Talk:Estonia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

General comments

Please provide a REFERENCE, or REMOVE the comment that Estonians joined the Nazi forces only towards the end of the WWII. The comment is VERY subjective, if not documented...

• Thanks for asking, done!--Termer 06:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

When did the ship sink? -corvus13

September 28, 1994. Andres 15:18, 28 June 2003 (UTC)

hey! someone has messed the whole article up! why is it in estonian now...

do we have to start translating it or here's way to recover messed up pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorent (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 April 2005 (UTC)

"Estonia has the highest practical rate of literacy in the world."

what sources are used to support that? Does it really belong here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.183.52 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. This belongs. Absolutely. EVERY article on geography includes a discussion on the people--that's what the study of geography is! Estonians are quite proud that they have achieved 100 percent literacy before the turn of the 20th Century--yes Twentieth! Today, in fact Estonia has an extremely high literacy rate in two or more languages (it needs to--none of its neighbors have much interest in learning a language with barely more than a million speakers). Most importantly, however, a culture's literacy rate--like the artistic achievements of the ancient world--are used as a proxy by social scientists for economic and political achievements. A country that can achieve a high literacy rate is invariably a country that has achieve a high level of political and legal equality, has demonstrated an egalitarian life-philosophy, and has achieved the economic means to free its its innhabitants from the daily struggle for survival long enough to lear to read and write. Also, it shows, in contrast to much larger countries, that some things like literacy or a flat tax, are just easier to achieve in a small country. The United States has nowhere near the literacy rate of Estonia, and it never will; but the USA is an entirely differnt kind of animal. Just the same way, a flat tax will never work in the US as it does in Estonia. Its the difference between steering a battleship and piloting a speedboat. RUReady2Testify 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE REPLACE THE MAP - IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THE CAPITAL CITY ON IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.249.211 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that flag blue color correct? If yes then why it still differs from http://www.riigikantselei.ee/failid/elipp.jpg? --Kristjbn 22:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized this article, claiming that Estonia does not exist. May I suggest someone fix it? (anon.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.250.163 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WOULD-BE EDITORS BEWARE: ESTONIAN IDENTITY: Unfortunately, as the result of history and geography, the core of Estonian identity is its historical struggle for survival. For more than a thousand of years no one wanted this land, other than the few who inhabited it. Then beginning in the 1100s, the Danes, Swedes, Germans, and Russians fought a nearly continual war that lasted over the next thousand years and continues to this very day and indeed this very hour. Fewer than one million Estonians live in this tiny piece of land that is highly desired by its immense and hugely populated and powerfully armed neighbor who has made no secret of its view of the world. THEREFORE BEWARE any would-be, self-designated WP "editor" who would deny the Estonian identity or the Estonian struggle for survival by "editing" this article. This includes the deletion of links--mere links in the links section!!!--to otherwise legitimate articles on such struggles, wether Estonia's struggle or in more general terms the struggle of other nations and peoples. Those who have edited this entry thus far, thank you. But please re-read the WP guidelines on editing--you do not own this entry. Others may edit it and you may not like what they have done. This is specifically mentioned by WP editors in the given example of biography--if you start your own biography, you are now fair game for others to edit it and you may not like what they have done but you have no right to remove it. (Unless it is slanderous--which includes the notion of being false, btw.)

I would also like to take this opportunity to assert that linking to articles on Genocide and Genocide denial and soviet occupation denialism is not controversial.

If YOU think such links are controversial you are either grossly underinformed or you are lying and either way, you have violated the NPOV. "Denial is the eighth element of genocide." And so it continues. To this very minute. RUReady2Testify 18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On counties

There is a problem with linking to the counties. Estonian counties have pairs of synonymous names. For example, Harjumaa ('Harjuland') is also called Harju maakond ('Harju County'). On the other hand, Hiiumaa and Saaremaa are islands. At least in the case of Saaremaa the county involves other islands as well, so the name Saaremaa is ambiguous between the island and the county. I am not sure about Hiiumaa. As to now, the articles about Saaremaa and Hiiumaa are about islands. Andres 08:21, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I created the Counties of Estonia entry to replace a bad cut and paste version posted at List of Estonian counties. I'm not proficient in Estonian but I might be able to give some advice based on the work I've done with the Counties of Sweden. In Sweden there were two types of disambiguation issues affecting the naming of the county articles: cities and historical provinces. Two examples:

• "Stockholms län" needed to be disambiguated from the city of Stockholm. Outcome: Stockholm (county).
• "Hallands län" needed to be to be disambiguated from the historical province of Halland. Outcome: Halland (county)

It can be a good idea to construct a uniform template to be used for the separate county articles. This can be done by starting a Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonian counties, which can be based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Swedish counties.

Are there -- Mic 12:58, Aug 30, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Andres 16:18, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My proposal for the nomenclature of counties in titles is: Järva County, Saare County, Ida-Viru County etc. Then the island of Saaremaa could be discriminated from the Saare County. Andres 20:22, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This also corresponds to the map we have (except that Tallinn is part of Harju County). Andres 13:04, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I suggest that ve could make just namelist in here, in the page Estonia, and give link to Counties of Estonia... --Egon 16:52, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My plan is to copy the list here to the page "Counties of Estonia" when all counties have articles and all redirects is done. On this page would be just names in style "Harju County". The link to "Counties of Estonia" alreafy exists. Andres 18:06, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Infobox

I am gonna move the infobox over to a template, keep the main page a bit clean, if anyone has any concerns just not them here. --Boothy443 04:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I assume there's no need in putting english name at the header of infobox. That space is commonly used for native name in local language only, as suggested by Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. --Senzeichi 21:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote for deletion

I think people here will be interested to tell their opinion at this vote for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupied territories of Baltic States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeirYassin (talk • contribs) 09:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Occupation, annexation

I don't understand why terms as annexation and occupation are used as they are. if Germans occupied this country in 1941, then why SU annexed it in 1944? I'd consider that SU both occupied it and annexed, for example Eastern Germany was only occupied, but not annexed and remained semi-indepandant. As for 1940 may be possible to consider the issue as unclear, though occupation is most widely used term, at least if to take into account resolution of Parliament Assembly of Council of Europe of 1960 concerning 20 years of Soviet occupation of Baltic states or Europaen Parliament's resolution of 1983 on occupied Baltic States. I propose this should be in line with the other Baltic states —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bete (talk • contribs) 10:07, 6 June 2005 (UTC)

Has somebody messed with this article? Why does it say "Estonia was freed by Red Army in June 1940"? From whom was it freed - from the Estonians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.133.86 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just some sad vandalism. Some stalinists I think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.156.169.76 (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Annexation has specific legal and geopolitical meaning which amounts to adding to another country. German forces did not do that, though they had plans and issued declarations (see Reichskommissariat Ostland), probably because they never won the war. Russian forces, OTOH, under the Soviet Flag, proceeded to integrate the Baltic states as SSRs into their empire. Digwuren 08:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Declaration of independence

