Talk:List of Estonians

Original list (unsigned and undated comment; pre-July 2014)

The original list has been taken from http://www.russiannewsnetwork.com/fameston.html

Minor Edits

I just erased one of the Kerli Koivs because there were two, just so y'all now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giveittome667 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Jakob Mihkelson used to be the most famous of the Estonian emigrants in Sukhumi, Abkhazia, but he is far from being famous even in Estonia. - Andres

Kalevipoeg is a fictional hero and seems not to belong here. Andres

But could I make some order here? ABC etc.? Egon

Currently the persons are arranged alphabetically by surnames, except for Kalevipoeg. As they are quite many now, they should be ordered into groups by occupation. Andres 18:50, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

For an international encyclopedia, I think that locally known (but not famous) persons who are just public figures, journalists, etc., but w/o any scientific or political interest or relevance, should not be on such a list, i.e. they are "not worthy" by wikipedia standards. By this criterion, I would suggest deleting at least

• Peeter Kreitsberg, educationalist, politician
• Tõnu Luik, philosopher
• Sven Mikser, politician
• Mihkel Mutt, writer, critic, essayist
• Siiri Oviir, politician
• Rein Raud, japonologist, intellectual
• Hando Runnel, poet
• Märt Väljataga, intellectual
• Rein Veidemann, critic
• Jüri Vilms, politician

That's just suggestions, of course; if someone really wants to write an article on those, this would have to be looked at case-by-case.

Another issue is the problem of ethnicity, as is already clear with some ethnic or geographical descriptors above: Who is an "Estonian" in this context? Can it be ethnic background in the sense of blood? of language? What about the German Balts? What about German-Baltic and German scholars at Tartu, about politicians etc. from there? What about those who spent only a part of their lives in what is now Estonia? What about people of Estonian descent who went abroad? The list above has a heavy "ethnic" slant, but I think that, as is by now also the overall standard of all Estonian encyclopedias (Kes on Kes?, Eesti Entsüklopeedia, etc.), the criterion should be more inclusive (because the point here is the link to Estonia, rather the creation of an ethnic group), i.e. it should include all people whose life has been significantly linked to Estonia, i.e. Estonian origin, birth, or part of the life spent there. Clossius 09:09, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The list began as a list of ethnic Estonians but now some others (as Eri Klas) are included. I agree that the list should be more inclusive. However, in these cases remarks such as "ethnic German", "lived in Estonia", "born in Estonia" etc should be added to avoid ambiguity.

Allright, we can proceed like that. Clossius 11:45, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

PS: I think that what is really needed is a discussion of the different German ethnies, because this is confusing - probably one article on Baltic German vs. Imperial German and Baltic vs. Baltic German vs. German Baltic, with lots of referrals, so that the thing is actually sorted out. Clossius 11:47, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There actually is an article on Baltic Germans. Perhaps we should write "Baltic German" instead of just "German". Andres 14:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I saw; unfortunately, it is woefully inaccurate. (Baltic Germans call themselves Balts, not B.G., let alone G.B.; it only includes those who came originally and thus would exclude some of the most famous families such as Stuart, Wistinghausen, etc.) Also, the problem with what you suggest is that it would exclude Imperial Germans (Reichsdeutsche) who came to what is now Estonia or Latvia to teach and either stayed significantly or even settled and died there. This includes at least half of the most famous scholars, for instance, but als Lotman and the like. I'd call the Balts Baltic German, to avoid confusion, and the other ones "German X active in Estonia" or some such. Clossius 15:20, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually I have not read the article on Baltic Germans. If there is something wrong there, then you may correct it. I agree with the rest.

The names you listed probably would because of size limitations never be included to any foreign (non-Estonian) general paper encyclopedia though they are important. Wikipedia has no such limitations. I think all of them are important enough. Wikipedia is meant to include not only people who are internationally famous. The situation that they have no articles will definitely change. Most of the list have no articles even in the Estonian Wikipedia. This is just there has been too little time.

Perhaps, but there is also the frivolity issue, i.e. there should be some standard of importance. In case of ambiguity, I just think it would be better to leave currently somewhat prominent people out; if they really get an entry, they can go in of course. Both here and in the TÜ article, I think all people who actually do get an entry and have a reference to EE should be cross-listed as well. Clossius

Yes, I agree. Only it is hard to follow which articles are added to Wikpedia. If the list is ready, you can see which articles turn blue. Andres 14:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There actually are some persons on the list who are not famous in Estonia: Carl Abraham Hunnius, Mihkel Jakobson, Steve Jurvetson and Evar Saar.

