Talk:The eXile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The eXile article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

The eXile was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2 September 2006

Archive: 1

Contents 1 Summary of Archived Edits 2 NPOV transition plan 3 Edit by Rd232 4 Ekman section, issue of linkspam 5 Limonov 6 Libel Discussion 7 future directions 8 Editor/Source 9 Query 10 NPOV/ Accuracy tags 10.1 Third opinion 11 Rolling Stone article 12 Bogus Time quote to be removed 13 CNN Quote and Grove/Atlantic Monthly 14 The Exile Book 15 Archiving 16 New Direction 17 I don't believe Peter Ekman is a hoax 18 Dude, is this Kara Deyerin's webpage? 19 Nice work 20 GA Assessment 21 Limonov clearly an extremist 22 Totally disputed

[edit] Summary of Archived Edits

I am archiving this talk page. Here is a list of issues which have been/are being discussed on this page. Please feel free to add to this list, but do not put discussion about these issues in the middle of the list. Also, to remove something from this list, don't delete it but strike it out useing <s>...</s>, and put in parentheses why you did so (e.g. "consensus reached") Dsol 16:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• To what extent can the eXile newspaper be cited in this article?

• Can it be cited to show what it has published statement X?
• Does this depend on what X is, even if we don't quote X as a fact?
• Can it be cited for factual descriptions of its employees activity?
• Does the eXile fall under the category of "disreputable" sources as defined by wikipedia:Cite?
• In what way, if any, does this depend on the context in which it is used as asource?
• On what basis is the reputability of the eXile as a source questioned?

• Which activities of the eXile are notable?

• Which of its public hostiliites with other notable figures, such as NHL player Pavel Bure and MT editor Peter Ekman, are notable?

• Do any particular stories deserve mention? Based on what criteria?
• What mention should be made of contributors?

• Should we have a list, or should they be in see also?
• Which ones go, in only those with wikipedia articles, or all?
• What about names that are obviously fake? What about those that have been alleged to be fake?

• Does this article need a factual or NPOV tag?

• Is it possible to place the tag only on certain sections?

• Is it acceptable to call Edward Limonov a neo-fascist in this article?

• Can this be sourced as a fact, or must it be sourced as an opinion?

• What level of general description of eXile content should go in?
• To what extent should a description of eXile ideology go in?

Here is a list of new questions that were not debated prior to the archiving

• Should this page contain a section on the political views of the eXile as a whole, or do these belong on the pages of the respective authors?

• If the latter, does this mean that more minor but verifiably real authors such as Kirill Pankratov deserve a WP page?

Dsol 16:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV transition plan

What do we need to transition to NPOV? First of all, we need resolution of the RfC. Every editor must first behave and be willing to compromise before we can start working on the article.

Second, this talk page is getting far too large. We should write a short paragraph summing up past consensus and archive the page. My Haifa connection only gets the page one out of three or four times!

Third, we need to decide on the degree to which the eXile may be cited. Discussion is starting to come out on the RfC page (e.g., SlimVirgin's text), but we're going to need a decision.

Fourth, we need to address balance issues paragraph-by-paragraph.

Did I miss anything? Please do not comment here unless you're talking about the plan. The last thing this page needs is more twisty-turny discussion. --Mgreenbe 10:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit by Rd232

Thanks for contributing. A few points I want to raise about your edits.

• "has been criticized by some" is a clear case of what wp policy defines as a a weasel term. I'm taking that statement out. Also, the Limonov connection is already mentioned below and does not merit being included in the closing sentence of the introduction.
• I can sort of sympathize with your point of view that the "investigative journalism" section was unencyclopedic, in that it just listed two seemingly random news stories in the eXile. but your view remains vague and unelaborated. Is that a judegment call on your part, or was some consensus or policy violated? I put it in to give a more balanced view of eXile content; not all their articles are pranks or satires. I see no reason not to keep it in when we have sections on their pranks and etc.
• As for removing the quote from Dolan's talk, I agree. That didn't belong in the intro, and the article needs a seperate section on ideology, with quotes from dolan, ames, and taibbi in eXile articles and external sources.
• As I mention in the commented out text in the Limonov section, the claim that he has discussed his "violent history" in eXile columns, including firing into sarejevo, is unsourced and needs to stay out for now.
• callin him a neo-fascist is POV and unsourced.

Dsol 14:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverted because

• weasel words - fine, take them out; IMO Limonov connection does merit mention in intro
• If "investigative journalism" section is supposed to make the paper look more serious, it should simply do that: "the paper also does, eg..." This doesn't require reporting the details, especially where the details aren't notable enough to be elsewhere in Wikipedia (we could link to them then). A sentence or two is enough, it doesn't need a section.
• quotes removed were silly and added nothing, they are not needed in the article, never mind the intro
• violent history: eg "His radical nationalist positions won him notoriety in the 1990s when, among other actions, he was photographed during the 1992-95 Bosnian conflict, firing a machinegun from a hillside above the besieged city of Sarajevo." (AFP, 30/6/03), also mentioned by The Scotsman and the Baltimore Sun.
• Limonov claim is sourced below - feel free to add to article

Rd232 ^talk 14:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ekman section, issue of linkspam

Hi slimvirgin, I think your edits are largely positive, there were way too many links to the article, I agree. This arose because some editors demanded that every assertion of what was published be sourced (see above). I think your reductions are a fair compromise, and any other assertions can be easily verified by searching the eXile site. Regarding the Ekman section, however, I think you took at valuable information. A large part of the event's notability comes from the content of the Ekman and Ames' pieces, and simply mentioning the libel case without this context is not enough. There has been a fair bit of discussion on this talk page regarding different versions of this issue above. I would make the changes myself, but I'm going to abide by 3RR. Again, thanks for your contribution. Dsol 15:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dsol, I took out all the sections about the individuals, as some of them were making strong claims. The exile isn't a publication that Wikipedia can regard as a reputable or credible source. With such sources, we may only use them as sources about themselves in articles about themselves (i.e. as primary sources), but even then we should tread carefully. However, we are definitely not allowed to use them as sources of information on other people. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I also removed the list of contributors as the names are meaningless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to continue holding off on editing due to 3RR, but I really disagree strongly with some of the choices you made. First some, of the contributors are notable enough to have their own articles, these should certian

ly be linked. As for the list of columns, it should be condensed to a paragraph perhaps, but is certainly notable in an article about the eXile. As for the eXile not being a reputable source, I am already familiar with the appropriate policy, and I think you'll find a wealth of debate on this issue on the talk page. Prior to your arrival, the consensus was that the eXile can be used as a citation to show what it has published, but that assertions about matters of fact should have an additional source. I think most or all of the removed material was in accordance with that prior consensus. Also, the general opinion was that the pranks are notable not only as pranks, but also for their political aspects. It's true the eXile is often satirical and unreliable or "unreputable," but it deserves a more serious treatment here than a pure tabloid. It has broken real stories and published serious analysis, if not always in a serious tone. The pie attack on wines, for example, was explained ideologically in depth in the eXile article. It was a juvenile prank but also, for those who carried it out at least, a method of calling attention to real problems of political bias at the NYT. I believe it's a difficult call how this article should read, and I think if you're not familiar with the eXile itself I suggest reading a few issues to get a sense of what the publication is like. Dsol 16:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I read the links, and I read the Wikipedia article, and this is not what WP calls a reputable or credible publication for the purposes of its content policies. The newspaper admits they publish nonsense; and forgeries, then confessions about forgeries, then confessions withdrawn. They can be used as a citation regarding what the names of their columns are (and I didn't delete this, did I?), but not what the columns were about if they're talking about other people. That's the policy. Regarding the list of contributors, in what sense are they notable? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the section on Wines has the same problem as many of the others as far as using the eXile as a secondary source. That is, the intention seems to be to humiliate Wines not to report on what the eXile did. Perhaps if Wines name was removed it might come closer to being just a report on what the eXile said about themselves.

Peter D. Ekman 69.253.195.228 17:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I felt it was borderline because the section doesn't say much about Wines. It reports what the newspaper did to him, though the "most foul hack journalist" is a comment on him. Did they actually use this expression in the story? I'd be fine if it's taken out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment, the contributors' respective pages provide a lot of info about them. A few of them have been in Rolling stone, on the daily show, in the Russian press, been famous authors in Russia and France, been involved in politics, etc. etc. If you really feel they don't deserve articles, feel free to nominate their pages for deletion, otherwise I think we should link them from here. Also see the precedent of some authors (and even illustrators) without wikipedia pages being mentioned at the New Yorker. In general I don't think it's enough just to read this page before making a judgement, I could throw a policy link at you about this but you're obviously experienced and know what you're doing. Suffice it to say that the eXile has complicated history that is not easy to sum up, and this page is not doing an outstanding job of that so far.

I don't know if you've come here from the RfC page, but in case you haven't I should point out that your recent major edits touch on many issues involved in recent edit wars and consensus-building discussion on this page. In fact, much discussion has debated exactly "what WP calls reputable or credible," and how this can depend on context. If you disagree with the points made previously above in the discussion above, I would request that you adress them. I know this talk page is kind of disorganized, sorry. More to the point, I think it's fine to quote the eXile talking about other people as long as

A)we don't imply that what they said is necessarily true

B)what they said, true or false, is notable viz-a-viz politics, journalism, notable celebrities, etc.

I think that the "reputable source" requirement is really meant for the inclusion of facts in the encyclopedia, and as Brighterorange and other have pointed out, the eXile is a reputable source about what it has printed, even if it has printed something unverifiable. Usually, of course, such unverifiable claims are not notable, but where an exception can be shown, the claim should go in with a disclaimer. This is different from the prohibited "weasel words" in that it specifically sources the statement and explains the controversy. I realize this is not a cut-and-dry issue, but I don't think removal of information is appropriate here. It may be that this article will need a content RfC aside from the recent conduct RfC, which I encourage you to comment on by the way. Finally, while it seems we disagree on many points, I would like to thank you very much for the reasonableness and clarity of your comments, which is a great and much need step up for this talk page.

