Talk:Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video/Archive 1

BLP/Joke
The article reads like a joke for five year olds - with the attempt to load up every single possible use of the word ass. That's simply not the high quality expected of Wikipedia articles. I recommend whoever is responsible takes a moment to redo the content. --Errant (chat!) 00:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not a native speaker, and for me the "ass" or "donkey" have no big difference, just a mild connotations. Grey Hood   Talk  09:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Greyhood, you claim innocence on buttocks at 09:17, 27 March 2012 even when it's been explained per edit summary 22:46, 25 March 2012‎ by Delicious carbuncle (17,752 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Delicious carbuncle moved page Zhirinovsky's ass to Zhirinovsky's donkey: Less ambiguous title avoids childish pun at expense of political figure.) (undo) . Why did you insist on having an RM on donkey if not so you can game WP to have "buttocks" there as long as possible? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he's aware of the connotation, as evidenced in the DYK nomination he made. You suggested (on BLP/N I think) that the "ass" thing is a purely English colloquialism that doesn't have the same connotations in Russia - is that the case? If so it sets the material, and the repetitive use of the word ass, in a very concerning light. --Errant (chat!) 10:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes that's the case I'm afraid. As the two links I provided Zhirinovsky's baring his top buttock incident in January use zad wikt:зад or could have used zadyntsa wikt:задница, donkey is osyel wikt:осёл. There is no double entendre of any kind in Russian, this is entirely playing en.wikipedia.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course there is no word "ass" in Russian. The word for donkey/ass is "осёл", which also has the meaning of "dumbhead". And yes, I'm aware of the connotation difference just as I've written above. I am not against the usage of "donkey", just for me it seems appropriate to use both "ass" and "donkey" as the available English sources do. When I was writing the article, I consistently used one term, since I was writing it based on Russian sources and when I checked how it was reported in English, the first thing which I saw was "ass". Grey Hood   Talk  10:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

