Jump to content

Talk:Ruscism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Renaming this page

I would suggest the following versions to rename this page:

  1. Rashism (currently a redirect)
  2. Fascist transformation of Russian state

Any other suggestions are welcome. But in any event, we must move this page to keep edit history, rather than create new page. As a note, "Rashism" is not "Russian fascism", even though it is constructed as a combination of these words. This is specifically a claim that Russian state and society underwent transformation to a fascist country in the context of military aggression, from First Chechen War to 2022 invasion of Ukraine. To be more precise, it appeared as word "Ruscism" (like here [1], not Russism!) after First Chechen War, but is more common as "Rashism" since the beginning of Russo-Ukrainian war in 2014. I would expect to wait at least for a few days, maybe a week prior to making any move of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I do belive that Rashism is more clear. GuptaGauptar (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Support option 1. Ive always thought this page title was way too vague and ambiguous. Having a more clear subject matter would clear up a lot. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Support: Russian fascism is a very vague term that could cause confusion with 20th-century politicians like Rodzayevsky and Dobrovolsky as well as non-establishment Russian fascist organisations. Rashism is best left untranslated as the pun is hard to translate. TheImperios (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Why was Russian version of Rashizm deleted in the recent 24 hours? And 2 times!

If the reason is some unwanted people from the Russian government, I want this page to be locked or put in enhanced audit mode KastenTop (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2022 (2)

The start year of of Russo-Ukrainian war is 2022, not 2014. Verygoldfish (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: not true. the Russo-Ukrainian War has been going on since 2014 in Crimea and Donbas. the invasion into the rest of Ukraine started in 2022. 💜  melecie  talk - 07:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2022

The "Z" photo does not contain tank but armored tracked vehicle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MT-LB Felix.frenkel (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Offsite canvassing

This Wikipedia article has been linked from the Reddit subreddit /r/Europe [2], which is likely where a lot of these SPA accounts who are not familiar with WIkipedia policy are coming from. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2022

The more appropriate English spelling for this phenomenon may be "Ruscism" as opposed to "Rashism," as it would evoke more pronouncedly two major meanings encapsulated in the term: "Russian" and "Fascism." 2603:7000:7F40:6A00:E1AE:93FF:3AC0:509B (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

If you rename it, you will lose the original meaning that Ukrainians put into this term. They are the ones who invented it and use it. Because of hatred, they distort the name of Putin (Putler or similar) and other political figures, including the name of the country instead of Russia saying Rasha - this is how they humiliate Russia (they think so). The whole point of this is an insult to Russia. This article serves the same purpose. 03:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC) 176.77.33.121 (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
According to the article, the concept and term was invented by a Chechen in 1995, so your entire comment is falsified Jason C.K. (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

Suggest the line that reads, "the Ukrainian-claimed downing of a Boeing 777 near Donetsk on 17" be edited to state, "the Russian downing of a Boeing 777 near Donetsk on 17"

RATIONALE: The current text reads as though the Ukrainians claimed they downed the aircraft. The results of international investigations indicate the Russians were responsible for the aircraft's destruction. 205.153.92.2 (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Accusing someone of a crime presupposes an "independent" investigation and the opportunity for the accused to "defend himself." Not the so-called "international" investigation of "interested" parties in a secret mode, who pass judgment on a third party not recognizing the right of these investigators to act as judges.
There are investigations claiming that the Ukrainians shot down the plane (most likely) and the US is covering up their crimes, since the evidence they claim they have, such as satellite images, has not yet been released.
"Ukrainians claim this, Ukrainians claim that.". Like almost everything that comes from Ukrainians is based on statements not facts. 176.77.35.142 (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a hate speech.