Estonia's declaration of independence (February 24th 1918), albeit indirectly, makes references only to the sovereign rights previously held over the country by Tsarist Russia. Neither Imperial Germany (which occupied Western Estonian islands since 1917), nor Bolshevist Russia (which occupied Estonian mainland since 1917) had never before even gained full control over Estonia by that moment, regardless of their respective claims of sovereignty over Estonia. Hence, one could argue that de jure Estonia declared independence from the Russian Empire, and de facto from the German Empire and the then "Russian Republic" (or "Soviet Republic", which only later was renamed Russian SFSR). Of course, the Feb. 24th 1918 declaration had very little practical effect at first, as the whole country was in the following few days occupied by the Germans. Estonia became de facto independent only after Germans were forced to hand over power to the provisional government of Estonia according to the terms of the November 1918 armistice that ended WWI.--3 Löwi 20:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Photos

ok, i deleted few pictures for following reasons: they were of very bad quality; they were absolute stupidity(jõhvi picture)and because we have too little text, too much pictures. if you want to add more pictures let's make this gallery into bottom of the page, as it can be seen for example over here Grass Snake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.159.175.129 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Many of the photos illustrating this article look bleak and unprofessional. For example [1] and [2] are good sources for better photos. Doesn't anyone at least have a better pic of the parliament building? Should some other pictures be replaced? 194.126.101.137 22:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting photos merely because there is not enough text in contrast is not a good enough reason.

The text will catch up. If someone who has photos wants be to a photo editor, you as a text editor should not delete them because the photo editor has made you look less significant. You and the rest of us, should just add more text. Estonia is intersting enough that it can have a bit more added to its description. RUReady2Testify 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take part in the improval of this article

Hello. I would like to inform you all here that there is an ongoing discussion at article Territorial claims of the Baltic States (formerly was known as "Lost territories of the Baltic States", but was recently renamed; some users seems to disagree with that renaming). Recent edits as well were accused of POV, and, in fact, article was disputed for a long time already. There currently seems to be no Estonians editing the article and in order to get the most neutral viewpoint represantatives from all of related nations are needed. It would be nice if you would add that article to your watchlist and continue helping to improve it until a decition will be reached about its future (there is currently a poll about it in the article's talk page). I hope together we all will be able to make that article neutral. Kaiser 747 10:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sport

Hi, I was hoping to find links to sport and on through to the soccer team. Sport in Estonia surely is worth a mention? Cheers SeanMack 12:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Confusion with the infobox

The infobox currently says Estonia was occupied by USSR 2 February 1920 - 16 June 1940. As far as I know, this was not the case. In fact, isn't this actually the time of Estonias first independence before the Soviet annexation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.245.55 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Anthem

Hi! Can someone add the translation of your national anthem in English, please? Markov 12:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The translation is at the article for the anthem, see Mu isamaa, mu õnn ja rõõm'. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Border Treaty Section

I removed the border treaty issue from the general description of Estonian history. I don't see why the article should have two paragraphs devoted to hundreds of years of history and then have two paragraphs describing one current event. Plus it routinely gets hit by vandals...

In the scheme of Estonian history, it is rather unimportant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.45.226 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And I restored the section. THe above are not valid reson for deletion of factual information. `'mikka (t) 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The information is not factual. Estonia has said publicly many times that it has no land claims against Russia. But the version on the website says that it does. And that is incorrect.

I still believe my reasons for deletion are valid. We could add two paragraphs about the Chechen crisis to the Russian history discussion, or two paragraphs about the Iranian hostage crisis to the general historical description of the US. But that would be silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.45.226 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

ALSO, the metsavennad comprised veterans from all armies. That's a fact that also gets deleted repeatedly.

FINALLY, your spelling is bad. If you want to insert your politically-skewed interpretation of history into a general article about a country, then spell it correctly. It's Estonian, with a capital 'E', not 'estonien.'

My advice to the administrator would be to remove both the sections about metsavennad as well as the section on the border treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polaaroo (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree it seems absurd to have as much devoted to a single issue as the whole of the rest of Estonian history. Although in the long run, the best solution would seem to be to expand the rest of Estonian history which as you point out, is rather brief. Maybe the border dispute could be summarised into a single, short paragraph and maybe relocated to say the politics section as personally I think that's what it is. I definatly think some mention of it (however brief) should be in the article though as it's an important piece of information regarding Estonia's foreign relationships. Canderra 03:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Counties/States

The remark aout counties not being states only showed the idiocy of the author. (Compare: Federal State/Free State, USA, Germany, Russia, Switzerland/France, Estonia, India, Luxembourg) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.41.185 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Religion Section full of contradictions

The section on the religion of Estonia seems to be full of contradictions. In the first paragraph it states: "less than a quarter of ethnic Estonians define themselves as active believers at present." but the start of the next paragraph states: "Today, over 31% of the adult population are active followers of a particular faith" and then in the last paragraph: "only 16% of Estonian citizens responded that "they believe there is a God"".

This strikes me to be the result of multiple surveys being progressibly added, resulting in a fragmented and contradictory reading. In addition, only the 2005 poll in the last paragraph is actually referenced, I don't see anyway of validating the other numbers which (especially with the 31% follow a faith) seem to be out of sync with the EU poll (which appears very professionally sampled and compiled). Canderra 02:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on the religion section

Maybe someone who has time will elaborate it ...

According to 2000 census there were 1 121 582 people over 15 years of age in Estonia; 327 832 of them (29.2%) "followed a particular faith", 152 237 were Lutherans, 143 554 Orthodox, 6 009 Baptists, 5 745 Roman Catholocs, 3 823 Jehova's witnesses, 2 648 Pentecostalists, 2 515 "old believers", 1 561 adventists, 1 455 methodists, 1 387 muslims, 5 008 of "other" religions, 1 890 of "unknown" faith, 381 911 had no religious affiliation, 68 547 were atheists, 163 304 "could not define the affiliation", 89 691 "refused to answer", 90 297 just did not respond.

Reference: [[3]]

Can you give a reference to the "EU poll"? If you mean Eurobarometer then the difference may be the matter of time (2000 vs 2005) or sampling error (almost all people were polled in the census, whereas maybe 1000 people participated in Eurobarometer).

More statistics. The census and polls are about people's opinions, not behavior. So how many actual (and active) members do the churches have?

Lutheran church -- 161 144 members ion 2005, of them 39 879 paid the membership fee. (So many of these 161 144 people may actually be members only in a formal sense.)

Reference: [[4]]

Unfortunately, no similar statistics is available for other churches.

More references. According to ... [[5]] ... a poll among 1000 people in 2000 revealed that only 4% participated regularly at religious services, and 5% considered religion to be "very important" in their lives.

