Talk:Estonia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Architecture of Estonia

Hi, I added a short heading for Architecture of Estonia under Culture. I hope everyone's OK with that - I guess I could have posted here before and asked for your opinions but now that I've already done it I thought at least I could let you know that I did so. Yakikaki (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wintertime skyline as supposed inspiration for flag

Speculative, a fantasy flight, not substantiated. Gratuitous. Does not strenghten the reputation of Wikipedia. Frivolous. --Sean Maleter (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. If the picture should be anywhere, it should be confined to the article about the flag (where it also is at the moment). Yakikaki (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Chapter "Family"

The chapter called Family does not talk about family (traditional or modern family types) but about social wellfare benefits. It seems inappropriate.

That section doesn't seem suitable for this article and probably should be moved elsewhere. Not sure where though.--Staberinde (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Images

I have done some removing/replacing of images recently as I feel that there are too many of them and they are often poorly placed. I hope most people are ok with it, but feel free to revert if you disagree.--Staberinde (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks much better now. Well done! Yakikaki (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

GDP

How is it possible for Estonia to have a higher purchasing power parity than nominal GDP? Unless the government gives money away to people, this doesn't really make any sense. DaneOfScandinavy (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course it makes sense, see the article about the concept. --Vihelik (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Tourism in Estonia

Hi! It would be great if you could create this article: Tourism in Estonia!

Perhaps you can draw some inspiration from Tourism in Brazil. :) Thanks & all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Other states in the EU, where the capital city is also the largest city have that noted as part of the capital section of the right panel rather than as a separate row. i.e. Capital and largest city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.75.132 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Gun laws in Estonia

Private citizens Personal protection Open carry Concealed carry Carry without permit Automatic firearms Free of checks Free of registration Max penalty
Estonia ref>https://www.eesti.ee/eng/kodakondsus/turvalisus/mida_peaks_teadma_relvadest /ref> Yes - shall issue Yes - shall issue Yes - shall issue No No No

Hello, I am currently working on the Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#Comparison table and I am a bit short on reliable sources regarding Estonia. I would like to ask anyone with knowledge on the subject to add a reliable source to the table as well as missing information.

First of all, I would like to ask for confirmation that gun ownership, gun ownership for self-defense and concealed carry permit are all shall issue, i.e. that when a person meets legal requirements, the authorities are bound to issue the permit and may not prevent the person from obtaining firearms (unless legal reasons are met, e.g. criminal record, etc.). Also, that concealed carry permit is not subject to proving a special reason by the person and is available to general population.

I could not find anything that would deal with open carry (I presume it is illegal) and automatic firearms (I presume they are may issue, however I don't know how strict the law is, whether it is more in line with the Czech Republic (strict) or Switzerland (permissive). Also, as indicated, I could not find what the maximum penalty for illegal possession is.

Thank you in advance. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything to do with gun ownership and concealed carry permit are shall issue. This is Estonian Weapons Act
§ 20. Weapons and ammunition prohibited for civilian purposes. Section 5 automatic firearms which can produce full automatic fire with a single pull on the trigger.
§ 50.2 Weapons and ammunition shall be carried in a public place in a concealed manner which precludes them being lost, falling into the hands of other persons or causing accidental damage. The chamber of a carried firearm, except for the chamber of a revolver, shall be empty of cartridges.
§ 41.9 A weapons permit or a permit to carry a weapon is issued if there are no circumstances precluding the issue of a permit provided for in § 36 or § 40 of this Act. (All are legal reasons)
Illega possession § 89 fine of up to 300 fine units or by detention. Fine unit is 4€ 300*4=1200€ --Klõps (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Private citizens Personal protection Open carry Concealed carry Carry without permit Automatic firearms Free of checks Free of registration Max penalty
Estonia (EU) ref>https://www.eesti.ee/eng/kodakondsus/turvalisus/mida_peaks_teadma_relvadest /ref> ref>https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/ee/Riigikogu/act/504122014001/consolide /ref> Yes - shall issue Yes - shall issue No Yes - shall issue
(No bullet in chamber - except revolvers)		 No Yes - shall issue (collection purposes) No No
That is interesting. The no bullet in chamber is something I didn't expect (I would hate to carry that way). The prohibition of full auto is absolute or is there any way to get "exemption" for civilians? The Czech firearms code also lists it as "prohibited" and then mandates in which way the prohibition may be "exempted". I see that Art. 26 provides collection permit, according to which one may own also prohibited weapons incl. full auto. Do I read the subsequent connected Articles right, that also this permit and acquisition of full autos is shall issue? That would make it the only shall issue full auto country in the EU!
You are writing "or detention" what is the detention time? Otherwise I guess illegal firearm ownership would be fined like a parking ticket - is that for sure?
Thank you very much, best regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I belive, reading news, that this collection permit allows only weapons that minister of culture has declare culturally and historically significant. Here is a news article (in Estonian) about History Museum getting 4 AK-74s declared historically significant (for soviet occupation themed exhibitions) and it says that it is the only way to get these in the collection.
...the detention, yes You're right this would be like parking ticket... I searched other laws and Penal Code § 418 Unlawful handling of firearms gives up to 3 years' imprisonment if second violation, large quantity etc then 5 years, if part of criminal organisation up to 10. --Klõps (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Can we get something more precise regarding full autos? From reading the google translate it seems a bit that they would be destroyed also because they were seized by the police, not only because of their nature (after all the article covers also firearms that are not full auto). Please correct me if I am wrong. Once we are clear on that I will add it to the table accordingly. Thank you very much for your aid! Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Funny edits

