Talk:Nomenklatura

Source of the term "Nomenklatura"

Some vandal evidently had a problem with the derivation of the word "nomenklatura", adding "Do you really believe this!?!?!??!". I deleted this, but added a citation needed tag. While I don't have a source yet, I remember reading that this is an accurate derivation of the word.

Amwercian nomenklatura section

Removed as original research. Cronyism is not the same as nomenklarura. The Free Press uses the term polemically not really understanding the meaning of the term. Nomenklatura is a list approved by a ruling Communist party - there is no such thin in capitalist democratic America. - Altenmann >talk 22:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

"A form of nomenklatura has been said to exist within the United States among "Ivy Leaguers" as separate and apart from working class Americans. According to The Free Press report which cited a Rasmussen poll, "The poll defined the former as 'those having a postgraduate degree, a household income of more than $150,000 annually, living in a zip code with more than 10,000 people per square mile,' and having attended 'Ivy League schools or other elite private schools, including Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, and the University of Chicago.'" Further, "Asked if they would favor 'rationing of gas, meat, and electricity' to fight climate change, 89 percent of Ivy Leaguers said yes, as against 28 percent of regular people. Asked if they would personally pay $500 more in taxes and higher costs to fight climate change, 75 percent of the Ivy Leaguers said yes, versus 25 percent of everyone else. 'Teachers should decide what students are taught, as opposed to parents' was a statement with which 71 percent of the Ivy Leaguers agreed, nearly double the share of average citizens. 'Does the U.S. provide too much individual freedom?' More than half of Ivy Leaguers said yes; just 15 percent of ordinary mortals did. The elite were roughly twice as fond as everyone else of members of Congress, journalists, union leaders, and lawyers. Perhaps unsurprisingly, 88 percent of the Ivy Leaguers said their personal finances were improving, as opposed to one in five of the general population.""

This was the edit that was added. The text said "A form of nomenklatura has been said to exist within the United States"... not exactly strong language which was arguing it was the same as the Soviet original "nomenklatura". The point also highlighted the differences, and the cited the source. While this might not be appropriate for the lead section due to WP:DUEWEIGHT, if reliable sources make this point and articulate it clearly in light of the differences, then it should be included in the body of the article lower down perhaps. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The cited article mentions the term in passing and does not support the deleted chunk, which is partly an inadmissible interpretation of what was said in the source, partly WP:SYNTH: the verbose quotations say not a word about "nomenklatura" --Altenmann >talk 01:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

"To see the extent of the gulf that now separates the American nomenklatura from the workers and peasants, consider the findings of a Rasmussen poll from last September, which sought to distinguish the attitudes of the Ivy Leaguers from ordinary Americans." This is a direct quote, but the policy and guidelines of editing on Wikipedia actually requires that we read a source, then take the core of the meaning from the source using our own best judgement, then in neutral language write that into a summary encyclopedic copy. WP:SYNTH or WP:OR are altogether different and not at all what is occurring in the above, but if you feel otherwise, please feel free to read the source and try to take a stab at it yourself and I could comment on the final result, otherwise I'll try again myself soon. I am fine with a greatly abbreviated section if you feel this is too much information, though the source is not unreliable, and the mention should at least receive WP:SUMMARY treatment. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this exactly the piece I had in mind when I wrote "mentioned in passing", as a snide metaphor. Please provide me with the definition of what "American nomenklatura" is. Obvioulsy we disagree about the extent of "take the core of the meaning from the source using our own best judgement". --Altenmann >talk 02:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't of course be so bold as to say what it "is" or "is not", but only that "According to the Free Press,..", and then see my comment above. In essence if I were to indulge in some actual WP:SYNTH, it might be worded as, "Ivy leaguer's disconnected from the hardships of the working class but that tow the party line in protecting their own privelged life and elite bureaucratic class benefits.", but now that is of course absolutely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which is exactly why the fuller context and quotes and citation from above are the non-WP:OR without my own wording or synthesis down into some overly tightened "definition." Iljhgtn (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, not "according to the wth it is anonymous the Free Press" (I HATE when Wikipeida writes like "according to "The Guardian"), but "according to Niall Ferguson", who is a well-known scholar. But the major problem is that we do not know what he understands under the term and to what degree it is relevant to the subject of the article. It would be like squeezing the word "feminazi" into the article about Nazism or use of any other strong word for a hype, like calling abortion "genocide" by pro-lifers. --Altenmann >talk 02:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

If we knew (and not guessed) from the article what Ferguson meant, then at the very least we could write "Ferg compared <what> to Sov nomenc" and then proceed with the whole enchilada of his arguments (to a reasonable volume). --Altenmann >talk 02:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

References

While fishing for Ferguson I accidentally found a perfect example how fake information can be created by a supposedly reliable source, by slightly twisting the content of the sources to the likes, using Fergusson as an example. In here Cathy Young (shame be upon her) says:

Later on, Ferguson discusses a 2023 Rasmussen poll supposedly showing “the gulf that now separates the American nomenklatura from the workers and peasants.” The “American nomenklatura” here is defined as “those having a postgraduate degree, a household..."

Nothin of the kind is defined in the "here". In fact Fergusson wrote:

"To see the extent of the gulf that now separates the American nomenklatura from the workers and peasants, consider the findings of a Rasmussen poll from last September, which sought to distinguish the attitudes of the Ivy Leaguers from ordinary Americans. The poll defined the former as “those having a postgraduate degree, a..."

In Fergusson's text "defined the former as", "the former" are "the Ivy Leaguers". What is more, Fergusson himself took a bit of liberty, because the definition in the Rasmussen poll is

"The Elites are defined as those having a postgraduate degree, a household income of more than $150,000 annually, and living in a zip code with more than 10,000 people per square mile. Approximately 1% of the total U.S. population meets these criteria."

- Full stop. End of paragraph. No Ivy League. "living in a zip code with more than 10,000 people per sq.mi." is "American nomenklatura?" Someone must be kidding or "pulling an owl onto a globe", as a Russian say goes.

I can easily see that people can proceed and cite Cathy Young (shame be upon her) and claim that Ferguson gave a definition of "American nomenklatura" (and referring to a secondary source, too! But in this case the "secondary source" is in fact the third link in the game of Chinese whispers.). --Altenmann >talk 03:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)