Jump to content

Talk:Estonia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Deleting images: new section
Line 288: Line 288:


Too many or too few images is a subjective matter. There is always an option to resize images instead of deleting them. [[User:JonSonberg|JonSonberg]] ([[User talk:JonSonberg|talk]]) 18:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Too many or too few images is a subjective matter. There is always an option to resize images instead of deleting them. [[User:JonSonberg|JonSonberg]] ([[User talk:JonSonberg|talk]]) 18:02, 4 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estonia&diff=758306333&oldid=758300270] 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estonia&diff=758306617&oldid=758306333] but completely ignored recent discussions about history and foreign relations sections here.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 18:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:27, 4 January 2017

Template:Vital article

Template:Copied multi

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AfD: Finnic countries

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

Nordic relations

Estonia was invited to join NORDEFCO in 2011. Source: [5]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

Deleting images

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)[reply]

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 [6] 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 [7] but completely ignored recent discussions about history and foreign relations sections here.--Staberinde (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Estonia&oldid=758312827"