The list of holidays is not a useful contribution to the page. But people here are simply not getting it. Had it been a protected page, the holiday section would have long been removed. This page is about the country's significant features, not the list of its holidays which are of no importance to readers outside of Estonia. 14.139.229.43 (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why an article about a relatively small country should not include a section about that country's national holidays. In the case of a larger country, that content could be spun off ínto a separate article. Any reader who wants a comprehensive understanding of Estonia, whether they live there or elsewhere, will be interested in its national holidays. I live in the U.S. and anyone who wants to understand my country should have the opportunity to learn about our President's Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and so on. Why exclude such content from the encyclopedia? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hear hear - national holidays are part of a country's national identity, and as such are of import to an encyclopedic article about that country. How is it possibly only of interest to Estonian readers? Yunshui 雲水 12:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That is true but not so, practically on wiki, no protected (under greater vigilance) page has such sections. If every such detail is included, it will be unfair with nations whose pages do not include any such section. Also, every minute detail like list of holidays, every list of presidents till now, best airlines , etc will make pages too long! Since wiki's policy is to be fair and neutral, either it should be included in every page, or none. Mousanonyy (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Where is it stipulated that all country articles should have exactly the same contents (even if they generally have the same outline)? Your main concern appears to be that there is no such section in the India article. Instead of getting "justice" by deleting the holidays section elsewhere, raise your concerns and suggest an addition here. --Vihelik (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Even though you mistook my concern, I 'd say they are not even adding a "tourism" section to the article "India", the tenth largest tourist destination in Asia. Forget abouyt adding India's holidays. Secondly, my concern is that due to surplus items, Estonia's page is similar in size to world's largest , more vivid nations. I said "had it been a protected page", the holiday section would have been removed. The article would have been to the point. You can't add minor details like from staple food to national holidays to favorite names in Estonia here. Do not mind, but I think wikipedia reserves a soft corner for Europe and includes every thing about European countries while highly scruitinizes articles of other countries, i mean kind of racism. Mousanonyy (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Population

"67.3% of Estonian citizens speak Estonian as their native language, 29.7% Russian, and 3% speak other languages" - this is from 2000, the updated numbers from 2011 census are a bit different, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.160.34 (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have read elsewhere that some or all of the Russian speaking population is not eligible to vote in elections and elections can be regarded as skewed. I believe that it should be mentioned one way or the other to avoid confusion and address (possible) propaganda from trolling hirelings. 58.174.224.15 (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
You read wrong. 100% of Russian speakers who are Estonian citizens are eligible to vote in Estonian elections. --Nug (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice word-trick there Nug. That statement ain´t interesting without mentioning how many off the people living in Estonia was stripped off their citizenship after the independence? It´s a bit strange that it doesn´t mentions at all in the article. Is all childs borned in Estonia automatically citizens today or still discrimination against russians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Växelhäxan (talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
No word trick, just reality. Nobody was stripped of Estonia citizenship. Estonia today is a continuation of pre-war Estonia, so anyone (or their parents or grandparents) who was an Estonian citizen in the pre-war republic continues to be a citizen today, regardless of their ethnicity. Those post-war immigrants where Soviet citizens, when the Soviet Union collapsed they became stateless, neither a citizen of Russian or Estonia. Recall that France denied citizenship to German settlers when they recovered Alsace-Lorraine after 50 years of German occupation. Estonia very generously offered those stateless immigrants Estonian citizenship via naturalisation, which requires an oath of loyalty to Estonia. --Nug (talk) 07:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Estonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Estonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Estonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Languages section: Anti-Russophone bias?