List of religious organisations in Estonia (as of dec., 2006):

http://www.siseministeerium.ee/index.php?id=16682

A poll in 2005 [[6]]

Ethnic issue: Russians consider themselves to be more religious than Estonians (both in 2000 census and 2005 poll). According to the 2000 census, 24.30% of ("ethnic") Estonians were religious (most of them Lutherans), and 38.74% of Russians (most of them Orthodox).

See also:

• a review of sociological polls on religion [[7]] (in Estonian)

• a dissertation on changes in religiosity in Estonia: [[8]] (has a short English summary)

Finally: I'd suggest deleting or shortening the text on 2002 poll and eurobarometer. Official census is more accurate ... maybe only "interesting facts" could be taken from polls. (Like 10% cherishing "Taara usk" or 54% believing in "supernatural forces" or Estonians being the least religious in EU.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.235.60.66 (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

For 2004 data see European Social Survey, [9] -- see chapter by Alar Kilp. ESS is probably the most reliable poll so far (i.e., before the next census), so I'd suggest mentioning only the 2000 census and ESS data. Lebatsnok 15:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

History Clean Up

OK, I am no expert, but I consulted a variety of general sources including the Estonian Foreign Ministry website - www.vm.ee - and the Estonica website - www.estonica.ee - which has a very detailed history of Estonia. I tried to give info on each era of history and compared the section to similar articles for Sweden and Finland to make sure it conforms to "Wiki" style. I welcome further edits to make it as clean as possible... Polaaroo 15:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Metsavennad

I keep having to clean up the general history section which references the forest brothers. Someone keeps posting that the guerillas that fought the Soviets in the woods until 1957 were either all former SS officers or loyal to the Nazi regime (which surrendered in 1945, 12 years before the amnesty of 1957).

Many of the forest brothers were simply TOO YOUNG to participate as SS officers in World War II. It is accurate that there were German army veterans, but it is also accurate that many were Finnish army veterans, and even more had served no army during World War II.

The current article states that they were German and Finnish army veterans as well as thousands loyal to the Republic of Estonia. I find that to be the most accurate. Most historical documents assert this to be the case. - Polaaroo 15:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

hello! i'm just letting you know, that i'll delete that stupidity from the motto section! that's the worst place for it. Sorent 20:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Metsavennad were from all ages and all armies, they were just people who fought against the sovie order (An estonian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.159.253.68 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

First, it should be pointed out that Nazis maintained strict racial purity in officership of Schutzstaffel. Foreigners were only allowed in Waffen-SS, and even then, only under command of "proper" SS officers of German ethnicity.

Second, there were several sources of the forest brothers. While Soviet political propaganda of the time found it convenient to attribute all of the guerrilla activities to Nazi-minded individuals, the primary source was actually men who had only recently come to age sufficient of waging war, and hid in the forests to avoid being drafted into Red Army.

A number of the forest brothers were former Waffen-SS soldiers. However, *most* of the members of these units that had not fallen in the war had left Estonian territories by the end of the war, and many never returned. A significant number, for example, were taken as Allied prisoners of war and later settled in the West, contributing to the numerous Estonian expatriate communities.

It should be remembered that by the end of WWII, three waves of foreign conscription had rolled over Estonia. Most men that were able to usefully contribute to war efforts at all had been drafted, to one side or another, or fled the warzone. Digwuren 08:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

footnote source

Hmm footnote 4, for the freedom index, leads to a freewebs site, an unreliable source - I'm replacing it with the original source for that data.

Osakadave 18:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... tried to put in the appropriate source, but couldn't edit - all I get it this:
Notes and references==
div class="references-small">
references/>
/div>"

Here it is if anybody can help: http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html

Osakadave 18:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Occupation"

The entering of Soviet forces in Estonia could not be called a "military occupation" in terms of international law, because there's not been a war between the two countries. The entering was in accordance with the alliance pact between them. 212.116.151.110 07:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The premise that "there was no war" and therefore, according international law, Estonia could not have been "occupied" is completely false. The earliest definition of occupation is found in Article 42 of the Annex to the 1899 Hague Convention No. IV: Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. It states that “a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." A formally declared state of war is not required. If the hostile army controls the territory—meaning, the sovereign institutions of the occupied territory are no longer in control, then this criterion for "occupation" has been met. A state of war does not need to exist.

You are also incorrect that the Soviet invasion was in accordance with the pact of mutual assistance. It is true that the initial stationing of Soviet troops in the Baltics under the terms of the "mutual assistance pacts" was not an occupation. However, that circumstance changed when the Soviet Union staged events and intentionally and falsely misrepresented past agreements and meetings among the Baltics to manufacture a reason for invading and then did so--while everyone's attention was focused on the fall of Paris to Hitler. (I should also mention that not putting up armed resistance to an occupying force does not change the nature of the occupation.) The Soviet Union then began to deport Baltic citizens to Soviet territory while those nations were still "sovereign" (according to the Soviet Union)--which aggression constitutes an act of war. Finally, with respect to the Baltics joining the Soviet Union--the election results were fraudulent and the petitions to join unconstitutional. (I'd have to check the detail on Lithuania and Estonia in terms of the specifics--Latvia's constitution required a plebiscite.) This topic has been dealt with extensively in Talk:Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945. In addition, the Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 covers both the specific (with respect to Latvia) and general (Baltics and Finland) circumstances of the so-called pacts of "mutual assistance." Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I responded to a request to deal with this topic, posted on the Talk:Lithuania page, section entitled "Whether or not the Baltics were 'occupied' is not a popularity contest.'" If someone has more details on the Estonian particulars of the Soviet takeover, please let me know, I would be glad to update a version for Estonia and repost here. —Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I should add that I was asked to deal with the topic actually relative to the Estonia discussion here, but because this issue was raised in the meantime in "Village Pump" relative to Lithuania I posted my response to the the occupation Yes/No debate on the talk page there. --Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe, that Estonia needs either its own Soviet occupation-specific page, or if it is relevant to do so, a joint article on Soviet occupation of Baltic states in 1940-1941. These pages should also be linked from the respective country pages (their history sections). It is a topic, which is forming region's contemporary politics and debates and thus needs to be described in detail. Tomatensaft 13:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

OSTK

Hi, I'm a graduate student writing a dissertation on the Moldova/Transnistria conflict. Interestingly, the group on which I focus, the United Work Collective Council--the transliteration of the Russian acronym is OSTK--had an analogue in Estonia which was also working against Estonian independence. I am trying to expand the breadth of my project to account for this broader OSTK phenomenon, and I wondered if any of the editors of this page might know of any sources. Russian (or English) is ideal, but I could have friends translate (short) Estonian sources. If anyone has run into any information about the Estonian OSTK and would be willing to share with me where they found it, I would be very appreciative. Thanks! Jamason 15:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Non-standard and potentially POV map should be reverted

The map for this country has recently been changed to a format which is not standard for Wikipedia. Each and every other country identifies that country alone on a contintental or global map; none of them highlight other members of relevant regional blocs or other states which which that country has political or constitutional links. The EU is no different in this respect unless and until it becomes a formal state and replaces all other states which are presently members; the progress and constitutional status of the EU can be properly debated and identified on the page for that organisation; to include other members of the EU on the infobox map for this country is both non-standard and potentially POV.

