Jump to content

Talk:Baltic states/Archive 2

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

Finland as a Baltic State?

I understand that this question has been raised before. But it has not been satisfactorily resolved, and in my view the opening paragraph is misleading. The only mention in international politics and law of Finland as a Baltic state is the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty — a secret, devious pact intended precisely to redraw the boundaries of Europe. During WWII, Stalin himself treated Finland as separate from the Baltics: whereas the three tiny republics were to be incorporated into the USSR, Finland would remain independent. ("Finland in the Second World War", O.Vehviläinen, Palgrave 2002, p.122) In any case, there has been no treatment of Finland as a Baltic state whatsoever since then. For example, when the country sought to join the Nordic community after the war, there was no countervailing notion of it already belonging to a region called the "Baltic states". So to state that "alternative definitions may include Finland" in the opening paragraph is misleading, not least of all because the claim appears in the present tense, as if the definition persisted at all. Moreover, the later claim that, "during that period [1920s] Finland was also often referred to as one of the Baltic states", is I believe inaccurate — it should be backed up with referrences or struck out altogether.

As a reference point, the Wikipedia article on Finland makes no mention of the country ever having been considered a "Baltic state", and I suspect that such a claim would not make it through the editors. Also, three of the five people who participated in the previous discussion on this question claim never to have encountered such a definition. Lkbunker 10:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not surprising that people don't know what happened fifty years ago, the article only briefly mentions the fact for clerification I don't see any problem with that. The history books may include such definiton, for example. And the other metion is referenced --Xil...sist! 11:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps then we also need to make a small change to the Finland article. One would need to look in encyclopedias, etc. published 75 or more years ago to find the references, e.g., Finland:
"BETWEEN Russia and the Scandinavian peninsula lies the largest of the Baltic States, Finland, often called 'the land of a thousand lakes.'
...
The World War came and Finland, like the other Baltic States, secured her freedom. She announced her independence in 1918 and is now a republic with a president, who is elected for six years, and a single legislative body of 200 members, elected by universal suffrage."
from a sizeable encyclopedia (several pages given to just each of the Baltic states in the published original, it's about a 20 volume set) reference.
   Please don't take this as POV pushing. The reproduction of references on that (our) site, including materials from MIT, has been simply to address the dearth of English-language materials on the internet about Latvia and, as they are mentioned in those materials, the other Baltic states. In as much as possible, I've attempted to gather sources published contemporary with their times so that they truly reflect external and internal views of the country--not boiled down and rehashed by later researchers who weren't there. So, I've been particularly motivated to find encyclopedias, etc. that most people do not have (thrown out as "obsolete"--while I seek them out precisely because they are a contemporary evaluation of Latvia et al. of the time).
   Instead of the 1920's, the article text should say something along the lines of "after F,E,L & L achieved independence in post-WWI Europe, they were collectively referred to as Baltic states".
   Since Finland is not a "Baltic state" in contemporary usage, the mention of the historical use of the term is sufficient. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the lead to be more accurate. I trust this will satisfy all parties. As far as I can tell, the 4 became 3 when Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were annexed by the Soviet Union--also coloring references produced after that time by their now referring to those 3, no longer 4, in the context of their history prior to WWII--but I don't have a reference that speaks to the specific change in terminology. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I took out (perhaps temporarily) the statement about the term referring to Russian territories as I haven't seen that term in sources contemporary to tsarist Russia. TBD.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There are modern sources that call Finland a Baltic state although in historic context: [1] Published 2004 Encyclopedia of the Romantic Era, 1760-1850 By Christopher John Murray Taylor & Francis; Page 48: Finland, it should be pointed out, was also the only Baltic state that had...

1994 The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence - Page 49: [2] Finland, which must be viewed historically as another Baltic state

Also this might be interesting: Published 2007 After the Soviet collapse, Finland strenuously avoided being viewed as the fourth Baltic state or any other Eastern European state... Security Strategies, Power Disparity and Identity: The Baltic Sea Region - Page 54 by Olav Knudsen [3]

--Termer 14:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think P.J. Vecrumba did a good job in rewriting the lead. It should satsify most parties who care about the matter one way or another.Dr. Dan 15:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Except that when you include the point in the opening paragraph, even briefly and as an alternative use, it is not a clarification — it is a central assertion and it reads comically. Only concrete, non-contentious points should be made in opening, so at least move it elsewhere.
By way of historical fact, even under Tsarist rule, Finland was an autonomous Grand Duchy with special status, entirely separate from the three Baltics. Its declaration of independence on 6 December 1917 was almost immediately recognised by Bolshevist Russia; whereas Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had to fight wars of independence.
Ideally, we should have a Finland expert intervene here. Lkbunker 15:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Vecrumba successfuly left out Kaliningrad Oblast. I changed the opening sentence to include alternatives because the article would contradict itself if it was said in the lead that there are three Baltic states altough other definitions are mentioned in the text and it would be confusing if the other possibilities wouldn't be mentioned in the text right after that statement. I think that other definitions should be mentioned as briefly as possible, because these are not included in general scope of the article, thus it is now confusing and redundant. My original version allready said "alternative" as opposed to "most common", which indicates that these other variatons are unusual and rare. It could be shortened to - (alternatively Finland and parts of Russia may be included) - which perhaps is better than "include" ----Xil...sist! 15:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see what appeared as comical in the rewrite. As for the Bolshevik order of recognition of the states, I fail to see how that would include or not include them in the context of the discussion. I think the issue of whether or not Finland was included in the original Baltic States after WWI, is the main point here and whether it is important enough to mention with some prominence, and not put in an obscure place under the rug. P.S. Maybe Lenin's train ride through Finland, caused him to be appreciative. Dr. Dan 16:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither do I understand what is editorially comical... it's concrete, cited, and the term was used between the wars to also pertain Finland. (As far as any sources I have, the term was not in use prior to post-WWI independence.) Königsberg was part of Germany between the wars, so not a Baltic state (so I think the "parts of Russia" reference does not apply).
Prior to independence, Latvia was included in territories with special privileges (not as autonomous as Finland, but still apart from "main" Russia). But, to Xil's, none of those lands were referred to as states during tsarist rule, so I believe the limitation of "Baltic states" as a term is to the period subsequent to WWI, at that time including Finland, and during/after WWII just referring to the three (and in retrospective scholarship). A "Finland" expert is fine, but we might not get a NPOV reaction if they're bent on "Finns are Nordic." This isn't about who is what, it's only about a term, including how it was used to refer to a specific set of post WWI newly independent states at that point in time. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you probably are not aware of the fact that we are talking about the modern Kalingrad Oblast of Russia, not Königsberg. Finland and Russia dosen't realy belong here, these countries should be mentioned only to explain what are uncommon definitions for the region, the shorter explenation the better, your is not short and I'm affraid is not accurate (or atleast not what it was supposed to be), therefore I removed the explenation altogether --Xil...sist! 20:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Complete removal is neither accurate nor appropriate. Kalingrad is not a "state" don't know why that was mentioned in discussions, I believe we're not in disagreement. I had already removed Russia, not in disagreement. However, Finland needs to be mentioned in historical use of the term (between the two wars). If you don't like it in the intro, where I thought it was mentioned in an appropriate manner, as that appears to be how/when the term "Baltic states" started in the first place, then it certainly needs to be somewhere else. By contrast, look at how much time the article spends on the history of the term "Baltic"--not even the subject of the article. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Rather than have a useless edit war about the matter, it's suficiently resolved, IMHO, as it is briefly mentioned in the history section, ... In the 1920's the newly established countries...and during that period Finland was often referred to as one of the Baltic states... And a question to Xil. Do you agree with Lkbunker that the timeliness, or order of Soviet Russia's recognition of these states would be evidence as to whether or not Finland was one of the original "Baltic States"? Just curious. Dr. Dan 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course I was partial to my edit, but I think we're fine. Whether Bolshevik Russia chose to recognize or chose to intervene shouldn't have any bearing on the initial use of the term after WWI. Yes? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think not (to the bearing on the initial use part). Or, yes to the (yes?). Case closed? Dr. Dan 02:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not about Kaliningrad being state or not, but economy, I believe. The matter with alternative definitons is allready described in etymology section. Answering your question - No, it seems that Russia treated Baltic staes and Findland pretty much similary in 1920s-1930s, according to article on Finnish Civil War "Lenin calculated that the Bolsheviks could perhaps hold central parts of Russia but would have to give up some territories on its periphery, including Finland in the less important north-western corner." not because as Lkbunker implies Finland was treated as some special case. It seems that on eve of WWII Finland also was treated same as the Baltic states. In fact perhaps the idea of "New countries at the Baltic sea" in first place was the reason why Finland was ever named a Baltic state. There are several other reasons why Finland isn't Baltic and perhaps shouldn't ever been regarded as such. What ever the reason - it is quite obvious that alternative definitions do exist, if people think that even short note of what these definitions is bad, let's leave it out of the lead. Case closed, hopefully. --Xil...sist! 17:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

why merge? revert by Xil [4]

