Talk:Sauna

Untitled

I will remove Czech republic from Eastern Europe. Czech republic IS NOT Eastern Europe. We Czechs have never, never anything like Russian banya! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:96CA:4526:59DE:DEB1:1B3A:B601 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Trivia

Maybe it could be mentioned that sauna is the only finnish word that is in common use in the entire world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.142.182 (talk • contribs) 11:24, September 29, 2005

What about "Nokia" ? :-) Atlant 12:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, even in Finland most people aren't thinking about furry little animals when they hear the word Nokia. --Tragos 09:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What about "Sisu"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.20.153 (talk • contribs) 06:54, February 12, 2006

"Sisu"?? The national anthem of Eritreia?? I know what you mean, but no other than finnish people seem to use it naturally, in the contrary of Sauna. Nokia is a brand, as Toyota for instance. This doesn't mean it is a word with a "meaning" for the world... If it is true that sauna is the only finnish word worldwide used (I am portuguese, for instance, and we do use it), it is a nice trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.23.224.156 (talk • contribs) 02:10, October 4, 2006

There's a slight difference between Nokia the brand and Toyota the brand. Nokia is the name of a town where Nokia, the company, began operations (making rubber products like cable and boots, I believe), Toyota is a shortening of several words that escape me this second. This may or may not be significant in this context.Aki Korhonen 15:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should compare Nokia and Kawasaki? Even when the brand Kawasaki is not named after the city of Kawasaki. --Tirkka (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I know another word!! Rapakivi... and in english i think it is the rapakivistone. and in german das rapakivi. it is a kind of stone that exists only in finnland and in sweden. it is remains of (dunno the english word) svekofennidit. se on muuttunut kivilaji, joka rapautuu helposti.. please if someone knows more about them, write an article!!Kangaskauppias 06:55, May 25, 2007 (UTC)

Like this: Rapakivi granite? Langrel 05:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of Finnish words in use, but most of them aren't thought of as Finnish. Even some words like "Mammoth" have Finnic origins. 88.112.61.122 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't compare Nokia to Toyota. While Nokia is the town of its orgin, but Toyota (豐田)just sounds like a Japanese surname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.29.80.8 (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Steam bath, Dry Sauna, and Wet Sauna

It is my understanding that a steam bath or vapor room heats water directly and has a humidity aproaching 100%. In contrast saunas heat the air and have relativly no humidity. A wet sauna and dry sauna is solely a matter of weather water is poured over the rocks or not (thus temporarly increasing the humidity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.41.80.74 (talk • contribs) 14:12, October 26, 2005

So when you go into a sauna it's a dry sauna, and then when you put the water on the rocks it becomes a wet one? :-) -- Smjg 09:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

In the case of Finnish public saunas, a dry sauna means that throwing water on the rocks is not allowed. For obvious reasons, public saunas over 100 °C (212 °F) are dry saunas by default.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.220.31 (talk • contribs) 11:28, December 11, 2005

I've never seen a sauna where you're not allowed to throw water on the rocks in Finland. However, I've been told that such saunas exist at least in Sweden. I must add that I've never been in a sauna which is constantly held in over 100 °C and they may have different rules but in general I don't think a sauna where you're not supposed to throw water on stones is truly a Finnish sauna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.133.23 (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In a steam bath or vapor room humidity excedes 100%, hence the visible vapor. It's one of three (?) ways to heat the body in (Dutch) public saunas; by radiation in the sauna, by condensation in the steam room or by conduction in the jacuzzi. Sander--81.205.148.151 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Expansion and clarification requests

I've added some {{fact}} tags where some citations to reliable sources would be helpful.

• Some additional discussion on the science of toxin-elimination (which is a nice thought, but probably mostly bogus) and immune system response would be nice. Someone mentioned to me that the hot-sweat-cold cycle was supposed to clear pores, which sounds plausible, but it would be nice to know if this is actually true.
• Isn't wood smoke carcinogenic and otherwise unhealthy to breathe? That should probably be mentioned in the part on smoke saunas.
• I assume the curing of diseases in days gone by is meant somewhat tongue in cheek, but it would be nice to have a citation to additional reading on this topic.
• What hygiene rationale could there be for disallowing swimsuits in a sauna, other than the chlorine? This paragraph may need to be cleaned up, or at least clarified.

-- Beland 09:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Saunas are powerful detoxifiers, in fact, if you "used" recently, don't sauna if you are about to start a new job! There is quite a bit of research on detoxing "fat soluable" drug residue in a sauna, especially when combined with exercise and vitamin B3- Niacin as recommended at many Narcotics Anonymous web sites. Some of us are now addicted to sauna - any research on that?Reevasso 14:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC

There are at least two hygiene rationales:

• The first is be more to do with going from the sauna to the pool. A sweaty swimsuit in a pool is not a good thing. I guess "if you must wear a swimsuit, don't wear the same one as you do in the pool and be sure to shower naked between sauna and pool" would be a clearer rule, but "No Swimsuits" is easier.
• Secondly, retaining personal sweat within a swimsuit is not good for personal hygiene. However in the UK and elsewhere, "hygiene" is cited as the reason for making swimwear compulsory; I have even seen this horrific misunderstanding introduced to single-sex saunas.