Dsol 17:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dsol, regardless of what's on the talk page, what counts here is policy, and this newspaper is not in any sense what we call a credible source. As such, it can only be used to talk about itself, and even then we don't just go along with everything it says. But it definitely cannot be used to discuss anyone else. Repeating a libel, even without implying it's true, is still repeating a libel. In any event, this article is about the newspaper, not about their various victims. What do you see as the benefit to Wikipedia of repeating defamatory material? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your fist point, I'm not claiming that policy should be disregarded due to consensus. Rather, the consensus was on how to interpret policy, and the points above should therefore be adressed. As for your question, the claim that repeating a libel is not allowed here has been discussed above, and consensus was against that claim as a general prohibition (doing so is not legally libel under florida law). As for the benefit of including this "defamatory material" (note that the nonsatirical stuff is only "defamatory" if false; as it stands, the material in e.g. the Ekman section is unverified), I would say the following. The eXile is unusual in that it combines real solid journalism with satire and outrageous personal attacks to achieve journalistc and ideological/political ends. If the eXile is notable, then its unusual practices are notable: it has gotten considerable press for these practices in many more mainstream press outlets, including Pravda and Rolling Stone, it's editors have commented in secondary sources such as interviews as to why they do this, and these stunts have drawn notable attention to notable events and figures. If however, you don't think the eXile is notable in the first place, feel free to nominate it for a 3rd Afd. But otherwise we should write an article that deals with the issues that make the eXile noteworthy, whether or not this requires repeating a statement that has been called libel; we should not write a sanitized or otherwise censored version. Dsol 17:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you work for the exile and/or are you Ames? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No. First of all, I think this is not a fair or respectful question, unless you honestly think I'm not editing in good faith. I don't think people should invoke IRL identities when editing WP. Look at my edits, I have other interests. I only draw fire for this one, though since other people have POV outlooks. Second, if you were familiar with Ames writing, I think you would be convinced he would not waste time with this. He might sick an intern on it, I guess. Anyway let's stick to relevant discussion if possible and assume good faith. Dsol 18:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Real-life IDs don't matter unless you're writing about yourself or something you have a personal stake in, in which case they matter a great deal. You might want to look at WP:AUTO.

This suggests the exile doesn't have much of a readership. "American libel lawyers can't touch the paper in Moscow, and Russian censors pay little attention to a tabloid that reaches only the minuscule Anglophone minority of voters." [1] Do you happen to know what its circulation is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not want to look at WP:AUTO since I am not lying about my identity. I will not discuss this irrelevant and unfounded argument further.

If you had bothered to read the article you linked to, you would have discoverd that it gives them a "circulation 25,000, plus a big Web audience." The quote you gave only claims that most voting Russians don't read newspapers in English. The article is also 5 years old, so I suspect it's considerably higher now. The Alexa rank is around 80k, though I'm not sure what this means in real terms of hits/day or anything. If you can get any real print or online circulation figures, please put them in the article. Dsol 19:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Since reading that, I've read elsewhere that they're just a freesheet. Is that correct? If it is, their circulation figures are meaningless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they were free the last time I was in Moscow. I don't know if those numbers are "meaningless," though obviously it's harder to collect readership data on a free newspaper. Still, they make all their money from advertising, so if their advertisers didn't believe that they had at least some decent circulation, the editors wouldn't be able to live off the paper, pay for offices and interns, and print 25k copies. In any case, we're still waiting on well-srouced figures for current readership. Unfortunately there's no "for advertisers" section on their webstie. Dsol 20:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

How do you know that they print 25k copies, live off the paper, pay for offices and interns? (Interns usually aren't paid). The only thing I can find about their staffing says there were three of them, and then one of them left. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dsol, you archived a discussion that was still ongoing, so I've restored it. Could you say how you know the above, so we can link to it? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to archive an ongoing discussion, but as you saw the page was getting a bit cluttered. Also pardon for not indenting, the text's getting a bit squashed. I can't prove any of those facts (except the 25k circulation in 2000 from the reason article, which was not inserted by me), which is why I didn't put them in the article. However, the standards for inclusion of info into an article are not the same as the standards for determining reliability and notability -- these latter proceed from consensus which can include anecdotal evidence. I could equally demand that someone prove any number of papers are not written on a mac, and it would be hard to find a source that could be included in an article. Of course, here you seem to be citing the somewhat seperate issue of the eXile's "disreputability" based on its content which will have to be adressed in its own right. But I think it's unreasonable to demand these doubts be immediately satisfied, and I think that this would be the general consensus on the talk page if we called for comments. If you really do have these doubts in a genuine way, see if your local library has back issues of Rolling stone, as there's a peice on the eXile in there I've never seen and would be most curious about. Also, would you please respond to the comment I made just before you asked if I worked for the eXile? Dsol 18:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Dsol, I didn't understand the above. First, I want to make clear again that the issue of what sources to use and how to use them is decided by consensus on the policy pages, not here. Once decided, we have to stick to it. If you want to effect change in that direction, you must go to the policy talk pages and try to gain consensus for your view of how things ought to be. In the meantime, we edit according to what the policy pages say.

My question again was: How do you know that they print 25k copies, live off the paper, pay for offices and interns? (Interns usually aren't paid). The only thing I can find about their staffing says there were three of them, and then one of them left. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't have any proof. I only assume they don't have any other jobs, and I've seen pictures of their offices and interns in their paper, and a list of other positions (graphics, pr etc.) on their website. I feel I can tell when they're being satircal, and I don't think they're lying in these cases. But as I said, I haven't put this in the article. I think you were right to attribute the 25k statement to them instead of citing it as fact, and while it's not rock solid it should stay in, since it's all we have and at least the book reviewer believed them.

As for the issue of policy, I'm not saying we need discussion here for determining policy, only that we need discussion here for deciding how policy should be applied to this particular page, which seems to be a matter of much debate. Not whether to stick to policy, but how to stick to policy. I don't think labeling the eXile as a "disreputable" source and refusing to cite it, even when not asserting its statements as fact, is what the policy pages intend.

In fact, I think citing the eXile's statements in its article is required by the Verifiability statement, "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." So if I claim "the eXile printed X," I need to cite an eXile article. Also from RS: "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." Also present on that page is the much cited example about extremist views (which I don't think the eXile has) or other related bias. However, if you read that section and its context carefully, it's clear that citation of facts is being talked about, e.g. the statement "Have they reported other facts reliably." This, combined with the very clear distinction between facts and opinions at the beginning of the policy page, shows that the both the eXile website and its archive.org cache are perfectly valid, usable, reputable, and reliable sources about what the eXile newspaper has published.

And once again, would you care to reply to the comment I made before you asked my identity? Dsol 19:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "I don't think labeling the eXile as a "disreputable" source and refusing to cite it, even when not asserting its statements as fact, is what the policy pages intend." Can you say more about what makes you think that?

Sources being "appropriate to the claims made" would exclude eXile from being used to assert anything of import, because they freely admit to fabricating things. Strong claims require strong sources.

It might help if you were to stop focusing on the fact/opinion distinction. In George W. Bush, we can't write: "President Bush is gay" (stated as fact). We also can't write: "President Bush is gay, according to the eXile (reporting an opinion). But we can write: "President Bush is gay, according to the New York Times (also reporting an opinion). So the distinction that matters is not between fact and opinion, but between good and bad sources.

If you won't take my word for this, would it help if I asked some editors who are well-versed in the policies on sources to give an opinion?

What was the comment you made that you want me to reply to? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, as far as the eXile being a reputable source for citing sources which WP claims as facts, that's a tricky issue because it requires some subjective interpretation of the satirical/serious tone of their articles. But that's not what I meant, or what you meant either I think, so I won't get into that too much. What I will say is that the only demonstrable case of the eXile publishing a false statement that is not absolutely dripping with satirical/parodical overtones is the kiryenko letter forgery article, which I would still argue is totally sarcastic.[2] I mean look at that article, the photos are pretty ridiculous, I don't think they meant for their claim of responsibility to be taken seriously. Their "undisclosed location" is obviously their office, and if they had sent from that fax they would have been detected easily. Certainly the Russian authorities didn't take their claim (or the congressmen's claim) seriously enough to arrest them.

As far as being a reputable source about what it has published, I think this is obvious and a non issue. Unless you think that making them an invalid source of facts also makes their opinions somehow unciteable? Is that the source of our different opinions here? I feel our views are not really so far apart here, so maybe it's just a question of defining our terms better.

I do think the opinion fact distinction is important. I think that even if you could sucessfully impeach the eXile's reliability on nearly all factual matters, this would not extend to "anything of import" since opinions could still be cited as such. The question of including sourced opinions or not is one of notability (which can come from factual authority on a subject or from other things). And for me, therein lies the answer to your Bush analogy: if the eXile called Bush gay, it wouldn't go in his article even as opinion, not because it's an unreliable source for its own opinions but because that impinion clearly is not notable on a Bush page. Now suppose Kim-Jong Il, a generally silly man who makes all kinds of ridiculous claims, directed and starred in a 2-hour documentary film about why Bush is a homosexual (not really an inconcievable event). Would this go in? Borderline, but I'd still say no for notability. But would it go in Kim-Jong's page? Absolutely. All I'm saying is that notable opinions from a notable source should be noted on the page about that source. I think a careful reading of policy supports my claims, but I admit that the other reading of CS is also possible, i.e. sources that are unreliable for facts are also opinion/allegation-unquotable. Is that what you're saying?

I was referring to my comment of 17:50 yesterday, specifically why not to put in the stuff about the eXile's critics, enemies etc. This partially overlaps with what we're talking about now, but not completely, since some of that stuff has external sources. I can see a reasonable argument toward leaving it out, but again on the basis of notability, not opinion-source reliability. I for one think these rivalries are quite notable, and certainly account for a fair chunk of press coverage the eXile has gotten. Still need to get my hands on that rolling stone article, unfortunately I'm a bit far from an english library just now.

Feel free to invite any number of others to join the debate, more voices are always welcome. I am glad that a lot of editors are working on this article now, though I wish some would actually add content instead of just trying to balance the NPOV etc. (which is also important of course). Of course I'm open to different ideas and perspectives, but I would request that they carefully read the talk and archive talk, and maybe look at and compare a few older version of the page, before deciding what the best course is.

