Talk:Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video/Archive 2

Other crucial problems with article
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)


 * Your version of the lead was not started from a title in bold, and it was lacking important points. Your removal of the story with Nemtsov was obviously wrong - the story illustrates Zhirinovsky's tradition of naming his animals.  Grey Hood   Talk  09:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Such analysis of the literature is not appropriate; unless independent sources conduct such an analysis in direct relation to the article subject; most of that section seems speculation and material synthesis on your part. p.s. the excessive bolding in the lead needs to be removed. --Errant (chat!) 09:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are such sources. And there are such sources for the parts which you have removed too. Grey Hood   Talk  10:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate bolding removed.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please could you provide two citations for the video being скандальный. Please put these citations against the place in the article where it says that the video was controversial/scandalous/whatever other word you choose to translate скандальный into English as.
 * Since the counter-video is also described as "controversial" in the article, please provide at least one citation for it being скандальный, and put that against the relevant place in the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a source for the claim that "Zhirinovsky has been also compared with Jesus Christ entering Jerusalem on a donkey"?--Toddy1 (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is such "independent source" which conducts "such an analysis in direct relation to the article subject" - - it's on a pretty decent site of the Club of the Heads of Russian regions.  Grey Hood   Talk  10:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that you provide a lot of very good material, but you do not put in as many citations as are needed, so people mistakenly delete stuff because it appears to be uncited.


 * Also, I think it would be helpful if you put in English translation of what the website is, and the article name, as well as the Russian name. This would enable people to see at a glance that the stuff you added comes from good sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The source you cite certainly links to the Troika and Gogol's commentary - but nothing to support the in-depth history you inserted. That information is appropriate to the Troika article, not here - as evidenced by your synthesis of material using sources not related to the subject. It is also worth pointing out that the source appears to be editorial/opinion, so the analysis should be presented in this form. --Errant (chat!) 10:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the sources which compare Zhirinovsky with Chichikov. Basically, all the in-depth history now is relevant to provide the background for these comparisons. Grey Hood   Talk  10:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really; but I really can't be bothered to argue the point with you. --Errant (chat!) 10:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Greyhood, thanks for being so helpful.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still irrelevant and from a bad source. The source is desperately trying to find hidden meaning in the video, where there is none. It's a guy saying that Russia is not a fleet, fast-moving country (the troika idea), but a slow-moving donkey. No more hidden meanings. The source is crap as I've said above, and no more visible is this crapness than in the line: "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 anyone thinks 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) 12:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be helpful if you could find another source as well as this one. When only one source makes this analysis, it looks like it is just one person's opinion.  But if several sources are making the same analysis, then it confirms that this analysis is a normal way of regarding the video.


 * I don't see how it is relevant whether the author of the source is anti-semitic or not. Unfortunately a lot of people are anti-semitic in Russia.  It is a really bad thing.  But it is life.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the author is anti-semitic and the content is in any way related, or influenced by this (which it appears it might be), then the source is not reliable. --Errant (chat!) 12:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The author is not antisemetic. He just mentions Zhirinovsky's Jewish ancestors in relation to a symbolism of Messiah, which is particularly important for the Old Testament. Grey Hood   Talk  12:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an anti-semitic subtext. Why when analysing the 'symbolism' of the video (which, btw, doesn't exist), would he mention Zhiri's (self-disavowed) Jewishness? It's a cheap way of criticising somebody in Russia. We all know it. And how is a guy whipping a donkey reminiscent of a Messiah? It's not. The article is trying to mock Zhiri ("oh, he wants to be the saviour of Russia..."). Hence it's POV and, because of the racism, especially unreliable.Malick78 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've explained here, the "anti-semitic context" is obvious only to one who desperately wants to find it. Nothing bad about Jews is said, period. Just the connection to that part of Zhirinovsky's ancestry is drawn. And I strongly would not advice anyone to try so hard to see something bad in that connection or that ancestry. Grey Hood   Talk  17:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We disagree. That's obvious. Perhaps some other views from other editors? Malick78 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Greyhood - do you think you will be able to find a second source for the analysis?


 * If yes, how much time do you need to do so?


