| Revision as of 16:11, 24 January 2009 editHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits →ESStonia← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:05, 24 January 2009 edit undoDigwuren (talk | contribs)11,308 edits Catching that elusive notability ...Next edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| :::::So you keep confirming that "]" is only about a revenge for ]? I think it speaks for itself and needs no further comments. Other than "eSStonia" as an ethnic slur in Russia is clearly ] in English Misplaced Pages unlike the term ] that has , and --] (]) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | :::::So you keep confirming that "]" is only about a revenge for ]? I think it speaks for itself and needs no further comments. Other than "eSStonia" as an ethnic slur in Russia is clearly ] in English Misplaced Pages unlike the term ] that has , and --] (]) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::I am confirming nothing. It is a term along the same lines as ], ], ], ], ], etc. It is a notable ], not an ethnic slur. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | ::::::I am confirming nothing. It is a term along the same lines as ], ], ], ], ], etc. It is a notable ], not an ethnic slur. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::] was repeatedly used by ]. You might have heard of him. He was an old movie actor come politician somewhere in Northern America. He's generally considered notable. | |||
| ::::::::] was invented and popularised by ]. You might have heard of him. He was a bearded tyrant and warmonger who lived in Baghdad, and whose poor judgment in choosing friends ultimately became his undoing. He's generally considered notable. | |||
| ::::::::] was invented by ] and popularised by ]. You might have heard of them. While neither had beards, both had poor taste in friends, and have been dethroned by their people by now. They're generally considered notable. | |||
| ::::::::Which notable person has gone on record with a speech or article using ] as a catchphrase? ]<sub>]</sub> 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Russian-language internet doesn't make "eSStonia" a notable ]. It's mentioned about 3X in coupler of English language newspapers, has zero results in any printed books pr ] unlike ] with 13,400 returns in . And you surely only talk about how Putinjugend is relevant to this discussion suggesting there is a connection here.--] (]) 07:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | :::::::Russian-language internet doesn't make "eSStonia" a notable ]. It's mentioned about 3X in coupler of English language newspapers, has zero results in any printed books pr ] unlike ] with 13,400 returns in . And you surely only talk about how Putinjugend is relevant to this discussion suggesting there is a connection here.--] (]) 07:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::I guess it is relevant: . ] (]) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | ::::::::I guess it is relevant: . ] (]) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:05, 24 January 2009
ESStonia
- ESStonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A nonnotable pejorative pun with the name "Estonia" used by anti-Estonian Russians. There is no analytical articles which discuss this term, only examples of usage. Mukadderat (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as a failed attempt to translate into English a Russian pun. Incidentally, the cyrillic alphabet does not have the character "S". ("C" is used as the equivalent of the Latin "S"). -- Blanchardb -- timed 02:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a failed attempt. It is exactly how it is spelt in Russian. --Russavia 03:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete and merge content into Anti-Estonian sentiment. This is more than a neologism, it is a protologism, and I don't think english Misplaced Pages should be used as a vehicle to promote protologisms. Martintg (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yet you voted to keep Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend. Why's that? --Russavia 03:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- So did a lot of other people. The difference is that there are scholarly papers written on the Putinjugend, it has been subject so study and analysis. Not so with the term eSStonia, this article only describes its usage. Therefore it should be deleted and the content merged into Anti-Estonian sentiment. Martintg (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- There are no scholarly papers written on Putinjugend. There are scholarly papers written on Pro-Kremlin youth groups, which use the term either in the title or in passing in the paper itself. There's a difference. --Russavia 03:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally, the article clearly states "The term perceives Estonia as a neo-Nazi state which glorifies its Nazi past whilst it desecrates war memorials dedicated to the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in the Great Patriotic War." That is sourced to 3 different sources, and describes the etymology and reasoning behind the term. --Russavia 04:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Of course there is an academic paper on the topic: Nasi - Die Putin-Jugend by Ulrich Schmid, professor of Russian culture and society at St. Gallen University. Martintg (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- That paper is on Nashi, but which uses the word Putinjugend as a descriptor for the organisation. No difference here. --Russavia 04:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Of course there is an academic paper on the topic: Nasi - Die