There seems to be an organized attempt in both this section, and the standalone page linked at the top of it, to not give the top-line percentages of ALL Estonians who speak a given language (by whatever metric). The statistics obviously exist, as those which *are* listed are derivatives thereof. Who's trying to hide the real numbers of Estonian speakers vs. Russian speakers? And why?184.145.44.43 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Table 6.2 in the Estonian Integration Monitoring 2015, 81% of Estonians spoke at least some Russian. The report does unfortunately not specify the language skills of the whole population of Estonia or non-Estonians but assuming that Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Latvians, Jews, and Tatars spoke at least some Russian, it is fair to cite 87% of the population of Estonia spoke at least some Russian. For the sake of context, it would be necessary to cite that alongside Table 6.3 of the report according to which 63% of Estonians and 36% of non-Estonians spoke at least some English, making it 54% of the whole population in 2015. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

History section changes

As some tough guy threatened to report me [1] I will provide a short rationale for changes to prehistory section (before my changes: [2] after: [3]). First off, I actually made sure everything is referenced, unlike previous version. Second, we don't really need excessive detail, like three sentences about raid to Sigtuna, or long talk about how Tharapita = Thor which is dubious theory at best, or explanation where term "Oesilians" originated, and most of all, we don't need whole separate subsection for Oeselians who lived in same timeperiod as other Estonians. Such specific details belong to subarticles. If there is some detail that I removed, and you think deserves re-adding, then it obviously can be discussed. But don't forget that this is country article, Swedish archbishop Johannes killed in Sigtuna is not some really important figure in grand picture of Estonian history. Also everything needs to be sourced, preferably to something more recent than simple translation of Chronicle of Henry of Livonia..--Staberinde (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It is just ignorant to lump all history together. It clearly shows you have no knowledge in the history of Estonia whatsoever. There's a reason for those sections due to the importance of the periods that formed the modern day country/people. You're ruining the page by deleting subsections of some of the most significant historic eras and making half of the information inconveniently accessible, information that should be clearly presented. If you like to contribute DO NOT delete the whole page and lump everything together. SvenEst (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Staberinde. This article should include only basic overview about Estonian history, who wants to know more, can go more specific articles. Detailed discussion about a god called Tharapita (including dubious statements and contradictions - is it god of Estonians or Oesilians?), about Aesti (even which connection to Estonian history is questionable), about Oesilians (with dubious and overstated claims, a la "dominant power in the Baltic region") is way too much. Oesilians can be mentioned in 1, max 2 sentences, anyone interested to know more about them, can follow link. Tharapita and Aesti might not be even mentioned here. Imagine if we would write about every detail so much, article would become ultralong and unreadable. --Minnekon (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The article was already as basic as possible with easy to read sections and quick facts. While I agree that there were a couple of irrelevant points like the mention of Tharapita which was not necessary (although he is a superior god in the indigenous Estonian pagan relegion) there's no reason to delete important paragraphs regarding the Viking age and Danish Estonia. The current layout is horrible and a lot of crucial information regarding the history is inconveniently (or conveniently to some) accessible and not clear. Not sure if intentional but it seems like there's an attempt to hide some parts of the history by making the article as vague and plain as possible.
First of all people didn't just wake up one day and discover themselves in the Medieval ages. It was preceded by an era where the inhabitants of the area were not technically classified as "ancient" anymore (the Migration Period in Europe at the time). They had developed social systems and were actively in contact with the neighboring regions (especially Scandinavia) wether it was raids or trade. The Vikings from Estonia (not only from Saaremaa but the Oeselians were the most well-known) were one of the key reasons which triggered the invasion of Denmark due to the constant attacks by the Finnic pagan raiders who allied with the Swedes in many battles. The Viking section is crucial in understanding the following period of Northern crusades and the Scandinavian conquest of Estonia leading to one of the first de jure states to exist in the territory of the modern day Estonia - The Kingdom of Denmark. The same period saw Estonians starting to affect the region around it (e.g. the Sigtuna raid, which caused the downfall of the royal and commercial centre of Sweden and helped Stockholm and Uppsala to rise as the centers of power). During the time the inhabitants of Estonia started to be acknowledged as a group of people that were collectively united as a cohesive entity for the first time. You can't just jump from the Mesolithic Period to the Middle ages and leave out roughly 5000 years of relevant history.
It's just stupid to delete the section of Danish Estonia -the era of the formation of the modern customs, political tradition and cultural identity. The centuries long rule by the Danes deserves a separate section especially due to the fact that most of the modern day Estonia is formed after the controlled areas. While the conquest of Southern Estonia took place simultaneously the next distinct era starts after the St. George's Night Uprising and the full invasion of the Teutonic Order.
This random deleting of sections containing historically important information in the article is absolutely uncalled for. I agree that some of the sections should be repaired and rephrased a bit better. But there's no logical reason to lump 6000 years of history into two sections. The history is not that black and white and the arguments you present aren't adequate enough to butcher the whole page.SvenEst (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Most important facts of Viking section (contacts with Scandinavians, Oeselians and Baltic viking era, Sigtuna raid) are in current version. If there is some specific fact that you think should be added then that can be discussed. Obviously everything needs to be sourced, unlike old version. Danish section was just stupid. There was no separate Danish crusade and German crusade, there was just one Livonian crusade. Similarly there was no Danish St. George's Night Uprising and German St. George's Night Uprising, there was just one St. George's Night Uprising. If you checked some Good country articles, like Croatia or Bulgaria, you would notice that they don't have separate section about every damn foreign ruler, because such system is just a mess for reader. Overall, you seem to have pretty poor grasp about how good and readable article should be structured, because previous version was just crappy.--Staberinde (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Version of Staberinde isn't perfect, but come on, suggesting he "randomly delete of sections" and "butcher the whole page" and having motive to "hide" something in Estonian prehistory is not part of reasonable discussion. You can see that info that used to be in 'Danish Estonia' section, is presented in 'Middle ages' section.
"Rule by the Danes deserves a separate section especially due to the fact that most of the modern day Estonia is formed after the controlled areas". This fact is wrong. If you compare map of modern Estonia with map of Danish Estonia you can easily see that most of modern Estonia was not part of Denmark at that time.
As Staberinde proposed, point out what facts exactly should be re-added to article. For example, you said that reason why Denmark invaded (raids of Oesilians) should be mentioned. I agree. Now we need clear short way to express it and source confirming that claim. By the way, I noticed few probable mistakes you made on that topic. First, it's possible to colloquially use expression "Vikings from Estonia", but in fact Oesilians or Estonians were not Vikings. Second, "attacks by the Finnic pagan raiders who allied with the Swedes in many battles" - I don't think Danish cared to which linguistic group (Finnic) raiders happened belong; which source claims alliance with Swedes? Third, "Sigtuna raid, which caused the downfall of the royal and commercial centre of Sweden" - raid did not cause downfall of Sigtuna and it's not certain that Oesilians or Estonians participated in that raid.[4] --Minnekon (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Nordic model?

