Talk:Baltic states/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Merge

  • Yes, merge 'em. -- Randall Bart 10:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would be good idea. M.K. 10:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it would be a great idea... It would make it easier for people.--Marooningme
  • Merge/redirect "Baltic States", "Baltic states", "Baltic Republics", "Baltic republics", etc. into one article called "Baltic countries". --3 Löwi 05:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • yes merge them into 'baltic countries, becaue a) they aren't republics any more, and i am Latvian and dont think its right and b)it would be much easier for people.
  • A Google of "Baltic countries -Wikipedia" turned up 1,080,000 results, and "Baltic states - Wikipedia" turned up 2,780,000. So redirecting B.countries to B.states makes sense. A Google search of "Baltic republics" "soviet union" -wikipedia site:.edu" turned up 884 results; the majority of these dealt with the period from 1945-1990. A lot of historic research remains to be done on this era. The B. republics article mentions that they had their own designation- "Pribaltika" - so I think it would be good to keep it as a place to put historic info as it comes up. There were probably formal or informal policies applied to the region as a whole. So vote no merge. Novickas 13:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. There ought to be a separate article for the Baltic Republics, which is a distinct political entity compared with the Baltic states There are separate articles Baltic governorates for the Baltics in the Russian empire and separate articles Swedish Estonia, Livonia, etc for the period when the Baltics where under Swedish rule Martintg 22:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fs*I restored the tags, because the subjects do overlap, but, besides the considerations mentioned by Martin, the therm "Baltic Republics" is quite frequently used. So I am currently unsure. Doc15071969 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge. -- Petri Krohn 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Tourism-related stuff more appropriate in each country's article(s)

--3 Löwi 09:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Tourism of the Baltic states

The Baltic states are in fact very different, despite being frequently grouped together. They are considered to be sparsely-populated countries, known for unspoilt nature, amber and medieval cities, mostly former members of the Hanseatic League. Today, the Baltic states are dynamic countries with a young population and cities offering great cultural opportunities, and cozy pubs and restaurants. The Baltic countries are known to offer affordable vacations.

A favourite place to visit in Estonia is the capital city Tallinn (Reval), an old, walled medieval town with several cathedrals and churches, romantic little streets, and a harbour with ferry lines to Sweden and Finland. The tourist area of the city can be awash with foreign visitors. In Southern Estonia, there is the famous old university town of Tartu (Dorpat). Estonia offers beautiful islands such as Saaremaa and Hiiumaa, and lakes such as Lake Peipus. Estonia is ideal for recreation in free nature and in the woods. Long distance buses provide frequent and affordable links within Estonia.

The Latvian capital, Riga, is the largest city of the Baltics, with about 800,000 inhabitants. Riga is famous for its Art Nouveau architecture, broad boulevards, and cosmopolitan flair. The Latvian countryside is similar to that found in Scandinavia, but is much more affordable. Latvia offers a long Baltic Sea coastline with harbour towns like Liepāja and Ventspils, and seaside resorts like Jūrmala. The countryside offers picturesque little towns, often with medieval centres.

Most visits to Lithuania start with the capital, Vilnius (Polish/Yiddish: Wilno/Wilna), which is also known as "the Jerusalem of the North"; from the 14th century until the German occupation in World War II, it housed numerous synagogues and the most famous rabbinical schools of the Ashkenazi world. At every turn, the visitor sees the creations of all the cultures - Lithuanian, Polish, Jewish, Russian, French, German, and Belarusian - that are part of its history. Its old town is one of the largest in Central Europe and is recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage site. Close to Vilnius is historic Trakai with its lake-island castle, as well as the country's historic capitol Kernavė, a prominent archeological site, often called the "Baltic Troy". Kernavė is also included in the UNESCO World Heritage list. The Geographical Centre of Europe, as determined by the French Geographical Institute, lies a few miles from Vilnius; it is celebrated by a 136-acre sculpture park, Europos Parkas, filled with the work of sculptors from around the world. On the way from the capital to the sea is Lithuania's interwar capital, Kaunas. The city boasts a Hanseatic old town, while the modern area contains probably the densest concentration of pre-war Functionalist architecture in Europe. On the Baltic coast, the seaside resort of Palanga draws many thousands of tourists to its beaches, art galleries, restaurants, and nightlife. In the north, near the city of Šiauliai, lies the unique Hill of Crosses - an impressive site of Catholic pilgrimage and faith. South of Vilnius, near the city and spa of Druskininkai, is "Stalin's World" (Grutas Park), which is filled with the monuments to Lenin and other Soviet leaders that were erected all over Lithuania by the Soviets and joyfully toppled after they left.

Lithuania offers its visitors the opportunity to explore unspoiled nature - it contains vast forests, meadows, lakes, and miles of sandy coastline. The stunning Curonian Spit sand peninsula on the Baltic Sea is also on the UNESCO World Heritage list.

