Talk:Estonia/Archive 2

Liberation from nazi occupation source
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4521663.stm <- how does this source substantiate liberation claims?--Alexia Death 12:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "In Moscow, President Putin stressed Russians had been liberators".--Ilya1166 12:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please add this quote to reference making it clearer?--Alexia Death 12:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but why is Putin's position relevant here? It is clear that marching in of Russians was the end of Nazi occupation and the beginning of Soviet occupation. However, it is not very interesting that Putin calls it a "liberation". You can talk about liberation when someone becomes free ("liber" in Latin means "free", although it also means "child" and "book"), but this was not the case with Soviet occupation. (Even Putin himself knows it -- when he said that Yeltsin brought freedom to Russia.) So I'll delete that sentence if you don't have any arguments of keeping it. (It could be a part of "soviet occupation denial" article, but that one was unfortunately deleted by some biased editors.) Lebatsnok 15:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, we're hoping to improve that article to a level when it can be reintroduced without fear of deletion. Feel free to contribute at User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes.


 * As of including that statement, history of this page is essentially that it was introduced as an overblown attempt of WP:NPOV. You see, Russian Federation's official policy regarding the occupation is not much more finegrained that it is to be denied, but in accordance with the doctrine of And you are lynching Negroes, the two main typical reactions -- note that these are not responses -- from Russian officials are "And you are fascists", or "We were victorious over fascists". Thus, an editor who strived hard to maintain neutrality, picked the one of these two he felt more neutral.


 * This having been said, I agree that neither is really applicable in this article's context. Digwuren 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rein Lang has put it rather well in :

The antifascism of official Russia consists of mere heroisation of a military victory over Hitler-led Germany. Such mob-oriented oversimplification serves a certain purpose &mdash; to not think thoroughly about the nature and origins of Nazism. Because this could reveal the sad fact that today's Russia is interchangeably similar to Germany of the 1930s. And we can only hope, and pray to god, that there won't arise a Hitler-like charismatic leader, who would take crazed mob to a fight against Jews, [dark-skinned immigrants], neighbours, and finally, the whole world.


 * Digwuren 10:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Being not able to think thoroughly about the nature and origins of modern democracy does not let to reveal the sad fact that today's NATO is only the next military "Order of Crusaders", expanding its military presence without any obvious reason. Terrorism? Frauds. If you study the history, and learn something about the Russian-Estonian relations since the very beginning, you'll see that Russia has often protected the Estonian lands from Germans (for example in 1216, when Estonians asked Russian duke Vladimir for help against the German crusaders, and later). And what do you think are the games that Estonians play? Who would think, after the liberation in 1945, that in 2008 Estonians would play Erna Retk? What would the Estonians themselves choose? To stick with Germans honestly and be honestly destroyed by Soviet troops, or to cherish these fascist dreams and suffer Soviet repressions? Were these repressions really unreasonable?Victor V V (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Estonians revere Ests who fled both Nazis and Soviets to Finland in order to fight with the Finns because in a situation with few honorable options, these young men risked all to pick the honorable option (some of the men also fought the Nazis in Norway). Erna unit is particularly revered because when the local population was attacked by Soviet destruction units employing the scorched earth policy, the unit abandoned its original mission and despite being very poorly armed (at the behest of Nazis who didn't like the thought of armed Ests) managed to save a lot of lives. 11.44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind you one more curiosity? Russian White army general Nikolai Nikolaevich Yudenich, who was fighting against the Red Army and Bolsheviks and wanted to attack Petrograd in 1919, did not receive any help from Finland and Estonia. Moreover, after he has retreated from Petrograd to Estonia in 1919, his troops were disarmed and put to concentration camps. General Yudenich was arrested but then was liberated after negotiating with Antanta, and fled to England, but the most part of his White army, anti-Bolshevik troops was imprisoned in concentration camps and worked in forests, lumbering in Estonia. Some of their communal graves have been revealed recently. Why did it happen so? Did Estonians sympathize to the Bolshevik leaders? Can they not to close eyes on facts? I want this fact to be put into the article. If there is a phrase "Soviet Holocaust" there, then this episode would be called Estonian Holocaust, for proper balancing, although I personally do not support the Jewish-elaborated theory of German Holocaust, I suppose it has been elaborated to provide quasi-historical argument to establishing of Israel, and here I can draw some parallels, as this motive is used my minor nations to accuse the others of all the injustices, thus securing own role in the Europe. Just a theory, offtop. Victor V V (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Victor V V, you are likely well aware that during the Baltics' war for independence, the White Russian, Beromontian, and Bolshevik forces all vied for control of the Baltic territories. I am even more concerned by your statement (I personally do not support the Jewish-elaborated theory of German Holocaust) which appears to be Holocaust denial. Please desist from pushing your POV agendas here. —PētersV (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support for Yudenich was limited, because he failed to recognise Finland and Estonia as independent states. From an Est pov there was no reason to shed Est blood to just replace one tyrant in Peterburg with another. Yudenich was supported to the extent that it helped securing Est frontier. 11.44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Estonia and Finland were not established as a reaction to some injustice, but to exercise the right of self-determination. 11.44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sure, that was just an offtop, because I really do not understand what reason lies behind deleting the neutral material relating to Russia and perverting the reasoning of Russian leaders and Russian politics.Victor V V (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Victor V" has now made clear enough that his reason for being here is not to help making this article better. It seems that he just wants to push his  Nazi-Soviet point of view, glorifying the crimes against humanity committed by these two regimes. 193.40.5.245 (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

ISBNs on references
I see some were entered as "ISBN-10" and then the "-10" taken off. Just for reference, all current titles must now have a 13 digit ISBN (which can be calculated from the 10 digit ISBN). &mdash; Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to Estonia's state portal
The portal,, is not intended as a press portal to foreigners but as a secure façade for the online services offered by Republic of Estonia. Thus, making sure the clients use SSL is of high priority, and, for example, providing translations in languages other than Estonian and Russian is of low priority.

Given that most of Wikipedia's readership are approaching the site as foreigners, it's probably a good idea, under the principle of reader's primacy, to replace this link with links to more press-oriented, and/or. At the very least, this link shouldn't probably be the first among the external links. 泥紅蓮凸凹箱 07:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. I suggest www.riik.ee be used instead. Reimgild (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Genetics
I had to remove following statement from the article: ''Estonians and Finns as one genetic group by the strand of mtDNA Haplogroup U5 became about around 50,000 years ago, being the first out of Africa in to Europe. This is very similar to Finns origin.''

The facts are, the first Homo Sapiens Sapiens genes in Europe, the foremother Ursula mtDNA U5 spreads across Europe in following percentage according to the year 2000 data:
 * Saami 5.29 %


 * Karelia 1.81%


 * Estonia 1.79 %


 * Albania 1.43%


 * Finland 1.39%


 * Iceland 1.13%


 * Basques 1.04%


 * Norway 1.00%


 * SouthernGermany 0.92%

etc. etc. so if these facts are about to be added to the article, it should be done so that it makes sense. Also much more significant regarding Estonians is the Haplogroup N (Y-DNA), the "finnic gene". --Termer 06:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Switzerland 0.83%

The map
Please change the map, it's low resolution and shows some rather not necessary places. Use this instead: http://www.chicagopianos.com/images/estoniamap.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.76.81 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The map you're linking to is both all-rights-reserved copyrighted (only maps licensed under a free license can be used on Wikipedia) and inexact. However, I do agree that a higher-resolution map is needed. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 18:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The map is not good because it shows the borders of Estonia prior 1940, including some areas that are part of Russia nowadays.--Termer (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

For Estonians this map is very good, as they have territorial claims.--Victor V V (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Estonia does not have territorial claims and has ratified the treaty regarding the frontiers with Russia. 09:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.204.44.177 (talk)


 * Hah, I must assume that the previous commentator meant to say "borders" instead of "frontiers"... 195.50.197.120 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I recommend someone who has to knowledge to, should upload a different version of the map. The current one looks very poorly.Yman88 (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights section
My contribution has been reverted on the grounds that 'the section title is misleading' and that the topics are covered elsewhere. Please tell we where this is covered - I looked at the Estonian Politics page and it is not there; and also what you consider is misleading about the term Human Rights abuse - I will remove the 'abuse' word if you find it offensive but otherwise the issues are facts and should not be censored; I will revert if there is no other problem. I have visited Estonia many times and have long-term resident(30 years) friends there who lost their jobs due to the language rules - previously they worked in government departments where Russian was the requirement - but they were not born Russian and had to learn the language. Ray3055 (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * See e.g. History of Russians in Estonia, LGBT rights in Estonia. Virtually all European countries (not to mention rest of the world) have issues with immigrants, are you willing to create similar paragraphs to every one of them? I am not going to discuss cases of specific persons, Soviet Union is no more, the country is Estonia and therefore it cannot be that officials are not able to speak Estonian (how could they not learn it in 30(17) years anyway?). What has it to do with human rights, can you drive a bus without a license? Oth (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the links. Yes, believe it or not my friend agrees that Estonia has a right to require a knowledge of Estonian; but to take away a persons citizenship after they have lived and worked legally for many years (and born in a country that like Estonia was occupied by the Russians and forced to move to Estonia for work) and then deny them work unless they are fluent in Estonian is a clear abuse of Human Rights - this is the opinion of the United Nations, The European Parliament and others, and not just a personal opinion. As you may know to hold certain offices the language test is not just 'basic' speech but requires an in-depth grammar knowledge, and Estonian is a very complex language - for a person in their 50s having to learn this as their third language is not easy, and without a proper job paying for lessons is difficult. There are as you may know many people who had to take the test many times before passing - and the cost is quite significant. Like many others over 40 in the capital Russian is the everyday language with their friends even though they would not in a million years consider themselves 'Russian'; their parents were not from the SSR and they were not born in the SSR, just another European country like Estonia. There was no need to learn Estonian before independance, everyone was required to learn Russian to hold down a government job; because they did not think the loss of citizenship and jobs was going to be long term there was no urgency to learn Estonian and with no Estonian speaking freinds it was not feasable anyway, it was only the recent intervention of the EU that has made suitable lessons available Ray3055 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Many of your assertions are simply incorrect. Nobody has had their citizenship "taken away". During the Soviet period everyone was a Soviet citizen. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was ambiguity in status of post war immigrants, were they Russian citizens or Estonian citizens? Rather than imposing blanket Estonian citizenship upon people who may not necessarily want it, Estonia gave these people a free choice, either become a Russian citizen or an Estonian citizen. The fact that half of these so-called non-citizens opted for Russian citizenship fully vindicates Estonia's position. I fully support Oth's action in reverting your edits, Wikipedia is not a soap box. Martintg (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Who exactly "denies the work" if you are not fluent in Estonian? This nothing to do with human rights. If you work in client service in Estonia, you have to be fluent in A) Estonian, B) Russian, C) English. Some shops and small places accept also people who are not that fluent in Russian or Estonian. Because most of the residents are able to speak atleast so much estonian or russian that they can point out which product they want from the shelf. Larger companies with large customer base can't really allow this, so the client service is always capable of speaking Estonian, Russian, English and sometimes Finnish. So for example I can't get job there because I am not fluent in Russian. So who is being abused here? The job just requires you to speak a variety of language skills and ofcouse the job is closed to those who don't have those skills. Like any other job that requires some skills that the person applying doesn't have.


 * Now, there is also a situation where you have to do teamwork, but most of the team is not able to speak Russian. Employer avoids hiring people who can only speak Russian because it would be hard for him to work in the team. This also applies to companies which have mostly russian based teams who avoid hiring people who are not that good in russian. Many companies in the other hand have chosen the English language as official language in company.


 * Would you hire a client service person who is able to communicate with only 20% of your clients, potentially losing 80% of your clients? Would you hire one who is NOT able to communicate with 20% of your clients? I think you would say no to both of those questions. It's nothing on gov level, it's just a business decision of companies. Suva Чего? 15:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * what is this is the opinion of the United Nations, The European Parliament and others? Please Ray3055 refer to the source thats says so. but I can save you the time since the claim is simply a made up thing. Not the United Nations or The European Parliament have never suggested there is something wrong with the human rights in Estonia. there are politically motivated claims around but all of these are based on factual inaccuracies and are part of a certain smearing campaign everybody who is familiar with the subject are aware of. I regret that you have chosen to participate in this smearing campaign and have brought it to WP Ray3055. WP shouldn't be a place to advance such political agendas. thanks!--Termer (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the responses. I agree with Oth, other countries have similar problems and it would be unfair to have a section on this for Estonia and not others, and since no other country articles seem to have such sections I will not add one here. I agree also this is not the place for a 'soapbox' and I can assure you all that I am not a political activist of any kind and my responses here are only in reply to your questions and not meant to 'smear' Estonians; In answer to Suva, yes your comments are valid but I am refering to work by 'stateless' persons in certain government departments, not work in shops etc. In answer to Termer here is just one source of many - that refers to the UN reports. And finally to marting, yes people were offered (for a limited number of years) the choice of Russian or Estonian citizenship (but not the persons original citizenship, which had to be denounced to become an Estonian SSR citizen), but without having Estonian language proficiency it was not possible to obtain Estonian citizenship and therefor the Estonian government issued documents which made the persons 'stateless' - which is what I meant when I said having their citizenship "taken away" - which in turn makes it practically impossible to work elsewhere. Unfortunately, the issues are complex and I do not wish to discuss the circumstances of individuals here,  also please remember this page is for discussing the Estonia article and not for attacking well meaning contributors. Ray3055 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In regard to employment in certain government departments, note that in the UK it would be impossible for a non-english speaking British citizen to gain employment in, say, the London Metropolitan Police. The pass threshold for the language test for Estonian citizenship is set fairly low, so if a non-citizen doesn't have sufficient skills to pass the test to gain citizenship, then I hardly think that this person would have sufficient language skills to join the Police force in any case. Also note that if a Russian-speaker took the time to become fluent in Estonian, then this would be an advantage in seeking employment compared to a monolingual Estonian speaker. The point is that there is no structural or policy driven discrimination here, it basically market driven by the needs of the particular situation, i.e. monolingual russian-speaker -> lowest employability, monolingual estonian-speaker -> better employment prospects due to larger job market, bilingual -> best employment prospects.