I agree the paragraph needs cleaning up, but I think the wider issue of whether the page merges with Finnish Sauna needs to be resolved, which will have an impact on the general structure of the article. For example, the paragraph in question is in the Finnish section, and should thus cite Finnish rationale, but other worldwide thought should feature somewhere. There is potential for a Saunas and Swimwear section listing the global reasons for and against swimwear in saunas (both hygiene and etiquette). This subject is referred to more often than heat in the current article, and bringing the references together would aid clarity on the subject. Given that the article itself says that this is a source of confusion for tourists, that's probably a good thing. I'm happy to do the expansion but would appreciate additional thoughts. - PaulGregory 12:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There are citation requests for things everyone (in Finland) knows are true; for example, of course women have given births in saunas. Every Finn can confirm that, and they did that long before anyone could even read or write anything to cite. It is almost like requesting a citation to prove that people "live in their homes" or "eat food". Maybe a citation is required also to verify that the women who gave births in saunas had had sex (with men) nine months earlier? How can we verify that, if there is no citation? If you need citations, cite me. I hereby confirm that women have given births in saunas in Finland, for example my grandmother was born that way. So, please remove citation requests for obvious common facts, or cite me, or call me a liar. There is not a word about blood-letting (Finnish: "kuppaaminen"), which is a Finnish strongly sauna-related tradition. Sakaal 21:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Health Benefits

It seems as though the part about Health Benefits is copied from this webpage. Saunafin is a company that sells "Saunas, Sauna Kits, Pre-Fab Saunas, Sauna Heaters, Infrared Saunas and Steambath Generators" - hardly an objective source. Shouldn't this part be removed unless we find some trustworthy scientific source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.21.164 (talk • contribs) 06:46, June 1, 2006

With chronically ill people the amount of exercise that they can initially tolerate in recuperation may be insufficient to burn off excess stress hormones, so another way is needed to achieve this. The temperature changes of therapeutic sauna can help and this has other benefits as well. When first used gradual increases in heating and cooling are recommended. Therapeutic sauna reduces stress hormones and the cardiac workload is considered about half that of a walk, so initial exposure time is important also. The hypothalamus in our brain controls the balance homeostasis of the autonomic nervous system between the ACTION sympathetic and the RELAXATION parasympathetic nervous tone. The well known ‘fight or flight’ stress response produces hormones intended to be burnt off by action, but in a modern lifestyle such hormones may remain in the system

Hormones are not a form of fuel that is "burned off." There may be actual health benefits of saunas, but the above explanation is vague and smells of pseudoscience. BAW (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

“Pseudoscience is reserved to describe theories which are either untestable in practice or in principle, or which are maintained even when tests appear to have refuted them.” If you read the text and references you will find that tests on reduction of stress hormones have been successfully carried out with sauna use. Therefore it can hardly be pseudoscience. The use of the term in a prejorative manner would not comply with WP:NPOV unless you can cite WP:RS evidences to the contrary! ‘Burn up’ is a colloquial term for ‘metabollically utilise’ and probably better understood by encyclopaedia readers, but ‘knock yourself out’ if you want and suggest an expanded less vague description, readily understood by readers. By the way, the normal practice in Wiki is to place new comments last on the talk page not in earlier text, unless recent and ongoing! Jagra (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Sauna has also been found to increase your body's ability to improve its immune system" is referenced to Aliveberry.com, "the online health and wellness magazine". If that counts as a "reliable source" then I hereby give up on Wikipedia. 81.101.197.228 (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"enhanced anaerobic threshold in chronic conditions"

I know of no chronic conditions that are in any way 'limited' by an anaerobic threshold. This statement isn't clear whether it's refering to either chronic conditions or anaerobics. And it's unsourced, so no clarification there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.213.188 (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Pouring water on hot stones

I'm not a native speaker but as far as I remember this procedure is called infusion. If I´m right this should be incorporated into the article. 84.173.202.53 17:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

More on Health benefits

This section is devoid of any decent sourcing...Some of the claims seem ridiculous. "30% of body wastes are passed through the skin"?! This is very likely off by at least a factor of ten. In short, this unsourced and seemingly biased section (was it written by a sauna manufacturer?) is litter with {{fact}} tags and should be essentially eliminated unless reliable sources are presented to verify the claims. I'll give it a couple of days before I start rewriting & deleting... — Scientizzle 01:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I came here after seeing the refdesk discussion. I don't even think we need to give it the usual couple of days; it's pretty obvious that these claims do not reflect medical consensus. It's a nice courtesy, though. --Allen 02:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh... this article even advertises that saunas produce hyperthermia, which according to that article is "a serious medical emergency". --Allen 02:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but hyperthermia just means potentially-fatal overheating. And that is only when used for extreme periods of time. It isn't an even slightly dubious claim, consider the ease with which the opposite condition (hypothermia) occurs. If you want I'll include a reference to a news article I recently read (if I can remember where to look) about a woman who fainted in the sauna of her health club and escaped with only second-degree burns; the hospital said she was lucky to be alive. VanTucky 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... I do believe that a sauna can produce hyperthermia, and also that (as the hyperthermia article also says), hyperthermia can in some cases be beneficial. I wrote the above comment because I found it ironic that the "health benefits" section of this article treats the induction of hyperthermia as an unqualifiedly good thing, when usually it isn't. But I shouldn't have tried to poke fun; if you wrote the text or are sympathetic to that viewpoint, I can understand why you might feel insulted by me, and I apologize. As this is an encyclopedia, I should have been more dispassionate. --Allen 03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As, perhaps, I should be as well...VanTucky 20:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This section saw no improvement so I have made the entire thing into a hidden comment. It's ridiculous to have a "health benefits" section that reads like a sauna brochure that is littered with {{fact}} tags due to its almost complete lack of citations...it's potentially dangerous, too. — Scientizzle 15:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There are also some health risks which can be linked with sauna but they're common with all very hot places or places with hot equipment. I've heard some horrific stories about people who have had a fit in a sauna and they've been cooked to death. Some may slip with very serious consequences like hitting their head and never getting out alive - some have been fallen against the sauna stove and have got very serious burns. When you're in sauna you should have something to drink nearby because sauna can cause serious dehydration. On the other hand, excessive use of alcohol may cause you to pass out which can be lethal. Cases like this are rare but may happen. So, not everything that happens in sauna is necessary healthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.133.23 (talk • contribs) 02:26, July 29, 2007

