Talk:Nordic identity in Estonia/Archive 1

The most appropriate name for the page?

Renamed the page from Nordic Estonia to "Nordic integration of Estonia" , which should more precisely describe the topic of the page JonSonberg (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would be interested to hear others' input on the name as well. JonSonberg (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this rather suggests that Nordics are integrating Estonia, not that Estonia is attempting to get integrated. Isn't there really any common name to refer to these activities as whole? For example, in article text I see some politicians have used "New Nordic Country" ~~Xil (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "new nordic" or "uus põhjamaa" is used, but it was a campaign slogan of the reform party, so maybe not the most exact name to use.... because other parties like SDE and IRL support the integration as well. I suppose by definition "integration" goes both ways so the current name is correct by definition. JonSonberg (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's been no common name for these activities so far, because it's been pursued by different groups and people from different time periods. Would be nice if there was. I can always change it back to "nordic estonia", not sure... JonSonberg (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Integration" works as a definition because the economy for example has been totally integrated, nearly half of all exports going to the nordic countries. Investors in estonia are more interested in the decisions of the swedish central bank than estonian, because the decisions of the swedish central bank affect estonia the most. JonSonberg (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just noticed Ilves used that description as well. Perhaps "Nordic identity of Estonia"? ~~Xil (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this sounds better that Integration as the title. But then again, then it would only talk about the cultural identity part? Because there's also a deep interdependency in Economics and "identity" doesnt cover that part. JonSonberg (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's best to rename it back to "Nordic Estonia", which would cover everything thats needed and is also shorter. And then I'll add your definition as the first line - "This article talks about the Nordic identity and integration of Estonia" JonSonberg (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this economic component really applies here, unless you can have sources that say there indeed is connection between Swedish businesss activities in the region and Estonia wanting to be Nordic, they're present elsewhere in region as well, but only Estonia is acting like this. And as for Nordic Estonia - I won't object to moving this back either ~~Xil (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Switched and added your definition JonSonberg (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to finally see definition of topic ("nordic identity of Estonia"). Does "Nordic" mean Nordic states? So article will reflect statements discussing weather Estonia is or should be identified as one of Nordic states? --Minnekon (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It discusess the activities / phenomenon of the estonian government and people working towards being considered a nordic country. And also the activities of the nordic governments toward the same goal (which number at quite a lot). There's a lot of "is estonia nordic" chatter all around wikipedia and the internet and it needs a specific article in Wikipedia. JonSonberg (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against existence of such article, I just want it to contain correct and relevant information. Now when we have more clear understanding of the subject of article - Nordic identity of Estonia - how is justified presence of following subtopics, which are not directly about Estonia as Nordic state (if somebody thinks they indirectly are, then we need reference to that opinion): --Minnekon (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the phenomenon of Estonian integration into the nordic countries. It includes identity. Without identity there is no integration. But also economics, visual symbols, etc. . JonSonberg (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By "integration" you mean what? Most logical seems to be regional integration (agreement between countries to upgrade cooperation through common institutions and rules), but that does not assume Nordic identity, symbols, foreign trade, languages, history etc. --Minnekon (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that new nordic assumes a change in identity, because estonians have always been nordic. The economy / foreign trade have been more like assimilated into the nordic system. Estonian economy is de facto based on the decisions of the swedish riksbank. Good or bad, I dont know. JonSonberg (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the word integration - by definition it means "moving closer to", it is not the same as assimilation. Integration, as in, being cut off from neighbors for 50 years and then for 25 years moving closer again. But of course if you have a better word in mind then that's great. JonSonberg (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Moving closer to" is really vague description, where did you pick that definition up? --Minnekon (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From three years of learning Sociology in university. But I can sure find a reference for you later in the day JonSonberg (talk) 03:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you check Integration Wiki page or just google it, you see that it has many different and specific meanings. Even if somebody in your Uni defines integration as "moving closer to", it is vague and poetic expression, which doesn't have clear meaning and doesn't give any criteria to determine weather one or another phenomenon is integration or not. Now compare it to term regional integration, which is more known, widely accepted and has specific meaning, which allows to easily determine what phenomena it covers (eg joining Nordic Battle Group). --Minnekon (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is to 1) either describe all different topics currently present (Estonian foreign trade, Baltic-Nordic military cooperation, Nordic identity of Estonia, ...) in different existing articles (mostly in subsections of article Estonia, maybe new article about Nordic identity even though there seems to be very little relevant sources covering it), or 2) create one big general article titled "Estonia-Nordic states relations (like United States–European Union relations), where can be all previously mentioned subtopics. --Minnekon (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about Nordic-Estonia relations but about the phenomenon of Estonia assuming & having a nordic identity & integrating with the nordic countries which has been happening since re-independence and is happening both on a societal and governmental level. The title is fine as it is, the article has been reviewed & approved and another editor has already agreed to it. And the definition is fine as well, if it says it's about identity & integration. There are several layers of integration here - social, economic, regional. I see no reason to limit this to a single subtype of integration. Rather, the integration subtypes should be expanded as subtopics and relevant references added. JonSonberg (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Inclusionism is a wiki philosophy which is the reason why wikipedia has become what it is JonSonberg (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the article is not fine. Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. We still haven't clear explanation of article's subject (allegedly "integration"), no reliable source seems to use expression "Nordic Estonia" and even those few unreliable sources that do (an ananymous website and some forum posts) don't explain it as "integration". You are welcome to ask that "another editor" who approved your edits to join discussion or give link with his/her arguments. --Minnekon (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also your definition is not fine. First I hope you do realize that if article is about "integration" then it can mention other things, like Nordic identity, only if they are connected to it by somebody. As you previously put it: "The article is about the phenomenon of Estonian integration into the nordic countries. It includes identity. Without identity there is no integration." But if it turns out that your assumption is not shared by authors of relevant sources, then you can't mention it. --Minnekon (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, if different terms happen to consist same word in it's name, it doesn't mean they have to be subtypes of same term and should be used together. One obvious example is occupation vs occupation vs occupation . Same is with integration. For example Regional integration is about agreements and cooperation between countries, following your logic racial integration should mean same thing on the topic of race (a la "agreements and cooperation inside races") and Educational integration should be about agreements between teachers and students? No, only difference between them isn't in what field (regions, race, education) they are used, they deal with specific aspects and don't cover similar parts of corresponding fields. Situation with word "integration" is clearly visible in integration Wiki page, which doesn't say there is one big concept of integration, but that there are many different ones, that you can't put together without proper justification (having similar word in it isn't enough). And even if it would be reasonable to put all those different concepts together, still many of your claims don't fit - for example figures of export stats are irrelevant for concept of economic integration. In addition to that, your proposed definition of overall integration ("moving closer to") seems to be unknown or at least marginal in Internet, and useless anyway as it's poetic metaphor (Estonia's landmass isn't physically moving towards Nordic), which lacks criteria for establishing what phenomena falls under it and what not. --Minnekon (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Integration JonSonberg (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? It's an article about regional integration (which includes economic integration) in Europe. Does your answer mean you propose that this article here should also be about regional integration between Estonia and Nordic states? --Minnekon (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian interest in becoming a full member of the Nordic Council
Estonia joined the European Union's Nordic Battle Group
Estonia was invited to join NORDEFCO
extensive economic interdependence between Estonia and its Nordic neighbours
Estonian non-welfare-state model
The cross flag has been used in the Estonian Parliament
Former prime minister's idea about New Nordic state, "Uus Põhjamaa" (given links doesn't clearly indicate that he wants Estonia to be recognised as Nordic state, but he seems to use it as a metaphor to describe his party election platform).

