Talk:Northern Europe/Archive 1

Archive 1

The map

Am I colour blind? The Northern European countries are listed as purple, aren't they?

well the map is incomprehensible in any case. jnestorius^(talk) 01:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Misleading title

The title of this article should really be something along the lines of Northern Europe in UN statistics (and similar changes made to the Southern, Western, and Eastern pages). The particular boundaries of this definition have no relevance outside that very limited field, and may be misconstrued to give offence to natives of certain countries. 82.36.26.229 06:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Ireland article titles

A poll is currently underway to determine the rendition of the island, nation-state, and disambiguation articles/titles for Ireland in Wp. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think we British are in Northern Europe. English is related to their languages, we are as far north as Denmark and Norway, the UN considers us to be part of Northern Europe. Culturally in many countries such as France, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand we are considered Northern European.

Hello, I am a writer for a travel and culture website on Northern Europe. I update my site 1 - 2 times per week with articles, blog entries, and discussions on traveling to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland, and about aspects of these countries' culture. My readers are those planning trips to the region, armchair travelers, and those interested in learning about the people/culture. Would you be able to put a link to my site in the Related Sites section? It is (removed link indentified as spam Doc15071969 21:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC) ) Thank you.

Disputed

Remarks section

Unless these statements are attributed to some reliable and verifiable source (or corrected), I will be removing un-sourced and, IMO, clearly false information (probably original research), and namely:

"The contextual term the Baltic States came into common usage during the Cold War; within the context of speaking about the Soviet Union, or about the various Soviet Republics that made up the Soviet Union. The term the "Baltic States," or the "Baltic Republics," referred to the Soviet Republics that were on the Baltic--Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (..)", and all reasoning proceeding from these assertions.

"Baltic States" has been in use well before World War II. While some articles there do contain factual inaccuracies and misspellings of names, Time Magazine archives are illustrative (also of interest may be that some articles make distinction between Baltic states and Eastern European states; my emphasis):

1. "This large production is intended to supply all the Scandinavian countries and the new Baltic States." – "Ubiquitous Ford", Saturday, May. 19, 1923
2. "These are: Albert Bushnell Hart (Harvard) the U. S. and Canada; Harry T. Collings (Pennsylvania) South America; Arthur Lyon Cross (Michigan) the British Empire; Richard Heath Dabney (Virginia) Minor European States; William Stearns Davis (Minnesota) France and Belgium; Charles W. Hackett (Texas) Mexico and Central America; Albert How Lybyer (Illinois) Turkey and the Near East; Frederic A. Ogg (Wisconsin) Eastern Europe and the Balkans; Alexander Petrunkevitch (Yale) Russia and the Baltic States; William R. Shepherd (Columbia) Germany and Austria; Lily Ross Taylor (Vassar) Italy; Payson J. Treat (Stanford) the Far East and Africa." – Contemporary History, Monday, Nov. 12, 1923
3. "It was stated that the principal agendum was the formation of a definite entente among the Baltic States to safeguard the territorial and political independence of each and to provide for common action in case of armed aggression." "Baltic League", Monday, Jun. 02, 1924
4. "More recently he visited the Baltic States and Poland for The New York Evening Post, and went to Russia two years ago for the New York Herald Tribune." to "Ruhl's Report", Monday, Oct. 05, 1925
5. "Q.—Is Russia attempting to negotiate "Locarno" agreements with the Baltic States on the one hand and the Eastern European States on the other?" – "Questions & Answers", Monday, Dec. 28, 1925
6. "What was in the air was a Franco-Russian proposal that interlocking peace pacts should be signed between all the Baltic States and with Russia, Germany, France and Poland." – "Briand's Miracle", Monday, Dec. 19, 1927
7. "He found official Latvia strongly disposed to favor the Franco-British project of a Baltic state cordon dividing Russia and Germany." – "Beer Diplomacy", Monday, Mar. 28, 1927
8. "One thing the Big Three Delegations from the Continent not only had in common but also shared with the Delegations of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, Jugoslavia, Rumania and the Baltic states: All stood pledged to fight any move toward price raising by world monetary devaluation or inflation." – "The World Confers", Monday, Jun. 19, 1933
9. "Dr. Rosenberg helped organize the "League of the Baltic Brotherhood" to unite the Baltic states under Nazi guidance." – "Das Baltikum", Monday, May. 28, 1934
10. "Ambassador to Italy Breckinridge Long (1904) and Minister to the Baltic States John Van Antwerp MacMurray (1902) head a list of some 55 Princeton consuls and vice consuls." – "Princeton & Patriotism", Monday, Jun. 18, 1934
11. "Sole exception is the dignified little Baltic State of Estonia." – "After Socrates", Monday, Sep. 02, 1935

Doc15071969 21:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Northern European/Nordic/Scandinavian

I feel people are confusing all three of these terms, all of which are, in reality, quite different. Northern Europe is purely a geographical area. That said, as a Brit, I do feel more of a Northern European culturally, along with the Scandinavians than a Western European with the French. This is not out of dislike for French or continental Europeans (a French person on here has echoed these sentiments already), also the UN agrees with me. As for trying to break up the British Isles in these definitions, I will say whatever links British nations have with Scandinavia or the continent, they have more links between one another. Sorry nationalists and anglophobes.

Scandinavia is Norway, Sweden & Denmark. This is a cultural and geographic designation. Simple. I think it's almost undebatable that Scandinavia is Northern Europe.

The Nordic Countries are the countries in the Nordic Council. Again, the council was unofficially built on Scandinavism, but with Finland and Iceland in it and with possible newcomers being admitted, it's not a cultural designation, though it is obviously Scandinavian-centric. If expansion does occur, this fact will become more obvious. Ultimately though, if the country is not in the Nordic Council, it's quite simply not a Nordic Country, even if it's interested in joining. If Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania do eventually join, they will be Nordic Countries, but not before the day they are admitted. I believe that all these countries are Northern Europe, as does the UN.

I feel very surprised that a lot of people here seem to oppose "western Europe" and "northern Europe" or "southern Europe". These concepts are not exclusive, at least not in a french point of view. western Europe include very different countries such as both Portugal and Norway. Britain is, from my point of view a north European country AND a western European country. The same way France is a western European country AND a southern European country. On is north-western, the other south-western.