Hi in the near future I intend to add a new section to the Article that I am working on now, called Therapeutic Sauna, as the use of sauna for treatment is becoming more widely accepted. I am aware of many medical science references that I will cite, that should silence the critics and enable the flags to be removed. Anyone any objections or comments? Jagra 07:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

More sources, especially to back up the scientific claims, would be great. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Have today added therapuetic sauna, some may think sex comes before therapy! have included around 100 references. for some reason the internal links are not working, will correct later Jagra 23:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please change it so that it is clear which reference is supporting which claim, instead of just placing all the references at the end of the paragraph. Currently it seems like many of the references in the article are irrelevant to the topic. I cannot delete these references without knowing what claims they are supporting. I also cannot evaluate the validity of the health benefits of saunass without knowing what evidence there is to support whatJamesStewart7 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

See comments belowJagra (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In Germany, doctors specifically recommend saunas for those with high blood pressure, but say you shouldn't cool down rapidly afterwards. As in every sphere, there are national fashions in medicine.Escoville (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that "Health risks and benefits" could be broken out into separate sub headings? For example: "Health Risks" and "Health Benefits" I think this would be a bit more useful when researching the topic. I am working on some information to add to the health benefits sections as well if you guys agree. Atsmith227 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Formating

I would request that someone have a look at the formating of this page - there are sections that are over a page long without paragraphs, breaks, or anything to help guide the eye. Reading it is near impossible in my current state. I would format it myself, but I'm currently as drunk as a skunk, arguing over the benifits of a sauna. My appologies. 24.67.68.118 09:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok it's been a while since I've studied some of these things but some of these claims look rather dodgy.

• "Therapeutic sauna adaptation improves neuroendocrine and immune function with increases in cortisol, DHEAS, and lower cytokines"

Cortisol has a negative effect on immune system functioning so there is no way an increase in cortisol represents better immune functioning. Also what does "improved neuroendocrine function" mean? I can't think of an appropriate way to decide if neuroendocrine functioning has improved. Looking at the way the term was used in the article, it seems like an increase in a certain neurotransmitter/hormone is supposed to signal improved function but these changes aren't necessarily positive ones.

• "Women show higher neuroendocrine response than men." Similarly problematic. Which hormones/neurotranismmiter? What changes? Saying that women show a higher neuroendocrine response is like saying women have more hormones. Even if it is true, it is completely uninformative. These sentences have been removed from the article for these reasons.
• "Indicated in reducing symptoms in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and rheumatoid arthritis, and indicated for anorexia nervosa ." Fact tags have been added because the evidence I can see is simply insufficient to support these claims. The only anorexia nervosa evidence I can see is a case study of a couple of cases. Fairly worthless in scientific terms.
• "Sauna has also been found to reduce sympathetic activity, stress hormones adrenalin and noradrenalin and to trigger a well defined neuro-endocrine reaction which includes raising the hormones found low in CFS and some other chronic conditions (ACTH, cortisol and beta endorphin), interestingly cortisol remained elevated after other hormones had returned to prior levels." Which conditions? How strong a marker are these hormone levels of said conditions? If these hormones do not strongly indicate with both high sensitivity and specificity these conditions then the comment shouldn't be included. It's akin to me saying that most people who have died have drank water at some time... A true but highly misleading statement. For a well defined neuro-endocrine response, the hormonal changes seem pretty contradictory. Cortisol and andrenalin are both hormones in the HPA axis. A decrease in adrenalin should really be met with a decrease in cortisol and acth, at least eventually (there are feedback loops) so I can think of a few possibilities; saunas have different effects on different people (relaxing vs invigorating - so not well defined at allthat result in different stress responses) or these hormone results come from different research measured at different times or these hormones were measured at one point where this profile exists, instead of over an extended duration or someone has misinterpreted the research or someone stuffed up the research or my biology is just wrong. This comment "interestingly cortisol remained elevated after other hormones had returned to prior levels" leads me towards "someone misinterpreted the data". Cortisol is almost always elevated for some time after adrenalin, noradrenalin etc return to normal so it's not interesting at all. This comment also suggests that the data was taken over an extended period and whoever wrote this just took a snapshot.

Even the last point (my biology is wrong) is problematic as this is an encyclopedia article. Currently non-biologists probably cannot understand this section which is why I think many dubious claims have remained in here.