 * In regard to having one's citizenship taken away, we can discuss this on your talk page if it is in regard to some individual case. Generally, Estonian citizenship is not ethnic based. Note that ethnic Estonians who emigrated away from Estonia before 1918 (when Estonia proclaimed indepenance), also have to apply for citizenship including the language test. Martintg (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not often mentioned, but it has been noted in reputable sources that Russia, as the legal successor to the Soviet Union, also chose not to automatically grant citizenship, or the option of citizenship, to all the citizens of the former state to which it was legal successor. That those individuals resided in territory no longer part of Russia was not an impediment preventing Russia from granting citizenship (or the option thereof). Thinking more Latvia here, but true regardless of anyone currently "stateless" in either Estonia or Latvia. —PētersV (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Motto
On something less controversial, I did write the Estonian president's office and inquired about a state motto and did confirm there is none. —PētersV (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you – good to have this direct verification. Reimgild (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Kosovo
I'm resuming with the inclusion of an independent Kosovo in the maps of the countries that recognise it. Bardhylius (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

2007 internet attack
wired.com - Hackers Take Down the Most Wired Country in Europe (2007-08-21)

I was expecting at least mention of this story, which I reckon will have historical significance (being a possible precursor of things to come), but apparently it's missing. What I'm not sure of is which section this best fits under. -- MiG (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is already an article Cyberattacks on Estonia 2007 and mentioned in History of Estonia, we don't need to add it here. Martintg (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Country box - Independence
What is this about adding the Danish, Swedish and Russian occupations here, they have no purpose here. This isn't a place to describe the history in a very short way. I am deleting everything up to autonomy declared (autonomousy?).H2ppyme (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, this article is just full of smaller mistakes. on that picture, the last troops didn't leave on the same day when independence was redeclared ; I believe they are called Baltic Germans even when they lived in Estonia ; And I believe most Estonians would say, that this is not a typical Estonian highway :). so these are just some of them that i spotted. It's nice that someone has done some work with this article, but now it's time for corrections. Also, you don't have to mention the annexed territories in every other sentence. H2ppyme (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully agree, great work so far, now it's time for a clean up. Martintg (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

20 August 1994 - were they day when the last Soviet troops left Estonia - this is officially recognized fact everywhere - you´ve probably misunderstood something somewhere. There is even a postal stamp printed in the honor of this day. I can add a link for it if it interests... Estonian highways looks pretty much like this manily 1+1 and some sections 2+2. Highway in the terms of Estonia is not similar as it is in US or Germany. Karabinier (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

well, that really is a typical estonian highway, but do we have to mention that we have highways like that only on two roads leaving out from tallinn and both only for some 20-50km :) rest of the roads are well, really more like roads than highways :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.119.178.126 (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Tourism" section.
I removed the "tourism" section of the article as it was plagiarized verbatim from Estlandia.de. Wikipedians can not plagiarize texts from copywritten sources or other sites. Hopefully, someone can do a better write up. I am busy at this point, or would give it a go. ExRat (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Using Offensive redirects as main articles
Usually it is a good idea to use the main title of an article then using main. The main title is a result of discussions and is the best summary for its content. If you think that the title of an article is wrong please start WP:RM process. In particular Soviet Holocaust seems to be a very poor form of redirect to the article that does not mention the word Holocaust at all. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. I find the current title of the Spassk Gulag labour camp picture incorrect, because it goes a bit too far beyond what can be seen on the picture and may be regarded as provocative (i.e. not neutral). Apart from the poor redirect, the current title might suggest that there were only Estonians in this labour camp. The Gulag article says that the Spassk camp was a special camp for disabled people, but doesn't give any further details about it. In Gulag in general, "for years after World War II, a significant minority of the inmates were Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians". But this would be too long a tilte, I think. So my suggestion for a new title is simply "Gulags Spassk labour camp" N-lane (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So, why is it still "Soviet Holocaust"? Who will rename it? Victor V V (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The title of that picture I also deem to be incorrect and not neutral.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Viktor canvassing in Russian Wikipedia http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Обсуждение:История_Эстонии&diff=prev&oldid=8574541 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.26.47 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Annexed in accordance with..."
Well that made it sound like there was some gentlemen's agreement. Please do not delete the statement that the USSR occupied Estonia. Please do not reinsert Molotov-Ribbentrop in a way that makes it sound like a legal agreement. We can leave discussions of illegality for the body for those who are squeamish about disputing Soviet propaganda. "Occupation" by the USSR the first time is neither "negotiable" nor a "viewpoint." We've been through this enough times already. —PētersV (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am fine with this version of Vecrumba while I would prefer a less confrontational talk page message style. --Irpen 03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't use bolding, italics, or underlines. And what have you done with Irpen? :-) Editorial congeniality is always welcome. —PētersV (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This was just an agreement, following the Munich agreement, and I think I clarified that. So, there is no need do use such pathetic words as illegal, as if any other secret pact can be called "legal". If legally, then the Treaty of Nystad is still in force as it acts without limitation of time, and has not been terminated, so any following "annexation" and "occupation" is purely "legal", if you wish to use these terms.Victor V V (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. Bolshevik Russia renounced all claims to sovereignty over the Baltics for all time. Of course the pact was completely illegal, even the Soviet Union got around to saying so (and the USSR never confessed to anything) once it was admitted the pact even exists. You might consider more appropriate venues for your fanciful POVs of history. A blog, perhaps. —PētersV (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the infamous neo-fascist POV pusher User:Roobit does have a blog, then: why not :P 80.235.111.150 (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, modern Russia does not recognize the Tartu Treaty, and this article should reflect not your vain hopes, but real facts:

1. there has been a Treaty of Nystad (fact)

2. there has been a Tartu Treaty (fact)

3. one of them is not recognized by modern Russia, namely the second (fact).

4. any conclusions based on supposition that modern Russia recognizes the second Treaty, are false.

5. the legal nature of the first Treaty is disputable.--Victor V V (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as "recognizing" or "not recognizing" an agreement you've signed. If you think, for example you've been tricked into signing it, you can go to court and let them decide. But just saying "I don't recognize it" is not a valid reason. Besides, Russia has made no official statements about cancelling the Tartu peace treaty. This would mean, among other things, that Estonia and Russia would still be in war (see Article I of that treaty:). So Russia "recognizes" at least the Article I :P. Now but why is "modern Russian" POV important here? They do not "recognize" the Tartu Peace Treaty because that would mean a lot of legal obligations for them, - that's obvious. But they have no legal reasons whatsoever for doing so. On the other hand, nobody can force them to fulfill their legal obligations -- that's also obvious.  193.40.5.245 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * modern Russia does not recognize the Tartu Treaty -- Doesn't matter even if it doesn't. Its predecessor's predecessor signed it, and its predecessor (for which it has taken on the role of successor and confirmed by CIS states treat) confirmed it. Your position is, I'm sorry, all pro-Stalinst revisionist WP:OR. —PētersV (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say "Doesn't matter" - you should add "to whom it doesn't". This would be neutral, otherwise you use prejudiced notion. Revisionist, yes, to revision all that pro-NATO and pro-Estonian vision. Don't I have the right to do it? --Victor V V (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not when it is your personal POV not reputably sourced in Western scholarship. Soviet scholarship and what has been carried from it forward into current Russian policy is not a neutral balancing factor to Western scholarship. "Anti-Soviet" merely means anti-what-is-untrue in Soviet historiography. It does not mean Estonia lies equally in some sort of POV tug of war. What is wrong in Soviet historiography is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of facts. It's not, as you postulate, that "Soviet opinion" is equally factually valid to "Estonian opinion." —PētersV (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As for my "doesn't matter", I have not seen where Russia has explicitly stated it reneges on prior treaty agreements. And even if someone states that Russia does not recognize the original treaties of peace with each of the Baltic states as today's Russia somehow not being a successor of Bolshevist Russia, the USSR signed treaties to the same effect. And you keep forgetting that today's Russia (just prior to the collapse of the USSR) did in fact sign a treaty that confirmed in writing that the USSR violated Lithuania's sovereignty. (Same situation as Estonia and Latvia.) —PētersV (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Middle ages and relations with Russia
I think my additions about Estonian relations with Russia in Middle Ages have been unjustly removed (it's like someone wants to delete this page of our common Russian-Estonian history). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor V V (talk • contribs) 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In the 1216 Estonians asked Russian duke Vladimir for help against the German knights, the Russian troops set off for the campaign, they were also joined by the Novgorod-Pskov troops . As it was requested by Estonians, Russian troops were dislocated in garrisons in the fortress of Yuriev (later known as town Tarbatu, now Tartu), and the other towns. In 1219, Danish troops who came to help the German knights, established the fortress Revel (now the Estonian capital Tallinn, which means "Danish city"). In 1224, the fortress of Yuriev (later known as town Tarbatu, now Tartu), had been besieged by the German troops and fell. During the assault, the Russian duke Vyachko has been killed, defending the city and refusing to leave it (in fear that the resting Estonians would be severely killed by the barbarian German Crusaders). The city has been renamed into Derpt dy the Germans From 1228 to the 1560s, Estonia was a part of the Livonian Confederation, as a part of the territory captured by the German knights. It has been formed as a confederation of the 5 states: the Livonian Order, the Rigan Archbishopric (as the Episcopacy since the end of the XII century, and as the Archbishopric since 1251), the Kurliandian Episcopacy (since 1234), the Derpt Episcopacy (since 1224) and the Ezel Episcopacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor V V (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of your claims are factually incorrect, for example Tarbatu was the name of the town before the fort of Yuriev was constructed. We will have to verify the remaining material you have added. Martintg (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be incorrect to use the term Estonians in this context, given that Estonia didn't exist as a unified nation. There were several tribes which warred with each other and their neighbours. The fact that one group once requested help from Varyags in Novgorod (who possibly still spoke Swedish?) to combat another set of invaders is hardly evidence of any further reaching alliances.

Well, perhaps you can share the historical reference to prove your point? Russian written sources of that period give the name "Yuriev", besides, Russian language had been spoken by Estonians as well in that period, due to close contacts between the cultures. The current variant of the article presents Russia as an absolute aggressor at any time of the history, without references or arguments, and not allowing to put any neutral information, which is simply incorrect and seems like prejudiced censorship. I hope you'll verify my material before I put it on the Dispute resolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor V V (talk • contribs) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Victor V V (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ests probably spoke all sorts of languages. Since many accompanied Varyags they definitely had to speak Swedish. Since they raided Danish and German coasts many of them probably spoke Danish and German (or whatever variants existed at the time). Close contacts with Finns probably meant many spoke various Finnish dialects. The southern tribes no doubt spoke also Liv and Lettish tongues and perhaps even Lithuanian and Polish.

Still waiting for the verdict: Isn't it funny that the only remark about Russia in the Middle Ages section says that "Russia attempted unsuccessful invasions in 1481 and 1558"? How short is the poisoned memory, which refuses even to mention the country in more or less neutral way... Victor V V (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is typical Soviet historiography: that friendly relations and close contacts had always existed throughout the ages between the Baltic peoples and Russians, who were always presented as superior to the Balts and as their saviours against feudal German aggression. It emphases the temporary alliances while ignoring the wars fought by Balts against them. It is also claims that commerce flourished whenever an area was taken over by Russian rulers and wilted when they left, for example your comment that Estonians have never founded any town in Estonia before the arrival of the Germans or Russians is absurd. Martintg (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, your point is pure "Estonian historiography", isn't it? That friendly relations and close contacts had never existed, and Russians are always portrayed as aggressors. Bring then the historical references pointing at that wars, that's all I ask, because otherwise the section is disputable. The article on "Soviet historiography" is not edited yet by trustful editors, so any statement regarding the Baltic region history should be supported by references. As a matter of fact, I do not see any reference in the Middle Age section, and all the facts from Russian chronicles (which are available) are omitted, accept for unsuccessful invasions in 1481 and 1558", also without any comments or references. This makes me think that I should request the references from those who wrote this section, and add all available information about relations with Russia. You might also know that Russian historian Karamsin, whose reference I bring as an argument, could not be Soviet or a part of Soviet historiography simply because he lived in 1766 – 1826 (You might also know that Russia had not been Soviet during that period).

And bring me the example of the Estonians town founded by Estonians, with all the arguments.

Are there any other arguments, or you just delete the complete block about Russia because of the statement on Yuriev - Tartu and attributing Karamsin to "Soviet historiography"?

As for the absurd, the absurd is when "occupated Estonia" redirects to "Estonian SSR", but not to Estonia occupated by Swedish or Danish. Estonians may seem it as not an absurd, but objectively, the "occupation" should not directly mean "Soviet", as this point pertains to a disputable stage in the bilateral relations of two countries. Victor V V (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that the time Estonia was part of the Russian Empire is not usually considered occupation. This is because while perhaps it was not popular it was and is seen as legal.

Let's see...
 * Russians are always portrayed as aggressors.  Scholars estimate 17,000 Latvians were left alive after Peter the Great conquered Livonia. One could travel for miles and not even hear a crow. I have to believe the toll on the Estonians was equally horrific.
 * '"occupated Estonia" redirects to "Estonian SSR", but not to Estonia occupated by Swedish or Danish. Perhaps you are unaware that war was a legal means for settling disputes prior to the 20th century. Your parallel to the Soviet Union, in the 20th century, breaking multiple oaths pledging to observe the soveregnty of the Baltics for all time is an ill-informed synthesis at best. —PētersV (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"war was a legal means for settling disputes prior to the 20th century" - that's funny, who decided that? Britain was occupying India until 1947, and after that the US and NATO constantly uses the war as a regular measure. Do you need examples? Do you ever look around? --Victor V V (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We were talking about Middle Age, not about Peter I. I don't care what do you believe in, I ask for sustainable references. I myself bring such. As for the oaths and breaches, again, it lacks arguments and references that would be clear to not-biased reader. --Victor V V (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I really want to know where to Estonians get references for Middle Age period, because as far as I know, most of the sources of that period are in Old Russian (Old Slavic), which makes your silence and negation even more intriguing. Still, I am not a professional, I want to compare sources. Is it possible? Or may I please, please insert the paragraph from Karamsin about the beginning of the XIII century? --Victor V V (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Livonian Rhymed Chronicle and the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia are the main sources, Novgorod First Chronicle is the only slavic source. It is fact that systematic pillaging by Russian forces during the Great Northern War and destruction of Tartu killed most of the local civilian population of Estonia and Livonia. Seems fairly aggressive behaviour to me, Martintg (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, true, Russia won that war, but this argument does not fit here, as not related to the Middle Ages (You can start a separate section on Great Northern War, I hope you know how to do that). So, are there any reasons not to put the abstract from Karamsin as a reference? And can you mark to which statements do the given sources refer? Livonian Rhymed Chronicle, Chronicle of Henry of Livonia, Novgorod First Chronicle? I hope you know how the references should be formatted.

