Talk:Red Banner

Red banner in Soviet popular culture

The joke that has been added in this section says nothing about attitudes to the Red Banner and is therefore irrelevant. The joke is about attitudes to Brezhnev. Also, one can't feel irony towards something. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely re-wrote this per the source to reflect notability of the subject and stay closer to the sours. An additional explanation was provided to clarify that it was about the flag, and not about Brezhnev.Biophys (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The new edits provide no such explanation. One might well have been banged up for making the joke but despite mentioning the red banner this is not the subject of the joke. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please no original research here. This is not up to you or me to decide. If the chapter of a book by a professional and notable philologist has the title "Hammer and sickle. Red Banner" (pages 501-505), this is about Red banner.Biophys (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, same problem as before. Provide proof that this joke was popular and impacted Soviet culture. -YMB29 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I provided such proof by making a reference to a reliable secondary source. There is no other way to "prove" anything here.Biophys (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No you only sourced that these jokes existed, not your claim that they impacted Soviet culture enough to be mentioned here. -YMB29 (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, this is notable and about Red Banner according to cited book. Do you want more direct quotation? There is no other way to prove notability and the relevancy except citing a reliable source (an academic book in this case) that tells just that.Biophys (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again there is nothing about its notability. Give the direct quotation of the passage in the book. -YMB29 (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability guidelines are about creating articles, not about the content. The relevant policy here is WP:NPOV. It requires all significant views on the subject (and sourced to WP:RS) to be fairly represented. I included one of the views, as described in a book. You can include others.Biophys (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Quoting notable political jokes is no different from any other quoting in WP articles. If Sarnov used examples of political jokes, songs, poetry and other folklore to illustrate his points in his book, we can quote him. No problem.Biophys (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You are introducing POV into a neutral article. You were asked to prove notability and not just by me. Give the quotation from the book that proves notability and stop talking around it. This is a case of WP:UNDUE. -YMB29 (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain this in a different way. Yes, it would be totally inappropriate if I run through a number of articles to insert Soviet political jokes of my choosing. But I do not do that. I quote a book, which is not about jokes, but about Soviet cultural heritage. I only quote this secondary source, which tells something precisely on the subject of the article. Yes, this source illustrates something (e.g. Red banner in Soviet culture) using a variety of examples: songs, poetry, letters, and yes, political jokes. But I do not know English well enough to translate poetry. Hence I quoted something that could be easily translated. Please note, that you never edited this article before and came here only to revert me. I do not care if you are doing this yourself or someone asked you. I did my best to switch the subjects after EEML case. But if you guys do not allow me edit even old Soviet heritage, I will have to switch to other subjects. Biophys (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)