• "It has shown that regular saunas combined with exercise therapy can efficiently clear organic chemicals, solvents, drugs, pharmaceuticals even PCBs and heavy metals from the body" I'm not entirely sure which reference this claim is based on but this one seems relevant "Components of practical clinical detox programs--sauna as a therapeutic tool." It's an article from the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and the article does not appear to be original research. Given the lack of credentials or supporting research, this article cannot be used as support for these claims.
• "A sauna followed by a cold shower has been shown to reduce pain in rheumatoid arthritis where pain is mediated by sensitised c-fibre sympathetics, pain in other chronic conditions such as CFS and fibromyalgia may be similar." This seems like the supporting article "Effect of exposure to sauna heat on neuropathic and rheumatoid pain." The article is an examination of how pain is mediated. It appears that some patients actually reported excacerbation of their symptoms during the sauna. Furthermore, the study lacks the appropriate controls to infer that sauna use reduces pain (not surprising as this was not their aim).
• "It also stimulated the production of hormones such as testosterone, the hormone that regulates sexual drive and potency in men, and boosted the women's production of oestrogen, a hormone regulating fertility and involved in other medical conditions" This is somewhat of a gross oversimplification of the roles of testoerone and oestrogen. It may be fair to say that oestrogen is involved in the ovulatory cycle or that testosterone is involved in libido but it is not fair to say an increase in oestrogen or testosterone resulting from sauna use will result in a corresponding increase in libido or fertility as is implied here. For example, administering oestrogen to women, as in the case of the combined oral contraceptive pill may even reduce fertility through negative feedback loops. As such the implications in the article have been removed.
• "They found this treatment alone considerably improved many chronic conditions." Removed as it is far too broad and it is highly unlikely that the study accurately assessed "many chronic conditions". Please specify the conditions before reinclusion (and move the reference so I can check it).
• "The therapeutic sauna with hot cycle followed by a cold cycle brings the benefits of both and in fact induces the body to switch from sympathetic to parasympathetic mode." The body doesn't have parasympathetic and sympathetic modes. There are parasympathetic and sympathetic systems which interact and are almost always interactive. Removed due to innaccuracy.
• "This effect helps break down one of the nastier aspects of chronic illness; imbalance of blood supply due to vasoconstriction." Also removed. There is just no way that all chronic illnesses share this one feature.
• "It has been shown with drugs such as caffeine, that delayed metabolic clearance was offset by a sizeable elimination in sweat by sauna. Sweat tests have shown pharmaceutical drugs are eliminated in sweat, narcotics, alkaloids and barbiturates are eliminated in sweat, and elimination increased with heat. Sweat analysis is also used for diagnosis of some disease, toxic metal excretion in sweat is used in diagnosis of chronic disease the result of contamination, and sweating used to eliminate toxic metals." If this is the source "Drug residues store in the body following cessation of use: Impacts on neuroendocrine balance and behavior – Use of the Hubbard sauna regimen to remove toxins and restore health" I'm just going to point out that it was published in Med hypotheses and doesn't contain any actual research. If this is the source "The significance of drug analysis of sweat in respect to rapid screening for drug abuse", I'm going to point out that it is fallicious to assume that just because drug residue appears in sweat, that you can increase drug clearance by sweating more.JamesStewart7 (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I just readded fact tags that were removed. I am inclined to assume there is no reference unless I can see a clear reference for it as some of the information that was in this paragraph was a little questionable (see directly above). It is so hard to tell though as there is 40 possible references that could correspond to that citation. So if anyone notices that a particular citation corresponds to a particular statement please move it. JamesStewart7 (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a lot of the comments and criticisms made above are in fact your own point of view and/or origonal research and contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:OR as no references have been given for your assertations why should we beleive you when you provide no referencing, and admit poor memory, as against the Article text quoting directly from studies by others?

With regard to the request for inline citing this is not a hard requirement of Wikipedia, in fact several options are given, viz; Referencing This says requires only “For journal articles, include volume number, issue number and page numbers”. “If you're relying on text that is not in the abstract, you might still want to link by typing (for example) abstract at PMID 15153440, which Wikipedia will display as: abstract at PMID 12345. “ /Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Medical_journal_abstracts

‘Wikipedia policy WP:V states that if an editor requests that a particular statement be sourced, that request should be fulfilled. In this case, it may be advisable to add an in-line citation if this would prevent future confusion. However, if the statement is easily found in the principal references already given in the article, a citation may instead be provided on the article's associated talk page.” Wikipedia:Scientific_citation_guidelines#Uncontroversial_knowledge here

I choose to follow this guideline, and give the references for each of the queries in the Article here on the talk page. I will use the PMID number as Article reference numbers can change over time. These are all in the Article citing or have been added. The In-line citation requests and banner are now removed.

In regard to;

• Appetite loss, the following numbers are relevant. PMID 16046381 PMID 14610268 PMID 9383124
• Anorexia, PMID 11300546 PMID 15185834 PMID 15001010
• CFS, PMID 17561703 PMID 11703165 PMID 11121511 PMID 17045758 PMID 15992574 PMID 9742612, PMID 1436218 PMID 10025074 PMID 11268418 PMID 17958903
• Vasoconstriction, PMID 15914953 PMID 14610268
• Drug and chemical toxin clearance; heavy metals and chemicals PMID 17405694, PMID 1866932, drugs and pharmaceuticals PMID 17045758, solvents PMID 9553837, organic chemicals, PMID 1817511, PCB PMID 2514627, pesticide exposure PMID 17590542 drugs are eliminated in sweat PMID 8757411, narcotics alkaloids and barbiturates are eliminated in sweat PMID 433459 and elimination increased with heat. PMID 10572984 sweat analysis is also used for diagnostic purposes of disease PMID 8210068 toxic metal excretion in sweat is used in diagnosis of chronic disease the result of contamination PMID 1427342 PMID 1882227 sweating used to eliminate toxic metals PMID 4711652, PMID 3238426, PMID 13027599
• Neuro-endocrine and the immune systems PMID 10735978 women show higher neuroendocrine response PMID 8917906

Of course other references cited in the Article are also relevant to these conditions apart from the direct studies, for instance in CFS, vasoconstriction, temperature sensitivity, cortisol, sympathetic nervous tone, prostaglandins, cytokine profiles etc are also relevant to the findings in these conditions. If one was to attempt to list every possible reference against every listed condition then we would have multiple citings for the same references. Apart from the complexity involved and the length of increase to the Article, such in line references would interrupt the flow of the text, therefore as end of paragraph citing is a legitimate option, and as this has already been chosen, it can remain. However if someone wants to undertake that task they can.