Probably someone doesn't know, but this slang "term" comes from the derogatory name of the country: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC


The article looks like a part of propaganda campaign for Ukrainian media. 46.216.112.81 (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a Talk page of an article in English, linking to the fact that "Раша" in Russian language could be perceived as derogatory is not relevant here, since "Russia" is by no means is a derogatory term in English. Even if it was, something being derogatory is not a reason to exclude such content from Wikipedia, if it is otherwise notable of course. 212.51.138.42 (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Ruscism / Russism

I don't think people that are not familiar with Russian language here realize that русизм, can be both written in Latin as Ruscism and Russism. And trying to have Dzhokhar Dudayev use a "different" term Russism / Ruscism is some sort of manipulation with a hidden agenda. It's a term that was widely used during the Chechen wars and made popular among many people in the former Soviet Union back in 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landkomtur (talk • contribs) 15:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I am sure that there is no hidden agenda involved here. We just need to be extra careful to get the history and "development" of the ideology and the terms straight and to not to mix up things just because they sound or look similar.
Instead of just making statements please search for reliable sources (WP:RS), which can support the statements.
Dudayev used "Русизм[е]" in 1995, which, at the time was translated as "Russism" (and not as "Ruscism") by those reliable Western sources included in the article so far. If you think it was translated as "Ruscism" even back then, then please provide contemporary sources for this.
To the best of my knowledge, "Рашизм" can be transliterated as both "Ruscism" and "Rashism", depending on how much of the pun you want to preserve in the English term. We still need to trace back the first usage of the term "Рашизм" as well as of the terms "Ruscism" and "Rashism". Most probably, we won't be able to find the exact origin, but we should be able to nail it down at least to specific years.
And finally: Our English article on the Russian far-right ideologist and defacto-fascist Aleksandr Ivanov-Sukharevsky claims that he called his ideology "Russism" as well, but does not currently mention the actual Cyrillic term he used (so we don't know if it was "Русизм" as well) nor does the article provide a publication date or reliable source for this. This needs to be better sourced as well. Is Ivanov-Sukharevsky's "Russism" the same ideology Dudayev referred to as "Русизм" or yet another weird idea? I do not know the answer, but we need to find out by searching for and studying reliable sources, and depending on the outcome we may crosslink the two uses of "Russism" or may need to deliberately disambiguate them.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • These are two different spellings of the same Russian word, Русизм (that is what appears in Russian text referenced to Dudayev). I think that correct/preferred English spelling of the word in this meaning is "ruscism" as appears here [3], [4], [5]. "Russism" also appears with the same meaning [6], [7]. Probably both spellings should be mentioned in the page. Note that Russianism is something different. My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, all these sources are either dated from 2022 (or unreliable sources like wikis), therefore they cannot be used to determine if Русизм was originally translated as Ruscism as well, or only as Russism. Only reliable primary or secondary sources before 2008 (or 2014) will help us to find out. (It is possible that translating Русизм as Russism was suboptimal, but if that is what is used in the old English sources, we should, for historical correctness, keep it that way at least in the Dudayev section.)
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    I just saw that if you read the latest NY Times source, you will find that this term is confined the Ukrainian usage. I have specified on the lead by adding 2 scholarly sources that this is a Ukrainian term. AnM2002 (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    @My very best wishes: Can you explain your partial revert? Just because English and Russian sources have provided it coverage, doesn't mean that it becomes globally recognized term. It is still confined to pro-Ukrainian actors, and NY Times and the two scholarly sources I provided are very clear about it. AnM2002 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    That was not revert. But yes, a coverage in NYT means this is an internationally recognized terminology and subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
    The coverage from NYT only indicates that the term is becoming notable. It will become a well-recognized term only when it becomes a dictionary word. WP:NEO applies here. NavjotSR (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    Clearly, this is not a purely Ukrainian term. Something like "Orcs" would indeed be typical only for Ukrainian commentators - see Why are Ukrainians calling Russian invaders ‘orcs’?. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Reorganize?

Could it be an idea to slightly reorganize this article? It’s grown organically, which is natural, but I think maybe this has resulted in some messiness. For example, some of the info in “History of the term” and “Proponents” and “Features” could be swapped around a bit to better align with the names of the sections. It could also be an idea to perhaps change the sections to, say, “Etymology and terminology” to cover the origins and differences in usage between rashism/ruscism/russism, “Ideological history” to cover the perceived ideological influences and history chronologically (Ilyin, Dugin, Sergeitsev, etc.), and “Features/Characteristics” for the professional discussion of what constitutes “rashism” and it’s purported impact/manifestation/examples in Russia. This is just a thought, and I would be curious to hear your thoughts on it.