That in fact doesn't matter, I agree; several of the internationally most famous TÜ scholars are not very well known or celebrated there at all, often for past political reasons. All important figures should be listed, whether famous or not, I think.

I agree. Andres 14:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hunnius was a Baltic German doctor who founded the mud therapy resort of Haapsalu, so he is important. Mihkel Jakobson was an important figure of Estonian emigration in Abkhazia. The list began as the list of ten most famous Estonians composed by Abkhazian Estonians. I don't know Steve Jurgenson but probably he is famous somewhere. Evar Saar is not an important figure. However, if the article about him is not found to be unworthy by the community of Wikipedia, then it should be here because the list also is the guide to the articles about articles on Estonians. Mihkel Aitsam has a similar status though he is not on the list.

Jüri Vilms is one of three founders of the Republic of Estonia.

Sorry, that was just a mistake!

Peeter Kreitsberg, Siiri Oviir and Sven Mikser are leading figures of Keskerakond next to Edgar Savisaar.

Hm, and that is really sufficient a category?

While expanding the article about Centre Party of Estonia, I mentioned them and added these three to the list too. I see your point: it is too early to say that they entered history or what their lasting merits are. Anyway, all of them have been ministers and two of them have ran for presidency.

Would you say that merely being a minister merits an entry? In this case, okay.

I am not sure. But in any case it should be possible to say something about what he or she did as a minister (there, of course, are cases where nothing was done). And for such politicians as Mikser and others definitely it is possible to say something more than just list of posts and so on. You see, the point is not that someone has merit but that we can know something about someone, we can know or understand who he is.

OK, you say that people's prominence may be transitory. But isn't it important who has been prominent? Isn't this sort of history?

You mean the G.M. Young thesis? Yes, surely. But what I mean is that if they don't do anything special when minister (Kreitzberg, with a "z", actually, didn't), nor anything else, ...?

You are right, he is Kreitzberg. Even if he didn't, it is important to know that he didn't. For example, even I as a citizen of Estonia don't know whether he did though I know a lot of other things about him.

If they were politicians of a foreign country I would like to read about them. It would be annoying to me when information is suppressed just because someone decides it is so unimportant that I shouldn't know it. Andres 14:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So would I, but will a foreign politician check the wikipedia first? And anyway, here we really get into the issue of Who's Who and Encyclopedia. I think these are two different types of publication, and to carry from the former to the latter requires a "little extra", otherwise you'll get entries on TV and show stars of the lower orders, etc. I also think there is an official wikipedia policy on that, no? So that not every student lists her or his favorite prof., e.g.; I don't think that holding just any professorship is enough either. But in the end, I agree that rather too many than too few entries here.

What is interesting depends on what you know. Suppose I want to learn something about Estonia. When I read the country article I am linked to other articles and so on. It keeps being interesting as long as I get information that makes sense for me, not just dry facts or very general characterizations. In other words, the more detailed and illuminating the account is the more I get interested to read further. If I start from "Estonia", I easily come to "Politics of Estonia", further I easily come to the Centre Party, and it is natural that there I meet Kreitzberg. And now it is natural that I want to know: who is he, what has he done etc.?

I think that the difference of principle between Who's Who and an encyclopedia is that an encyclopedia can really treat the person, whereas Who's Who states mainly some external, superficial things, including address which doesn't belong to an encyclopedia, and hobbies according to what the person her- or himself says. In Who's Who the aim is to have many entries. The encyclopedias usually 1) have less room, 2) cannot include very transitory things. Wikipedia is different from ordinary encyclopedias in both respects. I don't think there is a principal obstacle to including all Who's Who entries, giving more information on them. A semi-official policy of Wikipedia is that a person worth an entry should have at least 5000 readers, listeners ir something in this kind, 5000 people he or she influences somehow. This is rather inclusive. Another criterion is that there should be several pages on the web about him or her. Of course, these criteria are not always applicable. Andres 19:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If there is doubt that a certain entry should not be here, then there is a procedure of community decision (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy).

I agree that there is a reasonable encyclopedia threshold, but probably it is not possible to formulate it in precise terms. Therefore I think this should be solved collectively, case by case. In the current list, in my opinion only Evar Saar is definitely beneath that threshold.