“The verifiability criteria require that such statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement. In addition, such dense referencing can obscure the logical interdependence of statements. “ “These inline citations are often inserted either after the first sentence of a paragraph or after the last sentence of the paragraph; a single convention should be chosen for each article.” It has been. here - Jagra (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Safe use

Someone has since, irresponsibly in my view, removed the Therapeutic sauna proceedure from the Article? In veiw of a number of querries now like the one above concerning safe use of sauna's the proceedure can be accessed for now here Safe-use. I think something similar (if not so prescriptive) needs to be included back in the Article. Can I get comments and hopefully a consensus for this. Jagra (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dangers, the text just added is not supported by a reliable source citation, whilst in the right spirit, wikipedia does not accept opinion and all statements must be supported by citations WP:RS so please add such citations or text will be removed. The same applies to text just added to Benefits, these will also be removed unless you add additional citations for the statements or provide them here for verification if relying upon an existing citation already referenced in that section. Jagra (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Combined text added references. Jagra (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on whether the safe use revised section in the Article now constitutes 'Howto' and even if it does is there not some obligation to describe risks? Jagra (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We have no obligation to describe the risks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: we have no moral responsibility beyond that. Moreschi (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted material

I've moved the stuff I've cut to Talk:Sauna/Dumping ground for future reference. The "safe use" section had to go - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and the "therapeutic sauna" section was just silly. As a frequent user of the sauna myself, I know how wonderful the sauna is and how good it is for you, but it's not quite that good for you (I loved that both anorexia and obesity were listed in the diseases a sauna can fix). However, we can definitely bring back a short "impact on health" section, listing the plausible health benefits, along with a couple of sentences about the risks if used irresponsibly. Moreschi (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately your homolies on how good you feel in a sauna is just not a reliable source and some might say WP:OR as opposed to WP:RS material and citations that you removed without valid reason except your own peculiar POV and therefore it is restated. Jagra (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

By your own formatting you've made it virtually impossible to check your sources. Each cite that references a specific claim should go immediately after that claim, not at the end of the (overlong) paragraphs. Please fix this. You're the one making WP:REDFLAG claims here. Moreschi (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find discussion on that point several sections above, have you read? Jagra (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(grits teeth) - no, what you quoted above only applies when a single source is being used for all the claims in the paragraph. It is completely contrary to normal usage to list a whole bunch of different sources for different claims at the end of the para. Particularly when we are in redflag territory. Please fix. Moreschi (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverting large slabs of an Article with POV comments is either vandalism or declares your intention for you to make changes. Regarding the verifiability criteria what it actually says is “The verifiability criteria require that such statements be sourced so that in principle anyone can verify them. However, in many articles it is cumbersome to provide an in-line reference for every statement. In addition, such dense referencing can obscure the logical interdependence of statements. “clearly a single source does not constitute dense referencing. You seem also to have ignored that a consensus exists on the page for that form of referencing. I will presume your intention is to improve the article and if you wish to change the form of referencing I would not object, even assist you. Your stated difficulting in understanding how sauna can benefit both Anorexia PMID 15001010 PMID 11300546 and Obesity, PMID 14610268 put as simply as I can sauna modulates many homeostatic pathways at the same time, Jagra (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This would be so much easier if we were discussing this while sitting in a sauna! This material (moved to Talk:Sauna/Draft) has several problems, all of them solvable. The "Safe use" section is written as instructions and gives advice, which are not the Wikipedia mandate (that's handled by Wikibooks, a sister project). Here we just describe. Sometimes it that can be fixed quite easily through copyediting. Instead of recomending, "You can sit on a lower bench to be cooler" we can say that "Users sit on ..." That way we're describing behavior rather than suggesting it.

As Moreschi says, it'd be more helpful to place the citations after each sentence rather than altogether at the end of the paragraphs. In some cases the title of the work is clear enough ("Dermal excretion of iron in intensely training athletes"), but it's less confusing and more consistent with Wikipedia standards to place the citation directly after the assertion.

I don't see anything that's a red flag. The main assertions seem to be that 1) the hot/cold cycle stimulates blood flow and 2) the high temperature and sweating increases the metabolism and excretion of various compounds. Neither of those appears to me to be exceptional or implausible. Further, the sources all appear to be scholarly. I wish more of the article we this well sourced. The article is quite long and it may be best to spin off part. Perhaps the therepeutic benefits material would be a good start. We'd keep a short summary in this article with a link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive comments, for a start the copyediting of safe use is a good suggestion, are there editors that specialise in this, that might be approached? The situation I was trying to avoid in this 'popular' type of Article was this sort of dense editing, which does tend to break up the flow of text. In the example i discussed in the More health benefits section above there are 10 or so references that can be added everytime the condition CFS is mentioned, that might be an extreme case but I am not sure that everyone fully understands what is being requested. The reference material may be closer to hand but i doubt that the understanding would be improved? Anyway the consensus is that a change of format is needed, so lets see what might be acheived. I agree that there are a lot (40 k/B's) in the Theraputic sauna and safe use section, although much of that is in the references and probably less than half is readable prose. The suggestion of spinning off material is a worthy one, and I have a suggestion along that line. I would be prepared to write a seperate Article titled Therapeutic sauna, using the above material, provided all agree to this and agree to sponsor it. It will take time, probably months, and there would need to be agreement of what was to be the status in the transition, over to you. Jagra (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "safe use" material, we can fix it in situ. More sources there would help. Regarding citation style, Wikipedia has unusual standards that are unique in some respects. The article you link to is, for good or bad, more consistent with the usual norms here. Could you try to make this material more like it? As for splitting, let's develop this material more and then decide. There may be better ways of dividing up the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I will initially look for further ref's for safe use. Jagra (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Safe Use is ready for a copy edit check, additional sources added. Jagra (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That looks good. The "Safe use" material no longer reads like a "how-to" and is now more descriptive. It also has extensive sourcing. I'll post it to the article on Jagra's behalf. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Layout