(end of quote)--3 Löwi 09:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Agree. Novickas 13:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Finland as a Baltic state in 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

Quote from MRP additional protocol, Article I: In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R.. The original German text reads: 1. Für den Fall einer territorial-politischen Umgestaltung in den zu den baltischen Staaten (Finnland, Estland, Lettland und Litauen) gehörenden Gebieten bildet die nördliche Grenze Litauens zugleich die Grenze der Interessensphäre Deutschlands und der UdSSR. --3 Löwi 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: Is the adjective "baltisch" in the above text used in a geographic sense (like "Baltic" in "the Baltic island of Gotland") or is it used in a geopolitical sense (referring to "das Baltikum" which I believe would be the German equivalent to the English term 'Baltic States')? Clarifer 07:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Central Europe or Northern Europe ?

Following statement "To a lesser degree, northern parts of Latvia have also been influenced by Lutheran and Northern European traditions. The rest of the country, in particular the southeast, along with its southern neighbor, Lithuania, are predominantly Catholic and culturally situated in Northern Europe." seems incorredct. If northern Latvia is somewhat more associated with Norther Europe, than it would logical, that Catholic southern Latvia belongs culturally to Central Europe (not NE, like the article states). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4rdi (talk • contribs)

Incorrect. According to UN, Baltics are Northern Europe. -- Sander Säde 17:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification: The UN indeed classifies the three Baltic countries as belonging in Northern Europe, but this is merely a geographical designation -- there is no dispute here. The article however distinguishes on the basis of cultural affiliation and influences. Culturally speaking, Lithuania and most of Latvia are not situated in Northern Europe in the way that Estonia clearly is. Estonians are "Northern European" because they are Lutheran, are ethnically related to the Finns, and indeed consider themselves "nordic"; Latvia and Lithuania are, culturally speaking, "Central European" because they are predominantly Catholic and derive their cultural heritage from Poland and/or Central Europe. Therefore, to state that, "Culturally and historically, it is more appropriate to view Estonia, which is Lutheran and Finnic-speaking, as belonging in the Northern European cultural sphere", and follow with, "[Most of Latvia and] Lithuania, are predominantly Catholic and culturally situated in Northern Europe", is inconsistent, inaccurate and confusing. Alternatively, a case needs to be made here that Latvia and Lithuania are culturally Northern European -- a difficult case to be made indeed.Lkbunker 22:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia article on Central Europe doesn't say anything about Lithuania, and the idea that Latvia is catholic country is totaly wrong, so get a source for your claims. ---- Xil...sist! 22:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Focusing on religious beliefs and Nordicism as cultural differentiators is inappropriate because both are largely irrelevant to cultural ties.
   Critically, Lithuanians and Latvians are culturally nearly identical, both being members of the same cultural tree. (The ancient Prussians are gone.) Religion, in this context, is a historical artifact--Lithuania and Latgale in Latvia being Catholic--a reflection of Polish invasion, with the rest of Latvia and Estonia to the north as well as Finland being Lutheran--a reflection of Swedish invasion. The dividing factor here is the maximum extent of the Swedish empire as indicated by the artifact of the boundaries of the spread of Lutheranism. Nothing to do with cultural boundaries.
   Thus, religion a not cultural divider in this context: Latvians and Lithuanians can and do take religion seriously, but it is not a cultural differentiator or divider in any way. The large majority of Latvians are Lutheran by the way.
   One should also not confuse Poland-Lithuania as a political alliance with its being a cultural unity.
   In terms of Nordicism, one would need to look at lifestyles. The way life is lived: houses traditionally built and insulated against the winter, construction of barns, granaries, chicken coops,..., animal husbandry practices, fishing practices, traditional clothes and jewelry (the Swedes have something very similar to a Latvian "Namejs" ring weave pattern), even the love for saunas (a book I have of Finnish historical saunas shows ones identical to historical ones I have seen in Latvia) and customs for their use, more seriously, the love for song festivals--this topic would need more exploration. That said, I would consider "Nordic" a poor indicator to infer cultural boundaries because in "popular culture" it focuses too much on surface appearances. In terms of daily life, there's no break in continuum along how life is/was traditionally lived along the eastern Baltic Sea coast.
   The more appropriate term is to refer to the Finns, Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians as being "Baltic" (here all four are "Baltic states" in a 1928 encyclopedia). If one wishes to look at northern versus central Europe, then the Baltic states are northern European. To suggest Finland, Estonia, Latvia (+Livs=Finno-Ugric), and Lithuania--the surviving Baltic and Finno-Ugrian cultures that have together inhabited the eastern Baltic coast for millenia should be divided into northern and central Europe reflects, I think, an incomplete understanding of Baltic history and culture. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I read through the intro section several times, and it does appear to be a bit unclear about what is cultural, historical, religious, and where lines, if any, are drawn. Past edits looking to clarify (Baltic as language versus Finnic as language versus Baltic as Baltic sea cultures) seem to have only confused the issue. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this term does not appear to be well-used in this sense. How about Baltic Sea states? ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
edit conflictI'm particularly perplexed by: "In the Cold War context, the three countries were considered a part of Eastern Europe and were generally treated as a cohesive cultural and historical entity. However, today it is often stressed that Latvia, Lithuania, and particularly Estonia have little else in common other than geographic proximity, similar small size, and a shared history of Soviet occupation." Who are those that often stress that it's pretty much only Soviet occupation that binds them? This is the problem with writing impersonally and passively. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
To Digwuren's, if the focus is cultural, that would be worthwhile and would include both Finno-Ugric and Baltic--and makes more sense than splitting Finland off as Nordic (akin to Sweden, Norway) or discussing Estonian aspirations to Nordicism. And it would clarify how this article is different from "Baltic republics" (the three...). Worth considering!
    Sweden (and to much lesser degree some other countries), though on the Baltic, is not typically called a Baltic state, so Baltic Sea states is a bit problematic, that would be all states bordering on the Baltic sea--"Baltic" states really refers to "along the east coast of the Baltic" states.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
East Baltic Sea states? :-) ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 19:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
For crying out loud, let's not debate over the title (all over again), just say if you think that all Baltic states are in Northen Europe or not. Before WWII Finland was considered one of the Baltic states now it is not (worth adding to History, if you have source as it seems). And BTW I don't think it is correct to say that Baltic states have nothing much in common as the article does ---- Xil...sist! 18:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Title is fine (!), changing only introduces new problems, mention Finland considered Baltic state before WWII more strongly, emphasize cultural ties, move on. The little in common except for proximity comment is total(ly wrong) conjecture. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Baltic Cultural Unity: A Misconception