I suppose it would also be dependent on specifically what the article primarily is made to cover in the end (just the term? the history of the perceived turn towards fascism of Russia? the ideology of (modern) Russian fascism in general? all of the above?).

Anyways, as I said, just a thought, and would be interested to hear your thoughts. Euor (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that sections like “Proponents” and “Features” are strange. Welcome to rename these section, rearrange materials or make any other improvements. My very best wishes (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

If no one else objects then I might try to reorganize it a bit, and rename sections as proposed. (Won’t remove any info or anything, just try to get some better order and cohesion out of the material). Euor (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


Symbol "Z"

Symbol "Z" of racism resulting from Russia's attack on Ukraine in 24 February 2022. 84.108.231.36 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No source claims that. Veverve (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
A lot of source can proof this words. You can choose for example by yourself https://www.google.com/search?q=z+%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%BA%D0%B0&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiY89eyxPj2AhV2_bsIHWxFCyMQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=z+%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B6%D0%BA%D0%B0&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIECAAQGDIECAAQGDIECAAQGDIECAAQGDoKCAAQsQMQgwEQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BAgAEAM6CAgAEIAEELEDOgQIABBDOgQIABAeOgYIABAIEB5QzAVY3RRg0xVoAHAAeACAAYYBiAH2CZIBBDAuMTCYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ8ABAQ&sclient=img&ei=6-hJYtjRKPb67_UP7IqtmAI&bih=664&biw=1536&rlz=1C1CHBF_ruUA892UA892 DmytroKov (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
What? Veverve (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Symbol "Z" doesnt mean anything by itself, stop draw parallels with swastika. Hrkcz001 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Russia's actions in Ukraine are giving the symbol "Z" a meaning all to itself --Jason C.K. (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
That is your ideologized interpretation, it is not at all an encyclopedic fact 190.22.104.239 (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Though, it is common knowledge - "Z" symbol has been closely associated with Russia-Ukraine war, and there are thousands of news sources that prove it.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Internetyev (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you people kidding me?

Wtf is this 1st sentence calling current regime in Russia fascist? Do any of you even know what fascism is? I guess not but it is not when you disagree with someone nor is it when someone declares war to other country btw, Russian current system has barely. You can argue Russia is the bad guy but that doesn’t make someone or something fascist Novodobaski (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Fascism is an ideology or socio-political movement within the framework of authoritarian or totalitarian militaristic ultranationalism and the corresponding dictatorial regime with strict regulation of society and economy. Characteristic features of fascism are also anti-liberalism, the denial of electoral democracy.
Any person versed in the Russian system of power will tell you that this is a very accurate definition of the opinions that exist in Russia. But to be more precise, in Russia it is Racism, because the Russians attack other countries not only because of the propaganda of racial hatred, but also because they want to violently assimilate those countries that they invade - that is, in essence, genocide. GoldNotGod (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely Disingenuous comment, yes I understand that Russia is a bad guy but this is just emotional thinking, Fascism needs to be a totalitarian movement, Putin's Russia is in no way totalitarian (the Soviet Union was) there is a difference between Autocracy and Totalitarianism. For Russia to be fascist something akin to the NSDAP must completely encompass all of life in said country, this includes not only the means of production but also the means of death and the industrialization of murder. Germany was fascist, Japan was fascist, Italy was fascist-lite. Also the claim that this war is because of "racial-hatred" is completely unfounded, you realize that Putin's opposition party (Liberal Democratic Party of Russia) is THE 'nationalist' Russophilic party in the country. DeathToTheEastSubstack (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


My answer is solely contained in the Miriam Webster Dictionary definition of facism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Further, I will say that the dictatorial leader is Putin, the severe regimentation is the Russian state television & it's propigation of untrue statements (i.e. that the Ukraine invasion is a 'de-Nazification'), and the forcible suppression of opposition is exampled by Pussy Riot, Navalny, & the law recently passed by the Russian Duma outlawing ANY criticism of the invasion, up to, and including, calling it an invasion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSummoner (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