You are right but West versus East has (since the last century) been about what side of the (former) iron curtain you live. This meant that Finland was usually considered a western European and also Scandinavian rather than Baltic, with Czechoslovakia being classed as east,despite the former being being further east than the latter. Of course, Britain is in North West Europe, and thus this is what it should say in it's wiki article. Scandinavians are just north, Finland etc are North East. The article should ignore geopolitics and focus on official definition, such as that of the UN and EU, whilst recognising that there is no concrete consensus and that it ultimately depends on who you ask. ~~

I agree that the UK is socially more similar to the Netherlands than to actual Nordic countries however it is geographically north of the majority of the landmass people consider mainland-europe (in the North Sea) and is also inline/more northen than Denmark. England especially is also linked ethnically with Angles, Saxons, Normans and Vikings of northern Europe. The UK shares relgious beliefs such as protestantism and disbelief in gods. I live in the UK and as mentioned somewhere above businesses and organisations here often advertise that they are "The largest or only one in Northern Europe etc". I think the UK is in both Western and Northern Europe but if it has to be in one I agree with the UN on the Northern Classification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.126.64 (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Northern Europe

Sorry, but this talk page is a nonsense. For future reference, Northern Europe doesn't mean 'Aryan' or 'Nordic', it means 'Northern' and 'Europe'. There is an article describing the Nordic countries. Britain and Ireland are in Northern Europe and Western Europe irrespective of linguistics, culture or any other consideration. Izzedine (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced Material

I have removed the incorrect 'geo-political' map of Northern Europe, according to UN Sub-region classification the data used to compile said map was incorrect, I have also added the 'unreferenced' tab to the un-sourced "geography" section, this page is in need of a major cleanup.Celareon (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Wouldn't it make more sense that the island of Great Britain is part of Northern Europe whereas the island of Ireland is part of Western Europe? This would also fit with England and Scotland being more Protestant and Ireland being more Catholic. Certainly Scotland belongs in Northern Europe, and England would usually be considered to have more Nordic than Latin heritage.

Well the UK has a lot of Latin influence, with the English containing far more Latin content that other Germanic languages such as German, Dutch or Swedish. From a geographical point of view, England is as far north as the Neatherlands or Poland. I actually think the UK as a whole is more Western Europe than Northern Europe, as it is has less in common with Scandinavia than say the Neatherlands (As for the protestant faith, that comes from the kingdom of Saxony in present day Germany). The definition of the term is messy. Many consider northern Germany, Belgium or England to be northern Europe, others don't. There is no definite answer and this article does quite frankly lack sufficient references. Signature^brendelNow under review! 07:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the question. on almost all points the UK is clearly northern European. first of course geography; germanic language, protestant majority, etc. What UK is not is Scandinavian, but it is north European as Netherlands or northern Germany are, even more.

We are talking about geography not culture! But it can be argued of all the Nations in the British Isles, Scotland and Ireland have the most Nordic links. This can be seen especially in the Gaelic Language with many words/phrases common to both and the ethnic make-up ie. Norse ancestry.

How can you possibly say Ireland and Scotland have more links to Nordic countries than England? Firstly the Anglo-Saxons were from Denmark (part of which, Slesvig/Schleswig is now German), dynastic links with Sweden are evidenced (i.e compare Sutton Hoo with Vendel and Valsgarde), the Normans were Scandinavians (Danes or Norwegians, probably a mixture of the two) who happened to speak French due to being under Frankish vassalage, AND during a large part of the Viking Age most of England was part of (the Danelaw) and heavily colonised by Denmark (so much so that the peoples north of the Thames were often referred to as Anglo-Danes), then you have the Norwegian colonisation and dominion over the Kingdom of Jorvik. Secondly the native ancestral tongue and culture is Germanic (English), whereas the Scots and Irish have naturally Celtic cultures and languages with Germanic imposed on them. It's historically protestant, unlike Ireland. Geographically parts of England are further north than Denmark and unlike Denmark there is no landbridge to Western or Central Europe. So there is really no reason for England to be considered 'less Northern'. BodvarBjarki (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

First of course, geography? If you look at the geography of the British Isles, especially Ireland, Wales, and England (that is nearly all of it), what does it really have in common with, for example, that of Scandinavia proper? Frankly, I can't think of much. Germanic language? The English language, no doubt, has a Germanic substrate, and is consequently classified as a Western Germanic language. In fact though, modern English clearly is a blend of the Germanic and Romance (as well as Celtic!) languages it developed from. Considering your argumentation, this has to be seen as a crucial point, since nothing of that sort holds for the other Germanic languages that are mostly spoken in, what is today, the real Northern Europe. Protestant majority? What, in Ireland? Obviously not. Did you mean the UK then? Well, even that is history. Inform yourself, you'll easily find out that as of today there are more people of Roman Catholic faith in the UK, than all protestants combined, and mind you, that we already counted the Anglicans as protestant then.. something which cannot at all be taken for granted! Because traditionally, most Anglicans would consider themselves rather as Catholic, only not as Roman Catholic--at any rate, there's hardly an equivalent for that in what is the real Northern Europe. As this is predominantly Lutheran as pertains confession. So, and the user above means the fact of the inexistance of a landbridge to Continental Europe, where alternatively there is this "Channel" which, some fitness assumed, you might actually cross by swimming (well, or by train) is in effect enough to render the UK a part of Northern Europe? I'm sure.. he was joking. As is this article. Zero Thrust (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually you will find that the people of England once spoke Celtic languages. The Germanic tongues came from migrating Germanic tribes just as they did in Scotland and Ireland. If you take a look at the Scots language you will see that in many ways Scots is far more similair to Scandinavian tongues than English is. I would disagree that Ireland is more Norse than England however Scotland would be a contender were it even a contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Northern Europe is a geographic term. Not a cultural sphere. Scotland is plainly in Northern Europe, you only need to take a look at a map to see that. While England could be either and Wales and Ireland should probably be merged into the Western Europe category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there people who actually believe Scotland is for sure in Northern Europe but aren't sure if England and Wales are? That's just bizarre to me. England has as much Scandinavian influence as Scotland, and the entire island of Great Britain is literally north of most of Europe.

