Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nashism

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 / redirect to Nashi (Ours). Did you know that Red Grant's pseudonym of "Nash" in From Russia with Love was a clue he was a Russian agent? Neil ╦ 12:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nashism

Nashism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nonnotable Russian language neologism. There are quite a few Russian language texts from various journalists who use this term "нашизм" (nashism/nashists) for various purposes. All of them are hardly notable and there is no single understanding. And most surely the quoted author is hardly notable for her version to be wikipedized. `'юзырь:mikka 03:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom. A merge suggestion has been posted on the article, and that might make sense, but otherwise it's a neologism. YechielMan 04:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, recentism, neologism, {any-party-name}ism. Pavel Vozenilek 11:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Nashi (Ours). Seems worth a mention on the page, and certainly seems like a logical potential wikilink. --Dhartung | Talk 08:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Dhartung. Not notable enough on its own but a plausible search term. Keresaspa 12:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • My whole point that there is nothing reputable to merge these musing of a nonnotable person. I cound have done it myself, but I stand that delete and redirect is the proper approach here. `'юзырь:mikka 01:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete history as WP:OR. Create new redirect. -- Petri Krohn 02:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete there is no single understanding of the word "nashism". By the way, the article is poorly written and makes no sense.Dimts 06:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect or delete.. Keep, per Biophys. While the term is in use, it is not notable enough to warrant its own article - yet. Also, I think I remember nashism being used about previous, different incarnation of Nashi around 1990...1992. Googled for term, but couldn't find it - article in Economist [1] mentions current nashism. There are some other English sources/articles using the term (not commenting on the quality or validity as wikisource, [2], [3], [4] and more), so probably a section in Nashi article and redirect would be best solution. DLX 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - too non-notable now. That may or may or may not change. If it becomes notable, nothing much is lost by starting over.--Alexia Death 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect might be helpful to the user, so supported.--Alexia Death 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Redirecting to Nashi (Ours) is not a long-term stable solution. A primary reason why Nashism refers to a number of converging ideological stances of varying sources is that the term наши didn't start its political life with the movement. The term has been used as an indicator of (real or imagined) confrontation between "наши" and "нет наши" for many decades; perhaps centuries. The organisation was named after this old idea, not the other way around, and consequently, sociopsychological studies are bound to assign higher significance to the ideology per se rather than merely viewing it as 'whatever the organisation preaches'. Digwuren 08:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete - Im changing my vote to weak delete. It appears this term is gaining notability very fast. ITs still not a stable commonly understood term tho.--Alexia Death 18:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't get it, is it a pejorative to the Nashis? Is it refering to the current group called Nashi, or the older one from the 1990s mentioned in the Nashi article? If an article goes through a week of AfD and can't be clarified, it isn't adding to the encyclopedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*Merge and redirect to Nashi (Ours). Some may consider it is a neologism, but would be a useful search term, since by definition a neologism is a term that is wide use, so support it as a redirect after a merge. Martintg 07:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• The word has just been used by Andrei Illarionov: All of this allows me to talk about the appearance of a new political regime, non-free regime, with "corporatist state", monopolized economy, coercive markets, with ideology of "nashism" (from the Russian word "nash"—"our own") as its distinctive features. [5] Colchicum 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • exactly to my point. Many like this pun, but most use it ad hoc, putting their own understanding. English knows its own share of -isms. I can name at least 5 different meanings. Some authors even go to amazing length of essay about the word. Some play pun with "nashism/fascism", others attach it to one of the Nashi movement, still others use it synonymously to chauvinism/jingoism/nationalism (like Illarioniov wrote, "from the Russian word "nash"—"our own", but who really explained nothing more). `'юзырь:mikka 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. No merging with "Nashi". Indeed, according to Illarionov, "In Russia a new model has been formed for the government, economic and socio-political order – the Power Model (silovaya model’)." "In this model, the