Dsol 20:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Limonov

AFP in August 2005 reports the overturning of the ban on the NBP ("Russian supreme court overturns ban on radical party", August 16, 2005), adding "The NatsBols began as a neo-fascist organisation, but has transformed itself into an opposition movement supporting democracy, opposing the war in Chechnya and championing artistic freedom." In 2002 AFP several times described NBP as "neo-fascist" (as fact, not quoting anybody), so any such transformation must have been since then. Anyway, it certainly makes Limonov the founder of a neo-fascist organisation. Rd232 ^talk 13:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that research. If you read the comment I put in the text, my objection was not to the claim that he fired shots, but to the claim that he wrote about it in the eXile, which is still not sourced. I have no objection to his firing shots going in, for example, his article

As for the NBP or Limonov being fascist, I'm a bit skeptical of using the fact that AFP called them so. I could probably give you links to editorials in the nation that call George Bush a fascist, so what? The point is NBP has never called itself fascist (though I belive it has acknowledged an influence from the pre-hitler brownshirts), and Limonov has never accepted that label. Di the wall street journal peice on him call him so? Certianly the pravda and izvestia articles don't. If you absolutely feel this is essential, please put in something "has been called a neo-fascist by." and give a quote. I also have no objection to it going in the intro, but then other equally notable stuff needs to go in as well. Thanks again for contributing, Dsol 14:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's one AFP source linked form JRL. It's an unashamed attack piece, using the occasion of his conviction to vilify him. It is obviously a highly POV source, and while it should not be excluded entirely, it alone is not sufficient for citing Limonov's neofascim as a fact. Do you agree? Dsol 14:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you pointing to the right link here? Because describing the AFP article you point to as "an unashamed attack piece" seems frankly bizarre. Comparing AFP and the Nation in terms of POV is bizarre too. And since the WSJ article is subscription only, I've no idea what it says. (It does seem to refer to "the National Bolsheviks’ symbols",[3] and we can hazard a guess what that means.) Also, (not sure you did this, but I think someone did) removing "neo-fascist" without at least replacing it with something like "extreme right-wing" looks like pushing an agenda. Rd232 ^talk 17:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I definitely removed "neo-fascist" and stand by that decision. This is not how he's covered in the Russian press, or in what little foreign press he gets. Not event the prosecutors in his arms case, or the ruling that banned his party, to my knowledge, have used this term. In any case AFP is not qualified in any was as to whether BFP is a neo-fascist party. Maybe calling it an attack piece is going overboard, but it certainly shows a serious bias. I don't see how this article is even slightly notable here, but if you think it adds something to the eXile's article to mention that an AFP article called eduard limonov a fascist without givin any reason for this, please add it as a sourced statement, and not a fact.

Extreme right-wing is slightly less POV but has other problems. First, besides being unsourced it is extremely vague: right-wing on certain specific issues, presentation style, or what? Also, if you look at the articles and talk pages on NBP and national bolshevism, there is not a clear consensus as to whether they are right or left-wing parties. Dsol 18:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Um hum. Well it needs to be clear who NBP are, preferably with sourcing. Yes, Limonov has described NBP as having become "a classical left-wing party", but that doesn't make it true. That AFP felt able (in 2002) to repeatedly write "neo-fascist" without even attributing it to anyone suggests it's at least a meaningful description at the time. Moscow News recently said "It was first regarded as a countercultural oddity with neo-fascist and nationalist ideas." (9/Nov/05) Hamilton Spectator in August called it "a party with ultra-nationalist roots". I've seen some things too about NBP prankish behaviour (eggs, tomatoes kind of thing), which makes the Exile link make slightly more sense. Don't have time to elaborate now though. Rd232 ^talk 20:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not exactly stressing about "far right" and I'll leave it in for now. I think the standard practice here is just to call NBP/Limonov "controvertial" and then let the reader follow the wikilink to find out why. Another good alternative might be "fringe," since it also refers to the way they've been officially marginalized. On the subject of relevance, I don't know of a notable source which has called attention to the eXile's relationship with Limonov. Anyhow, when I have time I want to work on the Limonov and NBP articles, and try to flesh out all the contradictory views on them. Dsol 21:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The Russian courts and legal terminology are a bit confusing. The final final Supreme Court descision (leaving only possible appeal to European Human Rights Court) was on this Tuesday November 15. You might note how widely the interpretations differ, but the basic fact is that Russia's top court banned the NBP. [4] [5] [6] [7]

Limonov, in an eXile article, certainly did write about how he was filmed shooting into Sarejevo by the BBC (The film was shown on PBS in America). The link was removed later. Any claims about Limonov not being a Neo-Fascist seem to be completely disingenuous.

Peter D. Ekman 69.253.195.228 14:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the ban. Rd232 ^talk 17:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that no one is disputing the NBP was banned. If the link was removed, there's no source and the info is unverifiable and cannot be included. I recommend you try finding a copy on http://www.archive.org Dsol 14:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

first source reputable (PBS), second source Limonov in eXile writing about himself. See quote [8] [9] “During three days BBC crew have filmed President of Serbian Republic of Bosnia and me talking, visiting positions of Serbian army. Dishonest, BBC boys also in secret have filmed me firing submachine gun near Sarajevo. In 199-1995 that very film was showed in England, in the United States, by Franco-German channel "Arte," etc. I got a reputation of a bloody killer all over the Western world.”

Peter D. Ekman 69.253.195.228 15:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Good research, do put it in, and remember to link. PLease keep the "neo-fascist" out however, as per the above discussion. Also, there is a lot more that Limonov has written about in the eXile, so if this goes in, a few other things should as well. Dsol 15:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Also please source or remove the adjective "violent" in the Limonov section. Has he called his history violent? If so, source this, if someone else has, source that, otherwise this is OR and should be removed. Dsol 15:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"Violent history" is a clear summary of the article. "Violent" is no more POV than "history." I think 99 people out of 100 would consider "violent history" as a fair summary. From the article:

"November 1991. I went to a Serbo-Croat war at Slavonia in Vukovar.....

Autumn of 1992. War in Bosnia. ....

Dishonest, BBC boys also in secret have filmed me firing submachine gun near Sarajevo. In 199-1995 that very film was showed in England, in the United States, by Franco-German channel "Arte," etc. I got a reputation of a bloody killer all over the Western world.

1992-93. Participation in wars at Transdniestr, in Abkhazia and Kninskaya Kraina (in Croatia) made me a dangerous scoundrel's image in Western world and in Russia.

....

October 1993. Participation in White House uprising."

Participation in 6 armed conflicts covered in a few hundred words. What else would you call it? "War resume" maybe?

Peter D. Ekman 69.253.195.228 16:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's true that this particular article you selected for citation outlines his involvment (at the periphery) in many violent conflicts. But the way your version of the section read before, it made it sound as if his history was to be judged as "violent" as a whole, or that his writings in the eXile were only about violent activities. Neither of these could be further from the truth; in fact I have seen no verifiable source cited here or elsewhere that Limonov has ever wilfully caused direct physical harm to another human being. Also, the particular phrase "violent history" is very POV because it is used in common parlance to judge someone's character ("he has a violent history" etc.), which wikipedia does not exist to do. Also, please indent properly in accordance with the notice above. Dsol 17:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't take the logic. I'm sure somebody else knows how to deal with this better than I do.

Peter D. Ekman 69.253.195.228 20:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've seen Limonov and the NBP described as both ultra-left AND ultra-right in BBC news archives... I know it is hard to believe, but not everything falls into "left" or "right" :) --24.122.136.42 17:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Limonov's party has been referred mostly to as "ultra-left" since Dugin quit his party in 1998. Here the liberal Moscow News [10] calls them ultra-left, as does the BBC [11]. It seems we should change this section to reflect this. 28 November 2005

I agree with what you are saying and I will make the appropriate changes. Ryan Utt

I've been looking over the section on Limonov, and it's rife with distortions and violations:

The eXile" regularly publishes columns by the extreme-right writer and politician Eduard Limonov

Limonov is extreme left, not extreme right.

In his "eXile" column, Limonov has described several episodes from his personal history, including how the BBC filmed him as a “guest sniper” of indicted war criminal Radovan Karadzic, firing shots into Sarajevo. [18][19]

This sentence describes Limonov's columns in the exile, but one of the links to a BBC story that doesn't talk the exile's columns. The other link is from the exile, but is misrepresented: Limonov claims he fired his gun near Sarajevo, NOT into Sarajevo. Neither of these articles use the phrase "guest sniper" which has been put into quotes spuriously.

Material from the eXile has also been published on the NBP's website, including one article calling Limonov “our hero.”[20]

Broken Link.

The eXile regularly reports on NBP activities and links to their site

There are no static links to the NBP from the eXile homepage. If there are any links to the NBP (I couldn't find any), they occur within individual articles. The claim that the eXile "regularly reports" on the NBP is false. I haven't read a single report in the eXile that gave the NBP more than a mention in years. I also haven't even read a opinion piece or work of satire that discusses the NBP aside from those by Limonov himself.Ryan Utt

[edit] Libel Discussion

With the following quote, the progression of hyperbole about the eXile's freedom from libel law has finally crossed the line into outright falsehood:

"The paper has taken advantage of Russia's relatively poor enforcement of libel laws [12] to deliberately publish libellous stories (partly in the name of satire), which however in 2002 led to a successful libel case against it."

The contained link does not claim anywhere that the Exile "deliberately published libellous stories" about anybody. The exile only claims that they are free from libel law -- a law that has a history of abuse in the United States and in Europe where the powerful and the majority have abused it to punish minority and dissenting views. Sadly, Libel law was a contributing factor to the demise of Exile inspiration, Spy Magazine, which needed to bankroll a full legal staff to protect the periodical from spurious legal retribution.

In the exile's history, they have been faced with one libel judgement. The Exile satirically wrote that Russian Hockey Star Pavel Bure dumped Anna Kournikova after he discovered that she had two vaginas. Is this the "deliberately libelous story" the author of the above quote was referring to? If not, which articles are demonstratably libelous? Ryan Utt

"The newspaper has admitted to printing many statements, satirical and otherwise, that would be considered libelous under most jurisdictions. ^{[citation needed]} In the opinion of the editors, these statements are justified both by what they see as the odiousness of their targets and the inefficiency of ordinary journalism at raising public awareness. [13]"

I'm also contesting the quote listed above. Please give citations. There is nothing in the attached link to justify the preceeding claim. Ryan Utt

Please stop removing material. I have asked for a citation for the above, and we should wait to see if anyone produces one. I had already changed the intro that you objected to, so please read before reverting. It now says "arguably libellous," which indeed much of their material is, and a court confirmed it in one case, so the sentence is accurate. It's the eXile staff who have talked about libel, and weak or poorly enforced libel law. They'd have no reason to mention it if they weren't publishing arguably libellous material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Be specific and produce the work that you believe is "arguably libelous". Ryan Utt

As I said above, the one the court ruled was libellous is one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There are two weaknesses of this claim. 1) The article in question is evidently satire: it lampoons Pavel Bure as the ulitmate male who's sexual stamina is rapidly defeated after he discovers his lover, international sex icon Anna Kournikova, has two vaginas. 2) The judgement against the exile was granted by a notoriously compromised justice system where the powerful have inordinate influence (see Khodorkovsky). The "victim" Pavel Bure is an influential figure initimately connected with the most powerful mafia in Russia. Pavel Bure's Mafia Ties

If the Pavel Bure Judgement is going to be used as the basis for making broad claims about the eXile's ideology, then its dishonest to hide the weakness of these claims from readers. Ryan Utt

The disputed text above was originally inserted by Dsol (!) (see edit 20:58, 4 November 2005 Dsol ) as a replacement of the material I'd included when I first put in a section on libel. It did strike me as a remarkable admission but accurate. I think it explains the eXile POV very well, so I left it in on top of the material I'd put in previously.