Yes he does. Nation address

Can you cite from original Estonian speech texts any segment where he clearly says that he wants Estonia to become recognised as one of the Nordic states? He talks about Estonia as a "New Nordic country" with capital letter and gives his own definition to that term and says although Nordic countries are examples in certain aspects, "New Nordic country" differs from current Nordic countries in other aspects. For me it suggest that it's his own rhetorical concept, a la New Rome or UK as new Norway. --Minnekon (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with you here. Many people who are campaigning for the Nordic word, are not saying that we should copy the Nordic countries. I personally also do not think that we should, in the taxation department. It doesn't mean that estonia should not use the word nordic though. Germany and Switzerland are both European, but they have very different government systems. PS: Until recently I would have said that estonia is more like switzerland in the nordic countries with it's tax systems but now with the new government, we really are trying to copy everything the old nordic countries do. JonSonberg (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Term "Nordic" is common among Estonian businesses
President of Estonia defines the Nordic and Baltic region as the "Nordic Benelux" (so not as Nordic countries)

After listening her interview I withdraw that argument from this proposed removal list. She rejects Nordic label for Estonia, so her opinion can be added to "Criticism" section. --Minnekon (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She does not reject the word Nordic for Estonia, she rejects "loaded words like baltic or nordic", and instead proposes to use the term nordic benelux. This is still very much a nordic identity proposition. What she clearly rejects is the word Baltic. JonSonberg (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse me. Talking about Estonia, she says she don't want to use loaded words Nordic, Baltic or Nordic-Baltic and uses Nordic Benelux, which she defines as like-minded countries on the northern rim of the EU. How can you conclude from here, that it's actually "nordic identity proposition"? Nordic is just part of Nordic Benelux and having Nordic Benelux identity doesn't translate into Nordic identity, just like me having European identity doesn't translate into having Albanian identity. --Minnekon (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Estonia being called nordic means that people need to change anything in their identity? Estonian identity has always been a part of nordic identity. Benelux is the combination of Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg. Obviously she didn't mean that estonia is in the benelux part :) She just uses it as an example of cooperation between countries. I'm unable to say what exactly Taavi Rõivas, Kersti Kaljulaid or THI mean when they say nordic. I suppose they all have different ideas of it, as do people outside of politics. Really the world is different in everyone's head. But the common denominator is that they would like estonia's definition to include the word "nordic". And it doesnt mean changing the flag or language or anything else in identity, because the estonian identity has always been nordic. I suppose it's more about starting to use a word for describing it. Instead of using a category which occupying forces have put on the country. JonSonberg (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess this is harsh and doesnt belong to an article, but I'm using it here as a way to explain. Who do you think estonians would rather volunteer to defend in a war? Finland or Lithuania? This should help define the belonging of the country. JonSonberg (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your example of EU vs. Albanian identity. It would be vice versa in your example then. Correct would be "Having an Albanian identity would not automatically derive a European identity". I don't know anything about albanians. I guess most estonians do feel european. In a nordic example, "Having an estonian identity would not automatically derive a nordic identity." OK - I'm sure this is correct today for many people, especially the older generation, because they have been taught that they are baltic. But the same type of sentence: "Having an estonian identity would not automatically derive a baltic identity." - this is also correct. I'm born in estonia and would never define myself as baltic. I dont know any estonian friends who would define themselves as baltic either. And we've talked about this topic a lot, for years... JonSonberg (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estonians consider themselves to be Nordic people ("põhjamaalased") or Finno-Ugric people (Estonian word põhjamaalased doesn't mean only Nordic people, it also - and I would say more often - means just Northern people)
While the terms "Baltic state" and "balts" are different by definition, this will sometimes clash in speech and writing, creating confusion for non-Estonians
Finnic languages map
History timeline table

The topic is identity & integration. Obviously these themes belong to the article. JonSonberg (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is "Nordic integration of Estonia"? Are all Estonians willing to learn a Scandinavian language (Danish, Norwegian, Swedish; also widely called Nordic along with Icelandic and Faroese) and understand the two others? And to immerse themselves in Scandinavian culture? That's what it takes for a country to become "Nordic". When people from the Nordic countries meet, they are expected to be able to communicate in Scandinavian (in one of its three forms), the first language of some 80% in the region which is learned as a foreign language by the rest, and which is also the sole working language of the Nordic region's political bodies. What the Nordic countries have in common is their relation to the Scandinavian language(s) and culture; essentially the Nordic countries are Scandinavia (accounting for some 80%) plus "Scandinavian-associated" areas. The terms Scandinavian and Nordic are largely used interchangeably.

In the Nordic countries, Estonia isn't considered any more Nordic than the Nordic countries are considered Baltic or Russian, and the idea that Estonia is "Nordic" is regarded as a bizarre fringe idea (most people haven't even heard about the idea, and the few who have heard about it only have because they've read amusing stories about Estonians now claiming to be "Nordic" because they desperately don't want to be seen as Baltic or Eastern European). It's great that Baltic Estonians from Eastern Europe admire the Nordic countries in Western Europe, but claiming to be one is just ridiculous, and I find it hard to believe that this is a common belief even in Estonia. The Nordic countries are entirely distinct from the Baltic countries in terms of language, culture, historical experience and geography.