entire body of state power has been taken over by a group called the “siloviki”, which includes not only the “siloviki” themselves [TN: generally understood to be current and former intelligence officers], but also intelligence service collaborators, members of the Corporation of Intelligence Service Collaborators (Korporatsiya Sotrudniki Spets-Sluzhb) – the KSSS." "The ideology of KSSS is “Nashism” (“ours-ism”), the selective application of rights." [6]. Then, the difference between "nashism" and organization "Nashi" is the same as between Communist ideology and Komsomol organization.Biophys 17:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is but one usage of the term. And has little if any in common with what is currently in the article. And little in common with Nashi movement. Their manifesto specifically says something like "russia is centre of union of everything: east and west, christianity, Judaism, Islam, buddhism" (Россия — центр объединения мировых цивилизаций. Восточное и Западное Христианство, Иудаизм, Ислам и Буддизм — все сошлось в России.) In other words, nothing about "selective application of rights", just the opposite: Russia is everything and for all. Please don't attepmt to dive into original research here, digging from blogs and newspapers. Like I wrote there is no common, single usage pattern of the term. `'юзырь:mikka 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• BTW please stop flooding the article with internet references where the word is used. People may use google themselves. wikipedia is not web directory. We need reliable reference which explain and scholarly discuss the term by people who are recognized as experts, not just usage cases. `'юзырь:mikka 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Please aslo do not confuse the words "encyclopedic topic" and "current article". The current article is trash to be deleted. But I will say nothing against, if a new one will be created, following wikipedia's rules about "no original research" .`'юзырь:mikka 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Mikka, I agree with you about two things. First, this article is terrible. But it should be improved rather than deleted because the topic is very notable (see below). Second, the exact meaning of the term may differ. But what's the problem? Let's explain this. Actually, the word means a political movement and a political ideology, just as communism, fascism, etc. It already has a Manifesto. There is nothing special here. I understand that author of this ideology and movement is Vladislav Surkov; he published these ideas. The movement/ideology was also cited by many notable people, including Andrei Illarionov, Eduard Limonov, and Gennady Zyuganov. This ideology represents a combination of "sovereign democracy" (this includes "self-reliance" like Juche), Russian nationalism and "chekism". But I would need a few days to consult with sources, avoid OR, and improve the article. Should we delete this article now to recreate it later? I do not think so.Biophys 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC) But this is not "current article". This article is about ideology that will define Russian politics for many years.Biophys 20:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Let me disagree with you on two items. The current article must be deleted, because it is a confusing mess, sourced from a nonnotable journalist with IMO naive views. Second, you are repeating her error. Once again and again: there is no monolythic ideology under this name. In particular, regarding your "combination": the Nashi movement very carefuly and explicitely excludes any nationalism, fascism and other negative -isms from its programme. Yes, you may define it is a right movement, but not extreme right. Putin is not an idiot. Anyway, let us stop this. Votes for deletion is not the place to discuss new articles. I will be happy to help you in your work on a new article, say, in User:Biophys/Nashism. I will strongly advise you not to collect usage cases, but to look for solid works that spend some real amount of text on the description of the topic (not just casually mention), written by recognized experts in politics (the ones that have or you would want to have a wikipedia bio). And since there is no one who directly says "Nashism is our ideology", the article must mainly consist of attributed opinions (e.g., "Nikita Lyapis-Trubetskoi says that Nashism has been evolving from.... in... bla bla") but with no names red-linked :-) `'юзырь:mikka 20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• One I missed earlier: Ms. Fadeicheva is not a journalist; she is a researcher of history. The article incorrectly refers to Polis Journal as "Polis Magazine", which might have helped in the confusion. Digwuren 12:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is no monolithic ideology behind the label Christianity. In Russia, Christians can't even agree upon how many fingers to straighten when making the sign of the cross -- despite centuries of haggling! And yet, I don't see you suggesting deletion of Christianity. Digwuren 23:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You are quite mistaken, colleague. There is a very monolithic ideology behind the label "Christianity", and a well-documented, too. And therefore we have the article. `'юзырь:mikka 00:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Let's suppose so. Can you answer these simple questions once and for all?