Benelux countries in Northern Europe?

Why are the three Benelux countries included in the area/population/population density table? According to the United Nations (or any other definition given in the article), they belong to Western Europe. --Vihelik (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That because the concept of western Europe is much more unclear than northern Europe. The UNO classification of "western Europe" is quite arbitrary, not based on geography (Iberia and British isles should be included in that sense); not based on cultural or linguistic groups (some countries are romance, other germanic; some are catholic, other protestant); not based on politics (Spain, Portugal and Italy are as much democracies, involved in the EU, with Euro currency, etc than can be Netherlands or Germany). In fact I think the those definitions of "western Europe" are a sort of way of grouping countries that do not fit in the most restrictive definitions of northern or southern Europe: Germany or Benelux are northern European but not as much than Scandinavia; so some definitions prefer to lump them in "western Europe" grouping; the same way, France is in big part southern European; and part of romance cultures of south-western Europe; but because of its northern regions that doesn't have mediterranean or southern European climates many definitions exclude the whole of it of southern Europe; and lump it in the restricted "western Europe" group. Actually for most people, in use western Europe isn't that selective: it include all the western half of Europe; from Portugal to Norway. Inside this "western Europe" you'll find countries that are part of northern Europe (or north-western to be more precise) and countries that are part of southern Europe (or south-western). being considered "western" do not exclude for being fully northern or southern European; it just exclude from being "eastern".

In the case of Benelux; this area is usually seen as both part of the concept of western Europe and the concept of northern Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.127.3 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"France is in big part southern European; and part of romance cultures of south-western Europe"

France is certainly not "in big part" a southern european country. And there is not any cultural "south-western Europe", excepted in your imagination.

"but because of its northern regions that doesn't have mediterranean or southern European climates many definitions exclude the whole of it of southern Europe"

Actually, even southern France has not a southern european climate. Only a thin southeastern fringe has a Mediterranean climate.--92.161.41.202 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly a disparity between the map and the definition on one hand, and the statistics table on the other. Since the aberration seems to be in the table, it needs to be fixed.--Vihelik (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, moot point. The article has been cleaned up.--Vihelik (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

==

Benelux countries and Northern Germany are part of northern Europe too. As much as UK, even if they are not classified as such by the UN. (UN classification is made for purely administrative reasons, and is not supposed to reflect the geographical or cultural limits of Europe. Geographically all Benelux and northern Germany are in northern Europe; on a cultural point of view all of Germany is, and also German-speaking Switzerland and Austria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.127.3 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Geographically and culturally Baltic States (at least Lithuania and Latvia) is at Central Europe. Open any geography book in Lithuania not only that UN map. Hugo.arg (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Geographically? There are only three capital cities in Europe (out of 50 total) that lie on a more northerly latitude than Tallinn in Estonia: Helsinki, Oslo, and Reykjavík. As for Riga in Latvia, add Tallinn and Stockholm. If Estonia and Latvia are Central Europe, where would then one place Denmark?

Culturally? Estonia is a mostly Lutheran country and Latvia is 2/3 Lutheran. All predominantly Lutheran countries in Europe lie north of the Baltic Sea. Whereas the Catholic Lithuania may indeed belong to Central Europe after its centuries-long association with Poland, all of Estonia and the northern half of Latvia have hundreds of years been integral parts of Swedish and/or Danish empires. --Vihelik (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Baltics are Scandinavian?

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

No, Scandinavia only consists of Norway, Denmark and Sweden. --Oddeivind (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

User:62.104.206.66 15:57, Jun 17, 2003

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

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

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

User:213.122.191.13  21:11, Jun 16, 2004

Finland was ruled by Sweden. It also rules part of the Scandinavian peninsula, so I would say that Finland is a Nordic/Scandinavian country. Estonia is connected but probably should not be considered, one. - Cnut

Northern Europe wore decorative wear back in the 18th century - boy

Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania were all in hand occupied by Sweden, and there were many Viking settlements in the lands before. What's there to debate about? Don't talk about something if you don't know.

Seriously, I wonder about who doesn't know, especially all the unsigned contributors. I think I'll wikilink the respective country atrticles - you might at least read them first before trying to be a wiseguy! The history of each of the three Baltic countries was quite different. That's part of why they're three different countries - duh. Estonia was in the Swedish/Scandinavian sphere of influence for most of its history, later Russia; Latvia was for a long time undet the Livonian knights, later Sweden, an appreciable time under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, later; Lithuania was significantly different again, being one half of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for many centuries and having absolutely nothing to do with Sweden apart from a few measly years of occupation. Deuar 19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What's with rejecting the Baltic states as Eastern Europe?

The CIA has them located in Eastern Europe [1] and the British media – bear in mind this is the English Wiki – says they're Eastern European too [2]. Just because you don't like being associated with Russia et al, it doesn't mean you can dismiss the fact you're from the East. VEO^onefive 12:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing with it, it's just not up to you. Yes, in the British media they are often included in the East. However, this characterization has more to do with recent political history than geography or culture. Take, for example, Tallinn, the capital of Estonia. It lies only 50 miles from Helsinki on the north-south (not east-west) axis. Of the 50 capitals in Europe, only 3 (Helsinki, Oslo, and Reykjavik) are north of Tallinn and the whole country of Denmark lies to the south of Estonia. --Vihelik (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Statistics

The population figures do not add up (as of 9 March 2013). The total average of population density estimates is out of date since individual countries have had their population estimates updated. --Vihelik (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Climate

There needs to be a climate section because that would be really helpful. There are no other articles on climate in Northern Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3110:A5B0:3C1F:1C30:EB7E:4D65 (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Illustration of geographical situation

For those who like to change the geographical definition to your own liking, see this map:

It's an equal area projection with straight longitude and latitude lines. As a result, the shape of land forms is very distorted, but the area and relative distance is consistent across the map.

It pretty clearly shows Ireland, southern Britain, the Netherlands, northern Germany, northern Poland and Belarus are just as far north as one another. Cultural definitions will of course differ, but the geographical definition should be consistent across the continent, I would think.