Please support me in maitaining Estonia's proper map (in Wikipedia standard) until we here have debated and agreed this issue? Who is for changing the map and who against? The onus is on those who would seek to digress from Wiki standard to show why a non-standard and potentially POV map should be used. Estonia deserves no less! JamesAVD 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has decided to remove references to the EU from the page of every member state, and is now spamming this message on every talk page. See his talk page for more details. yandman 15:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not discuss here, but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries so a uniform decision can be reached. Kusma (討論) 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The users above are misrepresnting my actions. Certain non-standard items have been included in the infoboxes of the pages of some European states. I have removed the undiscussed and unsupported changes and started a discussion here on the best way forward. I have in no way 'removed references to the EU'! The EU is an important part of the activities of the governmenance of many European states, to the benefit of all. That does not mean that an encyclopedia should go around presenting potentially POV information of the constitutional status of the EU in the infoboxes of states which are supposed to be standardised across Wikipedia. I'm interested in what users here feel? Please feel free to comment at any of the various pages Yandman might suggest. JamesAVD 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I really do not understand what the problem is. Most articles about nations have maps of the subject nation that show neighboring countries, so that the reader gets an idea for the location of the country and its border sizes. The primary map in this article is one that displays Estonia alone. I also strongly suggest that you stop spamming every European nation's talk page with this message. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries or Wikipedia:Wikiproject Estonia (in this particular case) are the places to bring your concerns. Srose (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DISCUSS THIS AT Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Location Maps for European countries-- discussion continues as it involves more than just this country.

Thanks, —MJCdetroit 20:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Removals

Several unregistered users keep removing from this article in the "Culture" and "See also" sections the links to Gay rights in Estonia and Same-sex marriage in Estonia. The last unregistered user to do so gave the reasoning that these are "irrelevant" links. I do not believe them to be so for several reasons.

1. They are valid links with valid information and have Wikipedia articles.

2. Wikipedia does not endorse POV, and while it may be difficult to prove, the users removing these two listings generally always remove both. This leads one to assume it is for POV reasons or to censure information.

3. Given that other listings such as the National Boy Scouts and Islam in Estonia are listed (smaller percentages of the Estonian population, I am sure) then I believe that these two items are just as relevant.

I would also like to note that the last person to remove these two items (User talk:193.219.28.146) has previosuly be warned about POV and has been blocked prior. ExRat 16:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone calling himself John has removed links I added and had the audacity to demand that I seek a consensus before adding "controversial links." I have added a couple of the links back in and also re-placed a previously existing link in the alphabetical order in which I had previously put it.

I think that before someone calling himself John deletes the work of another Wikipedian--especially when that work is merely adding relevant links in the links section (See Also section) that HE seek a consensus first.

John: Your deletion of these links violates the NPOV principle. Please do not do that again.

Map

The map of Estonia is strange as it shows some small and not very important places as Kunda and Maardu. On the other hand, several towns much larger than Kunda are omitted: Võru, Paide, Rakvere, Keila, etc. I'd suggest a more informative map, something like this: [[10]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.235.60.66 (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism

The page has been scrutinized by 80.176.254.70 The flag was changed to the english flag and the coat of arms to algerian coat of arms. Additionally, some BS story about american occupation. Also population numbers have been mangled with.I have reverted those changes but request this page be locked. This guy has also mangled the Lithuania page. Valhalla_guardian 15.46 UTC, 24. January 2007

There seems to have been a brief spree by the range 80.176.254.65/71 (see 65,66,67,68,69,70,71). It seems to have stopped for now, though. --BigDT 16:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User John has vandalized this article by deleting links to highly relevant historical and current topics that form the core of the identity of Estonia and Estonians. I demand that he cease his vandalism. John: Your deletion of these links is vandalism and violates the NPOV principle. Please do not do that again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RUReady2Testify (talk • contribs)

Can you explain how Genocide and Genocide denial have any relevance with Estonia? It seems that you should follow NPOV, not John (who, by the way, is an administrator). Do not accuse another editor of vandalism without a valid reason, that is a very, very serious accusation. And please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. DLX 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the Victims of Communism Memorial which is in Washington, D.C. If anyone thinks this is not relevant, would they please obtain a consensus before deleting. I request to be included in any vote. Thanks. RUReady2Testify 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

DLX, would you please explain what makes you think that links to genocide and genocide denial are not relevant.

I note that both you and John have had multiple actions against you, including the deletion of copyrighted material that John has repeatedly posted that could end up costing WP money in legal fees and damages. Has John contributed enough money to WP to cover the potential liability he has created? I doubt it. The mere fact that John is an administrator says nothing about him that his own actions do not belie. He has been rude and discourteous and just plain flat out wrong factually. DLX you too have been rude and factually wrong. YOU have acted unilaterally of your own accord w.o. obtaiing a consensus and w.o regard for the efforts of others. Themere fact that you are in Estonia is of little consequence to your position here. IN fact, it is a detriment. The entry on Estonia is not a travel brochure. It is not here to serve your needs to attract tourist dollars or present yourself in any particular way. In short, the entry on Estonia is for Engish speaking readers and researchers; it is not for Estonians or Estonia. If you do not adjust your behavior to something more civl, I will ask that you desist from making any further edits or comments. RUReady2Testify 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, this works the other way. Please explain why links to genocide and genocide denial are relevant, backing up your claims with valid sources. Article Estonia does not mention genocide - nor genocide denial. Articles genocide and genocide denial do not mention Estonia. So, give us sources and reach consensus - we don't need consensus to remove links that were inserted without consensus.

And you accuse me of being rude. Please give me an example where I have been rude - friendly warning is worst that I can think of my comments on your talk page. As for civility, I think that both John and I have been extremely civil, considering your tone and accusations. Indeed, some other administrator would probably have blocked you after your first vandalism accusation.

As for link to Victims of Communism Memorial... I don't know, I fail to see the relevance to this article. It is not directly related to main article about Estonia, so perhaps it would be more suitable in Estonian SSR or Occupation of Baltic States articles. I won't remove it, but I would like to hear some other editors to support that, too. DLX 06:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Estonians were victims of preemptive Communist aggression. There would be "no relevance" to mention a memorial to those victims in an article on Estonia because...?? Your statement implies you believe no Estonians were victimized by Stalin/the USSR. Would that be a fair characterization? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I removed the link as I see no direct relevance and there is no mention of Estonia in the article. Please make the arguments here before readding it. Thanks. --John 16:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The section "Under USSR" has POV issues and lacks sources

I've added the NPOV and sources tags to the "Under USSR" section, since it severely lacks sources, especially when stating contoversial facts. Some of these facts were already marked as lacking sources, each individually. I fixed the original marks into working Wikipedia tags for easier identification.

