. Saying "Estonia isn't nordic" is a too simplistic way of approaching this topic. The question is - if a relevant amount of Estonians identify as nordic - then should that phenomenon deserve a mention on the Nordic countries article page? I can't see a single reason why not. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, can anyone give a coherent, logical, encyclopaedical reason for why mentioning Estonia is not allowed?. "Estonia is not nordic" seems to be the answer that is said when no other arguments are left. Which is another way of saying "I just don't like it". The original concept of Nordicism which then grew into the Nordic Council included all the people around the Baltic Sea: [Example. Latvians, Lithuanians and Germans can be added in this context as well.

1) Scandinavian countries do not own exclusive rights to the English word "nordic", (Not to be confused with Norden) although they somewhat claimed those rights in the 20s and directly claimed the word in 1952. At least not according to the history that started the word, nor according to encyclopaedical rules. Estonia has been defined in research literature as a Nordic country or belonging to the Nordic region enough times. Notable.

2) Many editors seem to also confuse Scandinavia, Scandinavian culture, Scandinavians (norsemen) or Norden as a synonym for "nordic". Those two topics are not the same. Direct academic source for the evolution of the term. The term "Nordic countries" is a 20th century invention that coincides in time with the advent of Nordicism and Foreningen Norden.

3) The most exact approach I can find is to say that academic sources "in general" "in the 20th and 21st century" have referred to "Nordic countries" as Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and the several autonomous islands connected to them. But in no way is that "unambiguous", as "nordic" is a fluid concept without legal backing and Estonia is sometimes referenced to as a nordic country in research literature. And much more commonly when considering non-academic sources. Ex2 Ex3 Ex4

4) There is no clear definition, legal or otherwise, for what "Nordic" or a "Nordic country" is. There are legal definitions for: Member states of the Nordic Council, Nordic Passport Union, individual countries, etc. For example the "Svanemærket" is used "within the nordic countries" according to the marketing site, but the legal backing comes from it being allowed to be used Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland - listed as separate countries. Do you understand the difference? If I was to use "Approved by a Nordic country" or "Approved by Nordic" as a stamp on my own product, there would be no legal issue with this. If I was to use "Approved by Kingdom of Denmark", there would be trouble. Anyone can also create companies like Nordic Windows, but can not create a company with the name "Swedish Windows". There was nothing stopping Estonia from claiming to be a Nordic country in the World Expo. And the country will also be listed as a Nordic country in 2020.

5) If there is no clear definition, legal or otherwise, then what exactly is the criteria that Estonia has to fulfill in order to become a "Nordic country"? Become a Nordic Council member? According to what sources? There is no academic source I have found that says that The Nordic Council membership is or has to be a defining criteria for being defined as a "Nordic country". And of course it can't be because the word "nordic" has no clear definition, legal or otherwise.

6) Over 50% of Estonian youth considers being a Nordic person as "important or very important" for them. Notable.

7) The content here on Estonia versus the real-life content and happenings are absurdly out of proportion. Are there more mentions about Denmark as a nordic country than Estonia? Yes, absolutely. But should Estonia be mentioned less on the page than The Spotnicks? Maybe not. Estonia has been defining itself as a Nordic country for years, there are ample academic resources on Estonia's search for a nordic identity, the majority of it's youth defines as nordic, etc. Not including a mention to this would Fail the neutrality guideline