Rob984 (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The beginning of the article

Northern Europe may be considered to consist approximately of all of Europe above the 52nd parallel north; which includes (from west to east) most or all of: Iceland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man, the United Kingdom, the Faroe Islands, the Netherlands, northern Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus and northwest Russia.

You forgot Poland!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gość232 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It was removed, not forgotten. Because people don't understand what a parallel is apparently. Rob984 (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Geographical centre is somewhere at 52°N. Also, you forgot to add a coma after northern Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gość232 (talk • contribs)

Well, yes, but in Belarus... which is in north-east Europe. Europe's centre is more considered around Germany/Czechia/Austria because of history and population distribution. Still, what is considered "north" should be consistent. And did I? I think I corrected it. Edit: no, an IP did =]. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about Poland's geographical centre which is at 52°04′09″N. This place: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piątek_(województwo_łódzkie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gość232 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Copy, cut'n paste from Gareth Griffith-Jones' talk page

Hello, and Happy New Year! While I am quite happy with most of your edits to the article, I am a bit concerned about the opening sentence stating without reservation that the article title "...refers geographically to all of Europe above the 52nd parallel north". As for all other x-ern Europe, the definition and delimitation is far from being universally accepted. It will surely be possible to source the 52 degrees borderline, but it will be equally possi--[[ble to find other limitations with just as good sources. Could I ask you to try adjusting the first sentence to something a bit less "cocksure"? Regards! --T*U (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I too was unhappy with the opening statement, but I had been editing there rather heavily and thought I should stop for a reaction. Your's is welcome and I have just changed it to read,

... is a geographical term generally for the part of Europe that is placed approximately north of the 52nd parallel. Nations included within this region are the British Isles, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, northern Germany and northwest Russia.

Narrower definitions may also be used based on other geographical factors such as climate and ecology.

What do think now? ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 19:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, much better! Saying the same in a less strict way. Thanks! --T*U (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Good morning T*U. I have adjusted it to now read as follows,

... is the geographical region in Europe that is north of the 54th parallel or approximately the southern coast of the Baltic Sea. Nations included within this region are the British Isles, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, northern Belarus, northern Germany and northwest Russia.

Narrower definitions may also be used based on other geographical factors such as climate and ecology.

Are you okay with this? ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 10:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, actually I am not very happy with this. We are now back to an unqualified statement "...is the geographical region ... north of the 54th parallel" without any reservations like "generally used" or "approximately". Also the 54 degrees line bothers me a bit. I have not found any sources to support 54 as a delimitation. To be honest, there is not much to support 52 either, but at least I have seen it some places outside Wikipedia. Perhaps we should avoid using a fixed latitude altogether? Also, perhaps we should move this discussion to Talk:Northern Europe to get more input? Regards! --T*U (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. I was trying to accomodate User:Vihelik's intervention. How about,

... is the general term for the geographical region in Europe that is approximately north of the southern coast of the Baltic Sea. Nations included within this region are ...
‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 13:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, now it is getting better again! I'll try to make a less rigid list of nations. I will also reinsert the refimprove template, which is needed. This article is not well sourced... --T*U (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I could not find a single reference in any language for the 52nd parallel; however, I did find a couple of non-English publications that use the 54th parallel as an approximate southern boundary of the region because it follows the southern coast of the Baltic. Then again, I do agree that that the region is best defined by convention, i.e., by historical and cultural criteria, because at this point any latitudinal references look suspiciously like original research. I would not use any qualifying adverbs, such as 'often', before Estonia and Latvia. Both were Christianized as a result of the Northern Crusades; both were for centuries wholly or partially controlled by Sweden and Denmark; Estonia had a sizable Swedish population; both underwent Reformation before other Nordic countries; Estonia lies entirely north of Denmark, etc. Before the founding of the Nordic Council in 1952, both were routinely referred to as Nordic countries in Germanic languages. Lithuania, being historically Catholic and culturally closer to Central European countries, is a different matter. However, both the UN geoscheme and the EU unabmiguously classify Lithuania as Northern European now. --Vihelik (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the Baltic states could (should?) be and mostly are included in the Northern Europe definition, but the fact is that the Nordic countries always are included in NE, but the Baltic countries are still often not defined as Northern Europe, but rather as Eastern (i.e. by CIA World Facebook) or Central (i.e. by German StAGN). Lumping them all together without reservation is therefore not in accordance with actual currant usage. --T*U (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

StAGN is not a reliable source. It was a one-time ad hoc committee that has no formal organization, website, or venue of publication. It has been given undue weight in Wikipedia discussions because a former member has been pushing its recommendations. --Vihelik (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sure you are right. However, the UN geoscheme also has been given undue weight, as it is made purely for statistical convenience. Anyway, I am quite happy with the sentence as it stands now, as long as the word "usually" stays in. As with all other "x-ern Europe" articles, it is safe to say that there are no universally accepted definitions. --T*U (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No objections on my part.--Vihelik (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The British Isles

European subregions according to the United Nations geoscheme for Europe; Northern Europe in blue

The British Isles are commonly considered part of Northern Europe, and are included in the definition of Northern Europe in the United Nations geoscheme for Europe. Classification and definition of regions. The article Geography of the United Kingdom already describes it in the infobox as part of Northern Europe and all articles in the Category:Geography of the United Kingdom are part of the Category:Geography of Northern Europe, which seems to be a long-standing/stable situation.

Scotland for example is located more to the north than Lithuania, and has much closer historical/cultural relations to Northern European countries such as Norway than Lithuania, which historically has mainly had ties to Poland. Still, it's ok to include Lithuania in a broad concept of Northern Europe, as long as other clearly Northern European regions that are widely recognised as such, such as the British Isles, are also included. --Gaduse (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing against adding the UK/ Ireland among the broader definition of Northern Europe. Although usually they’re considered western europe. Blomsterhagens (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Different definitions of Northern Europe

Based on the model of other comparable articles such as Western Europe we should include different definitions in this article. This is work in progress; feel free to add more possible definitions that the article should cover here.