An example of such a fact: "Hundreds of political prisoners whom the retreating Soviets had no time to move, were massacred." This is a very serious claim and requires to be backed with some kind of a citation, at least.

The section as a whole treats Soviet period of Estonia as deliberately detrimental to the country. Even though some of the stated facts may indeed be true, some facts that are presented as detrimental, might not be such or, at least, are not quite widely accepted as such. These claims need facts (numbers) to back them and sources to be cited.

The claim of Soviet occupation is also disputed, since the process, which occured at that time may not fit into the formal definition of occupation. This has already been noted in the discussion, I would just like to repeat it, since it seems to be ignored as such. Even if this claim is widely supported in Estonia, especially by its current political leadership, this may not be true as such. A more elaborate article about the process of Estonia joining or being annexed by USSR is welcome, but, please, back it up with sources.

Sorry, tomatensaft, but it's not only the others who need to give references to their claims. You have to do it too. For example, the fact is that the Soviet occupation does fit into the formal definition of occupation: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." (see wikipedia article on "Military occupation").

Lebatsnok 11:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added a ref to ECHR caselaw. It is as solid and legal stuff on occupation as it can get.--Bete 18:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Another point is that in that "Return to Independence" and "Politics" only slightly touch such problems as "aliens" or "non-citizens" (former citizen of USSR and their children, that were not given Estonian citizenship automatically, but required to take a series of examinations on the basis of national identity, speaking language and length of residence in the country, in order to get the citizenship, unlike Lithuania), a unique situation in contemporary politics, where a rather big portion of people in a country has no formal citizenship, and thus have limited civil rights as such. I don't have many facts to back some claims up, but I would like to ask other interested parties to elaborate on this and write this in this article, or even create a separate article to be linked from this one (if there is much to say about this). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomatensaft (talk • contribs) 13:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Again, where does your information come from? In which ways are the non-citizens' rights limited? There is just one single way: they can't vote on parliamentary elections (but all residents can participate in elections of local governments). And that's all. The Estonian law of citizenship is nothing extraordinary; it is probably much harder to get, for example, Russian citizenship. So keeping with the "no original research" requirement, there is very little non-POV stuff to say about this topic. Lebatsnok 11:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've found one source, that could shed light on environmental issues in Estonia as a Soviet legacy: http://www.photius.com/countries/estonia/geography/estonia_geography_environmental_issues.html Now the only thing left is to put the citation footnote into the article! Tomatensaft 14:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

On Estonia's entry to the USSR

I would like to say that altough Estonia was not occupied, we did not join the soviet union freely. The first time the soviet union made us sign a document that let the soviet military bases into our country. Then they made our goverment fall and called an "ellection" Where the only candidates were russians or soviet-minded estonians. When they got to power they signed the document that made Estonia a part of the soviet union. Then the nazis came and took Estonia, then the soviets chased them back to germany (taking estonia in the process) and thats the story.

Im sorry for my grammar/spelling mistakes and/or politically incorrect sayings but thats how it seems to me.

An Estonian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.175.6 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Estonia was invaded and occupied, occupied in every sense of the word. While it has been argued that even the initial stationing of troops under the pacts of mutual assistance were illegal as well according to international law, at face value, that was legal. However, the subsequent invasion by the USSR abrogated numerous treaties and violated international law and fully qualifies as an invasion and subsequent occupation. (On Wikibreak, citations will need to wait for July...)

    For those believing there is a "controversy" whether this was an occupation, I again invite those parties to provide reputable references indicating how the USSR's invasion and occupation of the Baltics was legal. (Something with more substance than quotes from Russian newspapers quoting Russian generals simply stating you can't occupy something that's already yours.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

On Estonia's entry to the USSR - no ground for doubts

A reference has been added by me, a link to one of several relevant rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, in which the illegal occupation, the struggle againsts the Soviet occupiers and the war crimes of the occupying power is summarized. Therefore cleared the tag--Bete 10:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Maltese is not a Finnish-Hungarian language! POV?

There is a definite mistake in the first paragraph of the article, where it is stated, that:

Along with Finnish, Hungarian and Maltese, Estonian is one of the few official languages of the European Union that is not of Indo-European origin.

Maltese, as it's stated on the Maltese page, is a Semitic, i.e. arabic language, so it has nothing to do with Estonian, Hungarian and Finnish! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomatensaft (talk • contribs) 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

The article does not state that Maltese is a Finnish-Hungarian language. It is saying that Maltese, Finnish, Hungarian, AND Estonian are the only languages of the EU that are not Indo-European in origin. Srose (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I guess, since unlike Maltese, all others are Finnish-Hungarian languages, I got a bit confused.Tomatensaft 13:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, don't worry about it. I got mixed up, too, when I read it quickly the first time. :) Srose (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:22 (UTC)

Bronze soldier controversy

How come nothing about current controvercy in terms of the government trying to remove the memorials to soviet soliders that liberated it when they chased nazis out. 76.168.247.251 23:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has and won't be removed. Right now the grave is under a bus stop, all that they want to do is move statue and the dead to the (military) graveyard. Also, not "liberated", but "replaced one occupation with another". DLX 13:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that nazi occupation was a bad thing and as such had to go in any case. And you can't say that they suffered severely (being turned from agrarian/fisherman state to an industrialized one. Not to mention that by itself estonia was a passing ground for any kind of invasion dating back to pre-Peter I times. By the way,I was born in Vililandi so, my opinions are not completely from outsider 76.168.247.251 08:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