Newest edit: Following in the steps of the Nordic-style welfare model, the citizens of Estonia are provided with universal health care, free education and the worlds longest paid maternity leave. (reference: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/10/daily-chart-10)

First, reference does not mention anything about health care and education and it does not say maternity leave is "the longest" in world. Second, I don't believe those policies follow Nordic welfare model. Free health care and education were inherited from Soviet Estonia, long maternity leave arise from internal problems and politics as actually also stated in given reference). --Minnekon (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the author of the edit but Estonia does have free university education now (since 2012?) and socialized health care. Not sure if the line of text is still there but the maternity leave is the longest in OECD (two years). Don't know about the world. Free university education was not inherited from soviet estonia, Estonia did not have free uni. education from 1990-2012. Except for some important areas like doctors & engineers. JonSonberg (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
By and large university education was free in Estonia before 2012, i.e. the state budget supported a similar number of students to study for free as it does now while a small number of students paid a tuition. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Religion

Removed: Tharapita, the local version of Thor from Nordic Paganism was the predominant deity for the Estonian tribes before Christianization. According to several medieval chronicles, Estonians did not work on Thursdays (days of Thor) and Thursday nights were called "evenings of Tooru". Some sources say Estonians used to gather in holy woods (Hiis) on Thursday evenings, where a bagpipe player sat on a stone and played while people danced and sang until the dawn.

Some dubious and unsourced claims, but could be partially true (Thor might be one possible etymology for Tharapita). Sources needed. --Minnekon (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

AfD: Finnic countries

There's currently an AfD discussion about this topic. Please give your opinion. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Estonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Resize images instead of deleting

Too many or too few images is a subjective matter. There is always an option to resize images instead of deleting them. JonSonberg (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Danish Estonia

Danish Estonia has been completely erased from history from the main article page, which is very wrong. I dont know why someone would do that, as it was a long and important part in the history of Northern Estonia. This will need to be added back. JonSonberg (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

But it is in the article. Danish Estonia is mentioned and Main article: History of Estonia link is there for a reason. Information is supposed to be short and that's why many things related to history (or not) are moved to a separate article or articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Relevant parts of Danish Estonia is covered, mostly in "Middle-Ages" section where it belongs chronologically, except Danish Saaremaa which is in next section.--Staberinde (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