Estonian may be be distantly related to Finnish, but the reason Finland is Nordic is its historical and cultural relation to Sweden, which includes its Swedish minority popoulation as well as the fact that all Finns learn Swedish, which is also an official language in the country equal in status to Finnish. Estonia doesn't become Nordic because of such a highly indirect relation. Finland also has a very different historical experience during the past century, when it was not part of the Soviet Union, and when it maintained its cultural ties to Sweden and by extension the other Nordic countries. Germany, particularly Schleswig-Holstein (once in a personal union with Denmark-Norway, and with Danish as an official language) would have a much better claim to a Nordic identity than Estonia. Even a German claim to a "Benelux identity" would be more reasonable. --Gaduse (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the term "Nordic" when used in the context of the Nordic countries (including Nordic languages, as North Germanic languages are widely called in the Nordic countries, and so on) has a specific meaning that is much more narrow than just "northern", and more related to the culture of those countries than being located in northern Europe (some of them, like Greenland, aren't even in Europe). So it doesn't matter if Estonians consider themselves to be something that means "northern people" or "people from northern Europe" in Estonian, because that isn't the same as "Nordic." The Nordic countries and Northern Europe are seen as separate concepts in the Nordic countries, with the latter being a purely geographical and much broader term that can even include the British Isles. --Gaduse (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And no, "Estonian identity" has never been a part of "Nordic identity" as you claim, JonSonberg, that's completely absurd. The new/revisionist/fringe idea that Estonia is "Nordic" is something concocted (mostly recently) in Estonia by Estonians, and not recognised at all by anyone in the Nordic countries, certainly not as part of their Nordic identity. Being Nordic isn't primarily about cooperating with other countries; the Nordic countries cooperate because they already have something much more fundamental in common, namely culture, shared historical experience and the languages that are widely called Nordic here. Estonians now proclaiming themselves as "Nordic" have probably misunderstood what the term Nordic actually means in the Nordic countries. --Gaduse (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was in poor state before, but I'm not convinced it got much better with your changes. You have made some good points, but adding unsourced claims, biased wording (previous extra emphasizing Nordicness of Estonia changed to extra emphasizing non-Nordicness of Estonia), replacing incorrect map with another incorrect map - that's not the way to do it. Let's stick to what reliable sources say about the topic and avoid Wiki editors personal attachments, likes and dislikes affecting the content of the article. --Minnekon (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) the article does not claim that estonia is nordic - it references the widespread phenomenon of estonians and the estonian government defining themselves as nordic. 2) the majority in finland does not speak swedish,norwegian or danish. 3) Estonia has had a swedish minority since the 13th century. 4) swedish is the third language in many schools here. I can go on but it doesnt matter, you're clearly not interested in referenced content, rather have a POV SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) This article in its former version is essentially one-sided Estonian nationalist soapboxing promoting what sources describe as a fringe POV, and not an encyclopedic article in any way. In particular, it's totally unacceptable to only include the views of Estonian proponents of the fringe POV while ignoring how the term is actually defined both in English and in all the Nordic countries themselves. Estonia is no more Nordic than Zimbabwe is Mediterranean. 2) Finland is Nordic on account of its historical association with Sweden, and Swedish is one of the two official languages in the country enjoying equal status and a mandatory subject in schools for everyone. Thus everyone in Finland speaks Swedish, and that's also why the country is able to participate in various forms of Nordic cooperation 3) As the article on the Estonian Swedes notes, virtually all who remained of them fled to Sweden over 70 years ago. 4) Estonia's application to join the Nordic Council was rejected because it is not Nordic and because of insufficient knowledge (to put it mildly) of the Nordic languages in the country; the Nordic countries didn't consider it likely that Estonia would be able to participate in the council's proceedings in a meaningful way, given that the council's working languages are the three main Nordic languages. --Gaduse (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content on this page is correctly sourced and verified by other editors. Of course it's one-sided - the entire topic is about the identity of a single country. But if you want you can always add sourced criticism. There's even a paragraph for that. Your opinion on the nordic council rejection is not sourced. There was a single source you have ever listed , which did not claim what you are saying here and was from 2003 = 14 years ago SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be one-sided (or promoting a fringe POV), but it's good that you admitted that you wrote a totally one-sided (and thus not encyclopedic) text. --Gaduse (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you are grasping the topic. It is not about claiming anything. It is about observing. If you want to include sourced criticism then go ahead. So far your additions have not been sourced. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what a biased story I can read at this page... At first- I am an ethnic Estonian, quite a typical one I may know how the things IN REALITY are and just thought it would be great to share my position and thus I may know how the things IN REALITY are.Take it or leave it...

There are lot of non true facts, biased opinions what have been oddly presented as "widespread beliefs of estonians" and everything! At first- Estonia is not Nordic country and 'Estonians do not consider them as being one of the Nordic countries'. At least there is no any consensus in that matter. This issue was firstly mentioned as a whimsy of Toomas Hendrik Ilves, foreign minister of Estonia in somewhere in the end of 1990ies. Since then there have been different proposals made to promote it as a Nordic with a certain aim to get free from image of "former USSR" image. But there is certainly no any consensus-like "Nordic identity" in Estonia! Ilves was a foreign Estonian and I'd say he was not really a "native" here, he was and remain always armchair in his ideas. later one journalist proposed to call the country "Estland" instead of "Estonia" in English. All these ideas were strongly criticized in Estonian media. For instance an article in Estonia, though from these times. By well known columnist Ahto Lobjakas "A suicide letter with a cross flag in the background". From year 2001. http://www.delfi.ee/archive/ahto-lobjakas-enesetapukiri-ristilipu-taustal?id=2660992

These people who have created this page and had obviosly vandalised the page of Nordic Countries are just a special people in Estonia- small but very voicy internet group. They consist mostly of those who are with Swedish roots themselves. By far andby far they do not represent any "Estonian common opinion" in this matter. It is clearly visible their biased attitude. By the way- they try to make some noise in Estonian portals as well and promote their idea of "into Nordic". There is a picture of Vormsi island of Estonia where livesjus 0.005% of Estonians....

