Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vzryv
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Vzryv
This is an unneccessary nelogism. Vzryv in Russian have exactly the same meaning as Explosion in English. Search [1] does not show many English references, mostly the transliterated Russian ones, so I do not think the term is widespread even among Stalinist polytologists. Delete abakharev 06:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete neologism, virtually unknown in English. Vzryv is the Russian for "blast". If we start adding Russian words to this project, there will be no end to it. --Ghirlandajo 07:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete because it's a neologism. That looks just like a random jumble of letters to me. Mo0[talk] 09:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, concept in Russian politics and not a neologism, since it was coined by Stalin who died in 1953. Wikipedia is not a English-only encyclopedia. Kappa 11:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- It was not coined by Stalin. Kappa, you are way too credulous. I hope you don't gamble in stock markets. mikka (t) 05:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Baloney. KNewman 12:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree, baloney. This is not even a neologism, just a word. Dottore So 13:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. I can't find any evidence that vzryv has been incorporated into English, unlike, say, glasnost and perestroika. --Metropolitan90 15:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Are you saying that if glasnost hadn't been incorporated into English I would have to learn Russian in order to read about it? What if it hasn't been incorporated into Swahili? They have to learn Russian too? Kappa 16:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But if glasnost had not been incorporated into English, hardly any non-Russian-speaking English speakers would have heard of it, and they wouldn't need to look it up in an encyclopedia. I can't find any significant use of vzryv in English-language texts (based on Googling), which means that there isn't much need for English-speakers to look it up in an English-language encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Are you saying that if glasnost hadn't been incorporated into English I would have to learn Russian in order to read about it? What if it hasn't been incorporated into Swahili? They have to learn Russian too? Kappa 16:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. I can't find any evidence that vzryv has been incorporated into English, unlike, say, glasnost and perestroika. --Metropolitan90 15:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Del. There was no special Stalin teaching about this word. I, a staunch stalinist :-), am telling you. The expression "social explosion" in many european languages predates both stalin and lenin, although there is some interesting discussion about this in Talk:Vzryv between me and the author of "vzryv". (No, he is not Stalin :-) mikka (t) 21:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep see my reasons here Talk:Vzryv, it is a term used in English literature, just not yet on google. Whether or not Stalin put special meaning in his native language to the word is meaningless, as it came over to the English in several major books on the subject as describing his form of idea about Capitalist upheaval in particular, contrasting socialist progression. It doesn't even mean "revolution" it means any change toward or away from socialism which alters a society, which is unique to the mode of great change in Capitalism, so it is not a repetition or twin concept with 'revolution.' I am not interpretating it this way, this is what the book 'Dialectical Materialism' told me, which in itself sources many English works. Google is not an end all, there is a lot of well circulated literature which has zero representation through google.Nagelfar 05:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless more evidence turns up. To me, Nagelfar's citations look like typical translator bet-hedging, not proof that this word is used in English. --William Pietri 06:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- The best I can do it cite English works & books, there is nothing online, which to me, is the most valuable use for wikipedia; adding citations of uses unfindable elsewhere on the internet, among the sources I listed in English were; "K. Mehnerts Stalin versus Marx: The Stalinist Historical Doctrine (London, 1952), The New Gospel of Stalinism, in Problems of Communism, Washington, Jan. 1953. Boris Souvarine Stalin. A Critical Survey of Bolshevism (London 1939). Which use the word 'vyzryv' in an English context to describe Stalins 'Capitalist social interruption'" Nagelfar 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's what I was saying in the article talk page, but the guy simply does not hear, in best practices of communists. mikka (t) 06:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Although I understand you're frustrated, Mikka, that comes across as a bit snarky. Especially with formal actions like AfDs, it's important to strive for civility. Thanks, -- William Pietri 14:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think what is more frustrating is having works before you, many decades old, which cite something in a particular way, but because people only believe the internet anymore, its considered nonsense if it isn't there "first". Nagelfar 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- The arguments presented in the talk page have nothing to do with internet. And by the