user:JonSonberg additions

Please stop crapping on this article. I went through hassle of rewriting history section from the beginning to the end of Swedish age, to make sure it followed logical order and everything was sourced. Now you just shoveled [5] giant pile of garbage into middle of it. That giant pile of garbage had only 2 sourced statements, and in fact those 2 statements were already included in previous subsection, meaning that you don't even read what you are adding to, just blindly throwing stuff over the wall. Wikipedia:Competence is required, and frankly it seems to be lacking. This article about Estonia, the country, not "my favourite trivia about Estonia" collection. If you have trouble understanding what a good country article looks like go check Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, or New Zealand, notice how stuff is sourced, relatively concise, and moderation with images? Also it is cute how you are directing me to talk page in edit summary [6], but completely ignored recent discussions about history and foreign relations sections here.--Staberinde (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No, you should stop your disruptive editing Staberinde. You don't own the exclusive right to edit this article. As I've said before, leaving out roughly 5000 years of IMPORTANT history that helped to shape the modern country/people today is just stupid. I was too tired to continue arguing with a child so I left it as it was but now it has come to my attention that you've started to annoy more people here. Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, or New Zealand have nothing to do with Estonia and if you have no clue about the history, culture or general Wikipedia guidelines please stop editing this article or a report will follow soon. SvenEst (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with SvenEst. Staberinde I have no problem with extra content that you write. But you cannot DELETE content that other users have created and is historically correct. If you think a sentence does not contain the correct reference then you can add a reference-needed tag for it. Not delete the entire section. Also, you have deleted content that has nothing to do with the viking age section. For example the economy graph. There is no objective reason for deleting it. Also bear in mind that you do not own this article and do not have a right to single-handedly decide what is proper and what is not. JonSonberg (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Literally anyone can delete content that is not reliably sourced. If you aren't aware of that then I suggest spending some time familiarizing yourself with wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also I suggest you to actually read the article before you edit it. Simply because there is no section titled "Viking Age" doesn't mean that period sometimes referred as such is not covered, it is just covered as part of other section. Obviously if you think that there is some specific very crucial fact missing then that can be discussed, but it should be kept in mind that this is Estonia, not History of Estonia and definitely not Ancient Estonia, finer details belong to subarticles. Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, or New Zealand were examples of Wikipedia:Good_articles as judged by experienced editors, sorry but you two have absolutely subpar understanding of quality, so I advise familiarizing yourself with what actually passes as good article around here.--Staberinde (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Protected due to edit warring

Estonia has been fully protected two weeks due to an edit war. If there is disagreement as to what material is important enough to be included, make a proposal on talk and try to get support for your change. If you believe that consensus already favors your change, you can use the {{Edit fully protected}} template to get the attention of an administrator; if they agree, they can make your change. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Nordic relations

Estonia was invited to join NORDEFCO in 2011. Source: [7]

Although several sources indeed claim Baltic states were asked to join NORDEFCO, it seems to be misunderstanding. Decent sources (a book, Baltic defense ministers communique), including organization's own report, say that it was invitation to cooperate in selected activities, not to become member of organization. --Minnekon (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
That edit was reverted with explanation: "Estonia was invited to join nordefco. It is currently in the process of joining." No arguments were presented why above mentioned decent sources don't mention invitation to join organization. No sources were presented that say process of joining is going on. --Minnekon (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I also rephrased some of the chapter to show that Estonia-Nordic relations are mostly in context of Baltic-Nordic relations. Otherwise same information should be repeated as relations with LT and LV anyway - it would be redundant. Also, not mentioning other Baltic states could give false impression that only Estonia have been involved (which already is false-belief that some people seem to hold). --Minnekon (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate that if certain edit is explained on talk page, then somebody (talking about User:JonSonberg) would not just delate edit with no explanation, but give counter arguments on talk page.
In hope for discussion I try to explain once more why references to Baltic states should exist. We have a chapter about Foreign relations of Estonia. It might or might not be divided into sub-sections, for example on basis of main partners like EU, USA, Nordic or Baltic states, for clarity reasons. Currently only one sub-section, called "Relations with the Nordic countries", is created. Situation is that some mentioned partnerships with Nordic states are actually also partnerships with Baltic states, because Latvia and Lithuania also participate. I see no justification for arbitrarily mentioning only Nordic partners and ignoring Baltic ones. Now question is how to formulate it. Author of deletion seems to suggest that because title of sub-section, where these partnerships are currently mentioned, refers to "Nordic" relations, then mentioning other states is not welcome. But that don't justify deleting facts about Estonia-Baltic states relations. If we would agree that only Nordic states are allowed to mention in this section, then Baltic partnership side should be written elsewhere in article (would be practically repeating same thing and redundant) or whole segment relocated from "Nordic" sub-section to main part of chapter (more logical option). But having sub-section titled "Nordic relations" actually does not rule out mentioning other countries if they are also connected to described partnerships, so actually I see no need to change anything. --Minnekon (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Namings of Baltic states have also been removed from other parts of article, most of them unnecessarily. Giving context to historical events is valuable and if Estonia went trough some events together with other Baltic states then marking it out is natural. --Minnekon (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning Nord Pool Spot (energy market company) hardly fits under relations between countries, let alone "Nordic relations" as it operates in lot more countries. Should be integrated to Estonia#Economy chapter. --Minnekon (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The beginning of that position has been seen in December 1999, when then Estonian foreign minister (and President of Estonia from 2006 until 2016) Toomas Hendrik Ilves delivered a speech entitled "Estonia as a Nordic Country" to the Swedish Institute for International Affairs, with potential political calculation behind it being wish to distinguish Estonia from more slowly progressing southern neighbors, which could have postponed early participation in European Union enlargement for Estonia.