I'd like to propose some significant changes to the layout. Right now the flow seems jumbled going back and forth between historic and modern saunas. I think it should start with an explanation of what a sauna is, then go back to the historic roots. For that it could go all the way back to the origins of perspiration bathing that originated in ancient Greece. My understanding is that the sauna went out of use in Europe during the middle ages, but was continued in Finland. Then possibly its introduction to the Americas (Delaware in the 1630s). After that it would seem logical to to jump to the different types (along with the current "use" section), then possibly benefits, and end the article with cultural customs. How does that sound? Any other ideas? Cacophony (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I might add that the article talks mainly about finnish saunas, when it is supposed to be about saunas in general. ABC101090 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Repetition

While reading this article from top to bottom, I noticed a lot of repetition. Things like vihta, giving birth in the sauna, smoke sauna etc seem to be introduced as new information several times. The redundant mentions should be removed, but I don't feel competent to make such broad edits myself :-) --82.130.38.44 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Article length

This article also seems to be quite long for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps the longest section, "Modern sauna culture around the world", should be split into a separate article? --82.130.38.44 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Another comment from The Straight Dope =

From http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2896/does-a-sauna-or-steam-room-do-you-any-good ...

"Numerous Web sites, among them Wikipedia, claim research by the University of Munich's Institute of Medical Balneology and Climatology shows that saunas and steam rooms confer benefits ranging from improved sleep to softer skin. But good luck finding a citation to back this up. Despite determined effort, including correspondence with actual Germans, my assistant Una could confirm only that the Institute of MB&C exists but is now called the Institute for Health and Rehabilitation Sciences. Beyond that, zilch."

Not in the article, of course, probably removed before I read it.

My point is, can somebody please hit Cecil Adams in he head with a clue-by-four and tell him that it is far easier to simply correct Wikipedia than it is to complain about Wikipedia and have one of his readers correct it within moments of his publishing the complaint? Just a thought... 4.231.169.56 (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he has better uses of his time than editing Wikipedia. Because it is the product of unguided amateurs Wikipedia will always be mediocre.--137.99.94.182 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Typical temperature =

"... over 80 °C". No way, Jose. My guess is that a typical Finnish sauna is more like 70, in particular those small ones with an electric oven (or whatever kiuas is in English). Thus, if you warm up a small electric sauna up to 80°C and don't like it, well, in my humble opinion that's normal. Even if the temperature is lower but you let the structures get hot by warming for hours the experience may be uncomfortable. In such cases I let the temperature get even below 70, somewhere between 60 and 65. But then you have to throw lots of water on kiuas. Public saunas, tend to have lower temperatures than 80, too. In traditional and thus more humid and usually larger saunas the temperature can be higher. There are people who get their kicks out of very high temperatures -- and apparently the dialectics between pain and pleasure (after escaping the pain preferably in a lake or sea). So, there is no right way to saunoa but there is a way that most people like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.27.67.160 (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes way, Jose. Why to make claims if you have to guess? I came from a finnish sauna just an hour ago and the temperature was somewhere between 80C and 90C and I'd be surprised if anyone thought that as unpleasant. Eariler this week the same sauna was heated to around 70C and everyone agreed that it should be heated warmer. The "feel" depends more about air circulation and humidity rather than simply about the temperature. "over 80C" statement looks perfect to me. 80.186.85.160 (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The dry sauna usually has 90~95C, but then it is not permitted to throw water onto the oven. In wet saunas the temperature is lower, and you get a heat rush when throwing water, mixed with herbs, onto the oven. In a steam room, you can't get a very high temperature. I'd say 60-70C is very hot, while 70C in a dry sauna feels rather cold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.200 (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Studies on the properties and pleasant effects of the Finnish sauna reveal certain conditions necessary for its proper use. . . . In most cases the recommended temperature at the level of the bather's head is from 70 to 100 degrees Centigrade and humidity should be from 40 to 70 grammes of water per kilogram of dry air. . . . [T]here is no reason to lower the temperature below 70–75°C, in which case undue humidity would result from producing a feeling of warmth. This in turn is physiologically unsuitable and will easily lead to problems of hygiene." (Finnish Sauna: Design, Construction and Maintenance, Rakennustietosäätiö Oy (5th ed. 2003), pgs. 35–36.) An accompanying chart shows 70–88°C to be "mild" (depending upon humidity), 78–98°C to be "moderate," and 88–105°C to be "strong" and observes that the "mild" range is "best suited to children and the elderly." The reference to "... over 80°C," therefore seems accurate as a general introductory statement regarding the average sauna experience. Langrel (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't believe they, believe me. I'm Finn, and go to sauna with my family every saturday, and if temperature is under than 80C, it's cold--Ateria (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The sauna I go to normally runs at 110°C and about 10-12% humidity. This is what the internal thermometer and humidity sensor say. The outer control panel is usually set to 120°C (oven temperature, I guess), but obviously some of that is lost due to people opening/closing the door. So yeah, I was really surprised to see figures below 80°C. I've never been to a sauna below 80°C, no matter the humidity, and usually they are 100+. I live in Central-Eastern Europe. 213.178.101.161 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just curious, how do you not die by sitting in 100°C heat? Wouldn't sweat be boiling off your skin, burning you? Wouldn't you get burns from contact with the floor/seats? Is this actually pleasant at all? How long do people typically sit in a 100 or 110ºC sauana - 10 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.143.118 (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Because air has low thermal conductivity. Also the interior materials have been chosen with low heat conductivity in mind, for example the seats and walls are made of wood. Sweat evaporates before it gets in boiling temperature and that actually cools you down. That's the purpose of perspiration. Tragos (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Sauna_Championships, it seems that temperatures over 100ºC are actually quite dangerous (and considered 'extreme'), and the times given indicate that they can't be withstood for very long. So are saunas of 100ºC or hotter actually very common, or is 80-95 more likely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.138.133 (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Temperatures below 100°C are common. Note that the thermometer is usally mounted in the upper region of the sauna, where the termperature is significantly higher. Saune users can choose their preferred temperature level by taking a higher or lower seat. Also note that there is little air movement inside the sauna at most times. Close to the skin, the air temperatue is much lower. However, if this layer of colder air gets blown away (for example, when the Saunameister twirls his or her towel), the body receives more heat (and reacts with more sweat - just sitting around in 80°C still air apparently leaves quiate a large safetly margin for the body's teamperature regulation). --Klaws (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Plural

