Talk:Northern Europe

Is it really correct to state that the Baltic states are culturally Scandinavian countries? I would have thought them no more culturally distant from the Slavs than from the Scandinavians, apart from with Estonia & Finland. --User:Crusadeonilliteracy 17:26, Jun 4, 2003

The Baltic Republics have - due to hanseatic and religious traditions as well as long lasting Swedish and German settlements (lasting a much longer period of time than today's Russian settlement) going back to medieval ages very much more in common with Scandinavia and Central Europe as with Russia and the Slavic countries, though - of course - they always have been a connecting tie between Russia and Scandinavia.

User:62.104.206.66 15:57, Jun 17, 2003

The only Baltic state with historic links to Scandinavia is Estonia, which was briefly under Swedish rule in the 17th century. The country also had, until the end of the Second World War, a small Swedish minority inhabiting its western islands.

Neither the period of Swedish rule, nor the existance of a Swedish majority have left much of an imprint on the country; culturally and politically Germany and Russia, and later still, the Soviet Union have been much more significant for the development of Estonia.

The other Baltic states have even more tenuous links with Scandinavia, and it would therefore be utterly misguided to see them as Scandinavian countries -- it may even be asked if it is justified to consider them as Nordic ones, so different are they culturally, politically and historically from the five Nordic countries.

User:213.122.191.13  21:11, Jun 16, 2004 

Aryan Race

I know that the Aryan race is people of european descent. My questions are these:

What is the deal with the blond hair, blue eyed people?

User:65.96.210.185 01:30, Jan 12, 2005 

You may want to read the article on Master race. --Ruhrjung 22:46, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Northern Europe definitions

Ruhrjung, you claim that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. Why is that the case when other encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta have the right to this authority? Why does Wikipedia, instead of being a precise information resource, always have to give confused and uncertain definitions about things? Secondly, even if "Wikipedia has to mirror and report current and/or historical usage, not to bend reality to seem more logic and sensible", then the definition I put as Northern Europe is correct, and is used. What don't you agree with - we know Scandinavia is in Northern Europe, Finland also. So is it the Baltic states you don't agree with? Or the absence of UK & Ireland? The Baltic states, are Northern European - more and more people are starting to see them that way. Geographically, they are northern, more northern than Denmark. Culturally, they are Nordic - Lutheran, Nordic customs, Nordic historical influences, etc. Even politically and socially, they are becoming more and more northern - very free market economies (as in, some of the most liberal economic policies in the world), technological adoption, etc. They are Northern European, I don't see what's wrong with including them in this article, especially since the 2nd remark talks about their relation to Eastern Europe. Now, on to UK & Ireland - these countries are not Northern European, especially from a British POV (I'm not British by the way). Very few people consider these countries "Nordic", and, while culturally they have some similarities to Scandinavia, they have been for long attached more to Western Europe - France, Belgium, Netherlands, etc. As with Northern Germany, Poland and Russia, because they are just regions, we can't include them in the statistics. They have however, been mentioned as "sometimes included". So, for that reason, I don't see what the problem is with including a map and some statistics about a region that has a lot in common and we can use to compare to other regions in Europe which are different. Cheers, Ronline 05:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I claim that Wikipedia's credibility and authority would be destroyed if Wikipedia took particular points of views — particularly if they are in opposition against common English usage. What you ought to do, is to word your preferred POV along the lines of According to Whitehall, the following countries are currently considered... Them with other preferred POV would thereby be invited to substantiate also their claims, and as a result there would be less of conflicts and more of relevance in Wikipedia.
--Ruhrjung 08:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Could any of you list some sources? Like Encyclopedia Britannica, and others? My gut feeling is that the baltic states are not northern europe, (but eastern europe), but I can live with it either way. Depending on the majority and the prestige of the sources, the baltics can be included, or listed under Additionally, two three other groups ... . In any case, Wikipedia describes what other sources states, and does NOT aim to generate a new view! -- Chris 73 Talk

Wikipedia can and should express a neutral point of view and hence inform about different views. What if you included a paragraph about the discussion whether the baltics should be considered northern Europe or not? If you word it in such a way that both views come to the forefront of the section, that is certainly better than stating a POV or no NPOV at all. Inter 15:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While Wikipedia should consider other sources and common English usage, what's more important is correctness, I think we are old and large enough to be an authoritative source of information, especially when the arguments can be proved by logic. The Baltic states _are_ part of Northern Europe and not part of Eastern Europe, due to the reasons above. Saying that "according to Britannica, XYZ is in Northern Europe, but Encarta disagrees, while Brockhaus claims that just XY are part of Northern Europe" is confusing and basically eliminates the need for Wikipedia as an information source. People then using Wikipedia for research wouldn't know how to interpret the information. Rather, we should say this: we should include the Baltic states if there is more reason to include them than not - therefore, it is correct to include them. Now if you can prove to me why they shouldn't be included, I shall accept. But as long as you use the weak argument of "well, not all sources say they're Northern Europe, we'll just wash our hands and exclude them", you're not gaining anything. You're not proving that something's correct, just that it's commonly used. There's a big difference.

As to including a paragraph to explain, that would be fine. There already is one (remark #2), but we could expand it. Something like that already exists at Eastern Europe, where the old definition is explained in more detail.

After this, I hope we move on to a real, logical argument rather than just reverting based on what other sources say. I won't revert back for now, but please don't use this as an opportunity to just "keep quiet". If you don't want the Baltic states included, what's the actual logical reason? Ronline 08:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly very exaggerated to say that the Baltic states are culturally Scandinavian countries. Besides, there are big differences between them.

Lithuania is culturally a Catholic Central European country and has strong cultural ties to Poland. It definitely isn't a Nordic country.

Estonia has much Nordic in it and is the culturally closest from the three Baltic states to the Scandinavian countries. Finland used to be a Baltic state but now it has shifted to the Scandinavian countries. Possibly the same will happen to Estonia. The difference, however, is that there is no general knowledge of Scandinavian languages in Estonia as there is in Finland, and there is much less Swedish influence in Estonia than in Finland. The Estonian culture (except folklore) is predominantly a product of German culture, other influences are minor. Besides, Estonia is tied to Finland by linguistic closeness creating a certain feeling of unity. Russian culture has influenced Estonia quite little, except in the localities of compact ethnic Russian settlement. You can see a big Orthodox cathedral next to the Parliament but there are few Estonian orthodox people. The south-east corner of Estonia is an exception as it was permanently under Russia until the twentieth century. Some politicians (including Toomas Hendrik Ilves) have uttered opinions that Estonia should identify itself as a Nordic or Scandinavian country, not as Baltic state.

Latvia is half like Estonia (except that its language is not related to Estonian and Finnish) and half like Lithuania.

The Nordic Council considers expanding to the Baltic States. If this happens its working language will be English. As to now it uses Swedish, Danish and Norwegian that are mutually understandable. Andres 09:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, there are two points I wish to make here. Firstly, there is a difference between the Nordic countries and Northern Europe. The Nordic countries are what we basically know, wrongly, as Scandinavia - Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland. Of course, Scandinavia is Norway, Sweden and Denmark only, but the Nordic countries is the term used for the Nordic Council countries. Northern Europe, however, is a broader term, which also includes the Baltic states. We don't have to prove that the Baltic states are Scandinavian, which they can never be, all we can say is that they have been influenced by the Nordic region. Estonia is of course of Northern European country. There is no doubt to that. Latvia is also, mainly due to many common traditions with the rest of Northern Europe. I don't think we can exclude Lithuania, then, especially since it is, arguably, closer to Northern Europe than to Central Europe, in language and a lot of its fundamental culture (excluding Polish influences). The second think I wish to say is this: when including countries in regions, we have to find the best fit. There are no less than four regions in which to include the Baltic states, but we have to choose the best one. Basically, our choices are:

• Central Europe - a poor choice, since Slovenia and Estonia are not at all alike. Perhaps Lithuania would fit in easier, but Estonia, for example, is too far north-east to be classified with Central Europe. The Baltic states would be geographical outliers if placed in Central Europe. I suppose that there may be a cultural link to Central Europe via Germany, but there is no link to Slavic Central Europe.

• Eastern Europe - a better, but still poor, choice. Basically, Estonia is NOT Eastern European because culturally it is _very_ different, and it simply can't be lumped together with Moldova and Belarus, or Ukraine and Russia. The same goes for the other Baltic states - they face different issues to the countries presently included in Eastern Europe.

• Northeastern Europe - basically, the formation of a new region similar to Southeastern Europe. This would be OK, just that the Baltic states are too small and with too small population to currently require the formation of a new region for them. They _have_ to be merged into another region.

• Northern Europe - the best choice. These countries are closest culturally to Northern Europe, they are northern in geography, they are northern in their outlook, therefore this is their best fit.

The other issue is this: why is all this fuss going on when the article always included the Baltic states as a part of Northern Europe. I think people just got worked up over the map featuring the Baltic states, but what's the problem when even now, the article states:

Northern Europe is a name for the northern part of the European continent. At different times this region has been defined differently but today it is generally seen to include:

• the Nordic countries, i.e. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland.
• the Baltic States, i.e. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
• the British Isles, which includes the United Kingdom and Ireland
• others, e.g. Northern Russia, Northern Germany, Northern Poland, and The Netherlands