Tõnu Luik is a legend of philosophy in Estonia who is important for the Estonian culture. Hando Runnel is a major poet of an untranslatable kind. Rein Raud and Märt Väljataga are important "intellectuals" in Estonia. Raud is a professor at both Helsinki and Tallinn. Väljataga is the "Pope" of literature. Veidemann is a critic and by now a novelist (also a professor at Tartu).

I completely disagree on these (with perhaps the exception of Runnel; actually, all lyrical poetry is untranslatable). They are merely modern-day literati and in my assessment not actually important nor serious by any encyclopedic standard such as contribution to knowledge, publications, etc. (but of course, I am not part of the Tallinn intelligentsia). I would find it seriously sad if they would get an entry. But if they would, then of course they belong here as well. I just think that this list somehow "calls" for filling out the names, and thus I would have deleted them. But as you know, I am not really up for a deletion fight or anything like that. Clossius

Well, Runnel has gone into the history of literature, there is no doubt. The degree of translatability may be different, so I would say that he is very untranslatable. I mentioned that because it is hard to see his greatness without the command of Estonian.

Tõnu Luik is not a literatus but a philosopher. I think he is a remarkable phenomenon, and really the sole Estonian philosophers I would include to this list, although I personally don't think he is the best one in Estonia. But the best one is still more invisible, more "nobody".

I wonder whether this is the place for discussing him, but as a matter of fact, he has no school, he has never been more than lektor, he has never written anything citeable internationally, and he is certainly not an original thinker in areas such as history of thought, philosophy of language, and topics such as Heidegger and Greek philosophy (as he has a serious language problem there). This is why I think he is a typical literatus. I'm stopping here but could go on much more harshly. I definitely think that of much greater importance are people like Margit Sutrop, Anne Lill, Mait Koiv, or Madis Koiv (someone who actually does read and understand Heidegger), and even Eero Loone, like him and his thought or not; plus of course several others, including some of the Semioticians. Of course, Einasto is also a serious philosopher, but this is usually overlooked in Estonia. You are right that Luik is a "remarkable phenomenon", though, but more in the sense that inspite of all that, some do regard him as something of a philosopher. ~

OK, I don't actually know Luik (actually I attended to one lecture by him very long time ago, and his jubilee conference lately). It is possible that he is not an original philosopher, though I don't know, and just because he doesn't write (the only book published by him is an introductory course for non-philosophers transcripted by his disciples; it is not original as much as I understand but it seems that he at least is a very good teacher). There are a couple of other publications by him but I simply don't understand them. From the other side, maybe the originality of a philosopher consists not in that he or she says something new but that he philosophizes. I'm got the impression that he does philosophize, but as I live in Tallinn, it is difficult for me to decide. I don't understand much of Heidegger, therefore it is hard for me to decide how much Luik or Madis Kõiv understands Heidegger.

In a sense, Ülo Matjus and his disciples are Luik's school. Anyone in the department knows that though Luik is just a lektor, he is the de facto professor. Or am I wrong? Anyway, in recent times steps have been taken to give him a higher position. Luik studied law at Tartu, as much as I know, and then he went to Leningrad to the aspirantura in philosophy. He was supposed to write a thesis on Hegel. His thesis was not accepted because it was too Hegelian (not Marxist enough). This is why he remained a lektor.

If you have anything else to say about him, please go on, since I might be wrong. I think the very fsct that Luik is that controversial makes an article about him is necessary, an article that could not included to Who's Who but to Wikipedia. Compare for example the article about Mother Teresa. True, there is the danger that the article would be too subjective as first-hand experience tends not to qualify for a Wikipedia article.

I wouldn't object to entries about Margit Sutrop, Anne Lill, Mait Kõiv and Eero Loone. Madis Kõiv is on the list already. Indeed, for all of them would be possible to indicate what they actually have done, that is, what have been their ideas and what they have stated. That Jaan Einasto is a philosopher is a news for me.

In philosophy, international reputation not always serves as an adequate criterion. This is my opinion. Andres 19:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Raud, Väljataga and Veidemann are lesser figures and you might be right they are just currently prominent literati (the currently they are influential). (Raud and Väljataga are not intelligentsia (the Russian concept) but intellectuels (the French concept).) And I already considered deleting them but I realized that I actually would like to read about them as a foreigner and they are not less important than those politicians. Andres 14:38, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't, and I wouldn't come across their names, I think. And anyway, what do you write about them?