As far as documenting the statement, all three exile editors have talked about how Russia's weak libel benefits them - and these cites had been included in the section. The court ordered apology looks like an admission of libel, the 'combed over' article looks like an admission of libel (certainly of defamation), the pony quote from Taibbi in JRL looks like an admission of planning libel. All in all, I think Dsol's (!) statement looks pretty well documented.

Peter D. Ekman 69.253.195.228 14:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the Exile "benefits" from Russia's libel laws. The issue is why. Does the exile benefit from Russia's poorly enforced libel laws because it intends to libel people? Or does the exile benefit because American libel law would expose the exile to spurious lawsuits that inevitably arise when powerful interests are confronted? The exile's actual statements are ambigous, but they have been repeatedly used to alledge the that the exile deliberately libels people. If that accusation can't be justified, then its POV and needs to be removed.

None of the justifications you have listed amount to an "admission" of libel. The court ordered apology was never published so it can hardly be said to "look like" anything. Furthermore, if the apology was "court ordered" then they were forced to apologize by the government, then it cannot be claimed that they voluntary admitted anything. The 'combed over' article may contains no libel. The JRL "pony quote" is not an admission of the exile planning libel since a) Taibbi wasn't planning anything b) Taibbi wasn't even talking about the Exile publication and c) Composing and distributing images of Lawrence Summers "sucking off a pony" is not inheriently libelous. Such images, though distasteful or objectionable to some, could legally be produced as artwork, satire, or political commentary as long as they didn't explicitly claim to be a rendition of historical event. Ryan Utt

Ryan, you're arguably contradicting yourself in saying, on the one hand, that Russia's justice system is compromised when it comes to the powerful, and on the other, that its libel laws are poorly enforced, given that the powerful are more likely to believe they were defamed than anyone else.

Anyway, the point is whether people associated with eXile have made statements that justify us writing: "The paper has taken advantage of Russia's allegedly poor enforcement of libel laws to publish arguably defamatory material ..." and I believe they have. Note that this sentence doesn't say they deliberately publish material they believe to be defamatory. The claim has been weakened somewhat. It can be weakened further, while retaining the thrust: "The paper has benefited from Russia's allegedly poor enforcement of libel law and has published arguably defamatory material ..." That more or less removes the intentionality aspect. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

In accordance with NOR, I don't think it's for us to decide the degree to which eXile stories have been libelous (which is itself a complicated judgement due to jurisdiction and translation; I don't even know such a word exists in Russian, and violation of US libel laws is not so relevant). Rather, I think we should put in some sourced, unparaphrased quotes that give a full and balanced picture of the issue of libel. Certianly the eXile sells itself as libelous with a certain kitch element, and certainly its notable detractors accused have accused it of being so in ernest. Dsol 01:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I think I see what you are saying and I've very glad you pointed it out. You believe premise 1) "The russian judicial system offers protection to the Exile against spurious Libel lawsuits by the powerful" contradicts premise 2) "The Russian judicial system is easily exploited by the powerful to advance their own interests".

Clearly these two premises contradict each other. But I don't I contradict myself since premise 1 is somebody else's premise. It's actually a premise that I disagree with. Russian libel law does not protect the Exile in any way.

The only thing that "protects" the eXile is that powerful Russian interests generally don't give a damn about a pissy, biweekly altern published in English since Russian voters and consumers don't know English. The fact that the exile hasn't been sued of existence (or, for that matter, the fact that Ames is still alive), isn't because the Russian legal system protects them, it's because Russian interests have not yet felt the need to eliminate Ames or the Exile. Certainly if the Exile was publishing in Russian then they would be percieved as a threat to controlling interests and would be sued out of existence whether or not they actually commited any wrongdoing.

So, there is no contradiction in what I wrong. In fact, I believe my position is much more consistent than the opposing claim which maintains a) "Weak Libel law allows the exile to commit libel against innocent people with impugnity" and b) "Pavel Bure's libel judgement against the exile was the simple result of a legitimate grievance being addressed by an impartial judiciary." If Pavel Bure was just an average Joe who successfully litigated a libel against the Exile independent of his influence, then it appears that Russian libel law offers no protection to the Exile. :::Ryan Utt

Yes, good points. Probably the best way to get round this, if you still disagree with the sentence about this on the page, is to quote a third-party source or one of the writers/editors on the subject, and leave it at that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

notice

The majority of the "Libel" paragraph is without citation. This has persisted for weeks. SlimVirgin requested that I keep these statements up so that people can have a chance to justify them, but it appears now that nobody is going to do so. If somebody can justify these statements, then they can replace them with citations. Ryan Utt

Also notice, the following statements falsely claim to be justified, but are not.

"The paper has taken advantage of Russia's allegedly poor enforcement of libel laws to publish arguably defamatory material which in 2002 led to a successful libel action against it"

the linked article says nothing of Russian libel law or it's enforcement. Furthermore, how could weak libel law lead to a succesful libel suit against the eXile? It doesn't make any sense.

"Former editor Matt Taibbi has said that weak Russian libel laws provide a certain immunity to the eXile"

again, the linked article does not mention Russian libel law. Those sentances will be replaced. Ryan Utt

Just read the Pavel Bure section. The judgement relies on a link to a pravda.ru article. This cannot be serious. Pravda.ru is a reliable source?

[edit] future directions

I added a few sources. There are one or two left. Slimvirgin, I'm going to leave the OR notice up till you feel ready to take it off, or for a week if I don't hear from you and no one else takes it down.

Is there any reason to keep the NPOV tag now? There don't seem to be any ongoing NPOV-debates about the current version. Same goes for factual.

I still don't think any of my serious arguments in favor of inclusion of the controversies/enemies section were ever really adressed. The issue of reputability of the eXile as a source, while still being discussed, seems to apply no more or less there than in the pranks or origins sections. I see no other policy reason not to include the info, but of course its notability must be decided by consensus. Personally I think the public profiles of the figures involved, and extenseive news coverage in some cases, justifies it, but it really varies on a case by case basis. Of course, if we remove the NPOV/fact tags and someone wants to readd them while we discuss new material, then no objection, but let's just add them to the section being debated.

I realize this is a controversial and difficult thing to reach consensus on, so I propose we proceed slowly and build consensus bit by bit. I think the first thing to do would be to add a section on the Bure case, which is already hinted at in other parts of the article. I will try to work out a well sourced, NPOV version when I have time, hopefully tonight (German time) or tomorrow.

I'd like to say also that I think the article, despite the heated debates and edit wars it has generated, seems to be looking much better stylistically as a result of the presence of new contributors. Keep up the good work! Dsol 12:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editor/Source

The fact that Peter Ekman's edits are allowed here is a bit dicey, considering that he has been in a long-running malicious he-said/she-said public battle with the eXile. Shouldn't edits be impartial? 23 November 2005

Yes they should, but the fact that he has a strong POV is no reason not to allow him. The question is rather one of whether he behaves himself, both in following policy and consensus and in being civil. He seems to be improving overall, except for the last edit, which was totally ridiculous and unjustifiable. But you're right, he has a history of problems; you might see wikipedia:Requests for comment/69.253.195.228 as well. Dsol 01:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Ekman section - distilled to what is encyclopedic, it's not a standalone section (nor is it a "stunt" anyway). Reporting Exile's characterisation of Ekman in such detail is quite unjustified, and if Ekman's response is notable it should be in a section about Exile, with whatever minor context is necessary (half a sentence should suffice). Rd232 ^talk 02:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

But if so much of this eXile entry has been re-written, vandalized, and edited by Peter Ekman, surely it's notable to include what his beef with the eXile is all about. Perhaps a better cited, shorter version of that older Ekman section would at least make it clear why he is so fixated on continually monitoring this page and writing up the eXile's alleged fascism, a rather silly charge that seems to be Ekman's and only Ekman's fixation on the eXile. Unless I'm missing something and other writers/publications have accused the eXile of the same? Why is this charge from one of the eXile's victims even relevant for wikipedia?

Actually, there is such a version. I wrote a terse six line version which you can find somewhere in the history. But in accordance with my "future directions" post above. I believe it's better to first insert the Bure section and reach consensus on how that should be presented, and then move on the the others. Ekman is one of the less notable figures they've had spats with, expecially compared to Wines, Murphy or even Michael Bass. But I agree that we should not allow the page to be censored. In any case let's try the Bure section next, as Bure is an undeniably notable figure, there are pleny of english and russian press articles about it, and the case is already hinted at on the page. Dsol 22:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not add the Ekman section again. You've been asked many times not to, you know what the issues are, and continuing to add it is disruptive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you adressing me, who reverted only the unexplained blanking, or the anon ip who reinserted it in the first place? I do know what the issues are, but there is no unanimous consensus to leave it out. That being said, I have no intention of reinserting it in the immediate future, as my above posts make clear. Dsol 23:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether you insert it in the first place or revert to a version that includes it makes no difference. You are responsible for content you revert to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm seconding Dsol's statements. I would especially like to emphasize that no concensus was ever reached regarding Peter Ekman. Furthermore, SlimVirgin's arguments against inclusion were based upon verifiably false premises regarding Wikipedia policies. I expected more from an admin. Ryan Utt

Which "verifiability false premises"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, consider the following remarks that you posted on November 18, 2005:

Sources being "appropriate to the claims made" would exclude eXile from being used to assert anything of import, because they freely admit to fabricating things. Strong claims require strong sources.

It might help if you were to stop focusing on the fact/opinion distinction. In George W. Bush, we can't write: "President Bush is gay" (stated as fact). We also can't write: "President Bush is gay, according to the eXile (reporting an opinion). But we can write: "President Bush is gay, according to the New York Times (also reporting an opinion). So the distinction that matters is not between fact and opinion, but between good and bad sources.