According to this interpretación of the "Miriam Webster Dictionary definition", countries like China or North Korea are fascists, too. This is one of the weirdest jokes I've ever heard, as you equal communism and fascism. It also proves that this non-rigurous use of the term Fascism is just propaganda, not appropiate for a serious encyclopedia. It's obvious that the concept is used by serious historians to describe a certain ideology in the 20s and 30s based on racial theories. Btw, Russia doesn't have a "severe ecomomic regimentation" or a centralized economy, it endorses a market economy. PedroAcero76 (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I have changed the phrasing to “alleged ideology”. I could have sworn someone had already fixed that, but it must have gotten lost in some big revert. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is clearly aimed at demonizing Russia half of the sources are ukrainian (lol) 212.35.186.30 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I see millenials are finally taking over wikipedia.
Soon there will be nothing but blatant propaganda in here.
Sad.
Rashism. :D :D :D, new words, new meanings, new reality, huraaay188.214.108.12 (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Taken from wiki page on Fascism.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy Grayraw (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
"strong regimentation of society and the economy" I don't see that happening in Russia. Ahm1453 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

What kind of mouthbreather is responsible for this crap of a page? Everyone involved in this should be banned from Wikipedia without expiration.129.69.114.21 (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Please cut back on the incivil comments. I also think there are some massive problems with the page, but that's no reason for that kind of language. You might want to either edit your own wording or strike out your message. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe this page is still up; this is a collective failure of Wikipedia; By the way, there is a strange - not sourced - new illustration, described as such “Rashism expansionism declares needed the capture of all territories of the former Russian Empire or the Soviet Empire" showing Russian and China + Albania in one block… wtf: THIS requires at least a “citation needed". But overall, this page should not exist. The term is purely a journalistic invention, used by a handful of people - I never saw it besides on Ukrainian propaganda. Russian imperialism is real, but Rashism is just a meme. 185.78.234.17 (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal

  • [8]. According to the source [9], one of authors has an equivalent of a PhD degree in history, and VoxUkraine appears here [10]. So, I do not see such sourcing as problematic, and it could be uncluded unless "undue" on the page. I have no strong opinion on this. My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    I can’t read Ukrainian. Can you provide a translated quote from the article? HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    It has an icon "English" (right upper corner of the page), you can use it. This is something for general public, hence simplifications, like "X,Y,Z are same" instead of saying more accurately they are similar in a number of aspects (that is what author means), etc. But a number of points, like corruption of the regime are not at all extraordinary, but rather common place. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @My very best wishes, setting aside WP:RSCONTEXT (the reason I gave for the removal), this is from the top of the English translation: "The article is co-authored by the analytical center “VoxUkraine” and “History as it is”, a popular YouTube channel with unembellished and true takes on the history of Ukraine and the world". This doesn't look to me like WP:SCHOLARSHIP (the type of sourcing we want for a political science article such as this one). The WaPo article describes VoxUkraine as a "blog" featuring Ukrainian economists, so it should be treated as a self-published per WP:BLOG. It seems a serious stretch for it to call itself an "analytical center". Also, having a PhD in history doesn't give someone the reputation of a recognised, well-known subject-matter expert. This isn't a high-quality source, and it's being used to make significant claims. Part of the problem with this article currently is that editors aren't scrutinising and critically evaluating the sources that are being used. We'd have a much stronger article if we stuck to peer-reviewed/reliably published sources, or sources from well-regarded experts with established reputations. Jr8825 • Talk 22:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • This all boils down to the question: does the author qualify as an expert on the subject? Quickly looking [11], it seems he is an author of several books, presumably 200+ scientific publications, works as a Leading scientist in a scientific institution, and was a host of a program. More info here: "Before the war, historian Vladlen Marayev ran a popular Ukrainian YouTube channel called History Without Myths with more than 300,000 subscribers." (here). So, yes, I am assuming he is an expert. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
      I might be reading your comment wrong, but having a popular YouTube channel doesn’t make someone an expert. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
      No, but authoring books and many scientific publications does make someone an expert. That is very generally speaking. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
      I don't think Marayev has a sufficiently established reputation to be used as a self-published source, particularly as his main expertise appears to be WW1-era Ukraine, rather than contemporary Russian politics. The livelib link you provided appears to indicate he has worked indirectly for the Ukrainian army since 2019, which suggests he may be reliable but not impartial (hence my pointing to RSCONTEXT). If we were quoting his published books, or articles written in publications subject to editorial review (there's no indication this is the case at VoxUkraine), then I think we should consider using his work, provided it's attributed appropriately. Established experts on Russian politics should be given preference, though. Jr8825 • Talk 02:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
      Sure, a scientific review/analysis like this would be better. As about VoxUkraine, they claim to do fact checking [12] and would not publish anyone, so this is more like an "opinion" by a historian in a news source. But it maybe not needed on the page, I need to check this and other sources later. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The whole article is complete nonsense. There is no ideology in Russia. Nobody offers to destroy the "Ukainians". All sources in the article refer to Ukrainian fake news, which is no different in quality from random posts by random people on Twitter or Facebook. It's like referring to the newspapers of the Third Reich in the description of the anti-Hitriler coalition and calling them alliesism. The letter Z is not a symbol of the destruction of anything, it's just a letter meaning a group of the Russian army (Z - zapad (west), V - vostok (east)). Which internationally recognized court recognized this letter as prohibited? None. There are only attempts by Western countries to block support for Russia among their citizens, thus supporting the Ukrainian government, nothing more. And here they refer to it as something natural and self-evident. About the definitions of "fascism" that are indicated here about some kind of dictatorship - this is generally a childish level of thinking. You can also say that Hitler wore underpants, so everyone who wears underpants is a fascist. Fascists/Nazis deprived people of human rights on a national basis. Everything was allowed to be done against them, including deprivation of property, slave working conditions in concentration camps and generally treated as disenfranchised creatures, including experiments on people and destruction on an industrial scale in furnaces. In this sense, capitalism (in Nazi Germany there was capitalism that served the Wehrmacht) is much closer to these phenomena. But even here it is necessary to draw a line between the absence of contradictions between capitalism and Nazism, and the active actions of the Nazis in power. The whole article is an attempt by Ukrainians to smear everything around with their own shit (sorry for this word, but there is no other). This should be removed, as well as other -isms that have nothing to do with reality. 176.77.56.106 (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
