Talk:Ruscism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Umm?

This seems like a made up word, previously there was an article on Russism, right? "Ruscism" seems like a copy of that but with the spelling altered. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 07:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, there is a considerable difference. The word is a deliberate conflation of Russia and fascism, with the spelling derived from the English pronunciation of Russia. The transliteration RuSCism works quite well.--Galassi (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand the spelling, but that's what "Russism" is or was as well before that page got nuked. This just seems to be a loophole to make a new article. I'm not commenting on whether it qualifies as notable since there are no english sources, just on the genesis of this article whack a mole. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a made up word and the Wikipedia article should be removed since its content and references do not make any sense.

Wikipedia is being used to promote a neologism

I concur. Existing references point that this word is used exclusively as a neologism in Ukrainian ultra-nationalists blogs to promote western-Ukrainian ideology. E.g.:Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy. Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.90.196 (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Article should be immediately removed

Wikipedia is not the place for pushing the Ukrainian nationalist terms. This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (December 2014) The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. (December 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.235.56.109 (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont think theres any substance that this is a "Ukrainian nationalist term" since it could be used by anyone who wants to describe the current Russian regime, which is a mix of fascist dictatorship and messianic imperial-nationalism. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That may be so, but as far as I can tell the articles all seem to be coming from a Ukrainian nationalist viewpoint (apologies if that is incorrect, I cannot read Ukrainian), which comes across very much in the way that the article is written, with unverified and non-NPOV claims such as "[Ruscism] is a foundation of the barbarian Russian geopolitics, oriented on occupation and annexation of other countries’ territories", "Ruscism, which has completely acquired the shape of official ideology" [emphasis added]) – where is the evidence for this? Personal opinions aside, Russia does not claim to be fascist and Stalinist.

There is also a lot of unverified claims in the article and it very much appears like original research.– Jordan Hooper ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Article should not be removed

The phenomenon of Ruscism is well documented as can be seen from the references. It is a valid point of view on Russian society and deserves to be presented until proven invalid. Today it is the only ideology that can describe Russian politics.

This article should not be a victim of PR campaign to whitewash image of Russia. The road to progress lie thru understanding of processes that are brewing in Russia no matter how unpleasant they may appear. RonRodex (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The article describes a recent phenomenon that might still not have a stable name, while the present name might be offensive to some, the article is very valid.

Russian stand on foreign policy has changed so much in the last few years that it is only to be expected that it creates considerable controversy. As I see it this is more a question of terminology than anything else. Fairlyoldman (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Should be immediately removed

This piece does not add anything of value to Wikipedia and seems to be an article written by Ukrainian fascists. If Wikipedia includes pure propaganda such as this, it simply won't be taken seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.60.41 (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)