 * If you cannot find a second source for the analysis, then I think it needs to be pruned down, and relabeled as one person's opinion. It should only stand in its current form if several sources have made a similar analysis.  Identifying reliable sources says that: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."--Toddy1 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that I've already added 2 sources which compare Zhirinovsky in the sleigh with boyarynya Morozova and another 2 sources which compare him with Chichikov, the protagonist of Dead Souls. From the latter two, one source also makes a comparison with a Biblical donkey. Some comparisons are directly supported by Zhirinovsky, some are noted by Natalya Narochnitskaya - such as "troika-bird" - which Zhirinovsky hasn't denied. Basically, most statements in the symbolism section currently are supported by two sources, and we have plenty of references to Nikolay Gogol. Well of course most of the analysis and claims - even Zhirinovsky's ones - are opinion-based - but the symbolism is just such a topic. And I think that since the two points of analysis made by the source from the Club of Regions are supported by other sources, this just proves that the source is valuable - in fact it contains pretty brilliant in-depth analysis. Grey Hood   Talk  18:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Shoddy sources
I guess this will be a long section, but I'll start with this article. It's from August 2011, before the video was made. Therefore, it can't possibly refer to the video. Can we agree that the use of this as a source is unacceptable?Malick78 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see the relevance of Ponasenkova's blog entry (editorial control or not). What is the relationship of the singer and show biz person to all of this? Why quoting some random guy? Mootros (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is a blog (and not really an RS) and criticises Narochnichkaya and her views. It doesn't address the video directly, just in passing and is therefore a pretty poor source for notable opinions. Regarding the troika thing, it says: "вот, мол, эти три лошади и есть великая Россия..." (= "supposedly, these three horses are great Russia") - "vot, mol," is used in Russian to report someone else's views without endorsing them, and often (as here) to suggest the views could well be wrong. For WP to quote the views as being facts, and as being non-problematic, is unacceptable. The whole source is flawed.
 * Greyhood, it's sad that I'm being forced to go through your bad edits one by one... You are not collaborating, you are stuffing this article with any source you can find which might perhaps mention the video, and often you twist the source towards your intended meaning.Malick78 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Before speaking of "not collaborating" and "bad edits" you should put yourself in my place, and try to start searching sources in the face of constant un-discussed removals and other forms of disruption. You should be grateful to me that this article was created at all and that we could discuss finer points here while having the basics.
 * Yes, in a haste I did a mistake with the first source - I was deceived by the combination of words "Zhirinovsky", "Rus-troika", "voters" etc. - it all looked well in the context of February. Pretty interesting that such a comparison appeared half a year before the donkey add - I suggest to think about adding that to the article, quite an interesting fact and is relevant to the symbolism section.
 * The blog on the Echo is a reliable source as long as it is under some editorial control and approval of the edition - you know that perfectly ;). I would never used it to support some serious and contentious facts - but as a source for some basic facts from the Russian literature and as an opinion on symbolism it is perfectly OK. The source address the debates of Zhirinovsky vs. Narochnitskaya and it addresses the video not in passing, but makes several important points also found in other sources. The views of this source are quoted as views, not as facts, except for the description of Chichikov the swindler, which is pretty factual. The author (liberal) speaks critically of Narochnitskaya (conservative) - but does not question the existence of symbolism. The author just says that "troika" is the "old story" and that that old story used to tell ("вот, мол") that that version Russia which troika was used to symbolize is not something, in opinion of the author, that should be considered an ideal - on the contrary, according to the author, that was a bad country filled with bad types of landowners, as described by Gogol. And the source directly endorses the comparison with the Biblical donkey in the end. Grey Hood   Talk  22:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again: If you are interested in this article - you should be grateful to me that I created it at all, if you are interested in battleground with my persona here - I'm not interested in it, and I have no more leisure time to tolerate harassment and breaching of WP:NPA. Final request: stop needlessly criticizing me - if you want to collaborate, let's collaborate, but let's discuss edits and sources rather than editors. And pre-discuss any proposed removals please - you see there is some sourcing, pretty much sourcing in fact, but perhaps some points about the sources should be clarified. Grey Hood   Talk  22:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For somebody who recently criticised my level of Russia somewhere above (or maybe another page), you really can't rely on "oops, I misread the source". You misread sources on Putin and other articles, which I've told you about before. Please don't make me find the diffs. Oh, and please don't say "you should be grateful I started this article" - I'm here because I know the standards to which this will fall if I and other editors don't resist. You put links to this article on other pages, with a name highly suggestive of a campaign to mock Zhiri, so I and maybe others were drawn here fearing the worst.Malick78 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Zhirik, not Zhiri. The difference is as significant as between Malick and Mali - Zhirik is Zhirinovsky, zhiri is a transliteration of жиры, which is fats in Russian. And you should really better research the tough reality of the Russian politics - a large part of Zhirinovsky's voters actually vote for him because he is a showman and a clown, who mocks others and who is often mocked himself. A colourful person who makes politics