Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator with respect to the article Estland. The nominator says that he still nominates four redirects for deletion, but I believe it would be extremely confusing to fundamentally change the focus of the AfD at this stage. The appropriate target for the redirects can be discussed on their talkpages, or if desired, they can be nominated at WP:RfD. Newyorkbrad 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estland[edit]

Estland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page is not linked from any main namespace article as it is misnamed. 'Estland' used to be one of old names for Estonia, derived from German. This article was apparently originally created to push the WP:POV that there existed an Estonian state on Estonian territory prior to the Republic of Estonia, which is incorrect; now, this has been removed and all that remains is historical data which is already available in History of Estonia. Digwuren 22:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, the original nominator, have converted the article Estland into a disambiguation page, and thus repurposed it into a useful article according to consensus. Consequently, I hereby withdraw the nomination for deletion. Digwuren 21:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirections pages stay up for deletion at this time. See their appropriate entries for details. Digwuren 21:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following redirection pages:

Eestimaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Duchy of Estland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eestimaa Hertsogiriik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Litauen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Yes I did. I clicked 'Save page' too early ... Digwuren 22:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware I should do that. Digwuren 03:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

*Merge to Estonia, now that I know the truth per User:Valentinian. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • With the possible exception of the links regarding the Anvelt's revolution. These, too, should be reviewed and merged. Digwuren 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears I was mistaken. When I first used 'What links here', all I saw were various groupings and categories, not main articles.
I will go through the mistaken references and redirect them to Estonia instead. Digwuren 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have completed this task. There weren't many references. Digwuren 22:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've long wondered why this one remained about, and it contains nothing that isn't better contained in History of Estonia. Both this article and the Kingdom of Livonia was created by socks of the same banned user, but the difference is that Kingdom of Livonia theoretically could have potential, now that we've got rid of some of its worst excesses. Valentinian T / C 22:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, "Estland" is simply the German, Danish and Swedish name for "Estonia". Valentinian T / C 22:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't see the harm in the Litauen redirect to Lithuania. It is simply the German and Scandinavian name. For that matter, Estland could simply be converted to redirect to Estonia by the same criterion. Valentinian T / C 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not knowledgeable enough regarding Litauen, but there's a significant problem with Estland. Specifically, it can refer to the historical Estland region (known for a while as the Revel Governorate), or the current Estonia, which includes former Estland and parts of former Livonia. Furthermore, I do not consider disambiguation the proper way to resolve this issue, as disambiguation loses context. Instead, every link should explicitly refer to whatever is proper (which I tried to achieve). It helps that 'Estland' is not actively being used in English. Digwuren 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it was my bad. I botched the deletion proposal, causing confusion to happen. I apologise. Digwuren 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Danish, Norwegian, and Faroese ;) Valentinian T / C 00:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected Eestimaa, Duchy of Estland and Eestimaa Hertsogiriik to Estonia. As for Estland, all of its contents is in other articles already. Change to redirect - or disambiguation page, as there is "Estland" is also the name of a phantom island on the Zeno map" DLX 04:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 'Estland' should, as of now, most probably redirect to 'Estonia', and the subject matter merged to articles about the history of Estonia, where applicable. As for the source of the confusion, perhaps an altogether separate article would be in order to explain the various current and historical usage patterns of the terms Est- and Liv- / -s, -onia, -onians, ("-land"), etc. Cheers, --3 Löwi 05:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced original research/POV and redirect to Estonia. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. Simply the name for Estonia in most Germanic languages except English. JdeJ 19:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have pondered, and I am fine with making Estland into a disambiguation page. I still believe the others ought to be deleted, though. Digwuren 04:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop this madness – if necessary, by administrator action!
  1. This thing is real – and it is not the same as Estonia. It also has separate articles in Estonian (Eestimaa), Russian (Эстляндия)and Dutch (Estland (gebied)) Wikipedias.
    The Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition from 1911 calls this entry “Esthonia”.
    Esthonia corresponds to the territories of Danish Estonia, Principality of Estland, Swedish Estonia and the Imperial Russian Reval Governorate.
    Before 1917 the current territory of Estonia consisted of “Estland” and the northern part of Livonia. According to EB1911, in 1897 365,959 Estonians lived in Esthonia, and 518,594 in Livonia. After the February Revolution of 1917 these areas were merged and a national parliament created.