English tends to follow the plural rules of loan words' languages of origin. For example, the French word château becomes châteaux, haiku stays haiku following the Japanese plural, and the Latin quotum has quota as its plural form. For this reason, shouldn't the plural of sauna be saunat instead of saunas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.211.11 (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd have a better chance of changing the singular to saunum — and about as much rationale. As a general rule, English tends to naturalize loan words and pluralize them with a simple -s (or -es). And sauna has become so thoroughly naturalized in English that its Finnish pronunciation is virtually unknown, let alone its plural. All to the better, of course, as saunat is that much more useful as an affectation. Langrel (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There's the problem that it doesn't work grammatically: English always uses a simple plural, but Finnish doesn't use a simple plural in all of the same contexts. For instance 1 sauna is "1 sauna" in English, but 5 saunaa, saunat pestään, saunoja pestään are in partitive singular, nominative plural, partitive plural, respectively; in English, all three would be simple plurals ("saunas"). (The reason for this is the partitive or part-whole contrast and the telicity contrast.) --vuo (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Environmental effects

Claim that saunas contribute significantly to global warming seems weakly argumented / greatly exaggerated. First, it claims that there are 2 to 3.2 million saunas in Finland, yet there are about 5.5 million inhabitants in Finland and not every house has sauna and not every Finn is living alone in his house. Actually, apartment houses typically don't have sauna in every flat, or they have common saunas for something like sauna per twenty to thirty flats. Environmental effects section also contains claims about "energy consumption" yet it uses units of power ("gigawatts"). Mixing energy and power units basically proves, that writer doesn't understand anything about subject he/she is writing about.

If we assume producing 1 kWh of electricity produces about 0.30kg CO2 (from coal, non combined process; in Finland, most coal plants are combined plants, so energy efficiency is better). Using article values for energy consumption, additional CO2 release would 406,8kg per year and household (and remember, there are significantly less saunas than households!). However, in Finland, percentage of renewable energy is 37% in 2018, nuclear 17%, fossil fuels 35% so much lower value could be used for CO2 emissions. Even if you make assumption there are million households with sauna (there aren't), it would mean only 406 800 000 kg CO2 annually, that is, 406 800t or 0.4068 Mt. For comparison, emissions from traffic in year 2017 in Finland were 11,5 Mt (CO2-equivalent, according to Finnish Statistical Administration). Of course CO2 equivalent contains certain other emissions, but it's close enough. 11,5 Mt = 11 500 000 t. All the CO2 and green house gas emissions from Finland were 56,5 Mt CO2 equivalent in 2018. Emissions from saunas would be 3,5% from traffic emissions and 0,7% from total emissions. That's hardly significant amount even at national level, even less globally! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:6D:10E:9532:9251:5954:8221 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Unused cites

Moved from article:

Benefits

THESE REFERENCES NEED TO BE CONVERTED TO INLINE CITATIONS

Section 2

THESE REFERENCES NEED TO BE CONVERTED TO INLINE CITATIONS

Refs

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nudity *strictly enforced* in german-speaking countries?

No, not that I know of. Nudity is very common, even expected. Some people seriously dislike the idea that perople sitting around in sweaty clothes (no matter how minimal this clothing might be...), so it's probably polite to wear no clothing in the saune is these countries. However, there are a few people who feel very unfortable without clothing, and so far I've seen noone complaining if someone enters a sauna in swimwear.

In public saunas, the Saunemeister usually wears some sort of clothing - sometimes swimwear, or even shorts and a polo shirt. Of course, he or she only enters tha saune for an Aufguss or maintenance (like putting fresh wood on the fire). --Klaws (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

One can search for the term "textilfrei" which shows that some sauna areas do have a rule but in general it takes the form of a 'recommendation' to wear no clothes. One can deduce it because one likes to have sauna to be ubiquitous so that many of them are small. So there is no strict separation by gender or nudity - everyone may take advantage of the single installation for example in a hotel. The only rule being "enforced" in small saunas is to use a towel at all times.

It is somewhat different for the larger public saunas where it is common to have some days per week being reserved for women or designated for strict nudity - or to have a separate area reserved for them (separation by time or space). If one goes to to check the websites of those public saunas (often called "therme") one can easily see that mixed-gender nudity is the standard around.