less boring and who produces scandals which are fun to discuss. Accusing me in mocking him you may as well accuse me in promoting him ;) which would be ridiculous thing to do, because Russian voters do not read obscure articles in the English Wikipedia. The purpose of this article is to educate English readers about the artistic aspects of the Russian politics, and the deep symbolism of the Russian culture. Grey Hood  Talk  19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ponasenkov is a theatre director, historian, journalist and a writer. Also a singer. Seems a decent background to talk about Russian literature and symbolism. Grey Hood   Talk  13:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * His level of notability does not warrant to promote him to the level of authority on the matter you're implying by weight you give to this blog. What has he published as historian? What plays is known for? Mootros (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is an article about him on ru-wiki ru:Понасенков, Евгений Николаевич. Grey Hood   Talk  16:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The blog criticises Narochnitskaya's interpretation of the video, it doesn't really give its own interpretation and is therefore not really relevant. You're reading too much into it. I'm not sure there is much editorial control - I suspect the guy was allowed to write whatever he wanted. So, for me the source is dubious.Malick78 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Malick, I can say that you misread sources yourself, as you claim about me. You find anti-semitism where there is no any bad word said about Jews. And you cannot understand which interpretation belongs to whom in the Ekho source - the author ctiticizes Narochnitskaya, who uses a traditional interpretation of troika, by reminding her that Gogol's troika was carrying a swindler, Chichikov (which is also a traditional, but much less prominent interpretation). When we talk about cultural symbolism and traditional perceptions in Russia, not about some contested events, it is perfectly OK to use the source even if the guy "was allowed to write whatever he wanted". The source is on the site of the established media, written by a usual contributor (who has an article on ru-wiki), and who simply confirms some comparisons and symbolism, existing in the Russian culture. Grey Hood   Talk  19:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your contention that it isn't anti-semitic doesn't beat my contention that it is. We need more input from others to know for sure. Unfortunately no-one else has commented so far, so the matter still hangs in the balance. As for the blog - it criticises Narochnitskaya, that's not the same as saying it agrees that Zhiri is the swindler Chichikov. Again, we need a 3rd, 4th and maybe even 5th opinion. If you want to cite them though - please provide translations as footnotes - as Toddy1 requests at the bottom of the page. That would help everyone.Malick78 (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: Ekho source. I've clarified the point in the text, removing the mention of the arguable comparison to Chichikov.
 * Re: "anti-semitic". Try to explain concretely: what exactly is "anti-" in the author's reference to Zhirinovsky's "semitic" ancestry? Why at all the author's views on Jews are relevant to the literary symbolism?
 * Does the author say that Jews are bad? No.
 * Yes the author is overall critical to Zhirinovsky because he considers the ad offensive to voters. But does he say that Zhirinovsky is bad because he has Jewish ancestry? No.
 * In the same article the author says that Zhirinovsky has [Soviet/Russian] school background - does it mean that schools in Russia are bad, or Zhirinovsky is bad because of this background? No.
 * The author says that Dostoyevsky might have influenced the creators of the video. Does it mean that Dostoyevsky was bad or that the creators were wrong to read him? Nope. By the way, Dostoyevsky is often, though arguably, considered anti-semitic. Does it mean that anti-semitism makes his fictional and non-fictional writings not "reliable source"s and "racist" and that we should not use Dostoyevsky as a source? Probably, we should not use him as a source on Jews or at least be very careful when doing that. But when we deal with the subjects and sources unrelated to Jews or mentioning Jews just in passing, anti-semitism becomes totally irrelevant.
 * The author says that obviously Zhirinovsky wouldn't compare himself to Christ, because he doesn't want to be a martyr, but that he would like to compare himself to "Messiah in the Old Testament sense of the word - as an ideal Tsar sent by God" because this would correspond to Zhirinovsky's character and ambitions. At that moment the author says that Zhirinovsky, while claiming being Christian, has Jewish ancestry which might have influenced him. This is a very loose and overly specific reference (because the comparison with Biblical donkey holds anyway), but not entirely invalid, since Zhirinovsky's ancestors indeed must have followed Judaism and who knows what family traditions they had. But it does not say that Zhirinovsky is bad because he has this ancestry.
 * Finally, what strikes me here, is that the very subject of the article, the video, has led to Zhirinovsky being accused in disdain towards the Russian people. Basically, accused in a Russophobia. Does it mean that Zhirinovsky is necessarily a Russophobe? No. He is not, in fact he is a Russian nationalist - though this doesn't prevent him from actions which could be perceived as Russophobic. And why the anti-semitism suddenly becomes important here, even though I do not even propose to add the contested "anti-semitic" part to the article, while things which might be considered Russophobia and were considered as a show of contempt towards Russians, and which are in the article, are not important? In this edit, Malick, you add the Zhirinovsky words which might be considered Russophobic. And basically for this kind of things he was accused in disdain by Narochnitskaya. Grey Hood   Talk  00:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mentioning someone's Jewish blood is a well-known red flag: mentioning Soviet schooling is less so (above all because many Russians had such schooling, whereas few Russians are Jewish). That's kind of obvious.
 * Let's translate a little to help non-Russian speakers see the idiocy of this source, perhaps it'll help. This is the section on the stretched "Messiah" comparison. Sorry, I couldn't stop myself from interjecting from time to time regarding it's absurdity:

Голос крови
Уже понятно, откуда взялись лихая тройка и кнут. Но почему осел, да еще запряженный в сани? На Руси ничего подобного сроду не видали, с таким же успехом хомут можно было надеть на свинью. В общем, сюрреалистичный для наших широт символ получился. Разгадать его поможет опять Книга. Из Евангелия мы знаем, что именно на осле в Иерусалим въехал Христос, и встречали его иудеи как Мессию, то есть спасителя Израиля.

Едва ли Владимир Вольфович Жириновский дерзает сравнивать себя с Христом, да и роль мученика его вряд ли привлекает. А вот образ Мессии в ветхозаветном смысле слова – как посланный Богом идеальный Царь – гораздо более соответствует характеру и амбициям кандидата в президенты. 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. ...

The voice/vote of blood
It's already clear, where the dashing troika and whip came from. But why the donkey, and why drawn by the sleigh? [Erm, Zhiri says the donkey is Russia, slow and badly treated by its masters... but let's here this idiot's thoughts anyway...] In Rus' nothing similar was ever seen, he could just as well have put the harness on a pig. [Well actually a pig is too small... the harness would have been floating above it...] In general, the result was a symbol surreal for our region. The good Book [=the Bible] will help us decode it. [Yeah, right...] From the Gospels we know, that it was a donkey that Christ rode into Jerusalem on, and the Jews welcomed him as a messiah, that is to say, the saviour of Israel.

Vladimir Vol'fovich Zhirinovski hardly dares compare himself to Christ, and of course the role of a martyr is unlikely to attract him. But this image of a Messiah in the Old Testament sense of the word - the ideal Tsar sent by God - is much more suited to the character and ambitions of a candidate for the presidency. 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 vestigial Judaism. He has not changed his genes. ...