User DLX seems to equate Soviet "occupation" with Nazi occupation (see his comment above that the Soviets "replaced one occupation with another")--this is a dangerously false notion. The two regimes were not both occupations in the same sense. The Nazis engaged in one kind of genocide, and the Soviets engaged in another, and from the point of view of the Estonian population, a much larger genocide. The Nazis did not try to erase the fact that Estonia ever existed, the Soviets indeed attempted to make Estonia and its other conquests part of a homogenous Russia. See Ukraine, where the effects were even worse, for example. RUReady2Testify 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Born in *Vililandi*? There is no such place in Estonia :P Lebatsnok 19:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but unless you read some (unbiased) history, I see no reason to continue this discussion. DLX 08:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a point -- I guess other civilizied countries (including Germany) also planning to put similar memorials under bus stops. Or maybe they are starting to also put up memorials for Waffen-SS soliders. 76.168.247.251 01:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Are also planning"? Just what the hell are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.38.127 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the whole thing -- placing a memorial partially under a bus stop, denying people access to it as well as currently doing "archeological dig" while arresting protesters that did nothing besides patrolling it against vandalism,etc. 76.168.247.251 05:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The bus stop has been there since soviet times - since around 1950, I think. So if you want your dead to be trod on... your call. And those "protesters" broke shop windows (to steal stuff), vandalized cars and houses - and, as it came out, at least some of them were paid (around $7/h) to do that (I'll let you draw conclusions who would do that). Two of the vandals got into knife-fight, one of them died later (both were Russian), several by-standers were beat up. This all was captured by TV cameras, both local and international. So... "protesters that did nothing besides patrolling", eh? DLX 06:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't mix things. Protesters were protesters, vandals were vandals. Among 300 arrested by police 100 were Estonians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.217.174 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Why hasn't temp lockdown for anonymous/new editors been set in effect here to block current page vandalizing by brainwashed idiots ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.23 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there are way to many brainwashed fascists on this forum. I second the proposal for preventing such idiots from spreading nazi propaganda on this article. Yeah and by the way, the Estonian fascist goverment prohibited the taking of photos and using the camera in the latest rally to hide their heinous acts. So the above poster is wrong to say that any TV cameras, both local and international could have captured the videos, since only goverment supporting journalists were alowed to shoot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.131.250 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing how much brainwashing is going on in Russia. As you don't seem to know, there were cameramen and journalists from at least Russia (several), Finnish, Swedish and also from some international news agencies. Oh, and by the way, Wikipedia isn't a forum. DLX 15:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I realy cant believe how people can forget and betray their history. This war and all the moniments about it, soldiers who died for to save europa from facism, must be honuar of you. They deserve to be respected. Estonya must be shame. And Estonian people musnt suport this dirty idea. --80.252.252.208 07:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the soldiers who came in and killed Estonians and the Russian leaders who ordered the bombing of Tallinn and over 30 000 people to be deported into Siberia won't get my respect. Lenci10 07:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I guess Estonia would be a powerful nation right now if the Russians wouldn't save Estonia from German forces. [/sarcasm] Oh and by the way, is it me or the current situation reminds me of USSR times when people were beaten on streets and jails (Tallinn Sea Port Terminal...and even someone got beaten to death. I sincerely think the police has no right to kill a guy just because of his opinion that he expressed rightfully (This isn't Iraq with Saddam, is it?) Also this reminds me of US soldiers beating Iraq people in jails and just making fun of them, and stangely our goverment is pro-american... Hmm? - 213.219.90.80 12:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The victim of the riots was not beaten to death, but STABBED to death. As Estonian police forces aren't armed with ninja swords, it is highly unlikely they had any part in it.

As for "rightfully expressing his opinion" .. do please look at the footage before talking. Vandalism and looting is NOT a "rightful expression of opinion".

But as someone has mentioned before, wikipedia is not a forum, so this discussion must end. But these "facts" have no place in wikipedia, simply because there is nothing "fact" about them. ChiLlBeserker 14:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you not understand -- the nice Nazis were improving Estonia with occupation, concentration camps, hunting down non-arian people,etc while the evil USSR was torturing them with industrialization, giving them the huge fishing fleet, modernizing the place --- obviously those evil people had to go. /sarcasm off. 76.168.247.251 02:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The USSR didn't bring Estonia anything. They just changed it from a nazi occupation to a communist occupation. The only difference was that the communist occupation was even more violent on the people of Estonia. Lenci10 08:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Like one of comedians said - "Russians came here to bring freedom and culture, but in a hurry they forgot to bring them along". While in long term, German occupation might have been worse, fifty years of Russian occupation was definitely worse then three years of German rule. Estonia had economy and living standards comparable to Sweden and Denmark, better then Finland. Now it has taken us 16 years to get near the Portugal.

Gee, thanks for bringing all that "industrialization" we didn't ask, want or need - still don't need. And as for the huge fishing fleet, it seems it got lost in the mail, as it never arrived. As for modernizing... there were factories in 1988 that used pre-WWII equipment. Why do you Russians always want to rewrite history to suit you? You should try honesty for a change. DLX 05:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Russia should send in the armour after this outrage. The Estonians have proven their pro-Nazi, Germanophile credentials. 217.134.88.93 15:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait what does Russians wanting to rewrite history has to do with this? I am not Russian, but I still find that Estonian goverment is heavily leaning towards fascism. It is outrageous how many fascists we still have in this world after the blood of almost 60 million people, both German, Russian, American, etc. have been spilled because of their agression!! 132.170.50.123 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pray, tell, how is Estonian government exactly "heavily leaning towards fascism"? And do read both Bronze Soldier of Tallinn and Khimki War Memorial articles before you reply. DLX 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Russia is yet again meddling in Estonia's sovereignty. Fascism has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation and is a baseless and frankly a childish claim. As Russia invaded Estonia they imposed communist rule against peoples will. Russia still seems to have a hard time accepting Estonian independence. It is worrying to see how things develop in Russia with raising nationalism, declining freedom of press and fanatical political groups. A probable cause for Russian extreme behavior in the matter has probably more to do with Russians upcoming elections as an outside scapegoat is needed to divert attention from Russia's internal problems.--Marvinpa 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, sovereignty is not the question here. The question here is how much disrespect Estonia shows towards both its neighbor and its citizens. Lets not forget that 30% of the Estonian population is ethnically Russian (some sourses claim 60%), but over a decade now most of those people were not only denined citizenship (although they and their parents lived in Estonia for their entire lifes) but also a political voice. You claim that nationalism is on the rise in Russia, and yes it is true, and indeed normal. But Estonia had nationals, even extremists ruling the country for quite a while now. And as for the Bronze Solider relocation, the political suppression in that case is even the more obvious. The conflict has nothing to do with the actual relocation, but rather by the manner in which it was done (yes including the namecalling of the govermental representatives towards the deceased soliders as "drunks"). In fact most of the Estonian population by the national survey was against the relocation of the statue in the first place. So obviously, Russia is not the only one to blame with the current situation, for there is enough blame to go around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.133.226 (talk)

Some sources claim that 60% of Estonian population are ethnic Russians? Really?? Could you say which sources make that outlandish claim. I certainly have never heard that.212.50.147.101 07:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the source - "World Atlas", 2001, Penguin Publishing Company, ISBN 0-7894-7989-7, also available at Library of Congress. Statistic- Ethnic mix:62% Russian, 30% Estonian, 8% other. 24.110.133.226 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That is obviously just a simple error. They have accidentally reversed the order and percentage of Estonians and Russians.212.50.147.101 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not obvious, and a similar statistic is provided for Lativa. You must realize that this is a reliable, consistently published source. Well regardless of the actual statistic, both Estonia and Latvia have substantial enthically Russian populace.

Sorry you haven't got a single fact right in any of your trolls here so far. And it is obvious. Checking is not that hard really. According to the CIA Estonian 67.9%, Russian 25.6%, Ukrainian 2.1%, Belarusian 1.3%, Finn 0.9%, other 2.2%.

You understood me completely wrong. I was not saying that such a statistic is true, I was only pointing out that different sources point to different statistics. While CIA.gov points to that one, there are equally credible sources that point to the other. Again the numbers certainly do not really matter, but what matters is that regardless of wheather the number is 60% or 30%, it is still a very significant portion of the populace.