How to come across. By the very least by the Wikipedia itself.

To write something, one has to know something. As to Raud, he is a japonologist, and as he has been elected a professor at the University of Helsinki, he cannot be just nobody. In order to learn what he is done you need to research. Second, he is a writer and translator. Third, he has created the private University Eesti Humanitaarinstituut, has formed its ideology, and was its Rector until he became its position at Helsinki. He continues teaching in Tallinn, and general humanitarian courses more than japanology. His views are "post-modern", and are somehow adequate to his personality. The atmosphere of the Humanitaarinstituut is very much under his influence. The students appreciate him. Fourth, he is an intellectual whose voice is taken seriously by both opponents and supporters.

About Märt Väljataga, there is perhaps less to say. He is the long-time editor-in-chief of the literary journal Vikerkaar. He translates both English-language poetry and philosophical and other non-fiction texts (for example, Rorty). His translations (I don't mean poetry) are very good. He is very interested in political matters, including political philosophy. His journal has been a very good channel for introducing many novel ideas to Estonia. He also co-ordinated the series of translated books (mainly philosophical) "Avatud Eesti Raamat". And he also is an "intellectual", through perhaps weaker than Raud. Andres 19:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see that you have other choice criteria. I don't think they are wrong but I think that for Wikipedia the criteria should not be the same as for paper encyclopedias. Andres 19:46, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the issue is the degree of detail of Wikipedia. It is increasing. Andres 10:51, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aitsam apparently has been deleted already. Andres 10:58, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Andres, I think the reason for our disagreement is that in the end, I do come from dead tree encyclopedia writing, and also from a perspective that believes that especially today, information selection is more important than information acquisition, and so I think that there should be some standards of general importance of a person or phenomenon included here. You seem to come from the web perspective, which is certainly legitimate as well, and which is much more inclusionary. I don't think these world view - dependent perspectives can be really "discussed out", and of course that means that yours prevails rather than mine, because it costs me less (intellectually speaking) to leave "unworthy" pieces in than it costs you to leave "worthy" people out.

In fact, I agree that knowing who/what is important too. Only I think there should be other means for that rather than silence. Andres 09:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What I still find problematic is your statement that "the point is not that someone has merit but that we can know something about someone, we can know or understand who he is," because clearly the wikipedia is against such an "understanding" approach and tries to focus on bare facts. I would agree with you that this would be nice, but how can you achieve this outside of judgment and evaluation, which you personally also seem to be queasy about (cf. the Parts discussion we had!).

It does not seem to me that Wikipedia is against that understanding approach. I think that as it is really difficult to present something exceeding bare facts, there are still few articles doing that. But see for example Pope John Paul I.

I appreciate judgment and evaluation but I think that they should be added to facts, not substitute for facts.

Of course, there is a problem with subjectivity in WP. You could easily be accused in POV (point of view). But I hope there are ways to come out. Andres 09:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think your three statements show exactly what I mean to be the problem. One could try to get out of that by a clear division between "objective" data and having a segment, as even-handed as possible, on the evaluation. Still, it'll be difficult, and especially in the context of Estonia, as you say below! Clossius 09:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult but I don't think it is impossible. In any case, it requires considerable research. You can't do that using just Web. Probably not quickly, but it will come out.

A few words on the individual persons we discussed in this thread. I think that on Luik you are almost completely off the mark, also on the criteria. I think he is a clear phenomenon of a society in which Humanities were not allowed to freely develop and in which thus such people could florish and acquire a certainl mystique. In that sense, he could actually almost deserve an entry. However, I would absolutely insist that he is a literatus and not a scholar in any meaningful sense of the words, because - as you describe yourself - he does not meet any of the standards that apply, and can apply more or less objectively (because academe is after all an institution) to the latter. That includes the "lektor" issue, which could have been redeemed since about 15 years, but wasn't (and rightly so).

I don't insist that I am right. But at the very least this strange controversy of opinions is something objejtive, and very chatacteristic of the person, and probably the country. You know, I just feel that you have to prresent him as a cultural phenomenon.