 * Erm, this is just random dot connecting... by a piss-poor writer. That we give over so much of the article to the views contained here is UNDUE. Note that notable people like Natalya Narochnitskaya do not mention any messiah-complex. She just said Zhiri was making Russia look bad comparing it to a donkey. She saw nothing else in it than that (which is all Zhiri has said it is). The donkey = Russia in a poor state. Nothing messianic at all. Why are we covering FRINGE views so much? I cut some of it down today... but other editors' views would be welcome. And Greyhood... feel free to correct my translation. (Oh and PS, can we get rid of the "Troika-bird" stuff? It means nothing to English speakers.)Malick78 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Malick, you again remove stuff without consensus. Which just shows you are edit warring.
 * Your translation is correct. But again, it just shows that Judaism is no way central to the Biblical donkey comparison and that nothing bad is said about jews. Before calling a source displayed on a respectable political institution site "fringe" and dismissing the views of the author who brilliantly analyses literary connections, you should present some stronger evidence of "fringe". The voice of blood is a typical figure of speech and it bears nothing necessarily bad. Grey Hood   Talk  19:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The title "Golos krovi" means "the call of the blood" - which to me sounds like the author is saying that it's Zhiri's hidden Jewishness that makes him want to rule ( - to be the "Tsar sent by God"). Sure, nothing sinister in someone suggesting that Jews want to take over Russia ;) The question is: why mention Zhiri's heritage? HE'S AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN! Only a racist would bring up his father's heritage and "vestigial Judaism". Malick78 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do other sources also make a similar analysis, mentioning Zhirinovski being part-Jewish as relevant to the video? If they do, then cite them.


 * If only one source mentions it as being relevant to the video, then it is single non-notable person's opinion. In that case, there seems no value in mentioning it.