1. How many fingers to straighten when making the sign of the cross?
2. Are cars with internal combustion engine a tool of Devil, to be abhorred and rejected?
3. Are indulgences valid according to Christianity?
4. Does Christianity support or oppose conservation ethic?
5. Should Christians picket funerals of gays?
6. Does Christian ideology require its followers to be white?
7. Most importantly of all, does Salvation come from grace, works or Sola Fide? Digwuren 08:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. The concept's notability can not be reasonably denied, but the article is currently in a poor shape. Digwuren 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem with the artilce is not the term itself, and not its "poor shape". The article 100% fails wikipedia criteria. "Expand" means to delete everything what is written and start from scratch. I am not a supporter of Nashi, but an attempt to attribute them "racist 'nashism' that accentuates the anthropological differences" is plain bullshit. `'юзырь:mikka 00:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment as an evidence that the term didn't really catch up with solid political analysts, I failed to google any text that contains both words "nashism" and "Jingoism", while it is 100% self-evident from the programme of Nashi that nashism is jingoism made in Russia: "Russia must be strong, Russia is nexus of civilizations, Russia can make it all alone, etc." `'юзырь:mikka 00:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• You are misinterpreting the search results. Jingoism is etymologically a relatively new concept, used mostly in Anglophone contexts. A number of Russian sources, such as [7], even go so far as to suggest Jingoism is an uniquely British concept, or British chauvinism in particular. Nashism, in contrast, is so far mainly of interest in Russia, thus it is to be expected that its researchers would be unlikely to associate these two concepts -- as might look reasonable to one who views sociological research from far away, like from a background of mathematics, or from America.
• Did I mention it's currently mainly a sociological topic and only secondarily -- well, now probably increasingly due to the movement -- a subject for political science? Digwuren 09:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK ...that Nashism and Nashists existed and were heatedly discussed as early as in 1962? (and wikipedia already knows that :-) `'юзырь:mikka 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the similarity of names for these phenomena in English is quite coincidental. However, I have taken your point into account and added the {{for}} reference to Nashism. Digwuren 09:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously the article needs further development. I don't understand the call for its deletion, should we delete all article stubs? Martintg 06:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Stub deletion: dont trow logical fallacies on me here. My call for deletion is very detailed. I din't say I want it deleted because it is short, did I? `'юзырь:mikka 14:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• I believe that, based on the -- sometimes, deliberate -- rhyme with 'fascism' and a frequent use in pejorative contexts, Mikkalai perceives the article is an attack page, and thus sees it important to delete it as threatening the integrity of Wikipedia. I further believe that such a perception is incorrect, and the resulting conclusion is on par with deleting the article on Christianity because "You Christian dog!" happens to be a slur of choice among some people.

My understanding is that this pejorativeness is somewhat built into the term, but in a weird and neutrality-seeking way. As discussed above, 'nashi' alone has specific undercurrents in Russian political thought. 'Nashism' as a term distances its user from these undercurrents, and stresses the idea as an idea. Thus, when describing this phenomenon, people supporting these undercurrents would be more likely to use 'nashi', not feeling the need for such a stress, and people not supporting them -- either out of neutrality or opposition -- would be more likely to use the '-ism' suffix. Consequently, there would be much more negative than positive references to nashism as such. 'Nashi' not carrying such connotations in English, it might be possible to describe the ideology under Nashi (ideology) and redirect Nashism there, but given than the researchers currently are, and are likely in the future, to use Nashism as the predominant term for the topic of research, this would be borderline WP:OR. Digwuren 08:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Please dont' try to read my mind. My reason for deletion is stated crystal clear: the current article is bullshism, the term is a catchy neologism, and I failed to find enough solid references from reputable politologists to write a decent article. Casual mentionings in polemic articles do not count as sources. `'юзырь:mikka 14:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:RS has a preference for secondary sources such as peer reviewed journals, there is no mention that is must be from a "reputable politologists". The article referenced in Polis Journal meets the WP:RS criteria. Notability of individual authors is not an an issue, because M. A. Fadeicheva's article was peer reviewed prior to publishing in the journal. Martintg 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • To begin from the roots, Who says that Polis Journal has any reputation at all? who says it is peer-reveiwed? What are the credential of the editorial board and reveiwers? Please provide proofs that it has any say in Russian political studies. Yes notability of individual authors is an issue. Any graduate student can write and publish an article, but people will laugh if you suggest that each of them may make a full wikipedia article. At best, such article may be useful as source of further, more reputable references. `'юзырь:mikka 00:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• [8] says it is a publication of the "Russian Political Science Association, the main professional body promoting the study of politics in Russia". [9] says the journal instituted peer review in 2001. Digwuren 06:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I