Whether or not it is legitimate to consider Latvia and Lithuania as “Northern European” from a cultural standpoint, it seems that the real point of contention in the previous discussion is the extent of cultural similarity — or dissimilarity — between the three Baltics. Vecrumba asks (above), “Who are those that often stress that it's pretty much only Soviet occupation that binds them?” Well, since regaining independence, important public figures in Estonia have consistently challenged the concept of a coherent Baltic cultural or political space, not least of all, and perhaps most famously, Estonia’s current president and former foreign minister, Toomas Hendrik Ilves. In his words, "what the three Baltic States have in common almost completely derives from shared unhappy experiences imposed upon us from outside: occupations, deportations, annexation, sovietization, collecitivization, russification." It is true that this stance has gone hand-in-hand with the parallel policy of attempting to reorient Estonia towards the Nordic community (for example, by joining the EU’s Nordic Battlegroup). Without getting into a debate about the merits, risks or problems of “Estonia’s aspirations to Nordicism”, the point here is that, as Estonian policymakers would be keen to stress, the policy is not wishful thinking: it is rooted in strong cultural and historical factors which give it substance and make it generally acceptable in Estonia. As reported in Die Presse, Ilves has stated, rightly or wrongly, that “Estonia is a Scandinavian not Baltic country” and “Many people think that Ilves fits into the modern image of Estonia very well.” (DP, 26.09.2006)

If we limit the discussion strictly to cultural and ethnic parameters — and not on how ongoing policy shifts are reflections of underlying cultural affinities and identities — let’s be honest, there is very little similarity between Estonia and the other Baltics. Language, ethnicity, religion, folk customs, national pastimes, and self-perceptions all point in another direction. Estonians are a Finnic bog-people, their folkloric traditions and their national epic “Kalevipoeg” sharing strong similarities with Finnish lore — and very much distinct from Latvian or Lithuanian folklore. And are we really to accept Vecrumba’s assertion that Estonia’s Lutheran heritage is “a reflection of Swedish invasion” having “Nothing to do with cultural boundaries” and also, is presumably, is of no cultural-social significance? Sociologists and social scientists have long stressed the importance of religion as a differentiating factor between peoples, with real practical consequences, a prominent example being Max Weber’s thesis that Protestant ethics and traditions drove the development of capitalism in parts of Europe. (Nor should we accept Vecrumba’s dubious suggestion that the sauna — an activity that is central and unique to Finnish and Estonian family traditions — is actually also a Latvian invention, though this is not important to the argument here.) The cultural divide between Estonia and the two other Baltics (who, as was rightly stated, "are culturally nearly identical, both being members of the same cultural tree") is so strong that it feeds into public perceptions and stereotypes, which are superficial but also very much real expressions of cultural taxonomy. To quote president Ilves, “Finns [and] Estonians consider themselves rational, logical, unencumbered by emotional arguments; we are businesslike, stubborn and hard-working. Our southern neighbours see us as too dry and serious, workaholics, lacking passion and joie de vivre.”

