text:
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 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.
 * 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

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 (Votes for deletion, 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)

title: Talk:List of Estonians


text:
Bougainville Island

Bougainville Island (Tok Pisin: Bogenvil) is the main island of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville, which is part of Papua New Guinea. Its land area is 9,300 km2. The population of the whole province, including nearby islets such as the Carterets, is approximately 300,000 (2019 census). The highest point is Mount Balbi, on the main island, at 2,715 m.

The much smaller Buka Island, c. 500 km2, lies to the north, across the 400-500 m wide Buka Strait. Even though the strait is narrow, there is no bridge across it, but there is a regular ferry service between the key settlements on either side. The main airstrip in the north is in the town of Buka. Buka has an outcropping that is 175 km from New Ireland. Among the large islands of Papua New Guinea, New Ireland is the closest to Buka.

Bougainville is the largest island in the Solomon Islands archipelago. It was previously the main landmass in the German Empire–associated North Solomons. Most of the islands in this archipelago (which are primarily concentrated in the southern and eastern portions of it) are part of the politically independent Solomon Islands. Two of these islands—the closely connected Shortland Islands—are less than 9 km south or southeast of Bougainville, and about 30 km west of Choiseul, one of the settlements of which, Poroporo, faces Bougainville.

In a 2019 referendum, the citizens of Bougainville voted to become independent from Papua New Guinea by 2027, but the referendum was non-binding on the Papua New Guinea government, which has not committed to this.

History
During the Last Ice Age, present-day Bougainville Island was part of a single landmass known as "Greater Bougainville", which spanned from the northern tip of Buka Island to the Nggela Islands. The earliest evidence of human settlement is at Kilu Cave on Buka Island, where the earliest remains are from 26,700 to 18,100 BC. The first settlers were Melanesian people, likely related to modern Papuans and Indigenous Australians. In the 2nd millennium BC, Austronesian people arrived, bringing with them domesticated pigs, chickens, dogs, and obsidian tools. The first European contact with Bougainville was in 1768, when the French explorer Louis Antoine de Bougainville arrived and named the main island after himself.

British and American whaling ships visited the island for provisions, water, and wood in the 19th century. The first on record was the Roscoe in 1822, and the last was Palmetto in 1881.

The German Empire laid claim to Bougainville in 1899, annexing it into German New Guinea. Christian missionaries arrived on the island in 1902.

During World War I, Australia occupied German New Guinea, including Bougainville. It became part of the Australian Territory of New Guinea under a League of Nations mandate in 1920.

In 1942, during World War II, Japan invaded the island, but Allied forces launched the Bougainville campaign to regain control of the island in 1943. Despite heavy bombardments, the Japanese garrisons remained on the island until 1945. Following the war, the Territory of New Guinea, including Bougainville, returned to Australian control.

It was on Bougainville Island, on April 18, 1943, during the Pacific War, that the Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who was the commander-in-chief of Japan’s Combined Fleet, died after his plane was attacked by US fighter planes and crashed into the jungle.

In 1949 the Territory of New Guinea, including Bougainville, merged with the Australian Territory of Papua, forming the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, a United Nations Trust Territory under Australian administration.

On 9 September 1975, the Parliament of Australia passed the Papua New Guinea Independence Act 1975. The Act set 16 September 1975 as the date of independence and terminated all remaining sovereign and legislative powers of Australia over the territory. Bougainville was to become part of an independent Papua New Guinea. However, on 11 September 1975, in a failed bid for self-determination, Bougainville declared itself the Republic of the North Solomons. The republic failed to achieve any international recognition, and a settlement was reached in August 1976. Bougainville was then absorbed politically into Papua New Guinea with increased self-governance powers.

Between 1988 and 1998, the Bougainville Civil War claimed over 15,000 lives. Peace talks brokered by New Zealand began in 1997 and led to autonomy. A multinational Peace Monitoring Group (PMG) under Australian leadership was deployed. In 2001, a peace agreement was signed including promise of a referendum on independence from Papua New Guinea. This referendum was held between 23 November and 7 December 2019, with results being declared on 11 December. The referendum question was a choice between greater autonomy within Papua New Guinea, or full independence. Of the valid votes, 98.31% were in favour of full Independence. The vote is not binding; the Government of Papua New Guinea has the final say on the status of Bougainville.

