Talk:Estonia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:54, 29 April 2007

This article is part of WikiProject Estonia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Estonia. If you would like to participate, please visit the Estonia WikiProject page.

Estonia received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

An event mentioned in this article is an August 20 selected anniversary.

General comments

When did the ship sink? -corvus13

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Anthem

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Feb 2007 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 321: / Line 321: @@
 :::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. [[User:ChiLlBeserker|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. [[User:76.168.247.251|76.168.247.251]] 02:19, 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. [[User:DLX|DLX]] 05:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)