Some of the facts are simply wrong:

---Estonian government does not consider Estonia to be as a Nordic country. Estonians sometimes call themselves as "põhjamaalased" yes but this does not mean "nordic"! This means "northerners". There is a big difference there.

Estonia has never had any cross flag. I have not seen any such flag during my lifetime here.

Role of Sweden in Estonian history is clearly overrated above mentioned wikipedia editors.

The similarities with Finland are overrated. Estonians have quite a different language, history, and as well genes if you wish.

I read all the comments and discussions on the infamous page "Estonian integration" on Nordic countries page and can fully agree with all the criticism about the idea. Of course, Estonia is one of the Baltic countriesjust as Germany is an European country and not an African or American country.

Thank you for your attention Thinker4Me2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker4Me2 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Categorizing Estonia as a Nordic country is common in Estonia" No, it is not common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.13.194 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations for verification

Not clear on the necessity of that tag anymore. The amount of citations is over 20, including gov. sources and interviews with the presidents. JonSonberg (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Obviously the topic is notable, if it's a topic that has been discussed and lately pursued in the country since 1918, independent from political affiliations. This is not a one-party campaign. If there will be no comments about notability here, I will remove that tag. JonSonberg (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the topic is notable - evidently some of the top politicians in Estonia have tried to build this image for more than a decade, it has plenty of supporters among Estonians and it hasn't gone unnoted outside of the country either. The problem is that proponents of this idea tend to misrepresent facts to prove their point, but being controversial doesn't make the topic not notable, it just means that greater care needs to be taken to ensure that the article describes the political agenda, rather than helps to push it ~~Xil (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

A "possible original research" tag was added to the article. There are no unreferenced claims in the article as far as I can see, so I don't understand why the tag is there. JaanMatti (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Klõps: You will need to define what exactly is original research in the article. I could not find any original research. Also, the article has been reviewed and approved. If you will not respond in a couple of days, I will remove the tag you added JaanMatti (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is original research and other problems in article.

No definition of subject

Fixed, renamed the title of the page JonSonberg (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The renewed activites in the 21st century are taking on the characteristics of a Political movement. Neither reference claims that. One gives dictionary definition of political movement, other discusses briefly Nordic identity in Estonia. So deciding that there is political movement about Estonia as Nordic is original research.

Removed, fixed JonSonberg (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new wave of political and cultural campaigning to include Estonia as a Nordic country started gaining momentum in 1999, with the foreign-minister Toomas Hendrik Ilves's speech... Reference gives just speech text, no mention of gaining momentum or campaigning etc.

Fixed JonSonberg (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cross flag has been used in the Estonian Parliament. References are 2 photos, unfamiliar readers can't know where these are taken. Sentence could also be interpreted as it's something official or quite common. More proper expression is probably The cross flag has been shown in the Estonian Parliament building twice".

FixedJonSonberg (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A larger wave of campaigning towards the Nordic countries started gaining momentum from 2015, when the Estonian prime minister Taavi Rõivas defined the country's narrative as a "New Nordic Country", or "Uus Põhjamaa". Reference is just election campaign speech by Rõivas about "Uus Põhjamaa" as a goal, but again, nothing about "wave of campaigning" or "gaining momentum".

Fixed JonSonberg (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's correct, although even better would be to mention that it was his election campaign slogan and elaborate that idea. He has his own definition of what "New Nordic Country" means and he distinguishes it from "Old Nordic Countries". --Minnekon (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Nordic narrative is also communicated by government agencies: ...RMK - The national forestry organization. Reference (short RMK article about some stats) once casually indicates Estonia as one of Nordic States, but don't show that it's more widespread or dominating view.
... Enterprise Estonia. How given reference confirm that?
... The Foreign Ministry. Reference is reprint of above-mentioned minister Ilves speech, no indication about position of Foreign Ministry.

Added another ref JonSonberg (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using the term "Nordic" is commonplace among Estonian businesses. The Estonian Business Registry contains slightly over 4000 companies that have the word "Nordic", "Nord", "North" or "Põhja" in their business name. Irrelevant as motivations behind giving those names are not known. Also funny as for example "Põhja-Eesti Taastusravikeskus" ("North-Estonian rehabilitation centre") could really be sign of Nordic identity?
Political timeline table about Estonia is incorrect. Terra Mariana started from 13th century as Denmark controlled just part of Estonia. Sweden controlled parts of Estonia about 150 years, not 300 years and most of that time parts of Estonia were also under Poland and Denmark. Duchy of Estonia (or Governorate of Estonia) was located in North-Estonia, southern part was in Governorate of Livonia. And South-Eastern corner of Estonia was part of different Russian states from at least 13th century to the beginning of 20th century. --Minnekon (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your are mixing Estonia and Livonia. Two different things. JonSonberg (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So table is only about northern part of today's Estonia? Then it should be mentioned in article along with the justification of leaving southern Estonia (previously known as Livonia) out. Is the subject of this article actually Nordic North-Estonia? --Minnekon (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand why table is about ethnic groups (eg Estonians), not countries (Estonia), while all article is about countries. --Minnekon (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That can be reworded. I copied the table from the "nordic countries" article and added estonia JonSonberg (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. A Southern Estonian political timeline (Livonia) can also be added. It would look a bit different from the Northern timeline JonSonberg (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively you could design timeline like Template:History Timeline of Estonia. The trouble with this one is that it limits everything to centuries and countries, but territorial changes can occur midcentury, last few decades and only affect part of modern country - I suspect it doesn't even depict other countries correctly, but them being Nordic is far less controversial ~~Xil (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most important part of article - definition of subject - is still missing. If you could present it clearly, it would help yourself and others to evaluate what exactly should be included here and what not. Is it about claims that Estonia is or should be a Nordic country? If so then some stuff (eg foreign investments stats, European Union's Nordic Battle Group and history timeline table) must be removed or provided with explanation why this is relevant to subject and this explanation must come from decent source (otherwise it's original research). Finally I want to say that how you compiled timeline table (excluding not-so-Nordic-connected southern Estonia and depicting 16th and 18th century Estonia as part of Sweden even though Swedish rule in those centuries lasted less time than Livonian Confederation and Russia respectively) does not look like good faith mistake but deliberate misrepresentation. --Minnekon (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Flag

Teutonic Order, Terra Mariana
Flag of the United Baltic Duchy
Flag of the Baltische Landeswehr (Baltic German Colours)
Combined flag of Teutonic Order and Landeswehr?