Geography
Bougainville is the largest island in the Solomon Islands archipelago. It is part of the Solomon Islands rain forests ecoregion. Bougainville and the nearby island of Buka, are a single landmass separated by a deep 300 m wide strait. The island has an area of 9000 sqkm, and there are several active, dormant or inactive volcanoes which rise to 2400 m. Bagana (1750 m) in the north central part of Bougainville is conspicuously active, spewing out smoke that is visible for many kilometres. Earthquakes are frequent, but cause little damage.

Ecology
Bougainville Island is primarily forested with a diverse tropical ecosystem. Copper mining on the island by a Rio Tinto-owned mining operation in Panguna caused significant detriment to the immediate and downstream ecology from the destruction of forest and heavy metal-contaminated mine tailings, resulting in an uprising by the islanders to protect their land and native ecology. More recently, deforestation in order to feed the growing population has affected the flow of many rivers on the island. The United Nations Environmental Program has offered to facilitate the cleanup of the Panguna mine and explore reopening it with more stringent environmental standards.

Climate
Bougainville Island has a tropical rainforest climate (Af on Köppen classification) The driest month is February.

Economy
Bougainville has one of the world's largest copper deposits, which has been under development since 1972, but was shut down in a popular revolution against the foreign-owned mining interests. Due to a seven-year blockade of the island by the Papua New Guinean Army during the Coconut Revolution, the island was cut off from the outside world. This pressure forced the islanders to develop self-sustaining systems from salvaged parts and foraged resources, including village-scale hydropower, coconut bio-diesel, diversified forest-garden farms, and neo-traditional herbal medicine. These innovations were a major focus of the documentary film The Coconut Revolution.

Religion
The majority of people on Bougainville are Christian, an estimated 70% being Roman Catholic and a substantial minority United Church of Papua New Guinea since 1968. Few non-natives remain, as most were evacuated following the civil wars.

Languages
There are many indigenous languages in Bougainville Province, belonging to three language families. The languages of the northern end of the island, and some scattered around the coast, belong to the Austronesian family. The languages of the north-central and southern lobes of Bougainville Island belong to the North and South Bougainville families.

The most widely spoken Austronesian language is Halia and its dialects, spoken in the island of Buka and the Selau peninsula of Northern Bougainville. Other Austronesian languages include Nehan, Petats, Solos, Saposa (Taiof), Hahon and Tinputz, all spoken in the northern quarter of Bougainville, Buka and surrounding islands. These languages are closely related. Bannoni and Torau are Austronesian languages not closely related to the former, which are spoken in the coastal areas of central and south Bougainville. On the nearby Takuu Atoll a Polynesian language is spoken, Takuu.

The Papuan languages are confined to the main island of Bougainville. These include Rotokas, a language with a very small inventory of phonemes, Eivo, Terei, Keriaka, Naasioi (Kieta), Nagovisi, Siwai (Motuna), Baitsi (sometimes considered a dialect of Siwai), Uisai and several others. These constitute two language families, North Bougainville and South Bougainville.

None of the languages are spoken by more than 20% of the population, and the larger languages such as Nasioi, Korokoro Motuna, Telei, and Halia are split into dialects that are not always mutually understandable. For general communication most Bougainvilleans use Tok Pisin as a lingua franca, and at least in the coastal areas Tok Pisin is often learned by children in a bilingual environment. English and Tok Pisin are the languages of official business and government.

Human rights
Cut off from the outside world for several years by a Papua New Guinean blockade during the civil war, the islanders suffered many deaths from a lack of medical resources.

A 2013 United Nations survey of 843 men found that 62% (530 respondents) of those have raped a woman or girl at least once, with 41% (217 respondents) of the men reported having raped a non-partner, whereas 14% (74 respondents) reported having committed gang rape. Additionally, the survey also found that 8% (67 respondents) of the men had raped other men or boys.

Popular culture
The Coconut Revolution, a documentary about the struggle of the indigenous population to save their island from environmental destruction and gain independence, was made in 1999.

An Evergreen Island (2000), a film by Australian documentary filmmakers Amanda King and Fabio Cavadini of Frontyard Films, showed the ingenuity with which the Bougainvillean people survived for almost a decade (1989-1997) without trade or contact with the outside world, because of the PNG military blockade.