http://litopys.org.ua/novglet/ - this is the text of Novgorod First Chronicle, upon which Karamsin based his study. --Victor V V (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Estonia in the Russian Empire - why my information is deleted again?
Why my information about Estonia in the Russian Empire is deleted again? In the previous section you allow such statements as "This period is known in Estonian history as "the Good Old Swedish Time."" And the following period of 200 years within the Russian Empire is described in only 3 short sentences. I put the propositions from the Treaty of Nystad, and specifically the article about the financial agreement with Sweden, proving that the territory has been bought from Sweden for certain amount of money (2 mln silver talers or efimok), and bring the exact reference to the original handwritten text and a link to the web page with Russian text of the Treaty. What is wrong? This is a historical fact disavowing some arising historical questions and territorial claims, and therefore it should be mentioned. Victor V V (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Claiming that payment of reparations was a transaction for the purchase of Baltic land is synthesis. Martintg (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that payment of money was reparations for the Baltic land is synthesis. Did you read the Treaty of Nystad at all? There is no such a word as reparations in the whole text, it is said that the land is "ceded to eternal and uncompromising possession of Russian Empire and its successors (sic)", and so on. So, the first reason is that the word "reparations" is not mentioned in the text. And the second reason is even more simple: Russia has WON that war (which is clearly stated in the text if you doubt), and the winner does not pay reparations by definition (this is the defeated side that pays reparations). Therefore, this transaction is the purchase of Baltic land. Or let's just place the text here, as it is: Here is the Article 4 (http://law.edu.ru/norm/norm.asp?normID=1119383): '' 4. Е.к.в. свейское уступает сим за себя и своих потомков и наследников свейского престола и королевства Свейского е.ц.в. и его потомкам и наследникам Российского государства в совершенное непрекословное вечное владение и собственность в сей войне, чрез е.ц.в. оружия от короны свейской завоеванные провинции: Лифляндию, Эстляндию, Ингерманландию и часть Карелии с дистриктом Выборгского лена, который ниже сего в артикуле разграничения означен и описан, с городами и крепостями: Ригой, Дюнаминдом, Пернавой, Ревелем, Дерптом, Нарвой, Выборгом, Кексгольмом и всеми прочими к помянутым провинциям надлежащими городами, крепостями, гавенами, местами, дистриктами, берегами, с островами Эзель, Даго и Меном и всеми другими от курляндской границы по лифляндским, эстляндским и ингерманландским берегам и на стороне Оста от Ревеля в фарватере к Выборгу на стороне Зюйда и Оста лежащими островами, со всеми так на сих островах, как в вышепомянутых провинциях, городах и местах обретающимися жителями и поселениями и генерально со всеми принадлежностями, и что ко оным зависит высочествами, правами и прибытками во всем ничего в том не исключая, и как оными корона свейская владела, пользовалась и употребляла И е.к.в. отступает и отрицается сим наиобязательнейшим образом, как то учиниться может, вечно за себя, своих наследников и потомков и все королевство Свейское от всяких прав, запросов и притязаний, которые е.к.в. и государство Свейское на все вышепомянутые провинции, острова, земли и места до сего времени имели и иметь могли, яко же все жители оных от присяги и должности их, которыми они государству Свейскому обязаны были, по силе сего весьма уволены и разрешены быть имеют, так и таковым образом, что от сего числа в вечные времена е.к.в. и государство Свейское, под каким предлогом то б ни было, в них вступаться, ниже оных назад требовать не могут и не имеют; но оные имеют вечно Российскому государству присоединены быть и пребывать. И обязуется е.к.в. и государство Свейское сим и обещают его царское величество и его наследников Российского государства при спокойном владении всех оных во всякие времена сильнейше содержать и оставить имеют, такожде все архивы, документы всякие и письма, которые до сих земель особливо касаются и из оных во время сей войны в Швецию отвезены, приисканы и е.ц.в. к тому уполномоченным верно отданы быть.'' The sum of money is given in the last Article. I can render it in English or perhaps someone has the trustful English version. These provisions are very important as showing the legal nature of Russian politics, otherwise the whole article seems biased and prejudiced, as Russia is represented as an agressor, while Sweden reminds of "good old times".Victor V V (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the reason for deletion is obvious. You had added some outdated and most likely personal interpretations and commentary to the facts, such as: which in fact means that the territories have been bought by Russia and belong to it according to the traditional norms of international law. The fact is, with the Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian) in 1920 Russia renounced in perpetuity all rights to the territory of Estonia.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer Ok, can I delete the personal statements and leave the provisions of the Treaty about the transaction? Otherwise it seems as an occupation. As for the Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian), it has not been recognized by some members of Entente, just like the Soviet Russia has not been recognized as the successor of Russian Empire, which makes this Treaty disputable, especially if in the other cases (the activity of anti-Soviet Estonian diplomats in the US, recognition of "occupation"), the position of western countries can be mentioned. What is more important, is that many researchers suppose that the term of Treaty has ended after Estonia has joined the Soviet Union (http://www.regnum.ru/news/583456.html, http://www.rg.ru/2005/05/19/rossia-estonia.html). And therefore, the proposition that Russia does not recognize the Treaty of Tartu, has been Russian condition of signing the new Russian–Estonian treaty in 1995, and it has been signed. After that, during ratification, Estonian side has added the preamble and propositions referring to the Treaty of Tartu and "occupation"-related acts. Considering this breach of the Treaty, Russia refused to ratify the new Treaty. But nothing has been said about the Treaty of Nystad, which makes the situation more complicated. And I think at least the history of the disputes should be reflected in the article.Victor V V (talk) 05:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Treaty of Nystad should be mentioned of course. Just that 2 mln silver talers for Estonia would be factually incorrect because the sum involved larger territories acquired from Sweden in the aftermath of the Great Northern war. Regarding the Treaty of Tartu, the facts are, that Russia does not recognize it since 1940 and Estonia sill considers it it's "birth certificate".--98.212.196.116 (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless, the SOVIET UNION also signed treaties to the same effect, so it violated its own word . The contention that not everyone recognized Bolshevik Russia as successor to the Russian empire meant that it was under no obligation to conform to the covenants and obligations it made itself party to (and by extension the USSR after its organization was under no obligation regarding Bolshevist Russia even though it was the same regime) is, I'm sorry, a pitiful excuse for the USSR stomping its own promises into dust. Your contention that a regime doesn't recognize what it itself signed is beyond any reason.
 * And individual rights and education of the local populace was much better under the Swedes than the Russians. Not to mention there wasn't much left of the local populate once Peter the Great got through conquering Livonia. —PētersV (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as we agree not to use the personal and biased language, then it is not important how Estonians treat the agreement of Tartu, "birth certificate" or not, but if the other Party does not recognize it, it should be mentioned, because as Estonians do not care about Russian Victory Day, then we also do not pay pathetic attention to "birth certificates". Not recognized, and that's all. It should be in the article.

And therefore, the statement that - [u]The fact is, with the Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Estonian) in 1920 Russia renounced in perpetuity all rights to the territory of Estonia[/u] - is false because it only reflects the position of 1 (one) side of the dispute. This is not the fact but the argument, which should be balanced by the Russian argument of the Treaty of Nystad.


 * The treaty clearly states: "Russia unreservedly recognizes the independence and sovereignty of the State of Estonia, and renounces voluntarily and forever all sovereign rights possessed by Russia over the Estonian people and territory whether these rights be based on the judicial position that formerly existed in public law, or in the international treaties which, in the sense here indicated, lose their validity in the future". At that point the Treaty of Nystad was extinguished, this is clearly a fact. Martintg (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A "fact" is not a proper term here, it needs a special commission to provide the study on this issue, as the dispute over the Tartu agreement is not resolved yet. My point now is just reflecting a controversy, that may possibly arise, as it is already a point of many discussions in Russia.--Victor V V (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but "discussion" is not a proper term here. The facts are that Russia signed the treaty which contains the cited words, that the treaty reflected a mutual agreement, that Russia eventually broke it, and that the treaty has never been canceled by mutual agreement. You can discuss historical meaning of these facts, or their legal significance, but denial of facts is not a discussion. Lebatsnok (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute over Soviet Russia having signed treaties recognizing the sovereignty of the Baltic states for all time. "Discussions" (according to you) in Russia don't mean there's any basis in fact for those discussions. The Duma has also proclaimed Latvia joined the USSR legally according to international law--but has not a shred of evidence for that. —PētersV (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just like the arrest of general Yudenich in 1919. Victor V V (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Was General Yudenich arrested or interned? 10:16, 24 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.204.44.177 (talk)

Soviet annexation - "Time" and newspapers as a reliable source, or just proofless anti-Russian speculations?
Here I continue to investigate the presentation of the Russian image. I wonder if the numerous citations from the "Time" can be considered as the reliable source for the very provocative statements? The articles, written in publicist style, without any references, full of biased language can not be considered as a source for such serious accusations, and therefore either the statements should be withdrawn, or the reliable references should be put instead. The examples:

Soviet bombers began a patrol over Tallinn and the nearby countryside. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,762664,00.html (Moscow's Week)

On June 12, 1940, the order for a total military blockade on Estonia was given to the Soviet Baltic Fleet. http://www.mil.fi/laitokset/tiedotteet/1282.dsp (this source also does not lead to any reliable source, just a short newspaper article)

In August 1940, Estonia was illegally annexed by the Soviet Union as the Estonian SSR. This statement is purely speculative and provocative, as it uses biased language (not neutral) without sufficient proofs.

those who had failed to have their passports stamped for voting, were condemned to death by Soviet tribunals. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,764407,00.html (Justice in The Baltic)

Contemporary Russian politicians deny that the Republic of Estonia was illegally annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940. This statement is purely speculative and provocative, as it uses biased language (not neutral) without sufficient proofs.

The Russian position is not recognized internationally. This statement is purely speculative and provocative, why should be internationally recognized the position on such a minor issue? Have there been any statements or arguments that it should be recognized or have there been any statements refusing to recognize this Russian position? Otherwise the sentence is senseless. Victor V V (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * sorry Victor V V but the only one who has added speculative and provocative statements here is you. In case you're not familiar with the history, like it's clear you're not, it can't get simpler than that. The Baltic states, European Union and the US etc. say Estonia was illegally annexed by USSR in 1940 and Russia says it wasn't. These are the facts, please read the news and history books from both sides. In case you'd like to balance the article and cite what Russian side has to say about the issues, feel fee to do so by adding: "according to...". Just that you can't use WP:IDONTLIKEIT as an argument for deleting or manipulating the viewpoints in the article that don't match with your bias.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, to prove your point and to prove that my words are biased, you need to use some reliable sources. That is what I was asked to do. Or am I the only exception? Even if the European Union and the US etc. say so, it doesn't prove that it is true simply because they are not interested in such truth, just read what Stalin said. I do not take any statements for granted, I need historical proofs, fundamental researches or documents. "Times" is a biased media, therefore I doubt its objectiveness and ask for more reliable and sustainable arguments in such disputable questions concerning the reputation of my country. We should remember that the aim of Wikipedia is bringing the facts more or less objectively (as far as I understand). And objectively, not only Russian side has to prove each word, but all the other sides as well. And I will make sure that it would be done. Victor V V (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no truthiness on WP. There are only facts and "he says and she says". And there is European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States, there is | a resolution of the European parliament, |the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union in 1990 condemned the 1939 secret protocol between Nazi Germany and itself that led to the invasion and occupation of the three Baltic etc. from one side and modern Russian sources that say another thing .--98.212.196.116 (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Each "fact" must be provided with sufficient proofs, because | a resolution of the European parliament again refers to the Dorpat - Tartu Treaty, which is not recognized by Russia. And if the bilateral treaty is not recognized by one of the parties - it should be stated in the article, because it is an important fact, and any accusations basing on presupposition that the other party recognizes the treaty, are false, because the legal nature of the Treaty should be proved first. All these disputable issues should be reflected as they are, according to current situation and considering not only the Estonian viewpoint and desires. Victor V V (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You see guys, let me explain. Russia is in subtle confrontation with NATO, with the US and some European countries. Therefore, any references on Russian history coming from that countries should be double checked, just as Russian sources. The other point is that Estonia wants to gain extra points before the West and NATO, including all the ways to show own history in the most pitiful way, as the history of a little country bordering the all-time absolute aggressor - Russia. But again, this source - Wikipedia - should not reflect only the Estonian vision, as it concerns Russian history as well. Therefore the article will be balanced and all the prejudiced statements will be removed.Victor V V (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not insert your POV under the guise of "balance" and removing "prejudice." What you denigrate as the "Estonian" viewpoint is the viewpoint of everyone except yourself and Russian pronouncements, and even Russian pronouncements don't go as far as your creations of complete fiction (Nystad means Estonia still actually legally belonged to the Soviet Union). —PētersV (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the arguments above, marked by numbers 1,2,3,4,5 - about the Nystad. Yes, the supposition that it is an acting Treaty is disputable. Not less disputable then the Treaty of Tartu.--Victor V V (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just your personal synthesis, please provide a reference from a reliable scholarly source that states Estonia still belongs to Russia because of the Treaty of Nystad. Note that Russia has declared itself the legal successor to the Soviet Union, upholding all obligations from treaties signed by the Soviet Union. Martintg (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of Treaty of Nystad by Victor V V is an interesting one. However, if there is any notable politicians or historians or anybody other than Victor V V who shares this kind of theories about Treaty of Nystad, it would be interesting to know. So far even the hard core Russian nationalists haven't suggested anywhere that Treaty of Nystad could be considered in effect, that's just not serious talk here.

regarding Treaty of Tartu, it should be common knowledge that since 1940 USSR didn't and Russia doesn't recognize it any more, at the same time Estonia has it written into its Constitution: § 122..These are the facts, there is nothing more to it or dispute about it on WP.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just reflect the controversy that appears sometimes in Russian media.