    90% of your comment is incorrect. But I'll only spend the time to reply to some of the most offensive and ridiculous misinformation you offered: "Nobody offers to destroy the "Ukainians"??? Putin has said Ukraine is not a real country, it should not exist. Official Russian state news agency published a terrifying genocidal manifesto (http://ria.ru/20220403/ukraina-1781469605.html). It calls for the complete eradication of Ukrainian culture, history, gov't, language, and nation. That all of that must be wiped from existence. Russia has already been doing this in Ukraine. Just at a much smaller scale than they hoped-for by this point.
    "There are only attempts by Western countries to block support for Russia among their citizens" No, there is no attempt to block support. There is no need. There is no support for Russia anymore. "Fascists/Nazis deprived people of human rights on a national basis": Russia is depriving Ukrainians of human rights on a national basis. When they drop bombs on babies, moms, and other civilians, rape toddlers and women and impregnate them, execute them, blow-up civilian infrastructure, blockade cities so people starve...you are depriving them of human rights. "deprivation of property": Russia is blowing-up civilian property, and looting it. Also putting explosive traps in people's washing machines, refrigerators, etc.
    "slave working conditions in concentration camps": Ukrainian civilians are being forcibly deported by the thousands to camps in Russia. They are stripped of all identification and cell phones, and being forced to work. Others are being forcibly conscripted to be part of the Russian invasion.
    You seem to not have the slightest idea of what Russia is doing in their invasion --Jason C.K. (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    Putin has said Ukraine is not a real country.
    I did not hear it from him.
    ... genocidal manifesto... It calls for the complete eradication of Ukrainian culture, history, gov't, language, and nation.
    Nope. You do not know Ukrainian history. The territory of Ukraine has always been a part of Russia, partly Poland or Austria-Hungary. Before the Bolsheviks created it, it never existed. The Poles began to convince the Russians that they were not Russians, but the people occupied by the Russians. It was later used by the Nazis in World War II. From these "Ukrainians" (who decided that they are non-Russians) they created SS battalions, rebel armies, etc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army). After the end of World War II, Ukraine was a normal state. After 1991, the separatists (who separated the Ukrainian SSR from the USSR) turned on Nazi propaganda with the same theme - Ukrainians were occupied and must take revenge. Since then, "Nazi Ukraine" has begun. The red and black flags from the article above you can now see in Ukraine as Right Sector flags. Those who fought on the side of the Nazis in World War II are now being studied in Ukrainian schools as heroes. This fake history, this ideology of hatred to russians must be removed entirely, from education programs etc. It has nothing to do with culture or language. Ukrainian is the official language in Crimea. No Ukrainian symbols or anything other than World War II nazi symbols are prohibited.
    No, there is no attempt to block support. There is no need. There is no support for Russia anymore.
    If you say so...
    Russia is depriving Ukrainians of human rights on a national basis.
    Blatant lie. Prove it.
    When they drop bombs on babies, moms, and other civilians, rape toddlers and women and impregnate them...
    Wtf i just read? Well, of course. Senseless cruelty which makes no sense. But it is very convenient to blame opponents for this, it immediately allows you to do anything against them. Such nonsense is told you by the Western media about everyone who does not follow orders from Washington. Very handy for inciting hatred. Fairy tales about evil wizards who do evil things for no reason. Designed for the level of intelligence of a child.
    "slave working conditions in concentration camps": Ukrainian civilians are being forcibly deported by the thousands to camps in Russia.
    Can you prove it without referring to the words of Ukrainians?
    You seem to not have the slightest idea of what Russia is doing in their invasion
    I can see, read and hear what russians are doing and what ukrainians are doing as my native language is russian and i have friends from Ukraine from Harkiv, somewhere near Luhansk (from Donbass), Odessa, Kiev (and somewhere else i don't know, never asked). Only one of them feels really offended, but generally understands why this is happening. 176.77.33.121 (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    you contradict yourself in one sentence
    "Putin has said Ukraine is not a real country.
    I did not hear it from him"
    and then