Mr. Pip (2012) is a film by New Zealand director Andrew Adamson based on the book Mister Pip by New Zealand author Lloyd Jones.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Bougainville Island


text:
Miguel I of Portugal

Dom Miguel I (English: Michael I; 26 October 1802 – 14 November 1866), nicknamed "the Absolutist" (o Absolutista), "the Traditionalist" (o Tradicionalista) and "the Usurper" (o Usurpador), was the King of Portugal between 1828 and 1834. He was the seventh child and third son of King John VI and Queen Carlota Joaquina.

Following his exile as a result of his actions in support of absolutism in the April Revolt (Abrilada) of 1824, Miguel returned to Portugal in 1828 as regent and fiancé of his niece Queen Maria II. As regent, he claimed the Portuguese throne in his own right, since according to the so-called Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom his older brother Pedro IV and therefore the latter's daughter had lost their rights from the moment that Pedro had made war on Portugal and become the sovereign of a foreign state (Brazilian Empire). This led to a difficult political situation, during which many people were killed, imprisoned, persecuted or sent into exile, and which culminated in the Portuguese Liberal Wars between authoritarian absolutists and progressive constitutionalists. In the end Miguel was forced out from the throne and lived the last 32 years of his life in exile.

In order to counter the Republican opposition from the Portuguese Freemasons, the dynastic order known as Order of Saint Michael of the Wing was revived in 1848, with statutes issued by King Miguel I of Portugal.

Early life
Miguel Maria do Patrocinio de Bragança e Bourbon, the third (second surviving) son of King John VI and Carlota Joaquina, was born in the Queluz Royal Palace, Lisbon, and was created by his father Duke of Beja. Some sources have suggested that Miguel I could be the biological son from an adulterous affair between his mother, Queen Carlota, and one of her alleged lovers, possibly D. Pedro José Joaquim Vito de Meneses Coutinho, Marquis of Marialva. Apparently sources close to King John VI confirmed as much by asserting that he had not had sexual relations with his wife for two and a half years prior to Miguel's birth (a period when his parents carried out a conjugal war, during which they were involved in permanent conspiracies, and only encountered each other in rare official circumstances).

But despite the gossip, Miguel was always considered to be a son of the king, by the king, by his mother, by the rest of the family, by the court, and by the church. The "illegitimate child" theories may have had their origins in the writings of pro-liberal propagandists or royalists who wanted to denigrate the queen and undermine the claims of Miguel and of his descendants to the Portuguese throne.

What is clear is that Miguel was the queen's favourite child. After the death of her firstborn, it was Miguel who received most of her attention, rather than Pedro, who was closer to his father.

In 1807, at the age of 5, Miguel accompanied the Portuguese Royal Family on their transfer to Brazil in order to escape from the first Napoleonic invasion of Portugal; he returned in 1821 with John VI and his mother, while his brother Peter remained behind as regent of Brazil.

Miguel was a mischievous child, sometimes seen in the miniature uniform of a general. At sixteen he was seen galloping around Mata-Cavalos, knocking off the hats of passers-by with his riding crop. He spent most of his time with a rowdy band of half-caste or Indian farm-hands. In general, Miguel was spoiled by the queen and her royal household, and clearly influenced by the base tendencies of others. The Duke of Palmela described him as:

 * "A good man when among good men, and when among the bad, worse than they."

Revolt
Miguel was an avowed conservative and admirer of Prince Metternich, who had referred to the liberal revolutions in the 1820s as unrealistic and without any historical roots:

 * "A people who can neither read nor write, whose last word is the dagger – fine material for constitutional principles!...The English constitution is the work of centuries....There is no universal recipe for constitutions."

Miguel was 20 years old when he first challenged the liberal institutions established after the 1820 revolution, which may have been part of a wider strategy by the queen. He was at the head of the counter-revolution of 1823, known as the Vilafrancada, which erupted on 27 May 1823 in Vila Franca de Xira. Early in the day, Miguel joined the 23rd Infantry Regiment, commanded by Brigadier Ferreira Sampaio (later Viscount of Santa Mónica) in Vila Franca, where he declared his support for an absolutist monarchy. He immediately called on General Pampluna (later Marquis of Subserra) to join him and his cause. The general, not a fan of the liberal constitution, obeyed his summons and within five days he controlled the insurrectionary forces. The prince, supported by the queen, went so far as to demand the abdication of the king, who, faithful to his earlier oath, wanted to maintain the 1822 Constitution, despite the growing support for absolutist forces in Vila Franca.