Etymology first of all, I think someone has really got carried away with this Etymology thing. Its 5 times longer than the Etymology of the Baltic Sea. I personally think it's useless unless someone wants to add the ideas to the Baltic Sea article. Thats why I moved it down away, it's long and boring, a lot of strange ideas presented. So if it was up to me, I'd get rid of this Etymology all together and in case anybody thinks it's really unclear that the Baltic States got their name from the Baltic Sea, perhaps this could be bold out somewhere.
Culture, History, Politics What has Baltic states had been acquired by Soviet Union later... were called "bourgeois nationalists to do with culture? It would fit well under history if anything. At the same time the language would go together with the Culture section until someone takes time and comes up with something more serious for the section other than In Soviet times this made them appear as the "West" of the Soviet Union. Politics section is just a resent history thats all. For my eyes the current structure is all mixed together without much sense, thats why I took the culture parts from different sections and the history parts from the Culture and Politics and restructured the article accordingly:culture put under Culture and history and politics under History. Or is it only me who thinks the things are currently strangely mixed together? politics/history and things like Estonia has shown a strong desire to identify itself as Nordic under culture? If anything such things would make sense under the recent history etc.--Termer 04:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, that someone was me, the Etymology part of it is normal lenght and explains more possibilities than Baltic Sea (I took part of the text from there acctualy), it is much longer because the usage of term is explained, which is another reason why it should be at top. The text merged from Baltic republics, IMHO, depicts how USSR influenced culture. The politics section depicts current events and why it happens. Just because something happened in past it dosen't mean that it has no influence today and by puting it under history you limit it, because the future plans and current events don't realy fit under history. Estonian desire to be Nordic, maybe indeed fits under politics. I see no good in lenghtly sections describing varios topics (though by this logic etymology section needs to be splited in two as well). I resectioned article when I was merging Baltic republics, that was hardly a week ago, there hasn't even been enough time to work on it. ----Xil...sist! 16:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A map for usage of term section

The map in question

I've made a map which depicts all posible places considered Baltic at some point of history to ilustrate the article. Because of previous arguments and other posible objections I decided not to put it in the article but place it here for comments --Xil...sist! 01:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. It's a little unclear in terms of which is included in which, you might consider (nested) colored borders indicating the main ones (before WWII, current) and color code the "rare" ones solid, but in different color. Will think about it some more. P.S. What tool do you use for maps? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Everything other than Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is rare ;) I had colored Kaliningrad in different color but it was too contrasting. I think that maybe colored borders could be used to indicate former Baltic provinces, so that three different colors are not used for the current Baltic states. Also description for Kaliningrad could be better (than "other definitions"). I used Photoshop (It's just one of the European location maps croped and recolored) ----Xil...sist! 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
   With the discussion on what to name the article, I thought of a potential solution/proposal regarding maps (one or more). That is to show three primary bits of information:
  • The territories of the Baltic provinces/guberniyas prior to WWI--the Baltic governorates article could use this too
  • The territories of the Baltic provinces as independent after WWII potentially showing /- re: current borders
  • The territories of historical Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian inhabitation post-arrival of the Latvian/Lithuanian tribes--areas whose boundaries have been remarkably stable for millennia and are a close match today's states.
If it gets too complex, put the Baltic provinces map separately in that article and just reference. Thoughts? —PētersV (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology and usage of the term

Hello, I still think the etymology part is way over proportioned and since the most for it speaks of the Baltic Sea, not the Baltic states, it should be moved over there.--Termer 07:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The term Baltic states comes from Baltic sea it's the same thing, isn't it ? --~~Xil...sist! 14:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, looking at the map that the states and the sea are not the same thing but next to each other.--Termer 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It is same thing linguisticly, if States are named after the Sea then the name of the States has the same etymology and meaning as that of the sea ~~Xil...sist! 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So if thats the case, why would anybody need to duplicate the Etymology of the Baltic Sea/states all over again? Once the States have the same etymology and the meaning as the sea if the readers wanted to they could just click on the Etymology of the Baltic sea and take it from there. And that was the point in the first place.--Termer 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to go along with Termer, Mare Balticum existed long before a notion of Baltic states. The name of the states comes from the sea. If it were the Viking Sea because of a Viking presence 2,000 years ago, one would not say the Viking states were named for the Vikings, one would say they were named for the Viking Sea, which long ago was named for the Vikings. PētersV 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Etymology traces the original meaning of a name, Baltic sea is another term, it dosen't explain the meaning of the "Baltic" - perhaps you have noted that Baltic states are also refered to as "Baltics", which is plural of "Baltic" ? The etymology of name for Baltic sea would include other names for the sea which this article does not and this is not duplicate of anything - I wrote most of it my self and for this article. ~~Xil...sist! 14:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't peeked today, but the last time I compared etymology sections, I thought yours here definitely improved on the one at Baltic Sea :-) and was thinking it really should go there as the "master" etymology for the origin of "Baltic" (then a link here to the section there). PētersV 14:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my point! Why Baltic states have much more detailed etymology about the Baltic Sea than the Baltic sea article itself? Also I think culture and history are much more important sections for this article but currently the reader gets stumbled into long and detailed etymology about the Baltic sea instead. Nobody is saying that the Etymology is bad or anything. Like PētersV pointed out, it's better than the one in Baltic sea. However I think it would be much more important to promote the cultures and history of the Baltic states , that makes it what the countries are all about, not the name that they got it after the sea next to them. Thats why I'd narrow the Etymology considerably down, move it and link it to the Etymology of the Baltic sea, perhaps even start a new article under Category:Etymologies and take the reader right into the culture part that should be the primary calling card for the states instead of the Etymology of the Baltic sea I think.--Termer 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
So you want to shorten up this section so that other incomplete sections/articles look better ? It is approximately same lenght as other sections and stays on the topic (which is to explain the original meaning of the word not what was named so first) if the reader wants to know about something else they most likely will look for it in the first place and won't read the article, this is a webpage not a book that's why it is better to keep with the structure used in several articles where etymology is on top --~~Xil...sist! 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
you know what, once 2 guys tell you the same thing, maybe there is something to it, please consider that and move the Etymology about the Baltic sea where it belongs. Thanks--Termer 21:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope Xil has not taken this all to heart--"retired" simply deleted all his great work here on etymology. I put it back until a proper merge can be done. :-( PētersV 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

yep, the point was to narrow it down and move the most of it that speaks of the Baltic sea to the relevant article not to get rid of it all together.--Termer 02:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Side note, an obvious (hindsight) fix that headings should be plural as there are multiple entities! —PētersV (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename

It has been brought to my attention that the term Baltic States can be too often misleading and interpreted as one country consisting of the 3 states. Therefore I'd suggest, to avoid confusion rename the article: Baltic countries.--Termer (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Baltic states" is in wide use that I don't think there is any chance of confusion. Compare the google book searches, 3710 hits for Baltic states compared with 1593 hits for Baltic countries. Martintg (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact that you guys down under know better is not going to help it that a large junction of English speakers coming from a certain united states interpret the name "Baltic States" as a meaning of a single country instead of three distinct countries. And maybe the frequent google books refs have something to do with the confusion. The fact that many people think of the Baltic states as a single country became evident with the release of The Singing revolution. Here is what the authors of the film have to say about the issue , why they started to use Baltic countries instead of states. It's in the middle there somewhere [5]--Termer (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Martintg here. Baltic States is used much more frequently in both unofficial and official texts. People of US are not exactly renowned for their knowledge in geography and isn't it actually the very purpose of Wikipedia to educate them? Also, Baltic countries already redirects here. Oth (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if anybody wants to keep educating anybody that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania are in fact one country, "Baltic States" is doing just fine. --Termer (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. Not that it has anything to do with the thing but once brought up, it has always amazed me that mostly Europeans who keep claiming:People of US are not exactly renowned for their knowledge in geography rarely can place anything correctly outside of Europe, either it's about Americas or South East Asia, Africa not to mention can tell where and what exactly all the States of the US are. Being self centered is a human thing to be, in that sense Americans are no different from Europeans or anybody else in the world including an average knowledge in Geography beyond their continent. The point is , nobody in the World beyond Scandinavia knows anything much about where and what exactly are the Baltic states or countries and current title associates it for many English speakers like it is one country.--Termer (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You are exactly right, I have met people in Germany who didn't know where Estonia is located. What I meant before is if a person searches for "Baltic States" and reaches this article, then he/she can read it and learn that these are actually separate countries and so on. If she/he is convinced in the opposite and is not intrested in the matters at all, then renaming the article is not going to help anyway. And we can not change the fact that the frase "Baltic States" is employed more than "Baltic countries" and therefore should have priority. Oth (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that ambiguous "Baltic States" is employed more than "Baltic countries" is not a strong argument supporting the use of the ambiguous term on WP I think. And anybody who searches for "Baltic States" and ends up in an article about "Baltic countries" would get educated immediately that the states are actually separate countries. to expect that anybody would read it and learn from the article that these are actually separate countries is a bit too optimistic. Actually, the current article is not even spelling it out.--Termer (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Baltic countries is that it could refer to countries that border the Baltic Sea, such as Poland. Martintg (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Poland? never seen anywhere that Poland is called a Baltic country. And Finland, Sweden Denmark are never called baltic countris in the world but Scandinavian countries. But feel free to show that this concern has some real basis. And even if Poland is sometimes referred to as a Baltic country, so what? I think the Baltic State thing has originated from the popular use of states of former Russia and/or Soviet Union, thats why up to the WWII they called Finland a Baltic state most likely. Meaning former Russian Baltic province. Nobody says anywhere really things like Scandinavian states or Benelux states, the common use is Scandinavian countries and Benelux countries therefore why should Baltic countries be any different and use such an ambiguous term on WP that is misinterpreted as it appears that often? --Termer (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I don't see any political connotation between one title compared with the other, to me they are freely interchangeable, with "Baltic states" being a more common form. So it is no big deal from me, but I would want the opinion of other editors, particularly Peters and Renata, so I left a message on their talk pages inviting them to comment. BTW, check out this web site for one classification of "Baltic countries". Martintg (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I see the difference. But it's not about me or you who are familiar with the subject but another about 300 mil. English speakers to whom "Baltic States" says like it is one country and like it has become evident, thats almost common knowledge to many. And of course we can make it their problem but than again, fighting ignorance that way has never worked really. Thats why I think we have an opportunity here to make a difference that perhaps in 10 years or so fewer people would think there's one country called Baltic states somewhere. Thats all. --Termer (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well since the role of Wikipedia is to fight ignorance, you have a point. Martintg (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the article to be titled Baltic Countries and the confusion mentioned in lead. The Baltic States probably derives from common practice of using country and state as synonyms. This is not correct, although a country is a state, word state does not have to denote a country. It is ambiguous and should not be used. (Like if we speak about our cats, we say "cats", not "felines".) Suva Чего? 06:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I'm still not convinced. I poked around at some pages (e.g. [6], [7], [8]) and found that "Baltic States" is used several times more than "Baltic countries" and I think these people ought to know what they are talking about. It might be because "Baltic States" is more political frase, though. If this article is really renamed then it should also explicitly explain the meaning of "Baltic States" rather than just be a short overview of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (the article as it is, now also needs it as Termer pointed out before). WP is to provide information about things people might encounter and people are more likely to come across "Baltic States" than "Baltic countries" (current title has wrong capitalisation!).