    "Before the Bolsheviks created it, it never existed."
    go where the russian ship went
    you don't know history of the world, but its not sureprise, russia likes to bend the history to its benefit
    documentation of Ukraine and Ukrainian people can be tracked back to 17th century, btw the same time when country known as Russian Tsardom appears, because before that it was known as Muscovy
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohdan_Khmelnytsky#/media/File:Hondius_Bohdan_Khmelnytsky.jpg
    Bohdan Khmelnytsky engraving created in 1654 by Dutch master Gondius, which states "Bohdan Chmielnicki Exercitus Zaporovieñ. Præfectus, Belli Servilis Autor Rebelliumq. Cosaccorum et Plebis Ukrayneñ Dux" which ruoughly trasnlates as "Bogdan Khmelnitsky. Commander-in-Chief of the Zaporizhian Army, the Khlopsko War Founder, the Rebel Kozatstvo and the People of Ukraine Prince"
    "slave working conditions in concentration camps": Ukrainian civilians are being forcibly deported by the thousands to camps in Russia.
    Can you prove it without referring to the words of Ukrainians?
    there are tons of information about this in foreign sources, open your eyes, the only country that doesn't state this is russia
    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/07/europe/ukraine-mariupol-russia-deportation-cmd-intl/index.html
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/04/hundreds-of-ukrainians-forcibly-deported-to-russia-say-mariupol-women
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61248436
    this particular article exists because of people like you and it will stay here 195.60.70.213 (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    "Putin has said Ukraine is not a real country. I did not hear it from him"
    Yes. I did not hear it from him. "Not real country" - This is your own interpretation. The phrase "not a real country" is stupid, but Putin is always accurate. I can guess the context in which such a phrase makes sense - Ukraine is an artificial entity created by the Bolsheviks for political reasons.
    "Before the Bolsheviks created it, it never existed."
    It is just truth.
    you don't know history of the world
    Unsubstantiated accusations. Nothing else is to be expected.
    Bohdan Khmelnytsky
    The appearance of some traitor or terrorist who has declared himself the master of a certain territory does not make this territory a state. All these conflicts between Russia and other countries, the territories were divided between them. Ukrainians are participating here only in the role of traitors. All these temporarily occupied territories are not viable. So the uprising of Khmelnitsky ended with a request to Russia for acceptance and an oath of allegiance.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pereiaslav_Agreement
    For example, Germany was also assembled from different parts. Why does no one say that Berlin occupied Munich? Because it is stupid and only leads to war.
    Ukraine became a state in the usual sense only when the Bolsheviks created it on the territory of the former Russian Empire. The composition included territories previously belonging to different countries and a multinational population. In fact, the Bolsheviks created an "empire" within an empire. And this territory could only exist as an empire with respect for diversity, but instead, Ukrainian politicians are pursuing a nationalist policy, which leads to hatred of the population for the authorities and for each other. Western countries supported all this - as a result - failed state, congratulations, you did it.
    Ukrainians instead of living happily in the country that Russia gave them participate in this next attack on Russia. This will be the end of Ukraine as it was earlier in history.
    there are tons of information about this in foreign sources, open your eyes, the only country that doesn't state this is russia
    All of them refer to the empty words of Ukrainian politicians - that is, just a lie. There are no camps in Russia where Ukrainians are forcibly kept. Prove it or stop lying. References to the words of Ukrainian politicians are the same lie. 176.77.35.44 (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree this page should be removed for the argument mentioned above. Russian nationalism / Russian imperialism are better concepts than this neologism. Perhaps a summary of this page - mentioning "Rashism" - can be integrated/merged into Putinism. Mrtno (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    Russian nationalists, imperialists, and neo-Nazis are just freaks (of which there are few at the top of government in Russia) their culture is as much a non-serious meme as Putinism. Russia's foreign policy has little in common with what is listed above. Even just calling Russia fascists would be more accurate, but there is still a difference which is why the new term Rashism was coined. GoldNotGod (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Of course there is an ideology to justify the invasion and other actions. On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, On conducting a special military operation and What Russia should do with Ukraine are all about ideology. What kind of ideology, exactly? That is a matter of debates. One of the views: this is a variety of fascism with Russian features. That is the subject of this page. It is notable, and it can be reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"That's, baby, ruscism" - the 2014 Russian-speaking song by Ukrainian singer Boris Sevastyanov