I think however there is a different question behind it for those inquiring about the nudity rules: people might expect a peeping tom problem. Actually, if one has been exposed to nudity for all your life then you get another mindset about it. In general, it is not connected to sexuality and people in Germany do commonly assert that the vast majority of sauna guests look plain ugly. That's what you have in mind as a general concept - so, sure, one might have a look around but there's nothing exciting about it. [1] really. Guidod (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It is usually strictly enforced by the users, as they do not want to be subject to ogling. "Spanner" (Voyeurs) are not welcome and they are told to get naked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.200 (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Mythology of Sauna

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/saunatonttu

Citation needed for the sauna spirits. I can anecdotally confirm it, since my dad always said that there is a saunatonttu behind the kiuas (I suppose to watch you to behave in sauna), and wiktionary has an entry for it too. The asexuality of sauna is true, probably evolved from the need for cleanliness in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.160.244 (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Is there some reason this can't be merged with Finnish sauna? Kortoso (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Health benefits again

Some of the claims in this section need much better sourcing, and overall the section is on the wrong side of WP:MEDRS insofar as it relies on individual studies, not reviews. I've commented out the claims that I see as most in need of hefty sourcing, including something another editor had previously marked as contradictory.

• References commented out because they are used only in sentences I have commented out: "pmid15090706", "pmid14610268".
• Removed entirely: <ref name="Hope">{{Cite news | last =Hope | first =Jenny | title = The Cold Bath Cure | newspaper =Daily Mail | pages = | date =22 April 1993 | postscript =<!--None-->}}</ref>

Yngvadottir (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps framed as "Alleged health benefits"? Even Snake Oil can be part of the story, with the proper disclaimers. Kortoso (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I left a list of newer secondary reviews in the "Further reading" section. This one:

• PMID 2687465

has lots of good info, but it's very old (1989). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

99% of Finns

I don't believe that 99% of Finns take at least one sauna a week. Many people do, and so do I, but 99%? Seems completely implausible to me. Some Finns have a medical condition that prevents or discourages them, and some just don't like saunas. They probably add up to more than 1%? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.3.250 (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ikikiuas.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• IKI-Kiuas Oy, sähkökiuas 10 kW.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Introduction is too Finnish-centric

Right now the introduction is way too Finnish-centric as it makes it look like the traditional sauna culture is endemic to Finland, hile it is equally common for Estonia and other Finnic peoples and many other neighbouring nations like Latvians and Russians have similar concepts. H2ppyme (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced(?) sentence in a section

This sentence can be moved to the health effects section: "Therapeutic sauna has been shown to aid adaptation, reduce stress hormones, lower blood pressure and improve cardiovascular conditions." It is currently in the Use section, which seems out of place. I'll tweak and move it if no one objects. Wretchskull (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Page focuses too much on Finland

Page should note that Estonia and other finnic people have saunas. The sauna was created by the common ancestors of finnic people. Page needs to mention more about Estonia and the other finnic people 82.131.34.168 (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This notion that Western saunas originated in Finland is not correct. Sauna tradition has long history before Finland came into existence. Similar dwellings (oldest known saunas were made from pits dug in a slope in the ground and primarily used as dwellings in winter) were used by natives on landmass now called Estonia, in Pulli settlement ~9000 BC. On the landmass now called Finnland, earliest settlement was suomusjärvi, dated ~7000 BC i.e. around 2000 years later. So if anything - based on this - the western saunas originated in Estonia. 217.199.122.3 (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Reference to, and comparison with, the "Turkish bath"

Though a sauna bather from my teenage years I am not specially knowlegeable about sauna, but I think that the reference made in the second paragraph of the section Modern Saunas needs looking at (a) in the light of the Turkish bath (disambiguation) page and (b) that for the past couple of years information about these hot-air baths have been entered either on the 'Hammam' page, or on the 'Victorian Turkish bath' page.

So the two sentences "Steam baths, such as the Turkish bath, where the humidity approaches 100%, will be set to a much lower temperature of around 50 °C (122 °F) to compensate. The "wet heat" would cause scalding if the temperature were set much higher." would seem to refer to the (Islamic) hammam.

The Victorian Turkish bath page is about to undergo some revision (see its Talk page) but even the present page makes clear that the while the hammam is often humid and steamy, the air in the Victorian Turkish bath is hot dry air.

Would anyone object if I changed this from 'Turkish bath' to 'hammam'? Ishpoloni (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

How Sauna is pronounced

I hear alot of people mispronounce Sauna as "Sonna". I wonder if it would be worth noting that Sau-na is the correct way of saying it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Long tradition in Czechia and Slovakia

Can the author of this claim please elaborate or reference? I am a Czech and I have never heard of any long tradition of saunas (or more accurately something similar as sauna proper is just Finnic) and only what I am aware of is that an average sauna and sauna user in Czechia is absolutely lame and way too often does not even steam (how even dry sauna is a sauna is a riddle for me anyways) and its history mainly dates back to about the, in my opinion, more or less correctly mentioned time around 2000. I understand that it all falls to who just accidentally feels like to contribute to Wikipedia about a topic he/she just knows or wants to write about and that is in a way really fine and a cornerstone of the very platform, on the other hand this special paragraph about sauna culture in Czechia and Slovakia fails to have any other reason to exist in this article really. If the author doesn´t like the inclusion of these countries into Eastern Europe, he/she may be better of with correcting the term into something more accurate like eastern half of Europe, east of Iron curtain etc. I don´t know the perfect term but I, as a Czech, always use to include us in to eastern Europe as a simplified matter of dividing Europe into west/east as opposed to west/north/south/central/east. The problem is that apart of Cold War division we also have a Slavic culture/herritage in common but calling the whole eastern half of Europe Slavic is also very incorrect even if the rest is so strongly Slavic influenced that it is factually a lot less incorrect than theoretically and rightfully. Or even better, the notes of V4 countries can be excluded altogether as there is nothing noteworthy in my opinion. 31.30.167.10 (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)