With that one I certainly agree! Only, of course, this would include original research; there is almost nothing yet about the specific role of literati intruding into scholarship within the Humanities in Soviet-occupied Estonia (except a few things by myself actually :-)).Clossius

OK. I am not sure I am qualified for such a research. Wikipedia does not encourage original research here but requires some sources. It is possible to refer to your published articles. But it is also possible to refer to non-scholarly publications as source material. This way, opinions may be documented. Perhaps even comments in on-line newspapers count as opinions.

The only difficulty is that the policy of WP seems to hold that our personal opinions are not enough. There should be public opinions. And those public opinions, of course, would be on favour of Luik, since nobody would publicly blame him. But I think it is worth trying. OK, opinions can also be expressed "between the rows" though perhaps this is not fair.

Actually I disagree; I think that the lack of any formal recognition for Luik, especially that he never landed a decent job, even during the 15 years when he could have, is also clear indication. There is also the international assessments of Tartu Philosophy, etc., but I know that that wouldn't count for you because you divide philosophy as an academic discipline and philosophy as an act of thinking in a, for me, too harsh and in the end somewhat romantic way.Clossius

Yes, the lack of any formal recognition is an indication. This is what I meant by evaluation "between the rows". Yes, for me this isn't a clear indication, but we can let the reader decide. Of course, the reputation Luik has also should be mentioned. And I think we would not be the last contributors to that article.

More about Luik. I don't think either that he is a scholar! But this does not exclude the possibility that he is a philosopher, though I don't really know whether he is. But the possibility of being a philosopher without being a scholar there is. Think, for example, of Socrates. In Estonia still it is possible to be a "Socrates" and at the same time to earn some money from some University, in the West it isn't. Again, I don't dare to say that Luik is a real philosopher but I know another person who is still less known than Luik, who has published almost nothing, and nevertheless he is a phenomenal philosopher.

Well, come on, don't dance around it; whom do you mean?Clossius

I mean Margus Mägi. I didn't mention him ny name as I didn't expect you would know him.

Come on, Andres, you underrate me :-) - not only do I know him as one of the Young Hegelians at TTU, but he even used to use a used PC of mine! :-) Clossius 13:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK. But do you know anything about what he is doing now? Andres 14:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I mean, really... here I know already this, and I thought that at least you'd be impressed, but no... if he's not teaching at TTU under Kaevats right now (at least doing that also), you'd really surprise me. (Actually, this is a bit off the subject of this page and the wikipedia, no? seeing that you don't even want to include him!) Clossius 15:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, you wanted to impress me. OK, I am impressed. But my point is not about him but that about your (almost) impossibility to assess him (an almost invisible figure) as a philosopher since you can know just external things, not the content of his philosophy. This is meant to illustrate my general points, not that his person should be discussed here. Andres 15:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gosh, you are really being difficult! No, I didn't want to impress you; I only assumed you would be impressed that I at least know the externalities of this, as you admitted, not terribly visible junior Estonian philosopher (and, might I add, I do not know him from Estonia, but by pure local chance outside of it). In order to access such a person in the way you describe, indeed, one would have to personally talk to him, and no, I haven't done that (but I know people very well who have, and recently, too). But for that person or anyone else, it would hold that if you are so subcutane, so clandestine, then indeed you wouldn't be encyclopedia material, virtual or not.Clossius 15:40, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I promise I am not that difficult:-) I fully agree with your point.Andres 16:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nowadays it is very hard for a real philosopher (though not impossible) to meet the academic standards. Always more stupid people can say that what you write is not understandable and not substantiated. That is, academic philosophy has scholarly ("scientific"), not philosophical criteria of evaluation. Therefore other people you mention are just normal academics, whereas Luik seems to have some extraordinary qualities. Andres 09:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I disagree insofar as I don't believe in "natural" or "peasant philosophers"; all great thinkers (I think this is what you mean) are great craftsmen also, with superior language and historical skills. It is true that not too rarely, thinking and being a scientific philosopher is not as linked as it should be (if I may state a personal opinion, I think this is especially so in Analytical Philosophy), but just because you don't have an academic career doesn't mean you're a thinker. (I know you're not saying this; I'm just underlining that.)