    I really do not know what this article should be called in the English language Wikipedia. English does not seem to be able to distinguish between the state and the province. It could be better to rename this to Estonia (province) or Eestimaa (Estland in Estonian), but no proposal has been made.
  2. It seems evident that this proposal was made in bad faith.
    The nominator claimed that the article was “not linked from any main namespace article”. In fact the article had about 30 incoming wikilinks; these were all removed by the nominator on May 23, between 22 and 23 UTC.
    Also, most of the content of the article was removed before the AfD nomination; none of it has been merged to any other article. Here is the original, here the defaced version. I will try to restore the article and possibly improve, but I am afraid it will immediately be vandalized.
  3. The real reason for the deletion proposal is an on going effort by Estonian nationalist to rewrite Estonian history, both on and off Wikipedia. The “provocative” content of this article was the (now removed) section on the socialist revolution in Estonia and the resulting Bolshevist state. Nationalist believe that any information on these slimy commie revolutionaries may give rise to the thought that Estonian communist had something to do with the events of 1940, not just the Soviet tanks and artillery. This is of course a very dangerous form on Soviet occupation denialism and must be expunged from Wikipedia!

-- Petri Krohn 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri, can you come up with a some sources to support your views? The article doesn't have a single valid reference (Estland#External links had two links that mention Estland - one was this very same article in reference.com and another was blog link. Britannica article handles just Estonia, using old name. Best link that I could find is Die Estländische Ritterschaft (partial English: The Estonian Noble Corporation) - and even that mentions it at best passingly. DLX 05:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am not trying to "put you down", I am just trying to find actually some sources that support this. Reval Governorate (see Baltic governorates) seems to be more or less the only time that Northern Estonia was officially called Estland. However - article, if it stays - should firstly mention that Estland is name used for Estonia - and then Estland as Baltic governorate/indistinct historic area. In that case, I would support keeping the article, providing it is properly sourced. DLX 05:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and Current name to redirect of Estonia, I am completely fine with having article about that how Northern-Estonia was separate administrative subdivision from Southern-Estonia. I suggest making move to something like Estland administrative subdivision 1227-1917 (i am sure that there are also better name ideas, just you get the idea). Then we could have Estland ((disambiguation), Estland itsselfly should be redirect to Estonia because it is name of Estonia in many languages. Btw, there was no state of Estland as one previous version of article claims. Maapäev declared itsself only highest local authority. At that time nobody considered it to be a declaration of independence of new country. Declarartion of independce came at 24 February 1918 by Päästekomitee which was formed by Maapäev for that purpose at 19th february.--Staberinde 08:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Petri Kohn: the Dutch article simply means "Estonia (territory)" and has a short overview over the different countries historiclly controlling Estonia. The Russian is the same, just even shorter. We still have no documentation for the use of the name "Est(h)land" in English, and the article's first three lines of text are completely unsourced. In what is now Denmark, a madman declared Als to be a communist republic, but it wasn't recognized by anybody and German police arrested him after three days. If the 1917 administration was universally recognized in Estonia and / or controlled a large segment of Estonia's territory, it should be easy to find numerous references for it. The article doesn't contain any such list. Given the infobox and the very dominating text about 1917, this article seems like an advertisement for something I can't find references to elsewhere. The 1917 paragraph isn't included in the Russian and Dutch texts which essentially is a List of countries previously controlling Northern Estonia. So we have three problems: unsourced 1917 section, an unusual article name, and next to no content. Valentinian T / C 09:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You are misrepresenting the Dutch article; it is clearly about Eestimaa, not modern Estonia. Quote: "Estland (Ests: Eestimaa) of het Hertogdom Estland (Ests: Eestimaa Hertsogiriik) was een historische provincie in Noord-Estland". The countries listed are the ones historically controlling Northern Estonia (Estland). In most cases they did not have control over Southern Estonia in Livonia
  2. There is no doubt about the fact that the Bolsheviks controlled Estonia until the German occupation in 1918. The question is, were these Estonian Bolsheviks or Russian Bolsheviks. Estonian nationalist would naturally like to portray them as Russian Bolsheviks. Anyway, Estonia before the German occupation (whatever its name was) should go to a separate article. -- Petri Krohn 23:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is no such doubt. They didn't. Anvelt issued a declaration following the doctrine of War Revolution; he didn't have power nor authority, so it's a misrepresentation to say he created a state on the territory of Estonia. Maapäev had authority and eventually gathered enough power to raise an army.