English WP:RS using "donkey": The title on the RIAS page, and the content appears to have been partly machine-translated, though the article has been proofread. English sources noted above (by a grown up DYK editor) are as follows: So why are we going through the charade on donkey/ass. Move to donkey immediately, and then from there discuss what else (if anything) needs doing. (And why frankly is this article even here when ru.wikipedia doesn't have an article?) In ictu oculi (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * New York Times Putin Gains as Foes Offer Little Threat - 2 Mar 2012 "But for Vladimir V. Zhirinovsky, who will challenge Vladimir V. Putin in ... this year showed him furiously whipping a donkey that he said symbolized Russia ..."
 * Haaretz 'Mama Luba' and 'Uncle Misha' - 2 Mar 2012 "Some eccentric TV ads, like those of nationalist candidate Vladimir Zhirinovsky, sitting in a sled with a donkey, promising that once he is elected, ..."
 * The Voice of Russia 2012 election: why Russians voted the way they did - 6 Mar 2012 On the whole, it was rather negative: "His TV-ad with a donkey and his motto: Choose Zhirinovsky or Things will get Worse were a failure.
 * Fine with me. Mootros (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is not on ruwp only because I was too lazy to translate it, and people there were more pre-occupied with election results, protests, and Putin, than campaining and Zhirinovsky. Grey Hood   Talk  11:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You expect a serious news agency will write "ass" instead of "donkey"? GoP T C N 13:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Recentism (writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention)
Could you explain why have you placed "recentism" tag on the article? The events in the article are fairly recent (two months old), what is the point in it? Grey Hood  Talk  09:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It questions the point of the article. That in a few month time it might be irrelevant that someone made a video with a donkey, regardless whether they are a well-know politician or not. Best to put the effort into describing the candidate's campaign. Thanks! Mootros (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This video is notable in itself. If the article about the Zhirinovsky's campaign is created, good, but no point to merge the video to it - because it is an artistic work with deep symbolism, which requires a special separate discussion. Otherwise, the scandal which the video produced was very notable and got wide attention in the Russian media, and will be long-remembered and associated with Zhirinovsky. Sorry, but the tag is obviously inappropriate. No point speaking about a historical perspective in relation to a notable recent event, and if you mean background, the necessary background for Zhirinovsky career is provided. Grey Hood   Talk  10:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, you may miss the point here. The problem I am trying to highlight is that in a few month nobody will speak about the video any more. If you really think this is not so and can make a sound case, we could rename the article as Zhirinovsky's donkey video or something like it if not Zhirinovsky's election campaign 2012. What do you think? Mootros (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Naming and ownership of animal
If you really think this is not so and can make a sound case, we could rename the article as Zhirinovsky's donkey video or something like it if not Zhirinovsky's election campaign 2012. What do you think? Mootros (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you are speculating. What will happen in few months will be seen in few months, while what we have on the plate is that right after the release and during the entire elections campaign the video received extensive coverage. Secondly, you are wrong. Years have passed, but people still remember other incidents with Zhirinovsky, such as Zhirinovsky splashing Nemtsov with orange juice or Zhirinovsky rant about the war in Iraq. And this video is a) a part of obviously notable election campaign b) an artistic product of its own significance c) an object of extensive commentary in the media. Zhirinovsky's donkey video is simply an excessive title, just Zhirinovsky's donkey or Zhirinovsky's ass is enough. And the campaign article should obviously focus on Zhirinovsky's programme, registration, polls, election results and other stuff, and it would be inappropriate and impossible to cover the video in sufficient detail in such an article. So, ideally, we should have both articles. And while we have just one, no point in mixing it with another one. Grey Hood   Talk  12:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The suggested name is misleading. First of all its not his animal, nor his pet; second the animal is not the main focus but the video or the video campaign; finally a three worded title is hardly a long title. Why this insistence? Mootros (talk)
 * First, there are no reliable sources which confirm that it is not his animal. That it was taken from a zoo is just a theory. And if it is indeed a lazybones and not a working animal, as is claimed, than it is indeed a pet: A pet is a household animal kept for companionship and a person's enjoyment.
 * Zhirinovsky's donkey or Zhirinovsky's ass is enough a reference for the video. And by the way the official name of the video on the LDPR site is "Troika" but it is virtually unknown because it was spread by different more descriptive titles on Youtube, all including the words Zhirinovsky and ass/donkey. Grey Hood   Talk  12:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if there are no reliable source that confirms ownership, than it should definitely not be named his donkey. We know for sure that the animal featured in the video that was used for the campaign. Why a misleading title if we can be plainly descriptive. Mootros (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources which seriously question ownership in the first place. Most sources say that the donkey is owned by Zhirinovsky or that Zhirinovsky claims so. Anywyay, the titles Zhirinovsky's donkey or Zhirinovsky's ass do not necessarily suppose that the donkey is owned by Zhirinovsky. Enough that there is an association with Zhirinovsky. Grey Hood   Talk  12:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like to me you are joking. Your credible source, stated the opposite that the animal is hired from a zoo. I am afraid that have the underlying feeling that you drive a specific point of view: i.e you are trying to imply that the article is about a politician's pet, in the light of the overwhelming evidence that all news sources keep the focus on the video campaign and not the animal (with the exception on the point of the cruelty). Please assure me, I am mistaken. Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no "video campaign". There was an animal and a video. No matter what we focus on, we can't describe the animal without describing the video, and the available knowledge of the animal's background is obviously relevant to the video. Grey Hood   Talk  13:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ownership not proven. There's no ref in article, so the suggestion should be deleted. If the video is called Troika, then that should be the title - Troika (political ad).Malick78 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ownership is not disproven either, and most sources do not question it. The video's name Troika is just a title of the video at the official LDPR site, nobody knows it, and even Zhirinovsky never used it on TV as far as I know - he always talked about the animal. Grey Hood   Talk  00:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Clean up and source
Mootros, you are removing lots of relevant and well-sourced material from the article (I will deal few points which require better referencing later), which totally ruins it. Sorry, I understand that you are making it in good faith, but in my opinion removing of the relevant stuff is contrary to the infromational purpose of the project. I revert these removals per WP:BRD, and let's discuss the appropriate scope of the article and which things are relevant before further removals. Grey Hood  Talk  10:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to use relevant and credible sources to make a good article. Try to look at an international news source in English whether this video has been talk about there. Mootros (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there are such sources - some are discussed above. Secondly, Russian sources are no worse and also could be used. Wikipedia is global and not reporting only those things which were reported in the English sources. Grey Hood   Talk  10:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No need for bold reverts. We are already talking here. Others way before me have already said this article is improper. By reverting and trying to include sources such as youtube, you are not helping matters. Mootros (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with Russian sources, as long as they are good and credible. Mootros (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No need for bold removals and over-bold reverts of reverets either, especially when there is a clear disagreement of what is relevant and what not, and where there is a misunderstanding of Russian sources.
 * So why are you removing Russian sources then if they are good and credible? Youtube videos are only supplementary and added for a convenience - the other sources cover the facts. There are exactly two cases when Youtube videos are not supported by additional media sources, but I'm going to fix it later. Grey Hood   Talk  10:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not say that they are good or bad. I am saying you need to put in good sources that are credible. Youtub does not really cut the mustard. You may add it in the to external link section. I have removed the material that is not of direct relevance to the video or the animal. Mootros (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you removed some of the material which is directly relevant, and some of the material which gives relevant additional context. Grey Hood   Talk  11:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't want to call this article a hoax, but it may be perceived as such if not a self promotion. The current facts are a politician makes a video with a donkey, puts it on youtube and claims he owns the animal. Local newspapers say that he has rented the animal. I cannot see the video been greatly discussed and think it does not meet any notability. Mootros (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you are really overdoing with that. Usage of the word "hoax" is plain offensive for me, just as the claim it was non-notable. This was highly notable video, discussed all over the Russian media: newspapers, TV, Internet. The more reliable sources reported that the ass is owned by Zhirinovsky (at least according to his own words), few questioned it and claimed that it was rented (these sources may be disregarded as dubious and not top-level media, but adding them in a cautious way would not make any harm). Grey Hood   Talk  11:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mootros, but you seem to totally misunderstand the Russian sources here and appear not to know how notable this story was, denying notability given to it by the most credible Russian sources, including RIAN and most top newspapers. Looks like you have confronted an unusual kind of story and now deny that it could exist at all or could have any importance. That's really strange, because it was a central point of Zhirinovsky's election campaign, the article about which you apparently want to have. While I could understand people's concerns with language and BLP, this denial is really going too far. Grey Hood   Talk  11:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Mootros, I would not like edit-warring and I'm waiting for explanation for your removals (why this stuff was irrelevant) and why the used Russian sources were not good enough. Please explain it in detail. And give some substantial arguments for the recentism and notability tags, because adding them seems ridiculous given that the story is recent and that there are tons of sources in the article, and I can bring tons more if there is a need. Grey Hood   Talk  11:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I did not see the relevance at all to the video. Where is the connection? Mootros (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to state it again, nothing wrong with the Russian sources. But obviously try to use English ones as a port of first call before moving to the non-English ones. The NY time article would be a nice start to give weight to your argument of notability. 12:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please make concrete and detailed answers. The sources are on the my side and on the side of notability of the video, and this means that many people see relevance of the video as an object of commentary. The notability is established by a large amount of Russian sources and some English ones. English sources per se do not establish notability, they just are in preference to be used alongside or instead of the Russian sources which convey the same information. Grey Hood   Talk  12:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, 'English sources per se do not establish notability, they just are in preference to be used alongside or instead of the Russian sources which convey the same information.' Mootros (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an evident thing. So please explain the removals and why the removed sources were not good enough. Grey Hood   Talk  12:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it was not evident at all what the relevance to this animal or video is in the bulk of the material the you included. Mootros (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was evident. You removed the part in which it was described how Zhirinovsky discussed the ass on one of the most famous comedy shows on Russian TV on the main state channel. This part also included the Zhirinovsky's claims that he had other domestic animals named after fellow politicians which is obviously relevant. Then you removed a part which described the course of his campaign and explained his rivalry with Prokhorov. This made the article to loose a very important point and made it completely incomprehensible why the animal was named so. Then you have made an excessively short summary of why troika is a symbol of Russia and made it non-understandable why actually Chichikov was a swindler (it looks now like he might just have been mad or something, buying the souls of dead serfs - and it also looks devil-like). Finally, you removed a properly referenced section "In popular culture", where Youtube video was just supplementary to the main source. This section was about a popular video response and a good example of how the Zhirinovsky's ad was met by public and entered popular culture. Sorry, but removing all this certainly is degrading the article, not improving it in any way. Grey Hood   Talk  13:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Mootros, I waited long enough for the explanations why the removed stuff was irrelevant. I've re-added parts of it. If you contest that, please explain the reasons here first and discuss it properly. Grey Hood   Talk  01:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOLD applied, page moved