Miguel and the queen were interested in overthrowing the parliamentary system and, inspired by the return of the absolutist monarchy in Spain (where the Holy Alliance and French Army had intervened to destroy the liberal forces there) they exploited factionalism and plotted with outside reactionaries to overthrow the liberal Cortes. But General Pampluna was loyal to the king, and made it perfectly clear that he would do nothing to defy the monarch, and advised the prince to obey his father's summons. The king himself marched on Vila Franca where he received the submission of the troops and his son. But he also took advantage of the situation to abolish the 1822 Constitution and dismiss the Cortes. Many liberals went into exile. Although Miguel returned to Lisbon in triumph, the king was able to maintain complete control of power and did not succumb to the ultra-reactionary forces that supported his abdication.

After the events of the Vilafrancada, Miguel was made Count of Samora Correia and appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Army. But the queen could not tolerate the king's continuing benevolence towards liberals and moderates, nor that he continued to be influenced by and to support ministers such as Palmela and Pamplona, who were more moderate in their outlook.

The mysterious death of the Marquis de Loulé in Salvaterra on 28 February 1824, in which it was suspected that Miguel or his friends were involved, was a symptom of the instability of the period. Prince Miguel was always influenced by his mother; and two months later, on 30 April 1824, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army he gathered his troops and ordered them to arrest ministers and other important people under pretext that a masonic conspiracy to assassinate the king existed, and placed his father in protective custody and incommunicado at Bemposta, where Miguel could "defend and secure his life". The Abrilada, as this was to be known, worried many of the foreign powers. The foreign diplomatic corp (and in particular Marshal Beresford), realising that the king was a prisoner of his son, travelled to Bemposta and was able to ferry the king away and on board a British warship, the Windsor Castle. On board, the king summoned his son, whom he dismissed as Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and immediately exiling him to Vienna, where he remained for over three years.

Exile and return
While in Vienna, he was a guest and friend of the Prince Metternich. Meanwhile, on 10 March 1826, his father, King John VI, died and his brother Peter, the heir-apparent to the throne, became king as Peter IV. Peter, however, was committed to continuing as Emperor of Brazil and therefore abdicated the crown of Portugal after two months (on 2 May) in favour of his daughter, Maria II. Since the young sovereign was not yet of age, he instituted a regency, under his sister, Isabel Maria. Peter had already attempted to coerce Miguel to Brazil (1822) away from their mother without any success. Following the death of their father, Peter once again attempted to mend fences within the family and ensure Maria II's right to the throne by offering Miguel the regency of Portugal (when he became 25) under a new liberal Constitutional Charter that would re-establish a constitutional monarchy. Under this arrangement, Queen Maria II and Miguel would be married when she came of age; until then Miguel would be her regent in Portugal. The new Constitutional Charter gave the crown moderating authority between the legislative, executive and judiciary, and introduced a 100-member Chamber of Peers (which included aristocrats and bishops and archbishops), a royal veto and indirect elections. Miguel accepted the proposal from his brother, swore to uphold the Constitutional Charter and, since the young Queen was only nine years old, waited until she would reach the age of marriage.

The regency under Isabel Maria was extremely unstable; discord reigned in the government, there were divisions within the municipal councils, rivalries between ministers and at one point, after the resignation of General Saldanha, a revolt in Lisbon. With Isabel Maria dangerously ill, Peter resolved to entrust his brother Miguel with the kingdom, which Miguel was only too eager to accept. A decree was promulgated on 3 July 1827 that granted Miguel his new role, and he departed from Vienna for Lisbon.

On the trip back to Lisbon he stopped in England, arriving on 30 December 1827. He was met by the Duke of Clarence, heir-presumptive to the British throne, and by other upper members of the English Court who had gathered at the dock to meet him. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, then leading an unpopular Tory government, hoped that they could mold Miguel into accepting the constitutional framework that Peter IV had devised, and used this visit to facilitate the transition. After lunching at the Hospital Governor's home, he travelled to London with his entourage in regal carriages and, escorted by cavalry officers, to the Palace of Westminster where he was met by a throng of people. While in London he stayed at the palace of Lord Dudley, on Arlington Street where he entertained his new friends; he was received by the ministers, ambassadors and municipal officials of King George IV, and was generally feted by English nobility, attending concerts and pheasant hunts, and visiting public works (such as the Thames Tunnel on 8 January 1828 which was then under construction and, ironically, collapsed a few days after his visit). On New Year's Eve he visited the King at Windsor Castle and was honoured with a magnificent banquet. Later at Rutland House, Miguel received members of the Portuguese diaspora living in England, who presented him with a commemorative medallion. Throughout his visit he was generally well received.

