Jump to content

Talk:Estland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk

[edit]

This article was quite problematic, and full of dubious historical claims.

First, it said that Estonia before February 1918 was an independent state. This is quite an unusual claim. After the February Revolution, the Russian provinces of Estonia (Estland) and the Estonian-speaking northern half of Livonia were united into one province, and Estonia was given certain autonomy, but it was not independent. I removed everything about that.

I have also never heard that Estonia was ever a "principality". This might be a term from the Livonian war in the 16th century, which would be a completely different topic.

Of course we need an article about the Swedish and later Russian governorate of Estonia (Eestimaa kubermang), which this is trying to be. But the naming is problematic, too. I haven't heard that "Estland" is the standard English name for this, I know it's been called Estonia of Esthonia. Estland might do better as a redirect to Estonia.

Rain74 08:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Estland 21:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this article is a part of the WP:POVFORK series that included Republic of Estonia (1990-1991) and Estonian SSR (independent), both deleted by now. It should probably also be deleted, but this one appears to contain actually useful information that should probably be merged into History of Estonia first. Digwuren 18:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second to that motion. --Klamber 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet Republic of Naissaar is also a likely member of the same series. Digwuren 19:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]

As of now, this article "disambiguates" between a number of old administrative territorialities that once existed. I believe most of them shouldn't have their own articles, and should be merged into History of Estonia instead. Digwuren 08:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estland (disambiguation)

[edit]

Guys, please discuss the way you want to organize the page: reserve Eastland for the province and have Estland (disambiguation) for other meaning or have Eastland as a disambig and short articles about the provinces at each country.

I currently do not see killer arguments for one way or another Alex Bakharev 00:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one: there is no "Eastland" distinct from "Estland". "Eastland", along with "Ehstland", "Esthland", "Aestland" and a number of other weird spellings is an alternative spelling of "Estland". Spelling of Germanic languages wasn't very stable in the Olden Days.
Furthermore, "Estland" and "Estonia" have the same semantic content. Digwuren 17:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In principle I am open to the suggestion, that Estland would be a dab page. This is however what needs to happen first:
  1. Someone must propose another name for the existing old article.
  2. A consensus must be reached
  3. The page must be moved to make page for the dab page.
Until this happens, the page should stay with its old content, and the dab page should stay at Estland (disambiguation). -- Petri Krohn 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the old content was a replica of whats under the links. There is absolutely on reason for keeping ANY of it on this or any other page. There were only links that are here, the intro that is also here. The only thing not here is the uncited and AFAIK untrue claim that it was a short lived country. Feel free to add anything that you feel needs added to the linked pages if found acceptable there. I will fully support this being disambiguation page.--Alexia Death 05:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S This being a disambiguation page is a consensus witch you allone are resisting.--Alexia Death 05:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not have any really importnant content as it consist only of short summaries of other articles. Considering its relatively little importance, everything that needs to be preserved and is not yet at History of Estonia should be moved there, article itsselfly should stay as disambiguation page(or it should be redirect to disambiguation page).--Staberinde 08:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Krohns continued attempts of reverting

[edit]

Petri Krohn is still regularly attempting to vandalize this page in spite the consensus on talk page. He refers to AfD in witch the consensus was the same, this should serve as disambiguation page and AfD was closed per request of the starter after reaching this consensus. Is some form of administrative action needed to get this to stop?--Alexia Death 15:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in those old pages he tries to push other than what had been handled under linked pages? Because I sure cant see anything.--Alexia Death 16:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that keeping "Estland" as a concept separate from "Estonia" is what he wants to achieve. Thus, it's not about content per se; it's about WP:WEIGHT. Digwuren 18:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think it's that, it's just a power struggle for the sake of it, and it is getting distruptive. I can't see any substantive issue here. There is already an article that covers this historical region Danish Estonia and Revel Governorate. Where is the need for another article that covers the same region in time and space? I think we have been hoodwinked into withdrawing the AfD believing there was a consensus to make Estland a disambiguation page. Clearly there isn't and some intend to make this article a POV fork to Danish Estonia and Revel Governorate. Martintg 04:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IF this form of page is being forced on us then the withrawal of AfD was premature and based on false assurance of consensus. Its VERY unfortunate that the current protected form is the false one. I say we start the Afd process again.--Alexia Death 05:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irredentism?