Summary: There is no legal, encyclopaedic or logical backing for the phrase "Estonia is not nordic". Because at first you would need an official definition of what "Nordic" or a "Nordic country" is, and that definition does not exist. The most exact phrase that could be used is that "Estonia has generally not been categorized as a Nordic country by outside sources in the 20th and 21st century". SørenKierkegaard (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposition: To include a short "Nordic identity in Estonia" section in the end of the article. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose -- has been discussed before with no consensus for inclusion of Estonia nor its Nordic identity. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You did not address any of the points. So another "I just don't like it" argument SørenKierkegaard (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Outdated use of a term is irrelevant. The "no legal definition" is a strawman, no one says there has to be a legal definition for an article subject. Se also the n discussions before. Sjö (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, a topic does does not need a legal definition to exist. The legality argument simply removes the possibility of saying that "Estonia is not" a "nordic country", if it so defines itself. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mentions of this outside of Estonia are sporadic, and most of those are reports of Estonia's views and attempts. Most of the arguments provided here (especially the legality stuff) become irrelevant when you look at WP:FORUM: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". The idea that Wikipedia can only state things backed up by academic sources is a bit of a myth; we use news articles and web sources all the time. As such, the only definition we need is that which is most common in all reliable sources. Ask yourself this: if the BBC writes "Nordic countries", is it likely that they mean Estonia? Until the answer could be "yes", no undue weight should be given to it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Your answer is a valid argument for not including Estonia as one of the "main Nordic countries" on the article. But it says nothing about not mentioning the nordic identity phenomena in Estonia. These are not the same topics. According to the WP criteria of undue weight, the nordic identity of estonia should be listed on this page. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Now that I've thought more on this, I believe even the BBC example would have contrary examples. If we have articles on the subtypes of cancer, should we only list the subtypes that people associate cancer with? This approach does not hold and is the reason for why we have a "respectable sources" criteria in Wikipedia.SørenKierkegaard (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not what readers associate it with, but what reliable sources mean by it. And what is or isn't cancer isn't really up for debate—it has a set meaning regardless of where and by whom it is used. The standards for those articles' sources are much higher though (WP:MEDREF). In this case, it applies to a cultural and geo-political term that has no set meaning. As such, it should be defined by standard usage in any reliable sources (most likely articles). To clarify, I don't mind a link to the Estonian identity article somewhere, but this article shouldn't be covered with Estonia being inserted at random places to show it may be related because that would be undue. Mention it once or twice where due, and not the lead. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support I do not believe Estonia should be listed as a Nordic country, but this issue pops up often enough that the question should be addressed here, even if it just to say that it isn't a Nordic country but only related.Carewolf (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

To elaborate, I believe this mirrors how we have to handle non-canonical definitions of Scandinavia in the Scandinavia article. We can keep stating the textbook definitions but if there is a common different usage we need to address it. Carewolf (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Maybe not in separate chapter, but I support mentioning it somewhere in article. If people opposing it claim the idea is not relevant enough, I would expect them to say more clearly what criterion of relevance they use. As SørenKierkegaard has noted, opposing voices currently do not give real reasons for their position or have to do with how to mention Estonia, not whether to mention it. Unexplained opinions have little worth and polling is not a substitute for discussion. By the way, I have previously proposed following draft text: --Minnekon (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The beginning of the attempt to redefine Estonia as "Nordic" was in 1999, when the idea was proposed by then Estonian foreign minister (and President of Estonia from 2006 until 2016) Toomas Hendrik Ilves, with potential political calculation behind it being wish to distinguish Estonia from more slowly progressing southern neighbors, which could have postponed early participation in European Union enlargement for Estonia too. Andres Kasekamp argued in 2005 that relevance of identity discussions in Baltic states decreased with entering to EU and NATO together, but predicted that in future attractiveness of Nordic identity in Baltic states will grow and eventually five Nordic states and three Baltic states will become a single unit. Idea of Estonia as a "new Nordic country" was again promoted by Taavi Rõivas during his election campaign and following prime minister period (2015-2016).