I also feel that we need more grounds for renaming than one blog post. How notable is this misconception, are there any other sources? And I would wait for the opinions of our southern neighbours too. Oth (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Politically or legally Baltic States is incorrect term. As state is not equal to country. This probably derives from SU times, and has become popular. If we don't rename the article, we should atleast correct the lead to read something like: "Although commonly called Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are in fact three independent countries without any higher shared government." (Except European Union :P). Suva Чего? 09:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone who suggests a name change to Baltic countries noticed that the translations in all three Baltic languages offered in the article intro specifically refer to states? I.e. Baltijas valstis in Latvian, not Baltijas zemes — the latter which incidentally is not a term I have heard used in a scholarly context. In Latvian, as far as I know, the term Baltijas valstis was in use during the interwar period, and thus cannot be shunned as a legacy of the Soviets (contrast with "Baltic republics"). In British English duirng the 1920s and '30s, Baltic states seems to have been preferred by both the War Office and Chatham House, albeit we also have the problem of Finland sometimes being included under this term (see previous heated debates in this matter).
As a native English speaker born and raised in North America, I find the insistence that people in the USA think "Baltic states" refers to something like a single "United States of the Baltic" is well off the mark. If this were so, why would the (then) US-based scholars Misiunas and Taagepera have titled their standard work The Baltic States: Years of Dependence 1940–1990 (itself a nod to Rauch's The Baltic States: Years of Independence; Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, 1917–1940)? Furthermore, as someone who regularly teaches courses in English about the Baltic Sea region at both the undergraduate and master's level in Sweden, I would tend to concur with the opinion that "Baltic countries" is ambiguous, in that it just as easily refers to all the countries of the Baltic Sea littoral, as much as it could exclusively refer to just Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. — Zalktis (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure what the State should translate into estonian. In Estonian, both State and Country are translated to "riik". Except US states which is translated "osariik". Estonians tend to translate word "riik" to country though. So Balti Riigid would become Baltic Countries. Either way, it should be mentioned in lead that Baltic States are not interconnected and don't have any form of shared government. Suva Чего? 13:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There is The Council of the Baltic Sea States, other "not connected" countries are also referred as states. I think in Estonian Baltimaad and Balti riigid are equally valid, the latter is just more formal. Disclaimer:This is why I changed it, not to enforce my view in this country/state debate. Oth (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
1991 Saagpakk translates riik as state, Ministry of Justice does it too. Oth (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have to weigh in on the "Baltic States" naming staying as is. That phrasing was used between the wars when they were newly independent (and included Finland) and has continued to be used (less Finland) when the three found themselves annexed. I have never seen "Baltic countries" ever used in that context. And you will note that the "Council of the Baltic Sea States" makes the point of indicating adjoining the Baltic Sea so as to not imply the Baltic [not Sea] States.
   Our mission is not to start renaming because Americans who think Latvia is somewhere in Brazil (true story, from a Latvian high school exchange student) might be confused as to whether Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia are separate countries or somehow federated.
   To Suva's: "Although commonly called Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are in fact three independent countries without any higher shared government" we can simply say the term "Baltic States refers to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. This term came into use when these countries first gained their independence from the Russian Empire after WWI and originally included the newly independent Finland as well."
   Let's not spend more time describing what the Baltic States are NOT than what they ARE. To my mind, "Baltic countries," which seeks to avoid the common term "Baltic states," sounds too much like "countries along the Baltic Sea" and will cause more confusion than it will cure--creating a bigger problem than we're attempting to "fix."
    I would also add that I'm currently working at the largest educational textbook publisher on the planet. I checked their current high school history texts and they have index entries for "Baltic States" (capital "S") and use it in reference to the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania "fighting for" and achieving their independence after WWI. PētersV (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

...contrary to current school textbooks? Well, at least we know now from where the idea that Baltic States is one country originates from. Perhaps we should still do a favor to those American high school students, some of them might come across the article on WP and if Baltic States would redirect to Baltic countries, they'd find out that the so called Baltic States are actually 3 different Baltic countries. It might save them some embarrassment later on. also, the so called Baltic States of the Russian Empire definitely were "fighting for" and achieving their independence after WWI. There is nothing wrong with the index entries for "Baltic States" in that book. Just that after achieving their independence they became 3 different countries instead of one country called Baltic State like the "common knowledge" in the US currently most often thinks it is the case.--Termer (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's quite clear in the textbooks that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are completely separate countries. I've never seen that presented in a fashion that might confuse the reader.
  (Thinking out loud...) In terms of parallels, there are also the "Balkan States" -- here on WP "Balkan states" and "Balkan countries" all redirect to simply "Balkans"... a parallel might be to rename to "Baltics" and redirect all the various nomenclatures. As I said, just a thought.
   I'm still not convinced the purpose of article titles is always to enforce education/make a point (though I also strongly believe in not using titles that whitewash history--that's different from making a point). Sometimes it's better that a title be just a title. I'm still rather firmly in the "Baltic States" camp but I'm open.
  That said, do we know there's really a problem? Frankly, in my experience, it's much more a problem that people confuse the Baltic states with the aforesaid Balkan states--that's a real problem I have run into more than a few times. (!) —PētersV (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to get carried away here PētersV. the question is do we want to educate those who think Baltic States is one country. This is advanced knowledge for high school students only. The issue of separating Balkan from Baltic belongs to grade school curriculum and WP is too sophisticated for dealing with such things. --Termer (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Termer, when you wrote, "also, the so called Baltic States of the Russian Empire definitely were "fighting for" and achieving their independence after WWI.", above were you not perhaps confusing Baltic states with Baltic provinces of the Russian Empire? You would need to cite me a reputable, scholarly source that translates the Russian administrative division guberniya as "state" before I would accept your line of reasoning here. While you are at it, you might also suggest where one might find a published survey or the like that confirms how your oft-maligned American highschool students think that the collective noun "Baltic states" implies that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are part of some sort of federative Baltic polity, rather than independent nation states. I ask this because it seems to me that much of your argument for a name change rests on supposed beliefs of this (anecdotal?) group of ignoramuses. — Zalktis (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
As an aside I'd like to point out that August Rei edited a collection published in London in 1948 entitled Nazi-Soviet Conspiracy and the Baltic States: Diplomatic Documents and Other Evidence. This book was "issued under the authority of the Estonian National Council and the Estonian Information Centre" (from bibliographic record on COPAC). — Zalktis (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also Zalktis there is no need to take everything literally I've said here exactly like the term Baltic States shouldn't be taken literally like it was one country. However, you got a point there that there is no scholarly reference to the fact that many think of the Baltic States as one country. It is most likely entirely WP:OR and currently brought up at the singingrevolution web page. Didn't I already paste a link here? if not, here it is. The second concern comes from some non-Baltic people, who seem to think that the Baltic "States" are one country....
And again Zalktis the only question here is do we want to do anything about the issue or not by calling the article Baltic countries instead of ambiguous Baltic states? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that we first should establish that there is actually a serious problem with the title of the article, i.e. that there is some widespread confusion amongst English-speakers, before we can decide what steps need be taken to remedy the problem. I, for one, am still not convinced that there is a general, wide-spread misconception that the English term "Baltic states" semantically predicates a single, unfied polity, rather than being a useful a regional name for a group of independent nation states. Furthermore — I beseech any political scientists to correct me if I am wrong — in English the term "state" implies both a territory and a government, whereas "country" is the more fuzzy term, being more geographic than political (cf. "Low Countries"). In my experience, "Batlic states" is the established, relatively precise term for grouping the independent nation states of Estoniia, Latvia, and Lithuania as a region within Europe since their emergence from the collapse of the Russian Empire. —Zalktis (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Might I suggest we change...
The Baltic states (Estonian: Balti riigid, Latvian: Baltijas valstis, Lithuanian: Baltijos valstybės) is a region in Northern Europe which encompasses Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the most common definition.
to
The Baltic states (Estonian: Balti riigid, Latvian: Baltijas valstis, Lithuanian: Baltijos valstybės) refers to the countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and, historically, to the territory within their current boundaries, in Northern Europe.
Maybe the problem is simply that the article lead forgot to mention they are, in fact, countries? :-)
   I made the point of historically within current boundaries because those boundaries are also very close to the boundaries of historical ethnic settlement (as opposed to implying that Poland-Lithuania was a "Baltic state"). —PētersV (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think best way to solve this dispute is to unite Baltic states together. And rename it to United States of Baltics or USB if you wish. That move would possibly benefit baltic states economically, also the new country would be actually VISIBLE on the wikipedia world map thumbnails. And we would gather a lot of fame by being only country in the world named after computer peripheral. Suva Чего? 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Only problem is peripheral before and still peripheral! Remember, "The historical mission of the Baltic provinces is to serve as a battlefield for the problems of the highest politics in Europe." —Russian Governor-General of the Baltic Provinces, Count Shuvalov. For eight hundred years this was true... the Baltics were the slippery slope for Roosevelt and Churchill to condemn all of Eastern Europe to Stalin... Russia remains incalcitrant while the rest of the world has comes to terms with Soviet atrocities... still true... The Baltics are the yardstick by which to measure the true intent and purpose of the "great" powers. PētersV (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, so true. Same with the Benelux states, long caught up in past power struggles between France, Spain and Austria, and twice key invasion route and occupied by Germany in two world wars, it's all a distant memory now. Hopefully for the Baltics too. Martintg (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for something regarding reactions to the 2006 NATO summit and came across this, regarding the "mission":
Latvia - Neatkariga rita avize | 11/05/2006
Eastern Europe against Russia?
Representatives of the states bordering on the Baltic and the Black Sea as well as US representatives met in early May in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius and agreed to establish a "democratic belt" in Eastern Europe. Among other states, the new EU members and Ukraine and Georgia are to form part of that belt. Viktors Avontins comments: "Why is it that the countries of this region are always reduced to figures on a chessboard, exposed to the whims of Washington and Brussels when they're busy dividing up the world into spheres of influence?... Why should the countries of the former Eastern Bloc do all the dirty work of promoting Washington's and Brussels' interests in Russia, instead of Europe as a whole?... This division of labour, which entails Eastern Europe baring its teeth to Russia while Washington and Brussels are all smiles, is simply not fair."
And they are still at it. —PētersV (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Kind of an odd quote: "do all the dirty work of promoting ... Brussels' interests in Russia, instead of Europe as a whole". Umm, I thought Brussels was Europe, or at least the EU. Which entity is he referring to when he speaks of "Europe as a whole"? Washington's dirty work? These countries can make sovereign choices now, right? Martintg (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
We have, for example, elements of EU leadership endorsing Russia's denouncing Estonia as fascists, elements wanting to treat Russia with kid gloves because the EU is increasingly dependent on Russian oil and gas, etc. (Just look who is employing the former German chancellor.) And once again, the countries adjoining Russia are to be the "bulwark" as the U.S. and EU fret over Russia increasingly flexing its muscle even while it embraces authoritarianism.
This is history repeating itself, as when the "great powers" looked to the Baltics to be a bulwark/zone against Sovietism between the wars, but then offered them little to no support (although Britain was quite content to virulently denounce Latvia as "Communist" for cutting a trade deal with the Soviet Union when Britain insured Latvia got zero international aid after WWI after it refused to buy broken-down British planes for its air force), and then hung them out to dry along with all of Eastern Europe. Oops, might I be exposing a "POV" here? :-) Still waiting to here from historian Edgars Anderson's wife regarding republishing his analysis of the Latvian-Soviet commerce treaty of 1927 on our web site. Truly fascinating reading. -PētersV (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I did realize that one renaming we might consider is Baltic "S"tates so that it means sovereign entities, not members of some federation of (small-s) states. I realize there's the whole not capitalizing in Wiki titles thing, but this might help alleviate some of the perceived current problem. (And have we gone over this before?) —PētersV (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, when the article was moved here from Baltic countries it happaned to land on s. Given that this article has been moved/merged back and forth form states (more popular) to countries (sovereignty stressed, may refer to all countries around Baltic Sea, some may think that it is kind of neologism) and vice versa, maybe it would be best to move it to Baltics (exists as redirect, hasn't been tried out yet, consists from the part of the name that everyone seem to agree with) ? ~~Xil...sist! 10:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
"Baltics" works for me. I think I noted that the somewhat equivalent "Balkans" is named similarly, with states and countries redirecting there. I don't hold it out as a Wiki-standard, only that I think it's the simplest solution. To Termer's concerns about people thinking the Baltics are still part of Russia (section following), even here there are editors who have enjoyed a "good laugh" (in deriding the "insignificance" of the Baltics) over ignorant people who ask "wasn't Latvia one of those '-stan' places that [implied, first] became independent after the USSR fell apart?".
   Ignorance is a choice, not a state. (NO pun intended!) Anyone reading here that is interested in lifting their ignorance will have no problems setting their misconceptions straight regardless of what we name the article. Anyone not interested isn't going to be reading in the first place, and if they're here accidentally, we mention "countries" in the opening.
   The title should reflect the most common/simplest nomenclature. If we're concerned over the word "states" then we can simply drop it and take care of any doubts in the first sentence as I suggested. We need to get back to making the article into something we can all be proud of as editors. P.S. I did find my book on Baltic literature and look forward to doing some work on that after the new year. —PētersV (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous use of "Baltic states"