Some relevant definitions are summarized here: "According to the UN Geoscheme for Europe, seventeen nations are part of Northern Europe. The nations are mentioned in the list below. The region is roughly defined as the part of Europe north of the Baltic Sea’s southern coast. Other narrower or broader definitions based on geography and climate also exist. Historically, Northern Europe had a much broader definition that included all parts of the continent outside of the Mediterranean region. Today, the region roughly includes Fennoscandia, the Baltic plain, the Jutland peninsula, and several offshore islands including the British Isles and Iceland" --Gaduse (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

United Nations geoscheme for Europe

The United Nations geoscheme for Europe#Northern Europe

• 
  European subregions according to the United Nations geoscheme for Europe; Northern Europe in blue

CIA World Factbook

The CIA World Factbook has a very narrow definition of Northern Europe (and similarly narrow definitions of other European regions as well). While this seems to be a minority perspective, it is one of the perspectives that should be mentioned in the article, even if many would disagree with the definition.

• 
  CIA World Factbook: Northern Europe in blue

Historical broad definition

The broad historical definition that includes all parts of the continent outside of the Mediterranean region, sometimes defined as Europe to the north of the Alps

Standard Australian Classification of Countries

The Standard Australian Classification of Countries defines Northern Europe as: Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland (part), Greenland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. (Source)

From the Eastern Europe page: "

UNESCO, EuroVoc, National Geographic Society, Committee for International Cooperation in National Research in Demography, STW Thesaurus for Economics place the Baltic states in Northern Europe, whereas the CIA World Factbook places the region in Eastern Europe with a strong assimilation to Northern Europe. They are members of the Nordic-Baltic Eight regional cooperation forum whereas Central European countries formed their own alliance called the Visegrád Group. The Northern Future Forum, the Nordic Investment Bank and Nordic Battlegroup are other examples of Northern European cooperation that includes the three Baltic states that make up the Baltic Assembly."; So EuroVoc, NGS, etc should be added as well then. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, no problem with mentioning those as well. --Gaduse (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

North vs South is just one of two perspectives

Noone disagrees that Estonia is part of Northern Europe, but it's also entirely uncontroversial that the countries of Northern Europe are also seen as parts of western and eastern Europe respectively (as extensively discussed in those articles); these are overlapping concepts and the article should address that. Both these concepts are primarily related to geography, especially the term Northern Europe which doesn't have any political connotations and which isn't a cultural region either. During the Cold War in particular the east–west definition was much more important than the north–south definition used here; Norway for example is traditionally (at least during the last century) first and foremost considered a western European country, although it's also part of Northern Europe of course. We even have an article on Northwestern Europe, the western half of Northern Europe and a highly relevant article to mention in this article, that a member of WikiProject Estonia just removed for no obvious reason. The article should include a fair portrayal of the countries of Northwestern Europe as well, not just Estonian perspectives. We can't have a situation where articles on all topics related to Northern Europe are written solely from the perspective of Estonians who want to "redefine" their country as "something-other-than-Eastern-European" and where no traditional or established (or western) views are accepted if the "redefiners" disagree with them. The existence of Western Europe, or its relevance for the Northern European countries that also and equally belong to Western Europe, cannot be denied just because Estonians don't want to be seen as Eastern European.

Crucially, in the UN the Northern European countries that are also part of Western Europe are part of the Western European and Others Group while the countries that are also part of Eastern Europe are part of the Eastern European Group (see http://www.un.org/depts/DGACM/RegionalGroups.shtml ). There is no Northern European group in the UN and the Northwestern European countries have no desire to join a new group either, precisely because they are (also) western European and obviously belong in a western European group. --Gaduse (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR without references Blomsterhagens (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

References were cited, here and in the article; e.g. http://www.un.org/depts/DGACM/RegionalGroups.shtml In any event we have an article on Western Europe full of references that discuss Norway and other countries of Northwestern Europe as part of Western Europe. --Gaduse (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Those references would be OR to this page because they do not directly claim what you were deducing in your text. Yes, since geopolitical groupings are loose, then several countries can be defined in several ways. That’s why there are southern europe / northern europe / western europe / eastern europe pages in wikipedia Blomsterhagens (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: the regional groups of the UN are unofficial Blomsterhagens (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by unofficial. There is not one "official" way of defining these European subregions. Northern Europe and Western Europe are loose terms and can both be defined in different ways, but it's a fact that Scandinavia is usually/widely included as part of both. Norway for example is geographically located to the very west of mainland Europe and to the very North, and also belongs to western Europe in the political sense dating back to the Cold War and in the cultural sense. It isn't OR to mention in this article for example which regional groups of the UN the countries in question belong to, or that they are also included as part of western Europe according to various other definitions. --Gaduse (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is here. If you want Norway to be more visible as Western Europe, discuss this on the Western Europe page. You can also mention on this article page that some countries in Northern Europe are loosely also grouped under Northwestern Europe as a subcategory. But you cannot automatically and without references draw a conclusion that the countries that fall out of that group are automatically "Northeastern". Of course I know what your end goal is but it doesn't have much to do with building an encyclopaedia. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, a dozen or so editors have said the same about your end goal (e.g. here Talk:Baltic_states#Estonia_&_The_Nordic_Countries). But let's avoid derailing this discussion into your wish to redefine Estonia as "Nordic" instead of Baltic. Personally I have no problem with including Estonia as part of Northern Europe, that's not the issue here. Many, albeit not all, definitions include Estonia as part of Northern Europe.

Noone has mentioned anything about Northeastern Europe here, only that the overlapping definitions of Western and Eastern Europe need to be mentioned here, for example in the context of which UN regional groups the countries of Northern Europe belong to. The claim that this material is unsourced is utterly nonsensical. Relevant sources were cited and an almost unlimited number could be provided. Also, the existence of both a north–south and an east–west definition of Europe is already very well established with relevant articles and categories (and sources) in Wikipedia. My end goal is only a fair portrayal of Norway and other countries of northwestern Europe based on how these countries are usually defined by western sources. Unlike you I don't try to redefine anything. There is no need to make Norway "more visible as western European" in the article on Western Europe because it's already very visible as such there; there is only a need for this article to mention the other established way of grouping European countries (which is also the way used by the countries in question to group themselves at the UN) because this perspective strongly overlaps with the scope of this article.