I’m wondering if anyone can address the Notability argument and especially the Neutrality argument, which is inherent to this problem. Arguments about "has been discussed before" are not addressing the two main wiki rules. The "Estonia" section was also on the page for more than a year. It has been here on and off since the start of wikipedia, with varying opinions from left to right. And the archive discussions are mostly debates of low quality without real sources or wiki rules being discussed. It's not a good reference to say "return to archives". SørenKierkegaard (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is about the Nordic countries (or Norden in the Scandinavian languages), a clearly defined concept that has nothing to do with Estonia, and that is not the same as Northern Europe either, and that evolved from the original Scandinavian concept into the broader Nordic concept which includes countries and areas with close ties to Scandinavia; the common denominator of all the Nordic countries is the Scandinavian affiliation (politically, culturally, linguistically), which very much defines the concept, as opposed to purely geographical terms like "Northern Europe". Estonia doesn't belong in this article in any capacity. The very desperate attempt to revise the meaning of the term "Nordic countries" to include Estonia, a former Soviet republic, undertaken by a handful of Estonians as part of a local nationalist debate that people from the Nordic countries don't even understand, strikes people from the Nordic countries as utterly bizarre and very uncharacteristic of the Nordic mindset. This has been discussed again, and again, and again, and again, and rejected by streams of editors, and the same one editor keeps pushing this again, and again, and again, and again, and now it's time to end this silly Estonian POV pushing here. It's quite odd to see the talk page of the article on the Nordic countries utterly dominated by endless debates about Estonia (a completely different, unrelated country in another part of Europe) started by one single editor. --Gaduse (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Your comment did not address the neutrality / notability argument. You're just saying "Estonia isn't nordic". And don't confuse "Scandinavian" with "Nordic". "Nordic" as a concept originally included many more areas than just the Scandinavian countries. And if the country itself defines itself as Nordic, then I don't see how it's some sort of a crusade started by a single editor. Also, it's not nice to be impolite to other editors in writing. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

To add: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". Are you claiming that Estonia's nordic identity is not a significant minority view? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed I am. It's a bizarre fringe POV and doesn't belong in this article, at all. Hardly anyone in the Nordic countries, or English-speaking countries for that sake, has even heard of the claim. It's something pushed by one or two Estonians who know that the world doesn't recognise the claim any more than a claim that Estonia is Western European. --Gaduse (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Which verifiable criteria are you using to prove that Estonia's nordic identity is not a significant minority view? All sources I've checked seem to indeed confirm that it is a significant minority view. There's both enough academic literature on it and real-life proof (government sites, comments by president(s!), estonia's own actions). Your comments so far seem to be unverified personal opinions. Whether or not this view is supported in the "classic" nordic countries is not an encyclopaedic criteria for deciding whether or not it should be included. The fact that this view is not supported in the nordic countries (is there proof of that?) can be of course added. 136.62.26.71 (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Svalbard and Aland

In line with my recent edits, I want to add Svalbard to the comparison of associated territories. I recognise Svalbard isn't autonomous and isn't a true "dependency", but the same could be said for Aland, which while uniquely autonomous, remains an integral region of Finland and isn't particularly remote from the rest of the country. In some ways Svalbard is more of a "dependency", being so remote and administered directly by a Ministry of the Norwegian government (which is typically how dependencies with low or no population are administered). It doesn't have a nice flag and coat of arms so it wont look so pretty in the table, but I think it's worth adding for completeness.

Commenting here beforehand in case there's any objections.

Rob984 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There is an important difference between Åland and Svalbard, namely that Åland is an autonomous region (similar to Faroe Islands and Greenland which are autonomous countries). Svalbard (and Jan Mayen) are not. It could be considered to add them anyway, as well as the Norwegian Arctic dependencies and claims. This would also be consistent with the Comparison of the Nordic countries article. Maybe a field explaning type of "Associated territories" could be added to the box to explain the difference between the types of associated territories? Pardy (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC).

While not autonomous (it has a very low population), Svalbard is administered distinctly differently from the rest of Norway, so is similar to the other associated territories in this sense. For example tax, customs, application of EEA law, etc, as well as the various quirks which result from the Svalbard Treaty. The same cannot be said for Jan Mayen, as far as I know it's just an Norwegian island that isn't part of any county of Norway, and shares an ISO code with Svalbard. As for the Norwegian Arctic dependencies, they aren't part of Norway, nor in Europe, so it's not clear they are part of the Nordic region (I would think not). Rob984 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Baltic Estonia

Due to the obvious connection of language that Estonia and Finland have in similarity of language, why is Estonia not considered a Scandinavian country? Pbrower2a (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Scandinavia is generally geographical term rather than a linguistic one. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Scandinavia includes the Scandinavian nations, which is a linguistic term. What he meant was probably that Estonia is a Nordic country, which of course the edgy users here will deny to their graves... H2ppyme (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not a trivial discussion, since the term "Nordic countries" is not defined by any official organization. Is has been discussed a lot (se this page discussion history). Some highlight from the discussion is: Estonia is not a part of the Nordic Council or the Nordic Passport Union, and historically was neither part of the Kalmar Union. When you google "Nordic countries" Estonia is not considered as a part of the region in almost al hits. When Europe is divided into zones, Estonia fits better into the Baltic countries category. Also, a separate wikipage exists regarding this issue: Nordic Identity in Estonia. Pardy (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC).