End of this segment (about calculation) was deleted with explanation: "one person's theory isn't notablity, as you have said on other articles". I have never said that assessment (or theory if you like to call it so) of academic author (in this case Andres Kasekamp) isn't notable. Of course it is. You probably confuse it with me saying that academic author casually using some expression doesn't mean that this expression or presumed topic behind it should be turned into Wikipedia article. Anyway, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Minnekon (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Andres Kasekamp argued in 2005 that relevance of identity discussions in Baltic states decreased with entering to EU and NATO together, but predicted that in future attractiveness of Nordic identity in Baltic states will grow and eventually five Nordic states plus three Baltic states will become a single unit.

Was deleted with explanation: "how is the nordic identity in the baltics relevant to estonia-nordic relations". Because Estonia is one of those Baltic states. We should stop writing about Nordic identity in Estonia just because academic dared to mention Estonia as one of Baltic states? --Minnekon (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I restored the previous stable version of foreign relations. All the additions were mostly trivia, also I see no good reason for creating fully separate subsection for Nordics.--Staberinde (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Still no rationale for separate nordic subsection, even none of the Nordic countries have that so its just silly.--Staberinde (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Nordic subsection is not necessary, at least in overview article like this. But I think assessment of academic Kasekamp to Estonia (Baltic)-Nordic relations should be re-added, because he is reliable source confirming what events are important in Estonia-Nordic relations (currently it is editors own assessment) and it helps to understand context of those events and gives broader picture. Also I think current "Foreign relations" chapter contains some claims that are not sourced, sourced with unreliable materials, outdated, not about foreign relations or are too detailed. I already edited according to those problems, but now in current version they are back again. --Minnekon (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There are no Estonian Vikings

The term "Vikings" wasn't invented until far after the Viking age to refer to ONLY old Norse peoples (people who spoke Old Norse). The word "víkingr" in old norse refered to a participant in a sea journey and is not the same term as modern day "viking". Please see the Etymology section on the Viking Wikipedia page for more information. "Víkingr frá Esthland" actually translates to "Seafarer from Estonia" Scandinavian Leif (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes there were. The time in history from 540 to 1050 AD is defined as "The Estonian Viking Age" in Estonia by the University of Tartu and it's also included in the school curriculum. Referenced here. A full online version of the research book is available here. JonSonberg (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
It would be useful if you just don't recommend others to read some research (English version of your mentioned book), but actually do it yourself too. You would learn that Viking age is agreed name for certain period in North-European history (not 540 to 1050 as you say, but 800-1050). It does not mean that all North European population was Vikings and Estonian Viking age has nothing to do with people of Estonia being Vikings. --Minnekon (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The Viking Age in Estonia

The time in history from 540 to 1050 AD is defined as "The Estonian Viking Age" in Estonia by the University of Tartu and it's also included in the school curriculum. Referenced here. A full online version of the research book is available here. Specific details on what to write and display there can be debated. But users are not to delete this section from history. It covers 500 years of AD history of Estonia. Users unfamiliar with the history of Estonia should not be rewriting history here. JonSonberg (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Whole period from end of Ice Age to 1200 AD is already covered in condensed form by "Prehistory" section. Technically we could rename it "Prehistory and Viking Age", but I fail to see the need. It is quite common to refer whole pre-crusade period as "Prehistory" ("Esiaeg","Esiajalugu"), for example Estonian Encyclopedia (Eesti entsüklopeedia 11. Eesti üld) refers it like that too.--Staberinde (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't care how you write your content or what you include but both the Viking Age and Danish Estonia need to be written as subheadings, with content under them. Northern Estonia, Livonia and the islands have had a different history for most of the time and have been separate countries. 300+200 years of history condensed into mixed paragraphs under a single "middle ages" title is wrong and misleading. You would not pass a 9th grade history essay with this type of generalization. JonSonberg (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
News flash: we aren't writing 9th grade history exam here, we don't need to press in every cute fact we know just to impress teachers. This in encyclopedia article, about Estonia the country, all of it, from history to government, from military to literature. Encyclopedia articles are summarized, if someone wants to read finer details then they can go to appropriate subarticles. Also, simply having different ruler doesn't mean that history was necessarily fundamentally different. What would separate "Danish Estonia" actually give us? Livonian Crusade was very clearly one single conflict so separating it to Danish and German parts is unworkable. Reval was Hanseatic city just like Dorpat, Pernau and Fellin, how separating it improves article? Reval and Dorpat were both major trade centers and politically relatively independent, again, how does it improve article having one in one section and other in other section? St. George's Night uprising was once again clearly one single conflict that can't be divided to Danish and German parts.--Staberinde (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