Regarding Wikipedia policy, the claims you have made in the second paragraph are explicitly contradicted in the article Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. For verification, please refer to the section "Improving Weasal terms". The article recommends that the sentance "Some people have suggested that George W. Bush may be a functional illiterate." be replaced with "Author Michael Moore in his book Stupid White Men wrote an open letter to George Bush asking, 'George, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'" So here in Wikipedia's manual of style we find an example where repeating a contraversial statement from a biased source of limited credibility was the recommended course of action provided that the claim is clearly attributed. So no, SlimVirgin, Wikipedia has no policy excluding the opinions of "bad sources" and your invention of this policy was quite disappointing. Ryan Utt

In addition, the premise that the eXile "freely admits to fabricating things" is also false.Ryan Utt

First, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms is not part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Second, neither of these are policy. Read the top of the pages: they are style guides or guidelines. Third, where guidelines are inconsistent with policy, policy prevails. Fourth, the relevant policy pages are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Fifth, they make clear that there are good and bad sources. Sixth, your post was otherwise entirely accurate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not the policies themselves, but the interpretation of those policies. Since your representation of those policies contradicts Wikipedia guidelines, your representation of those policies is suspect. Also: When you say that my post was "otherwise accurate", is this a concession that the premise "the eXile freely admits to fabricating things" is false? Ryan Utt

I agree with Dsol that the Ekman controversy deserves the section because it is so long-running and because Ekman seems to be a regular "feature" or "villain" of the eXile. Readers remember that in fake issue about Bush assassination [14] the assassin named "Pedro Pekman". I would also think that eXile's gratuitous takedown of Thomas Nolle [15] should be included because this is sort of vicious, funny stuff that makes the eXile unique, popular or hated. But Ekman is more important as his public fight with eXile newspaper continuing for several years now. I found on google that just recently he wrote an atttack letter [16] to Hartford Advocate against Mark Ames with the aim of discrediting him and accusing him of being Fascist. Now I also remember that Ekman wrote a similar letter to Silicon Valley Metro last year after Ames story on Kiriyenko letter, but I cannot find it online. Also the eXile accused Ekman of being behind letter to Philadelphia City paper [17] attacking Ames. And this brings me to my biggest question for everyone on this discussion page: IS PETER EKMAN A HOAX? Does he really exist or is he a hoax created by Ames to promote eXile and controversy? If you think about it, it's possible. His recent letter to Hartford Advocate is just too stupid and looks like marketing for Ames, making him out to be a bad-boy. I think many people will buy his book just because grumpy Peter Ekman says that Ames is a violent fascist (his letter is funny too). This brings me to another point I want to make about the so-called Fascism of eXile on this entry which is linked by way of Limonov. First point, Limonov is not identified with extreme right for many years, but rather extreme left. For people who follow Russia news and politics, Limonov is now allied with official Communist party as well as having relationship with liberals of Yaboloko and SPS. Sorry I do not have time to find this, but someone can or I can later if this discussion continue. Another related point to this, is that Limonov is also a regular contributor to GQ Russia magazine [18] as is Ames. Does this make GQ possibly Fascist too? Should it be deserved a mention in the GQ entry like "GQ and Fascism" or Limonov and Fascism on GQ page? It may be relevant for eXile entry, I don't know, but the fact that Peter Ekman is the one who pushes this here makes me think no, it's a red herring, or maybe if Ekman is a fake character so it's part of the eXile campaign to make their image more dangerous, or they just having more fun. My point in sum is that some form of Ekman section, maybe with mention of Nolle and speculation that he is a fictional hoax, is relevant and should be included in the eXile entry, and section on Fascism needs to have more perspective at very least.

Good points. A lot of that stuff I didn't know, I'll be reading up on it, thanks. I doubt that Ekman is a hoax, since he was published on the Moscow Times byline long after Ames had stopped writing there, and had started making fun of the MT on a regular basis in the eXile. I don't know if he was ever in the course catolog or faculty directory of that provicnial business school he supposedly taught at, though the ip of the anonymous editor claiming to be him does come from nearby. As far as inclusion, I agree that it should go in (even more so in light of the info you've mentioned), but since the format is bound to be a point of great contention, it might be better to put the Bure section back in first, to agree on a propert format while avoiding edit wars. Dsol 14:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that guy has some good points. It's also worth noting how Ekman fails to disclose his own contentious history with the Exile in these hyperbolic letters to the editor. Ryan Utt

[edit] Query

I've just removed this, because it's not clear what it's saying. Can someone say what it means? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"Ames wrote that he feared for his safety as a result of Bonilla's condemnation. In the preceeding [sic] weeks Bonilla had called for the Russian Government to take "tough action" against Forbes Russia editor Paul Klebnikov, and Klebinikov was subsequently assassinated. The episode earned the eXile a "website of the week award," from the Philadelphia weekly City Paper. [19]"

It seems crystal clear to me, but then I wrote some of it. Maybe you could check out the linked article and see if you could improve it? Also I don't see what the [sic] is doing there, the sentence is grammatically correct so far as I can tell. "Preceeding weeks" are the weeks that preceed something, though the usage is not common. Everything else is a well sourced fact (see also the Klebnikov article), and I don't see any relevance problems. Also, I don't see why you took out the reference to the City Paper award. Dsol 20:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I realize I can't speak for the current version completely. I know that Ames compared his own situation to that of Klebnikov in the article, and I know that Klebnikov was assasinated, but I don't know about the Klebnikov-Bonilla connection, which isn't mentioned in Klebnikov's WP article, btw. Dsol 20:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think I figured it out. There is not Klebnikov-Bonilla connection, but whoever wrote the version you took out seems to have been misquoting this article by Ames in Metroactive. I'll change and reinsert, hopefully adding to the clarity, and maybe put in some info from the Metroactive column if I find anything relevant. Dsol 20:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It reads like more nonsense, so it's best to leave it out. The [sic] was because that's not how preceding is spelled. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point about the spelling. I doesn't read like nonsense to me at all, though it's factually wrong. Like I said, I'm going to rehash it and put it back in, then you can let me know what you think. Dsol 20:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't put it back in. If you have another version of it, please post it here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree to that. Be done in a little while.Dsol 20:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please start editing collaboratively and please find good sources and use them properly. The link you supplied [20] doesn't say that Ames "compared his predicament to that of" Klebnikov, and I'd say the fact that the only place that would publish this is what looks like a Bay Area freesheet speaks for itself about the significance of the story. Does Ames ever get published in real newspapers i.e. somewhere with some checks and balances?

By the way, that piece said eXile is "semimonthly," by which I assume Ames means twice-monthly, but our article says biweekly. Do you know which is correct? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course I'm editing collaboratively. That doesn't mean showing contributions on the talk page for approval before inserting them. First of all, let me put the material that you removed just now here on the talk page for newcomers.

"Ames later wrote that he regretted the claim of responsibility, and that it was "not the smartest move in humor history." In columns for the eXile and Metroactive, he wrote that he feared arrest or violent reprisal, claimed that he had been followed and harrassed, and compared his predicament to that of recently murdered Forbes editor Paul Klebnikov, whom he claimed to have known personally.[21]"

Since the paragraph referred to both the eXile and Metroactive columns, I should have linked to both. Both do, however, contain comparisons on Ames' part between his own predicament post Kireyenko responsibility claim and that of Klebnikov. Obviously they don't say that Ames "compared his predicament to that of" Klebnikov, since they're not written in the 3rd person. I have always regarded such obvious cases of summarizing/paraphrasing articles (see e.g. Bob Novak or Plame Scandal) as ok, but if you feel it's OR I can substitute it with a direct quote.

AFAIK, Ames hasn't published too much outside of the eXile since he's become its editor. He publishes in metroactive since he's from the area. I don't see how a paper being free or small-time makes it less reliable, if anything I would argue that it's the other way around, especially in Russia. But clearly the notability of these statements are not established by the place they were published (though the fact that it was a newspaper provides verifiability viz a viz the fact they were published), but rather the way they pertain to the obviously notable Kiryenko letter scandal. For the case at hand metroactive is a perfectly "good source."

I disagree, and anyway my point is the story's publication there indicates it was of no interest. Where did Ames publish before starting the eXile? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The eXile has come out about every 2 weeks as long as I've been reading it, which includes 2004. I don't know what Ames meant by "semimonthly" either.

Please adress my point about the Klebnikov comparison, but aside from that are you ok with the other stuff you removed (claimed that he regretted it, feared violence, etc.)? Dsol 22:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, attacking Ames for not being published in a major mainstream paper is as wrong-headed as discrediting a wikipedia entry because it's not Britannica. This is the whole point of this site, duh! Anyway, according to Ames' bio, he has been published in The San Jose Mercury News, The Nation, Playboy, The New York Press and Harper's, while the eXile has been extensively covered by major media outlets like Rolling Stone and CNN. But really, that should not matter to us, what should matter is creating our own standards of relevance, not adhering to corporate-mainstream standards. Isn't that the whole point of wikipedia? 3 December, 2005

Not sure what you mean by "this is the whole point of this site." What is? Do you have any evidence that Ames has published in these places? And no, we don't create our own standards of relevance. Please read the policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't have time to go through every one, but they are listed in Ames bio. Here is proof of The Nation [22] which at least answers your question if Ames is ever published in a paid-for magazine. One gets the sense from your own bias that you do not like Exile much and you are putting out red herrings and road blocks, then once they are solved, you put the same ones up again. Why should it matter if a person is published in a free or paid-for? The Village Voice is free, does it not qualify under your theory? Wikipedia is free, does that make it disreputable? Exile book is published by Grove Press. Is this not "reputable" enough? Cover of their book which I have here has a quote by Andrew Meier of Time Magazine who says, "No one describes...life in Moscow better than the eXile. They hit it right on its ugly head."[23] Back cover has quote by CNN: "Brazen, irreverent, immodest, and rude, the eXile struggles with the harsh truth of the new century in Russia...Since 1997, Ames and Taibbi have lampooned and investigated greed, corruption, cowardice and complacency." [24] How much more burden of proof do you want, or is your agenda something different?