OK, certainly the very great philosophers are successful in breaking through. I agree. And I think Margus Mägi eventually will break through though he indeed isn't a very great philosopher. But I wouldn't list him here because though in my opinion he is the best one and probably eventually will prove that, he lacks considerable influence. Andres 11:55, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On Jaan Einasto, I'll include that in his entry when it comes (he really deserves an entry from any perspective!), but briefly put, almost any astrophyiscists are also philosophers, and if you discuss the regular structure of the universe, you in the end won't be able to do that without Plato. On Raud, Väljataga, and Veidemann, I used "intelligentsia" advisedly. :-) I really think you overrate their importance in current Estonia (including cultural circles), but that's of course a judgment issue. The facts you list are that of regular careers - I don't think, for instance, that being a professor at Helsinki U and speaking Japanese per se is special; rather, that is normal. On Väljataga, I better take what you say in silence. :-)

About the relationship between astrophysics and philosophy, I disagree. Probably we have different conceptions of what is philosophy. Using texts or even ideas of some philosopher don't render you a philosopher. Philosophical texts have their non-philosophical uses, and they are prevalent in the overall culture. That does not mean that I object to Einasto's being somehow a philosopher, since I don't know that. Andres 09:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think anyone thinking seriously about Plato is indeed a philosopher, and not only a historian of philosophy. But in Einasto's case, I am not talking about "using" thoughts; what I mean is that astrophysicists get to final large questions that are not answerable outside of a Platonic discourse, and since Einasto has dealt with that - in a form that is both directly convincing and very highly regarded internationally; I think he is by far the most respected Estonian scientist internationally, something like the Pärt of physics :-) -, I would definitely label him a philosopher.Clossius 09:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that thinking seriously does not necessarily mean thinking philosophically. I think that real historians of philosophy are philosophers.

We seem to almost revert positions here... but never mind, it's actually not important for the EE texts. Clossius 13:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that astrophysics gives opportunities to philosophizing. About the Platonic discourse, I am not sure I understand what you mean. Again, I can't object he is a philosopher, as I simply am not informed. And I don't object he is a major scientist. Andres 11:55, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That would indeed be difficult... Clossius 13:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible that I overrate them, and I don't mention them because I personally admire them. No. But it seems to me that they, specially Raud, are influential. Andres 09:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As a result, with you masterminding the Estonian entries, indeed I think we have to have a very broad approach (yours!). So, the usual minister, professor, etc. should go in if someone writes an entry about her or him (but not any lektor, assistent, osakonna juhataja in a ministry, etc.). I would then say that only the truly frivolous cases should go out (students, business people promoting themselves, etc.). That includes Evar Saar, though, no? Clossius 07:08, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not masterminding the Estonian entries. I prefer to work on the Estonian Wikipedia but I watch the Estonia-related stuff here. It is just still case that so few people knowing something about Estonia are here, and this is why I am the only one discussing your entries on Estonia. I think that the attitude you described is reasonable. Evar Saar appears to be a case of self-promotion, and I think he should not be here. Andres 09:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You know, there is so little about all of this (regarding Estonia), that I start feeling that we should do some serious (citeable, dead tree) publication project about this all rather than wikipedize about it... maybe I'm wrong though, and of course this here is also something. Clossius 09:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think these things don't exclude each other. We have free to use anything we write here in our ordinary publications. Writing here could be the first stage of such a project. I believe that the reputation of Wikipedia will rapidly get better. In any case, writing here means having a greater audience, and I believe Wikipedia will grow authoritative even among scholars. I think, eventually the collective character of the work here will ensure very high standards. Andres 11:55, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

You are getting very popular here, Andres! :-) Okay, I'll try to keep pace with just balancing with entries of statesmen, academics, and the like... at least you haven't, as I was afraid, put in Linnar Priimägi and Hasso Krull (yet). (Maybe I shouldn't have said that!) Clossius 19:14, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You know, Wikipedia is full of popular stuff. I think that those four singers should be here. Though there are others, say, Heli Lääts.

I will also add some ballerinas and choreographers.

When I first was composing that list, I thought Linnar Priimägi was too frivolous. But now, by the criteria I myself formulated, he should be here at least as a phenomenon. Hasso Krull, I think, better would deserve his entry. It seems that he is more important than Väljataga, and I should have included him when I added Väljataga. But now, I leave you the freedom to add them or not to add them.

Of course, go ahead adding!