[edit]

I really do not understand what is the point in the attacks against this page. If it was a question of the name, this could be solved. Someone just needs to propose a new name.

The issue seems to be something else, "time travel" irredentism. It seems like Estonian editors want to deny do not want it to be known, that most of Estonia in fact belonged to Livonia. The claim here is Estonia irredenta - Estonia has always existed and will always exist in its present borders. -- Petri Krohn 04:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not be ridiculous, we already have articles: Danish Estonia, Principality of Estland, Swedish Estonia, and Reval Governorate which explain that point. Nobody wants to delete those articles. Currently this article has minimal useful information, Demographics section belongs to Reval Governorate and the rest is simply very short overview and should be merged with History of Estonia.--Staberinde 10:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunacy?

[edit]
There is an article called Danish Estonia which covers the historical part of contemporary Estonia that was not Livonia, this is english Wikipedia, Estland is Danish for Estonia. Get a grip. Your reverting of this article seems totally pointless. BTW I'm Australian, your ethnic slur against Estonian editors is noted. Martintg 04:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. This page has no content besides links to other articles. It is already by essence a dab page with replicated material from respective articles.--Alexia Death 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And no estonian denies that once upon a time the land was split in two. However this topic has nothing to do with dening that. Its all about the small oddity in language develpment resulting contemporary english use Estonia and not archaic Estland. In estonian, there is no such difference. Both Eesti and Eestimaa are used in the same meaning. Eesti being the shortened, contemporary and official form.--Alexia Death 05:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of the AfD process

[edit]

Anybody saying that AfD on this page failed havent clearly read the archive. AfD request was withrawin after what seemed like an agreement had been reached that this page needs to be a dab page. Nobody exept one user resists this and he does this by not giving any reasons, just reverting...--Alexia Death 05:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD ended because the nominator withdrew the nomination, thus changing his vote from delete to keep (or dont care). The AfD did not reach the required proportion of votes or qualified votes to delete the article. It failed even more miserably on the arguments. Any administrator with balls would have closed this AfD early as baseless. -- Petri Krohn 12:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are still waiting for your sources to support your argument, do you have any? Martintg 12:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

[edit]

Guys, please drop me a note when you would have some consensus over the article and I would be happy to unprotect. Alternatively you could request unprotection on WP:RPP. Protection is not an enforcement of any particular version of the article Alex Bakharev 05:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} The article should be reverted into disambiguation page, as per the consensus reached in the AfD. Digwuren 07:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There must be consensus before any major changes can take place on this page. You withdrew the AfD, however, there was not consensus (as far as I can see) for the page to be repurposed as a disambiguation page. The closing admin said that consensus should first be reached on this talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically we, all others but one person, are hostages to that persons unsubstantiated refusal?--Alexia Death 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you Irpen and Krohn?

[edit]

You revert the article multiple times from what was agreed by consensus in the AfD talk, then go silent and offer no justification, explanation, debate or discussion on this talk page. No cites, no references, nothing to support the existance of "Estland" as defined in this article. Just silence. What's up guys? Martintg 06:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, simplest explanation is that they don't have any sources - which seems to be the case, indeed. DLX 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahtra War

[edit]

The phrase "rose in open revolt in 1859" in section Demographics should be linked to Mahtra War. I cannot do it now, as the page is locked. -- Petri Krohn 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what about questions raised above? are you going to obstnately ignore them?--Alexia Death 19:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that rather than provide sources Petri Krohn prefers to begin checkuser proceeding against people he knows full well not to be sock puppets [1], [2]. Martintg 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this relevant? Is this the place to discuss this? Or is this just a personal attack?
For the record: I knew Digwuren and Alexia were real people. My suspicion was, that they were contributing from the same IP address or network. I only researched the others, after checkuser had shown all of the suspects to be the same user. -- Petri Krohn 22:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is your apparent inability to provide considered argument, with supporting sources, that "Estland" is anything beyond the Danish word for "Estonia". You haven't done it here, nor in the AfD discussion either. While this page is protected, you have a perfect opportunity to provide sources that support your synthesis. We are all waiting here patiently for you to respond in this regard. Martintg 23:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to keep the article together or make it a disambig?