None of this, of course, is to downplay the worth and significance of the common tragedy endured by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania under Russian occupation or the strong political bonds that persist — and indeed should persist — as a result of that shared experience. But it would be inaccurate to infer or project from this a thesis of Baltic cultural unity. To quote Ilves again, “It is time that we recognize that we are dealing with three very different countries in the Baltic area, with completely different affinities. There is no Baltic identity with a common culture, language group, religious tradition.” (For Ilves’ speech, see the Estonian Foreign Ministry site: http://www.vm.ee/eng/kat_140/1210.html) Lkbunker 14:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It was allready said that before WWII Finland was at least sometimes also considered Baltic state. Does Estonia also have much in common to Scandinavia and definetly not with Latvia and Lithuania ? ---- Xil...sist! 15:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
   When talking about cultural affinities, one must look at the last few thousand years, not current statements by politicians. I appreciate the Estonians seeking to aggressively associate themselves with their Finnish brethren, and through that association, assume the "Nordic" (typically meant as pertaining to Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland) appellation--this is certainly a way for them to get away from the "Eastern European" designation which is still applied to the Baltic states. A bit of political chauvinism and identity-seeking is not a scholarly pronouncement on cultural affinities (or not). Culturally and linguistically, the Estonians and Finns are one pair, the Latvians and Lithuanians are another. But even as you (Lkbunker) contend, cultural ties don't depend only on ethnicity, they depend on historical circumstance and on circumstances of daily life.
   If one wishes to look at the overlap of cultures, there are the Livs, also Finno-Ugric, who remained in Latvia when the Baltic tribes came. There are, for example, very many similarities in traditional brooches, etc. between the Livs and the Kurši (tribe inhabiting Courland). Of course, some of this is surely assimilation of cultural traditions by both sides--but the point being that if one is to study cultural similarities, dissimilarities, and overlaps along the eastern Baltic sea, citing politician's pronouncements as to cultural superiority (you'll note he rather disparages his neighbors to the south) is wholly inappropriate for encyclopedic statements regarding cultural ties. Ilves is not a social anthropologist. You can cite him for post-independence socio-political developments, but not as a characterization of cultures. Every reference in its appropriate place and context.
   Now, for religion: "Socioligists have long stressed...." As a general assertion, this is fine. But your application of sociologists stressing religion generally to it making a difference specifically in the Baltics is WP:SYNTH at best unless you can, for example, find a scholarly source that talks about specific cultural differences between Latvian Lutherans and Latvian Catholics, Latvia having been on the Swedish/Polish religious divide. And even then, one would need to consider whether the primary influences are Lutheranism versus Catholicism or Swedish versus Polish--and whether those differences, if any, are culturally significant.
   The biggest editorial problem with Baltic articles is the notion that concepts which are true generally apply to the Baltics specifically. The Baltics have a unique history--don't assume normal rules apply. Make sure you deal with scholarly sources that discuss topics specifically in reference to the Baltics. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I absolutely did not contend the sauna was a Latvian invention. I only wanted to point out that the use of the sauna ("pirts" in Latvian), built in the same manner as the Finnic, same birch tree branches bound for use in stimulating the circulation ("pērties pirtī"),... is an ancient and storied tradition south of the Estonian-Latvian border as well as north of it. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
In terms of geopolitical taxonomy, the Baltic states are still considered as a unit in many scholarly sources - Google "Baltic states site:.edu" - that post-date the Soviet occupation. The statement in the lead, "today it is often stressed that Latvia, Lithuania, and particularly Estonia have little else in common other than geographic proximity, similar small size, and a shared history of Soviet occupation" needs to be supported by many references in the article, if it should remain at all. The speech is important, and IMO could stand alone in the lead, if attributed. But that statement doesn't belong there in its current form in the lead, as if it expressed a widespread consensus. Novickas 01:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another commonality, the eastern Baltic coast version of the zither. National instrument of Finland. National instrument of Latvia. Of course, WP:OR until one finds a scholarly article discussing the (akin to) zither and the nature of the music it's used to play (chords, intervals, progressions, rhythms,...). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my partiality to this source, but Lituanus is still going strong, and might be a good place to look for referenced commonalities. Novickas 16:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
They do have some articles on literature--which would be a good topic to examine, and yes, I'm quite partial to them too as an excellent information source.
   If the article develops, it might be useful to have sections regarding cultural aspects--arts and crafts, music, literature, social traditions (sauna!),.... I think that would be a lot more informative than simply pronouncing whether they are or aren't similar/related/etc. Whatever opinions are in that regard, "Baltic states" is a "bucket" that, I daresay, will never go away, so we might as well use that to our advantage (and that the bucket also included Finland before WWII). Just some thoughts. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the text, the largest part of Latvia is what is showed in green in this map, which roughly shows cultural divisons of Latvia --Xil...sist!
According to the text, the largest part of Latvia is what is showed in green in this map, which roughly shows cultural divisons of Latvia --Xil...sist!

I removed folowing text from the article:

To a lesser degree, northern parts of Latvia have also been influenced by Lutheran and Northern European traditions. The rest of the country, in particular the southeast, along with its southern neighbor, Lithuania, are predominantly Catholic and culturally situated in Northern Europe. In Lithuania and most of Latvia, the historical impact of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian Empire, and the German Empire have been of crucial importance. In Estonia and northern parts of Latvia, historical connections to the Teutonic Order, to the Hanseatic League, and to the Swedish and Danish Empires have left an important historical imprint. Because I think it is Original research done by users who want to promote the idea that Estonia has nothing to do with Baltic states and because I suspect that the text is inacurate (see map I added)--Xil...sist! 17:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The text removed is a bit clumsy and messed up. But in general, the fact that Lithuania's Catholic cultural background comes from it's historic ties to Poland or Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth etc. At the same time when Latvia and Estonia have Lutheran tradition and were tied together since the Livonian Confederation and were influenced by the Baltic Germans that ruled the countries for 700 years despite been a part of Russian Empire after the Great Northern War etc. But then again, Estonia is linguistically/culturally also tied together with Finland and Latvia with Lithuania. All this should be still mentioned in the article.--Termer 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It's allready there, or you think something is missing ? --Xil...sist! 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No big deal, I think it could be spelled out better, currently it's spread all over.--Termer 20:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Whole article needs to be spelled out better I don't see anything wrong with it being spread out (if you mean history/culture/language) - it helps to describe different aspects of the topic better. Everything should be summarized in the lead section (which allready mentions languages). Also I don't see a reson to stress the differences - afterall there are three nations not one, there ought to be a difference. Besides all Baltic states want to be considered Northen Europe (see Northeastern Europe for example) not just Estonia --Xil...sist! 21:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Northeastern Europe is a compromise terminology? that looks like a joke to me. Or WP:OR for sure. Or just simply soapboxing. Soapboxing is also want to be considered Northern Europe. The Baltic States are Northern Europe geographically, politically speaking Eastern Europe. There is nothing more to it--Termer 01:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not like it is going to be mentioned in the article (atleast not without proper references and style as in Estonia's case). I was noting it just because it might cause further problems if everyone goes fighting who is more northern than others and introducing new theroies to support their views --Xil...sist! 01:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)






