Talk:Baltic states

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

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

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


 * Indeed, including the older history of these three countries here just doesn't make any sense as this concept, nor the suggested similarity of these three countries did not exist before that era. 2001:1530:1010:FA81:6191:FE40:B9E2:2FC3 (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You were the one who expanded the history section in the past. Please make up your mind for once, because there were many back and forth edits by you (not to mention all the edit wars and other things). – Sabbatino (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what? I have always been advocating for removing or only very shortly summarizing the pre-1918 history. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I do think that the post-1918 history does need expanding, yes. The first three decades of freedom were instrumental in the histories of all three countries and all of that content is missing right now. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right. Sorry then. I was certain that you were the one who expanded the history section due to your past behavior in the article. However, there was no consensus reached on shortening the history section last time so that is the reason why the section looks like that. I am not against trimming the history section but it needs to be decided where is the breaking point. – Sabbatino (talk)
 * I'd assume the breaking point should be IN:OR. As in, until when do we have sources that directly about the history of "the baltic states" in unison, not as the histories of latvia + lithuania + estonia talked about separately. There are loads of sources that talk about the history in unison since 1918, but very few before 1918. And then there's also the fact that the term "the Baltic states" had a different meaning altogether in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, which is currently not listed in the history section at all. Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're going to define the article by the lead description, it does say that the term is "typically used" etc. This doesn't exclude anything, and a I don't see a case for editing the main text on the basis of such a broad definition. Tammbeck (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * IN:OR comes in as an issue regarding most of the pre-1918 text, because the sources are mostly not mentioning "Baltic states", the sources are talking about specific Estonian, Latvian or Lithuanian history. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Perhaps for consistency we should follow the example of History of the Baltic States which is a disambiguation page with links to the three national history articles. Tammbeck (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this makes sense. I've trimmed the page and added links to individual history pages + an historic overview timeline for the region. The post-1917 section should be greatly expanded now. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Political POV
I see political POV in at least one part of this article. Baltic states gets quite ideological in parts, not objective as an encyclopedia should be. It and probably much of the article needs NPOV work. Zaslav (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Itzhak Rosenberg:‎ Undid revision 976475998 by Zaslav. By the same logic no country was ever occupied. Naming occupation as occupation is the objective thing to do. Blackmailing countries into surrendering and marching in with armies is hardly included in "incorporated", but more so in "occupied".


 * Your objection shows that you don't understand what I wrote and the article's stated point about nationalism. "The same logic" exists only in your mind, not in my edit.  The fact that the Baltics were occupied is not disputed and it is not relevant to this sentence, which makes the point that they were incorporated 20 years later than other parts of the USSR.  The occupation, more relevantly the forcible incorporation as opposed to a temporary occupation like that of Germany and Austria after WWII, is a separate point that may also be added to the article but it is not the point being made about timing in this sentence.  Your objection is due to emotional involvement, not objectivity, as is proved by your emotional complaint about my edit.
 * Please adhere to NPOV guidelines and do not insult people when you do not understand their "logic". I think there is a compromise possible that achieves both our goals.  Are you willing to discuss it?  Zaslav (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Itzhak but Zaslav is very correct here. As much as I secretly also sympathize with the Baltic States' faith in the 20th century, but those countries were indeed incorporated into the USSR; this is a fact. Our personal perspective doesn't matter. How about this: The Baltic States were incorporated into the Soviet Union but considered occupied by the international community ( or something along these lines? ). I know this is not needed, but maybe this will make Itzhak sold? :) - GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear Zaslav, the Baltic states only lacks references, but it is truthful.
 * As for what I changed your previous statement into "occupied later than other countries", it is still valid and objectively factual, as indeed, much of the territories gained by USSR were not gained by democratic elections or referendums, but instead brute invading force - e.g. First Republic of Armenia, Democratic Republic of Georgia, Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus, I would even dare use Basmachi movement as an example. All of these (and more) were occupied by USSR during the Russian Civil War, and the Baltics were occupied in 1940.


 * "Emotional language" or "involvement" seems little more than ad hominem, but whatever - it has no argumentative value. Furthermore, I am puzzled about how you feel my statement as emotional, as after rereading it multiple times, it can be interpreted as neutral if you are calm when reading it. I have a suspicion that you might have been not in a very zen mood when reading my comment ;) (then again, the internet is not the place for zen...)


 * The primary definition of "incorporated" according to Merriam-Webster is "1 : united in one body", whereas the relevant definition of "occupied" is "3a : to take or hold possession or control of". From what I put forward in this discussion, it seems natural to prefer the latter over the former.
 * After some thought, I do notice that calling it incorporation is not factually incorrect, but my comment that occupation is a better descriptor of that situation is undeniable.--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Itzhak Rosenberg, thank you for your thoughtful reply. First of all, I am not in any way trying to whitewash or justify the Soviet seizure of the Baltic states. Yes, they were occupied.

