CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Pihtla Parish

former municipality of Estonia (1992–2017)

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 12, 2026
Entity authorityQ635100 ↗
Source-derived summary

Pihtla Parish was a municipality in Saare County, Estonia. The municipality had a population of 1,400 (as of 1 January 2006) and covered an area of 228.11 km².

During the administrative-territorial reform in 2017, all 12 municipalities on the island of Saaremaa were merged into a single municipality – Saaremaa Parish.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Pihtla Parish” is former municipality of Estonia (1992–2017). The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Pihtla, Parish and former, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2006, 2017—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Pihtla, Parish and former is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “former municipality of Estonia (1992–2017)” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 12, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q635100. Authority coordinates are 58.304, 22.699. 2 of 2 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2006 and 2017.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Pihtla Parish”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Pihtla Parish primary sources, Pihtla Parish archive and Pihtla research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Pihtla Parish”?
  2. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Pihtla Parish” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.