Talk:Vladimir Hütt

Untitled

This article should not be deleted via speedy deletion process. It's about a person who had notability in Estonia and the USSR. Most of the google hits I got were in Russian, however, I know that he has been mentioned (along with Gustav Naan or Lembit Valt) in books about Soviet philosophy published in the UK or the US. As one of the representatives of philosophers of the Soviet Estonia, he deserves an entry here, given what articles we do have anyway (Pokemon characters and what not).--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You can cite sources that are in Russian to prove notability. Killiondude (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

At its current state I say it fails A7 and could be deleted. But due to the {{hangon}} tag I will respect the authors wishes and hold off on deletion for 24 hours to allow the article to receive some much needed help. Like Killiondude stated above it is imperative you some reliable sources. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For starters, [1]. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In Estonian treatment of the 1940s' era, there's a concept of jeestlased, sometimes referred to by the less precise term Russian Estonians. It refers to people who were of Estonian ancestry but lived in Soviet territories before the annexation and had accepted the Soviet worldview. Stalinist government saw it fit to transfer quite a number of these people back to Estonia after the annexation and put them in charge of various important functions -- so as to better claim that Estonian SSR was ruled by ethnic Estonians.

Seeing from Hütt's biography, literature, and career, he seems a prime example. I'd put him to the appropriate category, but I don't know what the category should be called in English. Any ideas? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is a good example of 'jeestlane'. On the other hand, I can't think of a good way to translate this and make such a category fit an encyclopedia. Similarly, I was considering adding the anecdote about “kustav Naan” to the corresponding article, but I didn't add this one, because I doubt if it is relevant. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Weren't they called 'jeestlane' because of their heavy Russian accents? There are plenty of book references to 'Yestonians', so perhaps we could have an article explaining the term and also a category too? Martintg (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Something like 'jiisti rakhvass' could be heard for 'Eesti rahvas' ('Estonian people') and hence the nickname, which surprisingly is used in English sources, too, so an article or section somewhere could be started. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Most of them were descendants of people who had left Estonia many decades ago, and often, Estonian language was the second or sometimes third language to them. Hence, the thick accent.

There's even a political joke of Karl Vaino fumbling a speech as Täna on suur pidupee. Tänavad on libudega ehitud (Today, we're having a big celebratory ass. Streets are decorated with whores.).

Of course, Vaino and Gretškina belong to the Brezhnev-era Russification campaign, not Stalin's post-annexation era -- but the political forces at play were closely related. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I created Category:Yestonians. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to have reacted so late, but I considered creating an article a good idea, but I disagree on the category. First, this is a derogatory notion, and it is too arbitrary to be used in encyclopedia. Was Karl Vaino a Yestonian? Yes, he definitely fits the description. But on the other hand, some sources indicate Johannes Käbin was also Yestonian, on which one might disagree and categorise him just as Russian Estonian (Venemaa eestlane). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Robert Conquest writes in his book "The Last Empire" "The first secretaryship was handed over to Johannes Käbin, another "Yestonian" who hardly even understood the Estonian language", and in the Journal of Baltic studies writes: "the Yestonian incumbent, former ECP First Secretary Johannes Käbin" so yes I think we can identify Yestonians on the basis of what the published literature states. Martintg (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I read this very thing today, and I was surprised. To my knowledge, Käbin did speak Estonian, and did it fairly well (with accent, probably), so Conquest's statement 'hardly even understood the Estonian language' would seem to fit better the situation with K.Vaino. On the other hand, Hütt is definitely a Yestonian in the sense of (absurdly) Soviet-loyalist views, though we are unlikely to find any sources indicating whether he spoke with an accent or not and whether he was considered a Yestonian. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the term is used in books and scholarly journals, I don't get the sense that it is purely a derogatory term. but rather a political term referring to russified/Sovietized ethnic Estonians imported by Soviet occupation authorities into leadership positions. "Russian Estonians" is a broader non-political category, "Yestonians" is a narrower political sub category. Martintg (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Nowadays, 'Jeestlane' in Estonian is derogatory, I think it might even be compared with 'nigger'. But I don't think it is very often used these days, sometimes it deviates from the original meaning, i.e. Russian people who speak Estonian with accent can also be called 'jeestlased'. But indeed, I have little knowledge on the background of this word, so I expect Digwuren to elaborate on this, soon.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the word was originally arose in late 1940s or early 1950 as a popular nickname for a particular kind of politicians, and was picked up by academics when in the 1980s it became acceptable to analyse Soviet politics from a realist point of view. In 1990s, I've seen at least one high school history textbook that used it in the political meaning.

In 2000s, the Delphi Lumpen (pardon my French) appears to have generalised it to refer to all poorly integrated Soviet immigrants, in this usage making it pretty much synonymous with tibla. But that's not how academic treatises use it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Language is a funny thing. 'Jeestlane' may well be a derogatory term in Estonian, but in English 'Yestonian' has a specific political meaning. 'Witt' refers to a certain part of a female's anatomy in Estonian and had many a teen age Estonian boys sniggering when a certain East German figure skater performed, but means something entirely different in German. Martintg (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The English import of the term predates 2000s' developments and is mostly restricted to academic usage. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we need Category:Soviet loyalists? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't really need it. I think it's better than Category:Yestonians, but where are we going to draw the line? Yes, we would add Naan, Hütt and Alksnis, but what amout Rüütel? He used to be Soviet loyalist, but ceased to be. But perhaps so did Hütt, moderating his position? I would propose Category:Internationalist Movement of the Estonian SSR that could include both members and supporters of that organization. And category:Estonian communists would be enough for Käbin. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I support creation of such a category. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I can witness that Vladimir Hütt spoke Estonian with a strong Russian accent and with grammatical mistakes (wrong object cases). Of course, hardly there are reliable sources for my statement.

