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. |
Archive 1 |
Am I colour blind? The Northern European countries are listed as purple, aren't they?
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)
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.
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):
Doc15071969 21:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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
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.
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. VEOonefive 12:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The United Nations geoscheme for Europe#Northern Europe
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.
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
The Standard Australian Classification of Countries defines Northern Europe as: Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland (part), Greenland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. (Source)
UNESCO[1], 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.[2] 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)
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)
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)
( 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)
Blomsterhagens: Your insistence on including Tallinn or "Talsinki" in a list of "major metropolitan areas" forces two questions: sources and inclusion criteria.
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)
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)
See https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/, specifically:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)