Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruscism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. keep arguments are non policy based Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruscism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ukrainian nationalist bias (not WP:NPOV), contains original research, possibly a recreation of Russism and Russiaism pages which have been deleted as neologisms and attack pages, combined with original research – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See previous comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russism (ideology) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russiasm – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The same arguments apply for deleting an article called "Ruscism" as applied for deleting an article called Russiaism (although the former spelling is a more accurate transliteration of the original Ukrainian/Russian). – Herzen (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep - Seems to be supported in non-English sources as a common use term. Sock users calling it "ukrainian nationalist bias" when it's a Russian term about Russia is just inflammatory. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 23:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name one reliable source which uses this term? All I see among the sources cited are blogs, almost exclusively Ukrainian. If this is "a Russian term about Russia", then why is there a Ukrainian WP article about this but not a Russian WP article? This term is silly and childish and has no place in an encyclopedia. It is nothing more than calling Russia names. It serves no other purpose or function. – Herzen (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is faulty logic, everyone knows the Russian government has a stranglehold on the internet and dissent, and even censors information on english wiki, nevermind ruwiki. I haven't forgotten how partisan you are to that regime, though, so this doesn't surprise me. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are confusing Russia with Ukraine. Ukraine has a Ministry of Propaganda, and is the only country in Europe to have one; Russia doesn't. As for "everyone knows" Russia does not have a free press: have a look at this:

Can you imagine Obama, Merkel, Hollande or Cameroon answering tough questions on live TV for 4 hours without teleprompters and staged and predefined journalist's questions?

No way, it would never happen.

Not to mention Poroshenko or our man Yats. – Herzen (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvivske: Meanwhile, Ukraine has banned the Russian film adaptation of Taras Bulba (news story in Russian). It turns out that the greatest Ukrainian writer, Nikolai Gogol, produced anti-Ukrainian propaganda. To quote from his short story Taras Bulba:

Степь чем далее, тем становилась прекраснее. Тогда весь юг, все то пространство, которое составляет нынешнюю Новороссию, до самого Черного моря, было зеленою, девственною пустынею.

The further the steppe goes, the more beautiful it becomes. Then the whole south, all that space which constitutes today's Novorossiya, to the very Black Sea, was a green, virgin desert.

Note: Novorossiya, not Ukraine. Gogol was a genius. – Herzen (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to it as a Ukrainian nationalist term as the only article on the subject that I could find on the subject in English, i.e. the only article I could understand, was an opinion piece written by a Ukrainian activist, which is not a reliable source in any case. However, since other users have stated that it is not a Ukrainian nationalist statement per se, then I retract that part of my statement. However, the way that the article is written does not appear neutral in any case.

Nevertheless, I would certainly say that the term "Ruscism" is a neologism, in the English context at least, and that this article is trying to boost its usage, a violation of Wikipedia policy. ("Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create a neologism in English.") – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 13:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term was used and described in an article in the EU Observer [1], but I couldn't find it covered in other English sources. However, I imagine that the term is used far more frequently in non-English sources. I was in fact able to find many potential sources through the usual Google, Google Scholar, Google Books, JSTOR mass search. However, I can't read the languages they were published in so I was unable to vouch for their worth as sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an opinion piece by someone who is described at that very Web page as "a Ukrainian activist and columnist". It is not wP policy to consider opinion pieces written by activists to be reliable sources. – Herzen (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've been running a couple of the sourced articles through Google translate, and there does appear to be several reliable sources describing the term Ruscism. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links, please? The one link to an Anglophone site you gave is not a reliable source. – Herzen (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources I’ve run through Google translate that include the term are: [2], [3] and [4]. I’m not sure how reliable the latter two sources are, but the first source is from Pravda. This seems to be a common-use term, although I agree that the article is in need of serious rewriting. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a common term in the Russian or Ukrainian context, but it's certainly not in the English context. I've already stated this before in this deletion discussion, but terms such as "Ruscism" can often be neologisms when translated into English, and the English language sources seem to corroborate that. – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, created by an SPA and possibly a sock (no other contributions to Wikipedia), not really supported by sources (Ukrainian media, at least in Russian, have about the same reliability as social media in general, everybody can publish bullshit any moment), WP:COATRACK (for example, the intro states that it is Russia + fascism, and the next section says it was introduced by Gertsen who died in 1867 and so on).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic keep - The word now has wide currency, Google brings up 204,000 hits.--Lute88 (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only got 3900 hits. Russophobia, in contrast, produces 159,000 hits. But the article on Russophobia was recently renamed to "Anti-Russian sentiment", because in the fantasy world of English Wikipedia, there is no such thing as Russophobia.