I've moved this to Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video. I'm aware discussion was still ongoing above, but this was a BLP issue, and BLP overrides other policies - where a page title mocks a living person, urgent action is justified. Feel free to continue the rename discussion, but please don't revert this move. Robofish (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done. I was about to do the same thing, but was side-tracked in real life. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done! It would seem incredible that from 22:46, 25 March 2012‎ when Delicious carbuncle moved page Zhirinovsky's ass to Zhirinovsky's donkey citing: "Less ambiguous title avoids childish pun at expense of political figure." it took till 17:16, 28 March 2012 for grown up Wikipedians to remove the juvenile, and quite deliberate attempts by Greyhood and Russavia to get "Did you know ... that Russian populist nationalist liberal democratic politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky claims his ass is a symbol of Russia? Created/expanded by Greyhood (talk). Self nom at 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)" onto Wikipedia's front page. Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Zhirinovsky's_ass and in the DYK make it sound as though the pun existed in Russian too, which of course it doesn't. With that in mind... there was no discussion above - other than the two culprits - and fully justified Robofish's move. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done! We applaud you! Many thanks. Mootros (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not well done. The main subject is not the video, but the donkey. And since he belives that his animal is a Russian symbol, there might be more coverage in media. Suggest to move back. Regards.-- GoP T C N 11:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In ictu oculi, please stop making statements which make no sense. There is no word "ass" in Russian, and there is absolutely no reason why the English pun should hold for the Russian language too. For DYK on the English wiki it is absolutely enough that there is a pun in English. At the same time it is clear that the terms "ass" and "donkey" in English are interchangeable when we talk about animals, and given the long existence of articles such as African wild ass the term "ass" is surely appropriate. I've already explained above why the original version of the article was built around one term only - because I was using Russian sources, and a brief glance at the first English-language source which I saw (the article at the English version of the RIAN site) has shown me that the word "ass" is appropriate. Returning to the pun, you apparently think that this kind of humor should stay off MP. But that's your own subjective opinion, not supported by many other users. It is your right to oppose this for the DYK of course, but you better avoid personal attacks on other users while doing this opposition ("culprits" and the baiting of Russavia). Remember that not everyone is a native speaker here, and not everyone's attitude is as prudish as yours - Wikipedia is not censored, and it is especially strange to enforce the censorship on the April Fool stuff. Grey Hood   Talk  00:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of REDIRECT Zhirinovsky's ass
I've requested a speedy deletion (CSD G10.) of the Zhirinovsky's ass redirect to this page, as the title of this redirect serves nothing but to disparage the subject (Zhirinovsky) in this DYK. Mootros (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is now a RfD here: WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_29 Mootros (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Troika implication
I assume that the "daring troika" refers figuratively to NKVD troika? If anyone noticed a source making this connection, please add it to the article, as otherwise the whole point of the joke is lost. Wnt (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note this is not related to NKVD troika. And this your comment brilliantly shows why it was not correct to delete the symbolism section. Grey Hood   Talk  22:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have restored the symbolism section, but not the interpretation section.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with no need to restore the interpretation section. But more relevant stuff should be re-added in other places. Grey Hood   Talk  23:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't readd rubbish Greyhood - and give proper edit summaries. The Troika section has nothing to do with the donkey, or the symbolism of Prokhorov being involved with Putin and Medvedev. If you want to readd the stuff I deleted today - say why the "gait", "speed", and the book Dead Souls are relevant to this article. They're not in my opinion and you need a ref to link them, otherwise it's synthesis. As you well know.Malick78 (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This explains why troika is the symbol of Russia and that's why Zhirinovsky was able to satirize it and produce so much controversy. It is relevant that troika is fast and not a slow-moving donkey, and it is relevant that troika is very prominent in the Russian literature. Prokhorov is totally irrelevant to all this, that's a different aspect of the situation. The troika symbolism should be clearly explained in the article, so that there would be no questions about NKVD troikas and other such stuff. Grey Hood   Talk  15:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So, find some sources that say the donkey is ironic because troikas are so fast. I dare you :) Malick78 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Russian sources hardly would focus on that, because troika is well known in Russia, and Gogol is a part of the standard literature course in the school. But for English readers it all is obviously little known, while it is a relevant context. Grey Hood   Talk  17:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So it's your OR. Nuff said. It's out. Don't readd it till you find sources.Malick78 (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not my OR. This is just providing a context obvious to the Russian auditory but little known outside Russia. This is called a reasonable editorial judgement. And nothing reasonable in your opposition to it. Furthermore, the confusion with the application of the term with NKVD troika as demonstrated by a user above clearly shows that the symbolism should be explained in detail. Grey Hood   Talk  19:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a source which directly discusses the troika symbolism. Grey Hood   Talk  19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The only problem being that the source is POV even to the point of making anti-semitic slurs ("Правда, он везде говорит, что крещен, но не исключено, что лидер ЛДПР, сам того не осознавая, находится под влиянием рудиментарного иудаизма. Генетику никто не отменял." = "True, he says everywhere, that he's been baptised, but it's not been excluded, that the leader of the LDPR, himself not realising it, is affected by rudimentary Judaism. He has not changed his genes."). The source is shit. It's produced by the Heads of the Regions of the Russian Federation, and therefore has obviously a bias against Zhirinovsky - wanting to mock him whenever possible. Perhaps you could choose a less anti-semitic source for your next attempt?Malick78 (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How it is anti-semitic? The source says nothing bad about Jews. And it's widely known that Zhirinovsky is part-Jew. Grey Hood   Talk  20:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And the source is a prefectly OK - it is a site of the Club of the Heads of the Regions of the Russian Federation, it is a respectable political institution. Their criticism of Zhirinovsky is pretty mild and correct, and reflecting the general view of the Russian public. Also, why would the Heads of Russian regions necessarily be biased against Zhirinovsky?  Grey Hood   Talk  20:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He's not "part-Jew" - he has Jewish ancestry. And more importantly, he describes himself as Orthodox. That the source brings up his supposed Jewishness, and your blindness to that being a red flag, tells us a lot about the source and your ability to tell when a source is reliable. Furthermore, that it's produced by heads of regions means it's hardly likely to have a neutral view on Zhirinovsky, an opponent. Lastly, I doubt you chose it because it is 'respectable' - it was just the first convenient source to mention the troika thing. That it does mention it, doesn't mean that their views are notable of course. It's a racist article. Malick78 (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So the site is OK and respectable and you have nothing against this. "Part-Jew" - or Jewish ancestry doesn't really matter, his father was a Russian Jew. The source says nothing bad about his Jewishness or Jews. Yes, he is an Orthodox, and some of his ancestors apparently followed Judaism, so what? And please explain finally, why Zhirinovsky, who often acts as an ally of the Russian government, is "an opponent" of the Heads of Russian regions? Among the heads of Russian regions there are opponents of the government too, by the way. Grey Hood   Talk  21:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The quote that I gave a few posts above amply shows that the article has a racist POV, which makes the whole piece unreliable and not suitable for WP. If you don't get that, then I can't explain any more. Strange how often people say that to you... It's simply not a neutral source. Malick78 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Malick78, you have not shown how it is racist. It is not. Not a single bad word is said about Jews. It would be strange to see anti-semitism on a site of a high-profile Russian political institution. The author just refers to Zhirinovsky's ancestry in a pretty neutral way, moreover, referring to Judaism in the aspect of religion rather than ethnicity alone. And this brief mention is no way central in that article, because the triumphal entry into Jerusalem in fact is more about a Christian culture, while Judaism was mentioned only because Messiah is a concept more prominent in the Old Testament, which is also recognized by Christians by the way, but has relatively more significance for Jews. Grey Hood   Talk  22:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Правда, он везде говорит, что крещен, но не исключено, что лидер ЛДПР, сам того не осознавая, находится под влиянием рудиментарного иудаизма. Генетику никто не отменял." = "True, he says everywhere, that he's been baptised, but it's not been excluded, that the leader of the LDPR, himself not realising it, is affected by rudimentary Judaism. He has not changed his genes." - this is a snide, malicious comment to suggest that Zhiri has a hidden motivation/urge to do something because of some Jewish blood in him. No reliable source would have ever said that. Ergo, the source is bad. If you think that the assessment of the symbolism is notable, then it should be easy to find another, less racist source, which analyses it. Please do so. Malick78 (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How this is racist? Firstly, there is not a single bad word about Jews. Secondly, the views of the author on Jews which are no way may be described as racist from this sample, are irrelevant to the symbolism. Thirdly, if some Zhirinovsky's ancestors would have beem donkey farmers or yamschiks (troika-riders) and some author (definitely) would write about this in connection to the video, that Zhirinovsky has "donkey farmer genes" - would you call that racist too? Grey Hood   Talk  12:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Attempted moving and BLP joke
Would editors please engage in discussions before trying to changing the title, well as making major changes to the article again. Mootros (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No main stream sources talk about the animal. The focus is the video in relation Zhirinovsky's presidential election campaign.


