Talk:Baltic states

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why are we using an infobox on the article?[edit]

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

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

Focus of the article[edit]

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

Add on the main table euro as the common currency[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, including the older history of these three countries here just doesn't make any sense as this concept, nor the suggested similarity of these three countries did not exist before that era. 2001:1530:1010:FA81:6191:FE40:B9E2:2FC3 (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Blomsterhagens: Are you serious? You were the one who expanded the history section in the past. Please make up your mind for once, because there were many back and forth edits by you (not to mention all the edit wars and other things). – Sabbatino (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, what? I have always been advocating for removing or only very shortly summarizing the pre-1918 history. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I do think that the post-1918 history does need expanding, yes. The first three decades of freedom were instrumental in the histories of all three countries and all of that content is missing right now. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@Blomsterhagens: You are right. Sorry then. I was certain that you were the one who expanded the history section due to your past behavior in the article. However, there was no consensus reached on shortening the history section last time so that is the reason why the section looks like that. I am not against trimming the history section but it needs to be decided where is the breaking point. – Sabbatino (talk)
I'd assume the breaking point should be WP:OR. As in, until when do we have sources that directly about the history of "the baltic states" in unison, not as the histories of latvia + lithuania + estonia talked about separately. There are loads of sources that talk about the history in unison since 1918, but very few before 1918. And then there's also the fact that the term "the Baltic states" had a different meaning altogether in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, which is currently not listed in the history section at all. Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
If we're going to define the article by the lead description, it does say that the term is "typically used" etc. This doesn't exclude anything, and a I don't see a case for editing the main text on the basis of such a broad definition. Tammbeck (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:OR comes in as an issue regarding most of the pre-1918 text, because the sources are mostly not mentioning "Baltic states", the sources are talking about specific Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian history. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Perhaps for consistency we should follow the example of History of the Baltic States which is a disambiguation page with links to the three national history articles. Tammbeck (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)