The article on Western Europe is in fact a model that we should follow here. In contrast to this article, which heavily promotes a single (very recent) definition that suits Estonians, the article on Western Europe is a balanced article that covers different historical and current definitions of Western Europe. By the way, one of those definitions is is the one used by the CIA world factbook, which has both a very narrow definition of western Europe (the only definition that seems to exclude the Nordic countries) and a very narrow definition of northern Europe (that excludes the Baltic states). File:Europe subregion map world factbook.svg This definition is a minority perspective in my opinion, compared to other sources (that usually include at least Scandinavia as western European and the Baltic states as northern European), but it illustrates that these groupings are loose and not straightforward, and that multiple perspectives are possible and need to be mentioned in such articles. --Gaduse (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"Northeastern Europe" is a line of text you yourself wrote in one of your edits. I suspect that your goal with these changes is to divide the page into Northwestern and Northeastern parts for personal reasons unfit to an encyclopaedia. That would be a fringe view as well. If you do not have such goals and genuinely wish to improve the Northern Europe article in some way, then that's great. All the power to you. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't mention the term Northeastern Europe anywhere[3]. The fact that you don't like such a term cannot dictate whether an article on Northern Europe mentions related, established terms and different definitions of that region. I suggest you start contributing constructively in this discussion instead of making assumptions about people's motives, and for the record, I don't see any reason to split this article in two. Northern Europe should clearly remain one article, but mention different definitions and related, overlapping concepts. The very fact that Wikipedia already has an article on Northwestern Europe attests to the fact that such a sub region which overlaps with both Northern Europe and Western Europe also exists. --Gaduse (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing against bringing in Northwestern Europe. You should probably finish your edits with appropriate references and see if others agree. Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to do that based on the discussion below, but I wanted to discuss it first, and I won't have time to complete it right away, so I might as well wait for a few days. --Gaduse (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Table in "Demographics" section

Blomsterhagens: I appreciate your wish to update the table with the official population numbers, but I will ask you to reconsider. When presenting data for comparison in a table, it is essential that the numbers given really are comparable, which will be ensured if the same methodology is used for all the different data presented. We have to assume that The World Bank use professional statisticians to compile their data and that their data are internally consistent. We have, however, no way of knowing if their methodology is the same as in the data you have added. (One example: Are the numbers all-year-average estimates, start-of-year estimates, mid-year estimates, end-of-year estimates, etc.?) This is a well-known paradox in comparitive statistics: Even if you can make each single entry in the table more accurate, it may make the table itself less accurate for comparison. I will therefore suggest that we should use only the one source.

From long-time experience in other Wikipedia articles, I also have another reason for my suggestion: As soon as one entry is exchanged with another "more accurate" entry, it may open the field for other editors trying to present data that for some reason will be more flattering for "my country", using all sorts of more or often less reliable sources. I would very much like to avoid clearing the ground for that kind of edit war. These "X-ern Europe" articles are already full of it. --T*U (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Stat.ee (Statistikaamet) is the official statistics office of the Estonian government. They are the original source for all population data. World Bank is a secondary source, which can not get its data from anywhere else but Statistikaamet. It's a fact that the population in EE has been increasing every year since 2016. To list otherwise would be to list wrong information. All countries report their population data as of January 1. So it would not be difficult to get population data directly from the source for each country, as it stood in january 2017, compared to january 2016. Although I'd rather use 2018 numbers as it's more up to date. Blomsterhagens (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Blomsterhagens: I have not questioned that the number you quote is correct and precise. Also, even if it is not true that all countries report their popdata per 1 January, it seems that the countríes that are relevant here, do, so I am sure it would be possible to quote similar numbers per January 2017 (or 2018 and quite soon even for January 2019) for each country. But that is not what you have done. You have changed it for one single country, making the comparison lopsided. Taking a closer look at the numbers of other countries, it becomes obvious that they are mid-year estimates (as is the usual way to present such international comparison tables, used also by the UN). By changing the one number, you make the table compare different things. If you want to change all the data to national 1 January numbers, please do so. But changing just one, thus making the data incommensurable, is not statistically solid. --T*U (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey. I can only see the world bank reference. Where is the data coming from? Where does it show they're mid-year estimates? I'm just baffled because stat.ee does not publish mid-year estimates - at least I did not find any numbers in their database. And they're the only first-level data source for population numbers in EE. So the world bank just makes up a number on their own? Or maybe I'm not seeing something. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

As the linked site states, the World Bank uses the following sources for their pop statistics: ( 1 ) United Nations Population Division. World Population Prospects: 2017 Revision. ( 2 ) Census reports and other statistical publications from national statistical offices, ( 3 ) Eurostat: Demographic Statistics, ( 4 ) United Nations Statistical Division. Population and Vital Statistics Reprot ( various years ), ( 5 ) U.S. Census Bureau: International Database, and ( 6 ) Secretariat of the Pacific Community: Statistics and Demography Programme. The World Bank has an advanced and highly professional statistical division that probably has access to more data power than all the national agencies combined. They are quite able to make sophisticated statistical models for population estimates based om those data. Nowadays they will possibly even be using self-adjusting models. So no, they do not make up the numbers, they produce them for the very purpose of comparison. My conclusion that they are mid-year estimates is a simple deduction from the fact that the numbers for the three countries I checked lie close to midway between 1.1.17 and 1.1.18 data and very close to 1.7.17 data for those who release data more than once a year. If you have more questions about World Bank statistical methodology, I suggest you study relevant pages on their web site, like here and here. --T*U (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Talsinki and other "metropolitan areas"

Blomsterhagens: Your insistence on including Tallinn or "Talsinki" in a list of "major metropolitan areas" forces two questions: sources and inclusion criteria.