way, FUI, all Stalin's works are on internet. mikka (t) 18:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with Stalins works, it has to do with English academic use of Stalins theories putting a key Russian word therein as an English loan word. Otherwise I'd be a place for the Russian Wikipedia. Nagelfar 18:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Also I agree it is of historical interest and quite educating to present a picture how Stalin's disciples tried to squeeze water from rock and show great theoretical contributions of Stalin into the communist theory. But this particular article is not only improper, it is even incorrect. mikka (t) 18:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with "Stalins disciples", it has to do with Anglo-western academic use, most certainly NPOV if not anti-Communist, in a great many works from the '40s & '50s, based on the Russian terminology. Nagelfar 19:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am speaking exactly about Stalin's disciples, regardless Anglo-academics. 22:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with "Stalins disciples", it has to do with Anglo-western academic use, most certainly NPOV if not anti-Communist, in a great many works from the '40s & '50s, based on the Russian terminology. Nagelfar 19:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, Nagelfar. I went and looked again at your citations, and I can't see them other than as the very common trick in writing about translated works where you use the original word parenthetically to make it clear what you're referring to. Also, it would be swell if you could assume good faith regarding editors' familiarity with the merits of books. --William Pietri 21:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am very familiar with this use of parenthetically quoting foreign terms, and wouldn't have added it if I had believed it to be that this was the case. Besides however that in the instances provided being unnecessary for those ends (i. e. there is no need to clarify there), it wasn't just used "parenthetically" in that work or others, in the overall contexts of the works presented they used 'vzryv' especially, as that moment of change, qualified as meaning a philosophically based social instability in capitalist systems, but not elsewhere as a social revolution. I only took the initative to add it for it seemed rather entrenched in Anglo-American works on the subject in the late 40's & early 50's, but maybe not thereafter. So that was my reasoning. I suppose that would make it a half-century old paleologism. Nagelfar 23:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- In other words, a neologism that did not survive. If you are so sure about this, please write an article into a reputable journal, get it peer reviewed, then come back here. At the moment we have a problem of "wikipedia:Verifiability" of your theory. Especially since your article speaks about "Russian", not "English" usage of the word. As I wrote, Stalin "discovered" exactly the opposite: "non-vzryv". And I can explain you why, although this is not the place, but for the sake of archiving; may be in future I will write the article. The "non-vzryv" was invented to resolve an apparent paradox of communism. By marxist's religion of dialectical materialism, the driving force of progress, motion and development is internal contradictions in things. In application to society, this would mean contradiction betwen classes and contradiciton between "means of production" and "relations of production". Now, communism's greatest fit would be to eliminate both and to becume an ultimate, ideal form of society. But this would leave communism without drive to progress (and you know, Marx turned out to be right after all!:-). For this reason it was necessary to invent another, non-catastrophic philosophical driving force of change. That's what Stalin's invention was about. mikka (t) 00:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am very familiar with this use of parenthetically quoting foreign terms, and wouldn't have added it if I had believed it to be that this was the case. Besides however that in the instances provided being unnecessary for those ends (i. e. there is no need to clarify there), it wasn't just used "parenthetically" in that work or others, in the overall contexts of the works presented they used 'vzryv' especially, as that moment of change, qualified as meaning a philosophically based social instability in capitalist systems, but not elsewhere as a social revolution. I only took the initative to add it for it seemed rather entrenched in Anglo-American works on the subject in the late 40's & early 50's, but maybe not thereafter. So that was my reasoning. I suppose that would make it a half-century old paleologism. Nagelfar 23:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- The arguments presented in the talk page have nothing to do with internet. And by the way, FUI, all Stalin's works are on internet. mikka (t) 18:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think what is more frustrating is having works before you, many decades old, which cite something in a particular way, but because people only believe the internet anymore, its considered nonsense if it isn't there "first". Nagelfar 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Although I understand you're frustrated, Mikka, that comes across as a bit snarky. Especially with formal actions like AfDs, it's important to strive for civility. Thanks, -- William Pietri 14:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Udalit' not verifiable neologism. Grue
- 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.