So, I hope the fact that "since 1940 USSR didn't and Russia doesn't recognize" the Treaty of Tartu would be placed into the article, as neutral and clarifying the issue of Estonian-Russian mutual relations and all the controversies resulting from this fact. This means that the non-neutral term "illegal" would be omitted as regarding the events after 1940, because such interpretation does not reflect the position of the Party that does not recognize the Treaty. --Victor V V (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, once more: the term "illegal" has been used by the European court of human rights, it's the position of EU, US, not to mention Estonia and it's laws and Constitution. The only thing we can do here, cite what the opposing sources say, thats all. I thought it was clarified earlier. And all the controversies regarding this are laid out elsewhere on WP. but of course in case you think that it would be absolutely necessary to point out in an article about Estonia that Russian Federation doesn't recognize currently a treaty that was signed by Bolshevist Russia and Republic of Estonia in 1920, I personally can't see any problems with that. --98.212.196.116 (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is appropriate to add Russia's opinion on the legitimacy of the Estonian state in this article, we don't include Iran's opinion that the USA is the Great Satan in the country article about the USA. We already have an article Estonia-Russia relations, it should go in there. Martintg (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's one way to look at it. the way I've always seen it, if someone wants to point out so badly that Russia doesn't honor it's signature on a treaty with Estonia, I have no problem with that.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
And also, I provided historical reasoning to Stalin's decision of signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (as a reaction to the Munich agreement) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor V V (talk • contribs) 20:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Historical reasoning" is considered synthesis or original research, unless you can provide a source that supports it. See WP:SYNT and WP:OR. By the way, you should sign your messages with ~ . Martintg (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Depicting historical background more or less can clarify the picture, and in the article on Munich agreement it is stated that this agreement preceded the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and therefore influenced Stalin's decision, which certainly changes and balances the perception of Russian and Western European politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor V V (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC) oops, forgot to sign again Victor V V (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I mean that the existence of Munich agreement does not need any additional research, this agreement should be only mentioned.Victor V V (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody disputes the existence of the Munich agreement, or that it came before the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but claiming a connection between the agreement and the pact without a source that mentions this connection, is synthesis. Martintg (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said about the synthesis between the existence of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and actual war events. How can one prove that the plan and its fulfillment are connected? But ok, I'll bring the researches, there are a lot of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor V V (talk • contribs) 00:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Victor V V (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, get what you asked for. I remind that the Munich agreement has been signed on September 30, 1938. I have translated a piece of Stalin's speech from the "Report of Josef Stalin, the General Secretary of the Communist Party Central Committee to the eighteenth Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks), on 10 March 1939 (Отчетный доклад Генерального секретаря ЦК ВКП(б) И. В. Сталина на XVIII съезде ВКП(б) 10 марта 1939 г.):

http://www.hrono.ru/dokum/193_dok/19390310stal.html http://www.hrono.ru/libris/stalin/14-27.html (the complete text of Stalin's report)

"How to explain such one-sided and strange nature of new imperialistic war? How could it happen, that the non-aggressive countries that have such enormous possibilities, have found it so easy to leave without any repulse all their positions and obligations in order to please the aggressors? Doesn’t it speak of the weakness of the non-aggressive states? Certainly not! Non-aggressive, democratic states, if taken together, are undoubtedly stronger than the fascist states both in economic and military respect. Than to explain in this case these systematic concessions made by these states to the aggressors? It would be possible to explain it, for example, by the feeling of fear before the revolution which could rise if the non-aggressive states would enter war and the war would lead to a war of a world scale. Bourgeois politicians, of course, know that the first world imperialistic war has given a revolution victory for one of the greatest countries. They are afraid that the second world imperialistic war can also lead to a revolution victory in one or several countries. But even this is not the main reason now. The main reason lies within the fact that the majority of non-aggressive countries, and first of all England and France, has abandoned the policy of collective security, has abandoned the policy of collective repulse to the aggressors, shifting to the position of non-interference, to the position of “neutrality”. Formally, the policy of non-interference could be characterized thus: «let each country defend itself from the aggressors, as it wants and as it can, it doesn't concern us, we will trade both with aggressors and with their victims». In practice, however, the policy of non-interference means policy of appeasement to the aggression, unleashing the war, hence, its transformation into world war. Or, for example, take the example of Germany. They have conceded Austria to it, despite of the obligation to protect its independence, they have conceded Sudetenland area, have left Czechoslovakia to the mercy of fate, having infringed upon all and any obligations, and then began to lie loudly in the press about «the weakness of Russian army», about «decomposition of Russian aircraft industry», about "disorders" in the Soviet Union, pushing Germans further towards the East, promising them an easy loot and saying: you should only begin the war with Bolsheviks, and further all will go just well. It is necessary to recognize that it too is very similar to pushing, encouraging the aggressor. [...] What is even more characteristic, is that some politicians and figures of the press in Europe and in the USA, having lost patience pending «a campaign to the Soviet Ukraine», start to expose themselves the actual underlying reason of the non-interference policy. They directly speak and write in black and white that Germans severely "have disappointed" them, as instead of moving further on the East, against the Soviet Union, they, have you seen, turned on the West and require the colonies to itself. It is possible to think that to Germans were given the areas of Czechoslovakia as the price for the obligation to begin war with the Soviet Union, and Germans refuse to settle the bill now, sending them somewhere far away."

'''That's it. You see, Stalin puts it quite clear, pointing at the provisions of the Munich agreement. If any more arguments needed - tell me, otherwise I request the Third_opinion''' Victor V V (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting it, what's the big fuzz about Stalin's reasoning about molotiv-rippendrop pact? In case the guy said so, that's good to know. Just that did he also has to say anything about the secret protocol, that would be much more interesting to know.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that you write the personal names properly first. Then, in this speech Stalin tells about his vision of the Munich Agreement, and as the consequences of the world partition and provocative position of the western countries troubled him so much, then it gives the obvious reasoning for agreement with Germany, and therefore it should be reflected in the article. Without giving such reasoning and background, the article presents Stalin as an aggressor, who planned everything on his own initiative, not being provoked by western policy of appeasement. And this is not correct, because further follow statements based on such false presupposition, which intensifies the biased perception of Stalin, and biased perception of Wester European countries (and then their opinion is used by many as a reference to prove Stalin's 'illegal wrongdoings').--Victor V V (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In no particular order...
 * Stalin attacked Finland when it refused a pact of mutual assistance.
 * Stalin invaded the Baltics.
 * When Hitler invaded Poland starting WWII, Stalin supported Hitler's invasion with radio transmission to the Luftwaffe.
 * Stalin prematurely sent a telegram to Hitler congratulating him on taking Warsaw.
 * When the invasion of Poland was done, Stalin had taken 51% of Polish territory.
 * Stalin told the Latvian prime minister, personally, during "mutual assistance pact negotiations" that he, Stalin, could "invade tomorrow".
 * If you would like expand on Soviet historiography regarding the pact, what Stalin said can be indicated (summary, not the whole speach). Your contention that Stalin wasn't an aggressor is misguided and uninformed. —PētersV (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest you not take Stalin at his word when it comes to his recounting of motivations or events to anyone, anywhere. —PētersV (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Hitler in declaring war on Stalin did list Stalin going too far in the Baltics as his primary reason. Takes one to know one. —PētersV (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the summary and link to his speech and reasoning must be indicated, because of the time relation - Munich agreement has been signed only 6 month before the speech. But if you mention "Soviet historiography", then perhaps we should split the estimations of the events and provide indications like "according to Soviet historiography", "Estonian historiography", "US historiography", "British historiography", etc. - would not it be more correct, as it is known that each of these countries used and uses manipulative methods?


 * Regarding Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, I would advise you not to make any personal remarks about my country leader, and not compare him to Hitler. I could then advise you not to take anyone's words as a reference - isn't it an absurd? (Stalin himself is quite objective in his estimations, and he was also a scientific researcher in many fields (philosophy, history, linguistics, etc.), therefore I do not see any reason to ignore his words (if not personal disregard, which from my side could be addressed to any member of NATO - but that's just personal opinion, and I doubt that you would delete all the NATO countries' citations if I prove that NATO is an evil aggressor, isn't it?). Would not it be just perfect if you could omit any citation that you personally (or collectively) disregard? Stalin himself is a reliable source, like any official, and he is not Hitler, just like many other leaders are not Hitlers. I think it is clear.

--Victor V V (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be appropriate to add Stalin's speeches to an article about Estonia. seems like something more for the article about Stalin himself or since it's about the pact, why not to add it there if it's such an important aspect in your opinion.--98.212.196.116 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Victor V - Stalin is not a reliable source for accounts of events. I regret to inform you Stalin is not the leader of your country. Stalin is dead. The USSR is dead. Reputable scholarly research regarding Stalin's murderous reign is irrefutable and not a matter of "personal opinion." Not Hitler? Well, yes, Stalin did kill more innocents than Hitler. As for linguistic research, perhaps you refer to Stalin's returning "Moldovan" to its Cyrillic roots? An invention, yes. A linguist? Hardly.
 * You confuse Being Stalinist with Being Russian and Defending Stalinism with Defending Mother Russia. My sincerest sympathies that you are so steeped in Stalinist fiction. But do not expect to make a home for that fiction on Wikipedia. —PētersV (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I read lot about Stalin, and I can argue that there are no "reliable sources" that prove the numbers of the repressions cited in the western materials. I myself know some people who saw him personally, each one of them respects him (--Victor V V (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)you can compare Hitler to American presidents who used nuclear bombs against civilians or put own etnical Japanese citizens to the concentration camps during the WW2, or the imperialistic British who invaded India and China, calculate their casualties - compare if you like, but it it necessary? Facts are facts, this is not the place for poetical metaphors, there was only 1 Hitler). Anyway, this is not about Stalin, but about the Pact and the relevant Report by the Secretary General of the Communist Party. I am defending this certain point because USSR-Nazi agreement was a reaction, and if you study the material and try to forget the prejudice for a little - it would be clear. This topic is not well-researched yet because it is not in the interest of England, France and Germany to provide studies on this issue.

''By the way - maybe someone of you have the text of unofficial talks between Hitler and Mannerheim in 1942 in Finland? One my Estonian friend told me there's some useful information there about the pre-war disposition.''--Victor V V (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And I think there is a lot of material in the article (even without references, just biased comments about USSR) that is much less related to the issue, than mentioning (not even adding Stalin's speeches, but mentioning it and summarizing, as PētersV suggested). Why not adding more background information?Victor V V (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with "98.212.196.116": This article is not the place to engage in debates about Stalin's particular motives in ordering the Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe.


 * It is sufficient for historical analysis that the following facts are recorded in the article: (a) Estonia itself perceived the Soviet takeover as an illegal act of aggression and (b) it continues to do so; (c) the consensus of international opinion at the time also perceived the annexation as illegal and (d) it continues to do so today; and (e) only the USSR/Russia (ie, the aggressor) then and now views the annexation of Estonia as legitimate.


 * That almost 70 years after the event only the aggressor (or if you prefer, "invading") country should be the only source of legitimising argumentation renders such arguments immediately suspect.


 * Further, the claim that Stalin was provoked by the West into absorbing Estonia (and other Eastern European states) and that he acted with legitimate intent does not explain why subsequent to the invasion he should order the deportation and execution of tens of thousands of Estonian civilians. This simple fact, perhaps more than any other, speaks to the true nature of Stalin's intentions and demolishes Victor V.V.'s claim that to depict Stalin as an "aggressor" is a "false presupposition".


 * Quite frankly, this is not the forum to attempt a revisionist rewriting of twentieth-century history nor much less for extolling the supposed virtues of the world's deadliest dictator.

Lkbunker (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with "98.212.196.116": This article is not the place to engage in debates about Stalin's particular motives in ordering the Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe.

not the debate, but the fact that there are such debates and there are nistorical documents for such debates. Do you see my point? --Victor V V (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the place for discussion here (at least it is called so). Not even a 100 years passed, not all the materials are extracted from the archives. There was an opinion that only the countries that won in the Cold war can deliver their opinion in Wikipedia (Martintg placed it on my talk page) Why did the Stalin order deportation? Because they were against the regime. That's simple, isn't it? Like in any country after the civil war, if you look at the history. There were concentration camps in America after their civil war, in Africa - there were camps for boers, these are facts, and the article serves to deliver facts, but not to attach pro-Estonian or pro-Stalinist vision. But if Stalin is factual leader - you cannot ignore him and his speeches, that are very precise. --Victor V V (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was parodying the Russian government, who routinely accuses Estonia of "revising the outcome of WW2", so please, no revision of the outcome of the Cold War! Martintg (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a fact that the Soviet Union was the only country among the victors of the Second World War (a) to forcibly annex previously independent nations and (b) to institute mass-scale projects of political repression and deportation against civilians in these countries.


 * It is indeed true that the US ran its own "Japanese American Internment" camps during the war, and it is also a fact that the British interned Boer women and children during the Boer War. But to compare such camps with the Gulag Archipelago is to commit a simple but fallacious simplification, which is to apply the same label ("camps") to qualitatively different projects in order to mask the significant differences between them. No civilian was summarily executed at the US camps; whereas, for example, in Estonia in 1940 civilians were executed merely for not having their passports stamped for the rigged vote approving Soviet annexation. Also, significantly, the US president and Congress officially apologised to interned people in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988; similarly, Britain later referred to its Boer camps as "shameful", and you would be hard-pressed today to find any British politician willing to defend the repression of the Boers. No such apology or recognition has been forthcoming for the much graver crimes committed by the Soviet oppressors.


 * "Why did the Stalin order deportation? Because they were against the regime. That's simple, isn't it?" It is indeed simple if you subscribe to the principles of political terror that characterised the Stalinist dictatorship. But this article is about Estonia—its people, its history and its culture—not about such political and historical debates. Other articles exist that are more appropriate for such discussion.


 * "You cannot ignore him [Stalin] and his speeches, that are very precise." Actually, it is an established guideline of historical methodology that leaders' speeches do not typically constitute "hard" evidence in historical argumentation, as these are often intended to obscure and distort original intent or as post facto justifications of policy, a tendency which is particularly evident in undemocratic regimes like that of the Soviet Union.
 * Lkbunker (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Deportations and executions were not merely because of people being against the regime, but also to cause terror. As an examplary executions of people who were likely to be against the regime. Not to mention the fact that many (khm, most) estonian farmers were deported because soviets wanted the land. In one of the estonian towns, the deportation of farmers were planned, but as germans destroyed the railway it was considered to be "infeasible" to transport people using trucks. So they just took people in the forest and shot them. Documents about the event are still available in the museum. Suva Чего? 12:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Length of some sections
I think some of the sections are getting a little bit too long, particularly Estonia, it gives the impression that WW2 was the only thing that ever happened. We have sub-articles that go into great detail, so I'm going to try to copy edit those sections to be a little bit more shorter. Martintg (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes - please tell your opinion
I suggested some changes, such as:
 * The Prime Minister and the President: added names and images
 * Summarized military section, removed overly detail and duplication.
 * Merged "Pollution" and "Resources" section. Moved tax issues from "Resources" section to the appropriate section.
 * Removed lengthly natural resources list. Why so much space is wasted on natural resources whose economic significance is tiny and their abundance is not different from most countries? Wouldn't there be much more suitable issues to cover?
 * Moved "Education" and "IT industry" sections under "Economy" section
 * Restored subsection headers, which should make readability much better. Just compare the two versions.
 * Transformed some tables and images to "right-floating layout", which should make text more readable to the eye.

These are contributed in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estonia&oldid=217937850 this version by AlexelK. Go see!]

The Karabinier (talk · contribs) removed all contributions in the current version by Karabinier.