The term Рашизм was popularized in Ukraine largely due to the song "That's, baby, ruscism" by composer, songwriter and singer Севастянов Борис Олександрович released soon after the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and the beginning of the War in Donbas.

https://www.deezer.com/ru/track/84202945

https://lyricstranslate.com/ru/eto-detka-rashizm-ruscism-babe.html

We can include this into the text of the article. K8M8S8 (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that one is famous. It should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Rashism

I suggest not using the term Rashism. First of all, it is a generic word with the name of a nation. Secondly, this phenomenon is not unique to Russia. What would it look like now if the category of fascism were associated with a nation? I would suggest, out of respect for the Ukrainian people, to use the category Khuylism to define this phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panugaris (talk • contribs) 09:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Please see our policy WP:TITLE for how we determine titles. "Khuylism" isn't used by anyone, therefore it cannot be used.
In general, I think, we should focus more on contents rather than the title. The title will have to be adjusted with what turns out to be used to name the ideology by scientific authors, historians and journalists in a couple of years. It may be rashism, or ruscism, or something else. Until then, we should consider the title as a placeholder and focus on improving the prose.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
While I agree Rashism is not the best, I have never heard "Khuylism." I still prefer Ruscism over any, as it plays into the portmanteau and is not just a direct translation. SSEdwards (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The only RS that mention the word Rashism is the NYT article which states: In passing, the [Mariupol] council members referred to the Russian perpetrators by a term of condemnation that every Ukrainian knows, though it is not yet in the dictionaries and cannot (yet) be said in English. It's obvious that the term Rashism cannot be used to name an article in Wikipedia.--Gaura79 (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Here's my impression although it may be wrong: rashism is used extensively by Ukrainian sources, also in English (including official ones). Ruscism seems to be favored by English academics like Timothy Snyder, since it also covers the pun on fascism better with the -sc- in it for English readers (see Snyder's NYT article). Choosing which to become the primary one in this article isn't easy, but I am leaning towards ruscism, with keeping rashism amply covered as well, so that there's no doubt they cover the same idea. (It will basically just be sticking with ruscism generally unless source uses rashism. I think what we are lacking is a good source that outlines the differences in use--Euor (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The problem with the term "Rashism" is that (besides being derogative) it's a new word that appeared only recently and there are no academic sources that give definition to it, or even mention it. Claim that Ruscism=Rashism=Russian Fascism should be sourced, otherwise it's an original research. I think the aticle should be moved back to "Russian Fascism" or "Ruscism". After all, the article "African Americans" is not named "American Niggers" here, why we should resort to name an article on Russian Fascism with a derogatory neologism that hasn't yet entered English language? What we are trying to achieve here? Bringing Ukrainian nationalists to orgasm every time they visit the page? I don't think it's one of the aims of Wikipedia.--Gaura79 (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Your logic is considerably faulty in that comparison to African Americans, to the point that I am unsure it’s worth touching. There’s several sources (Snyder being a recent one from a well known scholar) that equate ruscism and Russian fascism — I mean, the term in itself is nothing short of a portmanteau, so it is only logical that ruscism=Russian fascism, like nazism=national socialism. And in extension rashism is a different phonetic rendering, so therefore rashism=ruscism=Russian fascism, logically in this article. Although you can opine rashism has a more deragotory flavor, you wouldn’t separate the term Nazi, also used derogatorily from the very start, from National Socialism? I can see what you're getting at with maintaining NPOV, but when covering Ukrainian use, I don't find problems with Ukrainian sources (in regards to your latest source purge). Anyways, I think the best to answer this would be @My very best wishes:, who have been deeply involved in all discussions on this page. Euor (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Once again, this page is about the alleged phenomenon of Russia becoming a fascist country, not about a neologism. It could be named "Rashism", "Ruscism", or "Fascist transformation of Russia", it does not matter. There is a plenty of sources about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Then start by proving that Russia has fascism at the state level. References to PERSONAL opinions of some random characters are not proof.
This article will be SIGNIFICANTLY improved if you will stop deleting other people's comments and prove that YOUR changes are related to reality, not a list of someone's conjectures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
Start with a simple question - show the discrimination of some nationality in Russia at state level.
If there is no evidence, this article should be deleted entirely. Someone's twisted fantasies are not needed on Wikipedia. 176.77.53.252 (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was oppose Abcmaxx (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

{{merge|Rashism|Putinism|Nashism|Eurasia Movement|Chekism|Russian world|target=Rashism|date=April 2022}}

I think we might want to merge all of these articles as they seem like redundant articles on the same political ideology

At the very least we should organize it better, perhaps with a template like Template:Nazism sidebar

These are more different perspectives on the same ideology than articles on different ideologies MaitreyaVaruna (changing name to Immanuelle) please tag me (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/unsettling-clue-new-country-is-backing-vladimir-putins-invasion-of-ukraine/news-story/ab4cdc82b2d1d95a928b20e5543b650f
  2. ^ https://www.vox.com/videos/2022/4/21/23036130/russia-propaganda-z-ukraine-putin
  3. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/apr/23/z-symbols-pro-war-memes-ukrainian-flags-russian-influencers-ukraine
  4. ^ https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/04/20/ex-crimea-prosecutor-poklonskaya-slams-russias-pro-war-z-symbol-a77418
  5. ^ https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/17/in-photos-pro-military-z-symbol-permeates-russian-society-a76956
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruscism/Archive_3&oldid=1144928657"