Talk:Nordic history

I really doubt that the 1814 constitution, whatever its contents really was the first "democratic" constitution in Europe. One of the constitutions adopted during the French revolution was the first with universal male suffrage and that was before 1814. Poland adopted a constitution just prior to its third partition (and hence the end of its national existence) that was considered radical and democratic at the time. The current constitution of San Marino dates to the early 17th century. And it would really surprise me to see female suffrage as a part of the 1814 constitution of Norway. If I am not mistaken the first constitutions in Europe to include female suffrage were among others the 1919 Weimar constitution and changes to the de facto constitution of Britain during the 1920s. Czechoslovakia also introduced female suffrage after World War I, if I am not mistaken... Now depending on your definition of "democratic" the 1814 constitution of Norway is either not democratic or not the first... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

If so which of them are and which aren't? If they are, why isn't Poland? Or at least parts of it? After all, Lithuania and Poland share a lot of history... Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Estonia was part of Denmark and Sweden for much of its history. Some sites in Russian Karelia can also be included. When it comes to Poland, we can consider places which were important to the Nordic region in some way or another. The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth is also a good candidate for an article on its own. /Yvwv (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hard to give a definite yes or no. The history of the Baltic countries have both Scandinavian, Prussian, Polish and Russian influences. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Influences, yes. But none of those regions are included in the common or official understanding of the term. The Baltic countries and perhaps some of the British isles may have expressed a desire to join the Nordic cooperation, regions of Poland probably not (there is cooperation in the Baltic Sea framework, though). So the countries and regions should be mentioned in specific context in the article, but they should not be called Nordic. --LPfi (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

This article doesn't require any strict geographic boundaries. If the target region owned, occupied, did something significant or had something significant happen to a leader/etc in another area of Europe/the world in which visiting would give a person deeper knowledge about the Nordic region and its history, it is not important if the noted place fall outside of the Nordic region. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nordic History indicates full history, but the intent of this article as stated is not to cover the entirety of Scandinavian history. If Nordic Kingdoms is problematic, is there a better name for the intended historic era for this particular part of the world? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

In Nordic historiography, historical times are considered to begin around AD 1000, with the first substantial written records. The times before are referred to as prehistory. /Yvwv (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Now I am curious. What was this? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The intention was to give workers bigger influence (on their work and the policies of their employers) by giving labour unions shares of listed companies. As envisioned they could have been a tool in a Marxist line of thought, but as implemented the influence was severely restricted and they were more geared towards giving the companies risk capital. See Employee funds. --LPfi (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Some companies in Germany do an analogous thing in paying some of their employees in part in stock (in some cases even people who are just making an Ausbildung). But ultimately the details of how such a scheme is implemented are rather important... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes. It is common to pay leaders in stock, so why not employees. I got an offer to buy shares in a publishing company after less than one day's work – they seemed to want to engage all their staff. The Swedish case is special because they have one dominating labour union ("LO"), tightly knit with the Socialdemokraterna party. They were the one active in this, and seemingly they, not the workers themselves, would have got the influence. In the case where workers are given shares, much depend on how they are able to cooperate and get the needed know-how to use the position. The consequences of having a representative for the employees in the board (by shareholder power or by company decision) would be an interesting research area. I suppose more effort would go in avoiding firing people, it could bring important "factory floor" knowledge and it could increase understanding for the decisions made. --LPfi (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Again, User:Hobbitschuster has reverted my edits without any explanation, so I have no idea what his gripe is. Here are some explanations for my edits:

• The article switches back and forth between using "them" and "it" to refer to a country. ("Them" makes sense when referring to a country's people, but not to the country itself.) I'm not familiar with the use of "them" for a country -- I think that is non-standard usage -- so I changed those to "it". Even if "them" is preferred
• "Famously". If it was famous, then the reader can be presumed to know about it. Don't make the reader who doesn't know about it feel out of the loop.
• "EU accession is not currently planned as of 2018." -- "currently" adds nothing here, and in 32 days times, 2018 won't be current.
• "together with Germany" means the same thing as "with Germany". What is the objection to removing redundancy?

Ground Zero (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

For many of the nuances my English is not good enough for me to have an absolute opinion, but some thoughts: Was Norway a country at the time, with a will as a country? I suppose they could be thought to refer to the Norwegians involved in the conflict. I suppose an Asian would not be supposed to know about Icelandic events, however famous, so the word could be interpreted as meaning famous in some context or among some people. As such I do not find it von oben. Currently gives an image of the status being unstable. As such, "currently as of 2018" will tell little in 2019, while "as of 2018" will tell that the situation might have changed, but probably has not. My impression is there is no reason to believe Iceland will restart negotiations in a foreseeable future, but if I am mistaken, the previous wording may be better. I hope Hobbitschuster can tell their view, and will tell it in edit summaries in the future. --LPfi (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comments, LPfi. I am always happy to discuss edits, and doing so is much better that edit-warring.

1. In the sentences where I changed "they/them" to "it", the refers back directly to a country (or, region) already mentioned, and not to a group of people, so grammatically the pronoun should "agree" with the noun to which it is referring.

2. I don't agree that "famously" adds anything here. I think it should like the writer just trying to make his/her writing sound more puffed-up, but I will leave that in since you want to keep it.

3. "Currently" is on our list of WV:words to avoid because it doesn't add any meaning tongue present tense, and because it becomes out of date very quickly. "As of 2018" makes it clear tongue reader when the information was added. The present tense does not imply any permanence: "she is hungry", "I am sick", "Trump is the American President" are all understood to be impermanent conditions.

Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Yvwv: In this uncommented edit it was added that:

"The Mormon church attracted many Nordic settlers; among cited reasons was their extensive genealogic records, which allowed ancestral baptism."

It really doesn't make sense: how would ancestral baptism attract settlers? Whether the Mormons have added Nordic settlers to their registers is irrelevant for this article; did many settlers themselves join the Mormon church? I have never heard that Utah would be among the states with significant Nordic heritage.

(Please use the edit summary field, which would have made finding the edit much easier, and had prompted me to ask about this directly, not nearly four years later.)

–LPfi (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The statement might have not made clear causes and effects. It is established that the LDS church practices ancestral baptism, and that the Nordic countries have extensive genealogic records, useful for the LDS. I am not completely sure that it was the genealogic records which caused Scandinavians to convert to LDS in large numbers. I would want to look deeper into this. But the statement is not important to the article, and can be deleted. /Yvwv (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Reply

Thanks. It's interesting and I look forward to hear what you find out, but I delete the statement for now, as it at least needs rewording. –LPfi (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply