Talk:Estonians

Untitled
see mena suvari tuleb sealt kiiresti ära koristada. ja üealegi on seal kogu valik täiesti vale. aga pole hullu, kyll ma teen uue

I'm sorry, my estonian is not that good, but since this is the english wikipedia, i'd hope you could please translate your comment into english, thank you. Epf 20:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Mena Suvari
I have removed the photograph of Mena Suvari from this page. I have done so because this article is about Estonians - not people of Estonian ancestry. The page is entitled Estonians, not "People with some Estonian background". I can tell you, that as an Estonian, I view her as an American (which she most definitely is). If you wish to place her picture on a page, place it on a page of List of Estonian Americans or Estonian-American. This article is not about "descent" as you claim, but is entitled Estonians, not "People who have some tentative "ethnic" connection twice removed from Estonia". This page deals with Estonian nationals and emigrés, and Suvari is neither. She doesn't belong on this page any more than her picture should be on the main page for Greeks. There are far better examples of actual Estonians to represent Estonians than a foreigner of rather tentative connections to the country. Just as an aside, you are Canadian, correct? Would you place the photograph of some popular Quebec celebrity of half Swedish, half Quebecoise on the page of French people? ExRat 08:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This page is not about simply Estonian nationals, it is about ethnic Estonians, that is those who identify with the Estonian ethnic group (based on common culture, language and common descent). When you are of significant Estoninan ancestry/descent/ethnic origin, you alrady have ethnic traits (biological, psycho-behavioural, linguistic, religious, cultural, etc.) associated with other ethnic Estonians. She is an American, but that is based on nationality, not ethnicity, since there is really no unified "American" ethnic group. Just because you are born or live in a certain nation, does not mean your own familial culture and descent is somehow negated or you automaticcaly become part of another ethnic group. This article deals with ethnic Estonians in Estonia and those outside Estonia as well as their descendants who still reatin significant Estonian heritage or descent. Her father was an ethnic Estonian from Estonia and therfore she is half-Estonian, and due to the very recent and significant heritage of such, clearly retains many ethnic elements. Of course you want alot of indigenous ethnic Estonians from or living in Estonia represented since they maintain all the ethno-cultural traits, but this doesn't mean you exclude those of Estonian heritage outside of Estonia.

And, I am a Canadian national, but few people here identify as Canadian ethnically or in terms of actual ethnic origin since we're one of, if not the, most diverse and multicultural societies on the planet, and still have various indigenous/abroginal Canadian ethnic groups which retain their identities across the country. Canada rightly values diversity and multi-culturalism and thats perhaps what is most unifying about our country. Ethnically, I consider myself of British and Italian descent as you can see on my user page. I have many ethnic traits (especially from the Italian side) I don't share for example with French-Canadians (French-Canadian Quebecois included), Portuguese-Canadians, Aboriginal Canadians, Chinese-Canadians, "African"-Canadians etc. Epf 04:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying to me what an Estonian is :) I was very amused. Firstly, I dare you to add her photograph to the main page of list of Greek people and see what reception you get. Secondly, how do you know what "ethnic elements" she retains? Thirdly, there is no such thing as "being of significant Estonian ancestry" and having some inborn, innate predisposition psycho-behavioural traits. That is just ridiculous. So, tell me, what behavioural traits do we Estonians biologically have that separate us from others? What innate, inborn psychological traits does Mena Suvaru have from having an Estonian-born father? Absurd.


 * As I have already stated, her photograph doesn't belong on this page any more than it does on the main page for Greek people. There are plenty of actual noteworthy and successful Estonians who better represent Estonians than some American actress of tentative Estonian connections. I think many Estonians find this sort of disregard insulting. I have reverted. ExRat 06:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

1)I would add her to the Greek people page and not be afraid to do so, but they already have enough variety of celebrity photos to fill the up the space 2)I can somewhat tell what ethnic elements she retains because it takes quite a degree of time and intermarriage to "lose" most of them, but she is first generation, her own living father an ethnic Estonian from Estonia, so obviously she retains a singificant degree of these traits. 3)Yes, there is a thing of being of significant Estonian descent that is usually having at least a quarter of such or more, but "significant" is obviously a subjective term. There are obviously inherited genotypic and phenotypic traits associated with ethnicity, and you sound ridiculous if you dis agree with such. Despite this though, we also learn various ethno-cultural traits from our parents and other family, including psycho-behavioural ones since we spend most of our important (younger) developing years around those who we descend from (our family). Obviously there are some traits which have higher averages amongst some groups of peoples than others, and if one were to make a detailed analysis of such (and some have been made) I guarantee you would see which traits are more prevalent among some populations (ethnic groups, "races", etc.) than others. Oh and BTW, nationality obviously is separate in most cases from ethnicity and ethnic groups/peoples are spread across national or political borders.

I have stated that yes you could find better candidates who are of full Estonian descent and from Estonia that would better represent the page because they retain all or a great majority of ethnic Estonian characterisitics. However, I havent found such on Wikipedia and Mena Suvari is ethnically half Estonian with her own living father she was raised by an ethnic Estonian from Estonia. Also, she is a famous actor and there aren't many other known Estonian-American actors or actresses in hollywood as well known as her and I don't think many Estonians would be disgusted but that the vast majority would in fact be proud that she is of Estonian heritage and proudly acknowledges such. Ciao, Epf 07:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, thank you ever so much for telling me all about Estonians and what they believe and what they are comprised of. So, this is the criteria for inclusion now - what Epf can determine by looking at someoen what "traits" they have? Also, if you can not find a better candidate to represent Estonians for this page (or any other) then why don't you let an Estonian gauge that? Because I can tell you that I can think of plenty with Wiki bios.


 * I also never said whatsoever that their is no such thing as being of Estonian descent - I said there is no such thing as an innate, inborn "psycho-behavioural" trait common to any ethnic group, and for you to say so is ridiculous. Why don't you concentrate more on subject matters you are more familiar with, such as Canadians?


 * I also never said Estonians were "disgusted" by her. I said that it is offensive for someone (a non-Estonian) to try to determine for us who best typifies an "Estonian". But, it was nice for you to speak for all Estonians about how we feel about Mena Suvari.


 * I will reiterate, how do you know what traits she has? Somehow you are able to determine a person's traits you don't even know and that should be good criteria for inclusion in an encylopaedia?


 * And lastly, the page doesn't need another photo anyway - it makes the box far too large and look bulky. ExRat 09:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I again tell you that there are others who may be better candidates but none that I've seen with valid photos. Also, Wikipedia is for everyone, but I am very interested in anthropology and have been so for quite some time, especially European peoples. I am not saying who should be included, I am only saying what traits are associated with descent and therfore with ethnic identity.

2) I never said that there is an "innate, inborn 'psycho-behavioural' trait common to any ethnic group", but there are psycho-behavioural and other cultural traits which are learned/passed down via your family/ancestors which are common to various ethnic groups. The fact you disagree with this is amusing to me and I wonder if you know what behavioural psychology or even ethnicity is. I am focusing on matters I am most familiar with: anthropology and European ethnic groups.

3) I am not trying to best typify what an Estonian is, I'm merely saying her photo can be included since she is ethnically Estonian, being half ethnic Estonian descent. She also helps resemble the significant Estonian diaspora and their presence elsewhere in the world.

4) I only know what traits she has because she is of very recent Estonian descent and identifies at least in part as ethnically Estonian. Obviously she has the genotypic/phenotypic traits which are genetically inherited, but also at least the psycho-behavioiural traits which would not somehow "disappear" after only one generation. I am able to deduce this because she acknowledges herself she is half-Estonian and her father is an ethnic Estonian from Estonia.

5)Finally it may look too large but the photo in turn exemplifies a very notable Estonian and the Estonian diaspora. Epf 10:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, how do you know what "psycho-behavioural and other cultural traits" Suvari has? Simply because she has an Estonian-born father means little. How do you know what suposed "psycho-behavioural traits" she has that are "typical" of Estonians? Have you met her? What "behavioural" traits does she have that you are able to pin-point as "Estonian behavioural traits"? This has become nothing more than a a North American's stereoyping and generalisation of various nationalities and I find it ridiculous. I am very interested to learn from you what "psycho-behavioural traits" we Estonians all share. Please, enlighten me.


 * Also, for someone who is studying anthropology, you seem to have a very loose interpretation of what defines ethnicity and seem to enjoy the idea that there are somehow specific blanket terms that can be claimed as "traits" to sum up entire peoples. I would call this POV and against Wiki policy. ExRat 03:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know which exact traits she has, but I do know she does have them considering her father is an indigenous ethnic Estonian from Estonia (therefore she automatically has the common descent and at least some associated traits), and he was not simply a national or person born in Estonia. I havent met her but she acknowledges her Estonian heritage proudly and in any case, everyone has these traits associated with a common descent since they are not easily lost, and definitely not after only one generation. I again can not pin-point what these traits exactly are but obviously they are there since they exist with all peoples of a common descent.  This is nowhere near some "North American's stereotyping and generalisation of various nationalities" and is based on anthropological and biological facts held anywhere. Also, I point out that we are talking about ethnic Estonians, based on identifcation of common elements of culture and descent (and traits associated with such). I told you before I do not exactly know what psycho-behavioural traits ethnic Estonians mainly show on average (this doesnt include other people who are born in Estonia that do not share the common descent all ethnic Estonians share and are therefore not ethnic Estonians), but they obviously do exist since all ethnic Estonians are indigenous to Estonia and can trace a shared genealogy.


 * I am someone who has long had a passion for this subject area and I have a very accurate and widely accepted interpetation of what defines ethnicity. It is a population that identifies with each other based on common descent and various traits (genotypic/phenotypic, cultural, linguistic, psycho-behavioural, familial/traditoinal, etc.) which may or may not be associated with such. I would call this widely held scientific opinion as well as verified fact that is in no way against Wikipedia's policy. It is only at odds with your own issues on the subject area for some bizarre reasons. Ciao, Epf 08:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mena Suvari is less Estonian than Winston Churchill was American. Winston Churchill's mother was an American, and he could speak the language of both of his parents. There is no evidence of Mena Suvari's command of Estonian and Greek languages. Cheers, --3 Löwi 09:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm, his mother was an American national, but she wasn't simply "American" and I believe was mainly Dutch and British descent. In any case, she is half-Estonian and I don't believe she can speak Estonian fluently, but so what, she still probably knows many phrases most non-Esontinans dont know and probably has other traditional/familial, cultural, behavioural, religous and/or genotypic/phenotypic traits assoicated with ethnic Estonians (especially since shes first generation, her father an ethnic Estonian emigrant from Estonia). Epf 04:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your conversation is very interesting. It seems that in USA people are proud of their origins but in Europe a serious study about these subjects it could be understood as too 'volkish' (demagogical nationalism). I am european but in this subject I am pro USA.

Well, in Estonia I'd say that we usually don't perceive emigré Estonians as Estonians anymore. After all, the immigration-based countries as Canada or Australia, but most of all and especially USA are real meltpots, where people simply lose their nationality, previous culture, language simply within few generations, probably much faster.

Estonia is a nation-state. It's deeply encoded into our constitution:) So I think that we get to decide ourselves who are Estonians and who aren't. It's not just blood or your grandparent's birth certificate. It's also very much about language, culture, beliefs. And people on the other side of the globe, who only speak English, have some very blurry idea about where Estonia is situated at, know absolutely nothing about Estonian culture, and most of all - are not returning anymore - if they don't want to live in Estonian's own nation-state then it's safe to say that they're happily been transformed into anonymus yankees or canucks, who's heritage isn't more than another smalltalk subject over coffee. (It turned out bit too strong, but reality always bites) Sorent 00:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Canada
The page says, some 30,000 Estonians live in Canada. That is also the number widely acknowledged in Estonia. But the homepage of the Estonian Central Council in Canada says, only 10,848 Estonians do live in Canada - http://www.ekn.ca/edemog.php. So, which number is more accurate? 87.119.165.214 11:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The 10,848 one. I know, because I live in Canada. Most people here who are from Eastern Europe are Russian, Polish, Croatian and Ukrainian. --24.87.7.43 21:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)ggg

Ethnic or citizenship? Ethnic Estonians 10848, people who were citizens of Estonia before coming to Canada 30000 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox
For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all Infobox Ethnic group infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to table up right
The claim about 20 000 estonians in Brazil is hugely different of whats given by any serious source (let's only take Hill Kulu's "Eestlased maailmas"). The number was accounted to be more than 10x less at its peak, currently - could somebody give some newest info? It seems that historically instead in that place should stand Australia, which was alongside (although with some difference) with US, CA and SE one of the most popular places of residence since 1950s. In Australia however, assimilation is been the strongest and the number was accounted to 6-6,5 th.. Newer (2,5 th.) is a reference to birthplace.

Thus I made some changes here according to fastest found solid source in net - a work on about a bit different matter (Inga Kask "Eestlaste tagasiränne Eestisse ..." is about the re-emigration to Estonia since 1990s), because it's addition (Lisa 1 starting at page 90)

http://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/10062/1297/5/kaskinga.pdf

Another change concerns the matter discussed previously here about 10 000 or 30 000 estonians in Canada. Due the assimilation the number of estonian diaspora has obviously diminished strongly during years and numbers, which once were valid, shrink (exception - new emigration into Finland since 1990s). How many of them should be accounted as estonians or instead only as people with estonian heritage, is, well, sadly a thematics which is and will be discussable whilest data sources do not explain fully the backgrounds of the respondents. Took here the middle way and made 30 000 to 22 000 according to referred source, which is using THIS: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/themes/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2001&PID=62911&APATH=3&GID=431515&METH=1&PTYPE=55440&THEME=44&FOCUS=0&AID=0&PLACENAME=0&PROVINCE=0&SEARCH=0&GC=99&GK=NA&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=&FL=0&RL=0&FREE=022,085

as its source.

But i'm sure that when somebody starts with an article about estonians in Canada, this should be discussed somewhat longer, whilest it's well possible that 10 000 is closer to reality today. Sadly don't know what's the source for EKN - some other study or only their networks (in the estonian societies).

Result is still somewhat different from the numbers in Estonian wiki

http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Väliseestlased

But it seems that in this question only a general fitting is possible, not exact matches.

Parakaru 08:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrival in Europe
Is there anything to support the rather bold claims that Estonians were among the first to arrive in Europe? I know that for every single people in Europe, there are some nationalists trying to show that "their" people were the first, best, largest etc. It's not very scientific and usually just gives a negative perception. If there's any source for these claims (except Kalevi Wiik, Ago Kunnap, Erich von Däniken and Monty Python), it should be inserted. JdeJ 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Using Lonely Planet as the source for claiming that Estonians are the oldest people in Europe is not a very good source. Especially not since the source doesn't even support that statement. Saying that any given group in Europe is older than any other is very dubious at best. People have mixed with each other in this continent for tens of thousands of years and to speak of one group of people having a well-defined ethnicity that they don't share with other peoples is simply not possible. The ancestors of the present inhabitants of Europe have not arrived in large Indo-European and [Finno-Ugric]] waves, the languages arrived that way and were taken up by the original peoples in the same way that the spread of English to Ireland didn't involve any mass influx of Englishmen (except in Northern Ireland) and the disapperance of Occitan and Breton in France was the consequence of language change, not population movements. Almost all Europeans are descendants of the many peoples who inhabited Europe before the arrival of all modern European languages (with the possible exception of Basque), making any claims for a certain ethnicity to be older than any other more a nationalist argument with little or no accuracy. JdeJ 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Older than any other"? Certainly not.  There had been people in many regions of Europe, even territories of what ended up becoming Estonia (modulo the geological changes) before.  These people in question were merely among earliest to settle in Europe, and then stay put.  Most of the other people whose descendants are currently settling Europe came in later waves; great numbers arrived even after the Roman times.


 * And the reasons for that are not really cultural nor tied to your supposed primacy in any way -- they're purely technological, and somewhat, geological. If there hadn't been the Baltic Sea (or, well, its precedent bodies of water), the Westward migration would have continued for some more time, and the settling would accordingly have taken more time.  If there hadn't been the Ice Age, the migration would have been faster, and so would have been the settling.  Similarly, if cold-tolerant breeds of grain had been available earlier, the settling, and population's expansion, would have been faster. Digwuren 05:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree that the claim about the Estonians being one of the first living in Europe is actually not what would be possible to confirm. Isn't the real claim in the traditional est. history been, that it's one of the ethnic groups living longest in the same area of Europe for some 5K years. I mean that the balto-finnic tribes (we hardly can tell them to be "estonians" then), who are generally considered to be the most important forefathers of todays estonians (i mean who form the ground for identity which makes a nation different from others, in est. case - roots of language, not that it should be the most close blood-relationship), arrived around this to the territory of Estonia (to say that they "arrived Europe" is absurd, whilest they are believed to come to here from a region in the east and southeast of Estonia but still an European region - right?). I think it's well noteworthy, that the forefathers of Estonians existed in these areas at the time the No 1 forefathers of Englishmen lived yet in continental Europe and the No 1 forefathers of Russians had'nt yet reached the Moscow.

Argues about "older" and "younger" nations and about who was first in Europe are however senseless; there just is no real possibility to make very direct parallels between some mentioned ethnic group in the past and today (only during the written history the germanic tribes have regrouped several times with some "nations" disappearing and other's emerging. There well might be possibilities to other modern nations to make claims for the heritage to some of them and so for a place "amongst eldest in Europe" as well - let's only mention the gothic theories). Neither is there any sure way to say, since when a nation actually can be considered to be the same nation which is known today. It's also possible to argue, that Estonians as a nation in the modern sense, emerged only at the 2. half of the 19. century; no matter that the roots of them can go back for long time.


 * By and large, I agree. Saying that Balto-Finnic peoples arrived in the area 5000 years ago is entirely possible, and well worth mentioning. Thanks to Martintg for finding a source for it. Saying that Estonians are older (or younger) than anybody else is much harder as it involves many of the questions addressed by Parakaru. When did a people really emerge? What constitues a people? etc. JdeJ 10:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think JdeJ has a point here. Simply because suggesting that the people living in the territory of modern Estonia were speaking Estonian about 5000 years ago, would be too far out. The solution is obviously not to refer to Estonians but proto-Estonians and proto-Estonian language, which would be factually correct. Going to look up the sources ASAP and add to the article. Also Digwuren, please consider that anything taken as common knowledge at the Tartu University for example could still require additional refs on WP.--Termer 20:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion/Culture
Most Ethnic Group articles on WP have a section (or at least a paragraph) about that group's religion(s) and cultural practices. I can't help but notice this article is lacking in those areas. It has a lot of history and generalizations ("similar to Germans", "identify with Finns", etc.), but there is very little specific information that describes Estonians. I would like to see information on religion, unique cultural practices, holidays, cuisine, etc.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 15:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Setolanders and Mordvins
Is there any connection found with closer linguistical than other Estonians with Seto kiil (language) and Ersa (Erza) language (kiel) or with Moksha (kiäl) language? At least village named Erzava was found in old Setoland. Connection with Erza? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.95.64 (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Estonians 5000 ago?
"Living in the same area for over 5000 years puts Estonians among the oldest nations in Europe". Unfortunately, someone has managed to dig up a loony reference for this piece of nonsense. I believe that anyone should realize that is it quite absurd to use a modern ethnic label for a Neolithic population. This kind of bizarre nationalist anachronism is a disgrace for Estonians, a people I personally love and appreciate. It might be possible that Finno-Ugrian linguistical ancestors of Estonians have lived in Estonia for 5000 years - but it is not uncontested (take a look on some recent studies of comparative linguists) - and in case, some linguistical Stone Age ancestors speaking some Proto-Fenno-Ugrian dialects cannot be considered as members of the Estonian nation in any sense. I am not going to touch a referenced detail, even if the reference is quite obviously ridiculous - but I hope someone will rewrite the part. Facts about linguistic and genetic roots of Estonians are of course essential, but they should not be presented in a completely garbled "we've been around for 5000 years" sense.--130.234.5.138 (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You got a point there that Estonians were not a nation 5000 years ago like any other modern nation is not the same as they were during the Neolithic period. At the same time it's a valid fact that proto-Estonians have lived in the region for at least 5000 years according to multiple sources.


 * Global issues : an introduction: An Introduction‎ - Page 199 by John L. Seitz: "Estonians have lived in this same spot next to the Baltic Sea for 5000 years.


 * The Handbook of the Former Soviet Union‎ - Page 80 by Michael Kort:"The Estonians have lived along the shores of the Baltic Sea for more than 5000 years"


 * The Nationalities Question in the Post-Soviet States: Edited by Graham Smith‎ - Page 129 by Graham Smith - Political Science - 1996: "The Estonians have lived in the territory now known as Estonia for some 5000 years"


 * Business in the Contemporary World‎ - Page 63 by Faculty of Administrative Studies, Bentley College, Ont.) York University" Estonians have been living along the coast of the Baltic Sea for more than 5000 years.

The point of this it seems is that permanent inhabitance of the territories of modern Estonia by the ancestors of modern Estonians dates back to 5000 years. And since WP is not about the "truth" but about WP:Verifiability I don't see any problems here. Other than calling it "Estonians" and "among the oldest nations". it should be simply replaced with "ancestors of Estonians" and "among the oldest permanent inhabitants", that should do it.--Termer (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Genetics
The recently available genetic data of Estonians has revealed that they are much more similar to Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles and some Russians than to the Finns, with whom Estonians share a similar language. http://www.ajakiri.ut.ee/438787

190.161.121.57 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say they're also close to many small western Finnic peoples with whom they do share common languages. So, it's the result of an old assimilation, and not of a new supestrate. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Estonians as an ethnic group
The current article uses in several places a construct "ethnic Estonians". What/who exactly is "ethnic Estonian"? On this page the concept seems to clearly stand for something primordial or given, even though the "Western" scholarship has widely discarded such views (for further discussion and references see Ethnic group and Talk:Ethnic_group). Is there any essence to that concept? And if not, why is it used here? Minff (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My guess is that "ethnic Estonians" has been used here to differentiate the Estonians as an ethnic group from lets say Estonian Swedes, Estonian Russians etc who are not ethnically Estonian but are Estonians due to their citizenship.--Termer (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say Estonians are the longest and most premordial ethnos that has an independant state (maybe I forgot somebody). Because their language is very old, and their state is very new. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You referred to people who are "ethnically Estonian". The question at hand is, what makes a person "ethnically Estonian"? The article implies, for example, that "modern Estonian had arrived to what is now Estonia by about 5000 years ago". Sorry, but you can't talk about "Estonians" even as a political national construct before the end of 19th century. Minff (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't say that "modern Estonian had arrived to what is now Estonia by about 5000 years ago" but that "the ancestors of modern (ethnic) Estonians arrived..." The question has been covered at Talk:Estonians and that's what the multiple published sources listed above say about the subject.--Termer (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I brought the "5000 years" issue up just as an example. But if one goes on with it, one might ask, why aren't other perspectives included in this piece? For example Ernest Gellner (Nationalism, 1997, p. 97), who has said that Estonians have no "navel", i.e. no prior "culture" (even though I'm not a fan of Gellner...). The current article implies very strong influences from the Soviet ethnography (headed by Yulian Bromley and Lev Gumilev) that would say also that ethnicity is something given and primordial; the same view is also used for political reasons by nationalist discourse (tying the "ever-lasting" ethnicity effectively to the national project). The "Western" school, though, is today overwhelmingly constructivist (e.g. Fredrik Barth, Eric Hobsbawm, etc.). Both sides are verifiable by references and therefore both sides are suitable for Wikipedia. Thus, my question is, why is the article so inclined to the primordial view, describing "ethnic Estonians" as something very rigid. And coming back to my primary question, what is the essence of the concept of "ethnic Estonians" in this article? (So, saying that "they are an ethnic group" won't do this time.) I thought that starting to edit the page myself before discussing the issue first would be kind of rude... Minff (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not that sure what exactly are you after here. Such things should be more or less self explanatory and in that respect this article is no exception from any other ethnic articles on Wikipedia, see for example the German People "are an ethnic group, in the sense of sharing a common German culture, descent, and speaking the German language as a mother tongue." etc. One could as easily say that about any ethnicity including Estonians -"are an ethnic group, in the sense of sharing a common Estonian culture, descent, and speaking the Estonian language as the mother tongue." In case such self evident thing is unclear in the article it could be easily spelled out.--Termer (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Believing that "Estonians have no "navel", i.e. no prior "culture"" according to Ernest Gellner like you mentioned would exclude the Estonian Culture from what defines this ethnicity of course. Then we'd be left with the Estonian language alone that defines it. Just that isn't a language an aspect of a culture? So I'm not that sure what is this Gellner talking about exactly.--Termer (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Minff, I am also at a loss for what exactly you are looking for. How exactly does this page differ from any other group of peoples (i.e. Poles, Germans, Zulus, etc.) identified as ethnic groups? What do you specifically object to with this article alone, as oppsed to other articles on other various ethnic groups? Estonians (as other ethnic groups) by and large, share a common hereditary descent, language and culture. If you take some issue with this article, surely you take umbrage at all pages describing a set of people as an "ethnic group", correct? Forgive me, but I am just very confused as to why you single this specific article out among many.
 * As far as Gellner's statement that Estonians have no "prior culture", this is absolutely absurd. Estonians have a very rich history of shared folk beliefs, music, a common religion prior to christianization, a common language, etc. This is obviously a "navel". ExRat (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess Minff has a point in there with "the "5000 years" issue...why aren't other perspectives included in this piece"? The cultural aspect could be better spelled out in the article perhaps, for example Estonians as one of the descendants of Baltic Finns share a common cultural heritage: the art of ancient "rune" (poem) singing in the Kalevala meter, estimated to be 2,500–3,000 years old. FFI see: --Termer (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, then the same problem applies to all of these "ethnic groups" pages. My aim is to point out the essentialist nature of the article, in that it implies that there is such a thing as "Estonian ethnicity" that is in some ways natural or primordial (e.g. referring to "ancestors of Estonians" is basically just it) and has existed through time. As I showed earlier, there are several views on the matter but only one (namely the popular one in Estonia as it provides legitimacy for the state) is provided in the article. While social constructionists and post-structuralists (which are, in my opinion, the dominant school of though on that matter at the moment) would view the claim that "Estonians" have lived in present-day Estonia for 5000 years as a clear example of construction of national history (as does Ernest Gellner), then essentialists and primordialists (e.g. abovementioned Soviet ethnographs), on the other hand, would agree with that 5000-year statement. The same goes for writing epics (like Kalevipoeg and Kalevala) and other myths. Anthony D. Smith, for example, has written quite a lot on that matter, e.g. see the article titled "The 'Golden Age' and National Revival" (1997). So, social constructionists would argue that ethnicity, just like nation, is inherently political and constructed.

Termer brought an example from an article about Germans, defining ethnicity as common culture, descent, and language. Descent, first of all, implies some common biological lineage (which is obviously quite problematic proposal). Secondly, culture and language are social constructions and thus not a priori given, i.e. one is not born with it, but socialized into it. That is not saying that prior culture did not exist (as culture is basically whatever people do), but that it was not tied to the political notion of ethnicity. Or, as said by Allan Hanson, "traditional culture" is an invention constructed for contemporary purposes rather than a stable heritage handed on from the past. So, ethnic-ties what?

And if a bit more accepted definition for ethnicity is needed, then according to Max Weber, for example, ethnicity is a subjective belief in common descent. That is to say that it's quite absurd to propose a clear blood lineage even in the case of a population of one million, as in the Estonian case (and well, the German example...).

And why did I take the issue up in this article and not anywhere else? Well, because by these parameters proposed above one could say that I am an "Estonian", as I speak the language, have been brought up surronded by the "national" culture, and have parents who identify themselves as Estonians. And yet, I do not regard ethnicity as a meaningful category and I was quite surprised by the essentialist claims of this article. That's the reason why I took the issue up here and not anywhere else.

PS. I could provide quite a number of references to books and articles to illustrate my point, as I'm just finishing a research paper on the notion of ethnicity. Minff (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I got it right, you have parents who identify themselves as Estonians but you don't, therefore the article here is invalid like any other entry on Wikipedia that discusses ethnic groups? Why don't you come up with some sources, lets see what those are saying and then I'd suggest taking it first to the article called Ethnic group, and once you have done and convinced the community that there is a point to this, we can redefine all articles on ethnic groups on Wikipedia. How is that for a plan?--Termer (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I got you right: the theoretical part I just explained above (with sources) is invalid just because of my explanation of why I asked the question I asked? If you read the article called Ethnic group, you can see different views on the construct called "ethnicity" present. That is not true for the article about "Estonians". Taking into account everything I have said, would you say that there is any valid ground for changing the essentialist article into one that maybe at least some of the contemporary social scientists would read without gasping for air? Please point to the flaw in my argumentation if you think I'm wrong. Minff (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, what we'd need here are WP:RS- reliable secondary published sources that present any alternative viewpoints that would define the ethnicity according the way you keep talking about.(which again I'm not so sure exactly what it is) After it's established what do those sources say exactly about the subject, all this can be added to the article as an alternative viewpoint. Please also see WP:SOURCE FFI how to edit wikipedia. There is Google books and google scholar where any material can be easily verified. So please do not hesitate to list the sources and point out what exactly are they saying about the subject. thanks! --Termer (talk) 04:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. regarding all different interpretation what an ethnic group means in general, than this can and should be explained in the main article -ethnic group. And since all those Estonians and Germans are still considered to be ethnic groups, the reader can find what it means exactly according to different viewpoints from the relevant article. This article is about Estonians, and anything written/published by WP:RS on this ethnic group would belong to this article.--Termer (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PPS On "culture and language are social constructions and thus not a priori given, i.e. one is not born with it, but socialized into it", of course, that is self explanatory. I'm sure nobody was born with this rune singing mentioned above or the language spoken but it was inherited from a generation to another.--Termer (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On your PPS: and yet, "common descent" implies just that. On the previous: Fair enough. And I can do just that as soon as the holidays kick in. Even if I have to publish a paper myself in order to put a decent reference in the text, although Gellner and Smith have covered the Estonian example somewhat in their books. PS. One ending note though: I'd rather that nobody would put words in my mouth that I haven't said (referring to "you have parents who identify themselves as Estonians but you don't" - excessive interpretation and thus flawed reasoning). Minff (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, it was suppose to be a question, not putting words in your mouth. you said your parents identify themselves as Estonians but you "do not regard ethnicity as a meaningful category" for yourself. Sorry but it reads like your parents consider themselves Estonians but you don't? Which would explain the point you're trying to make: "an ethnicity is just inherently political and constructed". On self published works please see WP:SELF.--Termer (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I said "I do not regard ethnicity as a meaningful category", period. Whether I regard it as relevant for myself, is a private matter; in that sentence it was about the overall meaningfulness of ethnicity as a means of categorization of people. But no worries.

PS. On self-referencing: It's actually quite funny that Wikipedia assumes that no "established expert" is willing to donate their time to developing the project. Minff (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you brought up your private matters as seemingly relevant example to this discussion and the subject. But I realize it was wrong to ask for further explanations on those questions in order to find out what exactly are you talking about, my apologies.--Termer (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox collage
Hey, I just noticed the collage in the infobox. I think it is generally well designed but not perfect. I agree with the inclusion of Koidula as the first Estonian poetess and a notable female figure for the world as well, and Meri as arguably the best-known Estonian statesman. However, I don't think Palusalu and Mägi are a perfect choice. By Palusalu's time, amateur wrestling had become a rather marginal, wherefore he is no more entitled to a place in the infobox than other double olympic winners like Salumäe, Šmigun, or Veerpalu. Now the only Estonian presented in the History of wrestling is Georg Hackenschmidt, as sports encyclopaedias generally list him among the greatest of all times. As an alternative, Paul Keres is also generally considered as one of the greatest chess players in the History of Chess. But I agree, among other culture geeks an athlete would be a more colourful figure. Now, Mägi and Estonian visual art in general has never been on a true world level or fame (it even has not a wikipedia article), while the music of Estonia is world renowned. I am sure you know, who I am suggesting - Arvo Pärt of course. This is my humble opinion as an Estonian who has edited English Wikipedia articles on Estonia for years. However, I don't think I should replace the collage myself. Rather it is up to the author. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently a third of the population of Tallinn came out to celebrate Palusalu's achievement at the time and the government of the day gave him a farm, so he must have had some impact, and two olympic gold medals in the same weight class has never been repeated since. And besides, how many athletes get to have a ship named after him? --Nug (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All of this is irrelevant when we consider this is English Wikipedia and everyone is merited by his notability in the English-speaking world. Hackenschmidt and Keres received admiration from tens of millions of wrestling or chess lovers, which were among the most popular sports in the wordl at their heyday. Couple of thousands of Tallinners celebrating someone's olympic medals and a ship is ridiculous compared to that attention. And I should know, I am a Tallinner. All I am asking from the involved editors is not to promote someone but integrally compare Estonian athletes and pick the most notable. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not sure if Hackenschmidt, an Estonian-Swede/Baltic-German of French citizenship known as the "Russian Lion", would be suitable. WP:BIAS tells us that we should be mindful to introduce other non-english speaking perspectives into articles. I'm not sure if personal recollections of the events in Tallinn during 1936 should be considered, but this source seems to indicate Palusalu made a particularly strong impression:
 * "The wrestler Kristjan Palusalu, who won even two gold medals, in the Greco-Roman as well freestyle wrestling heavyweight category, caused a special elation among national sports fans. … The arrival of Palusalu and other Olympic athletes from Berlin caused Estonians to interrupt the rye harvest everywhere in the country; thousands of people came to greet the Olympic victors who toured the country by railway. Speeches were held in railway stations, orchestras played, the Olympic athletes received flowers and even cakes. According to different sources, 40 000 - 60 000 people gathered to the streets of Tallinn — at at time when the city had 145,000 inhabitants. The government of Estonia presented Palusalu with a farm, an idea that born on public initiative. The newspaper Uus Eesti wrote about the greeting the sportsmen received: “The view on the streets of Tallinn gave a beautiful recognition of how strong the feeling of unity among our people is.” The name of Palusalu became a legend in Estonia, he came to be seen as the power of the nation. Stories and songs created about him are preserved in the people’s memory to this day. The aura of the common man’s hero as well as the name, “World-Kristjan” stayed with Kristjan Palusalu for all of his life, he perfectly fit to the mythic role that epitomizes a people’s imagination."
 * --Nug (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hackenschmidt considered himself Estonian, and is regarded as such by international sources like Wrestling Heritage, Estonian Professional Wrestlers, and so on. This talk page here is the first place I have ever encountered doubt in his nationality. During his professional career he was a citizen of Russian Empire, as were Estonians in general at the time (excluding tens of thousands of Western emigrants). Koidula and even Palusalu at his youth were citizens of Russia as well. Keres, Meri and Pärt were citizens of the Soviet Union for most of their careers. Throughout the Russian and Soviet rule of Estonia, famous Estonians have been officially and colloquially known as Russian or Soviet. This is a tragedy of the colonised and occupied country and does not make any of them less Estonian.
 * The idea of WP:BIAS is not to emphasize national points of view but to bring the contents of Wikipedia closer to a global perspective. Well, apparently Reuters placed Hackenschmidt on its list of 100 athletes of the century "for bringing the popularity of professional wrestling to an unprecedented height". I don't think this can be said about any other Estonian in any field. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Should the article be updated for most current ethnicity figures in Estonia?
I'm curious about how well the drive to increase the birth-rate of ethnic Estonians in Estonia has gone, and how many of the (primarily) Russians have left the country to return to Russia or other countries? The desire to create a nation-state in Estonia is understandable considering the long periods of occupation and colonization/forced emigration that occurred. Is Estonian the only language allowed to be spoken in the classrooms there by the students day-to-day? HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The ethnicity figures rather belong to the Estonia article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

in 1944, large numbers of Estonians fled

 * The context should be explained and more specific pages than WWII and Soviet Army linked.
 * Many Estonians were deported to Siberia. Have they returned? When?Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Russian page describes repatriation of Estonians from Russia.Xx236 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article does not mention Soviet deportations from Estonia. Do you suggest it should? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes.Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The entire article doesn't pay more than sketchy lip-service to the history and culture of Estonians. It could certainly do with development of the patchwork leaps from prehistory to the 'reawakening' of the 19th century. There isn't enough context provided for the reader to qualify who the Estonians actually are. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A good start would simply be to replace the content with a translation of the Estonian language version of this article. --Nug (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be reticent to 'replace' what is already in place, particularly as the Estonian Wikipedia article is lacking in sources. Perhaps some content in this article could be expanded using content from the Estonian, but sources would need to be found backing up that content. A few 'citation needed' tags placed where necessary would serve as a good start? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Estonian language version of this article is not very good, some things could be taken from there, but definitely not translating and replacing whole content.--Minnekon (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could get specific on what is wrong or lacking paragraph by paragraph? To point out that the Soviet deportations are missing is a good example and can be fixed easily, I guess. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Soviet period isn't described at all - persecutions, migrations of non-Estonians to Estonia, teaching of Estonian language/culture. Singing Revolution, Song of Estonia still red.Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Nazis and atheism
please discuss this edit. Adding 1,300+ bytes of text, mostly unsourced, to the article should never be marked as a "minor" edit, and some of it is clearly contentious, as the way you structured the paragraph it looks like you are saying Estonians are largely non-religious because the Nazis were largely anti-Christian rather than pro-Christian and anti-Jewish, anti-JW and so on. This is a fairly widely believed claim in some Christian circles, as I understand it, but is not accepted by historians. If you have a source to contradict me, please present it; I am open to conflicting opinions, and I don't know all that much about this topic. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The soruce: Triin Edovald; Michelle Felton; John Haywood; Rimvydas Juskaitis; Michael Thomas Kerrigan; Simon Lund-Lack; Nicholas Middleton; Josef Miskovsky; Ihar Piatrowicz; Lisa Pickering; Dace Praulins; John Swift; Vytautas Uselis; Ilivi Zajedova (2010). World and Its Peoples: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Marshall Cavendish. p. 1066. ISBN 9780761478966.


 * The quote: "It is usually said that Estonia is a Protestant country; however, the overwhelming majority of Estonians, some 72 percent, are nonreligious. Estonia is the European Union (EU) country with the greatest percentage of people with no religious belief. This is in part, the result of Soviet actions and repression of religion. When the Soviet Union annexed Estonia in 1940, church property was confiscated, many theologians were deported to Siberia, most of the leadership of Evangelical Lutheran Church went into exile, and religious instruction was banned. Many churches were destroyed in the German occupation of Estonia, from 1941 through 1944, and in World War II (1939-1945), and religion was actively persecuted in Estonia under Soviet rule 1944 until 1989, when some measure of tolerance was introduced."
 * Where the source said Estonians are largely non-religious because the Nazis were largely anti-Christian?. Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyway just general information since i have feeling you kinda think Nazi were pro-Christian, there been Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church and some protestant churches (but I do not link it to atheism just to be clear) which suffered persecution in Nazi regime. As a totalitarian ideology, the Nazis claimed jurisdiction over all collective and social activity, interfering with Catholic schooling, youth groups, workers' clubs and cultural societies. Nazi ideology could not accept an autonomous establishment, whose legitimacy did not spring from the government. It desired the subordination of the church to the state. By 1940, a dedicated clergy barracks had been established by the Nazis at Dachau Concentration Camp. Of a total of 2,720 clergy recorded as imprisoned at Dachau, the overwhelming majority, some 2,579 (or 94.88%) were Catholic - among them 400 German priests.
 * Hitler routinely disregarded the Concordat, closing all Catholic institutions whose functions were not strictly religious. Clergy, nuns, and lay leaders were targeted, with thousands of arrests over the ensuing years, often on trumped-up charges of currency smuggling or immorality. (see-Shirer, William L. (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-62420-0. p.234-235).
 * Confessing Church face persecution acts as well, in 1935 the Confessing Church synod protested the Nazi policy on religion, 700 of their pastors were arrested, (see- Berben, Paul (1975). Dachau 1933–1945: The Official History. London: Norfolk Press. ISBN 0-85211-009-X.p.140), The Confessing Church was banned on 1 July 1937. Niemöller was arrested and confined, first in Sachsenhausen concentration camp and then at Dachau. Theological universities were closed and more pastors and theologians were arrested.
 * Here some sources about the claims above, and how the Nazi leadership hoped to dechristianise Germany in the long term:
 * Theodore S. Hamerow; On the Road to the Wolf's Lair - German Resistance to Hitler; Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1997; ISBN 0-674-63680-5; p. 136.
 * Shirer, William L., Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, p. p 240, Simon and Schuster, 1990: "under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler—backed by Hitler—the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists."
 * Gill, Anton (1994). An Honourable Defeat; A History of the German Resistance to Hitler. Heinemann Mandarin. 1995 paperback ISBN 978-0-434-29276-9, pp. 14–15: "[the Nazis planned to] de-Christianise Germany after the final victory".
 * Ian Kershaw; The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation; 4th Edn; Oxford University Press; New York; 2000"; pp. 173–74.
 * Fischel, Jack R., Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust, p. 123, Scarecrow Press, 2010: "The objective was to either destroy Christianity and restore the German gods of antiquity or to turn Jesus into an Aryan."
 * Mosse, George Lachmann, Nazi culture: intellectual, cultural and social life in the Third Reich, p. 240, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2003: "Had the Nazis won the war their ecclesiastical policies would have gone beyond those of the German Christians, to the utter destruction of both the Protestant and the Catholic Church.".
 * Kershaw, Ian (2008). Hitler: A Biography. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-06757-6. p.332.
 * Just to be clear in this comment I do not claims Nazi were irreligious or atheist, so i hope you assume the good faith, It only show there been a different persecution act by Nazi against some Christian church's.--Jobas (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I now see that it was a quotation. Sorry about the misunderstanding. That said, the long quotation clearly doesn't belong unless some other sources can be found that agree with it in the minutiae -- it seems pretty implausible that the destruction of churches in Nazi-occupied Estonia could explain the high non-religious rate more than 70 years on.
 * And your new quotations about Nazis are problematic.
 * The Fischel quote, for example, represents a modern, post-Holocaust view of Jesus and Jewry, and his language is careless to that end. The Nazis didn't try to turn [read: transform] Jesus into an Aryan; the overwhelming majority of German (and indeed non-German) Christians between roughly the time of Irenaeus and the end of World War II claimed, however illogically, that Jesus was not a Jew. In fact, this claim is essentially made in the New Testament (Ctrl+F "the Jews" in an accurate translation of John's gospel).
 * Similarly, utterly destroying both the Protestant and Catholic Church is not the same as being atheistic and anti-Christian, any more than Protestants who want to utterly destroy Catholicism or Catholics who want to utterly destroy Protestantism are atheistic and anti-Christian.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's okay, That why I wish you assume good faith of my edits -same misunderstanding about my edit in religion in Singapore article-. Oh this interesting point, can you provide a source that -the overwhelming majority of German (and indeed non-German) Christians between roughly the time of Irenaeus and the end of World War II claimed, however illogically, that Jesus was not a Jew-, and again I didn't claims that destroying both the Protestant and Catholic Church is the same as being atheistic, what the source do cited: "This is in part, the result of Soviet actions and repression of religion.".
 * And if we want to argue about Soviet regime actions, sources show that under the doctrine of state atheism in the Soviet Union, there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism" conducted by Communists, This program included the overarching objective to establish not only a fundamentally materialistic conception of the universe, but to foster "direct and open criticism of the religious outlook" by means of establishing an "anti-religious trend" across the entire school. And the regime opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen. From the late 1920s to the late 1930s, such organizations as the League of the Militant Godless ridiculed all religions and harassed believers (see- Richard Overy (2006), The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, p. 271 ISBN 0-393-02030-4), Many priests were killed and imprisoned. Thousands of churches were closed, some turned into hospitals. In 1925 the government founded the League of Militant Atheists to intensify the persecution.
 * Some sources about my claims above:
 * Kowalewski, David (1980). "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR: Characteristics and Consequences". Russian Review. Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Editors and Board of Trustees of the Russian Review. 39 (4): 426–441. doi:10.2307/128810. ISSN 0036-0341. JSTOR 128810.
 * Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; p.494".
 * Marsh, Christopher (20 January 2011). Religion and the State in Russia and China: Suppression, Survival, and Revival. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-4411-0284-3.
 * Martin Amis; Koba the Dread; Vintage Books; London; 2003; ISBN 1400032202; p.30-31.
 * Blake, Jonathan S. (19 April 2014). "By the Sword of God": Explaining Forced Religious Conversion. Columbia University. pp. 15, 17.
 * Thanks.--Jobas (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Photo Caption
The article photo is not in Kose--it is clearly on or around Vabaduse Valjak in Tallinn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.22 (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the rational of having photo from Estonian Song Festival on the top of the article? Article itself does not mention Song Festival at all. Or are the people on the photo supposed to be ethnic Estonians? How can we know that? --Minnekon (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The rationale is that they are supposed to be ethnic Estonians, yes. I think the probability of that is 99%+, considering they are wearing Estonian folk costumes. But if a 100% probability is looked for, then we can show a photo (or photos) of someone else. Or, can rename the caption to "People dressed in Estonian folk costumes." Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not so familiar with Estonian folk costumes to say what exactly is on the photo (and we see clothes of only front rows), but even if we can confirm it, other ethnicities can wear it too. It might sound like nitpicking, but my point is that if we want to show ethnic Estonians and we have lot of photos in Commons of confirmed Estonians, then why use here photo of just probable Estonians? For example would it also be fine if in Tallinn article instead of photos of known places we use photo of some unidentified street view because we think it kind of looks like Tallinn? I don't support renaming the caption to "People dressed in Estonian folk costumes", because rest of pictures in article already show folk costumes and here costumes are only partly visible. --Minnekon (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. Who would you like to show instead? Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I found out there is decision about removing portrait galleries in the infoboxes, which applies to our case too. Choosing 1 photo for infobox has same problems as choosing several photos: "lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people." So I think photos of people should be presented elsewhere, in appropriate place in article. If there will be section about Song Festivals, then we can put current photo there. Into the section about birth of Estonian nationalist movement in 19th century, we can put picture of some movement leader (eg Friedrich Reinhold Kreutzwald), into section about Estonians in Canada, we can put picture of some Canadian Estonian etc. --Minnekon (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about a geographical map of the the presence of people who self-define as "estonian"? Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. Which map exactly? --Minnekon (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the best I could find on short notice. Ideally would hope for a color-coded world or european map but maybe this would do for now? Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, map looks correct and on topic, so it should be ok.--Minnekon (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is biased, Estonians are actually more Slavic-looking in the appearance wise than this article attempts to instill
I know Estonians very well and have to say that Estonians are actually more Slavic-looking in the appearance wise  and less borealized in appearance than this article attempts to instill. The choice of illustrations is not objective. In reality, it is easy to distinguish between Estonians and eg Finns by appearance. Thus, the article is biased and belongs to the series of articles produced in wikipedia and in the internet by some Estonian "estonia wants into nordic" Nordicist activists. Like that: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Estonia_cannot_into_Nordic.jpg It would be better if Estonians related articles were written by more objective authors. Preferably, it could be done by impartial foreigners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rot20mis (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "The choice of illustrations is not objective." There is literally an image of a random crowd scene of Estonians and an another image of one man in the Estonian-Canadian section. The other two images are historical drawings of traditional Estonian dress. What on earth are you babbling on about? Go troll elsewhere. ExRat (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * " The choice of illustrations is not the most objective. More people like Finns or Scandinavians have been specially picked there. This is nonsense. Estonians as a whole are certainly more slavic/East European -looking in appearance than the biased wikipedists try to show. The pictures are from the same 'nordic' sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rot20mis (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No one was "specially picked". One image is literally a crowd scene of multiple Estonian people for an article on Estonians. Do they not fit your stereotype of what Estonians should look like, despite them actually being Estonians? Sorry that a random crowd scene of Estonians doesn't fit your ideal of what Estonians should look like. The other photograph was chosen merely as an example of Estonian-Canadians and whose looks had nothing to do with anything - other than posting a picture of an Estonian who is also Canadian. Also, your assertion of what you consider Estonians should look like is what is utter nonsense. We have no "standard" look and that is entirely subjective and drawing from your opinion. We look as varied as any other population of multitudes of people. ExRat (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As I told more objective people should edit such articles not a biased nordicists like ExRat. Such people can only make their nordicist propaganda. Don't let Estonian nordicists like ExRat to speak on behalf of all Estonians, even though such nordicists love so much to use the word "we". ** Rot20mis  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rot20mis (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea what you are objecting to. The crowd image? What precisely is your objection? That a random crowd image of throngs of actual Estonians don't look...like you want them to look like? I didn't choose the image, but have no idea what you think it should look like. To me, aside from the traditional Estonian dress and flags, the image looks like it could be an image from anywhere in Europe: Estonia, Russia, Norway, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Scotland, Czechia, Finland, Ukraine, etc. I am also absolutely not a "nordicist" (whatever that means). I have no idea what you're going through or what issues you are trying to work through, but I wish you well. ExRat (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Estonians in Sweden" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estonians_in_Sweden&redirect=no Estonians in Sweden] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Estopedist1 (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)