Just a little clarification on this particular design. I remember same comparisons being made in media when Kaarel Tarand came out with the cross flag idea in early 2000s. All those cross flags were more or less jokes. The one which got the most coverage had blue cross with black borders on white background, but I think it was because of its similarity with Finnish flag.

It's really exaggerated to say that any of the cross flags are commonly used, they are rather rare. --Klõps (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, removed the word "commonly" — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonSonberg (talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The estonian flag colours are blue, black and white. Blue is regarded as the main colour. If there's going to be a cross flag, there aren't that many design options. And the one I posted on the main page of the article is the version that was on display in the estonian parliament. But sabbatino removed that REF JonSonberg (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cross flag has been used in the Estonian Parliament.^[1]^[2] - Copy-pasting the sentence from the main page with REFJonSonberg (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that black cross was ruled out. That's why most of the cross flag designs had blue or white cross.

Sry I don't get it. Where or why was the black cross ruled out? JonSonberg (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And those articles. This was a joke. Every year santa visits the parliament and each party gets a satirical present. The cross flag was a reference to the building of the Independence Column – a class column with a cross on top. It was highly unpopular because it was stupidly expensive, construction went a full year over the deadline which made it even more expensive and it broke down immediately. IRL, a national conservative party, was the main force behind this. Santas statement: As your year has been nothing but a cross, here is a cross flag for you (As something weirdly patriotic from their past). As it was a joke nobody really cared which flag it was. It was a joke over all this cross flag thing. --Klõps (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]
^ [2]

Articles on the topic

Copy-pasting more articles on the topic here, because I don't have time to translate them now but would like to remember them.

Sirp Juku-Kalle Raid Adam Garrie

JonSonberg (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the links in the talk pages use the insert link button. Copy your link in the target page row and write a name in the text to display row or leave it empty and numbers are generated automatically [3], Just a link --Klõps (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed JonSonberg (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welfare state?

How do you define a welfare state? The estonian social expenditure to GDP is on the same level as Iceland. Iceland is considered a welfare state I think. Following that logic, Estonia should be considered a welfare state as well. Unless we talk about absolute numbers, not % of gdp. In that case Iceland is above Estonia. JonSonberg (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section 'Historical background' is badly sourced, even includes a link to a Stormfront post

The source for the 814 Northern Europe map leads to some random ad-filled website that says it is from "The Public Schools Historical Atlas edited by C. Colbeck, 1905." A 110-year-old American schoolbook is not a reliable source.

Why is the section even talking about Finno-Ugric tribes instead of Finnic? The Finno-Ugric language group is so large that it includes everything from Hungarian to Sami. The Baltic languages are probably more related to the Scandinavian ones than the some of the Finno-Ugric languages are between themselves. At that time period the Finnic languages were limited to Estonia and the southern half of Finland.

Then the section claims "During the interwar period, also Finland was considered a Baltic state." yet the source for this, a blog post, only says "Sometimes the term 'Baltic states' also referred to Finland."

"It is believed that Estonia would have been part of the Nordic Countries." Believed by whom? Stormfront posters according to the linked source for this claim.

An actual white supremacist and neo-Nazi Internet forum has been liked as a source. This section is a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vuori1243 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be (re)defined and cleaned up or deleted

As the author of this article (User:JonSonberg) has not addressed key problems that have been raised above (original/incomprehensible definition of subject + original research in rest of content), I'm considering proposing this article for deletion. Minnekon (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, it definitely needs to be moved/renamed. Maybe it makes sense as a direct translation from Estonian, but in the English-speaking world Nordic Estonia conveys that there is a physical or geographic region of Estonia that is Nordic. As discussed earlier, something along the lines of Nordic Integration of Estonia would make more sense but it's perhaps too wordy and the object/subject of the phrase are backwards. One of the biggest problems is that there is no noun to describe the Nordic Countries in English (e.g. Nordia? Nordica?). Otherwise, the best title would be "Estonian Integration into NOUN". Regardless, the article title now is not clear at all. --NoGhost (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested alternative title still has same problems. Reliable sources does not seem to know such concept/phenomenon. Deciding that integration (what exactly, integration has several meanings?) is happening and choosing facts that supposedly are part of that, is pure original research. I have proposed making this article about Nordic identity in/of Estonia, subject which really is discussed in some decent sources, but author of this article has rejected that idea. I'm also not sure that topic would have enough material for separate article. Minnekon (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct, unfortunately I am not familiar enough with the subject. This article is further complicated by the fact that there seems to be one primary contributor who claims to be the "guardian" of this page on his userpage (WP:OWNER). I would recommend pursuing either an RFC to rename the article or an AFD nomination so that this reaches a wider audience. --NoGhost (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Minnekon: Just wanted to let you know that I started an AfD to generate more discussion. Apologies if you were planning to do the same and I jumped the gun. --NoGhost (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of us know what this is about - people want Estonia to be a Nordic country. Problem is how to formulate it encyclopedically and in a way that is neither for, nor against this idea. And that's the problem with most titles suggested so far - they all are suggesting that Estonia either is Nordic or is becoming Nordic, which is rather optimistic view. If this had a name inside Estonia like "New Nordic country" it would be easier, but the original author said it's a term used only by one former PM, not all proponents of the idea. And also I think there needs to be clear consensus on what is and what is not in scope of the article and what is neutral way to present the case - e.g. I think covering relationship between Estonia and Nordics could give some usefull background, but on the other hand from what I've seen it's fairly popular to claim that trivial things that often apply to wider region as proof of Estonia being Nordic and to argue that Estonia is Nordic because it cannot be a Baltic State, which mostly is based on Baltic states and Baltic languages having simmilar names in English, although these concepts are complitely unrelated, IMHO such things should have no place in Wikipedia, unless perhaps it is described as a tactic. ~~Xil (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About title. Maybe it's because I'm not native English speaker, but isn't "Nordic identity of Estonia" neutral like for example Islam in Estonia ? About adding background info - it should be kept minimal and strictly basic and neutral (eg few key facts about history of Estonia and history of Nordic states), otherwise it can easily become back-door for smuggling in all kind of biased views. Minnekon (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't mind, if you rename the page like that, but I think it's as good as the current one - implies that Estonia is Nordic, but in theory leaves a room for debate, if that's so. It would be nicer if we could come up with something that would hint that this is more national romanticism than reality. And history here shouldn't really be seperatelly Nordics and Estonia, if it's about both and somehow gives background to theme of the article - very well, otherwise it's WP:SYNTH ~~Xil (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xil and Minnekon: My preference would be Nordic Identity in Estonia rather than "of". I think from there we would have a good starting point for the content of the article. --NoGhost (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that seems to be slightly more neutral ~~Xil (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to this title, I think it does a good job of specifying the article topic. I will change the article title SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the rewording of the page title. But the content and topic itself is both notable and relevant. For example the google search for "eesti põhjamaa" returns 186,000 results. One of the issues is the fact that this is mainly an intra-estonian discussion and has not reached the international media, so there isn't that much content in english about the topic. There is 20 years worth of content in estonian though. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SørenKierkegaard: if you know Estonian and/or your way around these sources, this article could use a Further reading section that collects the best quality sources out there (books, academic articles, etc.). Right now the article looks like anything but a good summary of 20 years worth of reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed* This issue has been fixed according to the wikipedia vote. The article has been renamed SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Out of the two maps, one is pure original research and POV by portraying it as if Estonia is already accepted as an integral part of the Nordic countries (namely File:Nordic Countries including Estonia.jpg), but the other map (File:Languages in Northern Europe.png) is even worse in being a blatant ultra-chauvinist, false, historical revisionist map that even portrays majority Swedish-speaking areas in Finland as entirely Finnish and ignores the status of Swedish as one of two equal official languages. A correct map would at the very least have to be striped (light and dark blue) to indicate that Finland is a bilingual country with two official languages, a Swedish majority in some of the most densely populated parts of the country, and where even those who are native Finnish speakers learn Swedish and have an intimate connection to that language community.