Please do not feed the troll. Wikipedia talk pages are for not forums, they are for discussing the article. -- intgr 06:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced claims

I have removed some unreferenced claims after tagging them with "fact" template, now Digwuren reverted my edits and called them "improper". Why are they improper, exactly? I gave my reasons, unreferenced claims must be removed, see WP:CITE for details. I will restore my edits, explain what's wrong with them before reverting. Lantios 15:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren reverted my edits again [11], with a single comment — "See talk page". Nothing new at the talk page, as you can see. Lantios 15:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexia Death reverted my edits this time. Once again, no reason, nothing. "Nothing on talk page? hen put something on talk page instead of edit waring." Some kind of misunderstanding, I guess. Lantios 16:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do any more reverts without reaching a consensus. Collecting material for you takes time and none of us are full time wikipedians. --Alexia Death 16:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits? Lantios 16:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought I already answered that above. P.S You should be discussing the claims not the removal of them IMHO. This is not a discussion of the claims you find offending. --Alexia Death 16:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You have mentioned lack of consensus. I say that unreferenced claims must be removed as described in WP:CITE. Who disagrees? Nobody? Consensus reached. Why did you revert my edits? Lantios 16:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If the same action has been reverted twice there clearly is no consensus. Please list your grievances, since it is not clear what is the statement made by one word that requires a citation. --Alexia Death 16:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that points of view should be presented on the talk page, not anywhere else. Reverts do not count as arguments. I did not tag the word "unoccupied" with "citation needed", other phrases are pretty obvious [12]. The template follows the dubious claim. Lantios 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please present them then.--Alexia Death 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Hundreds of political prisoners, whom the retreating Soviets had no time to move, were killed." — Sounds extremely evil, people were killed just because there was no time to move them.

"In 1949, in response to slow progress in forming collective farms, as prescribed by the Soviet ideology, about 20,000 people were forcibly deported in a few days either to labor camps or Siberia where half of them perished;..." — I never knew that deportation in such cases was prescribed by Soviet ideology, also the claim that "half of them perished" sounds dubious.

There is also another claim, but it is settled. Lantios 17:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, these actions by USSR officials are all evil. But they all happened, and this is common knowledge. At least, among people who have even marginal knowledge of the events discussed.

You appear not to, but for some reason, you have recently taken interest for this article, and decided to delete statements you don't like -- based on nothing more than "it sounds evil". This is WP:TE. You should not do that. In fact, you should be ashamed of yourself for this a kind of behaviour.

You claim your actions are supported by WP:CITE. No, they aren't. The claims you've removed were even *tagged* only recently; you clearly have not "given them reasonable time" as the policy specifies. Instead, for reasons -- I'm forced to conclude -- having to do with your WP:POV of some sort, you have decided to display impatience and delete statements merely because you don't like them.

Among other sources, all the claims you have chosen to censor, are available in a number of books published in Estonia from 1987-1992. It's notoriously hard to google *inside* books, but the books *themselves* can be found easily. You could have asked about them. If you had had genuine concern, you could have specifically asked for sources on the talk page. Instead, you decided, without proper discussion, without making any real effort at all, to discard statements that cast unfavourable light to Soviet Union, statements that display the crimes against humanity committed as a matter of course by USSR.

What you've done is attempting to convert serious Wikipedia articles into a representation of world as you -- and not many others -- see it; to create a wikiality. This is reprehensible, and even more so because your deeds amount to occupation denial -- *after* you so loudly attempted to *deny the denial*. You should really, really be ashamed of yourself. This *will* come back to haunt you. Digwuren 17:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I will respond right now to the most obvious one. Your English seems somewhat lacking. I read the sentence "In 1949, in response to slow progress in forming collective farms, as prescribed by the Soviet ideology, about 20,000 people were forcibly deported in a few days either to labor camps or Siberia where half of them perished;" that the thing prescribed by Soviet ideology is the formation of collective farms not the repressions. Commas matter you know. The claim of the number of perished is vague but will be cited. I have at least one source about it, but it is unfortunately for you, in Estonian. As I understood Digwuren is currently looking for more and better sources for you.--Alexia Death 17:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I could be wrong about the collective farms bit, but it is still very confusing (compare with "Victims of crime, as prescribed by law, shall be entitled to the following basic rights", [13]). We agree that Soviet ideology does not prescribe deportation, so I will probably rephrase that bit. As for other claims, I doubt that Digwuren is looking for sources since he is too busy attacking me. Lantios 18:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No agreement. Soviet ideology *does* prescribe terror, and before de-Stalinization, terror was practiced through mass repressions such as deportations. By the way, this was also a factor in engineering Holodomor and one of the measures by which Soviet officials declared the whole starvation episode successful. Digwuren 19:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, regarding -Hundreds of political prisoners, whom the retreating Soviets had no time to move were killed.- I also noticed this. Not that it's evil or it's lacking sources is the problem I think but I'm sorry to say, the statement just sounds silly in English. It should clearly refer to the executions of political prisoners at Kawe basement for example, not saying abstract things like the soviets were so busy that they started killing people.. I'm going to try and rewrite parts of the Occupation section, bunch it up a bit. make it more clear etc. --Termer 21:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not about people being busy. It's about there being limited transport resources. Transporting the deportees would have taken up valuable railroad capacity better used for military transport and "evacuations"; thus, it got postponed. Some people -- mostly women and children -- were turned loose; others -- such as most political prisoners not yet deported -- were just shot. Digwuren 22:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't be surprise to anybody that soviets executed their political opponents and their families. Just that explaining this with speculative reasons like transportation or time limits are not factual statements and therefor not appropriate for an encyclopedia I think. Therefor in my opinion "limited transportation and time capacities" are not the most sensible reasons once someone is laying out the facts why the soviets executed their political opponents...Unless you have a source: someone was there interviewing the executors at place asking them, well, why do you kill those people? See we don't have any transportation available and we don't have much time either, so we just kill them. This is nonsense. The fact is, people were killed because they were political opponents, the fact is not: there were limited transportation or time available.--Termer 23:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not my speculation; it can be sourced. When I see the source again, I'll attach it to the article.

Generally, Soviets were not as keen on Just Killing People as the Nazis in the Holocaust were. Instead, they preferred to use the prisoners as forced labour in the Gulag system (which often did lead to death, however). This applied to many political prisoners, too. However, near the end of the first occupation year, the events described above led hauling away the cattle car loads of prisoners in deportation became less economically useful than other uses of the railway capacity, thus leading to delays of the transportation of the last deportees. Some of them were shot brutally -- there's a source describing a cattle car full of women and children, all shot using automatic fire through the car's walls --, some were released -- there's a source describing a cattle car full of mostly women and children from Saaremaa released in Tallinn after a month of imprisonment, in September 1941, IIRC --, and a lot of the "especially dangerous" political prisoners were shot in the prisons. The latter even had a "justification", albeit a doublethink one: it was done to avoid the imprisoned intelligentia from organising efficient military resistance, termed as "anti-Soviet activities".