Which version you prefer? Please tell your opinion! I'm not going to contribute to this article anymore. If any of my contributions seem good, go and merge them into the article.Turkuun (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I will add more comments tomorrow asap.Karabinier (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The PM and President have already mentione din the article -. country infobox - as this article is about a country not the politicial leaders. There should be an image about the government with all the ministries instead of the PM photo.
 * Why do you remove statistics by Statistics Estonia? Why the mining and pollution must be given so much space and detail in the "Economy" section, even though they make 1% of the GDP, compared 99% for others? What is "Energetics"? You don't cite any reasons and constantly seem to reverse other contributors' well-cited edits. A word of warning, next time your removals may be reverted if you don't cite any reason, as according to Wikipedia guidelines.Turkuun (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He deleted other contributors' additions again. I reverted his deletions and additions are included in this version.Turkuun (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Karabinier (talk · contribs) --> deleted all added sections again without participating in the talk page or leaving explaining edit summaries. The sections he has repeatedly deleted also happen to be the best cited in the article. He has not even challenged those numbers given by Statistics Estonia and retorts to deleting others' contributions. I'm going to report him to administrators.Turkuun (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Turkuun, I unfortunatly don't have enough time to fully expand your last edit about law enforcement, but I'd like to ask from you to do a bit more research before adding new material, information so incomplete in encyclopedia article doesn't look very good. Also, after great consideration, I decided for now to remove your latest additions concerning international rankings, because a) there was one totally un-comprehensible part, at least for me ("the levels of police officers and homicides are low"???) and b) I think that kind of detailed facts are more suitable to more specific article about international rankings, if mentioned in the main article then only in very general level. I don't object anyway if you decide to reintroduce your material about these rankings, my only concern was readability of the article. Ptrt (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. Global Peace Index states that Estonia's police officers per capita is relatively low and that homicides per capita is relatively low. Estonia has the lowest homicide rate in Baltics.Turkuun (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Karabinier (talk · contribs) --> deletes huges sections which are among the best cited. He replaces some of them with factually incorrect statements with no references. For instance, his replacements portray Estonian economy as oil shale dependent, deleting citations from Statistics Estonia that oil shale is very small industry constituting under 1% of the economy. He provides no explanations in the talk page or edit summaries. I reverted his deletions and warned him of possible vandalism. Turkuun (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed inaccurate and irrelevant info which has been added by user Turkuun into the article. For example Turkuun does not know that pollution is in Estonia a very big and problematic issue due to the Ida-Virumaa heavy industry, also uranium industry also the Soviet Army pollution in military districts and also the oil-shale industry which produces 90% of the Estonian electricity. User Turkuun states inaccurate info about the oil-shale impact onto the Estonian economy.
 * The images to right - is Turkuuns own idea and the decision that it makes the article better readable is his own believing.

The problem is that Turkuun is not that informed with the daily and detail aspects about Estonian and Estonian culture as some of those who actually live in Estonia might be, people like me and other Estonians.. Karabinier (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why the largest industries in Estonia do not deserve a single word? What is wrong with machinery and metal industries? Why you delete Estonia's success in food and electronics industries? Why everything must be dedicated to pollution? Where are your references for statements like "Oil shale (or kukersite) and limestone deposits, along with forests which cover 47% of the land, play key economic roles in this generally resource-poor country."? Well, there ain't any, because oil shale accounts for 1% of employement and 4% of GDP, out of which mining is even smaller part, around 1% of GDP. It's seems you are trying to bash Estonia instead of helping provide objective information about Estonian economic composition. Objective information would be like economic statistics by Statistics Estonia, which you delete. Pollution is a big problem, especially in Ida-Virumaa, but so it is in dozens other countries. China, Russia, or Czech Republic are some of the most polluted in the world, but their country articles are not portraying them as pollution-dominated economies. Estonia has made huge progress, cutting some measures by an order of magnitude, which you also delete. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, which means you have to provide references instead of deleting references to statistics that do not support your prejudices.Turkuun (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Also electronics is mentioned in the article - in science and IT industry - therefore these deletions are justified. Your source which states - your understanding of the source - that oil-shale and mining plays LOW role in the Estonian economy is inaccurate. More than 90% of the electricity produced in Estonia comes from mining industry-oil-shale. Also the CO2 gas quotes are related to this issue where Estonia spends billions of krones in order to obtain them or to sell them in the open market. Before stating statistics you should learn and understand the basics of the countries economy and functioning instead of adding inaccurate text sections with references which are provided to back up not so correct text. This is a serious problem in your upgrades! I believe my knowledge about the country where I am contributing should not be questioned in the terms wikipedia article Estonia. Neither am I a noob or newbie on wikipedia. Ive made nearly 2500 edits to improve various articles, created tens numbers templates and pages. I believe I can say that I do no qualify under a vandal in wikipedia.Karabinier (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all the food industry IS ALREADY mentioned in the article - look cuisine section - issues relating with food should go to there. Estonia was till the start of the WW II an agriculturing country mainly - not today where agriculture makes less then 5% of the total industry.
 * Second of all I have provided references to sections where I have contributed. To state that I do not add references is a lie. Look at my contribution into the article from the history timeline - continues improvement with either image, reference etc adding. Third of all "It's seems you are trying to bash Estonia instead of helping provide objective information about Estonian economic composition." you should think before when you add such statements. My goal is only to improve and to make the article better so it could obtain the featured article title and that the article would be protected against vandalism and false information-references.


 * You keep not responding to questions given to you.
 * Again: Why the largest industries in Estonia do not deserve a single word? What is wrong with machinery and metal industries? Why you delete Estonia's success in food and electronics industries? Why everything must be dedicated to pollution? Where are your references for statements like "Oil shale (or kukersite) and limestone deposits, along with forests which cover 47% of the land, play key economic roles in this generally resource-poor country."?
 * It seems you don't understand either the sources or the economic composition at all. I advice you to think twice before contributing to a field you don't know at all. You have been asked multiple times explanations for deletions, and for the first time you gave something, thank you. So could you be more accurate, what do you exactly mean: "Before stating statistics you should learn and understand the basics of the countries economy and functioning instead of adding inaccurate text sections with references which are provided to back up not so correct text."
 * Last year Estonia consumed around 13 million metric tons of oil shale and European co2 permits trade at 30 euro per ton. Single companies like Elcoteq have the same amount of employees as the entire oil shale industry. None is saying that oil shale industry's significance is low, it certainly is not, but you keep deleting information about industries other than oil shale.
 * If you don't find "cuisine" section a little strange location to cover one of the largest industries in Estonia, food processing, then I can't help but restore it to the correct context. And I found nothing in cuisine section anyway.
 * Don't you find anything strange in putting "IT industry" and "Kazaa" under "Science", a section about taxes under "Resources", and a paragraph about domestic industries under "trade and investment"? The illogical headings will not help make this article featured. Look at articles like Sweden, United States, or India. And even though India is among the worst polluted places, the featured article India does not portray India as wasteland.
 * Your ripoffs in politics, military and science sections have to be deleted in any case. You can add only free content or other editors have to remove your copyright violations. Please read Copyright violations.

Sorry, it's going to be restore until you stop deleting the best referenced content, about the most useful economic information in Estonia, without giving any reasons let alone waiting for consensus.

Should we take this to an arbitrary committee, since we seem to be the only ones reading this page? Turkuun (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Turkuun. I have to say that while you've spent some considerable effort rewriting/changing/adding, I'm not convinced your changes are taking the article in a positive direction. I see that Estonia's administrators are "relatively young"? in the latest revert (or close to) and "Politics" has been replaced with "Administration" (and other section changes). Not to mention the “Täna Otsustan Mina” (“Today I Make Decisions”), as far as I know, turned out to be not that popular and has been discontinued. On oil shale, an area which you have discounted in significance, the last time I read, Estonia got the significant majority of its total energy supply from oil shale. I have found Karabinier to be a very well-informed editor. I would suggest proceeding from the viewpoint that Karabinier has his facts in order and discuss how to better organize and present instead of accusing him of vandalism. You might consider a less combative approach and incremental change. If the goal here is to get the article to FA status, I'd suggest taking it a section at a time, and if you're going to suggest reorganizing sections, then let's do that first and agree without changing the contents at the same time. —PētersV (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, how knowledgeable he might be, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. He has been given clear numbers which he has at no point contested. Oil shale industry employs around as many employees as Elcoteq (around 4000 both), while agriculture is around three times larger part of GDP than mining. There is no mention of Täna Otsustan Mina and the young administration is very unique compared to fast-graying civil services in countries like Germany.Turkuun (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What comes to "politics" versus "administration", I suggest the article politics. Administration encompasses both political posts and civil servant posts. That is judicial system, law enforcement, and most of government jobs, all of which are contained in the section. "Politics" is therefore non-suitable title. Do you know a better title than "administration"?Turkuun (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, Turkuun. Just some quick notes... “Täna Otsustan Mina” (“Today I Make Decisions”) appeared in this diff on which I based my comments. In terms of naming and organizing sections, I would suggest "Government and politics" for parliament and parties, presidency, cabinet, courts.... "Administration" speaks more to administrative organizational and territorial units and associated hierarchies. You would also find that Estonia is not unique in terms of having a young civil service with reference to the Baltics or other Eastern European countries. —PētersV (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing about Täna Otsustan Mina in the current version. It was in the old version, because the source paper highlighted it, and has been deleted since. Any opinions, which one is more interesting information, general facts about young civil service (that contribute to Estonia's efficient and modern public sector) or details about a defense meeting (which hardly touches anyone except involved)?Turkuun (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Turkuun, I have to agree with Vecrumba, please be a bit less combative in your approach and turn down your accusatory tone. Martintg (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * TOM - Täna Otsustan Mina - which is promoted very actively by Turkuun (talk) was shot down few weeks ago. Here is a newspaper articles about this shut down - these are in Estonian - is Turkuun able to understand the texts I do not know... Üks esimesi e-Eesti projekte TOM lõpetas tegevuse - One of the 1st e-projects of Estonia - TOM was shut down. 02.06.2008 09:37

This project is past now and part of the history of the IT industry of Estonia and Science of Estonia - not economy. Also education is not part of the economy because they are not related. Education is more part of culture and or society. Therefore I suggest that education and science should be placed under society or culture. Turkuun (talk) economy edits are rips offs from the Investinestonia in a very large scale. Karabinier (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Karabinier, you can not just copy and paste content from non-free sources. We appreciate your contributions, but license violating material has to be removed no matter how good it is:


 * like this 100% ripoff from riikogu.ee (riikogu.ee content might be public domain, but no such claim is found): The Riigikogu elects and appoints several high officials of the state, including the President of the Republic. In addition to that, the Riigikogu appoints, on the proposal of the President of Estonia, the Chairman of the National Court, the Chairman of the Board of the Bank of Estonia, the Auditor General, the Legal Chancellor and the Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces. A member of the Riigikogu has the right to demand explanations from the Government of the Republic and its members. This enables the members of the parliament to observe the activities of the executive power and the abovementioned high officials of the state.
 * like this 100% ripoff from mil.ee: The national defence policy aims to guarantee the preservation of the independence and sovereignty of the state, the integrity of its land area, territorial waters and airspace and its constitutional order. Its main goals remain the development and maintenance of a credible capability to defend the nation's vital interests and development of the Defence Forces in a way that ensures their interoperability with the armed forces of NATO and European Union member states and their capability to participate in the full range of Alliance missions.
 * like this 100% ripoff from ria.ee: The Military of Estonia is introducing a new 21st century based cyber warfare and defence formation in order to protect the vital infrastructure and e-infrastructure of Estonia. Currently the leading organization in the Estonian cyber defence is the CERT (the Computer Emergency Response Team of Estonia), established in 2006, as an organisation responsible for the management of security incidents in .ee computer networks. Its task is to assist Estonian internet users in the implementation of preventive measures in order to reduce possible damage from security incidents and to help them in responding to security threats. The unit deals with security incidents that occur in Estonian networks, are started there, or have been notified of by citizens or institutions either in Estonia or abroad.
 * like this 100% ripoff from investinestonia.com: Road transport is the one that prevails in the passenger sector, accounting for over 90% of all transported passengers. The Estonian transportation and logistics sector is a successful combination of transportation services, transit trade, distribution centers and value-added logistics. Transit services constitute a profitable form of exports for the nation, and their future success ranks highly among the priorities of Estonia’s economic policy.
 * like this 100% ripoff from iscn.at: In the 1980s specialists from Estonia participated in the development of standard software engineering, CASE tools, for different ministries of the Soviet Union. Estonia among many other nations has seen information technology (IT) as an important tool to improve the case of extremely fast recovery of Estonian economy.
 * like this 100% ripoff from work copyrighted by EEIC: One of the main goals of long-term national development programme of fuel and energy management and goal programme of energy saving is the reduction of environmental impacts. The main tasks in the area are to raise the efficiency of energy production and transport and to use more environment-friendly fuels and reduce special consumption of energy in all branches of economy and households. There are plans to establish new power stations and to provide higher efficiency in oil shale based energy production with the concurrent and significant reduction of the harmful environmental impact via the renovation of combustion technology.

Based on your talk page, you seem to have violated image copyrights many times before, so I repeat my suggestion that you look at Copyright violations to make sure your wonderful efforts are not wasted.

As for deletions you make:
 * Why you need to delete information about Estonian education system? Why the article must tell everything about military meetings with George Bush and nothing about education system? You insist on deleting: Estonia spends relatively a lot on education, at 7% of GNP a larger share than any Nordic country, and it has been on the rise.[92] ... Basic education takes 9 years from age 7 to 16 and is compulsory for all children in Estonia. It provides Basic School Leaving Certificate. In the next level, student chooses either academically-oriented Gymnasium or profession-oriented vocational school. They take three around years.[92]
 * Why you need to delete information about Estonian aviation? You insist on deleting: Tallinn International Airport is the largest airport in Estonia, with 1,73 million passengers and 22,764 tons of cargo (annual cargo growth 119,7%) in 2007. providing services to a number of international carriers flying to 23 destinations. International flight companies such as SAS, Finnair, Lufthansa, EasyJet, and Estonian Air provide direct flights to 27 destinations.
 * Why you need to delete information about Estonian agriculture, which has seen a big upsurge in productivity? You insist on deleting: Farming, collectivized until 20 year ago, has become privatized, more efficient, and the farming area has increased recently.[86] The share of agriculture in the gross domestic product decreased from 15% to 3.3% during 1991–2000, while employment in agriculture decreased from 15% to 5.2%
 * Why you need to delete information about the fact that 1.Tallinn is the largest financial center in the Baltic despite Estonia being the smallest country 2.Estonian banking sector is overwhelmingly multinational. You insist on deleting: Tallinn has emerged as a financial center. According to Invest in Estonia, advantages of Estonian financial sector are low and taxes, unbureaucratic cooperation between companies and authorities, and educated people. The largest banks are Hansabank, SEB, Nordea, and Sampo Bank. Several IPOs have been made recently on the Tallinn Stock Exchange, a member OMX system. Estonia is ranked 21th of 121 countries in the Capital Access Index 2005 by Milken Institute, outperforming Austria and Italy among others.
 * There are many others, but you haven't responded to any yet.

You still haven't responded to questions raised, and as such repeated deleting seems inappropriate.Turkuun (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Turkuun, I've analysed the changes you have made. While adding the extra information, you have also changed the basic structure of the article, moving paragraphs around and removing section subheadings. For example, the previous version has the structure:
 * Economy
 * Resources
 * Infrastructure
 * Industry and environment
 * Trade and investment
 * Society
 * Education
 * Science and infotechnology
 * Your version has only:
 * Economy
 * Education
 * Infrastructure
 * Your new structure is really badly formatted, mixing up information all over the place, making it more difficult to read. Why can't you add your information without changing the basic structure? I've copy edited the text and added back the sub sections. Martintg (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, a few subheadings are a good idea and I still disagree with Karabinier's suggestion that they are irrelevant in various sections (see Culture). With your last edits, you did not notice that some copyright violating content (in transport and environment) slipped back and some content was lost. The current subheadings are also a bit illogical, with public policy information fragmented everywhere, energy liberalization in resources section, and I don't think one sentence coverage of Tiigrihupe, agriculture, or environment deserves own subheadings. Should they just be consolidated under subheading "Sectors"?

Otherwise the economy section starts to look good from an economist point of view, maybe we get this article featured! Should we put a picture of Singing Revolution in history section instead of the current poor quality gulag picture? The internationally less known revolution puts Baltic struggle for freedom in context, what do you think? Could someone write a few words about post-1991 Estonian history too? Turkuun (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Karabinier (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Karabinier (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Turkuun you should read the article more carefully also the headings as your suggestion - a Singing Revolution image into a section Soviet Occupation which tells the history story up to the start of the Singing Revolution and the IME project is priceless - to add an image about a thing which did not happen at then. This image should be placed instead into the Restoration of Independence - or like in the Portuguese version an image where the Russian army is leaving Estonia in 1994 which marks the official end of the WWII for Estonia. A postal stamp was even printed with an special envelope for this event...
 * The section which have not as much text as they could have - I think we all have a reaöl life as well and some of us do not spend the hole day in Wikipedia by editing and writing interesting articles. So this takes time. Please feel free to contribute into the small sections instead of deleting the hole article chapters and section here and then.
 * The subheading "Sectors" tells nothing - no article has such title and if they ahve then they are economy of ... articles not a country articles. The overview of the sectors does not belong into a country article as - a country economy is an overview of the entire countries key economic elements - such as resources, infrastructure, trade, investment etc which all make the economy to happen. A person is more interested in what they drill or dig sell export import in Estonia, Latvia, Zimbabwe etc than how many clarks there are in the public sector or how many people - a la 45,789 - work in the car factory. These statistical figures do not provide an overview of the economy.
 * Your statement I don't think one sentence coverage of Tiigrihupe, agriculture, or environment deserves own subheadings. shows that you are not interested in cooperation. The idea itself - agriculture and environment is not important - maybe you would like to add such idea to the Chernobyl article also? Maybe there these two things are not important either? Environment and agriculture are topics which belong into the economy chapter as they effect - GDP, international rankings (co2, living conditions, work efficiency, industry, pollution, nature etc) If some people do not see that it is important then this doesnt mean that agrees with this person. Try to keep that in mind.
 * The economy section does not start to look good from an economist point of view as you have deleted randomly and added your own which has not been approved by the majority. Estonia article is not a sandbox...
 * I see this situation is not the first time for the user Turkuun. The user Turkuun has aggressively replaced major portions of the article with his far-right extremist non-NPOV views. Something should be done about this. He is attempting to demonize the public sector, trade unions and the welfare state ideology, all of which are well-respected by the vast majority of Finns. In doing this, the views that he purports are often not sourced or not at all supported by the sources he cites, or when they are, the sources are not NPOV or the support is vague. The POV that he is forcing on the article are worship of the NATO and some form of laissez-faire economism.


 * In culture section you oppose subheadings and in economy section you want suheadings for everything? In any case, I'm here only to make sure there are references to econometrics, just do what you want, as long as you use free material.


 * You copypasted a half article from non-free sources, and you seem to be offended that it was found and reported by me. That's why it's good to check licenses beforehand. You have done wonderful work on Estonia article and I'm sure all editors hope to see you continue with correctly licensed material. Cheers. Turkuun (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No capital, to my knowledge
Check this, please. According to what I know, neither Estonian constitution nor any other law provides that Tallinn is Estonian capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.225.121 (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is law about administrative division of Estonian territory (Estonian: Eesti territooriumi haldusjaotuse seadus) - §5 states that Tallinn is capital of Estonian Republic. Ptrt (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything I've read says that Tallinn is the Estonian capital and I have no reason not to believe that.--Les boys (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

content removal
Since it is yet unclear whether the content of this page violates any copyright laws or not, I think it would be better to restore all the previously removed material and wait for a few days until someone is able to clarify the situation. If, by then, there's still no evidence that the content of the article violates no copyright laws, then the text will have to be either removed or rewritten. I'm going to restore what I think is the last stable version of the article and I'd really appreciate it if no one removed anything from the page for now. I'm going to include the last two anonymous (sourced) edits by 82.131.72.39. though. Cheers! Ban Ray  23:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this user's research there are no exemptions we could apply to copypaste or images we are dealing with here.Turkuun (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to mine too, but Martintg has asked for a couple of days to perform a more thorough research. If the problem is not solved by the end of the week, we'll remove the content. Ban  Ray  15:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm currently inquiring with some Estonian government departments, hopefully I should have a definitive answer by the end of the week. Regardless of the outcome, in the case of text, removal is not necessary as rewriting it in your own words is sufficient. Facts are not copyrightable. The issue is more to do with plagarism, rather than copyright when only lines of text is involved. That is why we have a Martintg (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Nystad 1721 and Treaty of Tartu 1920
Why all participants to the above subjects seems to have forgotten the main fact.

From Nystad treaty still exist:
 * Treaty text in Swedish language
 * Treaty text in Russian language

and in case of difficulties also text in German language which is to be followed if there are case of missunderstandings, the German text is above Swedish and Russian texts and is the one which should be followed.

In case of Treaty of Tarto the original text is available in Russian, Estonian and French languages. When signing the Treaty of Tartu Soviet Russia recognized de jure the Eesti Vabariik. I just wonder how difficult this is to understand for some Russians. I can add lot of information of the Russian period 1721 - 1918 which is not really nice reading including chapters of Baltic Barons allied with Peter I to quarantee their priviliges and to accept "Russification" of governments of Estonia, Livonia and Curonia. Catherine II favoured these German nobel land owners and did not care how they adminstrated the Baltic provinces as loog as they paid taxes to St.Petersburg. Yurjev was nothing else than a small wooden fortress, near much larger Estonian built Tarbatu.

Kaleva was the name of Estonian built town like settlement at Toompea hills. Kolyvan is nothing else than russificated name of Kaleva. When there were at least 100 Estonian settlements Russian Moscow did not even exist. Kiev is not comparable. Novgorod was a Vote ruled small settlement on the neck of Olhava River near Air Lake. Laatokka was a trading settlement of Karelians. Ingrians lived on the southern shore of Suomenlahti / Soomelaht (Gulf of Finland). Otsonpää was the town like settlement at the heart of Ugandi. Thirteen Estonian tribes had formed a loose tribal confederation as early as in 600 - 700´s. The first Kievan attack to their lands was early as in 1030. Since then the Slavic tribes had continuosly seeked an natural outlet to the Baltic Sea. Slogans in Soviet Estonia showed text Balti Meer, Rahu Meer (Baltic Sea, Sea of Peace) but same time Paldiski was a home naval base for Soviet nuclear submarines, just 50 km west of Tallinn. In 1912 the Imperial Russia started to built (with French loans) Revel (Tallinn) a new main naval base for Imperial Russian Navy. The Russians proudly reported; Revel, as a ice-free Baltic port, is to be made a place of great importance, with two docks for the largest battleships, another for the cruisers, and a double dock for torpedo craft, as well as, a floating dock of 30.000 tons capacity. Revel will also have all the shops and plant necessary for refitting and equipping vessels, and will provided with a large oil and coal depots, stores, magazines, and a hospital, and the place will be defended both on the sea and land sides. Population increased by bringing in nearly 20.000 ethnic Russians in 1913 - 1916 to built all these new installations.

Many written documents regading Estonia in other language than Old Slavonic are documented in several Wikipedia sides such like commercial treaties between Novgorod and Hanseatic League. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.175.156 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Treaty of Nystad is an old historic piece of paper as it was created before the foudnation of the international laws and international juridical standards. Therefore this treaty has no juridical or political importance. Karabinier (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems follow-up
Hello. I am evaluating situations listed at the copyright problems board and wanted to seek clarification on the state of the matter here. The specifics seem to have been addressed, with the single exception of a sentence that may follow too closely on this source: "In the 1980s specialists from Estonia participated in the development of standard software engineering, CASE tools, for different ministries of the Soviet Union." With this single exception, are the editors here satisfied that any material in violation of copyright has been removed? If not, what concerns persist? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article has been extensively reworked, and I have re-factored the last issue you mentioned, so all potential copyright issues have been addressed. FWIW, I wrote to the Estonian Ministry of Defence in regard to content from www.mil.ee, and they replied:
 * "'photos and other content from www.mil.ee can be used freely, but we want to see that source (www.mil.ee) is clearly identified. Also images and content can not be used for beneficial purposes.'"
 * --Martintg (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very proactive of you to write them. :) I'm afraid that their permission isn't compatible with GFDL, though, if I'm understanding their note, as GFDL allows re-use for commercial as well as non-commercial uses. But if there's no text or photos used directly from that site, then that shouldn't be an issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * True. All suspect material has been removed/refactored in any case. Martintg (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I will mark the matter resolved! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Article doesn't has a map
The article hasn't a map of this country.Agre22 (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)agre22

President of Estonia
According to the Constitution of Estonia - Karabinier Talk 11:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * § 84. Ametisseastumisega lõpevad Vabariigi Presidendi volitused ja ülesanded kõigis valitavates ja nimetatavates ametites ning ta peatab ametisoleku ajaks oma erakondliku kuuluvuse. Official webpage of the President of Estonia
 * (Article 84 states that upon assuming the Presidency, the President relinquishes all of his or her other official positions. He or she must also suspend membership in any political party.) Consitution of the Republic of Estonia - The President of the Republic

Knol
You might want to take a close look at the Knol article Estonia. After reading this article here, it looks strangely familiar, albeit authored by some Raul Piiber. Has he contributed to this article or has any other possible reason to claim the authorship? --Oop (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is freely distributed under the GNU Free Documentation License, so there is no restriction on Knol using this material. From what I can tell, Knol is licensed under Creative Commons, of which certain variants are compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. Martintg (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All sound and true, yet "no restriction for use" does not imply it would be fine to present the work of numerous others as something you made up on your own. Currently, there is no mention in Knol about this being a Wikipedia article. It is presented as work on a single well-educated hard-working author. --Oop (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to take a look at Can we use Wikipedia as a source for Knol? & Mirrors and forks/Knol. - Regards, Ev (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Estonia"
Why is EN-US pronunciation of 'Estonia' used? In Estonia, mostly EN-UK pronunciation is used (for at least pronunciating 'Estonia'), also English-Estonian dictionaries that are published in Estonia use the UK version of pronunciation of 'Estonia' (for example ISBN 9985-0-1162-7, by Koolibri publishers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.176.54 (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think the article aims at rendering the pronunciation used in English in Estonia, but rather the common pronunciation(s) in the English-speaking (i.e. English as a mother tounge) world. If there is a difference between British and American English, both could be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.246.10 (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I agree with the last speaker above. However, which is (are) the common pronunciation(s) in English-speaking countries? Right now, the article says /ɛsˈtoʊniə/; I personally would have thought the common pronunciation is /ɛsˈtəʊniə/, but I am not a native English speaker. The Google hit counts today are 1570 and 303, respectively. I have found no authoritative source, however. Maybe someone has one? Reimgild (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is too long
No one actually cares for Estonia that much. You are small country and small population and its stupid that you have one of longest articles. And, ofc, you deleted all things you dont like - like Religion, and Euro-poll where Estonia is on bottom - only 16% of Estonians believe in God. Where is that, in article? And E-military?! What, why?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.50.199 (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a not place for people who are determined to vandalize random pages.Karabinier Talk 15:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea, like, i am aware of that, but here is problem that, its not objective at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.161.5 (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article has become way too long and therefore is difficult to follow, it should be narrowed down and be written straight to the point and anything relevant that's more in detail should be added to main articles.--Termer (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Estonians helped out Georgia.
This source is full of anti-Estonian and anti-European propaganda:. I suppose there must me more proof of Estonia's involvement. This is not right to have propaganda sources on wikipedia. I do not take sides in this conflict. Well, Wikipedia does quote CNN and Fox News in various articles, amongst other very unreliable news networks, so propaganda sources are allowed. However, the linked article pretty much says that a group from the "Reserve Officers Society of Estonia" went to Georgia to distribute humanitarian aid. Some Georgian official is quoted that they came to "help defend Georgia's sovereignty", whilst another Georgian official says they are there to distribute aid. I think the latter is closer to truth than the former. Thus, this does not justify placing them into the combattants list. CNN is far more reliable, and has actual reporters on the ground in Georgia. "Propaganda sources" are not accepted as reliable sources. You can use the 'propaganda sources' to reference the official position of a government, but not for facts and actual information. Officaly, Estonia denied this aleged cyber-attack. Regarding the allegations published in media, according to which „the Estonian government sent its servicemen to protect Georgia's sovereignty and ensure a Russian troop withdrawal from Georgian territory“, the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs makes the following statement:

Estonian government has sent neither military units nor servicemen to Georgia to carry out military tasks.