As far as the other map is concerned, it should use a different colour for Estonia than the colour used for Norway, Denmark etc. (e.g. light blue for the Nordic countries and dark blue for Estonia). If these changes were made, the maps would appear neutral and encyclopedic, and be useful illustrations. --Gaduse (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The language map in question displays the majority language group per each country. The Åland Islands and Western Finland belong under Finland. The majority language in Finland in finnish, which together with estonian are Finnic languages. Norwegian, danish and swedish are north germanic languages. Latvian and lithuanian are baltic languages. What exactly is wrong here? And wtf is "historical revisionist?" Revisionism towards what exactly? That finnish is the majority language of finland? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a map that falsely portrays majority Swedish-speaking areas (even the autonomous and monolingually Swedish-speaking Åland Islands where Swedish is the sole official language) as exclusively Finnish-speaking, and that ignores the status of Swedish as an official (and quite important) language of Finland. The sole purpose of the map appears to be to misrepresent the linguistic situation in Finland in order to advance an Estonian nationalist POV, namely that Estonia is "the same" as Finland linguistically (which is not true at all and which wouldn't make Estonia Nordic anyway) and totally different from, and more "Nordic" than, the two other Baltic states (a nationalist POV). --Gaduse (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care what map the article uses. The one from Finnic languages is as good as any other. Or we can also just keep the map away, which I assume is the current status. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The new map you've added is not correct either. And you can be sure that this map will anger a lot of finns. A map from Languages of Finland is the most academic. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is Nordic countries and Estonia - so we need simple map with colored Nordic countries and differently colored Estonia. Why instead are language maps in article? Do we have source saying that Nordic identity in Estonia has something to do with languages spoken in this area? If not, take it out. --Minnekon (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point. Well there are sources in academic sociology which claim that a part of the reason towards claiming the nordic identity is estonia's "bigger brother" - The closeness of finland / the intelligibility of the language has caused knowhow & culture to flow into estonia, which in turn has changed the concept of identity in Estonia. I remember a specific research about the finnish TV being broadcast in Estonia in the soviet times and it's influence on people's national identity in Estonia. But the article Does need those sources before displaying a language map, that is correct. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's very indirect and speculative link and falls under original research. --Minnekon (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out until clear relevance of linguistics is proved. --Minnekon (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, linguistic maps aren't necessary, although I don't mind having one as long as it doesn't falsely portray Finland as only Finnish-speaking. A striped map is a common way to express that a region is bilingual; it's not meant as a literal representation of which parts that are majority Swedish- or Finnish-speaking. In Finland, one must also take into account that the two languages enjoy equal official status in the whole country, and that all native Finnish speakers also learn Swedish, as required by law, and have an intimate connection to the Swedish (and thus Scandinavian and Nordic) language community. That makes the situation in Finland very different from Estonia. When Finland was included as a Nordic country in the first place, with this whole concept of Nordicness having evolved from Scandinavism, it was because of its cultural/linguistic closeness to Scandinavia and because Swedish was widely spoken there. If it had just been a Finno-Ugric country like Estonia, it would not have been regarded as any more Nordic than Estonia, or Hungary for that sake. --Gaduse (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaduse you would need sources for your last claim. Your comments sound xenophobic / racist and would anger any finnish person who reads it. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Nordica

Now image of Nordica (airline). How is that related to Estonia's Nordic identity? We have explanation (Nordica - the story behind the new name of the airline) of airline's naming, which connects it to Northern Europe, not to Nordic countries. --Minnekon (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their own business name is Nordic Aviation AS, not Northern European Aviation AS SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is supposed to be about Nordic identity, not about usage of word "Nordic" in Estonia. If no further information is given, we can't know why name-givers chose particular name. But in Nordica airlanes case we actually do have further information and it refers to Northern Europe. --Minnekon (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Eesti on ennast alati pigem Põhjamaade hulka liigitanud. Meie riigijuhtide kindel soov on olnud seda ka rahvusliku lennufirma nime juures rõhutada. " >> Translation: "Estonia has always defined itself as a nordic country (/together with the nordic countries). The wish of the leaders of our country was to emphasize this on the national airline." "Põhjamaad" means nordic countries, not northern europe. Source , Source2, Translation source for editors who doubt. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it were true, it would mean we have two contradicting statements from same person and it would make subject controversial and undecided, and we still wouldn't be justified to use that picture to illustrate Nordic identity. But I think this Estonian language version has few problems, which doesn't allow to take it on same level as English version. First, as was noted in another discussion, Estonian word Põhjamaa has two meanings: one is indeed "Nordic countries", but another and probably main one is simply "northern, cold land" - that's according to The Institute of the Estonian Language dictionary (in Estonian, but Google translator helps). So out of clarifying context, we can't know what in particular case was meant by "Põhjamaade". Second, if we compare English and Estonian sources, they look exactly same, so one must be translation of other. And as we have original press release in English and newspaper article in Estonian, then it seems that we are just dealing with bad Estonian translation. --Minnekon (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)~[reply]