[edit]

The province was a part of different countries but had some sort of continuity of borders and customs. Should we have an article on the history of the province as the whole or we should make it just a disambig? Please provide arguments one way or another. Alex Bakharev 00:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have registerd the issue under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography Alex Bakharev 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland, Estland (disambiguation)[reply]

Keep as an article

[edit]

Esthland was a feodal state ruled by the Baltic German nobility, organized as the Estländische Ritterschaft. (See [3]) It maintained its separate identity from its southern neighbour Livonia (Livland) for a total of 698 years. Both Livonia and Esthland were ruled as possessions by a number of foreign powers. These rulers never changed the feodal nature of Esthland or changed its borders.

Esthland is not the same as modern Estonia. Estonia in its modern borders was only created as the Autonomous Governorate of Estonia, after the Russian February Revolution of 1917, by joining northern Livonia to Esthonia (then called the Reval Governorate). In 1916 most Estonians lived in Livonia.

The name seems to be an issue. Some pre-1917 English language sources refer to this entity as Esthonia, while others call it Esthland, Estland or Eastland. I am open to suggestions on a better name. I was considering the name Estonia proper along the lines of Finland Proper, but a Google search reveals that it mostly is used to refer to fixed line telephone service in Estonia.

-- Petri Krohn 01:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. We already have a dab page at Estland (disambiguation). The "proposal" to turn this page into a dab page only seems to be a attempt to circumvent the result of a failed AfD. -- Petri Krohn 02:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This calls Estland, Livland and Kurland separate Baltic states. In 1908 the "Livländische Gemeinnützige und Ökonomische Sozietät" actually collaborated with the "Liv-Estländischen Bureau für Landeskultur". Lasted at least until 1912. We are dealing with reality here. --Pan Gerwazy 09:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From there:

Estonia, also known as Estland (German): Prior to 1918, the term "Estland" applied, strictly speaking, only to the Estonian lands that were not a part of Livonia. In 1918, after nearly two centuries of Russian rule, Estonia was established as an independent state. Estonia fell under German rule for a few months in 1918. By early 1919, Estonia became independent. In 1940, Estonia was forced to join the Soviet Union. In 1991, Estonia became an independent state.

DLX 09:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what I am saying, Estonia does not equal Estland just because the German name for Estonia today happens to be Estland, so? Er, I can actually provide links which call Livonia (including the part inhabited by Estonians!) "Latvia" during the period before 1918. Note too that this Sozietät, dealing only with the part of Estonia that had been Livonia continued its existence after Estonia's unification. Funnily, if we get at its statutes we may not even be allowed to put them here because of copyright laws...--Pan Gerwazy 09:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All points you have shown are clear reasons why this page should be dab page and not an article on its own.--Alexia Death 10:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make it disambig

[edit]

Estland is Danish/German [4],[5] for Estonia, just like Russland is Danish/German [6],[7] for Russia.

Petri's synthesis not supported by the sources, other pages Danish Estonia, Swedish Estonia and Revel Governorate already exist covering the same region. Esthland = Old German spelling. Esthland = Reval Governorate, Swedish Estonia, first subordinate to Sweden then subordinate to Russia. Feudal nature changed significantly in transistion from Swedish to Russian rule. Your link [8] shows spelling Estonia, not Esthland. Estländische Ritterschaft just a redirect to Estland created five minutes ago [9]. Suggest expand Estländische Ritterschaft into article, but with English spelling ofcourse.

Estland (disambiguation) was speedily deleted since it originally was a duplicate of this page, but since undeleted by request of Petri Krohn. Accusations of circumvention the result of a "failed" AfD is an assumption of bad faith, in fact AfD was withdrawn in good faith due to the originator being led to believe there was consensus to keep and turn into disambiguation. Martintg 02:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Martintg per all arguments listed. This article is a bizare construct. The page should be either a dab or a redirect to dab, as for some languages this still means plain and simple Estonia.--Alexia Death 05:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really wonder how you guys are able to fill this page with words. To me this issue is quite easily solved by reading WP:NAME and WP:UE. 

Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.

Philaweb T-C 20:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig is the way to go. Original version was created by a permbanned user, it didn't quote any valid sources - and actually didn't even mention, that Estland is name of Estonia in several languages. All contents exists in more depth in relevant articles - current stubs just duplicate them. WP:NAME and WP:UE are very good points as well. DLX 20:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggestions

[edit]

Make it a redirect to Estonia, since native German and Danish speakers using english wikipedia will be likely use "Estland" when searching for articles on Modern Estonia, will only add to confusion otherwise. Then retain Estland (disambiguation). Expand Estländische Ritterschaft, if similar article does not already exist. Martintg 01:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spasibo, Alex and kiitos, Petri. I agree with Martintg here. Both the territory of what is now Estonia ("Estonia Total") and the historical province of Estonia ("Estonia Proper", as Petri put it) are called and have been called Est(h)onia in English (and Latin, from which it was borrowed via French). Neither is called Estland in English, and therefore creating an English-language Wiki-article with the title 'Estland' is unwarranted (however, disambiguation will be useful).
Both Estonia Total and Estonia Proper are called and have been called Est(h)land in German, Danish, Swedish and other Germanic languages. Creating an English-language Wiki-article with the title Estland and referring only to Estonia Proper would be incorrect and bound to add confusion.
There is indeed a rather good distinction in Russian, where Estonia Total is usually called Estoniya (Эстония, borrowed from French) and Estonia Proper was during the times when it was province of Russian Empire called, and still is called, Estlyandiya (Эстляндия, derived from German). Unfortunately, for historical reasons, this distinction (between 'Estoniya'/'Estlyandiya') cannot be transferred from Russian language retroactively into modern English ('Estonia'/'Estland') without creating utter confusion. Best regards, yours hopefully not too abusive alleged puppet --217.159.207.106 06:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A humble suggestion of a comprehensive plan

[edit]

In the beginning of the Second Millennium, there lived a people in the region what now is Estonia, and they called themselves Ests. A bit more to the south lived another people, and they called the sand on their beaches Liiv.

The Danes, being on a military rise, sought to expand their holdings and tried to conquer the lands in question. Unfortunately, their military tactics were problematic in continental areas, and they weren't able to hold onto the Southern areas, nor even what now is Southern Estonia. These areas came to be ruled by various other powers.

Over time, other powers replaced the Danes, but the old military control line remained. The northern areas came to be known as Estland, after the Ests who lived there. The southern areas came to be known as Livland, after the sand that was on its beaches. Later, even the people came to be called Livlanders or Livonians.

Thus, Estland meant 'the land of the Ests', and 'the administrative region that was once controlled by Danes'. These were different concepts, but they were also a same concept. Except regarding what now is Southern Estonia, of course.

In late 19th century, ideas of national unity started to rise among Estonians, and Latvians. Livonians were already on decline; some of them were, or became Estonians; others were, or became Latvians. Because there were a lot of Estonians and a lot of Latvians in Southern Estonia and Northern Livonia, many cities there had distinct names in both Estonian and Latvian. For example, the now Latvian city Cēsis can also be considered a former Estonian city Võnnu. The city of Valga (Estonian) aka Valka (Latvian) is now considered a double city; administratively, half of it is a city in Estonia and another half is a city in Latvia. The river of Gauja was Koiva for Estonians, and so on.

In the maelstrom of revolutionary thought that was the Russian revolution of 1917, the national forefathers of both Estonia and Livonia saw it fit, and the rulers in Russia saw it not worth objecting, to rectify the ancient discrepancy between military zones of control and regions of ethnic domination. A new border was constructed south of the old border, with the deliberate plan that most ethnic Estonians would remain north of the border, and most ethnic Latvians would remain south of the border. With very few exceptions, this new inter-governiya line became the later Estonian-Latvian border.

Nothing really changed in a revolutionary manner due to this reorganisation. The revolution came only later, when the even more complicated times motivated the local government of Estonia, now formally Autonomous Governorate of Estonia, to go for declaring independence.

However, the discrepancy had gone. 'The land of Estonians', and 'the land called Estonia' now meant pretty much one and the same.