Anvelt's "contribution", however, was artificially inflated in Soviet propagandistic history, including the encyclopædias published under Soviet control, for reasons that should be obvious. Digwuren 06:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In context of Estonia the country (as contrasted by celestial bodies), 'Estland', if it has meaning in English at all, means primarily Estonia. Secondarily, it may also be considered to be a raw loan from a historical administrative unit, similar to Livland. Unfortunately, as the article was, and as Petri Krohn appears to still think, it attempted to make a clear bijective relation between English 'Estland' and the word 'Eestimaa' used in Estonian language. This is incorrect; the latter word merely means 'the land of Estonia' or 'the country of Estonia'.
Back in the early 20th century -- especially before the Republic --, this word was commonly used to refer to Estonia, and figured into a number of organisations' names, such as the 'Eestimaa Päästmise Komitee' (English: Committee for Saving Estonia) in the meaning of Estonia.
Some Estonian celebrities have suggested renaming Estonia into Estland in English as a public relations project. Nothing has come of it, and I do not think it was notable.
So, still, I believe that if Estland is to remain, it should be a disambiguation page, pointing first and foremost to Estonia and then to Revel Governorate, along with History of Estonia for more detailed description of the geopolitical situation. Digwuren 10:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Estonia, it is the name for Estonia in some foreign languages like Danish. Martintg 06:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a bad-faith nomination by people abusing Wikipedia to push their nationalist mythology. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Map of 1790
  • Keep and Expand In Estonian Eestimaa is the name of the historical province, that is a part of the Estonian History but has clearly different meaning than Eesti (Estonia). Similarly in Russian historiography the name of the province Estlyandiya (Эстляндия) is different from Estinia (Эстония). I guess the same distinction is in the English-language publications prepared in modern Estonia. E.g. modern guide to Tallinn [1] states:Unlike other parts of the Russian Empire, the Estonian territories – Estland, Liftlan and Kurland, even after becoming part of it, retained their spirit and their “Germanic” way of life for a very long time.. I guess the province is clearly notable and deserve an article, not only because it is a part of Estonian history, but because of its role as a part of Russian Empire. Since I am not the native English speaker I am not sure what is the English name for the province (and frankly do not care much). Estland seems to be the preferential web usage, but e.g. Augustus Kotzebue in his 1805 book English-Language book "Travel to Italy" [2] used spelling Eastland. 1790 Map "A new map of the Northern States containing the Kingdoms of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway" used spelling Estonia. Thus, I would prefer the name Estland but Eastland, Estonia (province) or even Eestimaa are fine with me Alex Bakharev 17:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. Eestimaa in Estonian means 'Estonia the country'. References to the historical province are *always* qualified: Eestimaa kubermang.
Usually, use of Eestimaa is considered slightly archaic: it features regularly in texts dating from pre-1930s, as back then, 'eesti' alone was considered adjective in function and thus, in need of a qualifying noun to form a word (or word phrase such as 'eesti keel'); however, over time, 'Eesti' became the accepted short form of the same meaning. Sometimes, it's even used in reference to the historical provinces, producing names such as 'Eesti kubermang' and 'Liivi kubermang', but this is not considered proper in the scholarly circles.
  • Your source is worthless. Let me count some mistakes:
  • The dark and gray fellow should be spelt 'Järvevana'.
  • The lake should be spelt 'Ülemiste'. Using 'yu' instead of 'ü' is indication of the spelling being doubly transliterated through Russian.
  • The hills should be spelt 'Lasnamäe'. Using 'ya' instead of 'ä' is, again, indication of double transliteration through Russian.
  • Did you note the mistaken use of nominative instead of possessive?
  • The name of the cartographer is Abu Abd Allah Muhammad al-Idrisi; usually called al-Idrisi in Latin script.
  • "Olvree" is a mishmash. It doesn't even google! The actual name al-Idrisi used was something like Kolõvan. (If you can't pronounce 'õ', try Kolyvan. If German letters bother you, try Колыван.)