Putin-Jugend by Ulrich Schmid, professor of Russian culture and society at St. Gallen University. Martintg (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- So did a lot of other people. The difference is that there are scholarly papers written on the Putinjugend, it has been subject so study and analysis. Not so with the term eSStonia, this article only describes its usage. Therefore it should be deleted and the content merged into Anti-Estonian sentiment. Martintg (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep and expand To use some arguments from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend, I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. It's a wellknown term..., wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures., This term is used in mass media. Besides, the article seems to be well sourced., eSStonia is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place., etc. Well known Russian politician Konstantin Zatulin has used the term to describe Estonia within the context of the controversy, as have other political commentators in Russia. We have articles on Putinjugend, Phone Call to Putin, Putinism, etc and these are terms which are either fringe terms or are used in a disparaging way. Edward Lucas, who frequently attacks Russia in his articles and books has used both Putinjugend and eSStonia in his articles, and is used as references in both articles (2 separate articles in this instance), and he himself recognises that eSStonia is a widely used term. So keep as per that, and for fighting systematic bias in Russian topics. --Russavia 03:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- What is there to expand? So in other words what you are saying is that this article eSStonia is just a WP:POINT creation by you because you disagree with the result of various AfDs for the articles Putinjugend, Phone Call to Putin and Putinism. Martintg (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, there is no point to it. It's a widely used term (as acknowledged by Edward Lucas), and it deserves an article. The only WP:POINT, I guess, is the hypocrisy that some will vote to keep or delete based upon their own biases, and not within policy. And as one can see from eSStonia, it is just as well sourced, as Putinjugend. The creation of this article has been done purely because the sources are there which describe what is behind the term, and also usage of the term in contemporary Russia. Nashi, the Young Guard, Komsomolskaya Pravda have used the term. Yabloko have asked regarding the legality of usage of the term (which nothing more is known about). And media outlets such as The Economist, MK Gazeta, Kommersant, Rosblat, Novaya Gazeta, Vzglyad, Grani.ru, Estonian Novosti, Svoboda News (RFE/RL) and Komsomolskaya Pravda have published information about the usage of the term. It's more than notable. --Russavia 04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alex below has put it quite succinctly. If our inclusion standards allow Putinjugend, based upon only a few sources using the term in passing, there is no difference for this one, except this one has documentary actual usage of the term in different sectors of Russian society. --Russavia 04:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- What is there to expand? So in other words what you are saying is that this article eSStonia is just a WP:POINT creation by you because you disagree with the result of various AfDs for the articles Putinjugend, Phone Call to Putin and Putinism. Martintg (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - marginally notable neologism. Still the notability is established by multiple references to the independent reliable sources and some real-life newspaper campaign. Judging from the discussion on Putinjugend, I guess the notability threshold for the politically loaded neologisms seems to be quite low nowadays Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. This article tells: Along with the term eSStonia, President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves was referred to as IlveSS, and Prime Minister of Estonia Andrus Ansip was referred to as AnSSip. But an article that mentioned Putin-Dobby has been deleted, even with references to New York Times and BBC. Any logic? Do we want "Putin-Dobby" back?Biophys (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- the notability threshold for the politically loaded neologisms seems to be quite low nowadays let us start raising it. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, as long as neologisms like Putinjugend, Phone Call to Putin, etc., are allowed in WP. Rationale for keeping is essentially the same. P.S. A note for uninvolved editors: It’s amazing to see how all this circus votes ‘delete’ here, while pushing ‘keep’ in, for instance, and . Beatle Fab Four (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Alex Bakharev. KNewman (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Warrington (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain. Seems the main argument for "Keep" here is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Putin-Dobby, with 118 news hits, certainly looks more notable than eSStonia with its total of 18 news hits. Martintg (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- So, with eSStonia kept, are you going to write Putinland article, for the fun of ethnic wars on wikipedia? Xuz (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Beatle Fab Four. ellol (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete we don't need such propaganda rubbish here, as we don't need Putin-Dobby or Putinland, either. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as long as it is encyclopædic. Misplaced Pages can and should discuss interesting examples of propaganda -- and without this specimen, Misplaced Pages's overview of Putinist Russia would be incomplete. 62.65.239.167 (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- ha-ha. IP from Tallinn. "Provocation" from our Baltic friends? :))))) Beatle Fab Four (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Keep" is seen as a "provocation", what next? If you didn't know, 36% of Tallinn residents are ethnic Russian. Martintg (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- ha-ha. IP from Tallinn. "Provocation" from our Baltic friends? :))))) Beatle Fab Four (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The article has no significant encyclopedic content. It is a nonnotable slur, a deliberate distortion of the name of the country. At best it belongs to wiktionary. Xuz (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete -a politically motivated WP:POVFORK of Estonia and a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. The whole story is nothing more or less than a "cheap jibe" according to the source provided by Russavia. Any possible "encyclopedic content" in the article should go either to Anti-Estonian sentiment or Estonia–Russia relations. The bottom line:Misplaced Pages doesn't need another article that deals with the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn controversy--Termer (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- How can it be a politically motivated POVFORK of Estonia, but then you state that any content should be moved to other articles? There are at least a half a dozen or so articles where a link to this article could be placed. It is no different to Putinjugend which compares Pro-Kremlin youth groups (note the NPOV title but which is a redlink) to NAZI Germany and in the same breathe also puts Putin down as being a NAZI. Edward Lucas, a prominent anti-Russian journalist, has stated that the term was widely used and even gives etymology behind the term. As people who "voted" to keep Putinjugend noted, I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. It's a wellknown term..., wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures., This term is used in mass media. Besides, the article seems to be well sourced., eSStonia is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place. Why should it be any different here? People have taken note of the apparent standards for inclusion into WP thru AfDs such as that are allowed, so there is no reason why this should not. --Russavia 05:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how Putinjugend would be related here. Unless it's about making a WP:Point, like it seems, a little like if "Putinjugend is OK for Misplaced Pages, so should be eSStonia"? and sorry for my lack of "good faith" here, but cherry picking in Misplaced Pages a country of 1 million for a revenge of WP:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend is kind of pathetic I think. Why don't you guys pick on someone that fits your size if you want to make a point due to Putinjugend?--Termer (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Termer, with Edward Lucas, he has a reputation amongst many quarters of being a Russophobe, Estophile and Polonophile. Of course he will call it a "cheap jibe", because it is against Estonia. You will also note that in one of the articles he states "A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument." But one will note that less than a month before that he himself evoked NAZI name-calling with Putinjugend. (That article is used as a source in that article). But whether he regards it as a cheap jibe, or not, he lends notability to the term. Your latest comments seem to be a IDONTLIKEIT-like comment. WP is not censored, and as much as I hate having shit like this on WP, the AfD for Putinjugend showed us the standards for inclusion on WP, and it was on that basis that I have introduced this article, based upon those standards for inclusion. I don't write anything on WP that isn't notable. Also, you will note in the article that I have included the information that the Saint Petersburg branch of Yabloko asked for intervention because it is their belief that it breaches the Russian criminal code, but it appears nothing ever came from it. The reality of the matter is that a large section of Russia does believe that Estonia glorifies its NAZI past, whilst at the same time it desecrates Soviet war memorials, and 60% of Russians regard Estonia as an enemy of their nation...eSStonia is merely a notable manifestation of that belief. You don't like it, others may not like it, I don't like it, but it is a notable term, and it is notable Russian POV...or is that POV not allowed on WP anymore (if at all in the first place)? --Russavia 06:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- So you keep confirming that "eSStonia" is only about a revenge for WP:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend? I think it speaks for itself and needs no further comments. Other than "eSStonia" as an ethnic slur in Russia is clearly WP:UNDUE in English Misplaced Pages unlike the term Putinjugend that has 9 returns in google scholar, and 21 @ google books--Termer (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am confirming nothing. It is a term along the same lines as Evil Empire, Great Satan, Axis of Evil, Old Europe, Hindu Taliban, etc. It is a notable political neologism, not an ethnic slur. --Russavia 07:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Evil Empire was repeatedly used by Ronald Reagan. You might have heard of him. He was an old movie actor come politician somewhere in Northern America. He's generally considered notable.