I removed the British Isles because it is wrong to include them there, and we also can't include fragments of countries. Therefore, what's the argument? I didn't significantly "alter" the structure of this region. By the way, I will revert back tomorrow if there are no new replies from the people who originally reverted my edits (Ruhrjung, etc). Ronline 08:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your whole premise, that northern, western, eastern, etc. Europe have precise and mutually exclusive definitions, is fundamentally flawed. For instance, you consider it self-evident to exclude the British Isles from northern Europe; I am British and do not sse this as anything like as clear cut; for instance, this weeks's edition of the Evening Standard's Homes and Property section talked about a new shop in London as being its owner' "first branch in northern Europe". Susvolans (pigs can fly) 18:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So then what would be your scenario? To make one of those maps full of hashed lines signifying countries which are part of more than one region? That simply wouldn't work. We need to establish, based on concensus, politicial boundaries for these regions so that we can then analyse them statistically, etc. There are some people that believe the UK is in Northern Europe, just how there are some that believe that Croatia is in Central Europe, for example. I am not against sorting out controversies in the article, since Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV, but at the same time highlight multiple points-of-view (this is apparently the official policy). What I propose that we have for the regions is this: for statistical/mapping purposes, a precise set of countries which would comprise the "current definition" or "compact definition". Then, we could also say, as I did in my Northern Europe article, "this region may also include:" and then we list the UK, Northern Germany, etc. We could also explain the basis for including each. For example, "while the UK is usually considered Western Europe, due to its historical and political ties to the region, it is sometimes considered Northern Europe because of its geographical position and also because it has some ethnic ties with the Nordic countries", or something like that. I'm totally in favour of explaining to people the situation from multiple points of view. What we need though, it to also form some "clear-cut" versions of the regions, for statistical and mapping purposes. That's why I advocate including only the Nordic countries and the Baltic states in the region on the map, and then listing "other possible countries" and explaining why they should/shouldn't be included. If we don't include the Baltic states in Northern Europe, they will have to be included in another region for statistical/mapping purposes. Just see Regions of Europe - they have "clear-cut" maps for regions, otherwise it will all be just too confusing. By the way, the Baltics are mentioned in Eastern Europe additionally, which is OK, but their main mention should be in Northern Europe, just how the UK should be given a mention that it is sometimes included in Northern Europe, but it should be listed as a core country in Western Europe, explaining why this is so. Finally, I'm reverting now, since no-one has given any argument as to why the Baltic states shouldn't be included. Ronline 22:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Europe and Regions of Europe are surely perceived as flawed by not so few Wikipedians. It's also astonishing that you don't see the arguments given to you - compare what Andres writes above on the Baltic states. Most importantly, however, is that you try to suppress other points of views than your own, which is not how things are supposed to be at Wikipedia. You better not revert.
--Ruhrjung 22:40, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to supress anyone's point of view. My version of the article is the most inclusive version because it states that the UK and Northern Germany, etc may also be included, while also including the Baltic states and the Nordic countries in the core version. "you don't see the arguments given to you" - Ruhrjung, no arguments have yet been given to me as to why the Baltic states should not be included. Andres advocated the inclusion of Estonia, as well as to an extent Latvia, but not Lithuania. So are we fighting here over Lithuania? The fact is that we can continue to squabble over where to include the Baltics, but Northern Europe is the best place for them. Andres misinterpreted Northern Europe as being the Nordic countries. Again, I am not trying to supress anyone's point of view. Also, you just don't seem to understand the following thing: the Baltic states were part of the article even before my edits. I wasn't the one to add them there. All I did was create a map and some statistics which included them as part of the region, but excluded UK & Ireland because it was not right putting it there. So what you're saying now is that the Baltic states shouldn't be included - well, guess what, the version that you keep on reverting to states this:

Northern Europe is a name for the northern part of the European continent. At different times this region has been defined differently but today it is generally seen to include:

   * the Nordic countries, i.e. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland.
   * the Baltic States, i.e. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
   * the British Isles, which includes the United Kingdom and Ireland
   * others, e.g. Northern Russia, Northern Germany, Northern Poland, and The Netherlands

The Baltic states are included equal to the Nordic countries. If you're so anti-Baltic-states-being-in-Northern-Europe, then delete them out. Why is my version of the page any less inclusive, more arrogant or flawed than the present version? As to "you better not revert", I believe I have as much of a right as you to make changes to the page, so please don't impose conditions like that. Ronline 22:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You insist on inserting maps and statistic figures for "regions" defined according to your fancy, despite the critique you repeatedly have received here. Thereby you make Wikipedia giving the impression that these deliminations are somehow right and other understandings are wrong. This is not in any way acceptable. I revert your changes. --Johan Magnus 13:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are the one that keeps on insisting that my definitions of regions are subjective and personal. That is not the case - in fact, I have based my maps and stats on what were the regional definitions already in the article. In Central Europe, for example, there was already a list of countries in the region and a map. All I did was add some stats, which are very useful. For Southern Europe, there were already definitions - again, I created a map and made some stats. It is really on Northern Europe where I altered the "definition" a little bit by taking out UK & Ireland, which I think don't belong in Northern Europe, and which I have a significant case for including in Western Europe. We argued about including the Baltic states, but the fact is that they were already listed as an integral part of Northern Europe, so I didn't show any personal or political bias by including them in the map/stats - I only put what was there. I also support that we give more extended definitions of regions saying "while these countries are generally seen to nearly always be in xx region, yy can also be included because..." I am not saying therefore that my understanding is better than others. I have used what was already in the article, so it is not my bias, and then I accepted other understandings, saying that they should also be included in the article (such as, why the UK & Ireland are sometimes included in Northern Europe). Therefore, I don't see a need to revert the useful stats and the maps which give reasonably correct definitions of "core" countries of a particular region. Ronline 06:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)