Andres 19:36, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deletions

I have added individuals back to the list who have Wikipedia articles written about them. Whether they are relevant or no is probably debatable. However, it would seem rather pointless to erase them in light of someone actually taking time to write an article on them. Case in point - Kristiina Ojuland. Who is, in fact, a rather well known individual even outside of Estonia. As is Jane Salumäe, who although has no article written as of yet, is a well known athlete abroad. Perhaps whoever is deleting names should consider these factors and leave names already appearing on the list and concentrate on on adding new names instead of deciding who should and should not be excluded. I scanned the list and certainly have no objections to most of the individuals appearing. Several I would not have added myself, but see that they at least have a modicum of success for someone to place them. I think it isn't appropriate to delete those who already have articles on Wikipedia.

Thanks for raising a valid point. The number of Wikipedia articles about Estonia/n-connected individuals is already quite large, getting larger every day and, one could argue, already exceeds the number of people that should be included in this list. In other words, many notable Estonians still do not have Wiki-articles, but there are already more not-so-notable ones who have. Therefore, we could either concentrate on adding new names in, as you suggest, essentially making it the ever-growing extremely long "list of all Estonians with Wikipedia entries", or concentrate on the consistency of names in this list. I would tend to support the latter approach.

As for Kristiina Ojuland, I left her out because she is a former foreign minister (not a former prime minister or president), and as such no more notable than other current and former cabinet ministers (of whom there are very many). It also so happens, that she is one of the many relatively young former ministers who have not (yet) accomplished anything notable in other, non-political domains, e.g., business, art, science, journalism, or even entertainment. The good thing about Wikipedia, as of now, is that one can relatively easily look up the lists of former government members - so links abound to the article about Ojuland even without her making this list. When it comes to marathon-runner Jane Salumäe (whose best accomplishment in her field, according to sources, is the 4th place in European championships), there are many other Estonian athletes with better records of success. However, since entries and links for Estonian athletes have not yet been as well organised in English Wiki compared to the politicians, then let her be in for the time being (and hope she can add an Olympic or world championship medal to her collection in the meantime). Cheers, --3 Löwi 18:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

---Fine, the page is yours to decide who is and who is not worthy of an entry. Have at it. Good luck. By the way, normally it is a common courtesy on Wikipedia to post on the discussion page before you make major changes to articles. Glad to see that you believe that doesn't apply to you and you can ride rough-shod over other people's work. As for Jane Salumäe's "best accomplishment in her field, according to sources, is the 4th place in European championships" well, that is simply untrue. She won the the 1998 Sydney Gold Coast marathon. But, as you are now the arbiter of the list, continue to do as you see fit.

• Not sure the 1998 Sydney Gold Coast marathon is that highly thought of. 4th at the European Championships could quite easily be a greater achievement than winning the Sydney Gold Coast marathon. Average Earthman 01:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• That is an NPOV statement. I may certainly be very wrong, but unless there is some sort of standard measuring which marathon is more "thought of", then I can't agree. However, I am not an avid fan of marathons, so I concede that I could be quite wrong.ExRat 22:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki link

I would delete the interwiki link here to japanese wikipedia. it seems to me it is not correct link. but maybe i'm wrong. Avjoska 07:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

The concept of Estonian is ambiguous between ethnic Estonians and people borne or living in Estonia. Therefore I think that ethnic non-Estonian connected with Estonia and ethnic Estonians in other countries should be specially marked. Andres 13:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Jürgen Ligi

Come on... Jürgen Ligi as the famous "notable" Estonian?

Adding Mare Vint and Ülo Õun

I would love to have Mare Vint added to the list and at least stubs made for her and Ülo Õun, as I have some pictures of their art I could contribute. Both are obviously sufficiently grand to fit on the list. CarlJohanSveningsson (talk)

Tönnies Voss

Does anyone know, is that Swedish commander and administrator of the Swedish Gold Coast 16 - 22 April 1663 Tönnies Voss with Estonian heritage. I added it also to the Estonian heritage forum (in Estonian) Jaanusele (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity vs Nationality

Is this list about ethnic Estonians or about citizens of Estonia? E.g. Patriarch Alexius II is of Baltic-German/Russian descent and Paul Felix Schmidt is Baltic-German too. Mena Suvari and Ornella Muti on the other hand are of (partially) Estonian descent but not from Estonia. It doesn't seem plausible to have all these people in the same list. --::Slomox:: >< 22:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I actually have the same issue. Baltic Germans or Swedish/Russian etc. statesmen, who were just in Estonia at some point of their lives (even if from birth to death) should not be included if they were first and foremost of another ethnicity. Some examples here are Alfred Rosenberg and de la Gardie, who should be excluded from this list. H2ppyme (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)