[edit] NPOV/ Accuracy tags

is there any reason to keep them on the present version? there has been no discussion on these issues for some time, and only more minor points are being discussed or changed. Dsol 20:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe this has been edited in a neutral way, or that its accuracy can be vouched for. I believe those editing it are involved with the eXile and more material keeps being added. The tags are there to warn the reader that there's a problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can prove that claim, then go ahead. Otherwise, please state specifically what you find wrong with the article's style or cotent if you want the tags to stay. Alternatively, you could make a new template {{vagueunprovensuspiciansofeditingbyexileeditors}}. 20:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've put up the totally disputed tag, as I'm not sure there's much in here that can be trusted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's obviously not enough for you just to claim that. You put up the OR tag, and made everyone go to the trouble of finding sources for every statement. Now you still claim that the factual accuracy of the material is in doubt? On what grounds? What facts are in doubt, and why do you say so? The fact that you're "not sure" about content is not a valid grounds for tagging unless you explain and justify your doubts. Please be specific. Dsol 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been specific. Looking at your edits, a huge percentage of them are about this freesheet and its unpaid contributors, so I assume you're connected. You use unknown sources, your edits often don't even reflect what the sources say, and you keep on re-adding questionable material that has been removed for good reason. Your participation has placed a question mark over the whole page. If you weren't editing it, I'd start a clean-up, but as you are, you'll only revert whatever I do, and I have no interest in engaging in a sustained revert war. So I tagged it as the only option remaining. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for saying so, but the claim that you have been specific is patently ridiculous. I asked you to state specifically what facts you feel are in question, and instead you respond by calling me and my presence here into question. Having a bad opinion of me, or "assuming I am connected" to the eXile does not excuse you from justifying these tags on the talk page. I am engaging in discussion and many of your changes have been and continue to be incorporated. The notion that the presence of a specific editor justifies a tag is simply laughable, and borders no a personal attack. You really honsetly mean that if an editor edits an article too much, that article should be tagged? You are a serious editor with many edits and these kind of cheap excuses to avoid debate are beneath you. If you don't specifically name which facts are in question, I will (up to 3RR) continue to remove the tag, as I obviously cannot accept my own invalidity as an editor as an argument. If you continue to replace it without naming the facts you find questionable, I will seek arbitration. Dsol 23:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and start dispute resolution then, because I won't remove the tag until the page has some decent sources in it, and you are not supposed to remove tags that have been placed there by regular editors who have offered a reason, so any dispute resolution process is likely to go against you. It is clearly a matter of relevance to neutrality if you are the page's main editor, are involved with the paper, and are writing an article that far, far outweighs its significance. You are treating WP as though it is an extension of the paper. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"Relevance to neutrality" and "outweighs its significance" are reasons for an NPOV tag, which I have left up, not a factual tag. I don't see how aribtration can go against me when you cannot name even one singler fact you think is questionable. Of course, you have previously named other facts you thought were questionable, and they have been removed, qualified, or sourced. Please let me know if you intend to offer a real argument. Dsol 23:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

two obvious "facts" that DSOL knows are untrue that are in the article (and put there by him or Ames) 1. $10,000 fine for libel. It was 500,000 rubles divided by 30 rubles per $ = $16,667 (this has been explained and referenced many times before). 2. The existence of Gary Brecher as a real person. He is clearly just another masquerade for Ames. Nobody has ever claim to have seen him, and his photos are clearly fabricated.

90% of the rest of the material in the article is just self-promoting non-sense, that couldn't be verified even in theory - see e.g. Ames's description of his whore-of-the-week column. Peter D. Ekman

Thanks for getting back to the issue at hand.

• Feel free to change it back to $17k or whatever you want. I the last revert to $10k wasn't mine, and I have no objection.
• I was originally for noting the possibility the Brecher, Salnikov etc. might not be real on this page, but others were against this since we had nothing to source it to, and I relented. While Brecher's photos are fabricated (as my own additions to his article made clear), that doesn't mean he's not a real person.
• The whore-R stories are verifiable by following the link to the eXile column. If you think Ames might be lying about the whole thing, feel free to insert "claims" or "allegedly" into the column description.
• Whatever you might think about "90%" of the rest of the column, your admittedly biased POV is irrelevant as always. Mention specifics if you want the tag to stay.
• So feel free to change these three facts. If there are no other concrete and specific facts in dispute, then the notice should be removed. Dsol 00:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

For the last time, eXile cannot be used as a source. The tag remains so long as it is, and you are not allowed to remove it if there is an objection that is actionable within our policies. My objection is to the use of eXile or its contributors as sources. If you re-source everything in this article to a genuine third-party source (and not a student who has interviewed one of them for a college newspaper), then I'll remove the tag. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for finally providing a coherent argument. I though we had agreed that the eXile could be used as a source about what it had published, perhaps I was mistaken. Dsol 01:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you think if you say the same thing often enough, it will become true? As I have said possibly dozens of times to you, we cannot "agree" to do something that would be a violation of policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

So do you object to all the eXile citations currently in the article? Dsol 01:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: can you drop the "Angry Mom" persona? This discussion channel is polarized enough, and if you keep talking down to people, then you're contributing to a hostile atmosphere.

To the question "Can the exile be used as a source to discuss the content of the exile?" The concensus so far has been overwhelmingly Yes. And even if you disagree, you should acknowledge that your interpretation of wikipedia policies is contraversial and that other admins have examined this issue specifically and come to very different conclusions than you have. --Ryan Utt 01:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for my "angry mom" tone, but it's getting very tiresome having to say the same thing so often. By all means, get these other admins here, then they can point out which part of the policies supports their view. The eXile can be used as a source to discuss itself and only itself, with caution, but the "with caution" part of the policy means common sense has to be used, and so I'm using it. What it may not be used as a source for is in any way, shape, or form to discuss someone else. So we can quote Ames saying: "I really liked the background color of the front page on Tuesday," but we may not quote him saying: "I also liked the story that showed Mr. X was a member of the Russian mafia and that he sleeps with underage girls." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting with the premise that the Exile is a reputable source for what has been published in the Exile. Given that, I think it's consistent with Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability (though not necessarily appropriate) to say "The Exile wrote A" for all claims A that the Exile has made. You maintain that it's sometimes consistent with Wikipedia policy to say "The Exile wrote A" and it's sometimes not depending on whether or not A mentions somebody else in a negative light. How do you justify this distinction?

If we abided by your interpretation, the article would lose out. For instance, in the Libel section we would not be allowed to state the alledgedly libelous claim that Kournikova has "two vaginas" simply because it's was printed in the Exile and potentially portrays Kournikova in a negative light. Clearly, the alledgedly libelous statement is a critical component of that paragraph. Since many readers will conclude that the Exile may not have been joking, I think the omission of the statment is both a disservice to the readers and is unfair to the Exile. --Ryan Utt 19:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the policy. The eXile is a very small newspaper or freesheet that has no fact-checking process and Ames admitted to publishing a fraud, although he later retracted the admission (which actually makes it even less reliable). Therefore, we deal with it the way we deal with all sources where reliability is an issue. They are allowed to be used as sources about themselves — though with caution: we still don't take their word for everything — but not about any third party. You seem to be saying that Wikipedia could publish anything, no matter how defamatory, if it had already been in The eXile, just by attributing it to them. We can do that with the New York Times, because it has checks and balances, and we assume the editor wouldn't let it be used to pursue a private vendetta that one of the writers had with someone. But in the case of The eXile, we don't have that assurance, and it's particularly important in the case of non-public figures that nothing potentially defamatory is published about them in Wikipedia; not only for legal reasons, but also just to be decent. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The basis of your case seems to constantly rest on two wrong assumptions: 1) that since the eXile is a freesheet, it's not reliable; 2) the eXile is allegedly very "small" or irrelevant. I wrote above to answer this and you didn't respond so I'll post it again here. In answer to 1), if being free was a sign of a media outlet's unreliability, this would make both The Village Voice and wikipedia worthless. In answer to 2), Exile book is published by Grove Press. Is this not "reputable" enough? Cover of their book has a quote by Andrew Meier of Time Magazine who says, "No one describes...life in Moscow better than the eXile. They hit it right on its ugly head."[25]. Does Time saying they are relevant qualify in your mind? Back cover has quote by CNN: "Brazen, irreverent, immodest, and rude, the eXile struggles with the harsh truth of the new century in Russia...Since 1997, Ames and Taibbi have lampooned and investigated greed, corruption, cowardice and complacency." [26] Is CNN reputable enough of a news organization for you? How much more burden of proof do you want to show that the eXile is not irrelevant, or is your agenda something different?

While SlimVirgin is pondering the entirely legitimate points the above user has produced, I am going to add one of those choice quotes from "reputable" sources to the article. Afterwards, SlimVirgin can examine her false claim "Ames admitted to publishing a fraud," and consider retooling her own fact-checking process before impugning that of others.

Finally, I hope she has time to address my question verbatim: "How do you justify this distiction [explained above]?". I am waiting for her specific response. --Ryan Utt 07:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I explained it above. It's policy for sources of unknown reliability. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What a joke. You recently edited the verifiability (guideline, not official policy) page yourself recently to include the example of "a tabloid newspaper that publishes arguably defamatory material." Then you cite it as if it's an established rule. Please, have a little more respect for the intelligence of the editors on this page.

As for reliable sources, that page is also a guideline, not official policy. Furthermore, this guidline would only exclude citing the eXile if the eXile were shown to be a political exteremist group, which it clearly is not.

Thus both of those pages are irrelavent, and even if they were relavent they would only be guidelines, and thus would not trump consensus. Dsol 14:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:V is policy, not a guideline, and I'm a regular editor of it, which is why my edits are accepted, because people know I don't just add any old thing to it, but only points that are consistent with the rest of the policy, or consistent with other policies. Lots of people have that page on their watchlists. If I were to add anything untoward, it would be reverted. I can assure you that what I'm telling you has widespread support. It's not just a question of extremist groups: it's any source that we're unsure of. And consensus on any particular page does not trump policy, as I've said many times. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know SlimVirgin, I'm looking at Wikipedia:Verifiability and your edits look pretty contraversial. A number of people have been reverting them or altering them. While that settles down, maybe you can finally answer my question:

"How do you justify this distiction [explained above]?".

[Hint: a proper answer to this question will find the exact sentance(s) in the actual policy page that unambiguously addresses both contigencies of this distinction]

--Ryan Utt 03:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is what WP:NOR, also policy, says about reputable sources, my emphasis. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable". In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable". For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party newspaper, The Militant, to publish a statement about President Bush being gay. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political magazine could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.

Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable".

Still waiting for SlimVirgin's response to above note pointing out how both Time and CNN are quoted as giving both legitimacy and relevance to The eXile. Please answer this SlimVirgin, your inability to answer it is calling into question your impartiality or reliability here, and suggests that you have a different agenda vis-a-vis the eXile.

[edit] Third opinion

Someone requested a third opinion on the dispute between Dsol and SlimVirgin over the NPOV and Accuracy tags, summarized by these quotes:

"is there any reason to keep [the tags] on the present version? there has been no discussion on these issues for some time, and only more minor points are being discussed or changed." - Dsol

"I don't believe this has been edited in a neutral way, or that its accuracy can be vouched for. I believe those editing it are involved with the eXile and more material keeps being added."

While I could spend considerable time spanking both of you for various things you've done, such as SlimVirgin underhandedly editing the Verifiability policy after the war here began, and then attempting to cite it in support of her position without revealing that she wrote the relevant part herself, or Dsol deleting or adding whole paragraphs (especially those by SlimVirgin) and then marking the edits as minor, I'll skip over that and cut to the heart of the matter: whether the tags for NPOV and Accuracy should remain on the article.

There's a section of road near my home that runs through mountainous terrain, and on it are several sections of road cut from the hills. The cuts left large areas of rock exposed to the elements, and over time, pieces of rock break loose and fall onto the roadway. In response, the highway department erected signs warning "Beware of falling rocks" (or the equivalent). As the need arises, the highway department sends workers out to remove any rocks that are reported to have fallen onto the roadway. When they are done removing any rocks they find, they do not remove the signs. The signs are left as a warning of the high probability of there being more rocks on that section of roadway in the future.