 * New York Times Putin Gains as Foes Offer Little Threat - 2 Mar 2012 "But for Vladimir V. Zhirinovsky, who will challenge Vladimir V. Putin in ... this year showed him furiously whipping a donkey that he said symbolized Russia ..."
 * Haaretz 'Mama Luba' and 'Uncle Misha' - 2 Mar 2012 "Some eccentric TV ads, like those of nationalist candidate Vladimir Zhirinovsky, sitting in a sled with a donkey, promising that once he is elected, ..."
 * The Voice of Russia 2012 election: why Russians voted the way they did - 6 Mar 2012 On the whole, it was rather negative: "His TV-ad with a donkey and his motto: Choose Zhirinovsky or Things will get Worse were a failure.

I suspect the editor trying to disparage the subject (Zhirinovsky), implying this is the politician's animal or pet. (See previously included see also with wiki link to Putin's pet.) Note also the point about the cited fact of ownership of the animal is not even established. Mootros (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you revert to the crappy version?-- GoP T C N 17:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Because no main stream sources talk about the animal in its own right, but focus on the video in relation to Zhirinovsky's  presidential election campaign. I know this version might not be as "funny", but I'm afraid it's not really the right venue for this sort of humour. I hope this makes sense. Thanks 17:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree - the video is the issue, not the animal. Title should reflect that.Malick78 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Mootros, your editing and reasoning here looks extremely confusing, inconsistent and doing no good. Firstly, the removal of relevant information for which I've not received explanation for a long time enough (see "Clean up and source" section"). Secondly the restoration of irrelevant "recentism" tag - the event is recent, and your point was that it might not get so notable over time. Well, firstly to establish notability there are enough sources, and to ultimately challenging it there are such procedures as AfD. Thirdly you ignore the fact that at the move request most people supported "Zhirinovsky's donkey", and that the donkey is central to the story and it is more easier to build focus the article on the animal - and anyway it is not really very important what is in the focus, until we have all the relevant information in the article. Please stop your edits which degrade this article and make it more confused and inaccurate looking. I'm reverting your edits and please _discuss_ instead of turning the article into a mess with little any commentary. Grey Hood   Talk  17:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We have already moved on from the ass/ donkey issue. According to these sources the focus is on the video in relation to Zhirinovsky's presidential election campaign. You need to engage in discussion here and not just move after people appeared to have agreed on something. Mootros (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The existing RMs stand for the "Zhirinovsky's donkey" name. When the "Zhirinovsky's donkey video" receives clear majority support, that's OK, but so far your actions are not justified. And you again returned to the 'crappy version" totally ignoring all arguments here and having provided no any (and long requested) explanations. Grey Hood   Talk  17:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this article is about (should be about) the donkey video used in the election campaign. Reaction to the video is relevant.  Background to the video may also be relevant.  But primarily it is about the video.  The donkey was only notable because he/she was in the video.


 * Is it really necessary to call Mr Zhirinovsky far right? He is a Liberal Democrat; isn't that enough?  They are all the same.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dropped the "far right". Grey Hood   Talk  17:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the title of the video was well known, I'd support naming the article with the video title. But it is not, and the key words in story are "Zhirinovsky" and "donkey". Also, under the title "Zhirinovsky's donkey" it could be placed both in the "Videos" category and in in the "Donkeys" category, while under the title "Zhirinovsky's donkey video" it is less fitting for the "Donkeys" category. Focusing it all on the animal is simply more convenient. Grey Hood   Talk  17:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Convenient, but misguided and inaccurate. It's a video. Name and categorise as such.Malick78 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a video and a donkey. With the donkey been the defining feature of the video and a subject of a separate commentary in the media. Grey Hood   Talk  20:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Convenient for a BLP joke. Why would we like to do this? Mootros (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The lead and tagging
Mootros, I repeat an obvious thing - your version of the lead does not start with the title of the article in bold, and it lacks some points which are present in my version. The citation for "controversial" is hard to provide because the closest Russian equivalents to the word - "спорный, сомнительный; дискуссионный" - are in fact all meaning "arguable" and are very rarely used in the media. But the citation was provided for "scandalous". Yet you ignored all this, removed citation and again turned the article as mess-looking is possible. Please, could you start finally discuss your edits, which sometimes might look close to vandalism, before making them?