Regent
On 13 January 1828 Miguel departed London; after spending some time at Stratfield Saye, the country home of the Duke of Wellington, he travelled to Plymouth en route to Lisbon. Due to bad weather, he was only able to transfer to the Portuguese frigate Pérola on 9 February, which arrived in England accompanied by two British ships. On 22 January the Gazeta de Lisboa (English: Lisbon Gazette) published an open letter from the Ministério da Justiça (English: Ministry of Justice) which permitted any general demonstrations of jubilation (unless otherwise prohibited by law). The prince's ship arrived in Lisbon on 22 February and was met by cannon salvos from ships along the Tagus River and from the hilltops, beginning at two in the afternoon. The river was filled with ships when the Pérola arrived.

Although it was expected that the new regent would disembark at the Praça do Comércio, where a stage had been constructed, Miguel preferred to disembark in Belém. It is believed that Miguel's mother had sent a boatman to pick up the prince and with a message to see her upon arriving in Lisbon, in order to tell her where his loyalties lay. On shore the local population acclaimed their regent with cheers, while bells rang from some church towers and cheerful hymns were sung in the streets. There was a triumphal march to the Ajuda Palace, along streets adorned with silk banners, while the ladies of the city threw flowers. Everywhere there was a multitude of citizenry yelling "Viva o Senhor D. Miguel I nosso rei absoluto" (Long live the Lord D. Miguel, our Absolute King), while some interjecting cries of "death to D. Pedro" and "death to the liberal constitution".

But Miguel's role was clearly delineated by his first night in Lisbon: he would govern as regent in the name of the rightful sovereign of Portugal, Queen Maria II. On her reaching marriageable age, Miguel would be her consort. Furthermore, Miguel was obliged to govern in conformity with Peter's Constitutional Charter, something he accepted as a condition of the regency (even if he did not agree with its principles and favoured an absolute monarchy instead).

On 26 February, in the main hall of the Ajuda Palace in the presence of both Chambers of the Cortes, the Royal Court and the diplomatic corp, as well as some of the Prince's colleagues from Brazil (carefully orchestrated by the Queen Dowager), the investiture began. At one o'clock Miguel, along with his sister, Isabel Maria, entered the chamber to formally hand over the Regency. After the spectacle of both of them in the same chair, the princess delivered the transitional oath and then left gracefully. Miguel was presented with the written oath to defend the Constitutional Charter along with a Bible, which caused him "...confusion and [he] seemed unable or unwilling to read it." It is also unclear whether he actually swore the oath, since there was no distinct enunciation of the words; nor did any one actually see him kiss the missal (since the Duke of Cadaval obscured the prince during this part of the ceremony). Lord Carnarvon, in Lisbon at the time of the ceremony, wrote of the conclusion of the scene:
 * "During the whole proceeding...his countenance was overcast, and he had the constrained manner of a most unwilling actor in an embarrassing part. I read the approaching fate of the Constitution in his sullen expression, in the imperfect manner in which the oath was administered, and in the strange and general appearance of hurry and concealment."

On 1 March some citizens of Lisbon gathered at the palace to acclaim Miguel "Absolute King", infuriating many of the liberal politicians and residents. Invested in his new title of regent, he presented his Ministers of State in the evening: Nuno III Álvares Pereira de Melo (Duke of Cadaval), José António de Oliveira Leite de Barros (later Count of Basto), Furtado do Rio de Mendonça (7th Viscount of Barbacena & 2nd Count of Barbacena), José Luis de Sousa Botelho Mourão e Vasconcelos (Count of Vila Real) and the Count of Lousã. Within a week numerous moderate army officers had been dismissed and the military governors of the provinces replaced, as the Prince and Queen Dowager "cleaned house" of their old enemies and liberalist sympathisers.