Estonian ambassador to Tbilisi, Mr. Toomas Lukk has spoken with the Georgian deputy Defence Minister, who said that the quotations ascribed to Nino Bakradze, Head of Department of the Georgian Ministry of Defence by the Russian news agency Interfax are not true. Also its their personal activity, not act of Estonian state. The aid workers and peace keepers are prohibited from wearing Estonian Army uniforms there:From Georgian foreign ministry webpage - (The web page was orginaly found by-Staberinde) Mercenaries do not usually get issue gear, they buy their own. Armed "civilian contractors" with shoot-to-kill license are a standard element of warfare these days. I do not see anything usual in the Estonian - or Armenian - activities. Morally repugnant as war ist in general, but not unusual or condemnable from a purely formalistic standpoint. Any evidence that these humanitarian volunteers are "mercenaries" or "armed civilian contractors" as you accuse? --86.25.48.119 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's simple. Some time ago, the Russian government accused all the Baltic states of smuggling arms to Georgia. What did that really mean? That meant Russia was smuggling arms to South Ossetia et al. Accuse others of what you're doing yourself. The Russian government produced not one shred of reliable evidence, only empty accusations. —PētersV (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Probabaly next month the world will suddenly "discover" that Georgia and Estonia had a joint nuclear program from reliable Russian information sources :D At this time The Russian information sources DO NOT qualify for references for any articles regarding Estonia.Karabinier (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you mean uranium enrichment. :-) PētersV (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Links, news pages and proof
I've looked around and found these pages on the Cyberattacks by/on Estonia and Russia. Poland and the Ukraine also offered a 'web-page in exile' ti the Georgian Goverment at one point to.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[] --86.25.48.119 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Petserimaa
The addition of Petserimaa to the municipalities list is not alphabetical. However, one may ask wether it belongs there. Does the list attempt to depict present-day or historical conditions? --Thathánka Íyotake (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion section is either confusing or wrong
If 75% of the population state no specific religious affiliation how can 32% of the population be members of a church or religious group?

75% + 32% = 107% of the population is either religious or not religious.

Nolandda (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a rounding error by the person who added it? Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Any "facts" that don't clearly refer to reliable sources should be simply removed.--Termer (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
The purpose of any infobox is to make finding some sets of standard information easier. Thus, I do not see the pupose of blanking any info from there. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. --Axt (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Article too long
This article is seriously getting too long for a small country, can't we make it a little smaller some how? The first part that should be a short introduction is already too long. When compared to Latvia, all the sections are very long, I think there is too much information.  Si xe st  10:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

New edits - Estonia
I didnt revert any of your edits, I only restored the pictures you've deleted, I think you delete many of my efforts too, like the Satdium image, the new Airport image and many others, I didnt understand why you delete too such a large amount of text in the geography section thanks Apuleuis damnius (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you checked better you'd see, that very little text was removed. I only relocated it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as the stadium is concerned, I didn't just delete it but replaced with a more notable stadium. I've explained it in the comment. As far as the image about football fans is concerned, I still suggest to replace it with the image about the skiing marathon. Estonia ranks about 130th among the world's national squads, whereas in cross-country skiing it's among the absolute top. Readers won't ever recognize Estonia for football, so why would anybody push football-related stuff in the Estonia article?
 * There's also the Juhan Viiding issue. He will have a single statement, just like any other person in the article. Pick yours. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont get you pont about Viiding, why you remove him ?, there is no reason, between, his suicide influenced so much people because of his unique mentality, I think he is such a great representer for Estonian nation. Also, why you remove the image of the light rail ? and why the Terminal Airport is also removed ? Apuleuis damnius (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On Viiding: This is a high-profile article. No writer will get more than a sentence.
 * On the images: You erased my text in the same set of edits as adding the images. There was no way I could sort out what you had added between the deletions (which were in majority). It's fine now, although the amount of illustrations is killing me. E.g. why do you need four pics of town hall squares in the Demographics section? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Jaan, this article is getting why too big, it is already 140k, when the maximum recommended size is around 100k. We should be looking for opportunities on moving some of the detail into sub-articles, rather than attempt to cram it all into this article. --Martintg (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article suffers from a major sandwiching issue. What Apuleuis damnius calls 'a perfect layout', is discouraged by MOS:IMAGES as: "sandwiching text between two images that face each other." I suggest to remove or relocate one of each pair of images facing each other. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To address the TOOLONG issue, I suggest to merge the Light rail section to the rest of transport (its four tram lines are joke in a high profile article on a country) and replace the second half of the Sports section (currently covering another joke called Estonian national squad of football) with a general statement about football in Estonia (that it is a very popular participation sport, especially among children and teenagers).

Outline_of_Estonia would be a good blueprint to use for organizing the content of this one into main articles.--Termer (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong links.


This shows, that there are some mistake with links. Maybe someone can fix them. I try to do it myself too, but I can't find some right links.

Thanks!


 * I checked for and fixed all of the broken links in the article, so no (obvious) problems should remain. :) Quibik (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding statistics
There are a lot of information missing about the statistics. I added them and some retard removed them, any idea why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.2.148 (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * General overview article --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Also many stats and info are out of date, this whole page needs to be updated. Examples include references to the new European Union IT Agency in 2012 and 2013 which have not be checked and confirmed now time has passed and we have reached the anticipated dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.93.243 (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

When adding statistics, give references where the records can be actually found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.101.19 (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

German occupation
This sentence sounds retarded: "The Germans pillaged the country for the war effort and unleashed the Holocaust." It sounds like a cheesy episode of He-Man or something. I'm guessing the Germans didn't really do anything except take control of the government and somebody wants to make it more EEVVVAAALLL!!! then it really was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.60.143 (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

According to other sources (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_in_Estonia) there were more than 20 concentration camps set up in Estonia for foreign Jews and others, in which some 10,000 people were murdered, and almost all of the +- 1,000 Estonian Jews that didn't escape to the USSR were exterminated. That certainly sounds closer to "unleashed the Holocaust" than to "didn't really do anything except take control of the government." Unless, of course the Estonian government was already building concentration camps for foreigners, and already exterminating people, but there does not appear to be any evidence to support that contention. Kmasters0 (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Russian language
Since the majority of Estonian can speak fluent Russian, can it be considered a vehicular language of Estonia ?Mitch1981 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again. My response to you on the Latvia page applies here. I would also add that in the case of Estonia, even during Soviet occupation, using Russian as a lingua franca was merely an invitation for glares and bad service. Latvia having been more cosmopolitan (Riga once having had street signs in Latvian, German, and Russian), there was some more flexibility, if that's the right word. V ЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of the population of Estonia can NOT speak Russian fluently or as "near-fluently" as to make it a vehicular language. Of course, most people in Estonia understand at least some Russian and can put it, at least, to occasional limited informal use. The same can be said about the use of English and Finnish languages in Estonia. Cheers, 3 Löwi (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Younger generations don't speak Russian at all - on the other hand, I have plenty of Russians, Ukrainians and Jewish people among my friends who all speak fluent Estonian therefore the vehicular language here is indeed Estonian.--Sorent (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is wrong. Most of Estonians do not speak Russian, moreover, Russian is banned from many spheres, for example, it's a crime to speak Russian at work, schools etc. The specially installed Language Inspection observes that, there were cases than Russian children were suspended from school for speaking Russian between themselves.
 * Really, have you been listening to Putin railing about Estonia again? See, for example, the university program to support students learning Estonian, here. There's no law on what language (elementary school, I assume, for your contention) can speak on the street. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Enforcement of Estonian law which banned Russian language - http://www.usefoundation.org/view/209 And here is the site of Language Policy itself http://www.keeleinsp.ee/  Not only Russian language banned, but even geographical places which sound as Russian or personal names of Russian origin must be changed to Estonian according to Estonian laws. You can go to Estonia and look for youself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I red the article that you refer - it states that Russian-speaking students are forbidden to use Russian in Estonian universities, that's all.
 * The sites do not even mention Russian. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * About universities, odd that there is a program for Russian Estonian university students to improve their Estonian. As for place names, one would expect them to have a name in the local language, after all. Hardly oppression. And one would need to have one's name (Cyrillic, Russian) minimally transliterated to Estonian, they don't mandate you get a different name. Hardly oppression, either. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not true, in 2004 Estonian parlament approved a law which prohibit the use of non-Estonian names. The law called Nimeseadus, 15.12.2004, all family names and personal names which are not Estonian are banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The act is here and it bans nothing. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 5-2: Eestikeelse isikunime kirjapilt peab vastama eesti õigekirjutuse reeglitele. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This sentence is specifically about "Estonian-language names". What it means is when you name your kid Kätlin (eestikeelne isikunimi) then you have to spell it (kirjapilt) as Kätlin (eesti õigekirjutuse reeglite järgi) and not (for example) Catlyn. The sentence right after that says " Võõrkeelse isikunime kirjapilt peab vastama asjaomase keele õigekirjutuse reeglitele." Obviously non-Estonian names aren't banned if it's required that they be spelled correctly. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, this "prohibition" (which is hardly ever followed) was mainly intended against the "hip" parents who give their kids names that are in no particular language at all, often using English names in particularly interesting orthography (e.g. Džeims 'James', Džimmy 'Jimmy', Ändrew, Käthyriin 'Catherine', etc.). The most widespread first names in Estonia are still Russian, though they've been in a slight decline for some time. (Last year I studied some data from Statistics Estonia for a little publication that was never published, and if I'm not mistaken, the most popular ladies' name was Anna, Tatjana being second or third, and Maria trailing close behind; for men, the first were Ivan, Vladimir and Jaan, as far as I recall.) --Oop (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Riigiteataja
Couldn´t find that, but it is important, so it should be added somewhere. home page Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

illegally annexed
oh, yes, I am pretty sure, whenever URSS annexed something was illegal, the rest of "annexions" are quite legal, is there any "leagl annexation" that could be shonw as example? The term "illegally" must be removed from that sentence or should be incorporated to the whole wikipedia, for any action in which one army enters the territory of another estate or province.

E.g, the cro-magnon tribes illegally entered the lands of neanderthal tribes; this was the cause of a widely media commented trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.72.61 (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

illegally annexed (reply)
The annexation of Texas by the U.S. was legal as the Texans themselves wanted to be a part of the Union. Just... for example... so no, they shouldn't remove the word "illegal".
 * Since this is sitting out here, undated, prior to the 20th century, war was an accepted and legal means for settling differences, so this is just more "NO! WAIT! THE U.S. IS THE EVIL POWER!" whining typical of the stuff we hear from the Russian Foreign Ministry and Russian state media. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

illegally annexed (reply to reply)
The first poster is right. For the point of view of sentence structure and the need to avoid nonsense constructions, "illegal annexation" is not good, since it leaves open the intepretation that there is such a thing as legal annexation.

Annexation suffices. If Vecrumba's objection is to be taken seriously, and it is (I am actually on his side), then we should use a phrase such as "annexation in contravention of international law". Forcible incorporation has always worked nicely as one alternative, or as a way to expand this explanation. --Sean Maleter (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Jews
The article has a link to every single minority in Estonia's population except one; Jews. Under "Demographics" it reads "The largest minority groups in 1934 were Russians, Germans, Swedes, Latvians, Jews, Poles, Finns and Ingrians. " with a link to every single one of those populations except the Jews.

Such obvious and blatant discrimination by someone who somehow considers itself intellectual enough to be writing in Wikipedia at all is quite offensive and should never be tolerated. It comes as even worst being that the Estonian Jews where targets of discrimination throughout all of history and that population has been nearly totally wiped out of Estonia precisely due to intolerance. Anti-Semites are the ones who should not be tolerated, not Jews and not any ethnic or religious population or nationality.

It should be noted that no mention whatsoever exists to why the Jews have ceased to be an important minority in Estonia, which by the way, wasn't through very normal circumstances. I would write about it myself but prefer someone who is better educated in the subject to do so.


 * No need to be hysterical about a random act of vandalism committed sometime after 23:31, 22 January 2011 (I didn't care to pinpoint who exactly did this). There are and will always be anti-Semites, anti-Estonians, anti-Americans, etc. If one cannot handle this calmly, one may die of heart attack soon. As for "Jews have ceased to be an important minority in Estonia", I have two bullets to list:
 * See Holocaust in Estonia and History of the Jews in Estonia, ling time ago written by "someone who is better educated in the subject" and less nervous.
 * about "important minority" - please keep in mind that if you continue poking into everyones' faces that the Jews are "important" or "Chosen People", then anti-Semitic crowds will only grow.
 * So much fuss about unnoticed vandalism, sheesh! Kérek kerék kerek (talk)

GDP data in $ ?
Now that Estonia joined the Eurozone it should certainly have its economic figures displayed in €..Lhoaxt (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that bears any relevance to how the data is displayed. The Germany and France articles also display the value in $. tty29a:talk 17:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I guess, the data for varuius countries are shown in the same currency unit for ease of comparison. An additional benefit is this would eliminate braintwisting math related to conversion rate fluctuations, which may be significant over time. Kérek kerék kerek (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

History section cleanup
There were two history sections in this article, one containing a very short summary and the other one consisting of several subsections on different time periods. For the time being, I placed the first section as the lead paragraph of the second section. However, the history section may now be somewhat against WP standards for country articles, hence I added the cleanup tag. Rain74 (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a duplicate information in the history section. Being bold I replaced the small part with etymology, this seems to be a common design for Northern country articles. FinnishDriver (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The short summary version used to belong to the lead section of the article but for some reason (length?) was moved into a separate section. I understand the actions of you both – that section looked redundant and out of place. However, there still should be a paragraph or more about the history of Estonia in the lead section. So, should we just place the deleted summary back there or better, is there perhaps someone willing to rewrite it more concisely? —Quibik (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

National dress/fiber arts
Do any editors have references that provide any information about Estonian national dress? I have a couple of books on Estonian lace (a huge fad among knitters in the anglosphere, incidentally), but nothing on the country's traditional dress itself. I'd like to see where lace fits into traditional fiber arts so I can create a section that is inclusive of all native Estonian fiber arts. If anyone knows of a reference, could you let me know on my talk page? Thanks! --NellieBly (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This, this, this, and this may be a start. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've ordered the lace books from Amazon and will write something up once they arrive, so I can get proper attribution. You'd be surprised by how popular Estonian lace has suddenly become among knitters here in Canada. --NellieBly (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Religous trend?
What's the religious trend in Estonia? Is religion increasing or decreasing? If it reaches over 90% that would be a good case for the first atheist state.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.149.241 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not the highest amount of internet freedom in the world
I removed a sentence from near the beginning of the article which claimed that Estonia has the highest amount of Internet Freedom in the world. The source for this only looked at 15 countries, and said that Estonia has the highest amount of internet freedom among those 15 countries. I'm not sure that this is worth having in the article, so I removed it. Feel free to rewrite this to match the source and put it back in, if it is worth keeping. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

POV
I'm not an expert on this topic, otherwise I'd rewrite parts of this section myself, but the current version deffinitely doesn't have an NPOV tone. Some examples:

"In August 1940, Estonia was illegally annexed by the Soviet Union as the Estonian SSR.[49] The provisions in the Estonian constitution requiring a popular referendum to decide on joining a supra-national body were ignored. Instead the vote to join the Soviet Union was taken by those elected in the sham elections held in the previous month."