 * The author of the words quoted above might be obliquely racist. Then again, he might not.  He comes from a country where racism is sometimes expressed openly. So it is not necessarily a big deal. (British editors may find this difficult to understand. In Britain, you can be sent to prison for expressing racist views. Russia allows more freedom like that. Yet expressing racism can be unwise for politicians, as the 2005 Rodina "Let's get rid of this rubbish" video showed.)--Toddy1 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the first place, I do not propose to include any mention that Zhirinovsky is part-Jewish or that his ancestry might have influenced him to the article. As for the other points made by the same source, yes two of them are mentioned by other sources (comparison to troika and comparison to the Biblical donkey). The other point, the comparison to a scene in Dostoyevsky's novel, is not made anywhere else, but it is not a contested point other, just a good analysis of Russian literature shown by the same author. Grey Hood   Talk  16:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I believe it is a bad analysis of the video (does the person have any qualifications in literary studies? Probably not...), by someone who obviously dislikes Zhiri, and who is intentionally looking for too much symbolism in order to show the perceived pretensions of Zhiri. The article tries to make him look absurd (he maybe is anyway, but the article tries to exaggerate this.) Other (more numerous) sources, and the creator Zhiri himself, see a much simpler symbolism - which, unfortunately for some editors, gives less leeway to mock Zhiri. This is why I feel it's being ignored/outweighed by the more absurd (IMHO non-existent) symbolism we're mentioning. For this reason it is UNDUE to mention all the tangential stuff. If a hundred sources say the donkey is Russia and don't mention the Messiah/Dostoevsky/Gogol angle, then just because two do (and I think one of those doesn't really link it to the video in fact, but just mocks someone else's views), then it's undue to give so much of the section over to the Messiah/Dostoevsky/Gogol angle. Btw, do Toddy and Mooros speak Russian? Can you appreciate the sources? Just wondering... Malick78 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gogol angle is relevant anyway, because it is thanks to Gogol that troika became a symbol of Russia and because Zhirinovsky quite obviously alluded to Gogol and even to some specific places in Gogol's text (of course you removed it and now say Gogol is irrelevant - aren't you tired of this tactics?). As for the rest of allusions, I do not think that we must disregard them even if just one or two sources speak of them - because the issue in question is symbolism, which is a very opinionated area. And really, against the background of massive criticism of Zhirinovsky by animal defenders, Internet users and people like Narochnitskaya, I do not think that mentioning perceived additional symbolism in the video "mocks" Zhirinovsky. Also, the Ekho source shows a positive view of Zhirinovsky's "Biblical" donkey. Which means that the comparison is viable irrespective of how the authors assess Zhirinovsky. Grey Hood   Talk  18:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Complaining that something is irrelevant isn't a "tactic", it's simply that the sources are dubious and unconvincing. I fail to see how a detailed analysis of Gogol helps us appreciate the simple fact that a dumb, slow donkey represents Russia. Zhiri in the video isn't saying that he represents anything. Btw, isn't it time we had quotes of what he says in the video? A proper description of it? You've forgotten that in all your rush to include "symbolism". As for "one or two sources" - the low number suggests they're FRINGE ideas. Which is a no-no.Malick78 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that mentioning Gogol is worth doing as there are sources for it. But there no point in going into so much detailed analysis about Gogol and troika - that is stuff that belongs in an article on troika.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot really understand why we need to contract anything here since the section on troika is rather small, and the whole of the article is not that large. All the stuff on troika is relavant, perhaps except the description of how horses are harnessed. It is important to mention why troika was fast, why it has become a "bird-troika". The rest of the information is mostly either some basics from the Russian literatur and a stuff directly related to Zhirinovsky or his debates with Narochnitskaya. Grey Hood   Talk  22:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See, you don't listen. Toddy and I both say so much detail isn't needed. And you ignore us... I've stopped deleting so much rubbish in order to engage with you, but you're not listening. I seem to be wasting my time... Malick78 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do listen you, but you do not listening me - I agree with removing such troika and Gogol stuff which is non-relevant to the symbolism discussion. But you suggest to remove too much, so that an important explanatory background is lost. See my posts below. Grey Hood   Talk  23:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed edit to paragraphs 1 - 3 of the Troika section
Greyhood have I missed any important points in my proposed revision of these paragraphs?--Toddy1 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Much better now! One thing still bothering me: "troika-bird" really jars. You have to justify this weird usage, or drop it. It makes no sense to an English speaker. Malick78 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleted.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, agree with removal of details on troika's uniqueness.
 * But I strongly disagree with removing parts of Gogol's text - and also it should be made clear that it is mostly thanks to Gogol that troika is considered a cultural icon of Russia. The first cited part explains the "troika-bird" and was directly referenced to by Zhirinovsky. The proposed version lacks any clue to which explanation of the origin of troika Zhirinovsky referred to - and this explanation is in Gogol's text. It is very strange to remove it and than ask "hey, what is troika-bird"? This is a common symbolism which is known to most people in Russia starting from late school age, and which should be explained to English readers. I hope Malick does not stand for deleting the citation mostly because it actually says something positive about the Russian nation.
 * As for the Chichikov part - this is a necessary background too and a known paradox in the Russian literature, remembered by some of the commentators of Zhirinovsky's video. It should be explained how specifically troika was mentioned in Dead Souls - troika was a common transport in the 19th century mentioned in multiple novels - so it should be shown why Gogol's troika was peculiar and gained exceptional literary significance.
 * So, please, I'm happy with any contraction of the text (though I can't really understand what is so important to focus on making this small section in this small article "less wordy") but without the loss of sense and relevant info. Grey Hood   Talk  23:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that much of this detail is important to an article on the Troika. And it is in the article on the Troika.  So why does it need to be repeated here?--Toddy1 (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * With respect of the paradox of the swindler, the point made by the commentator was that some politicians do not know what they are talking about. You did not mention this.  In essence, you caught the detail, but missed the point.  Please feel free to write one sentence (of 26 words or less) in the proposed new wording making that point.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd say: I like this method of discussing things on the talk page in detail first. It's more productive than what we were previously doing.Malick78 (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The explanation of why troika was considered fast, the explanation of "troika-bird" and Gogol's context and the explanation of the origin of troika which Zhirinovsky referred to should all definitely stay. No point to delete this relevant information and make readers to find it themselves - which they could not be necessarily successful in. I've already explained that troika-bird is extremely important here - it became a symbol thanks to Gogol, not just was "featured in Nikolay Gogol's novel" (Look at the troika-bird monument to Gogol opened few years ago), Zhirinovsky obviously repeated some points made by Gogol, and the phrase "It is one of the cultural icons of Russia, and featured in Nikolay Gogol's novel Dead Souls. is most certainly not enough to explain all this (and again - the article is small, we have no limitations in size, and the lack of information totally misrepresents the context of why and how this symbol emerged). The Chichikov part is less important - but again, I repeat, it should be shown how Gogol's troika was featured in the novel, how it differed from multiple other literary usages, and how it was reflected in subsequent literary works. Later I'll see if I could represent the point by Ekho author in a short sentence. Grey Hood   Talk  17:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, this is a video! The video doesn't mention the 'troika-bird'. Only tangential sources do. It's not important to the understanding of the video and actually is confusing (I still don't and never have understood what this 'bird' thing is and why it's important. Normal readers will be even more bemused.). Stop trying to insert cruft, please.Malick78 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed edit to other comparisons
Greyhood have I missed any important points in my proposed revision of this paragraph?--Toddy1 (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting the work in! I still disagree with the Jesus comparison however: it's absurd (he's not sitting on the donkey, for instance) and Zhiri says quite clearly the donkey is not Russia. Jesus doesn't ride into Jerusalem on "Israel". It's an inaccurate, non-notable comparison and doesn't represent the mainstream perception of the video. Malick78 (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Zhirinovsky rides using the donkey, it's enough to establish the connection. And why at all should we necessarily bring the country-comparison over onto Biblia? This is just an additional trait that some commentators have seen in that video - there is no point to seek all these traits at once in all works alluded to - Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Biblia. Grey Hood   Talk  23:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Let us delete the comparison with Jesus.  It is only mentioned by one proper source (and that source is only reliable as analysis if other independent sources say similar - which they do not for this).--Toddy1 (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Ekho source by a mildly notable author mentions it too. And if you make a google search, you'll see that there are more mentions of this comparison in the blogs and comments to news. This means that the authors of the available reliable sources accurately expressed the view found in a wider community. Grey Hood   Talk  16:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Blogs and comments on news sites" - your desperation to use such unacceptable sources shows that the info is non-notable.Malick78 (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Greyhood - what are you talking about? The article by Ponasenkov does not mention Jesus.  If you think it did, please quote the exact sentence where Ponasenkov mentions Jesus.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Tip no. 2: How not to be wordy
Compare and contrast the following two versions of the paragraph:

It also featured on Channel One's comedy show Yesterday Live in March 2012, as part of a spoof news clip from a fictitious US-based TV channel, reporting that in Russia was a shortages of gasoline with people abandoning cars and resorting to other modes of transportation.

The video also has been featured on the 17 March in the comedy show "Yesterday Live" on Channel One, where it was used in a parody of American TV news: the fictional BBN News reported the situation in Russia in a satirically biased way, including making a claim that Russians had problems with shortages of gasoline and that's why some people had to abandon cars and to resort to other ways of transportation - in which moment Zhirinovsky is shown beating his donkey.


 * 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)
 * 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. Grey Hood   Talk  16:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would you try to summarise this paragraph - it's very wordy. Thanks. Mootros (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Zhirinovsky confronted with a rival presidential candidate oligarch Mikhail Prokhorov on several Russian TV talk shows and presidential debates in 2012; he also criticized Prokhorov on debates with other candidates and in various interviews. On the last episode of debates with Prokhorov, just before the elections, Zhirinovsky produced a scandal, calling those Russian celebrities which supported Prokhorov, including a pop-diva Alla Pugacheva, "prostitutes" ("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).


 * 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. Grey Hood   Talk  23:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Zhirinovsky confronted with a rival candidate Mikhail Prokhorov on several presidential debates on TV; he also criticized Prokhorov in interviews and on debates with other candidates. On the last debates, just before the election, Zhirinovsky produced a scandal, calling those Russian celebrities which supported Prokhorov, including a pop-diva Alla Pugacheva, "prostitutes".
 * 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.

Confronted with the rival presidential candidate Mikhail Prokhorov during several televised election debates in 2012, Zhirinovsky criticized Prokhorov for [cause/reason]. During the last debates with Prokhorov, before the election, Zhirinovsky stated that Russian celebrities, including Alla Pugacheva, who supported Prokhorov, are "prostitutes".


 * ("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)
 * 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. Grey Hood   Talk  14:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Grey Hood   Talk  16:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. Grey Hood   Talk  16:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)