Thus, it is obvious that Estland ought to redirect to Estonia. However, given the former discrepancy, it merits disambiguation between the main earlier administrative regions of that name as well as a mention that Estland is the name of Estonia in Germanic languages. The list of these older administrative regions should be echoed at the page of Estonia where it would clearly be of historical significance, and it should be elaborated on History of Estonia. Most of the regions involved have their own main articles by now, though.

There is no semantic difference between Estonia and Estland. Estland is merely the Germanic name for Estonia. Estonia is merely the English (and Russian, as it came) name for Estland. Because this is English Wikipedia, the main content regarding Estonia should be at Estonia, and Estland shouldn't be its duplicate. Because there's an usage frequency difference, it may be useful to not make Estland mere redirect but a disambiguation page. Digwuren 10:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Am I right that we have sort of consensus here? Both Petri and Martinq agree that we need to have an article on the province. The only difference is that Petri does not know what is the proper name and Martinq knows that it is Estländische Ritterschaft. To me the name sounds strange: then the province was a part of Russian Empire it was named E[a]stland (Эстляндия) or Est[h]onia (Эстония) but if Estländische Ritterschaft is better for the earlier times lets it be it. If this the consensus we could move Estland to Estländische Ritterschaft, move Estland (disambiguation) to Estland and that solves all the problem. Am I right?

In fact I wanted to discuss the proper name after (and if) we decide that we need the article on province, but lets discuss now if we are in the mood 03:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Estländische Ritterschaft means Estonian Noble Corporation, it is no more a province than the Ford Motor Company. The difference is that Ford doesn't own villages and peasants.
The Estländische Ritterschaft was still subject to the crown, either Swedish in earlier times or Russian in later times. Note than Sweden considerably curbed the power of the Ritterschaft during Swedish rule leading to greater freedoms for the peasants, and Russia restored and increased their power, re-feudalising the entire Baltic Region, to win the support of the Baltic nobles against Sweden in the aftermath of the Great Northern War. However by the mid 1800's Russia went further than Swedes in reducing the power of the Rittenshaft to the extend of abolishing feudalism and replacing German with Russian as the administrative language. This demonstrates who was the real authority, not the Baltic German lords but the Swedish and Russian over-lords.
Hence this is the reason we have separate articles for Swedish Estonia which covers the earlier period and Reval Governorate and its redirect Russian Estonia which covers the later part. BTW all the sources indicate the this region was either a Swedish or Russian province, not a province of a medieval German corporation. Petri is quite welcomed to expand the existing redirect Estländische Ritterschaft into an article to cover the feudal aspect, it would be quite useful. As for the other suggestions for disambiguation and redirect, I would like input from others. Martintg 04:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99% of feudal states were at a time like this. Do not see much difference Alex Bakharev 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate? This answer leaves me at a loss what you are trying to say.--Alexia Death 05:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is me not completly understanding MartinQ's point. There were no nation-states during the middle ages. All the feudal principalities from kingdoms to the humblest baronetships were in a sense "Ford Corporations with villages and people" Alex Bakharev 11:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Estländische Ritterschaft is not a name for a dominion just like Catholic church isn't, even if it rules some land in Vatican. Its a name for an organization that happened to control some land. That land had its own name. It is a different kind of thing.--Alexia Death 15:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thd difference is that Estländische Ritterschaft did not have it's own army, it was entirely subordinate to Swedish Estonia and Reval Governorate. Martintg 21:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is very interesting, but does this make the Noble Order and the land they managed for a few hundreds years not-notable? Alex Bakharev 00:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not make this Order not-notable. It just does not fit in one line with names and articles about territories. It would be like the article about Catholic church was about Vatican... Vatican deserves a mention but cant be all that it is. Vatican as a territory has its own article. Same happens here.--Alexia Death 04:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really fail to see why this article is needed. Demographichs section clearly belongs to Reval Governorate and the rest of article contains minimal information and should be merged with History of Estonia as the fact that Estonia was divided to several administrative subdivisions can be(and should be) explained there. This article itsselfly should be redirect to Estonia although I can also agree having it as disambiguation page.--Staberinde 10:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much my position as well. See above for more detailed explanation. Digwuren 10:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that the article should disappear, reopen the WP:AFD. If you think that this name is needed for a dab page, propose a new name for this article. -- Petri Krohn 20:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the content, not the title, Alex, could you replace that tag with the "reversionwar" template. Looking at the history, it is clear that it started life as a kind of disambiguation page [10] in July 2006, and somebody "Wikified" it here [11], diff here [12]. It's obvious that the page as evolved into something else without much thought. I don't understand why you seem not to want to optimise the article for the benefit of the general reading audience. The content of this page should be a disambiguation, for the benefit of the general reader. Martintg 21:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Alex Bakharev 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page in current form must go because ALL of the reasons listed on this page. You have still not given ANY valid reason why this page should stay as is. It has no content not covered elsewhere and its title is plain misleading. If you wont see this there WILL be another AfD and this page WILL become a redirect.--Alexia Death 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alexia, we do not want to get rid of this page, we just want to change the content into a disambiguation. Martintg 21:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is only possible if you do an WP:AFD. If you just want to reserve this name in the Wikipedia article namespace for a dab-page, you must start by proposing a new name for this article. -- Petri Krohn 03:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no content warranting its own page, Thats why no-one has offered a move.--Alexia Death 04:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel so (and believe that no content can be added) then TAKE IT TO WP:AFD! -- Petri Krohn 05:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no content on this page. In its current state, it's a very brief rehash of History of Estonia, falsely enshrined to perpetuate the pipe dream that "Estland" was some sort of ancient holy place that was ruined by evil nationalists who dared to make it a republic, and in order to cleanse themselves of the holiness, renamed the place to "Estonia". Digwuren 06:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Petri Krohn, stop making up new rules to suit your fancy as you go. Digwuren 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification?