And please, add the "clean-up" etc tags to specific sections, otherwise they are not helpful, and again, it is exactly your poorly explained edits which require the clean-up in fact. Grey Hood  Talk  10:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Have a look here WP:LEAD and you will learn all about descriptive titles. No bold required. Mootros (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Clean up tag is used to point to the multiple problem the article suffers from: full of irrelevant material(i), badly sourced (ii), no context given(iii). Best example: the word controversial, mentioned in the title once in the main body, leaving the reader puzzled (and without any source): controversial for whom according to what. I could continue with long list of problem this article has... Lets focus on these three first and than move on. Mootros (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This a one-off help, and I hope you value this: As the current title is descriptive itself, our opening should be directive too. A typically error would be (and I am not at saying you have done this) to start with something like this: " Zhirinovsky's donkey video is a video made by Zhirinovsky that features a donkey." As you hopefully understand this would be a redundant opening, stating the obvious. 11:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mootros, why have you moved back to Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video? I though we had finally reached the consensus and compromise with Zhirinovsky's donkey video. Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video is the excessive title since there is just one notable Zhirinovsky. Please stop making such edits! Grey Hood   Talk  12:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is your argument, than should Vladimir Zhirinovsky be renamed to Zhirinovsky? Mootros (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD says "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." You have removed the official title at all, and also it makes sense to bold the original title and other primary redirects to the page, such as Proshka.
 * It would only make sense for something that has become widely known as such. I thought Proshka is supposely the name of the donkey not the video. Mootros (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: Clean up. You've again badly misapplied the tag. There are different special tags for irrelevant material(i), badly sourced (ii), no context given(iii).
 * Re: irrelevant material. There is no irrelevant material in the article. All is either directly relevant to the subject or provides an important context.
 * Lots irrelevant material in Symbolism:  see user: Malick78 summary: 'rubbish not connected with video removed. the only relevant ref is an anti-semitic, POV article) ' Mootros (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Malick78's summary is rubbish. If we would start calling any neutral reference to a person's Jewish ancestors "anti-semitism", than all the article about persons with Jewish ancestry are anti-semitic. Moreover, I've provided additional sources which draw connection to the video. Grey Hood   Talk  13:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This reference to the novel appears to be synthesis. You also have a tendency to pad out stuff. Yes, it might be fine to mention something like this in a sentence but not to contrive it with adding paragraphs of it. Mootros (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At least three sources mention Zhirinovsky and his video in connection to the novel. Please check the facts before making claims of synthesis. And the added paragraphs are just enough to demonstrate what is a "troika-bird" and who is "Chichikov". Grey Hood   Talk  17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: "no context given" - what about the background section which provides all the key facts about Zhirinovsky, his campaign, rivalry with Prokhorov and the results of the elections? "No context"? Your reasoning is getting more and more strange to put it mildly.
 * E.g. major TV station not referred to, not even a hint of explaining what comedy show. Mootros (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is extremely minor importance context which could easily be added. instead of that you remove the larger and more important context about troika symbolism. Smart solution. Grey Hood   Talk  13:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: Badly sourced - how so? Please explain before making such claims. The sources are OK. Recently I've provided more sources and there are many more out there which could be added.
 * E.g. Translation of title in citation of foreign lang sources. Mootros (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just formatting of sources. Go and improve it if you find that important, it is not relevant to the quality of sources. Grey Hood   Talk  13:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why we put the tag there to highlight this. Mootros (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please add the relevant and descriptive tags such as Template:Citation style, not overgeneralized little-justified tags. Grey Hood   Talk  17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: controversial. You've ignored the added source and my explanation of the Russian language, restoring the "citation needed" tags which are not needed - the wording in the lead just summarizes the article and the wors itself could not be cited because of language differencies. The controversy is all about the mocking of traditional Russian symbols, the reaction of the public and the anger of animal rights activists - it's all in the article and is sourced. If this needs to be added to the lead - add it, but instead you are removing information from the lead making it shorter and not clear.
 * No citation so ever about this in text. Not even mentioned apart from heading. Mootros (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have removed the situation about "scandalous" yourself. The citations on animal rights activists are in the article. The words of Narochnitskaya about the disdain towards Russian people are in the article - all the aspects of controversy are in the article. Stop ignoring this. Grey Hood   Talk  13:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we are getting somewhere on this point. The video was seen as controversial by animal rights activists. That's what we should say than. It needs to spelled out and that it was controversial for Narochnitskaya ... Good! Mootros (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mootros it was hugely controversial for millions of Russian internet users also. And I thought that would be obvious. There are sources which tell about how the video was described in the Internet, if you so insist on it, we can add them to the lead. Grey Hood   Talk  17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: "the name is a symbol" - of what? Of Mikhail Prokhorov? Really? Well, this is really too much. Even Zhirinovsky didn't said he used the donkey as a symbol of Prokhorov, he just named him so, and he has a tradition of such naming - which you have removed and that's not a reasonable editorial judgement.
 * If this is not to symbolise anything, just delete it. What is the relevance beyond trivia that the politician names aminals after other politicians. Maybe move it in here Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Mootros (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is obviously relevant because it shows why Zhirinovsky has named the donkey so - he has a tradition. Grey Hood   Talk  13:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tradition or not. I think that's called synthesis. You add fact A to fact B and say that's why he has done this. What if the voice of god has told him this time? How do you know? Never mind you you went beyond just saying that he had named another animal after a politician. Mootros (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Zhirinovsky mentioned this tradition it in the same TV show in which he discussed naming the donkey. He obviously and specifically mentioned both things in one context. Grey Hood   Talk  17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: undue weight You have also misapplied the "undue weight" tag in the last section. The material there is relevant to the subject of the article, it shows how the Internet users and media reacted to the video in a humorous way and how it entered popular culture. It obviously is relevant and important aspect, and as such it could not have undue weight: undue weight is applied either if some information relevant to the subject is not appropriate for the article of this scope (but it would be ridiculous to have a separate article Zhirinovsky's donkey in popular culture) or when some information represents just one very minor point of view when the more important major points of view are lacking (but this is not the case with the donkey video in popular culture, obviously). Grey Hood   Talk  12:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See popular culture section.Mootros (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "See popular culture section." I've seen it, and I answer to the tag there. Now answer to my points, please. Grey Hood   Talk  13:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See here Mootros (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already replied you there: the video was used in a comedy show on the main Russian federal TV channel, I've meant Russian popular culture, and we speak about any cultural references, especially those which enjoyed a separate commentary in the media, like the video response with the voting donkey. Grey Hood   Talk  17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Mootros (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I will answer over there about.