  • Here is an example of the use of THE BALTIC STATES AS UNION REPUBLICS OF THE USSR in The New Encyclopaedia Britannica - Page 676 [9] please scroll down to the last entry.--Termer (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not ambiguous, it simply deals with the fact that the Baltic states were occupied by the USSR. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Here again, the question concerns the occupied Baltic states, which most of us agree continued to exist as legal entities, despite the creation of Soviet SSRs on their territories. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again, this is a obviously shorthand for 'Soviet-occupied Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania'. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Instead of equating "Baltic states" with "Baltic provinces", I read this as a backwards projection of a later entity (interwar independent states) on the equivalent territory of the former Empire. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, we have the statement that new states were formed from the breakup of the old Empire. An independent Finnish state did not exist before the breakup of the Russian Empire. Finland gained independence and became a state. Compare the parallels with the !3 Colonies that gained independence to become the USA. The USA did not pre-exist as an entity before the Declaration of Independence. The same can be said of the Baltic states. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It is common practice to say, for example, that Pakistan was once part of the British Empire, even though the state of Pakistan did not exist in imperial times. What is meant is that the territory of present-day Pakistan was part of the British Empire. Hence, as in the quote, the Russian Empire included the territory of the present-day Baltic states, Belarus, and Ukraine, even though concepts like "Ukraine" and "Belarus" had no administrative meaning during the Tsarist period. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is a sloppy backwards projection based on the situation today. —Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That should do it for now, also answer Zalktis how Baltic states get confused with the Baltic provinces of the Russian Empire etc.--Termer (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have shown rather convincingly that "Baltic states" is a commonly accepted term for Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania. :-) Still thinking. —PētersV (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

sure, like shown the best part of this is that the "Baltic States" has been a commonly accepted term for the past 500 years :-D. The only thing is that the Baltic countries have been around since 1920-1940 and 1991...And perhaps the Baltic states thing has something to do with it as well that even some travel agencies nowadays seem to think that Riga in Latvia must be a town in some Russian state/province. Check it out. [10] --Termer (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
PS. Just to make you feel better, the same was it with Tallinn , a town in Russia [11]. Only after someone called the agency and told them that the state is actually a country, they changed the booking form [12]. Riga still remains to be a town in a Russian state though. Perhaps if WP was saying that Baltic states are actually Baltic countries, the travel agency guys could get it right next time on their own.--Termer (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the uncouth liberty of answering your points individually above. Please excuse this disruption of the dialogue flow, but I felt that answering some other way would be even more unwieldy. — Zalktis (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There was really no need to comment those entries Zalktis, those speak fine for themselves how sloppily the term is used. And no comment to the term "Baltic states" changes the fact that the states are commonly thought to be either one country somewhere or just states of Russia.--Termer (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dr. Dan (Cutting the Gordian knot?) Baltic States....is a common designation for three sovereign nations... Sovereign nations in the US most often are referred to while speaking of American Indian Tribes. So this adds to the picture that Baltic states is a some sort of Russian state with sovereign nations Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania like Indian Tribes in the US. Check out the American Indian Sovereign Navajo Nation in the states of Utah etc. Here is the Constitution of the Sovereign Cherokee Nation etc. There are states, there are sovereign nations and then there are countries in the world--Termer (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously trying to cut the Gordian knot here has become harder than pulling hen's teeth (at least on these talk pages), because Sovereign nation in the English language has a broader meaning than referring to just the Navajos, or the Cherokees, or any other Native American tribe. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
In all fairness, citing Wikipedia is self-referential. "State" capital "S" is sovereign country ("nation" can also refer to a people as in your example, so there one needs to distinguish (people) nation from nation-state). "State" small is is member of federation/association (per Wiki definition, OK, I ignored my own admonition about being self referential). :-) PētersV (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding formulation

Current suggestion The Baltic states first became independent in the aftermath of the First World War in 1918. is a bit wrong. Lithuania was independent until 1795. And Lithuanians only reestablished independence in 1918. M.K. (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be quite a stretch to call Lithuania independent until 1795. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where in 1696 Polish became the official state language, calling it independent Lithuania, the country where upper classes became Polonized, is not that different what happened in Estonia-Livonia with the native upper classes that were Germanized in the Livonian confederation.etc. However, more accurate than current statement The Baltic states became independent would be to point out that Lithuania or Lithuanians and Estonians , Latvians regained their sovereignties after centuries of foreign domination by establishing independent states...in Lithuanias case it would be reestablishing an independent state etc. For Estonians and Latvians the foreign dominations lasted about 700 years. I guess it would be up to Lithuanians to decide when exactly did they loose their independence in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the 1791 Polish constitution it was spelled out but the process started long time before that date--Termer (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see M.K.'s statement "as quite a stretch". Certainly Polish becoming the official language of the PLC doesn't negate the fact of Lithuania's independent existence any more than whether the upper classes became Polonized. It remained a distinct state, unoccupied and as independent as any other, in the time frame in question, prior to the partitions of the PLC. Dr. Dan (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure Dr. Dan, please refer to any published books that say Lithuania was an independent country until 1795 and I'm with you. So far also WP speaks of the Lithuanian authonomy within Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth -Rzeczpospolita.--Termer (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The USSR-German Aggression Against Lithuania p. 378 Lithuanian nation lost its independence for the first time in 1795 when the Lithuanian State was incorporated in the Russian Empire. Case close. And now it is OT. M.K. (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you meant to say autonomy. Right? Dr. Dan (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching it but no, I meant to say "authonomy", exactly what it said on WP. thought it was a dialect or something and just copypasted it over. This "Lithuanian authonomy" has actually spread further than WP. Check it out: [13]; [14]--Termer (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
At least we can get it right on WP. God forbid that authonomy should get more "google hits" than autonomy, and therefore we get arguments claiming that it's the preferred and correct version to use. Btw, may I inquire as to what your native language is? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Baltic States and Occupation of the Baltic States

This is very biased writing, which may be acceptable in a political treatise, but not in a historical document. The use of sarcasm is unacceptable. 1: In June 1940, the Red Army occupied the whole territory of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and installed new, pro-Soviet governments in all three countries. Following rigged elections, in which only pro-communist candidates were allowed to run, the newly "elected" parliaments of the three countries formally applied to "join" the USSR in August 1940 and were annexed into it as the Estonian SSR, the Latvian SSR, and the Lithuanian SSR.