• Re: Talsinki: None of the two sources you have added describe Helsinki-Tallinn as a metropolitan area, they are just discussing the possibilities of deeper co-operation. (In the first source, a representative states that "not much has resulted from the Euregio cooperation"). It is possible that Helsinki-Tallinn one day will be regarded as one metropolitan area (if and when the rail link is built), but not at the present. Unless, of course, you can present sources that explicitly says otherwise.
• Re: Tallinn: I have nothing against including Tallinn if they fill certain criteria, provided all cities that fill those criteria are included. I have checked different lists and definitions, and I have found that six cities are relatively consistently described as metropolitan areas by different listings, i.e. from Interreg, Eurostat and OECD (see Larger urban zones for some of the details): Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm, Gothenburg, Helsinki, Riga. All of these have a population from around 1M and upwards (depending of how you delimit the area). In addition to them, different sources can be found for national descriptions of metropolitan areas (with differing criteria), which could make some other cities eligible (again depending on criteria): Aarhus (or East Jutland), Bergen, Malmö (probably the most relevant candidate), Turku, Tallinn, Vilnius. Of these, Tallinn is definitely not at the top of this list.

Unless you can give sources and/or define inclusion criteria, my best suggestion is to remove the whole sentence. It is, after all, very tangential to this article. And since there does not exist any clear-cut definition of what Northern Europe is, we could just as well discuss adding a dozen or so met.areas of the UK. --T*U (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen sources which list "major metropolitan areas". The article isn't linking to them. If you have them, maybe add them here. If there are respectable sources then those sources should be included. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Blomsterhagens: It was me that put the cn-tag there, but sources are now added. They both agree on the cities currently mentioned. Vilnius and Malmö for sure and possibly Aarhus would also come before Tallinn, but the order here is more uncertain (depending on criteria). Extending the list would need more research into sources, which I do not want to spend much time on. I am in favour of scrapping the whole list (and the population list), especially if no-one is interested in discussing the inclusion criteria. --T*U (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever the sources say. I'll leave it up to you. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

List of countries by population and list of metropolitan areas

As I predicted above in the section "Table in "Demographics" section", the table by population numbers is now burst wide open for "I have better numbers"-edits. Currently, we have Estonia (1 Jan '17), Finland (31 Dec '16), United Kingdom (mid-year '17) competing with the mid-year 2017 World Bank numbers, and we have no way to know if the different national sources have the same methodology as the World Bank. We simply do not know if the numbers are commensurable. Anyway, it is not a big deal, another aspect is far more important: There are no inclusion criteria for the list. The table is supposed to list countries commonly included in their entirety within the region, but no-one has provided any sources supporting the choice of countries. Are UK and Ireland commonly included in Northern Europe? Or perhaps only Scotland? Or none of them? Are the Baltic states commonly included in Northern Europe? Or perhaps only Estonia? Or none of them? I have seen a lot of sources including and excluding different countries and/or groups of countries and/or parts of countries, but I have failed to find a reliable source saying what countries are "commonly included". Therefore the whole list is a joke. For now I will just add a citation needed-tag, but I intend to remove the whole list and instead present a discussion of which countries different sources include. That will be far more useful.

In the section "Talsinki and other "metropolitan areas" I started a discussion about the list of metropolitan areas. The original list included only cities from Scandinavia and the Baltics, eventually listed after size (according to the two chosen sources). Then London and Dublin were added, later also Glasgow and Edinburgh. The ordering of the list is no longer correct, but that is a minor problem. However, if we include those (and Edinburgh is actually smaller than Riga), we will have to include Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford–Leeds (all greater than all the others except London) plus at least five–six other cities in England. But the real problem is again inclusion criteria: We have exactly the same problem regarding which countries to include cities from. In addition, we need to define "metropolitan area", since such definitions vary from source to source and from country to country. This list is simply not possible to save without some hard work with criteria. Until that is done (if someone will ever do it), I am removing the list. --T*U (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

All good but I don't realize why we have to list the CIA World Factbook as the first source. It's the one least connected to Europe, being from the US. IMHO for topics about Europe, we should first display data from a European-based organization. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, what happened to the new lead image? Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Blomsterhagens: I have no strong preference for the order of the three classification schemes, but I found it neat to have them in the small/bigger/biggest order. If there is consensus for putting EuroVoc first, so be it. Let's see if anyone else has preferences and/or arguments. Re lead image: What new lead image are you talking about? Hasn't the current one been there for a long time? --T*U (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

United Nations geoscheme in M49 Standard is not for this purpose per the methodology

See https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/, specifically:

"The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations."

The full publication (M49 Standard) is literally titled "Standard country or area codes for statistical use"

Please do not add this as a "source" or "definitions". This is in violation of WP:SYNTHESIS:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. "

In doing so you are undermining the credibility of WIkipedia.

Instead, try finding actual sources to push your own agenda, thanks.

Rob984 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@TU-nor, a clarification I didn't expect needed to be made, as a statistical area it's clearly not within the WP:TOPIC of this article, it's not even "loosely relevant". It's merely another use of the term that is covered at United Nations geoscheme. This article is about the geographical (or cultural) region. Rob984 (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Greenland geographically in Europe?

Hi, the claim in the heading is made in the Geography section. AFAIK, geographically speaking, GL is part of the Americas, and Greenland is European only in a political sense, due to the shared history with mainland Scandinavia. Might not be important, might not be correct, don't know how to fix ... ("Types of criteria" section? Geographical, political ...?), so I'll leave it at that. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I tried to clarify this. 70.175.192.217 (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Language map of Northern Europe

Prior to yesterday a map of languages was made including the Baltic and Nordic countries. I expanded it yesterday to include the British Isles under the rationale that by all definitions posed above, no other country was described as being wholly within Northern Europe. This map has since been removed on the grounds that there is no agreed-upon definition and thus the map is misleading. I believe this map absolutely has use and is informative though I am absolutely on board with the caption being worked on to explain this is not unequivocally the list, only the list of potential countries, judging by different definitions. An alternative would be to have every country in Europe with the language branch colours and zoom in towards Northern Europe, which I think would also be useful and would avoid suggesting a strict definition. What do people think? --Ingwina (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Due to the contested definitions, it's easiest and best if maps and other visuals don't place extra weight on any single definition. Both of the recently present maps did just that, the older one excluding the British Isles from Northern Europe, and the latter including it (since they also didn't have captions explaining it as simply one of the contested definitions). I can see the use for the map though, so as long as it doesn't place extra weight on any particular definition it can certainly be included, the religion map on the other side does this well since like if I understand your last point correctly it focuses on too large an area to make any statements on what the definition is. You evidently understand the issue so feel free to make a solution you feel fit and it can be discussed or altered further if needed. TylerBurden (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Language map