[edit]

To make it clear what you are proposing, I have listed the two three options. Please sign your name under the option you are in fact proposing -- Petri Krohn 06:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Added option 3.--Staberinde 09:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC) There are only 2 3 option, please do not add more. If you cannot support any one, please do not sign. -- Petri Krohn 13:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

[edit]

Move the current content to a new name and move the content of Estland (disambiguation) to this name.

Delete/Merge

[edit]

Delete or merge the current content to other article and move the content of Estland (disambiguation) to this name.

Keep

[edit]

Keep the current content here and the dab page at Estland (disambiguation).

that would require complete rewrite. This is about a territory, the Order was an organization. However I would not mind if anything found worthy is merged in to the article about order. As long as it is understood that it still would be just that, a merge. --Alexia Death 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would also require a new name too. I suggest Baltic Noble Corporation to also include the other medieval corporations. Martintg 08:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

[edit]

This looks to be consensus... Lets put a deadline to it. If there is no profound reason presented to void this result by Friday this page becomes a redirect to disambiguation at Estland (disambiguation)(just because the name of that one follows convention for disambiguations). Petri, your turn to say something. If you have nothing to say take anything you find worthy and put where you feel it belongs...--Alexia Death 16:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding the convention. The disambiguation page is only separated out where Foo and Foo (disambiguation) clash. This is not the case here; there is no "Estland" separate from "Estland (disambiguation)". The proper way, considering also the utility of preserving history, is to revert Estland into the disambiguation page and delete Estland (disambiguation). Digwuren 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if some people have misunderstood the question here, this is not a vote on anything. What I did, is ask people who where trying to turn this page into a dab page, if they in fact wanted to delete this article, or just wanted to rename it. This issue has now been clarified.
  • No one has suggested renaming the article, so for now this option is off the table.
  • Four editors are dissatisfied with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland and still want to delete this article.
If you are serious and want to delete or blank this article, you should reopen the WP:AFD process. This is the way articles are deleted on Wikipedia. On the technicalities, I am sure you will get help from Alex. (I do not know if we should start a new AfD or somehow reopen the old one.)
Personally I will work on improving this article, I will work on Estland/Temp. I ask that the article remain locked for now. Once the article becomes unlocked, I will consider efforts of moving the disambiguation page here as indications of bad faith and vandalism. -- Petri Krohn 21:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might care to learn that every now and then, somebody considers Pig Airlines to be a reliable carrier. Digwuren 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Petri, the onus is on you to cite reliable sources that support your irrational synthesis. You haven't done this, nor have you rebutted any of the arguments against your baseless synthesis of unreliable sources. Why is that? Martintg 23:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the article Baltic Noble Corporations, which includes the Estonian part. So now I think we can turn this page into an re-direct. Martintg 00:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections. Martintg 03:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Alex Bakharev 04:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. I like the current state. Petri, pretty please don't revert this. Theres plenty of other articles for you to put your info in. I know it is hard to let go of your pet page, but do try. The fate of this one has been decided.--Alexia Death 05:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence?