Example 2: The new Soviet-installed governments in the Baltic states began to align their policies with current Soviet practices. According to the prevailing doctrine in the process, the old "bourgeois" societies were destroyed so that new socialist societies, run by loyal Soviet citizens, could be constructed in their place.

(58.175.202.174 (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)) Helen Webberley [email protected]

Helen, both your examples are factual recountings of events with no interpretation attached. In particular, your first example doesn't even mention that election results were released to the press in London from Moscow by Tass, accidentally, and published, 24 12 hours before the "election". Furthermore, there is no "sarcasm" in either of the examples you provide. The "quotes" are appropriate.VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

note

Please note that the German version of this page includes Konigsberg (Kaliningrad) as part of the Baltic states. This should be included in the English version since this is not a international regional union such as Benelux, but rather simply a international region. 216.99.54.62 (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Realistically speaking, regardless of what other Wikipedia versions might contain, it would seem rather far-fetched to include Konigsberg (Kaliningrad) as part of the Baltic states. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

considering Konigsberg (Kaliningrad) the capital city of former Prussia nowadyas the capital city of Kaliningrad Oblast in Russia a "Baltic state" is flat out redicilous. Somenoe should just fix the German version.--Termer (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Konigsberg was never considered a Baltic State--not every country bordering on the Baltic Sea is automatically a Baltic "State". VЄСRUМВА  ♪  04:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually the real problem is the joyous welcoming of Nazis and widespread participation by the locals in the annihilation of Jews--alas, Nazi propaganda. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  04:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
That statement is somewhat confusing. Can you elaborate a little on what you meant? I'm thrown off track since we were discussing Konigsberg (Kaliningrad) here. Dr. Dan (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I ran the Baltische Staaten article through a translator. I did not see mention of Konigsberg, but I did find the issue I mentioned. Perhaps I misunderstood, the issue mentioned here is in the German article on Konigsberg? VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
For some reason the German link from the "Baltic States" links to Baltikum. This maybe the cause for the confusion. Just the same, Konigsberg (Kaliningrad) isn't part of them. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Correct on both counts. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 16:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The German link would be more accurate linking this article to Die Baltische Staaten article in the German WP. It seems to be more appropriate. The link would be better served using that existing article rather than Das "Baltikum". Dr. Dan (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I updated the link. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 03:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting how my point led to this whole conversation. Where is the definition of Baltic States? Is it set in stone somewhere on a legal document? I think not, therefore it is up for discussion. And Vecrumba, you have problems. 216.99.54.62 (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter what German WP may consider to be the "Baltic states", this is English wikipedia and thus names are dependent upon common English usage, see WP:COMMONNAME. BTW, I suggest you refactor your comment regarding Vecrumba per WP:NPA. --Martintg (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually no it is not strait forward, for instance the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on the "Baltic States" says that Finland and Poland could also be included in the definition of Baltic States. As I initially stated, the Baltic States are not an international regional union such as Benelux, but rather simply a international region, therefore there is debate. e.g. is Andorra a southern-European, or a western-European nation? And I find Vercrumba's comment (denial of history) offensive, so I will not "refactor" (not a real word) it. If he wishes to apologize to me that'd be fine though, because my Russian grandfather fought to save his Latvian family. 216.99.54.62 (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia Britannica says "The name has sometimes been used to include Finland and Poland" otherwise its straight forward: "Republics of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, situated on the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea." If anybody wants to say it in this article on Wikipedia that Poland (Finland is already mentioned) is also sometimes called a "Baltic state", whats the big deal, just go ahead.--Termer (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
There's no big deal here. This is not about the Baltic Mare Nostrum. Termer, go ahead and include Germany, Denmark, and Sweden too if you think it's important. It would be much harder to include Norway but you could give it a try. And why should Russia be excluded? As anon 216.99.54.62 told Vecrumba, his Russian grandfather fought to save his Latvian family. Besides it too borders the Baltic Sea. And dear anon, I imagine your grandfather did this in 1944-45. What was he doing for Vecrumba's family in June 1940? Dr. Dan (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

May I clarify this confusing moment? Actually, there are two definitions (or terms) in Russian: "Прибалтика" (Pribaltika) and "Прибалтийские республики" (Pribaltiyskie Respubliki). Both of them were mentioned in this article. The problem, however, is that they are not equivalent. The first definition does include Kaliningrad Oblast as well as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. The second definition, since literally it means "Baltic Republics", includes those three states only, but does not include Kaliningrad Oblast. So, while the first definition belongs to territory "at Baltic", the second one belongs to aggregate of states, which entirely locate on this territory "at Baltic". Both terms cannot be translated from Russian to English directly, the closest translation is "Baltic States". But we have another problem here, because "Baltic States" is the direct translation of another Russian definition "Балтийские страны" (Baltiyskie strani). This third definition includes all Baltic states without any exception. So, the word "Прибалтика" was mentioned in this article in little bit incorrect context, this is not an exact equivalent to "Baltic States". In fact "Прибалтика" includes three Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) and Kaliningrad Oblast as well. That's why German Wiki mentioned Kaliningrad Oblast in the original version of article (I am not sure if it still does). With respect, Oleg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.167.74 (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

an ancient but - useless argumentation whilst http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact is not quoted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.47.86 (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

title

Whomever chose "Baltic states" as the title, does not know proper English. In standard English a proper name should have both initial letters capitalized. Baltic States is correct. Slaja (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Except it isn't a proper name of anything; it's just a label. - BilCat (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Right you are, BilCat! We may also browse through this book, "The Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania": I would not argue that David Jones Smith "does not know proper English" :))). Cherurbino (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Iceland?

Goodness me! The article seems to list Iceland as a Baltic state. No, not even in the broadest sense it is! Have I misread it somehow? - SirteP (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the above comment, the last time I sailed past Iceland it was in the middle of the North Atlantic! More over it forms part of the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-UK) Gap. Would somebody, preferably whoever added Iceland to the list, please explain their reasoning? Robodick (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Robodick

Limitrophe states

The term limitrophe states does not deserve a mention in the intro section, if anywhere at all. In reference to the three Baltic countries it has only been used used in some obscure French sources but is otherwise not widely known. In fact, the combination of "Baltic states/countries" and "limitrophe" yields only about 700 hits on Google, many of them leading to Wikipedia and its derivatives. --Vihelik (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


The term "state" is misleading and no longer used

The three Baltic countries used to be called "Baltic states" since they were states of the Soviet Union, today the proper term is Baltic Countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onyxstarr (talk • contribs) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In this context "state" means Sovereign state, and in any case these countries are widely referred to in reliable sources as the "Baltic states". --Nug (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
They were colloquially (including Finland) known as the Baltic states after independence, during occupation (USSR, Germany, USSR), and after regaining independence. There was no such thing as a Soviet "state" except for "the" Soviet state. Common English usage/scholarly terminology prevails.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Maps of 1920

Territory was clearly defined in 1918 close to Lithuania proper. Either do not put maps from 1920 that were changing during 1919-1920 Lithuanian-Polish war or explain what does it represent correctly. The map represents nonsense which can be easily seen in Soviet-Lithuanian Treaty of 1920. Maps from 1919 should be explained as they represent still ongoing Lithuanian Wars of Independence. EMPerror (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about this then yes, that's not particularly useful. Worse, the old caption was very clearly and deliberately misleading - does anyone really think that a Polish "propaganda map" would show Vilnius not in Poland?VolunteerMarek 12:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, map used for early propaganda when Suvalkai were occupied. Later maps extended claims to add newly occupied Vilnius and reduces claims in failed complete occupation of Suvalkija. It is map used for propaganda and should not be here, or should be explained as such.EMPerror (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This map represents modified map of Imperial Russia before 1914 with Kaunas and Vilnius governorates assigned to Lithuania and Suvalkai governorate to Poland for propaganda purposes. It should not be here including dispute dating back to Polish-Lithuanian war. Authentic maps can be used for verification.EMPerror (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We probably need a better map clearly showing the Brest-Litovsk dividing line, occupation zone as of the signing of the agreement, and superimposing the eventual Baltic states and Poland. I'm not clear, however, who are you saying is the purveyor of propaganda here and to what purpose? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Königsberg/Kaliningrad