(Actually, he wrote in Arabic; his names inevitably need transliteration, and thus, there's some room for creativity.)
  • The city was sold in 1346, not 1343.
  • Swearing allegiance to Swedish king is factual but misleading. In fact, the city rat asked for protection from the Swedes; allegiance was merely a part of the whole procedure.
  • Again, in 1710, the city didn't just "swear allegiance" to Peter the Great; rather, the city capitulated.
  • The province of Livonia should be spelt Livland, not "Liftlan".
  • It's a gross misrepresentation to call Estland, Livland and Kurland "Estonian territories". Together, these three provinces became most of what's now Estonia and Latvia, and there's some overlap with modern Lithuania. Only the province of Estland and northern Livland are modern Estonia. While a tribe of people that might have been of Fenno-Ugric heritage lived in Kurland (their heritage is hotly disputed), they're extinct or assimilated by now, and the territory belongs to Latvia.
  • "Germanic way of life" displays Russian ethnographic bias by the author. Немецкие буквы I mentioned earlier are another facet of the same ... you-know-what. Again, it's incorrect for the context.
  • The position was not of high significance for 19th century industrial development. Tallinn's primary industrial development sources have been closeness to a number of natural resources, such as dolomite, a number of forests, and a river (now underground), and these factors have been there, and aided relatively rapid industrial development, for several centuries. In 19th century, the primary contributor to industrial development was the Industrial Revolution, and it didn't really favour Tallinn over other Estonian regions. Tallinn's *position* was mainly convenient for trade, and for defence; these, of course, were factors primarily in the medieval times.
  • "Dome cathedral" is yet another of those sucked-out-of-a-pencil horrible misspellings. I'm guessing the writer means Toomkatedraal.
  • Saying "The first mentioning of this Gothic-style church dates from 1267." is just careless editing. First of all, the church has burned down repeatedly during the centuries, and thus, been repeatedly rebuilt -- either fully or partially. In 1267, it probably didn't even stand on the location it currently is; its current outlines didn't stabilise until the 15th century. Its current architecture is mostly a product of the neo-Gothic rebuild after the fire of 1820.
  • The Baron's proper name is Nicolai von Glehn, not "fon Glen". Everybody who has even *superficial* understanding of German names or language should be able to spel "von" properly!
  • The district should be "Mustamäe", not "Mystamya". What did I say about use of 'ya' above?
  • "Nõmme", not "Nymme".
  • The palace should be "Kadriorg", not "Cadriorg".
  • The Niguliste church was built on 13th, not 18th century. The current form is result of restoration works done in 1980s; since Soviet bombing of Tallinn in the WWII up to the restoration, the church stood in ruins.
  • The German merchants would spell its patron's name 'Nicholas'.
  • "Maarjamägi", not "Maaryamyagi". And "Maarjamäe Palace", not "Castle Maarjamägi".
In summary, the article has nothing to be expanded on. Digwuren 18:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Valdemar II captured Lyndanise/Revel/Tallinn in 1219 not in 1210.--Staberinde 20:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background info on user who created the article: I feel like I should say a couple things. I was the one who identified and blocked the socks of user:Bloomfield. He created a number of articles, some of them are pure POVs (like some attack articles on "neo-fascists" in Estonia), some of them are not verifiable (like Palemonids that I merged just last night). He is keen on really obscure subjects, obscure spellings, unconventional sources. That does not mean the article is a total crap, but it's a good indication to be double-careful. My recomnedation: delete so that people interested in the subject would have a clean slate to start with. Renata 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of "Esthland"[edit]

It is extermely difficult to find on-line references to what Estimaa was called in the English language before 1900. Most likely it did not have a name at all, but was referd to by its German (or Russian) name. Also, there do not seem to be much pre-1900 English literature on Estonia, all the references listed in the EB 1911 article are in German, using the name Esthland.

There are some English language sources using the word Esthland

The word is also used in some more modern translation, including the Works of Lenin.