Then they were incorporated. Those are not the same thing. Germany was occupied after WWII but it was not incorporated into any other state. Parts of Germany were not merely occupied but were incorporated into Poland, mainly. There is a difference between occupation and incorporation. The point of the later acquisition of the Baltics by the USSR is that they were incorporated into the USSR, which implies permanence, rather than merely being occupied, which implies a temporary status. As another example, Israel's "occupied territories" are called that because in principle the occupation is temporary. Of course, "temporary" has no time limit, but they have not been incorporated into Israel, which would imply permanence. (I hope this doesn't touch a nerve with anyone. It's meant to be purely factual.)  With the Baltic states, they were incorporated and I think it is fair to say that being incorporated was important to their subsequent history and is more relevant to their subsequent nationalism than a temporary occupation would have been.

In short, the occupation is how they came under Soviet control, but the incorporation is what gave them 50 years of Soviet control. That is why I think "incorporation" is the most appropriate term here. Zaslav (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @Zaslav Israel’s occupied territories..I hope this doesn't touch a nerve with anyone - don’t envision that lol! Very good example thou. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @Zaslav Thank YOU for your thoughtful input. My main objection to "incorporation" was all along that it seemingly whitewashed the situation, but I after looking through how many times the word "occupied" is already used in the article, I realised that if someone's purpose was to whitewash, they were doing it incredibly bizarrely ;) So, if you wish to change to "incorporated", it doesn't detract from historical accuracy.
 * Also @User:GizzyCatBella, please note that "thou" is not "though", but instead "you" (e.g. O Brother, Where Art Thou?) :)
 * The final verdict from me - you can revert it if it pleases you so. Best, --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * yeah :) I like spelling it this way thou. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To Itzhak Rosenberg: That is my point.  "Occupied" is appropriate in the discussion of how the Baltics came to be incorporated.  But in the present context, "incorporated" is the relevant concept.  Thank you for a rational discussion.
 * To GizzyCatBella: Are you hinting that English spelling is not highly regular?  Zaslav (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Mainly in these crazy times of instant smartphone text exchanges, yes. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  08:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image :) hahaha! My fan saw it too. LOL! -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Itzhak Rosenberg, these countries were occupied, and this is supported reliable sources. Incorporation implies legitimacy, but reliable sources state that the majority of the world did not recognize the annexation, but instead viewed the Baltic states as de jure independent states under occupation. --Nug (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with  and 's original position. We need to be consistent with the articles Occupation of the Baltic states and State continuity of the Baltic states. "Occupation" refers to the entire 50-year-long military occupation of the Baltic States, and not simply the act of claimed "incorporation". Tammbeck  talk  12:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, both and  are right. Incorporation would only be applicable de facto, and hence would also apply to any and all countries occupied by Germany/Soviet Union in WW2, so in fact it should be clearly stated as "occupation". I am back to my original proposition, as it is the truthful one.--Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , some areas were merely occupied (and Nazi German Reichskommissariats were an example of that; eventual annexation of these areas was planned but not carried out due to Nazi defeat), that is, seized but not claimed by invader as its own territory. Some were annexed (occupied and claimed by invader as its own territory) - which doesn't necessary imply legality. So, not to "any and all countries occupied by Germany/Soviet Union in WW2". In this particular example, "Because the three Baltic states had been annexed by the Soviet Union later than other territories..." would have actually worked, but as long as the relevant article is called occupation of the Baltic states, retaining of current wording would be consistent with it. Seryo93 (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * your objections are truly valid, however please do note what I wrote: "Incorporation would only be applicable de facto" and I continued "hence would also apply to any and all countries occupied by Germany/Soviet Union in WW2". I didn't argue that Reichkommissariats were de jure incorporated into Nazi Germany, instead I pointed out their subservience to their respective systems and hence incorporation in that manner - as part of a system. I hope you understand :) For your last point, I fully agree. Best --Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Occupation section
Earlier, I made this edit because the material was not supported by the cited source:

