Talk:Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video

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

Requested move[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • No-brainer. Silliness. Disruption. Etc. Have restored move. --JN466 20:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The move is clearly controversial. Please abide by WP:BRD. List this at WP:RM if you feel it should be moved, and you can discuss it here, rather than deciding off-site where it should be. Thank you for your attention. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 21:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is listed at WP:RM. See template above. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know, so discuss it, rather than listing it, and then unilaterally moving it without discussion. This is directed to User:Jayen466. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 21:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, as it stands, I consider this article title a BLP violation. BLP violations are removed until there is a consensus to have them in the article. --JN466 00:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Actually, I just wanted to propose the same move. "Ass" is highly ambiguous, "donkey" isn't.
  • Support: The wikipedia article for donkey is at Donkey and interwikis to Russian осёл. However since does appear to be a BLP violation, I would further suggest a note on BLP noticeboard so that an admin can see this. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Greatly reduces ambiguity. Jenks24 (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. So we can move on and ask why it should not be merged with Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Mootros (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Oh please stop talking about BLP violations. This article is about yet another brilliant performance by a political clown, which Zhirinovsky is (everyone in Russia knows that, including Zhirinovsky himself). With this ass add and its subsequent discussion he tried to produce as much controversy and fun as possible, and there is no point in reducing it. GreyHood Talk 09:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He has his standards, we have ours. We don't follow any political agenda, including one of buffoonery and populist merrymaking. --JN466 12:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I always find it funny when people from WR and WF come onto these projects talking about buffoonery. :) Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A connotation does not undermine legitimacy of a title - see African wild ass, Mongolian wild ass. 216.16.232.250 (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Unless the double entendre works in Russian and is the most commonly used name, it should be "donkey". InverseHypercube (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per unsigned. Donkey is unambiguous, ass isn't. AIRcorn (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the most common word for donkey in English speaking countries seems to be 'donkey', not ass. Also, the main page on the animal is Donkey. One thought: Zhirinovskij doesn't own the animal, so it's not really his. The correctness of both titles is therefore in doubt.Malick78 (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support as preferable to the borderline BLP violation that is the current title, but prefer an option that has the word 'video' in the title, since this article is about a video, not an animal. Robofish (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To make my position clear on this - I do not see particular need to move from "ass" to "donkey", given that the terms are generally interchangeable, and the other articles about "X ass"es exist on Wikipedia. BLP application here is dubious since the media used the term ass as well as donkey, but I cannot make a final judge here as non-native speaker, and for me the difference between "Zhirinovsky's ass" or "Zhirinovsky's donkey" is not really important afterall. But I most certainly prefer "Zhirinovsky's donkey" over "Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video" which is rather excessive title. GreyHood Talk 21:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 3[edit]

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

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

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

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

Discussion[edit]

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

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

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

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

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 04:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Colourful, badass topic. However, I notice the nominator (User:JerrySa1) has not contributed here. The main contributors, judging from the history, are User:Mootros and User:Greyhood, but Greyhood has not edited since 2013. I realize this GAC has been in place since July; are you willing to pursue a nomination, @Mootros:? Ribbet32 (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribbet32: Thank you for responding, I will. Jerry (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear from @Mootros:, unless you already consulted with him/her. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just saw this GA review. I was one of the original main contributions of this article. I was initially involved in trying to get this article merged into Zhirinovsky main pages. The current article is the result of a compromise and a long and partly painful editing process between me and another contributor. In the end it turned out to be a reasonable piece. Whether this is GA material in politics I leave this for other to decided. I certainly have not objections to this nomination, but don't think it meets GA. Best, Mootros (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm specially responding on the point on broad coverage, as discussed below. In my opinion this article has a sufficient level of width and breadth (if not too broad). Previous version of the article contain a considerable about of tangential and marginally relevant material that resulted in a rather unfocused and wordy article. As far as I remember, I removed material not because of some blacklisting but because of being irrelevant background information that I summarised in a sentence or two and facilitated with adequate wiki-links. Hope this helps. Mootros (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection of the article history, I find almost all irrelevant material restored via IP edits. This article certainly is not GA in politics, if anything it's a hotchpotch of triviality and tangential facts --for whatever purpose-- mashed up. I'm afraid the reviwers's own words Colourful, badass topic are rather fitting than the term "Good Article. Mootros (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Well-written:

    • 1a Reads fine, User:JerrySa1 took to Peer review. 1b Lede was confusing to me until I got to Symbolism. I thought Zhirinovsky thought it was a good thing the donkey was a national symbol, and this is why he wanted the troika back as a symbol (a troika driven by donkeys?) I'd clarify briefly in intro that he indicated the donkey had unfortunately become a symbol and he wanted the troika instead. Also, a bit of weaseling in the lede- a mention of "comedy shows", but scroll down to third para of Content, it's only one comedy show. Why all the white space in Background? Generally with organization, "Content, controversy, discussions, and secondary usage" is way too much to synthesize into one section. I don't see much reason why the third para can be an intro to a "Response" section to which Animal cruelty can be a subsection.

    Thank you User:JerrySa1 for your edits; can you explain "had 'got stuck' incp one place just as the donkey"? Also, Response should go after Symbolism, chronologically Ribbet32 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you User:JerrySa1; below concerns still outstanding. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiable with no original research
      2a Some of the references aren't formatted right. Three book sources are crammed into footnote 8, and it's not clear what "The troubled birth of Russian democracy: parties, personalities, and programs" is- author? Date? Publisher? Same goes with Russian Political Parties Directory. None of these refs use Template:Cite book. The BBC ref also doesn't use Template:Cite web and is missing relevant info- author, date, Retrieved date? Ref 17 uses a primary source (linked to Gutenberg.org rather than giving relevant book info)- but does this really support the statement that the book helped make the troika a national symbol?
      • What happened to The troubled birth of Russian democracy?
      • What happened to ref 16? Ribbet32 (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      2b Major publications are used 2c. Review pending 2d. No concerns
  • Broad in its coverage:
      • 3a. Quite a lot of content removed in 2013 by User:Mootros, including comparisons to Feodosia Morozova and Crime and Punishment. Can it be demonstrated where and why these sources were blacklisted, and can content be restored with new, reliable sources? 3b. Not a lot off-topic.
      • Apologies if I wasnt' clear about the content User:Mootros removed, Jerry. I wasn't necessarily demanding the material should be restored. If the references can't be used, they can't be used; I was just curious about who blacklisted the references and when. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Only one reference AFAIK was blacklisted, and I know that it wasn't necessary but I still found the information important enough to re-add. Jerry (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

    • 4. Nothing about Zhirinovsky's supporters?

  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

    • 5. No edit wars taking place

  • Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

    • 6. Lede photo was found to be valid fair use at IfD. Other images are free

    Criteria 2c review BBC ref supports characterizations of right-wing and populist, but not explicitly far right (a WP:BLP claim). I located one of the book sources; this needs to be added; Hanson ref needs a page number and corrected publishing info. Don't see mention of sheep named Ben in source- and having been written in 2000, the source doesn't tie Ben in with the ass. On hold Ribbet32 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jan 23[edit]

    @JerrySa1:

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Zhirinovsky%27s_donkey_video&oldid=1199527007"