The countries that are considered to be "põhjamaad" in estonia (besides estonia itself) are the full members of the Nordic Council. Especially in the context of that guy's response, when he was talking about "moving closer to....." and using the name nordica to pronounce that. There really is no double understanding here. This is actually exactly what your link says. It mentions estonia + the "officially" nordic countries there. The same exact estonian text has appeared in two different newspapers - ekspress & postimees (sources above). So they must have also sent out a press release in estonian, which was then published in different newspapers. If indeed the source is correct, it means that the Nordica name is very directly connected to this same phenomenon. He specifically mentioned that it is connected to this phenomenon. Although yes, you are correct -it does contradict with the english-language statement SørenKierkegaard (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe translating "põhjamaad" as Nordic is more likely, but if we translate it as Northern country, it also doesn't contradict with surrounding context. Where you got citation "moving closer to....." from? In any case, at best we have contradicting narrative, so we can't make decision that company was named because Nordic identity - which means adding such picture is unfounded and misleading for reader. But we could mention it in text, if we present both versions. --Minnekon (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC) --Minnekon (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't need this picture. --Gaduse (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags

What exactly is being disputed here? It seems like the editor who added these is still arguing against estonia being nordic - But the article does not even claim that. It claims that this phenomenon is happening in Estonia. How exactly is this disputed? If you have a problem with the estonian government defining the country as nordic, take it up with them. Wikipedia is about referencing what is happening in the real world and very often what is happening in the real world is not agreed to or liked by some people. We also have articles about genocide, syphilis and boat accidents. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an encyclopedic article, but a one-sided/biased mess of a text (including vast amounts of original research). You have repeatedly ignored other editors' views and attempts to rescue the article by making it more balanced and encyclopedic. For example, you have removed every mention of the fact that Estonia is not considered Nordic according to mainstream opinion, in the Nordic countries or in English, while the article exclusively gives voice to Estonians advancing a particular fringe POV, namely that Estonia is a "Nordic" country and ostensibly discusses that opinion. The claim that Estonia is "Nordic" has indeed very little to do with the "real world", as this claim is not recognised in English language usage or by any third party reliable sources. The wording of the article is blatantly biased and non-encyclopedic, as pointed out before. The tags are appropriate because of the one-sidedness of the material (as admitted by you), as well as the biased language. I guess AfD is where this "article" will have to go next. --Gaduse (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the article? The position of the nordic council is listed on this article. And again - WHAT is biased? The article does not claim that estonia is nordic, the article talks about the phenomenon of this movement happening in estonia. I don't know if you're joking or are seriously not grasping the concept here. If you think there is not enough criticism of Estonia defining itself as nordic then go ahead and find more sources with criticism towards this phenomonenon. So far you've posted 0 meaningful sources on this topic. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the official position of the nordic council to the top of the article. Instead of personal insults, constructive criticism on the article would help your cause a lot more. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even that new addition doesn't really help because the way it is worded, "As of 2017, the full members of the Nordic Council are...", which kind of insinuates that this is a club that Estonia could and should join in the near future. Furthermore, membership of the Nordic Council, and being defined as a Nordic country, are not the same. English defines the Nordic countries as a certain group of countries, based on their cultural and other ties, and Estonia is never included in the definition. Those countries that are already known as the Nordic countries cooperate, inter alia, in the Nordic Council. The Nordic/Scandinavian identity predates that institution by far. Also, it seems weird to have this material about membership of the council as the first paragraph before actually introducing the topic of the article in a proper way. --Gaduse (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and source your claims. At this point the lead claims exactly what your own source says and without interpretation. You are very welcome to add a sourced paragraph here on how different sources have defined the meaning of nordic or nordic countries - it would greatly increase the quality & importance of this article. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silence. Now, does anyone else besides our dear friend Gaduse have a legitimate issue with the article's neutrality and would like to offer some legitimate sources that criticize this specific topic? SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit rich for an editor who offers nothing but unsourced claims, original research, synthesis, Estonian nationalist POV pushing and low-quality non-reliable "sources" such as blogs about Eurovision Song Contest (interpreted in a WP:SYNTH way) to insist that other editors must "source your claims"; it isn't even clear which "claims" you are talking about. It also doesn't change the fact that the article is a piece of low-quality non-encyclopedic original research and synthesis presenting a totally one-sided fringe argument while mainly ignoring the mainstream perception of the world (with you even having admitted that you deliberately wrote it as a "one-sided" text!), and with numerous inaccuracies and misleading wordings (including on the definition of the Nordic countries and the working languages of the Nordic Council, just to mention two examples). Merely stating "source your claims" without being specific about which claims, or even "off topic" when you lose an argument that you started yourself, is not constructive behaviour. --Gaduse (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the Xth time, the article does not claim that estonia is nordic, it observes the identity movement / phenomenon. All of your text above is off-topic. You have not once discussed any specific line of text here. Your comments are unintelligent and not connected to encyclopaedic value. You have a clear POV on this, adding text that is not improving the article but rather tries to prove that estonia is not a nordic country. Unintelligent, childish, unprofessional SørenKierkegaard (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Battle Group

I guess it's ok to mention the Nordic Battle Group in a section below together with other international cooperation Estonia is involved in, but having it in the lead section as Estonia's main claim to fame (more or less) just seems weird, and its relation to the Nordic countries isn't that clear. The Nordic Battle Group certainly isn't synonymous with the Nordic countries, its participants include Ireland and the Netherlands, and even(!) the Lithuanians and the Latvians that the Estonians claim they are so different from. On the other hand, a core Nordic country such as Denmark doesn't even bother to participate. It just seems like a convenient name chosen for its "coolness" or something that isn't meant to be taken that literally in a geographical sense; "Nordic, Baltic, Dutch and Irish Battle Group" doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? --Gaduse (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Battle Group is European Union institution, it's not based on Nordic countries idea and should not be in this article. It was initially added to here probably because of ambiguous name and automatic assumption that it must be about Nordic countries. --Minnekon (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

removedSørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reliably sourced material and illustrations