[edit]

I've done a search in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, considered a reliable secondary source by Wikipedia, and there are no article for "Estland" [13]. All Petri could provide was a self published German website regarding Estländische Ritterschaft. [14]. Ofcourse the Estländische Ritterschaft would call it "Estländische", they are a German speaking organisation and "Estländische" is German for "Estonian"! Duh!!! Martintg 08:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think sometimes people are bewildered by the fact that the German culture and language was the leading culture and language in Northern and Eastern Europe prior to the world wars. Many places in both Northern and Eastern Europe have no English exonyms since there was no English influence, the Hanseatic League and their descendants were the merchants of this part of the world until the world wars.
Most of the maps I have browsed lately are either in Latin or German. The Latin maps use either Eesthonia or Esthonia, the German maps use either Eesthland or Esthland for the most northern area of what is now Estonia. I have found a map dated 1773 where Esthland and Livland are within the same administrative borders, the same goes for a map dated "im anfange des XIIIten Jahrhunderts", where Eesthland and Liwland also are within the same borders, Eesthland being larger than current day Estonia.
By the way, the correct translation into Estonian of Estland and Estonia is Eestimaa ~ Land of Estonians, which is also what is linked to "in other languages" Philaweb T-C 11:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to be the problem?

[edit]

Hi, I didn't really get it what's up with this Estland discussion here? Someone tries to alter the wiki Estland page?

This is English wikipedia, right? In English Estonia is called Estonia, in German, Danish, Swedish it's Estland. The historical "Estland's province" existed in the Swedish and the Russian Empire if you ask Germans or Swedes. If you ask Russians it was "Estonskaja kubermang" or something. So I can't see any reasons using German or Russian names for English wiki pages. “Estland is the name for Estonia in German, Swedish, Danish...” seems just fine for me.

“Estland was also a local administrative area of one of the Baltic Noble Corporations established during the Middle Ages”. That also sounds good to me if it was stated, the name is in German. In English any “Estland” once you talk about the country or a province it would be still Estonia.

In case anybody is interested why in English traditionally German "Estland" is called Estonia. That is simply because back then when Estonians had to choose an official international name for their country, the reason Estland for English wasn't chosen was simply because Estonians were not too happy about the 7 centuries of the German rule in their homeland. So they didn't want to use the same name as the Germans did. Therefor a Latin name was chosen, to differ it from Germans, how Estonians themselves would call their county aboard.

BTW, someone mentioned here something like Estonians have called themselves historically Ests. That is not true. Exactly like the language relatives Hungarians have not called themselves Hungarians historically. Identifying themselves as Estonians is historically relatively new and comes from the Germans and Swedes mostly who originally called the people the Ests, because they lived in the East from them. Estonians have called themselves in the old days as Maarahavas, like Hungarians have their name in their own language Madjars or Magyars.

All the best, wiki user -termer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Termer (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 June 2007

PS. OK, I tried to scroll through this wall paper here and it seems there were 2 pages of Estland on wiki? The current 'Estland' page is a mess, there even are on one line several languages used. For example in Danish Estonia, Ösel is spelled in Swedish. I'm going to try to clean it up but it's mostly is going to be a dictionary page, explaining what Estland has been meaning in different languages through out the hstory... a thing like 'Danish Estland' is nonsense for example. I think things should be either in English, 'Danish Estonia' or in Danish: 'Dansk Estland'. I think I saw a wiki page called Danish Estland. Thats like using 2 languages in one place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Termer (talk • contribs) 12:14, 16 June 2007

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Estland&oldid=1201071130"