King of Portugal
On 13 March 1828 Miguel dissolved the Cortes without calling new elections, as stipulated in the Constitutional Charter. Some municipal councils, many nobles and clergy, and several important citizens requested that the regent revoke the Constitutional Charter and reign as king. Blood was first spilled by the liberals, when delegates from the University of Coimbra (who ostensibly travelled to Lisbon to present their compliments to Miguel) were murdered on 18 March by hot-headed Coimbran students. On 25 April the senate (of the university), issued a proclamation in which they requested that Miguel assume the throne. This only fueled the divisions between liberals and absolutists. Because of the independence of Brazil, Miguel's supporters considered Miguel to be the legitimate heir to the crown of Portugal. If, to liberals, the name of Miguel was despised, to the legitimists (the absolutists) it was venerated. But Miguel's reign was immediately marked by cruel, almost tyrannical, governance which some attribute to him personally; however some blame the injustices on his subordinates, while others attribute them to the malevolence of Queen Charlotte.

On 3 May 1828, the very nobles who had been nominated by Peter to the new Chamber of Peers met in the Palace of the Duke of Lafões, and invited Miguel to convoke a new cortes consisting of the Three Estates with a view to deciding the legitimate succession to the throne. Such a cortes met in June at Ajuda, where the Bishop of Viseu proposed that Miguel should assume the crown since "...the hand of the Almighty led Your Majesty from the banks of the Danube to the shore of the Tagus to save his people...". On 7 July Miguel was acclaimed as absolute ruler, and on 15 July the Three Estate Cortes closed.

Shortly afterwards the military garrison in Oporto revolted, formed a provisional governmental junta, and marched on Coimbra to defend the liberal cause. But the general in command of these troops was indecisive, and Miguel was able to raise his own troops, create a battalion of volunteers and blockade Oporto. In Lagos a similar revolt was attempted, but immediately quashed when the liberal General Saraiva was shot by the Miguelist General Póvoas. On this occasion, João Carlos Saldanha (later Duke of Saldanha) and Pedro de Sousa Holstein (later 1st Duke of Palmela), who had arrived from England on board the British ship Belfast in order to lead constitutional forces, quickly re-embarked, judging the liberal cause lost. The liberal army escaped to deplorable conditions in Galicia where they awaited the next move. In the former regency's court there were few strong supporters of a constitutional monarchy; Princess Isabella Maria was supported by weak-willed ministers or incompetents and was personally too timid to stand up to Miguel. The liberals and their supporters escaped into exile. All of Portugal recognised the sovereignty of the monarch, except the islands of Madeira and Terceira; Madeira was easily subjugated, but Terceira remained faithful to the liberal cause.

The excess zeal of his supporters to prosecute the liberals would blacken the reputation of Miguel's regime. During the liberal insurrection on 6 March 1829 in Cais do Sodré, Brigadier Moreira, his officers and their supporters were all bayoneted. On 7 May the members of the rebel garrison of Oporto who had revolted were also executed. In some cases, the local population contributed to these horrors and reprisals, as in Vila Franca da Xira where they assassinated 70 people believed to have liberal sympathies. Although these actions were disapproved of by many of Miguel's ministers, the Count of Basto was not one of them. Even the Viscount of Queluz, a medic and intimate friend of the Miguel, was exiled to Alfeite for joining the chorus of those who challenged the reprisal killings. But the Queen Mother continued to support the attacks on liberals, and motivated these actions in order to strengthen the monarchy. Even after she died on 7 January 1830, many atrocities continued to be committed in the name of Miguel, some against foreign nationals who intervened in the politics of Portugal.

While Spain, the Holy See, and the United States recognised Miguel as king, in England and France there was little public support for the regime. The imprudence that the Miguelist government showed in harassing English and French foreign nationals provoked them to protest. Eventually Admiral Albin Roussin, was ordered by Louis Philippe I (who, like England, could not obtain any diplomatic satisfaction), to take action; he sailed up the Tagus, captured eight Portuguese ships and forcibly imposed a treaty (14 July 1831). But, Miguelist reprisals on liberals continued; most sentences were carried out within 24 hours. The 4th Infantry, in Lisbon, registered 29 executions on 22 and 23 August 1831 alone.

Liberal Wars
Only the island of Terceira in the Azores remained loyal to Queen Maria II; the constitutional government continued to function there in exile. At first João Carlos Saldanha was unable to reach the island, owing to the hostility of an English cruiser, but the Count of Vila Flor (later Duke of Terceira) was more successful; he arrived on the island, rebuilt the defences and quickly beat back Miguel's forces (on 11 August 1829) as they were attempting to invade the island. By 1831 the liberals had taken over all the islands of the Azores.