---

Again, Estonian(s) have trolled this article. Estonia is not a Nordic country and Estonians do not consider Estonia a Nordic country but a Baltic one! I am an Estonian myself, what has been added here is biased nonsense and must be removed. Here is a discussion of Estonia's most popular media forum. The sentence by user Maalane 19:19:53 means in translation:

Estonia is not a Nordic country, Estonia is a Baltic country.

90 percent of other users agree with this statement. Period.

https://bbcode0.com/full/2021/1/22/594c46670bbdd0bb08142e81317a3b36-full.jpg.html

What "Nordic identity" can we talk about here. The article "Nordic Identity in Estonia" is biased.

90 per cent of people think that Estonia is a Baltic country and only a small minority thinks that it is a Nordic country! That is the real opinion of the people. There is no "Nordic identity", it is a very small group of Estonians, 1-2 people who troll this article here! One person appears here under at least eight usernames and quotes himself.

This article should not talk about Estonia at all because this article is about the Nordic countries, not from other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.46.96.232 (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Although the previous section was WP:SYNTH/WP:UNDUE, I do think it's relevant to mention here that some groups have advocated for rebranding Estonia as a Nordic country as long as we can keep it WP:DUE. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

---

But the groups that talk about this rebranding are extremely small. And secondly, why should this rebranding be allowed to be done through Wikipedia. After all, we don't expect it to be appropriate to do political propaganda through Wikipedia, do we? I have not even heard people talk about this topic in Estonia. The only place I can read about this "identity" is wikipedia and reddit. Why is it that in a wikipedia article that should talk about the Nordic countries, one or two people are allowed to propagate for their personal views. The neutrality of this article must be challenged. I rather agree that there is a reference to this "Nordic identity..." article at the end of the article but the article itself should not include Estonia.

What if an article about Joe Biden were filled with the views of Trump's supporters, an article about the Holocaust written by neo-Nazi supporters...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.46.96.232 (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Now, who is trolling? In my experience the concept of Estonia being Nordic is extremely common in Estonia, especially in Tallinn. Carewolf (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Timeline table

Velivieras, after your reverting of my edit, this is what the table looks like on my browser. The second header row is shifted to the left, so that "Danes" is in the "centuries" column. Does it look OK on other browsers? — Kpalion^(talk) 11:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

At the moment it looks fine to me. After your edit the countries-row went one (too much) to the right. -Velivieras (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, too. Sjö (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

So it does seem to be browser-related. It looks fine on my Internet Explorer too, but not on Chrome. Apparently, rowspan doesn't work for header cells on Chrome. So what I did now is I changed the format of the "Century" cell from header to normal and it now looks fine on both browsers. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Anu Vehviläinen-8.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Associated territory

Svalbard is not an associated territory of Norway. It is an unincorporated area, just like Ertholmene in Denmark or areas in USA or other countries. It is in no way an associated territory. It is by treaty and law a fully integrated part of - under the full sovereignty of - Norway. See the Svalbard Treaty and Svalbard Act.--Bornsommer (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed Svalbard under Associated territory. Area of Norway is corrected.--Bornsommer (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Svalbard is not an official dependency of Norway, but political entities created under international treaties are considered "entities similar to a dependency" in Wikipedia. That's why Åland, Hong Kong, Macau, as well as Svalbard have all been included in the dependent territory article even though all of them are considered integral parts of their administering state.

It is important for us to maintain consistency across the project. I will change the wording to make the table more inclusive and reinstate Svalbard into the table. 2001:8003:9008:1301:B41E:39A7:FFC3:AFA5 (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)