- Great Satan was invented and popularised by Saddam Hussein. You might have heard of him. He was a bearded tyrant and warmonger who lived in Baghdad, and whose poor judgment in choosing friends ultimately became his undoing. He's generally considered notable.
- Axis of Evil was invented by Karl Rove and popularised by George W. Bush. You might have heard of them. While neither had beards, both had poor taste in friends, and have been dethroned by their people by now. They're generally considered notable.
- Which notable person has gone on record with a speech or article using eSStonia as a catchphrase? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Russian-language internet doesn't make "eSStonia" a notable political neologism. It's mentioned about 3X in coupler of English language newspapers, has zero results in any printed books pr WP:RS unlike Evil Empire with 13,400 returns in books. And you surely only talk about how Putinjugend is relevant to this discussion suggesting there is a connection here.--Termer (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I guess it is relevant: . Biophys (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am confirming nothing. It is a term along the same lines as Evil Empire, Great Satan, Axis of Evil, Old Europe, Hindu Taliban, etc. It is a notable political neologism, not an ethnic slur. --Russavia 07:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- So you keep confirming that "eSStonia" is only about a revenge for WP:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend? I think it speaks for itself and needs no further comments. Other than "eSStonia" as an ethnic slur in Russia is clearly WP:UNDUE in English Misplaced Pages unlike the term Putinjugend that has 9 returns in google scholar, and 21 @ google books--Termer (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Termer, with Edward Lucas, he has a reputation amongst many quarters of being a Russophobe, Estophile and Polonophile. Of course he will call it a "cheap jibe", because it is against Estonia. You will also note that in one of the articles he states "A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument." But one will note that less than a month before that he himself evoked NAZI name-calling with Putinjugend. (That article is used as a source in that article). But whether he regards it as a cheap jibe, or not, he lends notability to the term. Your latest comments seem to be a IDONTLIKEIT-like comment. WP is not censored, and as much as I hate having shit like this on WP, the AfD for Putinjugend showed us the standards for inclusion on WP, and it was on that basis that I have introduced this article, based upon those standards for inclusion. I don't write anything on WP that isn't notable. Also, you will note in the article that I have included the information that the Saint Petersburg branch of Yabloko asked for intervention because it is their belief that it breaches the Russian criminal code, but it appears nothing ever came from it. The reality of the matter is that a large section of Russia does believe that Estonia glorifies its NAZI past, whilst at the same time it desecrates Soviet war memorials, and 60% of Russians regard Estonia as an enemy of their nation...eSStonia is merely a notable manifestation of that belief. You don't like it, others may not like it, I don't like it, but it is a notable term, and it is notable Russian POV...or is that POV not allowed on WP anymore (if at all in the first place)? --Russavia 06:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how Putinjugend would be related here. Unless it's about making a WP:Point, like it seems, a little like if "Putinjugend is OK for Misplaced Pages, so should be eSStonia"? and sorry for my lack of "good faith" here, but cherry picking in Misplaced Pages a country of 1 million for a revenge of WP:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend is kind of pathetic I think. Why don't you guys pick on someone that fits your size if you want to make a point due to Putinjugend?--Termer (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- How can it be a politically motivated POVFORK of Estonia, but then you state that any content should be moved to other articles? There are at least a half a dozen or so articles where a link to this article could be placed. It is no different to Putinjugend which compares Pro-Kremlin youth groups (note the NPOV title but which is a redlink) to NAZI Germany and in the same breathe also puts Putin down as being a NAZI. Edward Lucas, a prominent anti-Russian journalist, has stated that the term was widely used and even gives etymology behind the term. As people who "voted" to keep Putinjugend noted, I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. It's a wellknown term..., wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures., This term is used in mass media. Besides, the article seems to be well sourced., eSStonia is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place. Why should it be any different here? People have taken note of the apparent standards for inclusion into WP thru AfDs such as that are allowed, so there is no reason why this should not. --Russavia 05:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)