Jump to content

Talk:Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:36, 11 December 2013 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video/Archive 2) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconRussia: Politics and law / Mass media Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the mass media in Russia task force.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page has been moved to Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video without closing the open discussions. Closing the discussions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhirinovsky's ass → Zhirinovsky's donkey – I moved the article to "Zhirinovsky's donkey" for multiple reasons:

  • the title "Zhirinovsky's ass" is a childish play on words which is being used to malign a living person, and
  • Ass, while in common usage in some parts of the world, is a disambiguation page. The more common Donkey avoids the redirects which littered this article.

My move and fixing of the redirects were reverted my User:Russavia. I have no desire to engage this user, so I am requesting that the redirect be discussed as controversial. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page has been moved to Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video without closing the open discussions. Closing the discussions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhirinovsky's ass → Zhirinovsky's election campaign 2012 –

The main content of this article is about Zhirinovsky's election campaign. Mootros (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The idea has meridt - but I wouldn't support a direct move of this content, unless a lot more content can be brought in to complete the subject. Otherwise it would definitely be an "undue" issue. Also might need the year; he is a long term political candidate. But other than that, this idea is the best so far. --Errant (chat!) 09:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page has been moved to Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video without closing the open discussions. Closing the discussions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zhirinovsky's ass → Zhirinovsky's donkey video –} In line with the above suggestion and current discussions that the campaign was more than the video, this title is proposed. Mootros (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tweak: the current title - Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video - is the best of all in my view.Malick78 (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, though it is better than the current title. Nevertheless, the name of the video is little known, so the title is very artificial. And the Zhirinovsky's donkey is shorter and allows better to categorise the article and to format the intro etc. GreyHood Talk 20:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's an encyclopaedic, descriptive title. These are certainly allowed.Malick78 (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Yes, "allows better to categorise the article and to format the intro etc" if you want to write article about someone's donkey. This article is about a video. Mootros (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Inline with the requested move, it really does not matter which title the article is at, because media use both "ass" and "donkey". However, the "ass" is what the media picked up on after the advert was released, so it clearly needs to be mentioned prominently in the article. As to the actual name, I propose we move it to Proshka, which is the name of the donkey. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 21:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, by more strict logic the article should be named Proshka, yes. But the term "Zhirinovsky's ass" is much more recognizable, since the name of the poor donkey is little known. "Zhirinovsky's donkey" is also a variant, but currently it gets much less hits than "Zhirinovsky's ass" (the same goes for "Zhirinovsky ass" and "Zhirinovsky donkey"). Anyway, why not rename the article after the 1 April, not now? As for which term to use throughout the text, clearly it should be both "ass" and "donkey", interchanging, since the media have used both terms. GreyHood Talk 22:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google News has zero hits for ass [1], and three for donkey, including the New York Times [2]. --JN466 23:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of the "ass" usage. [3] Strange that Google News doesn't make search over the primary Russian news sources, such as RIAN. GreyHood Talk 23:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's written by a native Russian whose command of English is, shall we say, limited. I'd rather go with the New York Times. JN466 00:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOLWUT. Greyhood's command of the English language is almost at a native level; there may be instance of Russglish, but this is standard for most native Russian speakers when writing/talking in English. Stop denegrating other editors here Jayen466. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, Russavia, I'm fairly sure JN466 was referring to the author of the RIAN article, not Greyhood. Jenks24 (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main content of this article is about Zhirinovsky's election campaign. Mootros (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Much of the article tells about the ass and about troika. GreyHood Talk 09:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may find that if you pursue this direction (rather than focusing on the election campaign) that notability is not met. Mootros (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way you have removed some stuff relevant to Zhirinovsky's election. And the video was a subject of special commentary by many Russian media sources, devoting whole articles to it. It was not mentioned just in passing. Notability is well-established. GreyHood Talk 11:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's what we are trying to establish here, whether notability is the case or not. The article did not have the best start because of the naming issues and the extremely weak source like youtube, but I'm sure we can get it into shape in some form or another. Mootros (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not mix different issues: one thing is the article's title, second thing is which terms are used in the text, third thing is notability of the subject (which is well-established), fourth thing is referencing (which is mostly good, and few Youtube videos could be replaced with better sources), and fifth thing is your attempts to remove relevant well-sourced stuff from the article (as well as attempts to remove relevant images or make summaries in a way that relevant information is lost). GreyHood Talk 12:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tip no. 2: How not to be wordy

Compare and contrast the following two versions of the paragraph:



This is useful, because by seeing the two side by side, I could see that the one important fact missing from the shorter version was the exact date. In all other respects the first one is better. I have amended the article to put the date back in.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being less wordy is obviously better, if no important parts of the information are lost. In this case, seems you've indeed made a good shorter variant which conveys the same facts. GreyHood Talk 16:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would you try to summarise this paragraph - it's very wordy. Thanks. Mootros (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Made it shorter. Do not think it is possible or desirable making even more short. Here we have a general description of rivalry plus a description of its most notable episode widely discussed in the media. GreyHood Talk 23:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good start. Not bad, but there are a few grammar problem in the sentence construction. Also, it is normal that during a debate people criticise each other. We need to know what the criticism of Prokhorov refers to. Other politician are not relevant here, because there is no animal named after.


("I thought you are an artful person, politician, cunning man, but you are just a clown and a psycho" replied Pugacheva. "I am what I am. And such is my charm" replied Zhirinovsky.) What is the relation to video here? Is this Pugacheva's comment about the video? Where does the source say this? Also, which paragraph should this go in? It's NOT background, the debate with the celebrity was 7 April [28 February], month [three weeks] after the video was release. Mootros (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check your facts, the debate was on 28 February. The entire episode is a good illustration of rivalry between Prokhorov and Zhirinovsky - without such illustrations the article gets boring and hollow - we cannot just make general statements without any examples. Pugacheva's reply and Zhirinovsky's re-reply are relevant because to uphold some neutrality we should give a voice to every side of conflict. GreyHood Talk 14:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject: the video. The donkey being named after Prokhorov: incidental, but worth mentioning (the donkey symbolises Russia, that's the important bit). What Zhiri calls people who like Prokhorov: irrelevant. Too far from video to be important. Let's delete the Pugachova stuff.Malick78 (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This deletionist approach to the material in the article is neither constructive, nor justified by a small size of the article. The rivalry with Prokhorov, as manifested in the naming of the donkey, is relevant to the video. This rivalry should be explained - otherwise it is not clear at all why this rivalry emerged and what it was. Episode with Pugachyova on Zhirinovsky-Prokhorov debates was the most widely publicized and dramatic point of Zhirinovsky's conflict with Prokhorov. GreyHood Talk 16:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, whether boring or not,regardless three weeks or several month after the release of the video, an event that occurred after the event the article tries to describe cannot serve as a background story. Background in English usually means something that happened before and helps us to understand why and how something has happen as it did. You are might confuse a subsequent reaction with background 06:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


And overall, aren't you all tired of this nit-picking of stuff to get deleted because of your strange view that if "X (the donkey) is strongly relevant to Y (the donkey video), and Z (the donkey naming and its explanation) is strongly relevant to X, that does not mean that Z is relevant to Y"? Such view might have been constructive if this article was sufficiently large to justify the move of less important stuff to subarticles or to related articles, but this is not the case - the article is small to medium size, attempted derivative articles would likely get deleted or merged with this article, and Zhirinovsky's article, if properly expanded, would eventually become of inappropriate scope to discuss the naming of his donkey in detail.
So what we have - the information about the donkey naming is supported by reliable sources and no point to censor it - it is unconstructive and fails informational purpose of the encyclopedia. The information could be included into some article - though not to every related article. But obviously, it is this article that is the best place to include this information, as explained above. That's it. GreyHood Talk 16:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "small article = we can add rubbish content" is not a valid argument. The Pugachova bit will always be irrelevant. No one is trying to 'censor' anything. You, however, are trying to blacken Zhiri's name... Malick78 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greyhood - please do us a table comparing the paragraph you propose with the paragraph that now exists. But please only keep in relevant detail. When you do your version, look at every word and ask if the sense is any different if the word is deleted - and if the sense is the same, delete the word.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Pugacheva calling Zhirinovsky a clown and a psycho may be something that belongs in Zhirinovsky's biography, but it is of no relevance in this article.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.pro-goroda.ru/vladimir/news/o-zhirinovskom-i-oslike-napisali-mini-pesu.html
    Triggered by \bpro-(?!speleo).*?\.ru\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Yesterday Live: Выпуск от 17 марта Channel One official site
  2. ^ Yesterday Live: Выпуск от 17 марта Channel One official site
  3. ^ "Жириновский устроил скандал на дебатах с Пугачевой" (in Russian). Lenta.ru. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ "Жириновский устроил скандал на дебатах с Пугачевой" (in Russian). Lenta.ru. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ "Жириновский устроил скандал на дебатах с Пугачевой" (in Russian). Lenta.ru. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Zhirinovsky%27s_donkey_video&oldid=585525159"