Peter, after abdicating the imperial crown of Brazil, placed himself at the head of the Liberal Army (1831) and from the Azores launched an invasion of northern Portugal, Landing at Mindelo, near Oporto which he quickly occupied. But Miguel's army was formidable, composed of the best troops, with dedicated volunteers and enthusiastic militiamen (although not, perhaps, the best senior officers). They easily encircled the city and lay siege to it. As the defence of Oporto persisted, Miguel resolved to visit his troops in April 1833. But in the meantime Lisbon fell into the hands of the Duke of Terceira, who had left Oporto earlier in the Liberal fleet commanded by Charles John Napier, disembarked in the Algarve and marched across the Alentejo to defeat the Miguelist General Teles Jordão (seizing the city on 24 July). Napier, after defeating a Miguelist fleet off Cape St. Vincent, joined the Duke of Terceira in the north, taking control of the Tagus.

Miguel was assisted by the French General Bourmont, who, after the fall of Charles X of France came with many of his legitimist officers to the aid of the king of Portugal (that is, Miguel). He was later replaced by the Scottish General Ranald MacDonnell who withdrew the Miguelist army besieging Lisbond to the almost impregnable heights of Santarém, where Miguel established his base of operations. The battles continued in earnest. In Alcácer the Miguelist forces captured some ground but this was quickly lost to General Saldanha in Pernes and Almoster. The latter action (18 February 1834) was the most violent and bloody of the civil war. In the end, politics sealed Miguel's fate: his alliance with Carlos of Spain alienated the sympathies of Ferdinand VII of Spain, who recognised Maria's claim to the Portuguese throne, and concluded a quadruple alliance with the queen and Peter as well as with the governments of France and England.

The Spanish General Rodil entered into Portugal while pursuing D. Carlos and his small force and at the same time the Duke of Terceira won the Battle of Asseiceira (16 May 1834) making D. Miguel's position critical. Miguel escaped Santarém and moved south-east in the direction of Elvas. While Miguel made for Évora, his generals voted in a council of war to suspend hostilities and sue for peace. Miguel accepted the decision.

After a three-year civil war, Miguel I was forced to abdicate at the Concession of Evoramonte (26 May 1834). While Carlos was transported to England (he later secretly returned to Spain), Miguel embarked on 1 June 1834 on a British warship from Sines bound for Genoa; he lived in exile first in Italy, then in England, and finally in Germany. He never returned to Portugal.

Second exile and death
In December 1834 the Portuguese Cortes banished Miguel and all his descendants from Portugal upon pain of immediate death. The Constitution of 1838 (article 98) categorically excluded the collateral Miguelist line from the throne (although with the return to the Constitutional Charter in 1842, this ceased to have force). The 1834 banishment law remained in effect until repealed in May 1950. During his exile, he was known as Duke of Braganza, as well as Marquis of Vila Viçosa, Count of Arraiolos, Count of Barcelos, Count of Neiva and Count of Ourém.

On 15 January 1837 the Spanish Cortes, then in midst of the First Carlist War (1833–39), excluded Miguel from the Spanish succession, on the grounds that he was in rebellion along with his maternal uncle Carlos, the first Carlist pretender of Spain. Miguel's eldest sister Teresa, Princess of Beira, and his nephews (three sons of late Infanta Maria Francisca of Portugal, and Sebastian, son of Teresa, Princess of Beira) were also excluded.

Miguel lived the rest of his life in exile and, removed from Portuguese politics, his character altered radically; in his later years he was a portly heavily bearded patriarch and lacked the cowboy persona of his early life. He refused to accede to the terms of the Concession of Evoramonte and thereby forfeited his generous pension from the Portuguese government. He lived for a time as a destitute refugee in Rome, in apartments provided by Pope Gregory XVI, who also gave him a small monthly allowance. Following the death of Pope Gregory and the election of Pius IX as Pope, D. Miguel moved to London, arriving on 2 February 1847. In 1851, he moved to the Grand Duchy of Baden in southern Germany and married Princess Adelaide of Löwenstein. They settled in the former Cistercian monastery of Bronnbach, and raised seven children. His widow succeeded in securing advantageous marriages for all their daughters.

