Jump to content

Talk:Red Banner

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No you did not switch anything; you are still doing the same thing.
Someone asked me? You mean like you asked User:Defender of torch to revert me in the human rights article? No one asked me of course; I just saw the link to the Red Flag article on your talk page.
After like five people told you that you were wrong and needed to provide evidence of cultural impact of the jokes, you simply went to this article to do the same thing since you knew much less people edit here.
Translating is nice, but you need to prove that these particular jokes were popular and impacted Soviet culture. Otherwise this is WP:UNDUE.
I don't care what you edit, but just don't edit to only push your POV; follow the norms of Wikipedia and don't be sneaky. Looks like you did not learn anything from the EEML case, as you keep on piling up evidence against yourself... -YMB29 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So, you are collecting some "evidence"...Biophys (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said "I do not care". Yes, that's my personal opinion: we should encourage communication in this project, no matter how people do it (over the phone, by email or using body language). No one should be punished for "canvassing". Fine, I am switching to my favorite subjects instead of editing USSR.Biophys (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just admit to tag teaming? Communication is good, but using it to simply tag team in an edit war is not. Maybe you should edit something else if you can't stay out of trouble. -YMB29 (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said I do not care if "you are doing this yourself or someone asked you". This has nothing to do with me.Biophys (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Altenmann, Could you please explain what do mean in your edit summary: "rm joke of questionable origin: red flag was not marker of danger in Soviet times, so it cannot be invented by Soviet folklore"? It does not matter what we think. It actually has been a part of the Soviet folklore according to a book by professional philologist, Benedikt Sarnov, a reliable secondary source per WP:RS. And the existence of such jokes is a factual proof that it was a part of Soviet folklore.Biophys (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain my reason. I don't know where Sarnov found this joke. I am saying, it cannot have origin in Russian culture. the notion of red flag as a signal (as in "to raise a red flag") is absent in Russia. In Russia it is "red light". I am surprized you, that being a person of Russian culture, don't understand this. On a side note, I am aware that quite a few clumsy pseudo-Russian political jokes were implanted via Voice of America and others as part of psychological warfare. They are easily recognizable by cultural blunders. (A similar stupidity was observed in modern days when CIA launched psycho campaign to discredit islamic terrorism.) For some time I've been going to write an article about this, but reliable sources are scarce. - Altenmann >t
P.S. Whether I am right or not, in any case, one example is enough. Wikipedia is not a jokebook. - Altenmann >t 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You tell: "I don't know where ...", "I am saying, it cannot have origin in Russian culture". You are saying. This is obviously OR on your part. Sorry, but Sarnov tells nothing about the CIA, but everything about Soviet culture. Are you telling that Sarnov is making a psychological warfare on behalf of the CIA? Yes, I agree, this segment below indeed belongs to Red flag rather than to "Red banner":
  • A foreigner drives to the USSR on his own car, but the car soon breaks down after falling into a huge hole in the middle of the road. The foreigner is outraged: "How come, you did not place a fence around, or even a warning sign, something red to be seen from the far?" -- Response: "Did not you see the huge Red flag when you crossed our border?".Biophys (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Banner&oldid=1205023968"