What about Königsberg/Kaliningrad? --84.61.149.75 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Upon gaining freedom from the Russian empire, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, the provinces on the Baltic, became known as the Baltic states, that nomenclature eventually dropping Finland, leaving just other three. Königsberg now Kaliningrad has a different history and is not a "Baltic state" in the geopolitical meaning of that term. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
One might wonder how a fact, previously included in the article, has ended up not in it. You know white washing works better when you insert the fact and then explain why this is "wrong", not when you ought right try to deny it even being possible :D ~~Xil (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Economics

There is obviously an Estonian bias in Economics section. I think we should update this section with more objective information including all three of the Baltic Countries, because the Wikipedia is not a business or investment attraction platform where you can exclude parts of information just to make your country to look good. EqualizeWorld (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What, specifically, needs to be fixed. I don't see any obvious adverts for foreign investment. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Etymology and meaning of term

I'm somewhat confused as to why "Baltic states" means what it does. Logic would suggest it meant either all the states surrounding the Baltic (analagous to "Mediterranean countries", or the states inhabited by the Baltic peoples (i.e. just Latvia and Lithuania, but not Estonia). Of course, language rarely follows logic, but the article needs to better explain how the current usage came about (including why Finland ceased to be considered a Baltic state). The Etymology and toponymic history section is rather confusing and doesn't really help answer this question - it contains too much general history (which should be transplanted into the Histories section) and not enough about the origin and useage of the term "Baltic states" Iapetus (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I did a pretty good job :D – Baltic_states#Features_shared_by_the_Baltic_states This is something I've wanted to do for quite a while, the term indeed is contrived/convoluted. Someone will probably accuse that section of synthesis but most of the stuff mentioned is "common knowledge" discussed with references in the specific articles I linked to in there.
Also agree about the "toponymic history" section, a lot of corollary information but the question what is Baltic states? doesn't really get addressed (I wouldn't have it in me to really remove anything from there though.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
A good question was raised by Wardog. But after reading this article I think we can assume that there is no logic, meaning or real true etymology. It's certainly not geographical as it only includes three of the sovereign states on that sea. Nor is is ethnically or linguistically based as Estonians are Finnic people who speak a Finnic language. It's just a term which is used in the English language and other languages. As Finland is rarely mentioned as a Baltic state today I guess in time Estonia and maybe all three will no longer be grouped in this way. The more developed they become, the more their education, finance and policy institutions become intertwined with those in the Nordic states the more they'll be Nordic rather than Baltic.--XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 22:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Been quite a while. The Russian "Baltic provinces" were originally roughly today's Estonia and Latvia. After independence from the empire, after WWI, the "Baltic" nomenclature was expanded to encompass Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, all newly independent from the Russian empire. With WWII and Soviet occupation and annexation, and Finland remaining independent, "Baltic States" became the encompassing term for the three annexed countries--the only countries to "disappear" in the aftermath of WWII. Today's "Baltic States" is ultimately a geopolitical designation. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Baltic states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

1000 Baltic Challenge

Hi. I was wondering if anybody who actively works on the Baltic states, Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian articles, would be interested in launching your own Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Baltic), based on the Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic) and Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea would be to try to bring about 1000 article improvements and creations on this region as an enjoyable challenge and potentially things like National Contests with prizes. If you'd be interested and think it's something you might regularly contribute to sign up below. If there is interest we can move this to a project somewhere and set something up, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Participants

  1. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC), Very busy but will try to help occasionally.
  2. Yakikaki (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Both agree on merging into Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic), so if anybody wants to contribute to Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania they can do so as part of that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the fine work I've already seen you accomplish. :-) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Estonia & The Nordic Countries

The topic of Estonia being Nordic is only gathering importance in Estonia, both on a cultural and political level. The direction towards the Nordics is an official governmental theme.

Most young Estonians who have been born after the soviet union, define themselves as Nordic ("põhjamaalane"). They should not be denied their identity, just because they were occupied by the Soviets for 50 years. It seems very strange to force the Baltic identity on Estonia, if many or most young people do not feel a connection to that definition. Probably because estonians are Finnic and not Balts, while latvians and lithuanians are Balts.

I will not go into a long historical discussion about why Estonia is Nordic, but in general, Estonia shares almost all the historical points with other nordic countries. Starting from the Vikings, Thor, Rune alphabet, the climate, Sauna, Jul, etc.

The only remaining question has been the flag. Mind you, Estonia almost got the cross flag in 1919, but the current flag was a student organization flag and students fought in the freedom war under it, so the tricolour attained a meaning from the war. This gave an emotional meaning to the tricolour and so it came to be.

That being said, the cross flag is in use in Estonia.

On the island of Vormsi: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Estonia-nordic-cross-flag-02.jpg

The former prime minister wearing it in parliament: http://f2.pmo.ee/f/2008/12/18/107565t81h8b52.jpg

An athlete winning a competition, flying a cross flag: http://p.ocdn.ee/17/i/2015/12/13/jchsaod3.tid.jpg

Santa claus in parliament with the cross flag: http://f.pmo.ee/f/2008/12/18/107373t81hda9d.jpg

I guess the only issue is that because it's not official, people are using different versions of it.

A very high-profile conference on the same subject: http://www.norden.ee/en/about-us/news/item/8543-estonia-and-the-nordic-countries-estonia-as-a-nordic-country-conference-summary-and-videos

---

I understand that Estonia is not currently a full member of the Nordic Council (it is a member though). But still, the case of Estonia should be included on the main site as a subtheme. It is a topic that is very much active and in a developing status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaanMatti (talk • contribs) 05:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

---

I will add one more comment: the GDP PPP per capita of Estonia is now at 30,000, while that of Finland is 42,000. This is 72% of the living standard of Finland. And more in the capital Tallinn. So the argument of low living standards is not correct anymore. Estonia is very close to a traditional scandinavian living standard.

Also the LGBT rights have come a long way in Estonia in the last 25 years.


This article is about Baltic States, which currently is a political region accepted by mainstream. That some Estonians, including politicians at times, are trying to build some other image by cherry picking every fact making them look remotely Nordic is no secret and it wouldn't even be a problem, if there was a bit longer description about it here, if it would remain neutral. However using these propaganda tactics here just results in that the article turns into lenghty comparison of countries (that doesn't even serve this Nordic Estonia story), not article on a region. And that's also why I removed LGBT map - it has absolutely nothing to do with region or what's described in that section, it's just one of those minor things that at a glance look diffrent. Furthermore on political level this isn't really as clear cut as you think - say, the link I rescued yesterday is interview from late 1990s apperently just after they had first come up with this, it has their minister of foreign affairs, later president Ilves saying that he is not questioning Baltic unity, but rather it's an image thing and suggests Latvia should also claim to be Nordic, secondly I remember this interview with current Estonian president from few months ago in which she said that the image of three Baltic States as sisters is an asset and that there should be cooperation not neccesarilly called either Baltic or Nordic. Similarly Estonia doesn't seem to have problem with taking part in regional coorporation projects and organizations even when "Baltic" is in their name. This doesn't at all look like how people act when reclaiming identity and renouncing another identity that has been pushed on them ~~Xil (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

---

I removed the language from the LGBT map that might sound negative. I think something that affects 10% of the population is important and if it sounds negative, then maybe it's something that will force the LV/LT governments to change their laws to help the 100,000 of their own people whom this affects.

I understand that you are saying that the Nordic thing in Estonia is a fringe movement, limited to lone politicians. This might have been the case in 2001, but not in 2016. If you look at the article referenced, it talks about the seminar. All the heads of the current political coalition were there. Also the new president has said that she considers Estonia to be nordic. And also the previous prime minister and the new prime minister, etc. This is no longer a fringe movement but mainstream. The wikipedia article should reflect this.

I was driving and thinking about this. What is needed is a separate wiki article about the whole thing. So I'll start writing and referencing one. But the one sentence in the summary should remain, because it is factually correct in 2016. JaanMatti (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@JaanMatti: You already broke the three-revert rule. I advise you to stop it and discuss unless you want to have a word with the admins. One more revert and you will go here. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: Go ahead, I do not think you have any authority to decide if something that is correctly referenced is appropriate or not. This sounds more like a latvian-lithuanian POV. JaanMatti (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
You also fail to understand that nobody says that Estonia=Balts. Balts and Baltic states are two different things, which I see that you aren't familiar with. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
And the estonian government is actively moving towards being considered as a nordic state. So obviously this needs to be quoted on the "baltic states" page. JaanMatti (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also very well aware that Balts does not mean Baltic countries, thank you. Estonians are Finnic. The current discussion is not about that at all. It is about what the Estonian government is actively doing in 2016. And this has been referenced. What else do you want? The discussion is not about what the definition of the baltic states is or was in someone's opinion. That is for everyone to decide for themselves. JaanMatti (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It shouldn't be, but you again point that "Estonians are Finnic", which shows that you are confusing these two subjects. Xil gave his opinion, but for some reason you ignored it and just keep trying to win the argument by giving some dubious claims (one source doesn't mean anything), which are accepted by the minority. Since this is controversial at the moment, it should only be included in the prose, which is already added here. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This here is a draft article I started on the same topic. It is not a dubious or a minority claim. It is the official position of the government of Estonia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Estonia_as_a_Nordic_country JaanMatti (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Full article on the political movement: Estonia as a Nordic country JaanMatti (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Incomplete article, which will mostly likely get deleted. One source for every sentence doesn't make the article notable. This can't even be called an article as it is poor in every way (grammar, sources, etc). – Sabbatino (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Seems to correspond to the notability guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability . If you have specific feedback then you are very welcome to add it on the page JaanMatti (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The article was reviewed & approved. JaanMatti (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It is a fringe view outside of Estonia and it seems it isn't completely accepted in it - as I allready cited sources above showing even politicians saying this are not consistent in their claims, not to mention that from what I've personally seen among ordinary Estonians the opinions are split. But giving some mention to notable fringe views is not a problem, the problem is putting too much emphasis on them (as Sabbatino pointed out it's usually done in text, not lead section) and describing what clearly is a viewpoint and a political strategy that emerged in late 1990s as a fact, historical "truth" and supporting it whith cherry picked observations about culture, language and whatever else. Supposing you can write a neutral article about it, though, it would be far better idea to move everything about it there and just leave what text there allready is here and link to your article, just like there are articles on Baltoscandia, Intermarium and other grand political concepts of the kind.
And with LGBT map, again it's not that it is not important in general, but this article is not about LGBT issues, it's not even something mentioned in text and there is no reason to do it, because, despite being hot current issue in politics, it's just one thing, just consider a diffrent example for ilustration: tax policy is currently very hottly debated in Latvia, comparisions with neighbouring countries are made and it affects nearly everyone, and that's just off the top of my head, there are number of such issues and if there's map about LGBT you could as well make maps about that and ten other things and place them there. Plus it's not even like article lacks pictures, that spot allready looks pretty overcorwded with them. ~~Xil (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nordic identity of Estonia