Miguel died while hunting at Bronnbach, Grand Duchy of Baden on 14 November 1866. He was buried in his wife's family's vault in the Franciscan monastery of Engelberg at Grossheubach, Bavaria. In 1967 his body and that of his wife (then resting in Ryde on the Isle of Wight in England) were transferred to the Braganza pantheon in the old Monastery of São Vicente de Fora in Lisbon.

Titles and honours
In addition to his hereditary titles, over the course of his career Miguel received many awards and honours, including the following.

 * Portuguese honours
 * Grand Commander of the Three Military Orders of Christ, Aviz and St. James
 * Grand Cross of the Tower and Sword
 * Grand Cross of the Immaculate Conception of Vila Viçosa
 * Grand Master of the Order of St. Michael of the Wing (revoked)
 * Grand Prior of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in Portugal

• Empire of Brazil: Grand Cross of the Southern Cross
 * Foreign dynastic orders

• 🇪🇸 Spain:

• * Grand Cross of the Order of Charles III, 19 February 1802

• * Knight of the Golden Fleece, 19 February 1804

• 🇬🇧 United Kingdom: Knight of the Thistle

•  Austrian Empire: Grand Cross of St. Stephen, 1826

•  Kingdom of France:

• * Knight of the Holy Spirit, 1823

• * Knight of St. Michael, 1823

• * Grand Cross of the Military Order of St. Louis

•  Two Sicilies: Grand Cross of St. Ferdinand and Merit

•  Russian Empire:

• * Knight of St. Andrew, 16 February 1824

• * Knight of St. Alexander Nevsky, 16 February 1824

• * Knight of St. Anna, 1st Class, 16 February 1824

•  Baden: Grand Cross of the House Order of Fidelity, 1827

Posthumously, or during his reign, Miguel was known by various epithets:
 * O Tradicionalista ("The Traditionalist")
 * O Usurpador ("The Usurper")
 * O Absolutista ("The Absolutist")
 * O Sacrificado ("The Sacrificed")
 * O Rei Absoluto ("The Absolute King")

Marriage and descendants
In 1851, at the age of 48, he married Princess Adelaide of Löwenstein, by whom he had a son and six daughters.

Patrilineal descent
Patrilineal descent is the principle behind membership in royal houses, as it can be traced back through the generations.

Miguel's patriline is the line from which he is descended father to son.

 * 1) Robert II, Count of Worms, Rheingau and Hesbaye, 770–807
 * 2) Robert III, Count of Worms and Rheingau, 808–834
 * 3) Robert IV the Strong, Duke of Maine, 820–866
 * 4) Robert I, King of the Franks, 866–923
 * 5) Hugh the Great, Count of Paris, 898–956
 * 6) Hugh Capet, King of the Franks, 941–996
 * 7) Robert II, King of the Franks, 972–1031
 * 8) Robert I, Duke of Burgundy, 1011–1076
 * 9) Henri of Burgundy, 1035–c. 1074
 * 10) Henrique, Count of Portugal, 1066–1112
 * 11) Afonso Henriques, King of Portugal, 1109–1185
 * 12) Sancho I, King of Portugal, 1154–1211
 * 13) Afonso II, King of Portugal, 1185–1223
 * 14) Afonso III, King of Portugal and the Algarve, 1210–1279
 * 15) Dinis, King of Portugal and the Algarve, 1261–1325
 * 16) Afonso IV, King of Portugal and the Algarve, 1291–1357
 * 17) Pedro I, King of Portugal and the Algarve, 1320–1367
 * 18) João I, King of Portugal and the Algarve, 1357–1433
 * 19) Afonso, Duke of Braganza, 1377–1461
 * 20) Fernando I, Duke of Braganza, 1403–1478
 * 21) Fernando II, Duke of Braganza, 1430–1483
 * 22) Jaime, Duke of Braganza, 1479–1532
 * 23) Teodósio I, Duke of Braganza, 1510–1563
 * 24) João I, Duke of Braganza, 1543–1583
 * 25) Teodósio II, Duke of Braganza, 1558–1630
 * 26) João IV, King of Portugal and the Algarves, 1604–1656
 * 27) Pedro II, King of Portugal and the Algarves, 1648–1706
 * 28) João V, King of Portugal and the Algarves, 1689–1750
 * 29) Pedro III, King of Portugal and the Algarves, 1717–1786
 * 30) João VI, King of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves, 1767–1826
 * 31) Miguel, King of Portugal and the Algarves, 1802–1866

title: Miguel I of Portugal