The rejoinders to my opening argument above read like a denial of Estonian cultural identity. Worse, they border on making a mockery of it. An unfortunate remark by Xil captures the ridicule: “I think [that the argument for Estonian distinctness] is Original research done by users who want to promote the idea that Estonia has nothing to do with Baltic states”. Mr. Xil, this is a serious claim, for two reasons. First, it suggests that the argument for Estonia’s cultural separateness is based on inaccurate or fabricated (“original”) research or on a misleading presentation of facts. Second, you imply that the idea of Estonia’s distinctiveness is something which is “promoted”, presumably as an instrument of political manipulation. Vecrumba echoes Xil by calling the argument “political chauvinism”. In other words, Vecrumba and Xil question both the academic integrity as well as the moral-political intentions of the argument for Estonian cultural uniqueness. I will tackle both these serious charges.

The ACADEMIC ARGUMENT

The argument for Estonia’s separateness rests on the central empirical claim that “Language, ethnicity, religion, folk customs, national pastimes, and self-perceptions all point in another direction [than the Baltics].” If Xil and Vecrumba wish to challenge my argument — and that of Toomas Hendrik Ilves and many other prominent Estonians — you must do one or both of two things: (a) demolish my evidence and (b) expose inconsistencies in the logic of my argument. So far, you have done neither convincingly — not a single credible charge is raised against my claim. This is clear from the scant empirical evidence that has appeared in dissent so far, which is limited to trivialities like “zithers” and the “Lituanus”.

Vecrumba rightly calls for the use of “scholarly sources”. However, the burden is clearly on you and other dissentors to produce scholarly evidence against my argument. To meet your call for scholarly standards and to expose further the vacuity of your claim of Baltic cultural unity, I will expand my evidence. For this I will draw from “Estonica” (www.estonica.org), an online encyclopedia published by the Estonian Institute. The Institute was founded in 1989 to spread information about Estonian culture and people abroad. It has branches in Finland, Sweden, Hungary and France and produces important publications on Estonian culture (Estonian Art, Estonian Literary Magazine, Estonian Culture). It is a rock-solid, independent source for understanding Estonian culture. The encyclopedia makes clear that Estonians are, culturally speaking, a Finnic-nordic and not a Baltic people. This depiction is evident in all major cultural aspects. Here is the evidence from “Estonica”.

Religion

  • “The predominant position of Lutheranism [in Estonia] is based on a centuries-long tradition” — and not merely the result of historical accident. Estonians “possess a serious and protestant work ethic”
  • “The most important festival for old Estonians was Yuletide”, an ancient pagan ritual shared across the Nordic community which “ended on St Knud's Day.” The Yuletide tradition is common across the Nordic countries, including Finland.
  • “One can assume that the religion of ancient Estonians resembled that of other more eastern Finno-Ugric people, which is still practised”.
  • In the 1920s and 1930s an important movement emerged under the name of “Taara-belief”. The aim was to restore “the beliefs and rites of the ancient Estonians.” “There have been [scholarly] attempts to connect Taara both with the Scandinavian thunder-god Thor” and with the beliefs of other Finnic tribes.
  • Another ancient belief system, the “Earth belief”, “is a more diffuse movement greatly influenced by religions of other Finno-Ugrians.”

Literature

  • The Kalevipoeg, the national epic, is a lengthy “ballad, constructed on the stylistic basis of the Finnish national epic the Kalevala, and written in an original form imitating the runic verse” and had “a decisive effect on the rise of Estonian national self-awareness.”
  • Lyrical folk poetry from Estonia was part of the “cultural stratum of Finno-Ugric languages” and “largely based on syllabic quantity and mostly performed by women”.
  • The first Estonian-language book was a Lutheran work, the Wanradt-Koell catechism of 1535.

Art

  • “a large part of Estonian applied art is strongly influenced by Finno-Ugric ethnography and mythology.”

Music

  • Arvo Pärt, Estonia’s most famous composer, “has captured the essence of the Northern people in his music where tranquil, internal ecstasy reveals itself through quiet reverence and thus points to our cultural ideal — which is Scandinavia”.

Architecture

  • During Estonia’s first independence period (1920s and 30s), “All major architects adopted functionalism”. Functionalism, which had “an original, Nordic” image, “is historically considered to be the Estonian ‘national’ architectural style”.
  • “Functionalism suited the Nordic understanding of simplicity and feasibility.” “The same scheme is valid with other nations — Finnish ‘national’ style”
  • “Finnish culture has left a lasting imprint on Estonian urban life”.