You imply that interviews of the low-level grunts would be necessary to ascertain the motives of the Stalinist regime. This is not true. The historical research in such matters is often based on archive documents detailing the relevant orders on higher levels of the chain of command. Digwuren 07:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

if it can be sourced, please do that first and then post it. Any questionable thing can make this page less reliable.--Termer 09:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren, rephrased your addition about the exec of pol prisnrs according to the source, added ref as well.--Termer 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Estonian Age of Awakening

Ive started a stub to where Digwurren winked about Estonian national awakening. Please feel free to contribute :) --Alexia Death 08:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New European vector maps

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories

Estonia has a HUGE Russian-speaking minority, and Russian is widely used as a 2nd language in Estonia. --Daniil naumoff 08:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But this is not the inclusion criterion. Incidentally, by now, more Estonian residents speak English as the second language than Russian, but this is not a basis for adding Category:English-speaking countries and territories. Digwuren 09:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

About 28% of Estonian residents use Russian as native language. And majority of the population can understand it. --Daniil naumoff 09:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So? It still does not make Estonia a Russian speaking county. Russian speaking country is a country where MAJORITY of population speaks Russian as native language. --Alexia Death 09:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for purposes of the category, a Russian speaking country is one in which Russia is a national-level official language.

For example, in Finland, Russian has an official language status in some districts, but that does not make Finland a suitable member of this category. Digwuren 09:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If we follow your idea, we should drop USA from the list of "English-speaking countries and territories". English does not have an official status in USA. So? --Daniil naumoff 12:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

English does not have an official status in USA is not a fact! English is not regulated in USA with federal laws is a fact. Since the US is a federal country, each state has it's own laws and English is the official language currently in 28 states. Would you like me to list those or could you please educate yourself and find it out by googling for ex?--Termer 11:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing soviet occupation wordings

This topic arises interesting question. If pro-soviet people here remove the "Occupation" from titles, claiming: "Russia does not accept the occupation theory"... Should we rename Holocaust article aswell, to something like "Theory of Holocaust", to keep it less POV, because "Holocaust deniers deny the existence of holocaust". :) Suva 07:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not the same. The German government has acknowledged the Holocaust. The Russian government has not acknowledged the "occupation".--Ilya1166 12:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Russia and Estonia are two independent countries. Why is the opinion of Russian government important here ? We don't look for opinions of e.g. Georgia, Indonesia or Finland on the occupation of Estonia, so why Russia is mentioned ? --Lysy^talk 12:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Because Russia is considered the Soviet Union's successor state in diplomatic matters (it inherited the Soviet Union's permanent seat on the UN). Russia is the country that the Baltic States target with trying to get to apologise (not Kazakhstan, Belarus or any of the other republics) and are even seeking monetary compensation in the form of "war reparations" from Russia (not Tajikistan, Ukraine or any of the other republics) for the "occupation" during Soviet times.--Ilya1166 12:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then it's not surprising that Russia denies the occupation, isn't it ? --Lysy^talk 12:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Russia rejected the idea of "occupation" long before Estonia's demands of compensation.--Ilya1166 13:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you know a source that says Estonia has filed demands for monetary compensation? Estonians have requeste4d retuns of some removed valuables but I do not know of any compensation demands...--Alexia Death 13:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[14] [15] [16] --Ilya1166 13:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

These sources say that there was an investigation to damages and it was passed to parliament for feasibility of seeking compensation in Estonia and that Latvia did and was denied. As far as I know Estonia never filed the request.--Alexia Death 13:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

These sources clearly state that Estonia is equating occupation to monetary compensation from Russia. The fact that it can't enforce this is irrelevant ("However, Vello Salo realizes that Russia will not pay this compensation").--Ilya1166 13:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but my point was that you cant say that Estonia has made demands, when it really has not... Still, thanks for sources.--Alexia Death 13:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) --Ilya1166 13:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

continues controversies

And yet again I see this "According to modern Estonian.." added without any discussion. This is not a fact. The fact is, According to the sources of the Republic of Estonia since it's occupation in 1940 and the Western democracies." and according to the sources of whomever etc. The point is: even though it's obvious, some former soviet citizens active in Wikpedia were not aware of the fact that for example the republic of Estonia had consuls working in theWestern countries all that time since 1940 all the way up to 1991. These consulates were even issuing Passports to Estonian citizens abroad etc. at the time when the soviets might have thought Estonia had joined happily the SU and then suddenly like a huge surprise, Estonia became “separatist” and gained independence. ..It doesn't give any basis to call occupation common for "modern Estonian..." sources just because it's modern to some former soviet citizens. Now, I'm going to split this occupation-liberation up in to controversies chapter and then please, everybody help yourselves by adding your opinions about the history of Estonia as much as you like. Thank you!--Termer 11:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I myself was a Soviet "citizen" from the occupation/annexation of the Baltics until the demise of the U.S.S.R. since my parents "became citizens" when Latvia "joined" the great fraternal Soviet family. (Citizens & their descendants = citizens).

You might have to be more precise, for example, "practitioners of Soviet historiography." :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Estonia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The article about Estonia contains controversial information and it is biased, reflecting the opinion of Estonian nationalists who are currently in power in this country. It distorts the events of the World War II and of the preceding/following period. It claims that Estonia was occupied by USSR till 1991. But why period before 1918 is not called occupation? This way you need to call the entire history of this country an occupation. There was no special difference between life in Estonia and life in any other part of Russia, or other country of Eastern Europe during this "occupation". There was no special treatment towards Estonians, or Russians, or any other ethnicity on the part of Soviet authorities. The reason why the "occupation" term is brought up by Estonian nationalists is their attempt to extract some practical benefits from those claims, targeting modern Russia to that regard, and at the same time to cover up numerous human rights violations in Estonia itself where hundreds of thousands of residents are stripped of citizenship rights and status based exclusively on their ethnic origin. It is bad that Wikipedia is used by English-speaking Estonian nationalists as a tool to promote their views and misinform the outside world. Alexander0807 01:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Please let me counter some of the popular misconceptions presented in your text. The occupation is called as such because in 1940, USSR illegally annexed an independent state, something that tsarist Russia hadn't done there. I take it you didn't live in any of the occupied republics during the soviet period. The preference in power structures for russian languague and ethnic russians was easily discernible. Estonian citizenship isn't based on ethnicity, but on, well, citizenship. People of russian ethnicity received citizenship automatically if they or their ancestors had had it before Soviet occupation, while ethnic estonians who hadn't had the citizenship before the war had to take the tests with all other immigrants. Accusing the editors to be nationalists for merely presenting the history as it's seen by a consensus of historians everywhere apart from Russia and Belarus is dishonest. 213.35.244.155 (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)