Talk:Bag people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The statement "No well-known English language term for this phenomenon exists because fortunately the English-speaking countries have not experienced crises that would have given rise to it."

does not add any extra value to the article and sounds like looking down on the Russians.

I would like if the line is take out by the writer.

I think it adds something to the article. But it should be noted that the reason that it is not a common phrase in English speaking countries is because the phenonmenon has not been widely reported (not due to the event not occuring there). There must be dozens of examples of terms that are common in English speaking countries, despite the fact that the phenomenon being described hardly ever occurs there. Female circumcision, Mutu rituals, the wearing of lederhosen etc. The word fortunately could be removed since it is debatable whether it is mere 'good fortune' or competent economic management that has prevented such situations occuring. The issue is confused by the fact that in British English the term exists with a different meaning, essentially, 'urban tramp (homeless person) who carries a large number of possessions with him or her (often her)' These people also are a result of economic crises, although crises of a different nature than a break down in the chain of supply. Monk Bretton 14:52, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Of course it adds something. Discussion of word usage is relevant for discussion of any topic. It is not in any way looking down on the Russians (or let's say the Czechs who also have similar terms). There are plenty of other knowledge-worthy Russian terms that are or were absent in English, like kolkhoz before it got introduced. So maybe this article will introduce this term.
As for the "fortunately" part, I just happen to believe that we can allow some human emotion in the articles. I happen to feel that it is very fortunate that there was no occasion for such a phenomenon to develop in America or England. Thank God for that, basically. But if you feel that the text ought to be drier than that, that's fine. Watcher 09:22, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
So now it is neither 'good fortune' nor 'competent economic management' but God we have to thank for these situations not occuring?! :) But seriously I am with you when it comes to allowing a little humanity into articles. Someone has removed the word fortunately but I didn't think it was worth the effort to edit out, just mentioned it in passing really. I'm off to look up 'kolkhoz' Monk Bretton 13:14, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

One issue I have with this article is that the word "bag people" sounds a lot like the American term for a catagory of vagrant -- best known as "bag ladies" -- who carry their worldly possessions (usually little more than miscellaneous junk & items scavanged from the trash) in either bags or shopping carts (or, as the British call them, trollies).

Once I read the article & made the necessary mental readjustment, I had no problem with the article; but it makes a weird image to think that the meals tens of thousands of city dwellers might depend on the ability of vagrants with a questionable grasp on reality pushing shopping carts for countless miles into the countryside & back.

I don't know how this problem can be solved, but a lot of Americans will be initially confused by this unintended similarity! -- llywrch 00:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] челночник

Sometimes they're also called as 'челночник' (singular), 'челночники' (plural). --Yonkie 12:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. Yes, it gives me inspiration to weigh each word before using the same. --Bhadani 10:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)