The material was restored w/o providing a source; I removed it again here. I also added a cn tag to indicate which material is supported by the Yad Vashem source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Timeline table
An editable historic timeline template for the article. This is the same type of a historic timeline that is used on numerous other Ingenpedia pages. For example on the Nordic countries page. , why did you want to delete this? Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed with you twice back in 2018 (here and here) and nobody agreed with your proposition. You seem to have a short memory if you thought that after two years you would insert it and nobody would notice it. And I will repeat it once again – IN:OSE does not justify the addition of the timeline table. It causes more problems than solves them. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two separate topics mixed in the links you posted. So I'll focus on the timeline table only. First of all, "nobody agreed" is false. There are several editors who agreed there, for example . The discussion just died and no action was taken. It's completely justified to bring this topic up again. The latest discussion was about what exactly the timeline table should look like. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As the second note - What problems do you think a history timeline causes? They're used everywhere in wikipedia. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated table: One of the comments from @Minnekon was that "Ancient Estonia" wasn't really a political body like the rest of the blocks here, so instead, can remove that and just keep one century row as the "tribes": Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I also liked 's idea of using this table format instead, because it would be more exact. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Embedding the proposed table format here as an example. LV & LT timelines need to be added then. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: The proposed timeline template by seems to be used quite extensively. Example. Example 2. When searching for "History timeline templates on wikipedia", this pops up in many places. See Category:History timeline templates for the full list. cc  Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: Also this one looks efficient, because all different regions can be listed on the left-side vertical column. So we won't mention LT/LV/EE at all, only the names of the regions throughout the timeline. This allows for all regions to be listed with precision. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like you still IN:DONTGETIT. In addition, as I already stated many times – IN:OSE is not a justification to include a timeline just because it exists on other pages. So just stop it. Timeline is a bad idea because:
 * a) it does not improve the page in any way (apart from taking unnecessary space);
 * b) the term "Baltic states" did not exist until the 20th century so your desire to insert a timeline, which dates back to the 10th–12th centuries is beyond me.
 * Navboxes like Template:South America government from 1990 are supposed to be placed at the bottom of the page so that is a very silly idea. You should read IN:NAVBOX before making such suggestions, because it would go straight to IN:AFD. Therefore, reconsider your intentions regarding the timeline, forget the navbox proposition, and just IN:DROPTHESTICK, because otherwise you will once again show that you are IN:NOTHERE. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe a visual timeline summary does improve the page. As previously mentioned by other editors, a (very) short summary of pre-1918 history of the three would be ok. So it's up to a wider vote. First step is to actually build the timeline though, using the timeline template shown above with the Estonian history example, so that's what I'll do next. I don't see how IN:DROPTHESTICK applies, because the previous "debate" didn't end. As I said, several editors were in favor of adding a timeline. I'm continuing it where it left off. IN:NOTHERE is unjustified. What exactly is un-encyclopaedic about a timeline? Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Navboxes like Template:South America government from 1990 are supposed to be placed at the bottom of the page so that is a very silly idea." - Just out of curiosity, why exactly is that a silly idea? If we assume that using it in the bottom is exactly how that specific navbox style is supposed to be used. Your IN:AFD reference is unclear, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Obviously no-one would ever delete this article. When some edit isn't suitable, it'll be reversed. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What I meant about navboxes is that it cannot be used in one page. Simple as that. Single page navboxes are not allowed and they are deleted very quickly. IN:DROPTHESTICK applies to "If a debate, discussion, or general exchange of views has come to a natural end through one party having "won" or (more likely) the community having lost interest in the entire thing, then no matter which side you were on, you should walk away." and "If you don't, if you continue to flog the poor old debate, if you try to reopen it, if you continually refer to old news, if you parade your triumph in the faces of others ... you're not really winning friends and influencing people. Instead, you are annoying everyone nearby." Do you get it now? Because that is exactly what you are doing. And IN:NOTHERE applies to you not really wanting to work collaboratively and just trying to push your own agenda. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, you're being quite hostile. These types of personal attacks like "you must have an agenda" have no basis. What "agenda" is solved by adding a timeline? It seems to be specifically you with a problem against the idea of a timeline, but you're framing it as somehow I'm the one going against the mainstream opinion. To summarize your response about the topic itself, if I get it correctly, is that the timeline is bad because only post-1918 should be covered? Let's just leave it at that then for now and see what other editors say. My view is that I agree that the article itself should be primarily about post-1918, but a general short summary of pre-1918 for the region in general is justified. A timeline would fit that summary role quite fine. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am not hostile. Secondly, saying that "you must have an agenda" is not a personal attack, but a simple observation knowing your past behavior in this page. In addition, the term "Baltic states" is about a grouping of sovereign states that did not exist before 1918 so that is one of the main reasons of why the timeline is a very bad idea (and this is not some kid's coloring book to have it). Ingenpedia is supposed to have more text and less tables/images/etc and not the other way around. The current short summary is already good and it even has links to the histories of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which is enough. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "saying that "you must have an agenda" is not a personal attack, but a simple observation knowing your past behavior in this page" - This is Ad hominem. Unrelated to the current topic. There's much I would respond to that but I won't. Let's stick to the actual topic. Blomsterhagens (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)