Film

  • “The topics of nature and historical roots in Estonian documentaries, merge into an almost independent genre in films which follow the traditional Finno-Ugrian way of life in Siberia.”

Business culture

  • “during recent decades Estonia has demonstrated its determination to…return to the developed capitalism of Western Europe and the Nordic countries.”

National symbols

  • The three colours of the Estonian flag “have a fresh, cool, Nordic feel”.
  • Estonia’s anthem is melodically the same as Finland’s. “When both Estonia and Finland became independent after the First World War this identical melody with different words was recognised as the national anthem by both nations… even during the worst years [of Soviet occupation] the familiar tune could be heard over Finnish radio”.

The encyclopaedia points further that, in Estonian history there was a “traditional connection of the coastal villages with the Finnish coastal areas through the so-called 'friend barter'”. But “in Riga, Southern Estonia was always considered a distant province of Livonia where people spoke an alien language.” Indeed, the encyclopaedia does not have a single reference indicating similarity between Estonia and its Baltic neighbours on any of the cultural themes above — the only exception being mention of “The Dance Summer School of the Baltic countries”, which is organised each year (and whose working language is English). Isolated instances of cultural similarity between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania I am sure exist (though these have yet to be enumerated). But clearly none of these is important in the Estonian cultural mindset. The encyclopedia’s verdict is forceful, clear and ultimately convincing: “The understanding of our identity in Estonia largely relies on our belonging to the Finno-Ugric peoples” and “our cultural ideal [is] Scandinavia.” In the end, it is disingenuous and unfair to continue insisting that Estonians are culturally “Baltic” when it seems clear that they themselves do not identify as such.

The POLITICAL ARGUMENT

Since regaining independence, president Ilves and other prominent Estonian politicians and thinkers have consistently challenged the notion of Estonia as a Baltic country, and instead presented their people, rightly or wrongly, as “Nordic” (see my earlier post). To Vecrumba, this amounts to “political chauvinism”. He thinks he can get away with this accusation because to him and others, Estonia is, after all, culturally Baltic. The Nordic tag is therefore an imposition, a manipulation, a white-wash over a genuine Baltic cultural entity. As the section above makes clear, this thesis amounts to a grievous misconception of the Estonian people. Mr. Vecrumba, in making your claim, you clearly do not “appreciate the Estonians seeking to aggressively associate themselves with their Finnish brethren, and through that association, assume the ‘Nordic’…appellation”, as you claim. Rather, you condemn this move, you paint it as morally defunct, and in so doing, you demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of Estonian post-Soviet political aspirations. Let’s examine these aspirations.

Estonia’s quest for a post-Soviet identity draws from the Finnish example of national re-branding after WWII, through which Finland became a member of the Nordic community. The campaign succeeded thanks to geopolitical imperatives (Finland’s isolation and vulnerability after the Winter War and the Continuation War, and Sweden’s desire to have a stable, viable eastern flank) as well as cultural and historical factors (Finland too was long a part of the Swedish empire before it was absorbed into Tsarist Russia). What emerged from this experiment was the bi-linguistic Nordic community familiar to us today and which many Estonians seek to join. When you consider the stunning success of the Finnish project, it is hard to blame the Estonians for seeking to replicate, in their own way, the Finnish example (T. H. Ilves at least has raised this comparison publically).

Estonia’s cultural centre of gravity pulls it northwards — not southwards and certainly not eastwards — towards the only other people in the world whose language, customs and folk traditions are mutually recognisable, the Finns. Also towards Sweden, whose 150-year rule is still referred to today as “the good old Swedish times”. And, perhaps most importantly to the pragmatic minded Estonians, towards the region with which Estonia has by far the closest trade and invesmtent relations, the Nordic community. In the end, the strong cultural, linguistic, and economic links with Finland and the Nordic community make Estonia’s post-Soviet re-orientation comprehensible and at least cautiously acceptable to modern Estonians (see the Estonia article for references).

“National identity as it is understood today has always had political content for Estonians”. (“Estonica”) This does not mean that political imperatives mold identity; instead, that geopolitics and foreign occupation have throughout its history prevented Estonia from pursuing its innate cultural and political affinities. Russification, Sovietisation, collectivisation, and now Balticisation — all of these are seen as foreign impositions. For only the second time in its long history, Estonia now has the freedom to define its political destiny. Its democratically elected leaders have exercised this freedom in part to re-orient their country’s relations towards the Nordic community, even as they maintain strong political ties with the friendly neighbours to the south. In condemning this realignment, Vecrumba and others effectively deny or challenge the Estonian people's right to define their political destiny.