About "Viking age" subsection. First, it was poorly written. It was mostly list of mentions of Estonia/Estonians in western written sources until 13th century. It uses wrong meaning of terms Vikings and Viking age. It was mostly not sourced. Secondly, it was wrongly presented as separate period between prehistory and middle ages, but it's part of prehistory. Thirdly, and most importantly in context of current edit war, this subsection is way too long and detailed for basic overview. "Viking age" subsection made up more than half of all content about pre-crusade Estonia. Now if somebody wants to claim that mentions of Estonia in pre-crusade western sources is considered super-important part of Estonian history and it really deserves more room than stone, bronze and rest of iron age combined, then it's simply not true. We can somewhat objectively assess it by how much academic overviews of Estonian history pay intention to it. And they indeed talk about it very little. You can see it even from book recommended above by JonSonberg. And, for example, comprehensive 400-page overview of pre-crusade Estonia ("Eesti esiajalugu", 1982) discusses early mentions of Estonia by western sources in about 1 page, which makes up 0,25% of all prehistory.

So, in conclusion, I think "Viking age" subsection should stay delated (as way too excessive) from this article, but content of it preserved somewhere, maybe on talk page of Ancient Estonia or Oeselians. --Minnekon (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Estonia in a slump

The figures of Estonia shown not to be better quality of life. There was in the position 42 in GDP. It descent to the 45th position. KaplanAL (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Will Estonian economy defeats Czech Republic in Europe?

The GDP (nominal) of Estonia makes restless with Czech although it placed in the 39th position. There's a conflict between Estonia versus Czech in only income-based. KaplanAL (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2017 (British Summer Time)

What edits are you proposing? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Alaliselt Eestis elavad välismaalased

Kas need numbrid sisaldavad kõike? 82.131.33.36 (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Fake insertion by User Materialscientist

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estonia&diff=800360930&oldid=800348025 , maybe s/he can provide evidence for the correctness of the inserted claims User:Materialscientist? 85.182.60.20 (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fake insertion by User DIYeditor

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estonia&diff=800361238&oldid=800361067, maybe s/he can provide evidence for the correctness of the inserted claims User:DIYeditor? 85.182.60.20 (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Nuckö kommun/Noarootsi vald - [8]
Läänemaa - [9]
Four distinct characters - Š and Ž are not for Estonian words but if you want to note that you could do it in the image caption rather than deleting it.
Also please leave edit comments other than "fake". Fake doesn't make sense in English in this context. Edit summaries like that invite reversion. Explain what you think is correct. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Estonia and Nordic again

Could user Gaduse explain some of his changes and additions to article? First, new text in largely based on Per Högselius article [10], but I and many other can't access its content. Are all opinions taken from there his personal views? How is Högselius reliable source? Does he cite reliable sources in his article? --Minnekon (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"Nordic languages, which are both official languages of all the Nordic countries and spoken as first (by the vast majority) or second languages (by the rest) in the entire Nordic region, and which are the sole working languages of the Nordic region's political bodies, are not spoken at all in Estonia, except by a tiny number of expatriates."

What that has to do with supposed Nordic identity of Estonia? --Minnekon (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Finally, you added "because they are not Nordic, because they don't use any of the Nordic Council's working languages and because the Nordic Council is a cooperation forum for Nordic countries which are largely defined by shared (Nordic) languages and culture, not just geographical proximity" as an explanation why Baltic states were not accepted to Nordic Council. I didn't find such claims from cited source, so I removed it. From where you got your claims? --Minnekon (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You also added "clarification needed" tag after one sentence. What exactly needs clarification? --Minnekon (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Estonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Swedish empire map