It has recently been argued by Vlaemink that the language map is unsuitable and a talk section asked for. I would argue that it is useful, giving the language family of the most common first language spoken in the country. The caption, to me, adequately describes what is being shown and language families that may be important but are not the most common in a country. I found when making this map that when you try to do stripes and so on to show multiple languages being spoken it can get very messy very quickly. It'd be great if Vlaemik could to provide an example of a better map that they've said exist - I will gladly support a better map if one is found. What are people's thoughts on the map? Ingwina (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is really either given the caption, but it would help if Vlaemink could showcase these other maps that were mentioned. TylerBurden (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I do think the map should be limited to the British Isles, Nordic countries and Baltic states, as different combinations of those three specific regions (some have all three, some have the Nordic countries and Baltic states but not the British Isles, some have the British Isles and Nordic countries but not the Baltic states, and some just have the Nordic countries) are the general definition of Northern Europe.Vesperius (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

In general: this small article has 7 maps, most of which show the entirety of Europe and little actual information; this particular map would be the 8th, which would constitute complete overkill especially given the fact that this article doesn't even have a section on the linguistic landscape to begin with. In addition to this, the article barely has any reputable sources. Given the fact that the cite your sources-template has been at the top of this page since 2015, I think it's fair to say the problem concerning the sources is structural. Rather than break with this, this map perpetuates this already existing problem by having no sources.

Specifically concerning this map:

1) A map is a visual piece of information, to which the same standards apply as with plain text when it comes to reliability. If it is supposed to portray the linguistic landscape of Northern Europe, it must do so accurately. Remarks about its presentation and style (for example, whether or not stripes 'look good' or not) are entirely and completely of secondary importance.

This map (which has no source) for example, shows both Belgium and Luxemburg in blue, i.e. Germanic speaking. That's ridiculous: 40% of Belgians speak French, a Romance language. In Luxembourg 52% speak a Germanic language natively, while French is the dominant lingua franca throughout the country. It also completely and utterly omits an entire branch of the Indo-European language tree by not showing any Celtic language, neither in Britany or in the British Isles; nor the centuries old linguistic pockets in existence, such as Dutch spoken in Northern France, German in Eastern France or Sorbian in Germany.

2) The article clearly shows there is no uniform definition of what constitutes "Northern Europe", what references were used for the definition used in this map? No idea.

3) I have no idea why this map should employ a first past the post-approach when it comes to displaying the languages of this particular part of Europe. I don't see any argument in favor of it.

Vlaemink (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

So to do respond to this, firstly, what is the best format for this? It will be very easy to do as I have them and I do think that we are in agreement that they are correct in so far as they show accurately the most common first language in each country. If I understand the qualms correctly, it is that the aim of the map is wrong? For example, while you suggest that the contents of the map are ridiculous, you do seem to also agree that the most common language family spoken in both Belgium and Luxembourg is Germanic. I do agree this page has problems and perhaps that is best discussed in another talk section e.g. I personally think the difficulties with defining the area chokes expansion. We should have a good agreement on which parts of Europe we are to talk about in any text discussion of say demographics. Furthermore, yes, this map is fairly young but it is an updated version of a map that was used for two years previously and while not perfect, this addresses a number of issues with the previous iteration.

Beyond this, regarding your numbered points:

1) I am not sure you understand me correctly. My issue is not that I am trying to hide the truth behind aesthetics. I raise the problems of stripes as if we start breaking countries down into smaller regions and then including multiple language families in one area, how do we present this in a manner that is not misleading? Do we do shades that are proportional to number of speakers? If so, finding colours that cannot be confused becomes very challenging. If we do a boolean stripe system of languages, what threshold do we use to include it? We could potentially use something like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indo-European_Language_Family_Branches_in_Eurasia.png however I am not sure what threshold they use to define the language for each area.

2) TylerBurden and I have discussed this previously on the page and the rationale for choosing the focussed on area was the very sensible point he made was to have a frame that included all the areas that could be classified as in Northern Europe according to the definitions set out on the page, then to include the primary language for all shown countries.

3) While it would be good to have a more precise map, I do not have the bandwidth to produce it and we need to be very specific about how we define the boundaries and languages (as described above). I think given that the image is very explicit in what it describes, it is functional for now and while I would love for someone to make an improved version, I do not think it is either harmful or best removed. It's biggest issue to me is the lack of references but I can very easily do this once we decide how best to reference it. Ingwina (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this map specifically is the one that works the best: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NorthernEuropeanNationalLanguageMap2.png Vesperius (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I used the word ridiculous with respect to this map due to it showing Belgium and Luxemburg as completely Germanic-speaking. This has nothing to do with the fact that 60% and therefore a majority of, say, Belgium speaks a Germanic language; but with the fact that using a "first past the post-approach" for a linguistic map on this scale is simply ludicrous. It's akin to showing a map of the entire United States as completely voting democratic due to them receiving 51.3% of the vote. As I've said before, languages such as French, Irish, Welsh, Sorbian (but also Dutch and German in France) have been spoken there for over a millennium; it serves no purpose at all to create a "linguistic map of Northern Europe" and omit them.

1) I understood you perfectly fine, that is why I emphasized that aesthetics are subordinated to factual accuracy.

2) That's OR, plain and simple. If you want a particular map in this article, you find a reference that uses such a map. One does not go about almagate various (and mostly) unreferenced materials.

3) That's a strawman argument, because firstly it assumes that this small, almost completely unreferenced article needs an 8th map. Secondly, and with all due respect, but your personal ability, timewise or otherwise, to produce an accurate map is not an argument in keeping an inaccurate unsourced map.Vlaemink (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Mapping Error

Just wanted to point out that under Classifications > EuroVoc, there is a map of countries coloured depending on their status. Whilst Denmark is listed as part of Northern Europe, it is coloured green, which represents Western Europe in this map. I don't know how to change this but thought it should be pointed out. Ollie HF (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Removed the map as it was WP:OR, it had been created by a Wikipedia editor with no referencing to EuroVoc itself. TylerBurden (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

legend Ollie HF (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)