Mootros, your edits and reasoning are hugely contentious and overall are degrading the article and wasting our time. Please stop it, and please discuss before making any significant edits. Grey Hood  Talk  12:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say stop this whole-sale undoing of carefully edited and well summarised sequences of edits. Your pointless edit summaries are not helpful: i.e. "restoring to good version" Mootros (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My edit summaries are well descriptive. You've still not answered a number of my points or basically ignored them in your answers. Please explain your edits. Grey Hood   Talk  13:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hardly descriptive on the said example. Have a look at my summaries. Which edits are asking about. The discussions should give you an idea about the reasons. Mootros (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have answered all your points in the discussion above, and answered to your answers of my answers. But you have not answered all my points or answers and not addressed my answers to your answers so far. I agree that the article would benifit if we fix some of the things you write about. But these are very minor points which do not justify the tags added by you. Grey Hood   Talk  13:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See above for my answers. It looks like there are some major problems judging from the talk page. But as I said before, several days ago, we can put this article into shape in some form or another, together. So collaboration is the way forward. Mootros (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no problems other than some minor points which need to be clarified in the intro and some sources which need better formatting. And if you really intend collaboration, please discuss instead of one-sided contentious removals of the referenced stuff which you have done multiple times ignoring the viable arguments made by me. Grey Hood   Talk  17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise Greyhood, if we give you arguments - listen to us. Don't just reject them. Engage with us and try to understand that perhaps there is something in what we say. Collaborate. Malick78 (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise, exactly the same goes for you, you know ;) Grey Hood   Talk  13:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Tip no 1: Naming ref tags
Please use a more standardised format for the ref tag names. So instead of    use    for example. Thanks! Mootros (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Citing Russian language sources
It is a very good thing that this article is citing Russian language sources. The format that is being used is:
 * Жириновский избил осла и кузбасского депутата info.sibnet.ru

This is not entirely consistent with Wikipedia guidance, which is that "When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote." Please could you translate the title into English as well as citing it in the original Russian.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverted to revision 485404283
I have reverted the article to revision 485404283 by Malick78, as it appears that user:Greyhood does not really read this talk page. Carefully phrased paragraphs --with appropriated ref tags-- are just replaced in some bizarre "whole-sale" copy pasting of the editor's previous version. Technically improved paragraphs (which nobody seems to dispute) disappear in this fashion.

In addition, utterly irrelevant and utterly off-the-wall material is added in again: ...on another talk show back in 1990s, Zhirinovsky had thrown orange juice in the face of Boris Nemtsov when Nemtsov goaded him about his sexual life... In terms of this example sentence (that supposedly explains why the animal is named as it as), I especially voiced above that the editor went way beyond trying to show some "naming tradition". All we continue to get is a ridge and non compromising negotiation attempt, maintaining that this is all relevant. I think, we have been very lenient with this editor so far and tried to show patients, but I'm afraid this person seem not to listen and does not help in the collaborative writing of this article. Mootros (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%. Greyhood is adding as much negative info as he can. Perhaps he should learn from his buddy Russavia's permanent block on Eastern European topics? He's not at that stage yet, but edits here and on other pages have shown a disregard for the idea of collaboration and consensus (and then he has the temerity to suggest others don't collaborate.) Info about a 1990s talk show incident is totally irrelevant.Malick78 (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I add referenced info relevant to the article. Explain why it is irrelevant in detail. Otherwise this is nothing more than your continuous support of any editor which opposes me regardless of strength of arguments. Grey Hood   Talk  15:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The cited part was referenced to BBC. It is a well known episode of Zhirinovsky's biography and perhaps the most well known incident with him, in fact, and no point in censoring it. And he talked about naming the different animal after Nemtsov in the same TV show in which he talked about naming the donkey. Please explain why this connection is not relevant. Looks like you just want to delete this stuff at whatever cost. Grey Hood   Talk  15:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And please explain, Mootros, why you have reverted even the part of my edits with "technically improved paragraphs (which nobody seems to dispute)" - you've wrote it yourself. Why in this revert you have reverted some other obvious improvements? If your interest is improving the article, why have you reverted it to less improved state? Furthermore, the tag "incoherent" placed by you is justified only because you placed the naming into the symbolism section (naming is not cultural symbolism) and because you have reverted the structuring of the section into paragraphs. Before you was placing totally irrelevant ("recentism") and misapplied tags (note that you have ignored my call to use specific tags, not overgeneralised "clean-up"). Please stop this confusing tagging, and stop placing tags which are justified by the results of your own edits - and stop making such edits in the first place. Explain these your actions please. Answer me directly, what is your aim here: turn the article into a mess or improve it?  Grey Hood   Talk  15:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above sentence is utterly irrelevant and utterly off-the-wall. You went went way beyond trying to show some "naming tradition". Mootros (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What did you improve? Mootros (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood - please put the two versions of disputed paragraphs into the talk page, so other users can understand what your objections are to the edits done.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See the section below. Grey Hood   Talk  16:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"In popular culture" section
This section keeps reappearing in the article. It give completely undue weight that implies that the video has entered popular culture somewhere, because someone posted a reply on Youtube and a random TV station showed it in a comedy show once. Utter nonsense that ought to be deleted or moved to the appropriated triva forum elsewhere. Please stop wasting people's time reintroducing this material. Mootros (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a random TV station but the main federal channel of Russia. Mootros, you appear to know too little about Russia yet you are so strongly trying to delete as much things as possible from this article, and every time you totally screw it up, turning a good article into a total mess with irrelevant or non-helping tags. This makes me to question why you have so strong feelings against this article. Your latest invasion here resulted, among other things in the ridiculous tag "citation needed" for the fact that the video was controversial. Isn't it obvious that it was hugely controversial. Well, there is no direct equivalent in the Russian language for "controversial", but plenty of the sources use the word "скандальный" which is "scandalous". The word however is not particularly appropriate for Wikipedia and "controversial" is preferred.
 * You have made another series of totally unjustified deletions. Please stop wasting our time here. Malick78, who also has certain lacks of knowledge when it comes to Russia, was plainly wrong in his characterisation of the source which spoke about the symbolism. And mind you, the source was not an "utter speculation" but a good analysis of the Russian literature background which was most certainly known to Zhirinovsky (who was taught in a Soviet school and who is a philologist by education), and it bears direct links to the video. And note that there are more sources.
 * In my view, the article needs clean-up mostly from the results of your editing - you again and again return it to what was called above a "crappy version". Your edits are contested and not by just one editor - please respect BRD and _discuss_ before making significant changes to the article. If the language and grammar needs fixing somewhere - please either fix it without deleting relevant stuff, or tag the specific places not the whole article. Grey Hood   Talk  09:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, could some please explain, how this video has entered popular culture. Where is this? In which culture? It just sounds all too much construed. A reply on Youtube to the video and a random TV station showing the the video in a comedy show once, does NOT mean it has entered popular culture. Still no explanation for this nonsense in this section. Mootros (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: whatever TV station, it is not apparent from the text. Even if it would the main channel in Russia or the BBC, it still is utterly dubious how the video has entered popular culture. Mootros (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mootros, there are poems and plays inspired by this video and I can support this with sources. The video has entered a popular culture - obviously, the Russian popular culture, in the sense it became a subject in art and a subject of cultural references. It is obvious, period. Ans this is the main Russian TV channel. Grey Hood   Talk  12:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All this in two month? Sounds more like a fade to me. Poems take years to get published, plays take months to get produced. Even so, we don't read anything about this there. I am sorry, but a reply on Youtube to the video is not a very sensible way trying to make a case what you are trying to say. Mootros (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A video shown once in a comedy show on the main Russian TV channel, does not mean it has become a part of popular culture. It is trivia. Mootros (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just an example. Another video discussed in the section was discussed in the Internet and received a special commentary in the media. Probably this section better be named "Reaction in the Internet" or so, but "In popular culture" is a wider title which allows to mention also such subjects as TV. Grey Hood   Talk  13:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * An example of what? A video reply on Youtube is not relevant. Please come back —in the unlikely event— when we have something like this on RIAN: "Zhirinovsky's donkey video gets a half a million hits on the Internet." or "Zhirinovsky's donkey video gets tens of thousands replies on the Internet". A blog saying someone posted a video reply to the donkey video and lots of people complaint about this is a pointless endeavour and not in the spirit of this project. In the meantime, please familiarise yourself with what we are all about. Mootros (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Zhirinovsky's donkey video got 744,510 hits here, 264,919 hits here, and more on other uploads of this vid on Youtube - that is over 1 million views on Youtube alone - and it was also featured on other sites. It got thousands of replies. - this source mentions 19,000 views and 800 negative replies on the first day. Overall, there are multiple more sources which mention the discussion of the reaction in the Internet  - and the RIAN source does mention it too. The video entered top-5 in a rating of election ads by business journal  Company.
 * This source, called "A mini-play has been written about Zhirinovsky and the donkey" (О Жириновском и ослике написали мини-пьесу) directly discusses the comments and reaction of the Internet auditory, and says that the election ad spurred the creativity of Internet users.
 * The other source in the section which directly discusses the video answer with the voting donkey is originally this, archived here. It is not a blog, but a registered media, www.publiciti.ru. Grey Hood   Talk  16:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what about all these sourcing? Grey Hood   Talk  16:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * YouTube citation is primary research. I said: Please come back —in the unlikely event— when we have something like this on RIAN: "Zhirinovsky's donkey video gets a half a million hits on the Internet.". Your RIAN links seems not to work, but already have one RIAN source stating that the video was discussed on the Internet which is fine. For publiciti.ru and pro-goroda.ru: these blogs mention the video, but none makes a sound argument that the video has become part of popular culture in Russia. (One of the short lived blog entries has already been removed.). Mootros (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already provided the source which mentions the large number of views on the first day. The RIAN link works. publiciti.ru and pro-goroda.ru are not blogs, but registered media as mentioned on the bottom of their pages. The fact that they allow users to comment their news publications does not term them into blogs. Grey Hood   Talk  16:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that's what people refer to as a blog with editorial control. Not ideal to use as only source. It's mostly trivia stuff what they wrote: i.e. someone posted a video reply. Mootros (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit question 4 April 2012