As other user complained about me removing Swedish Empire map from history section, I am providing a bit more detailed rationale here why I find it poor choice. Fundamentally the main issue is that map is not about Estonia, it is about Swedish Empire and Estonia is just small barely visible part at the edge of it. It doesn't really provide much insight into Estonian history of that period beyond what is already provided in text. Same way we have no need Russian Empire or Soviet Union maps later sections, because those would be only trivial relevance to events in Estonia. I would generally prefer either image of relevant event in Estonia during that period like that from Livonian War, or if we want truly Swedish rule related image then something from that era that is direct result of Swedish rule in Estonia, or if we really want political map, then we could pick one of those where political situation in Estonia is delivered with more detail then simply "small part of this huge empire!": [11],[12], [13].--Staberinde (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Estonia could be brought out more in the context of a geopolitical map. This does not invalidate the geopolitical map approach though. When it comes to substitutes, if we are looking for an architectural representation from the time, it would make sense to use what is objectively the best representation of the architecture of the Swedish Era. That would be the Palmse Manor. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Edit: I don't support the use of the Narva building because it looks bad in it's unrenovated state. Generally you don't put photos of dilapidated buildings on a country's Wikipedia site unless you want to discredit the country. And the b&w battle image offers no context. The article is heavy enough as it is on war photos. Already looks like a war article imho. The Palmse Manor photo is aesthetically good looking and represents the architecture of the time. SørenKierkegaard (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I liked image from Narva mostly because that city gained lots of prominence during the Swedish era, but that said, Palmse manor is a quite okay choice too. I think front side image would be more suitable though: [14].--Staberinde (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Map of Swedish empire is not necessary, but I would argue it is relevant from the perspective of political history (2nd map example by Staberinde is fine too, 1st is not in English and 3rd has too little information). If compared to picture of a building (what real insight into era that gives?) or a battle (drawn 280 years after event, so don't give any realistic insight even to the battle), I would prefer a map. At the same time I do not agree that pictures of certain objects should be avoided on the bases how pretty they look. Neutral approach is to select most common, significant or representative (or at least random) object, not what glorifies or discredits a country. --Minnekon (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I generally think that maps are really only needed then dealing with more politically complex situations that can't really well be understood from text, obvious example being division of Estonia after Livonian crusade between Order, Denmark, and 2 bishoprics. In other cases I see them more as sort of backup option then there is no more appropriate image available, as Estonia being part of some larger empire can easily be understood already from text. Some building from era can give reader actually more concrete example about things developing on the "ground level". That said, I guess this could be an acceptable compromise solution.--Staberinde (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm ok with that map. About buildings: I understand your argument, but I think picture of a building to illustrate certain period is fine if it represents some very common type of building specific to that period; is a picture of some very important building from that time (king's palace if it would have existed or something like that); or is connected to some very important event from that era. I'm not expert of architecture, but seems that proposed town hall and manor are just random, not very important buildings that just happened to be built at that time but could very well be from some other period. --Minnekon (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
My preference is for an image of a significant building like the Palmse manor or something else that represents Swedish rule, maybe a picture of Charles XI who initiated many reforms in Estonia during Swedish rule[15] or even Swedish settlers[16], rather than a map. A map doesn't really add anything, we all know where Estonia is located relative to Sweden. --Nug (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
How Palmse manor is significant building or represents Swedish rule? Seems just another manor built by local landlord, nothing to do with Swedish rule per se. Even worse, present-day look of Palmse#Palmse_manor comes from Russian era. --Minnekon (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe Nug made a typo and meant Palms manor[17] 1.136.109.138 (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
This map is fine as a compromise SørenKierkegaard (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree. It doesn't add anything in the article. Otherwise why not use a map for each period, Estonia in Imperial Russia, Independent Estonia, Soviet occupied Estonia, Re-independent Estonia. We could even use the exact same map, just with a different colour and text. What is the point? Estonia is still Estonia, the same map with just with different annotation indicating the era. History of those eras is more than just geo-politics, there was also significant cultural and societal impact as well, and an image is best for illustrating that impact. --Nug (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Hullo kyrka in Ormsö would be a good example then SørenKierkegaard (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Or also the round crosses in Ormsö, which are only found in Ormsö and Gotland SørenKierkegaard (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Both are good, this would be okay too[18]. --Nug (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course maps add value to article, they help to understand political situation better than just text (that's the point of making maps). Geo-politics is not most important, but it is still important. Anyway, I have not argued that maps are always best choice - instead I said that i prefer it because we don't have any good alternative image about something important/characteristic from Swedish era. I agree that image illustrating "significant cultural and societal impact" is good choice, but I'm not convinced that proposed images portray "significant impact". Let's see what is proposed so far: a random manor (Palmse) which looks on image is different from original; a random small church (Hullo kyrka) partly built during Swedish period; a cemetery with round crosses (Ormsö) which apparently was established after Swedish era [19]; a monument erected on 20th century for event that is mentioned under Russian, not Swedish period paragraph; Swedish settlers in Estonia who were there also before and after Swedish era; king Charles XI of Sweden; Narva Town Hall. I would say only picture of the king represents something important and specific to Swedish era, but is his appearance relevant? I wish those who propose some picture would explain why they think it is important and characteristic, not just claim it. Maybe Narva Town Hall is significant after all, but I haven't seen any proof of it yet. --Minnekon (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably the most significant event during the Swedish era that had the most positive impact from Estonia's perspective would be the establishment of a number of educational institutions by the Swedes during the 1600's. The most famous one is the establishment of the University of Tartu. There isn't a picture of the original Academia Gustaviana building on Wikipedia, but I can uploaded an image in the next few days. --Nug (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
If good image of Tartu University from that era were available then it would be a quite ideal choice in my opinion.--Staberinde (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I've been WP:BOLD and updated the article with an image of the original build, so you can all see it. --Nug (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
That's a good edit SørenKierkegaard (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Estonia/Archive_3&oldid=911300914"