In any case, the number of Google hits a word produces has nothing to do with whether an article by that name should exist. What matters is whether reliable sources use the term "Ruscism". None do, because the word is silly and embarrassingly childish. Not even Metapedia has an article on "Ruscism": the word is too stupid even for Metapedia. – Herzen (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also intrigued as to where Lute88 got that number from. Nevertheless, the amount of hits a word gets on Google is not a reliable indicator as to whether there should be a Wikipedia article on the subject. – Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here - https://www.google.com/search?

You're going to say 'keep' based on the number of google searches a term returns? should we have a wiki article for 'asdfasdfasdfasdf' as well (122,000 results!)? Solntsa90 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

num=50&espv=2&q=%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC&oq=%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8&gs_l=serp.3.1.0l10.11126.17988.0.20354.12.10.2.0.0.0.219.925.8j1j1.10.0.chm_loc...0...1c.1.60.serp..2.10.783.0.8hSgLInueKM 205,000.--Lute88 (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article does seem to have a bit of editorializing, and the language is in fact poor.--Lute88 (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a transtcript form a Echo of Moscow radio statement by a "ruscist" actor, director and politician Ivan Okhlobystin: http://www.echomsk.spb.ru/blogs/ohlob/22853.php?commentId=82319

I'll try to translate it later. He says he is proud to be a ruscist.--Lute88 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep The term is used more and more, the article should remain but be updated in quality. I want to point out in addition that Ukrainian and Ukraine-related articles, just as the Russian language Wiki are constantly under attack, we on this English international Wiki should not bow to some Ruscist pressure and lose independence. All articles should be kept and frozen/secured during the Ukrainian War to avoid large-scale hooliganism. 134.255.2.125 (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself from Echo of Moscow is titled in Russian 'What is Ruscism?', showing that not even Russians have an idea what this neologism is.

Strong delete--This same topic and relevant information is covered ad nauseum under Russification, yet manages to do so in a much less hateful, biased and paranoid tone. A bit of Ukrainian Nationalist bias if I ever saw one.

Also, Wiki tends to have a strong bias against recently-created neologisms that the media tries to get everyone using--so do I.Solntsa90 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

his is faulty logic, everyone knows the Russian government has a stranglehold on the internet and dissent, and even censors information on english wiki, nevermind ruwiki. I haven't forgotten how partisan you are to that regime, though, so this doesn't surprise me. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You really ought to recuse yourself, Lvovskiy. You have demonstrated that you are not capable of thinking rationally about such topics without your Ukranian Nationalist biases getting in the way, clouding your thinking and impairing your judgement. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly rename Rashizm the only reliable source I could find using this term was one published in a country where the native language was not English. If ever the term enters usage in reliable sources published in any of the majority-English-speaking countries then it can be reinstated. Quite rightly there are articles in English-language Wikipedia on foreign terms like Volksgemeinschaft, and maybe Rashizm is a Russian term that is worthy of an article in English-Wikipedia. But I cannot see a case at the moment for an article on the allegedly-English term Ruscism.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native speaker of Russian--Ruscism is not a word common to our language, and appears to be a neologism which wiki tends to frown upon. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Term is topical and worthy of continued listing and discussion Banduryst (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC) — Banduryst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Current article is hopelessly biased. the term is however used, and a NPOV discussion of it would make a possible article. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term is rather notable as "Rashizm" in Russian and Ukrainian languages (see also wiktionary) - 200,000 hits [5]. It is also present in several other wikis. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.