 * As requested by Toddy1, here is the revision with my version of the symbolism section, and here is the revision by Mootros.
 * His revert which led to his version of the section includes:
 * Reverting of "technically improved paragraphs (which nobody seems to dispute)" - as Mootros wrote himself on talk above.
 * Restoring the tag justified exactly by the lack of structuring into paragraphs (I added the structuring, but Mootros reverted) and by merging naming and symbolism by Mootros. Mootros, what point do you make by this continuous placing of the tags which are justified only because of your own actions?
 * Removing an additional reference (with the source already in the article) to a point already in the article, about the comparison with barin.
 * Removing the relevant mention that "Zhirinovsky agreed with this explanation of the origin of troika in his TV debates with Natalya Narochnitskaya".
 * Restoring the disputed wording "Zhirinovsky's riding on the "troika" has been compared by some commentators with Chichikov" which I modified following the concern voiced by Malick and mentioned it on talk . Mootros, who apparently missed that discussion and my reply, writes about me - "editor appear not read talk page or engage properly" - so really who does appear not to read talk page and not to engage properly here?


 * I have again to ask Mootros not to blindly and unexplainedly revert the article to the less improved state (i.e. not to edit war and not to conflict just for the sake of it), not to place irrelevant tags or tags relevant only thanks to results of actions by Mootros himself, not to reject compromises and not to make mass reverts just because of the disagreement with some minor part. I really want to hear some reasonable explanation to what is most certainly confusing and what is looking like on purpose disruptive editing. Grey Hood   Talk  16:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its the article that is disruptive not the editors trying to improve or get rid of it - I thought April fool was over, why is this still here. - You  really  can  18:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is well sourced and the subject is notable - tons, hundreds, perhaps thousands of sources. It has a well-sourced subject, featured in many mainstream media and having produced a major scandal in Russia - the editors who try to get rid of it show poor editorial judgement. As for the improvement of the article - OK, but that must be done in respectable, not disruptive way. Grey Hood   Talk  18:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Youreallycan. One editor is desperate to keep the article, that's why it exists. Perhaps it should go as the video will hardly be remembered in 5 years. Do we have pages for every advert of Putin's???? If someone AFD's it I'll vote yes... it has transient notoriety, that's all. Malick78 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your quick agreement with any editors who oppose me whatever weak arguments such editors use is telling, Malick. This article has dozens of sources and hundreds more could be brought. Go and AfD it if you like. Grey Hood   Talk  19:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The view that the video is not notable is very parochial.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of its notability, the article appears to gives undue weight to the video in the broader context of Russian politics or even the presidential election 2012 itself. I suspect the adamant advocate of the article's current direction knows (or senses) this. Hence she tries to disparately prove the point that there is some grand cultural significance to its emergence in Russian life. Mootros (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The video is notable per se due to its scandalous nature and cultural implications, and it was one of the brightest points of the presidential campaigning too - certainly the most discussed thing Zhirinovsky had done while campaigning, comparable only to his quarrel with Pugacheva perhaps. Grey Hood   Talk  22:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not debating its notability. I am saying: the article appears to gives undue weight to the video in the broader context of Russian politics or even the presidential election 2012 itself. Mootros (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood - I do not really understand the difference you and Mootros you are debating. Please paste your version and his version of various paragraphs/sections in a table, like we have done for the discussion of photos in the article on Putin.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I could do that, but this would excessively cram this already crammed talk page. I've listed all the points of dispute above, though Malick already has added to the confusion by new unilateral removals. The biggest difference between my and Mootros's versions is obviously the lack of structuring of the section into paragraphs in his version - which is why it is - the tag placed by Mootros himself (sic!). And my main point about his revert is it's obvious degrading, disruptive and self-contradicting character.  Grey Hood   Talk  20:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about space.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think it is pointless to argue which one is better structured, looking more accurate and better illustrated. Yet Mootros reverts to a mess version re-installing the "incoherent" tag, while Malick deletes referenced relevant stuff. Grey Hood   Talk  22:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this is the point: I don't think it's all relevant, and some of it is incoherent. What the hell is a 'troika-bird'? It's not obvious from the text. And why mention Zhiri's dead sheep? This is about a video of a donkey. A video. You're just adding anything tangentially related... no matter how obscure. It's almost as if your sole aim is to make Zhiri sound crazy... but no, that couldn't be the purpose of this article, could it? Malick78 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My obvious attempts to make it more coherent by better structuring and splitting into sections were reverted, strangely, by the same person who imposed the "incoherent" tag. What is it other than disruption? Please explain me, I really want to understand that.
 * A 'troika-bird' is a famous literary symbol introduced by Gogol and studied in the Russian literature course in Russian schools. Note that my version explains it in more detail and cites Gogol's text about "winged troika" (in another translation - "Ah, troika, troika, swift as a bird, who was it first invented you?" - perhaps we should better use this translation) - but you remove explanatory stuff on troika and then ask 'What the hell is a 'troika-bird'? Oh, smart. And again, you support shifting the focus to the video rather than to the animal, and then on this basis you claim that the facts relevant to the animal are irrelevant to the video. I see you and Mootros have a pattern here ;)
 * But, obviously, the animal was discussed in connection to the video, so the facts on the animal are relevant to the video. The source for the dead sheep story says: "— Сегодня мы не имеем права обсуждать предвыборную программу — это будет считаться агитацией, — заметил Гарик Мартиросян. Тогда предлагаю другой вариант, — нашелся Владимир Вольфович. – У меня на даче живет ослик, его зовут Прошка, Прохор… Я ведь могу называть осла нормальным именем. А в свое время у меня был баран Бен — то есть Борис Ефимович Немцов. Я его зарезал — мясо было невкусное." Basically Zhirinovsky starts to discuss it in connection to election advertising, and he mentions naming of the sheep right after the donkey, in an obvious connection. Grey Hood   Talk  00:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs are fine. From the Troika section it needs a complete rewrite to remove the extreme wordiness. Kindly see "Tip no2" below. (Opting for a concise and focused style of writing, will also help you to show relevance of the material.) The Jesus picture is very inappropriate on about four different levels. Mootros (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why, again, is the orange juice and sex life stuff still in there? Mootros (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of what Malick says is true. But there are relevant facts in Greyhood's version that could easily be retained in a less wordy version.  This is why this is better done on the talk page, comparing versions.


