Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New social movements

Update: I count 4 votes to keep and 1 to delete. So, keep it. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:29, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

While New Social Movements do exist, this is not a term per se; rather, new social movements can be spoken about. Especially bearing in mind that the word "new" refers to a new content every new time. Mikkalai 00:42, 19 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a real term (a somewhat silly one, in my view) used by some academics to refer specifically to the set of movements described accurately in the article. I've wikified it and moved it to new social movements -- no reason to capitalize. RadicalSubversiv E 05:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * ...not "described", but "listed". What's so special in them besides being "new" and why, e.g., "gay-lesbian movement" is not "new"? Mikkalai 18:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The idea is that these movements are not merely chronologically recent, but represent a fundamental shift from previous social movements in various ways (transnationality, identity politics, etc.). I'm not sure I agree, but it's a real term used by notable academics, and hence encyclopedic. RadicalSubversiv E 18:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This makes more sense now. But still, what makes them different from, say "AlQuaeda", which is new and transnational, (and what the heck is "identity politics"?) The article sure needs work. It is one thing a buzzword for philosophers, who probably understand each other (...er..., I hope), another thing is a 'pedia article for simple men like me. Mikkalai 18:52, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Radical Islamicism might be a candidate for inclusion, I'm not familiar enough with the definitions; I think the Inglehart hypothesis the article mentions might relate to first-world nations, however. Identity politics refers to political movements and claims which are based around social identity, rather than political ideology. And yes, the article could use some simpler introductory language; I'll try to find some time to look through the literature and come up with something. RadicalSubversiv E 11:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it, I think it has potential, it just needs some more content. -Yizzerin 17:10, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * What about "GreenPeace"? Or under "potential" you mean every new movement is to be put here? The term is vague and these professors probably don't have a clue what they are describing, since they "copyrighted" such a broad term (if indeed they did). Mikkalai 18:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not buying it. "New Social Movement" is a made-up buzzword, applied to social movements which are not very recent, and not very different from previous social movements. "So Salomon giveth his sentence, that all novelty is but oblivion" (Francis Bacon). Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it's a well-known buzzword used by the likes of Habermas in serious academic literature, and is hence worthy of encylcopedic article, whatever any of us think of it. RadicalSubversiv E 11:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point. Vote revised: keep. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I suspect the main difference between past social movements and New Social Movements is that the people who use this term are participating in them. So they feel these movements must be more important than anything that existed before them. But that's more a comment on the people who originated the term rather than this article, which seems worth keeping. MK 05:31, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not really sure if the term is used in English language academia, but I'm very sure that Neue Soziale Bewegungen is a specific term in German-language social sciences, denoting the not only chronological, but also in regard to issues and internal structure new movements from the end of the 1960s to the 1990s. I'd guess that there must be an English language equivalent, New Social Movements would be most likely. -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 22:04, 21 May 2004 (UTC)