It seems to me that jeestlane is a very rare word nowadays. Andres (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes on March 17

I see absolutely no reason to introduce a whole list of ethnic Estonian supporters of the Interdviženije. The article has the word *few* anyway, User:FeelSunny might do well to leave this thing for users with more sources and knowledge of Estonia to develop in the future. Valter Toots is not notable for a Wikipedia reader! --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha, and user also should get ot of your internets, definitely:) Basically what you provide is some weird theory of spheres of influence in WP. I support both Obama and McCain on they are not acceptable in the XXI century:)) Anyway, "few" is a weasel word. What's worse, it's a valuation, and unsopported\ unattributed it becomes a POV. So anyway this is TBD. FeelSunny (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war

FeelSunny: the one who started reverting should start discussing it, right?

Well, one good suggestion actually states exactly opposite: edit, get reverted, start discussing. Article history shows that you made here your first edit, got reverted by Miacek, but then you chose to revert again and so it went. Whatever. Your initial concern was to remove weasel word "few". Fine, although I don't share your opinion, I think in the original context that unfortunate "few" was not used in it's "weasel-mode" (..give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable..), rather it was there to say that there was really very few ethnic Estonian people to support that movement. Whatever, let's forget that too. Now when I edited out every loaded phrase and left only cold and bare fact that Hütt was supporter of the Intermovement - and you revert once again, explaining that somebody should have started discussion with you 7 days and some twenty revisions ago. Fine. Let's discuss. Why do you think that article about Vladimir Hütt should also include something about Intermovement's popularity among ethnic Estonians and it's other (not-so-)notable members? Ptrt (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ptrt, of the 742 delegates attending the first congress on Intermovement on March 5 1989, only 11 were ethnic Estonian, if that doesn't qualify as "few", I don't know what does. Martintg (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind your latest edit. Hope this consensus lasts.

The reason why your initial "few" was not an appropriate word is that the source clearly indicates the movement was "not built by the national principle.", which directly contradicts your previous position.

BTW, can you please give a reference to a source that actually counted ethnic Estonians in 1989?:)(talk) 10:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Toivo Miljan, Historical Dictionary of Estonia, Scarecrow Press, 2004, ISBN 0810849046, page 266. Martintg (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Intermovement was very much built on national principles. The trick was, it preferred an ethnicity that didn't really exist. Intermovers believed in Homo Sovieticus supremacy, and considered people who dared to claim other ethnicities lesser beings. In order to maximise chaos, they denigrated those people as "nationalists" and then claimed their own principles were completely different from nationalism -- which was untrue.

One of the defining characteristics of Homo Sovieticus being the readiness to relocate wherever GOSPLAN requires, it's no wonder that most of the people supporting the Intermovement were immigrants of uncertain original ethnicities. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I get the feeling that certain people on Wikipedia are trying to amend the Seven Dirty Words with "few", "only", "all" and "according". Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The user who keeps to adding Valter Toots as 'another notable Intermovement member' is pushing POV - and nonsense. I tried to google some days ago, and “Valter Toots” had 12 google hits. If this is notable, then... --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Miacek, and now that you have provided the real source text could you please explain how the phrase "Interfront held it's first Congress with 740 delegates from 140 Union enterprises. Only 11 delegates were ethnic Estonians" is translated to the phrase of your edit "Hütt was one of the few notable ethnic Estonians who supported the pro-Moscow Internationalist Movement"? Don't you feel your initial conclusion is somewhat too far reaching? How exactly do you know - aside from your personal experience - how many ethnic Estonians actually supported the Intermovement? FeelSunny (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

After almost one month of you not answering, I feel you can not explain this. FeelSunny (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought this issue had become 'stale', apparently not. I do not have a source that explicitly says only two notable ethnic Estonians supported the Interfront; I do have, however, a source (that you cited), telling us a small fraction of the Interfront members were ethnic Estonians. Also, there were public opinion polls already that time in Estonia, with next to zero support for Intermovement positions (no sovereignty, no language laws, ESSR subordinated to Moscow etc). In fact, there was only one really notable Estonian figure to support Intermovement, namely Gustav Naan. I also added Hütt, since he was at least an academician and has been explicitly reported in that book 'Anatomy of Independence'. If you know any further examples of notable Estonians supporting the organization, please list them here and we shall discuss it. --Miacek (t) 09:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Karl Kortelainen, maybe? His KGB work does not make him less an ethnic Estonian. But he was defininetely a notable figure at his time. FeelSunny (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Kortelainen was not ethnich Estonian; he was a Russophone Homo soveticus of Finnish/Ingrian descent (different sources give different nationalities). --Miacek (t) 09:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)