 * The stuff about the orange juice incident belongs in a biographical article of Zhirinovsky, not in an article about this video.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that mentioning Zhirinovsky's naming tradition is relevant, because he spoke of it himself, in one place, in one context, in connection to the donkey and political advertisement? If yes, than shouldn't we mention his conflict with Nemtsov as an important background - shouldn't we explain what are Zhirinovsky's relations with the person he named his animal after? Grey Hood   Talk  16:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is relevant to this article that he had named animals after political opponents before. But details (such as the sheep's name) should either be put in a footnote, or in the biographical article.  The orange juice business belongs in the biography.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've put it into a footnote as you have proposed. Grey Hood   Talk  22:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we reduce the symbolism o the bare bones and put the detail into footnotes?
I agree with Greyhood that the symbolism needs to be explained to English-speaking readers. I agree with Mootros and Malick that it is wordy - this is partly because it goes into so much detail. I think a lot of this detail in it would be better handled in footnotes, with the main text containing only the outlines. --Toddy1 (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've cut some of the descriptions, but provided more attributions and introduced footnotes. If some more information is found more appropriate for footnotes, I have no problem with that. Grey Hood   Talk  22:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce edit warring
There is a problem on the article page. It is getting too many edits each day. This is resulting in editors rushing their edits for fear that what they are producing will be deleted by other editors before they finish it.

I propose that we all agree to restrict ourselves to one edit on the article page per person per day. There can be as many edits as people like on the talk page.

If people want to build up an edit, let them use a sandbox or the talk page.

We need to do something to stop the edit warring.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good call! I would be happy with this, as long as it excludes "technical edits" for cleaning up and formatting issues, such as sorting out reference formats translating titles, etc. Mootros (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK - but "technical edits" should be marked as minor edits, and the edit summary should say they are technical edits.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Though it gives the upper hand to any editor who has already stuffed the page with cruft in that it makes it harder to cut it down again. Malick78 (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While I agree to the proposal, the more important thing is to discuss the contested points on talk, to heed to each other arguments, and to make edits with the aim of improvement of the article, not degrading it. I've explained my position on each contested point in detail. I've not received proper answers from Mootros so far. I'm grateful to Mootros and Malick that some of their actions here have led to improvement of the sourcing and formatting. But as explained here, edits like this is something what is most certainly unjustified edit-warring and degrading the article, bordering with vandalism. Grey Hood   Talk  16:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing is bordering on vandalism. To me it looks like you are not listening, but give the impression to perform some monologue. Judge for yourself by the average length of your replies. They are excessively long, rather wordy, and highly tangential. This is not a real dialogue. Mootros (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: You mentioned somewhere here that you have tons of edits. Please keep in mind that neither the number of edits on Wikipedia are indicative of the quality of your contributions, nor of your diplomatic ability. Learn to be a good editor by learning to listen. Mootros (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not answered to my concrete points made in the section below, including the questions why you blindly reverted to the revision which held points contested by other users and which I had removed ("To me it looks like you are not listening" to the discussion between me and other users), why you removed additional references to the already established things, why you removed attempts to make the section coherent and restored your own "incoherent" tag. All this looks just like you reverted for the sake of revert, for making a point, for edit-warring, and not for the sake of improving the article. Please do not make such actions anymore. The only thing which one should bear in mind when editing articles is improving them - otherwise one's actions are called disruption or vandalism. Grey Hood   Talk  16:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what your point is. I reverted your whole sale edit that appeared ignorant about my subsequent improvements. If by doing so some of your subsequent improvements (within your whole sale edit copy past job) incidentally got lost that's unfortunate, but may serve as a reminder that listen to people is important. Mootros (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is your subsequent improvements. Non of them concerns with the contents of the symbolism section, except for the "incoherent" tag placed there and changing some reference names. Here are my subsequent changes to the section befor it was reverted by you. I did not touch the ref names and I made the paragraph structure specifically to address your "incoherent tag". Why did you destroyed that is totally non-understandable. Did you make it just because of the re-addition of naming stuff at the bottom of the section? but than why didn't you specifically edit that subsection instead of whole sale revert? And what do you mean by "your whole sale edit copy past job"?  Grey Hood   Talk  23:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a highly selective presentation. I have not only improved the article through formatting, by removing the irrelevant material that you added. Two mor editors on this page, agree with me that the orange juice stuff is utterly irrelevant.
 * This is accurate representation of concrete edits. Toddy proposed to turn the orange juice stuff into a footnote, which you again removed. Grey Hood   Talk  14:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The orange juice really isn't important. Let's forget it.Malick78 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)