A single-sentence mention of this does belong the lead, if the entire article is about the grouping of what are the baltic states. As for the reference, fine, we can use any of the references used on the other wiki page. For example Estonia - Nordic With A Twist. It is unobjective and POV to keep a mention of this from the lead. JonSonberg (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the reason on why you were blocked. Instead of discussion, you just keep edit-warring. This doesn't belong in the lede as that is already mentioned somewhere in the article and there are two users that don't approve with this addition (me and Xil against you). – Sabbatino (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I claim that it belongs to the lead, because it's about the very definition of the article. It would not belong to the lead if it were about some random historical fact. But this is about the definition of the article itself. JonSonberg (talk) 13:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It is clearly visible how some Estonian editors want to draw in with their "Ee-s are not Balts, Ee-s are Nordics" agenda. I actually shared my views already on Nordic countries page where sort of editing war has been started. I do not want to talk it over again but there many cases there their statements turned out to be wrong:

-ee government has not declared Ee for being Nordic country, quite the contrary Ee goes on in framework of Baltic

-the cross Ee flag is not widely used in Estonia

-Ee is not same as Finland, Estonians are not same as Finns. Languages are not mutually intelligible, this is almost consensusly pointed out in different sources.

-historical and cultural ties with Scandinavia are weaker than Ee editors show

-"Finland was a Baltic state in past too". No, it was not. Finland was unseparable part of Swedish kingdom. Finland has special ties with Scandinavia, Estonia has not.

As well I´d like to have my pov and it is that it looks some articles in wiki on Ee issues are in my opinion recently "nordified up" , that is I mean they show there their contacts with Scandinavia deeper, longer, more intense than in reality they have been. It will help if you compare an academic Ee history with history presented by Ee editors in wikipedia. The same goes for aspects of culture. Ee culture developed under Baltic German influences, the same goes for Latvia.

Facts are cherry picked, specially looked up. Some of them are trivial, for instance the loan word in Ee language for christmas what comes from North Germanic languages.There are many loaned words in Estonian language, many of them came from "unwilling" Baltic languages. Some of them are cherry picked, for instance the LGBT issue. The facts that argue against Ee-s nordicness are ignored, for instance payment gap between male and female workers in Estonia what is by far the biggest in whole EU. Krakeni9 —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The Estonians are quasi-russkies. We have hundreds of thousands of them here in Finland, and they are all soviets, we see it from their behaviour. Latvians and Lithuanians again are 100% soviets and fully contaminated by the Russian mentality. Savages. There is no way in hell that the any of the Baltic States would be considered sophisticated civilised Nordics any time soon. Syfes (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

their behaviour??? Does that behaviour include making nasty unfounded hostile hateful racist attacks on their neighbors in Finland? Or contaminating Wikipedia with that kind of ugly hatred? or maybe the hate mongers in Finland have reached a new low in what they mean by "sophisticated". Rjensen (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Definition criticism

Fine about the lead. I'll start a criticism section of the term / definition instead JonSonberg (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This just moves all the problems to diffrent section - it still is off topic political agenda that should not get more than passing mention in this article. Not to mention that the section mostly contains very questionable statements ~~Xil (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Criticism is not off-topic in Wikipedia. Following the logic of your sentence, if wikipedia existed in 1988, Latvian independence movement from the soviet union should also have not been noted on a wikipedia page. I don't agree to that logic. Tag the sentences that you think are questionable. JonSonberg (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, questionable sentences:

  • Estonia especially has attempted to construct a Nordic identity for itself and denounced Baltic identity, despite still seeking to preserve close relationship with other countries in the region. (Apparently only Ilves had that position, so current statement is exaggeration)
Also kaljulaid JonSonberg (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The term "Baltic states" has been criticised, because the term has it's roots in politics instead of national grouping or history ... (Given reference says that roots are in politics and recent history and does not mention "national grouping", whatever that means)
removed the second part and replaced with a quote from a different publication JonSonberg (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ...with the only shared similarity between the three countries being a common history of occupations and it's aftermath (Neither reference is relevant; one gives overview of Lithuanian history, in other British politician claims Eastern Europe is bad term and Estonia in Nordic)
  • By 814, the Finno-Ugric tribes of today's Finland and Estonia spanned the majority of today's Scandinavia (That statement doesn't make sense, tribes of Estonia and Finland couldn't span outside named territories by definition),
said "today's estonia and latvia"

while the Baltic tribes of today's Latvia and Lithuania were more or less in their current area. (Actually also to east and south - no need to trust over 100 years old map as a source, also Finnic and Baltic populations boarder corresponds more to 11.-12. century [15]; but it all doesn't even matter as I fail to see how it relates to criticism of Baltic states concept and it applies to following history related statements too)

  • In the medieval period, the areas of Estonia and Latvia were considered to be a part of the "Northern countries" (Source is another sourceless Wiki page??)
  • Lithuanians on the other hand ruled their own kingdom and it's expansion to the southeast. (Some national romantic rhetoric - few nobles ruled the kingdom, not Lithuanian people - and another wikilink reference)
  • ... more statements about history (What's the point?)
  • During the interwar period, also Finland was considered a Baltic state ... (Beginning of that segment is correct, but it's already previously discussed in article and lacks connection to subtopic "Criticism of the definition" - nobody denies that Baltic states concept used to be different)
  • It is believed that Estonia would have been part of the Nordic Countries, had it not been occupied by the Soviet Union in 1939. (Source is a Neo-Nazi forum post??)
I'll comment on or fix the other issues tomorrow but what makes it a neo-nazi blog post? Looks like a normal discussion to meJonSonberg (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • A great majority of Estonians consider themselves to be Nordic people ("põhjamaalased"), Northern people or Finno-Ugric people, instead of or in addition to Baltic. (Unknown sources, look like cuts from opinion stories or readers' letters from newspapers)
I can improve the sources. No estonian would debate this claim.
  • The phenomenon of Estonia's movement toward the nordic countries has spawned a collection of online comics (Not sure that phenomenon exists, but not relevant anyway in Baltic states article)
Seems to connect very well to the "criticism" section of the article, as it's about the definition...and it's the criticism section. JonSonberg (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Many adolescents in Estonia define themselves as nordic and see Estonia as part of the Nordic countries, with the corresponding social contacts. (Reference is to some pupil's essey, which even doesn't state those things)
  • The biggest historical and cultural differences from the three exist between Estonia and Lithuania, influenced by the differences in historical affiliations, genetic grouping, language and modern economic partners. (No reference, doesn't belong to subsection "Criticism of the definition" and strange content - how "genetic grouping" influence "historical and cultural differences"?)

In conclusion, based on mentioned problems, I strongly recommend author of those lines, before further edits, to examine following Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view --Minnekon (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that this is not criticism, this is the same political agenda. Collapse of Soviet Union was far from simmilar, but if you want that anology - we don't have Latvian Independence movement framed as "criticism of Soviet Union" anywhere on Wikipedia and we don't have articles on Soviet Union that give promenent coverage to Latvian Independence movement, rather than the subject matter. ~~Xil (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
The same can be said about every other independence movement in the Soviet Union. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Baltic unity

POV / common sense question, nothing to do with the article content: If both Finland and Lithuania were to be attacked tomorrow by Russia, who do you think more estonians would volunteer to protect? If the answer is Finland, then why is Estonia included as a "baltic state"? Or "baltic unity" even talked about? Shouldn't the reason of a common group of countries be, including other reasons, increased protection? I think keeping up illusions is dangerous. And the answer to the question above is obviously Finland, like in the previous two times in history. Estonia belongs to a different group. JonSonberg (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

..."nothing to do with the article content" ... and
I wish "Finnic states" or "Finnic countries" existed as a geopolitical term, because everything would make more sense then JonSonberg (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Created a Finnic countries page... JonSonberg (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
You can't create a term and corresponding article to Wikipedia because you wish it would exist! Wikipedia:No original research Start a blog and you can write there anything you want. --Minnekon (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Found people using the term in blogs and forums... so I just referenced those. Yes to the blog proposal JonSonberg (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Estonia would help Lithuania, because it is existentially important to it's own defense -NATO would probably not help a country that has betrayed the alliance and occupation of either Lithuania or Latvia would cut Estonia off from rest of the World. And such speculation is completely irrelevant to discussion of article's content. You need to stop pushing this one political agenda and think of reality in which everything is not about Estonia being Nordic or not, otherwise this is getting ridicilous ~~Xil (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Blogs and forums are not reliable sources. Please read WP:UGC and WP:RSSELF. And stop this silly POV pushing, which doesn't have any academic source to back it up. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Can a useful contemporary map be added? Suggestion