should point out that the latter page has an English translation ([10]) which reflects the celebration and review, but not the peer review comment, which in original Russian is presented as a postscriptum in the tone of oh, and by the way, there's a slight change. Unless clarified, this might cause confusion to people who do not read Russian. Digwuren 12:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Also, it is a sad but fact that scientific level in Russia drastically dropped since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which was already low even before: when I emigrated, I had to jump through quite a few hoops to prove that my Soviet Ph.D. was of any value. (This is an explanation of my scepticism here.) `'юзырь:mikka 00:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here are details of the Polis Journal here [11], seems reputable enough to be listed by British academia. Martintg 02:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• strong delete The current text is totally incomprehensible, even after reading Nashi (Ours) article and hence more harmful than useful as a stub. If one is going to redirect this article to "Nashi (Ours)" , then the Nashi (Ours) must be expanded to contain section "Ideology", which says it is called "Nashism" and describes it from valid sources, otheriwse the redirect is meaningless. If there is any valid description of the topic, I highly doubt that the current content is re-usable, with the exception of the trivial statement that "Nashism is the ideology of "Nashi" (if it is true). But is it so trivial that non-copyrightable, so to say. Mukadderat 16:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, at this point there is not such ideology as "nashism", there is only a group called "Nashi" that supports Putin but otherwise has no distinctive ideology, and that is fairly adequately covered in appropriate article. -- Ekjon Lok 23:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• However the Russian Political Science Association [12] and their peer reviewed journal Polis [13] says there is such an ideology as nashism. I trust them more than the opinions of essentially anonymous Wikipedia editors here as to the existance of nashism. Martintg 10:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No they don't. Arguments of this kind are cheating. Polis specifically says that it is not responsible for views published in its articles. `'юзырь:mikka 16:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ofcourse not, no academic journal is responsible for the views published, their responsbility is in ensuring that the article meets the required academic standard regardless of the view. Peer-review is not ensuring political correctness, but ensuring academic standards. Martintg 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Also you obviously cannot read what "anonymous Wikipedia editors" say. They do not deny the exastance of nashism. They say that the article is beyond reasonable standards. (And I say it directly that it is plain false.) `'юзырь:mikka 16:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you do not deny the existance of nashism, why do you want to delete the article? The article is clearly a stub, so ofcourse it may not meet general quality standards, what article stud does? We certainly don't go deleting stubs on the basis of quality. Martintg 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Glaring original research. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• How so? The article cites an appropriate reliable source. Martintg 05:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest you to review the definition of original research. This "appropriate" search is speculations of a single author, who gives not a single reference, ie it is personal essay, not a research work.`'юзырь:mikka 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OR applies to the Wikipedia article, in no way can this wikipedia article can be considered a personal essay, it's a bit short to be considered an essay, nor is it OR, it cites a reference to a secondary source. You seem to be implying that the cited source is WP:OR, if you are, then you are mis-undestanding WP:OR. Please read WP:NOR#Reliable_sources: "Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims". Thus a source from a peer reviewed journal is perfectly acceptable. Martintg 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Your article is synthesis. Who says that fadeicheva describes the "Nashi" movement? It is false statement, not following from her text, as I have already written here. Also, the 3 fantasies of Fadeicheva are already covered by normal English words: nationalism, chauvinism and racism. Her theories of "Nashism" is nothing but a fringe theory drawn upon a nodiscriminate buzzword. She is not quoted by a single source. Wikipedia is not the place to propagate her musings. `'юзырь:mikka 23:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fadeicheva isn't describing the "Nashi" movement, but is describing the three aspects of the ideological framework of "Nashism", the nationalist aspect as represented by the Nashi movement, and also the two other aspects, the chauvinist and racist aspects as well. This isn't my synthesis, the section of text in the article is quoted verbatim from the abstract of Fadeicheva's article as published in the Polis journal [14]. Ofcourse other people use the term nashism such as Andrei Illarionov mentioned above. Nashism is also mentioned on page 27 of Boris Kagarlitskij's book "Restoration in Russia: Why Capitalism Failed" [15], page 103 of "Philosophy in Post-Communist Europe" By Dane R. Gordon [16] and pages 33, 59, 60 and 205 of "Poverty, Ethnicity, and Gender in Eastern Europe During the Market Transition" By Rebecca Jean Emigh, Iván Szelényi [17]. So nashism is hardly fringe theory. Martintg 03:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Nashi (Ours). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Odd that юзырь:mikka would call for deletion of this article, while at the same working on a parallel article on Nashism here: User:Biophys/Nashism, see edit history here: [18]. Why not just simply edit the existing article stub? Martintg 11:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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.