"Contemporary Russian politicians deny that the Republic of Estonia was illegally annexed by the Soviet Union in 1940. They state that the Soviet troops had entered Estonia in 1940 following the agreements and with the consent of the government of the Republic of Estonia, regardless of how their actions can be interpreted today. They maintain that the USSR was not in a state of war and was not waging any combat activities on the territory of Estonia; therefore there could be no occupation. The official Soviet and current Russian version claims that Estonians voluntarily gave up their statehood. Freedom fighters of 1944–1976 are labeled "bandits" or "nazis". The Russian position is not recognised internationally.[53]"

It's not for Wikipedia to assert what constitutes a "sham election" or who is or isn't a "freedom fighter." We can report what historians on both sides say and let readers come to their own conclusion. As it's written now though, it has a clearly biased tone. -Helvetica (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * On this issue there is consensus among historians, there is no reliably published source that takes the contrary position. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Among Estonian historians? Maybe. But not among Russian ones.--Reciprocist (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't make sense
The first sentence in the German Occupation section does not make sense:

After the invasion of the Germany on 22 June 1941

Any ideas on how it should be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emarinuk es (talk • contribs) 11:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Erko the Estonian
Can someone please delete this joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.87.228.66 (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Human rights section
Seems Estonia is the only country article that has "Human rights" as a sub-section, seems undue in comparison so I have removed it. --Nug (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion
Er, if someone has time, this source may be useful for Estonia or Demographics_of_Estonia:



— Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:RR front view.jpg
The file File:RR front view.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:RR front view.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Tallinn Synagogue - from Commons.jpg
The file File:Tallinn Synagogue - from Commons.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Tallinn Synagogue - from Commons.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Schengen Area
The map of the Schengen Area does not match the map on the Schengen Area page. Perhaps it is out of date? 119.149.11.57 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

OECD Data About Estonia
This latest report covers a lot of useful economic, social, and political details (http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/estonia/)--Zurkhardo (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge the Republic of Estonia (1918–1940) article with Estonia, as an article under that title implies the republic ceased to exist in 1940 while it actually did not. The Estonia article is a much higher quality article about the very same republic in question. Also, virtually no articles link to that article. Thanks. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, an unsourced redundant content FORK of the article Estonia. --Nug (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nordic
Our anon Norwegian IP does have it right, actually, 99% of WP:OR Estonia being Nordic based on who conquered who also applies to Latvia. I'd suggest not reverting it back, I'll post something reasonable. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? Only one statement of the section applies for Latvia ("...was part of the Swedish Empire...") and even that for a 68 years shorter period than for northern Estonia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Come now, nearly nothing in the section states "Nordic", it WP:OR creates Nordic by implications which would also include making the Latvians "Nordic".
 * Many Estonians consider themselves to be Nordic rather than Baltic. -- No references to any ESTONIAN opinions polls etc. at all in this section
 * The term Baltic as a concept to group Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia has been criticized, as what the three nations have in common almost wholly derives from shared experiences of occupation, deportation, and oppression; -- Criticized by who? Just explain the origin: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania were the (on the) "Baltic states" which gained freedom from Russia. It was the Soviet occupation which cemented the term not including Finland. As for commonality, as I understand it, the vaunted Finnish sauna actually originated with the Latvians. This statement is shallow "not like them" at best. I personally find it intellectually offensive being presented as encyclopedic scholarship.
 * What Estonia does not share with Latvia and Lithuania is a common identity or language group. -- "Not Baltic Peoples" does not mean "Nordic instead", it means Finno-Ugric.
 * The term Balts does not apply to Estonians. The Estonian language is closely related to the Finnish language, not to the Baltic languages and Estonians, as an ethnic group, are a Finnic people. -- Who is confusing Baltic states (which included all four originally) with all four being ethnically the same?
 * The northern part of Estonia was part of medieval Denmark during the 13th-14th centuries, being sold to the Teutonic Order after St. George's Night Uprising in 1346. The name of the Estonian capital, Tallinn, is thought to be derived from the Estonian taani linn, meaning 'Danish town' (see Flag of Denmark for details). Parts of Estonia were under Danish rule again in the 16th-17th centuries, before being transferred to Sweden in 1645. Estonia was part of the Swedish Empire from 1561 until 1721. The Swedish era became colloquially known in Estonia as the "good old Swedish times".-- so what? Denmark and Sweden muddled beyond Estonia and the Latvians refer to Swedish rule exactly the same way. And for that period, Riga was the largest port in the Swedish Empire, so Estonia was rather a hanger-on.
 * Swedish ambassador, Mr. Dag Hartelius's speech on the Estonian Independence day, February 24, 2009, where he considered Estonia "A Nordic Country" gathered a lot of attention in the country and was widely considered as a great compliment. -- "views of others", OK suitably positioned
 * Additionally, the foreign trade minister of Finland, Alexander Stubb, has been quoted saying that Estonia is a "Distinct Nordic country". -- "views of others", OK suitably positioned.
 * Beginning from the 14th century, parts of Estonia’s north-western coast and islands were colonized by ethnic Swedes, who later became known as the Estonian Swedes. The majority of Estonia's Swedish population fled to Sweden in 1944, escaping the advancing Soviet Army. -- Doesn't make Estonia Nordic, especially as they all left. My lineage includes Swedish colonists as well (Ķulle being my mother's maiden name, a distinct and not that common Swedish surname), and there's some Danish in there as well as Liv, doesn't make me Nordic. Where's ANY content that the Estonians themselves self-identify as a "Nordic" people?
 * In 2005, Estonia, joined the European Union's Nordic Battle Group. -- On the other hand, Estonia is merely an observer state to the Nordic council, as are Latvia and Lithuania.
 * I rewrote the section, but it's on another computer at the moment, which deletes most of all this stuff that has nothing to do with Estonia being "Nordic.:" Once we have what's left, rather than exclaiming incredulity, how about some content about what the Estonians say. All this content (that's directly pertinent) proves at the moment that "Estonia=Nordic" is a term with some political significance.
 * I'm not being combative here. I am completely agnostic with regard to Estonian self-identification. It is right and proper to accentuate the much closer connection to Finland than to Latvia and Lithuania, but this section as it stands comes across as cobbled-together crap desperately attempting to imply a point. I'll post my update tonight, sleep on it, and PLEASE look for sources which discuss what the Estonians themselves say (preferably not government officials or politicians). And if they think of themselves as "Finnic" (I'd be rather surprised if they don't), that does not mean "Nordic by association" either.
 * And, as for "X" by association, remember, even while being a full member, Finland was not a founding member of the Nordic council and, as I understand it, Finnish is not one of the official council languages, those being the languages of the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish peoples--all Germanic languages and cultures as unrelated to Finns and Estonians as Finns and Estonians are to Latvians and Lithuanians.
 * So, in the end, currently, we have ONE Swede (government=political) and ONE Finn (government=political) considering Estonia and Estonians to be Nordic-like--in comments directed to an Estonian audience. That hardly qualifies as scholarship demonstrating Estonia is Nordic.VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a different story now from 'Our anon Norwegian IP does have it right, actually, 99% of WP:OR Estonia being Nordic based on who conquered who also applies to Latvia. I'd suggest not reverting it back,'. That is simply not how we handle such material in Wikipedia. A 'This section needs sources' tag will suffice for a reasonable time to find sources. Perhaps the author would like to comment as well. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so much (different story), all the content about Estonians not being Latvians/Lithuanians doesn't do anything to advance the Nordic case, we've always known that, and, besides, "Baltic state" originally referred to all four, and "Baltic state" never meant all inhabited by Balts. (BTW, "Balts" actually originally meant Baltic Germans only.) The rest of it is about being conquered by Nordic countries implying Nordic identity by some sort of assimilation. That's no different than the Soviet propaganda machine churning out stuff about centuries of close friendship, cooperation, and cultural exchange with the Russian people. In the end, we have one statement each from a Swedish and Finnish politician. I have no desire to be harsh, but this advocacy for a Nordic identity is hardly encyclopedic and, frankly, sounds more like content by an Estonian with an axe to grind against their neighbors to the south. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that in its current unsourced state it sounds like propagandist OR. In any case, this subsection seems out of place being in the "History" section. If it were to remain it probably should be in the "Culture" section, I found this: "In terms of culture, Estonians feel closest to their Nordic neighbours: in a survey conducted in 1993, 90% of the native Estonian respondents cited the Nordic countries as having common cultural features with Estonia. The other Baltic countries were mentioned by 57%, Germany by 41%, and Russia by 7% of the native Estonian respondents." I would hazard to guess that the majority of survey respondents were thinking of Finland when asked about their closeness to their "Nordic neighbours". --Nug (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked back through article history, this started as wholly unsourced section created by an anon Estonian IP (88.196.84.116) drive-by with no editing of anything before or since. Nug's solution is far more academic and I support that solution to the issue as it is the first thing anyone has provided that contains anything about the Estonians by the Estonians with regard to the topic at hand. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Article size
Has previously been brought up but to no response. This article is fairly long, and would need to be reduced in size. It's currently around 162 kb, and would be much more readable if it were between 90 and 120. Any objections to transfer some of the information to main articles ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 13:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Russia is 22K longer. I suppose the prose could be tightened a bit, but I wouldn't start cutting content, all the sections already have one of more main articles. We are an encyclopedia after all. :-) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but Russia is a much larger country with much more significant points to address, such that can't be ignored. The history section here, especially the events after the DoI and up until the country's modern history is somewhat hard to read, and includes a lot of details that contribute little to the general understanding of the events - like the leader of the Soviet militia during the invasion. Details on mobilisation, repressions and other developments in the war can be fitted into two or three sentences. Though the history section is OK, for the most part. Which can't be said for those about Military and Economy. Meetings with W. on e-infrastructure and economic history really take too much space. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it is the war and particularly the long 50 year occupation which brings a degree of note to the country. If not for that it would be just another boring country like Belgium (and that article is only slightly smaller at 144k). Perhaps the section "Estonia as a Nordic country" could be moved into Culture of Estonia, as it seems out of place in the history section. --Nug (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to rewrite the whole thing, I'm just saying that all this can be said in three or four paragraphs at most, the content itself will remain the same. The Nordic vs. Baltic country debate certainly isn't for there, but it can be introduced as a paragraph in Politics, because it is mostly of political worth. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that the article Bulgaria is 144k in size. This article is only 18k bigger. Given that Soviet occupation figured so predominantly in the history of this country and one of the factors that led to the Cold War, I don't think the extra 18k is particularly onerous. --Nug (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but if you notice, of those 144 kb about 40 are formatted citations. Just saying that there's a lot of unnecessary details that could easily go to the main pages, while the rest of the text can be made easier to navigate without losing much content. I just think the article could easily achieve GA status, and improving flow would be vital for that. I'll copy the section to one of my sandboxes and make some edits there that can be discussed. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm certain we're all supportive of achieving GA status. I still don't think the current size is necessarily an impediment, particularly if 40K are citations then there's only 100K of content. Do you have a current country GA article or two in mind which you can cite as an example? I think that would help in terms of identifying any potential streamlining. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Israel is an excellent article, and even if it's not GA-marked, it grasps every major aspect of the country without being too lengthy. Republic of Ireland has a similar structure like Estonia and would also be a good example. Same would go for Zimbabwe, even though it's a bit dated. I'd give Bulgaria as an example as well, although it's currently in the works to meet FA criteria and there have been a lot of changes since it received GA status. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 18:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, don't cut the history texts shorter. It would be Russia's dream come true to hide certain things. ☣☣☣'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxnmxxx (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm chiming in a bit late in this discussion, perhaps, but I thought I'd give it my two cents since I've actually reflected on the very same thing (first as a reader and since recently as a wikipedia user). I agree with Tourbillon that the article could be much more concise at least in some areas. I think it would only benefit; after all, the reader who is interested in a certain aspect will anyhow probably access the main article, for example "Geography of Estonia". More specifically, I think that the section about Estonia as a Nordic country should be moved to "Culture of Estonia" (the issue is by the way already addressed under Politics->Foreign relations on the main Estonia page, so in any case it's superfluous). The section about family welfare benefits could probably also be moved to a more fitting location. I do however agree that very great care should be taken not to do anything rash about the history section as it is sensitive (and I gladly leave this to others). A question related to this; I notice that there is a fair share of vandalism coming from unregistered users every now and then; isn't it possible (and if so, is it desirable?) to mark the article as semi-protected? I've noticed that several country articles are semi-protected. I also think that in some sections, there are unnecessarily many pictures and it seems cluttered (like the Religion or Culture sections); it would be more effective with fewer, really good and perhaps larger pictures - but that's a bit of a taste thing I guess.Yakikaki (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Language
Hello, I think a tiny edition may be made in this sentence: "The Estonians are a Finnic people, and the official language, Estonian, is closely related to Finnish." I think this sentence does not contain enough information, because in my opinion it should also be mentioned that the Estonians speak a Finno-Ugric language that is also related to Hungarian. They separated thousands of years ago and modern Estonian bears much more resemblance to Finnish but the Finno-Ugric relation is still there and these languages share the same basic grammar structure that differs from that of Indo-European. I think this is an information worth to include, so I make this little edition. I am a new and inexperienced Wikipedian so please help me if I do something wrong. StarOfFlames (talk) 8:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an underlying conflict on the part of some folks preferring to call Estonians (and Finns) Finnic as opposed to Finno-Ugric. There's no debate over the Finno-Ugric origin, however. Personally I agree that Finnic as opposed to Finno-Ugric is too restrictive and smacks a bit of elitism. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, the Finnic is one of he two main branches of the Finno-Ugric family, namely the Finnic and the Ugric but debating the name is like debating whether Indo-European should be called Indian and European. I am no expert. But calling this branch "Finnic" as a stand-alone language family seems illogical to me. The languages of European Finno-ugric peoples are not just simply related, they resemble each other, the grammatical structure, the words, the cases, the conjugation. I am Hungarian and I can find words I understand in written Finnish and Estonian. StarOfFlames (talk) 11:16, 02 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Finnic languages are a generally recognised language group. This the smallest branch Estonian belongs to, so, without losing recognisability the current statement is as specific as it gets and therefore the best. Otherwise, why not argue for Uralic languages? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the sentence should go like this: "Estonian is one of the languages of the Finnish branch of the Finno-Ugric family, closely related to Finnish and also, to Hungarian". I think this really should be mentioned because the point is that these languages are isolated among the vast number of Indo-European languages. As there are only a few Finno-Ugric languages in current Europe, I think the Estonian language being related to Hungarian is an important detail. StarOfFlames (talk) 12:26, 01 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, someone edited the sentence in question without leaving a note here. Please notify others before editing Wikipedia, it's common courtesy to do so. StarOfFlames (talk) 13:29, 09 December 2012 (UTC)