It seems to me that the word Esthonia is a result of the late 19th century nationalsit movement and most likely was not used anywhere before 1880. Both EB 1911 and the Catholic Encyclopedia (1906) however use it to refer to Eestimaa. We could in fact place the burden of proof the other way around: can anyone provide a reference or show a use of the word Esthonia in the English language before 1880? -- Petri Krohn 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It seems, that the use of the word Eesti for Eestimaa or Estonia in the Estonian language is a fairly new innovation. Can anyone show a use of the word "Eesti" before 1870?. I posted a similar challenge on the Finnish Wikipedia regarding the word Suomi. (See fi:Keskustelu:Suomi#Suomi -sanan historia) I later found out, that it was used already in 1841 as the name of the Swedish language journal of the Finnish Literature Society. -- Petri Krohn 00:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a strawman. Before the national revivals of 1860s, most Estonians educated enough to know several languages, or discuss aspects related to them, spoke German, and thus, called the country Estland (spelt variously). In "border regions", where there was large number of speakers of Latvian or Livonian, speakers of these languages were typically called after their local county, not "Latvians" as such. (And conversely, the modern name for Estonia in Latvian, 'Igaunija', as well as the modern name for Estonia in Finnish, 'Viro', are actually names of nearby elderships; see Ugaunia and Virumaa, respectively. The modern name for Russia in Estonian, 'Venemaa', is more interesting; it is derived from the boats Rus' traders used to cross Lake Peipus.) Digwuren 05:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of ethnicity -- just like that of the concept of race -- being rather foreign to Estonian political and philosophical discourse before the national revivals, any discussion of the Estonian ethnicity, or the Estonian territory over county or eldership limits, would have been rather ad hoc, and thus used to take shapes such as the countryside people (as contrary to urban people, who were mostly Germans or Estonians pretending to be Germans, or this country with all the problems of using adverbs in definitive sense. For example, the first man to use Estonian to write poetry, et:Kristjan Jaak Peterson (whose writings on linguistics were published in a journal called "Beiträge zur genauern Kenntniss der ehstnischen Sprache", by the way), is known to have called himself 'a bard of the countryside people'. You can read his most important poetry in the Estonian Wikipedia's article, and as you can see in them, he routinely used euphemisms rather than a name to refer to the yet-to-be-developed nation. Digwuren 05:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. What is clear, is that Esthland or Estland when used in the English language(added 18:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)) never refered to the whole of Estonia. It would thus be wrong to redirect Estland to Estonia. -- Petri Krohn 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When used in English, 'Estland' is always a leak from some other language, most often German. Leakwords leak along with their original shadows, which depend on context and thus, in this contextless context, it's incorrect to arbitrarily restrict the meaning. Digwuren 19:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from the very English-language source (Early Kings of Norway by Thomas Carlyle) which Petri Krohn referenced above: "CHAPTER VII. REIGN OF OLAF TRYGGVESON. /---/ Poor Astrid had to fly again, deviously to Sweden, to Esthland (Esthonia), to Russia. In Esthland she was sold as a slave, ..." One really hast to stretch the imagination to conclude, based on this, like Petri Krohn did, that '"What is clear, is that Esthland or Estland when used in the English language never refered to the whole of Estonia". Cheers, --3 Löwi 20:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is "whole of Estonia" in this context? Are you saying the Estland in mid 19th century already had some kind of irredentist claim on Livonia? -- Petri Krohn 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. 'Estland' referred to two distinct concepts: 'the province of Estland', and 'the land of Estonians'. 'Estonian', before national revivals, was somewhat ambiguous category, but it is generally accepted that the border between areas dominated by Estonian dialects and the areas dominated by Baltic languages was not far south from the current Estonian-Latvian border. The southern border of the province of Estland, though, was constructed differently: it was the border of an ancient Danish invasion, and thus defined by military practicalities enshrined by administrative convenience. Thus, the discrepancy. Digwuren 05:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estland currently means "Estonia" in many languages(German, Danish etc.). Frankreich (france in german) also redirects to "France" in english wikipedia.--Staberinde 14:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian "Eestimaa" does not refer only to that North-Estonia administrative unit. Its is still actively used today like "Eestimaa Rahvaliit"="Estonian people's Union", "Eestimaa looduse fond"="Estonian fund for nature"[3] etc. and always Eestimaa=Eesti(Estonia).--Staberinde 19:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone doubts that 'Estland' is nothing more than modern Estonia in German or Danish need only go to: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estland or http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estland. Martintg 01:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estland&oldid=1068877201"