Dsol, I can understand your irritation at being considered the sole reason for the warnings to be in place, but like it or not, there is some evidence (not proof) that you are connected with the eXile in some way, and the nature of your past edits to this article have created a situation in which disputes over accuracy and (N)POV are very likely to arise in the future. The validity of those disputes is not as important as the likelihood of the disputes, as far as the warning is concerned. Therefore, it is my ruling that the warnings should remain in place until one of three things happens:

• Dsol loses interest in editing the article, and therefore makes no more disputed edits,
• SlimVirgin loses interest in watching the article like a hawk, since she seems to be the main person who regularly disputes Dsol's edits,

or

• Dsol adjusts his editing in such a way that no one finds anything about them to dispute in the first place, not even SlimVirgin.

"How long to wait after the last disputed edit?" would probably cause yet another dispute, so make it six months.

I will delete the request for a third opinion. If this doesn't settle the dispute over the warnings, you both know how to procede. Aumakua 06:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is fine. Since the 3rd opinion request was posted, I have had some more discussion with Slimvirgin and things have cooled off a bit. I suspect there are still some significant disagreements but I'm pretty confident things will be resolved via discussion of a much calmer sort than what has gone on previously (something for which I must certainly share some part of the blame). Thanks for the opinion. Dsol 09:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there have been no hotly disputed edits to this article since my ruling requiring a wait of about six months, I feel that the warnings can be removed, so I have done so. Of course, if a series of new disputes arise, the warning can always be added back, but it seems that probably won't be necessary. Aumakua 15:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rolling Stone article

Does anyone know whether this is online, because it would be good to check this quote: "Rolling Stone magazine said in 1998 that then-coeditors Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi "take the raw material of this decadent new Moscow and convert it into 25,000 instantly snapped-up issues of The eXile, consisting of misogynist rants, dumb pranks, insulting club listings and photos of blood-soaked corpses, all redeemed by political reporting that's read seriously not only in Moscow but also in Washington." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are a student at a university, you can get a copy of the article online from http://www.ebsco.com or another online database service. Talk to your university library to see how you can use these services. Also, any large library will have either back issues of Rolling Stone or microfilm. Look for issue 800, article "Bright Lights, Red Square" paragraph 5 sentance 3 and you can't miss it. --Ryan Utt 18:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bogus Time quote to be removed

I'll delete the bogus quote proportedly from Time Magazine unless somebody can come up with the real source. I've checked Time.com 's extensive archives and it's not there, or in any of their foreign editions' archives. Time's archivist assures me that it's not in the main edition.

Somebody might object that the quote isn't actually labeled as "from Time Magazine" but only that the author is "of Time." Seriously misleading in any case, unsourced, and still completely bogus. Note that the quote on the eXile's book jacket doesn't attempt this slight of hand. It is just completely false, i.e. it claims to be a quote from Time, but isn't.

Anon User, this is bad faith editing. The Time quote is sourced on the book jacket which is available on amazon.com, as noted above in the dicussion page, and you obviously know this because you're following this page. The contributor RyanUtt used the quote on the page exactly as used on the book jacket. The quote on the page claimed to be from Andrew Meier of Time which is a fact, unless you can argue that Grove Press/Atlantic Monthly Press is an unreliable source, which would put you way outside of reasonable argument. Your own reason for removing the quote is based, ironically, on your own completely unsourced (and unsigned) alleged phone calls to Time's archivist. A review of the history of your editing shows that you have been a regular vandal of sites, all of which pertain to the eXile or its contributors. Please stop this, you're supposed to behave like a grown-up here. It's no fun having to go through the process of suspending or banning people like you with a personal agenda. User:Tictoc 18:17, 9 December 2005

Note: just realized that the vandal here is probably the same Peter Ekman noted in this discussion page, who has been suspended from wikipedia as a vandal already. User:Tictoc 18:26, 9 December 2005

All you have to do to quote this being from Time is to go to the Time archives and find the quote and link. Since it isn't from Time, you can't do this. It's interesting that you've changed the wording, but you still haven't given the source. While Meier's book is interesting, it doesn't contain the quote (you can search it online!) The quote from the cover of the eXile's book doesn't mean anything, since it is OBVIOUSLY FALSE.

Just one last comment, are you, Mark Ames, actually calling me a vandal and saying that I'm editing in bad faith? 69.253.195.228 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You are not making sense. The quote is from the book cover. What this means in the book publishing business is that the publisher, in this case Grove Press/Atlantic MonthlyPress, got from Andrew Meier of Time this quote. If you can argue that Grove/Atlantic Monthly is an unreliable source, then go ahead. Yes I did change the wording to make it abundantly clear in case you would argue against it. And no, this isn't Mark Ames, I would seriously doubt he would take the time to change little things like this and as I know him from his writings and from meeting him, I think he would enjoy watching this, especially watching you spend half of your life watching and vandalizing these entries. I will be sure to send an email him about this. Meanwhile, for wiki, you must provide genuine reason for why a quote from Grove/Atlantic Monthly is unreliable. User:Tictoc 16:17, 9 December 2005

Peter Ekman, you continue making editing the Time quote in bad faith. You must respond seriously here and make a valid point in discussion with other contributors. The sentence said that the Time correspondent made that quote about eXile, not that Time made it. You keep changing reasons why you want to delete it. Now you say that the quote is "not in Time" but nowhere does this say Andrew Meier's quote it was "in Time," but said by Time correspondent, which is a fact. Second, you said, "find a real source," but source is Grove Press/Atlantic Monthly, publisher of the book cover with quote. This is a real source. User:Tictoc 19:17, 9 December 2005

It does look as though it was in Time Magazine, both in our article and on the book cover, so we should clarify that. Where did he say it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, quote from Andrew Meier of Time Magazine is coming from the book cover, this is sourced in the article. As you know is a common practice in the publishing business that notable people give a quote for a book usually the quote is found by publisher or the writer who then gets it backed up before the publisher uses it, this quote may not appear anywhere else but on the book jacket. Since the quote is used by Grove Press/Atlantic Monthly, publisher of the book, it is reliable, this publisher fulfills wikipedia policy on what constitutes reliable. And it is relevent quote because you for example question how relevent the eXile is and if anyone reads it and you want proof, so it is improtant to note this (also maybe the CNN quote from book back page, or quote from The Scotsman?). As for questions if quote "looks as though it was in Time Magazine" can you suggest what exactly makes it seem it was in the magazine, and how to change it so that it does not look like this? Thank you SlimVirgin. User:Tictoc 18:39 9 December 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, here is another place where the quotes are used, on Grove/Atlantic's site.[27] Grove/Atlantic Monthly is a reliable source in accordance with wikipedia policy, so the issue is not as Peter Ekman says whethr this is a "bogus quote" but rather if it is relevent information. It is relevent because as I wrote above some people not familiar with the eXile or some people who want to vandalize eXile's article want readers to believe that the eXile is not relevent, but as you can see reputable sources confirm its relevence. I look forward to your response, thank you SlimVirgin! User:Tictoc 18:39 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tictoc. It's just a question of finding out where he said it. The fact that he's worked for Time Magazine is irrelevant. We have to find out where this quote was actually taken from. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for writing back SlimVirgin. But I do not understand this. Is your contention that Grove/Atlantic Monthly is not reliable source? Or that a reliable source must provide another reliable source to prove it is reliable? If Andrew Meier's quote is not taken from Time magazine then that may mean that he gave the quote directly to Grove/Atlantic Monthly's editor, which is common in the book publishing world as you know, to market books. It seems to me either we accept that Grove/Atlantic is credible source, in which case the quote stands, or you challenge that Grove/Atlantic Monthly is reliable. Also, it seems very relevent that Andrew Meier works for Time since you asked for proof that reputable media took eXile seriously. Thanks again SlimVirgin! User:Tictoc 21:11 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Checked with Grove. They don't know the source of the blurb, but suggested that it probably came directly from Meier. In which case Time has nothing to do with it. So I'll put in something like "Meier, in a blurb on the eXile's book's dust jacket, said.."

69.253.195.228 21:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why fact is not relevent that Andrew Meier was at the time of blurb the Time correspondent in Russia? That is why the blurb is significant. If he is not known as that then blurb is pointless, which may be why Peter Ekman does not want it known that Andrew Meier worked for Time. It's like saying if a former Secretary of State praised a book about foreign policy, but not in his official capacity as Secretary of State, then you could not put in "Former Secretary of State" as a description next to his blurb because it's either "not relevant" or his job at the time had "nothing to do with it." This is really smelling like bad faith editing here. Okay let's forget Meier's quote then because as is now it is almost a joke, and let us use the CNN quote on Grove/Atlantic Monthly's site instead. I will put that in assuming we do not have same objections with this. If there are objections, then please first answer simple question: is Grove/Atlantic Monthly considered a credible source or not?User:Tictoc 21:43 9 December 2005 (UTC)

EVERYBODY LISTEN UP The "Times quote" is a quote of Andrew Meier from Time, not a quote in Time magazine itself. The quote is listed on the back of the eXile book, BUT that's not where I got it from. (Notice that on the book by grove press they actually have an ellipsis in place of the word "expat"). I fetched the original quote out of the Rolling Stone article. So no more nonsense accusations regarding the legitimacy of this quote. --Ryan Utt 07:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CNN Quote and Grove/Atlantic Monthly

SlimVirgin, now you have me confused. Please answer this one question: is Grove/Atlantic Monthly a credible source according to wikipedia policy? User:Tictoc 21:43 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone neutral help on this? SlimVirgin's position, as she stated on my talk page, is that Grove/Atlantic Monthly is not a credible source not just in her mind but according to wikipedia policy. Clearly she is not engaging in serious discussion anymore. What can be done to bring some sense to this debate? User:Tictoc 21:43 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what could be unverifiable or POV about quoting comments from a jacket of a book. Do people think the quote is a fraud or joke? I think Al Franken might have done that on his books, and I believe the Beavis and Butt-head book did it as well, but I have difficulty believing that Grove/Atlantic Monthly would let it fly — ditto Meier himself.