I referred to this article to refresh my memory regarding the location of the Baltic States. The small unlabeled map in the infobox did not do the job. Do any of the watchers have a problem with adding this image:

Baltic states regions map

Zipbop (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I would support this, but we need to determine where it should be placed. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Definition controversy

Everything listed under the "definition controversy" is directly quoted and referenced. Estonian references are listed there because most of the controversy comes from estonia - most of the communications in estonia in the last years has ignored the word "baltic". If the latvian government has said or done something similar, then that could of course be added as well. The same goes for lithuania, where I know that in the past, lithuania sometimes defined itself as central european. In short, this is not only about estonia defining itself as nordic. This is about the fluid definition and usage of the term "baltic states". It seems that at least estonia does not want to use this term and so the controversies should be mentioned to keep the article up to date with modern happenings. A good example is when a foreign journalist uses the word "baltic state" in context of estonia, and then gets corrected in an estonian politician's answer. I can get references from video interviews, this happens often. In short, good relations and cooperation with neighbours is important but estonia does not want to be seen as a baltic state. Being listed on a map together with LV and LT is often considered culturally ignorant in Estonia. It's like forcing belgium to accept the definition of being french. There's nothing wrong with france but it is not the cultural identity of Belgium. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to add one more comment - the movement towards being known as a nordic country is really nothing new, it was pursued heavily in the first period of independence as well. It rather seems like a default state of life whenever estonia has been independent. Estonia itself has never chosen to be called a baltic country, it has just somewhat reluctantly gone along with it. So it naturally seems to move away from it whenever there is a way. It just doesn't fit. This is also evident from the very challenged cooperation attempts between the three countries. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Haven't we already discussed same thing few months ago?? This is article about Baltic states. So weather some Baltic state belongs to some other groupings is not relevant here. Relevant are only arguments that challenge the concept of Baltic states somehow. So if somebody simply says that country X belongs to area Y (eg Estonian politician claim Estonia is part of Nordic states, Eastern Europe or whatever), it has nothing to do with concept of Baltic states. It is relevant only if he/she adds that Estonia should not be considered as Baltic state. So in "Definition controversy" chapter there is currently only one relevant claim (by Estonian president Kaljulaid), rest of them don't mention anything about concept of Baltic states and doesn't belong here. Minnekon (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Minnekon: This user tries to push his POV and looks like he tends to confuse certain things. This "definition controversy" doesn't belong here as there's no such thing. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, if someone notable challenges concept of Baltic states, it should be mentioned in article. Preferably it should come from secondary source, not by interpreting original source like now. "Definition controversy" is clumsy title for that though as "Baltic states" does not have definition in classic sense. "Baltic states" are simply those states that are recognized as such. Minnekon (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Go check the references on the article. No original research done. Directly quoting the president(s), the primine minister, the foreign ministry, etc. This is not my POV but the reality. Editors from outside Estonia are just likely not very familiar with what is happening in estonian politics. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Meaning of original research in Wikipedia is not what you seem to assume it is. It does not only include statements without source or with unreliable source, but also otherwise properly sourced statements, which are used to prove original ideas and conclusions. From rules: If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. Example of this is concluding that if former PM of Estonia says Estonia is Nordic, then he must have meant that Estonia is not Baltic. Don't try to read minds. Here is an example of his actual opinion about Baltic states The Prime Minister: Unity among the Baltic countries strengthens the alliance. Minnekon (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Intersection of A and B
British Isles
The references in the article support the text, but not why that text should be in this article. I checked most of the references and all of them talk about Estonia as a "Nordic" country, but only one (the first one) actually criticizes the term "Baltic States" and none of the valid criticism from that article is even included in the text. Instead of actually criticizing the term "Baltic States", the text currently provides many citations for how Estonia is a "Nordic country", which does not at all preclude it from being a "Baltic sate". No longer a penguin (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the logic here. 1) If estonia says it's a nordic country, can it also be a baltic country in the same time? Usually it doesnt work like this (baltic states == baltic countries). 2) If estonia says it's a nordic country and it's currently listed under the "baltic states" article in wikipedia, a clarifying subtopic should be included about how the definition is often not followed in real-life. But yes you are right, a referenced sentence is missing about why this phenomenon is even happening (academic sources vary in their explanation from PR purposes to ethnic & cultural reasons)SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Why the hell can Estonia not be a Nordic Country (if it was actually in common use) and a Baltic State? There are plenty of geographical groupings where countries overlap under at least some definitions. And that's the point, unless you can show that being Nordic is somehow exclusive from being Baltic, then most of the content in the section you included is irrelevant for this article. It can be (and I see it already has been) included in the article on Nordic countries instead, leaving only the criticism of the term "Baltic States" here. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
(Added some visual aids to No longer a penguin's point). Renata (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I got to agree with Renata here, it is not an either-or situation here, there are many dimensions to the term. A Baltic state could be a country that borders the Baltic Sea, or it could be a country were a Baltiic language is spoken, or could be a country with a shared history. In each case the grouping contains a different number of countries. Sources also tell us Estonia is also a Finnic country, a northern European country, an eastern European country and a post-Soviet country. But there is an overwhelming number of sources that says Estonia is a "Baltic state", so that is never going to change in Wikipedia. --Nug (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand the underlying logic. And it's self-evident that estonia will never be erased from the "baltic states" article. So yes the logic above is correct. Also there's no criticism towards the "baltic states" definition because why should there be? I do not agree that post-soviet and nordic are equal definitions - first is a historic adjective and the other is a geopolitical term which can be used to locate a country on a map. But ok great, lets assume a country can be both nordic and baltic. I don't personally care either way. In the academic sources, the nordic theme is connected to the baltic theme. In other words, the academic sources focus on estonia moving away from the baltic definition and closer to the nordic definition. So the issue seems to not be with the underlying topic but with the lack of agreeable sources on the article page which support the reasoning behind listing this topic on the article page? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has to reflect what the sources say. If 1000 sources say Estonia is a Baltic state and 200 say Estonia moving closer to a Nordic country, then all Wikipedia can say is that Estonia is a Baltic state which is moving closer to a Nordic country. Estonia isn't even a member of the Nordic Council, so it is pretty difficult to argue that Estonia is a Nordic country. But all three Baltic states have observer status in the Nordic Council, so maybe one day in the future if they become full members then we can say all three Baltic states are also Nordic countries. --Nug (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
So this BS is back again? IIRC it was agreed that this WP:Fringe concept can be explored in a seperate article. So let's explore your sources for the section. Kaljulaid - acctually said the opposite, opening quote summerizes nicely: "As the Baltic states have so many similarities, they need to work closely together. Instead of using loaded terms like "Nordic" or "Baltic", Estonia's new president wants to talk about a "Nordic Benelux", referring to likely-minded countries on the northern rim of the EU", Rõivas - 1. says that Estonia aims to achieve Nordic standard of living, prizes Baltic air policing 2. Is about Estonia taking part in some event Nordics also participated, doesn't really talk about the issue 3. Acctually is about New Nordic concep he is pushing, but it still apears to be about Estonia becoming more like Nordics, at a glance I didn't see anything about it not being Baltic. Then we have Estonia country profile on BBC, which only brings up that Rõivas has said something about "New Nordic", doesn't critisize the concept of Baltics at all. Next an article about how Estonia building in Expo looked, only says that Estonia is Nordic, nothing about Baltics. Then there's an article in Estonian that appears to still be mostly about Estonia being Nordic. Seems it asks at one point, if Estonia is Baltic and answers that opinions differ, but doesn't seem Baltics are mentioned in opinions quoted after this and furthermore these appear to be opinions of random school kids. I assume it's from that essay competition mentioned in text. Then there's an Academic paper entitled "Estonia Gravitates Towards Sweden: Nordic Identity and Activist Regionalism in World War I" so also nothing to do with critisizing the idea of Baltics. Then an article about conference on Estonia being Nordic, but that's also not about Baltics. And some references to Ilves that didn't work for me. So all in all we got a lot about Estonia being Nordic, but it has very little to do with this article's subject matter or what this section purpots to be about - it is not enough to have a reference for what each individual sentence says, there needs to be proof for what is said in general, otherwise it is WP:SYNTHESIS ~~Xil (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Yep, concur with your analysis. --Nug (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Language skills in the three countries

Hi, someone claimed the majority of estonian residents are proficient in russian. That is simply not true according to stat.ee. I did an export of the data from stat.ee (total nr of people who have claimed to know russian). Maybe for language skills it makes sense to do a skills table per three countries separately. To verify it by yourself, you can go here and choose the table RL0436 SørenKierkegaard (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That table, RL0436. I don't think it means what you think it means. It measures language proficiency in foreign languages, i.e., languages other than mother tongue. You can see it obviously by grouping by mother tongue (or by the fact that Estonian is among foreign languages). According to that table, there are 528 553 people who speak Estonian as mother tongue and Russian as foreign language. According to table PC0435, there are also 383 118 people who speak Russian as mother tongue. Tell me the sum is not a majority or please self-revert your edit. No longer a penguin (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe, I don't know. But in that case you need to rephrase your sentence because right now it makes it sound like the majority of estonians are proficient in russian as a foreign language. Because the previous sentence was about learning russian. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, according to those statistics, the latter statement is also true, the majority of estonians (those with Estonian as mother tongue) do know Russian (528K of 887K). Nevertheless, I reworded into a more general statement, without focus on ethnicity. No longer a penguin (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Baltic states. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baltic_states/Archive_2&oldid=1252603320"