As a final note, I stress that the onus is now on Vecrumba, Xil, and other dissentors to produce convincing, sound, and overwhelming evidence against the notion of Estonian distinctiveness. Otherwise, this discussion and the premise of Baltic unity underlying the parent article are both a farse. Indeed, I am tempted to create a section in the article depicting the contemporary Estonian view and flooding it with sound, scholarly referrences. Lkbunker 11:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"I am tempted to create a section in the article depicting the contemporary Estonian view and flooding it with sound, scholarly referrences." Please, do so! By the way, Finland's claim to being a Nordic country rests to a very large part on its being a part of Sweden for some 600 years; without this, the Germanic Scandinavians would have been much more sceptically disposed towards embacing the Finns as their cultural equals. Estonia was a part of Sweden (and Denmark, for that matter) for a much shorter period. — Zalktis 11:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Lkbunker, I'm sorry, but what is your background in Baltic heritage and history? You're certainly not representatives of the Estonians we meet at Estonia House here in New York. And, really: "The three colours of the Estonian flag “have a fresh, cool, Nordic feel”? Phrenology dusted off and applied to national symbols?
   No one is saying that the Finno-Ugric peoples and the Baltic peoples are identical. It's purely your interpretation that anyone where is advocating some monolithic Baltic cultural unity, or that anyone here is contending the Estonians (and Finns) are an ethnically "Baltic people."
   What is being said is that the Finno-Ugric and Baltic peoples have inhabited the eastern Baltic sea coast for millenia, that they have been conquered and reconquered by/allied with un-allied with largely all the same powers which imposed their external traditions, and that through eight centuries of foreign domination puncuated by two decades of independence in the 20th century, the Finns and Estonians have fiercely preserved their culture and the Latvians and Lithuanians have fiercely preserved their culture. You run off and contend I'm (elsewhere) advocating Latvians invented the sauna, not the Finns. All that is being said that significant traditions that are woven into daily life: song festivals, the zither, saunas,... these are all instantly recognizeable to any Finn, Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian. The purpose of an encyclopedia article about the Baltic states (geographic term) includes discussing evolution of settlement (e.g., Livs are Finns/Estonians who "stayed behind"), differences in culture, similiarities in culture--and what differences/similarities are based on intrinsic cultural aspects and which are the result of external influences (church, Poland-Lithuania, et al.)
   You behave like any association of the (Finns and) Estonians with Latvians and Lithuanians is some anathema to be xenophobically denied at all costs--and that such should be the primary purpose of the article by prominently featuring political Estonian "Baltic denialism" in the opening paragraph. Of course Estonians are not Latvians or Lithuanians. Tell us something we didn't know.
   I'm really not understanding where you are coming from, why you think anyone here is insisting the Estonians are a Baltic people, or why you're now resorting to threatening the article.
   Perhaps if you chill out a bit and explain why you're here motivated to contribute in the first place we might understand your perspective better. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Re: "not Eastern Europe", I'll just mention that Latvians don't think of themselves as "Eastern European" (largely Slavic) either. Just another topic to discuss. (Termer's comments that I seem to recall aside.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Text I removed compared these countries thus indirectly suggesting, for example, that Estonia was never part Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Russian Empire and marginalises the acctual size of Latvia that acctually has same history as Estonia. No one is questioning if the Estonia has a different culture or not, but that you assume that Lithuanian and, especialy, Latvian culture is very different, for example, you imply that Latvia is a catholic country. You stress the diffrences and disregard similarities, perhaps you are not aware of them, still that is your point of view and you are stressing it a bit too much. Estonia may want to be a Nordic country, yet it still acts as one of the Baltic states - it takes part in inter-Baltic events and co-operates with other Baltic states in politics. This article is supposed to show what these countries have in common not to stress the differences --Xil...sist! 14:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, the tone of my writing should not surprise — serious charges in my view demand firm responses. If I seem forceful and engaged, it is because I am responding to comments that, with words like “chauvinism” and “original” research, to me transgress the bounds of normalcy and respectability in what should be a scholarly discussion. If my reaction seems disproportionate to the intended message, then the problem is simple and has an easy solution: we should steer away from such terms to avoid misunderstanding. And, in fact, if you examine carefully the content of my posts, you will notice that I have been very careful to avoid loaded words (another example, “xenophobia”).
As far as my own point of view, I stress that I do not represent any particular interest group or organisation, in case my intentions were ever suspect. So “where I am coming from” is a commitment to redressing what I and many others consider to be persistent and robust misconceptions, nothing more. As for my views not being “representative of the Estonians we meet at Estonia House here in New York”, well, that may be true (I do not doubt your sincerity), but it is anecdotal. I have tried to give more concrete evidence of current Estonian sentiments. In any case, what should matter are not my intentions but rather the substance of the argument. In that spirit, I warmly welcome and encourage any contributions to the debate as long as they contain scholarly pronouncements and refutations supported by valid evidence — regardless of people’s particular agendas (should they exist). But, really, speaking of “chauvinism”, “original” research, and “xenophobia” is inappropriate in such a discussion.
You also write that, “Estonians are not Latvians or Lithuanians. Tell us something we didn't know.” Similarly, Xil writes, “I don't see a reason to stress the differences — afterall there are three nations not one, there ought to be a difference.” The differences may be self-evident to you two, who I am sure have a strong knowledge of Latvia and Lithuania, but to the vast majority of people who stumble upon the Wikipedia article they are not. So when we start to make editorial revisions to the article that seem to de-emphasis these differences, or when we state that “This article is supposed to show what these countries have in common not to stress the differences” (Xil) — when it is precisely the differences that are incorrectly underpresented in common stereotypes — it appears that we are reinforcing the general misconceptions. (Though I will concede that some of the recent revisions and consolidations to the parent article seem balanced.)
As to the claim that I “behave like any association of the (Finns and) Estonians with Latvians and Lithuanians is some anathema to be xenophobically denied at all costs”, this is simply not true. I will reproduce to you two key points that I have already made above:
--> “None of this, of course, is to downplay the worth and significance of the common tragedy endured by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania under Russian occupation or the strong political bonds that persist — and indeed should persist — as a result of that shared experience.” (first post)
--> and I also speak of Estonia maintaining “strong political ties with the friendly neighbours to the south”. (second post)
Finally, I disagree with your depiction of Ilves’ statements on the other Baltics as “deprecating”. He is merely stressing (albeit forcefully) cultural dissimilarities in a bid to challenge misconceptions. His statements are descriptive, not judgmental. Ilves too has been strongly committed to Baltic cooperation. "Re-orientation northwards" certainly should not imply political rupture with the Baltics.Lkbunker 15:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I said that you should not stress the differences, not that you should level them as you shouldn't forget the similarities. Inacurate text can easaly be Original research and if this inaccuracy is proof for something then it is rather logic to assume that the text is written to support some views. --Xil...sist! 16:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad I overstated your stridency--but I have to say that from my vantage point you did appear intent on distancing Estonia from Latvia and Lithuania as much as humanly possible.
   I for one certainly appreciate the work you have put into the article.
   As Xil said, we should also look for commonality (where it exists, and it does) and also to differences (obvious, there are two different cultures involved--but as you said, let's not assume obvious to the uninitiated). You may find that Latvians and Lithuanians, being the last of their kind, understand the Estonians and Finns, being the last of their (northern) kind--particularly in the fierce protection of their culture--better than you think. A bond of a different type. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, can we read some books, please?