User:SørenKierkegaard (User:JaanMatti/User:JonSonberg) is now (again) removing reliably sourced material for no other reason than the fact that he just doesn't like it, for example a quote about Estonia's application to join the Nordic Council (which appears to be the actual main topic of this article) from a high-quality source, a book titled Estonia: Independence and European Integration, and other relevant quotes from Norwegian media that I found dating back to when Estonia first requested membership. Furthermore, he deletes two neutral illustrations, one map that simply highlights the Nordic countries and Estonia in different colours, and one map that merely illustrates the official definition of Adjacent Areas used by the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers. User:SørenKierkegaard objects to that map because it includes Russia; however, Russia directly borders several Nordic countries including Norway, whereas the only country that Estonia has a border with, aside from Latvia, is Russia. The Nordic countries and their organisations regard Russia as a neighbour in the same way that they regard Estonia as one, and as one of the countries that are prioritized in Nordic cooperation (see the source in the article). --Gaduse (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the nordic council also has germany as a neighbor. You didnt colour that though, did you? And why is russia green like the baltic states? Why isnt russia blue? Why are the baltic states even listed here? Pointless to discuss this, you're deliberately giving the wrong impression here. PS: if you are so fond of that erroneous map you yourself created 5 minutes ago, then the main place for that is the nordic countries article. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the only map image that belongs in this article is a map of the current nordic countries and estonia. Everything else is off-topic. You yourself have claimed this before on this article. Also minnekon. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to get it, do you? Wikipedia is not based on original research and personal views. The map was merely an illustration of the official definition of Adjacent Areas, found e.g. here[4], which states that "The Nordic Council of Ministers engages in extensive international activity – especially in the so-called Adjacent Areas. The Adjacent Areas are Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, north-west Russia and the Arctic region." I didn't include Schleswig-Holstein because it wasn't mentioned in the source, but I will look into its status in more detail and it can be easily added if it belongs there. Green is the main colour used to highlight countries in maps in Wikipedia. --Gaduse (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so go add it to the nordic countries article. This has nothing to do with this topic here. And what source claims that green is the main colour? Why not colour all countries green on the map then? Your deliberately only coloured the baltic states and russia green, which is deliberately deceptive on your part. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have added it there if you had not deleted the section that discussed relations with neighbouring regions, the only section where it would serve as a meaningful illustration. Your second question is either disruptive, or it shows a profound lack of familiarity with Wikipedia. In any event a "source" is not required when choosing a colour to highlight a country in a map, and this question would really belong on Commons, not here, because Wikipedia doesn't host the image. --Gaduse (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just claimed green is the official colour and now claim that you do not need a source for this. Good going. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore your strawman comment and misrepresentation of what I said. Also for your information, you could have a look at the main map in Estonia or nearly any other article that includes a map. --Gaduse (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are being deliberately deceitful / evil and other editors will see this. More editors will need to chip in here. So far, you have been ignoring other editors. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to follow everything what's going on amid edit warring and heated long dicussions. Now I just comment on 2 maps. Nordic+Baltic map - I don't see logic behind why it should be in the article. Nordic+Adjacent Areas map - it is elaborated in text, but it's not about Nordic identity of Estonia. Do those who talk about Estonian Nordicness connect it somehow to Adjacent Area status? If Adjacent Area is mentioned in text as a part of overview of Nordic countries, then it's reasonable, but adding special map to article gives it undue weight as it's not even directly connected to topic of article. --Minnekon (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Minnekon SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Main map

The only map that belongs in this article is the nordic countries in blue and estonia in a different shade of blue. This has already been claimed before here by several editors. All other maps are off-topic or POV. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of map should the main map. Other maps can be added, if they are on topic and justified. --Minnekon (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New definition for article

You may see that currently there is no definition of the topic of the article, which has led to some confusion what content exactly should or should not be added here. When article was nominated for deletion half a year ago, it was one of the problems brought up. Most voters preferred keeping, but indicated, that the article should be about whether Estonia is/should be/will be a Nordic country. Name of article was changed accordingly, from previous pretentious "Nordic Estonia" and vague "Nordic integration of Estonia" to "Nordic identity in Estonia", but article itself was forgotten for long time. So let's eliminate that problem. I propose following wording for article introduction:

Nordic identity in Estonia refers to opinions that Estonia is one of Nordic countries or should/will be considered as such in future. And to put it into context: Current mainstream view doesn't include Estonia among them. --Minnekon (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok SørenKierkegaard (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. --Gaduse (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definition updated on the article page SørenKierkegaard (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian-Finnish union

The first president of Estonia advocated for an Estonian-Finnish union in 1940. This claim or its source doesn't refer to Estonia being Nordic and shouldn't be here. --Minnekon (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --Minnekon (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia was invited to join NORDEFCO in 2011.[5]

First, it probably is incorrect statement (see: Talk:Estonia#Nordic_relations). Secondly, how it would be about Nordic identity? --Minnekon (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

removed that one SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extensive economic interdependence between Estonia and its Nordic neighbours. ...

Maybe someone has connected economic relations with Nordic identity, but until we haven't find source stating that, it's off-topic or original research. --Minnekon (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get sources for that one - yes it's connected SørenKierkegaard (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Took out until sources provided: There is an extensive economic interdependence between Estonia and its Nordic neighbours: three quarters of foreign investment in Estonia originates in the Nordic countries (principally Finland and Sweden), to which Estonia sends 42% of its exports (as compared to 6.5% going to Russia, 8.8% to Latvia, and 4.7% to Lithuania). Minnekon (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background

We can write about history from two perspectives. First of course if source connects particular historical event or period to formation of Nordic identity. Other reason to write about history would be as a part of overview of main subjects - just to give quick overview what Estonia and Nordic states are. Current version of history section is neither. It's not general overview, but contains few specific events. It attempts to connect to Nordic identity, but has no source to back it up.Minnekon (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm smarter about wikipedia now than i was in january - so yes I agree, the current version is pointless SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC) SørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

removedSørenKierkegaard (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]