Talk:Refusenik

message: I think the title of this article is in violation of Wikipedia:Naming policy (singular vs. plural). Can anyone justify having both Refusenik and Refuseniks? I propose to merge them into Refusenik, or whatever else we usually do in disambig. cases to avoid confusion. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved Refuseniks to Otkaznik. Objections? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Original article name

message: This article is now:
Refusenik (Soviet Union) in keeping with Wiki naming conventions. By the way, the name "Refusenik" has become  a well known English word itself, so it makes no sense whatsoever to list it under "Otkaznik" something no-one in the West has ever heard, and perhaps is suited for the Russian Wiki. Thank you. IZAK 09:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:58, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I think refusenik should point here, with a separate disambiguation page. —Wiki Wikardo 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name 

message: Over time, "refusenik" has entered colloquial English usage for any type of protestor.  My sense is that it means someone who is refused emigration permission, not "any type of protestor".  Is that incorrect?  Phr 03:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree ’cause I know I’ve heard the word but I didn’t know what it originally referred to until my friend told me. IIRC, it’s been used for like draft resistors and such—probably the during the Cold War the -nik had convenient “commie” connotations. But you’re probably right in that the “any type of protester” wording is sloppy, imprecise or inaccurate. — Рефьюзник 20:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, there needs to be some sort of reference showing this meaning. (In other words, I found nothing to support your assertaion.) Also, why did you computer program call me a refusenik when I didn't put in the right answer?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.115.75.16 (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: this needs revisiting. Refusenik is now in fairly common usage in the UK and its meaning has evolved. It now means someone/something who refuses to do something. This is very different to what it originally meant (wasn't given permission). Here is a typical eg of that usage: "His letter demands action by Christmas, and threatens swingeing measures against refusenik institutions that later suffer antisemitic incidents." This means they are refusing to comply. This is the common way you find the word now used in the UK - its meaning has evolved rapidly away from the original sense. I have specialist knowledge of the evolution of words, so am flagging this up as important and interesting. I will add a short section on this to the article. Can people please check and maybe collect additional examples.SandrinaHatman (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I finished a section on this with references but where it needs additional info is - egs from outside the UK (eg the US or Australia etc). Is it used in sense 1 or sense 2 in other countries? Are there egs from Israel of it being used in sense 2? When did it start being used like this? I can google loads of egs of sense 2 nowadays but the dictionaries don't tell us when this started happening. Also just noticed there is no ref to when the term emerged exactly or earliest references. SandrinaHatman (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  any type of protestor?! 

message: There is no such word "refusenik" in Russian, its otkaznik. Refusenik is the pure English word.--Nixer 16:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, disclaimer: I was the one who tried to move it to Otkaznik long ago (see above discussion). Now I think that Refusenik (Soviet Union) is more proper. Even by your logic, this is English-lang Wikipedia and not Russian-lang. English-speakers don't know the word Otkaznik. BTW, the word рефьюзник was not unheard of, at least in the slang context. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article should not say it is Russian word.--Nixer 06:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refusenik 

message: Please explain how Illegal emigration is relevant here. That article doesn't even mention USSR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid the article "Illegal emigration" is dangerously misguided, staring from the confusion of emigration and travel abroad. I will try to put some sense to it, inlcuding info about Soviet emigration/travel laws. At the same time, Soviet Union is more associated with the notion of Defection.  `'mikka 00:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please come by and help out. I expanded the entry quite a bit just very lately. It could benefit from more editors.Terjen 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any relation to Illegal emigration, other than failed Dymshits-Kuznetsov hijacking affair. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal emigration 

message: I have reverted attempted additions by User:Angelmypal to the sentence "The coming to power of Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s and his policies of glasnost and perestroika, as well as a desire for better relations with the West led to major changes" of the passage "The election of American President Ronald Reagan, who took a strong military stance toward the Soviet Union, and the coming to power of Mikhail Gorbachev..."  As far as I know (and I should know, having grown up in the Soviet Union during the times in question), the election of Reagan had very little to do with the internal changes in the Soviet Union, elevation of Gorbachev and the start of his perestroika policy and with the changes in the Soviet treatment of refuseniks. If such an addition to the text is to be made, I would want to see it supported by substantial references to reliable sources that establish such a connection. Until and unless such sources are produced, the passage about Reagan should stay out of this article, on WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not re-insert the passage about Reagan into the article until and unless consensus to do so is established here, at the article's talk page, per WP:CONSENSUS. Nsk92 (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ronald Reagan 

message: Why, exactly, is "Prisoner of Zion" redirected to this page? -- The Dark Ride (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prisoner of Zion 

message: I have moved the information about the documentary to the documentary film section and out of the introduction as it is not really relevant to the introduction and there is no reason it should be mentioned over other media mentioned later on in the article
I have also removed the line "See Photo: The third protestor from the left is Zachar Tesker." from the introduction, This information was un-referenced and does not seem notable given there is no wiki article on zachar tesker or any other mention of him in this article. If someone wants to add it back in please at most add it to the photo caption.  Loganrah (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name for photo and documentary placement