Talk:List of Estonians

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

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)