This may just be me, but trolling the web as the primary source to assemble an encyclopedia article seems to me rather self-cannibalistic. Most of my books are still (!) in storage but should be out by the end of the year. The "evolution" of an article shouldn't be ooh, found something new someone said on the web, let's stick it in the article with a retrieved date. The evolution should be based on someone reading a book (preferably books), instill in one's self an informed perspective, and then to write from that perspective. I'm glad for web soures as corroborating information readers can easily look up, but without a good scholarly base--books, that is, cohesive narratives of a collection of information large enough that it takes days to read and understand and be truly informed--we're bound (by the very nature of these mainly sound bite sized sources one finds on the web) to descend into WP:SYNTH, i.e., a collection of 100 sources each of which can be read in two minutes or less that editors have tried to make sense of, like assembling a puzzle.
  'On the Boundary of Two Worlds: Identity, Freedom, and Moral Imagination in the Baltics' looks like a fascinating series, unfortunately far too rich for my budget right now (at least the whole series). Does anyone have any volumes? That, and the Latvian title on Baltic languages are the only BOOKS mentioned so far. We need LOTS more. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Boundaries/eras of religious adoption

Re: "Jogaila lived before reformation and the text is not given in the ref"...

  • I'll go back and find my ref (Stone's seminal book on Poland-Lithuania). As I recall, as part of unification/taking the crown, Jogaila, previously heathen, was baptized (Catholic) as the Polonized Jagiełłó--that's where the Władysław comes from. This was the start of the Catholic tradition in Lithuania. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    Hmm... a reference to add...
He converted to Christianity, at the time everyone was catholic - reformation started only in 1517 and in fact spreaded in Lithuania as well, rather you should find how they ended up Catholic ----Xil...sist! 18:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that reformation came in and stayed primarily as the result of the Swedish empire. That said, I believe even Martin Luther himself visited Riga. More to explore! Historically, Latvians at least didn't seem to care much what you told them to believe as the new conquering power as long as they could still celebrate Jāņi. Consider how far religion bent to the heathens... Christmas = Ziemassvētki = winter fest, Easter = Lieldienas = great days, and no palm fronds but pussy willows--and I've always wondered, what is the connection with Christianity when parents lovingly swat their children on "Palm" Sunday with a bunch of pussy willows saying "Round like a pussy willow... health in, sickness out..."?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I updated the section talking about language and culture. I'm hoping it's clear. Finns+Estonians and Latvians+Lithuanians culturally/linguistically apart, with historical factors introducing commonalities across (e.g., zither as national instrument,...) the two as well as differences within (e.g., Lutheran/Catholic split of Latvians/Lithuanians). These can all be discussed on their own merits. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


It should be noted that although politically the present-day Baltic countries are republics, the term "Baltic republics" often refers to something different: the constituent Baltic republics of the Soviet Union. In the Cold War context, the three countries were considered a part of Eastern Europe.

This all sounds, sorry to point out, very strange to me. I could just go ahead and rephrase it but thought lets bring it up at first over here at the talk page. If anything than it could be pointed out - that during the cold war the term Baltic republics was often used to name the three republics of the Soviet union. Also in the cold war context if anything, the three countries were considered occupied by USSR or a part of the USSR. meaning during the cold war the Baltic countries were never considered a part of the Eastern Europe but a part of USSR. Also , all the Baltic republics had exile governments abroad and consulates open in the US during the whole era. So this Baltic republic thing should be much more clear than what it is right now I think.--Termer 04:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)