Secondly, wouldn't Meier's employment at Time be just as relevant as Wines' employment at the New York Times? It's valuable context; I don't care what any old Andrew Meier says, but I'm more interested if he works for Time. --Mgreenbe 01:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Meier's quote also appears in the Rolling Stone article. It's entirely legit. posted by Ryan Utt on Dec. 10

If we want to state or imply that a quote was in Time Magazine or CNN, please let's avoid all the arguments and supply a citation. It doesn't have to be online, but it should include the name and date of publication, headline and byline, so that any reader can find it (or date of broadcast in the case of CNN, and the name of the show if it was on a special show). See WP:NOR and WP:V. If we can't supply that, we can't use the quote. Those are the policies and adhering to them will avoid all these arguments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to imply the quote was printed in Time; rather, to identify Meier and to lend credibility to his assessment my mentioning that he works for Time. For the exact same reason, it is mentioned that Michael Wines worked for the New York Times. What's the problem? Mgreenbe, shortly before the following comment :)

Did he work for Time at the time, and where was the quote actually published? I'm confused as to why we can't just name the publication and be done with it. Same with CNN: say when and on which show. End of argument. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, someone put in the quote. Looks like he was employed there when he gave the quote, though I suppose that too should be checked. Great! I'm so pleased to come back here and see so much progress. --Mgreenbe 14:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it is very easy to answer you and I provided evidence to you, but you ignore it. Andrew Meier was Time Correspondent from 1996-2001.[28] The Rolling Stone article was November 1998, as listed. So Meier was Time correspondent when he gave the quote to Rolling Stone. User:RyanUtt provided the original Andrew Meier quote taken from an interview he gave to Rolling Stone about the eXile so you should not revert that since it answers exactly your question "where Meier's quote comes from." Rolling Stone decided that it was worthy to mention Meier was the Time correspondent in the article. Please explain why wikipedia, not you but wikipedia, believes Rolling Stone does not follow credible journalism practice.

Regards to CNN, I found the date and name of the show and transcript. "The Russia Factor," aired August 23, 1999 on CNN Perspectives, producer Jack Hammon.[29] Here is one site that printed the transcript with the quotes used.[30] SlimVirgin, I hope you are being a disinterested editor and not simply vandalizing something you don't like. User:Tictoc 14.36 10 December 2005

Thank you for supplying that information. If that had been done in the first place, all the arguments would have been avoided. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIV, as well as WP:V and WP:CITE. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you too SlimVirgin, I was thinking this was not going to be a reasonable discussion but you prove me wrong. I will read up on those and get back to you. User:Tictoc 14:41 10 Dec 2005

You're welcome. To make any edit stick, it has to be relevant and not an example of original research, written in an encyclopedic tone, and properly sourced. Sourcing edits properly means attributing them to a credible or reputable source, giving a full citation, and linking to the article if it's online. Doing that tends to avoid disputes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to assume good faith. You saw this discussion and the confusion over whether the sentence appeared to imply the quote had been published in Time magazine. You saw that Tictoc had sorted it out, found where it was published, and added a citation. And yet you revert anyway to the old version. Please leave it as it is. It was not published in Time, and we mustn't say or imply that it was. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You got it all wrong. I was the one to include a citation. See the footnote at the end of the quote? I was the one who put that there. I never said the quote was from Time. I never implied the quote was from Time. I only said that the quote is by a journalist who works at Time: an entirely true and fair statement. I've explained my objections to the phrase "Meier told Rolling Stone" many times, namely that the Rolling Stone doesn't cite Meier first-hand. You need to stop making these false charges against me. My comments on this page and my edit summaries have explained everything. If you can't be bothered to read the discussion, then you be making criticisms in your ignorance.Ryan Utt.

SlimVirgin, I don't want to speak for him, but I can see his actions as WP:POINT. This is naturally to be discouraged, but his point seems to be this: the eXile is being held to a much higher standard of citation than many other articles. I understand why this might be desirable; at the same time I understand why this might be frustrating. That said, I don't think the current version, using "said", implies that he said it in Time. If he did, why not reference Time itself, rather than Rolling Stone? --Mgreenbe 19:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mgreenbe, I agree that the current version is fine, but Ryan deleted where the quote had been published, giving the impression that it had appeared in Time magazine.

As for standards of evidence, I'd say the eXile is being held to the same standards, at least regarding pages I work on, which is why Ryan is objecting. All I'm requesting is that we edit in accordance with the policies. If we do that, the disputes will be kept to a minimum and will be resolved quickly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't delete "where the quote had been published". Every edit I made to that section since Ekman falsely labeled the quote bogus has included a direct footnote. Check the history and see for yourself. SlimVirgin, this is not the first time you have leveled false accusations against me. I think you should apologize.

Notice: The Rolling Stone article quotes Meier, but doesn't say where they got the quote. From the context it doesn't appear that they interviewed Meier personally. Rolling Stone may have gotten the quote second-hand and not listed the source in the article since they are a magazine and not an encyclopedia. The quote itself is verified, but saying "Meier told Rolling Stone (quote)" isn't. Maybe that's what happened, but the article doesn't say. --Ryan Utt 01:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Exile Book

One of the items that keeps flipping back and forth is the Exile book. Some people don't want it and some people do. In this space I hope we can negotiate and come up with a solution that addresses everyone's concerns. I restored the link to the book because I felt it was contextually appropriate much like linking to Pavel Bure. If you disagree, let me know why and we can talk about it. posted by Ryan Utt on Dec. 10

I've changed the citation of the book to use the Template:Book reference. This gives an automatic link by ISBN to the book at a multitude of booksellers worldwide. Much better than giving only Amazon US business. --Mgreenbe 19:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

This page needs to be archived again. I haven't been following closely enough to summarize offhand or know what to put away. Volunteers? --Mgreenbe 19:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Direction

Now that things have calmed down on the Exile page, however temporarily, I'd like to have some constructive dialog about ways to improve the article. In the next few weeks I plan on significantly altering the following sections:

• Origins -- this section contains glaring mistakes.
• Ideology -- relatively minor points are given priority while major components of their ideology are entirely absent.

I don't anticipate any of these edits will be contraversial. Hopefully Dsol will be able to collaborate on the ideology section which is the most important and most difficult section of this article. Of course I welcome constructive work from other contributors too.

Happy Holidays,

--Ryan Utt 19:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Good ideas. I am pretty flat out with work right now, but from friday on I'll be a bit more able to contribute. I agree that these sections are inadequate, especially ideology. As for origins, I basically just sourced and copied info from the online excerpt of the eXile book. :Dsol 19:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I don't believe Peter Ekman is a hoax

I believe he's a stalker. He really needs to shake his obsession with discrediting the eXile and, as they used to say in the nineties, get a life. But, poor soul, I don't believe he can. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.134.81.37 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dude, is this Kara Deyerin's webpage?

my sources say yes.

http://karadeyerin.com/about.html

[edit] Nice work

Hi everyone. I just wanted to say how much I liked this page. You've really done a bang-up job. --Greg Comlish 00:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Assessment

Working in reverse order:

• Images: Not required, but one present and seems correctly tagged. OK
• Stable: No changes for about a month, so yeah - passes with flying colours! OK
• Neutral Point of View: Suspect it errs to the positive - although criticisms of the paper are mentioned throughout. The section on the 'Pavel Bure libel lawsuit' seems to be trying too hard to imply that one should not put too much weight on a guilty verdict given by that particular court. I would perhaps expect to see more quotes criticising the paper - many of the refs are by eXile staff.
• Broad Coverage: Seems to cover all the same elements that other newspaper articles do. It would be nice to see more on what the public and critical reaction to the paper is. Nothing further on that political coverage mentioned in the lead. OK
• Factually accurate and verifiable: Appears good at first glance. However, problems then become apparent:

-I don't like the mix of hyperlinks to webpages and footnotes for hardcopy references - I recommend going to footnotes for everything, otherwise it's confusing.

-Reference 3 goes to a page that seems to have nothing to do with the topic.

-Footnote references 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 seem to be broken. I click on them and they don't go anywhere. I believe they are supposed to link to the second footnoted reference, the book by Ames, Taibbi and Limonov.

-It would be better to have page numbers for the references as well - the book appears to be 238 pages long, so it might be a bit hard to find the quotes otherwise.

-No references at all for the 'Features' section (Should be easy enough to find - in the paper presumably)

-I'd put ref 10 at the end of the paragraph as all the content of that para seems to come from it.

-Second para of the 'Libel' section is unreferenced.

OK - addressed by removing material. 4u1e 08:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

-Two of the four references in the 'Pavel Bure libel' section are broken. Another is to a pay site, leaving just the one ref, which only really covers the first sentence. You need something else to cover the second half of the paragraph, which is fairly controversial.

Partly addressed by removing material. 4u1e 08:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

-I suspect the 'Kiriyenko letter' section is over ref'd - and many of the refs are in Russian, which would be better avoided if possible. Are English language versions available?

-You've got a couple of ^{[citation needed]} tags in the text which need clearing up.

Well written: Seems to be structured logically and generally in line with style guidelines. OK.

Putting On Hold for verifiability which you should be able to fix by sorting out the points mentioned above. I suggest you also look again at NPOV and Broad coverage as well, but I don't see these points as blockers for WP:GA. Cheers --4u1e 00:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points aside, issues raised have not been addressed, so I'm afraid it's a fail. Should still be easy enough to fix and re-submit for GA. Cheers. 4u1e 08:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks for taking the time to consider, I think most of this pages editors have been busy lately. I suspect it will be resubmitted in the future, however, after your concerns have been adressed. Dsol 15:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Hope it doesn't fall back into edit warring - it was pretty close, it's really just tidying up of what you've got! --4u1e 18:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limonov clearly an extremist

It's clear that Edward Limonov and his National Bolshevik Party are extremists. What's your reason for taking this out, as well as reverting ALL my previous edits? Really123 23:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

According to [National-Bolshevik Party] the NBPs are not officially branded extremist. Just because you personally feel they are extremist, doesn't give you broad latitude in editing articles accordingly. --Ryan Utt 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Really123, you just put in the exact same flag image as above, with the exact same caption. Are you the same user as 69.253.195.228, who claimed to be Peter D. Ekman? Dsol 17:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totally disputed

Ames asserted in his article “Democracy Sucks” that “we'd be sued out of existence within a few weeks of appearing in any Western democracy, but here in Russia, in the so-called kleptocracy, the power elite has been too busy stealing and killing to give a fuck about us, allowing us to fly around the capital beneath their radar, like a cruise missile. A real democracy would never let us get off the ground.”

With all the POV stuff in here, the obvious editing by Mark Ames, the self-puffery and advertising, I think it's clear that the whole thing is TOTALLY DISPUTED. Really123 17:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ekman, we've played this game for over a year now. If you're going to claim the article is "TOTALLY DISPUTED" then you're going to need to specifically dispute something. You're not going to hold the page hostage because of your personal vendetta against the publication. --Ryan Utt 01:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ames it is really too much that you write this "shit" (to quote the Independent quoting your new co-editor) while you're on speed (see article), but then you write a Wikipedia article on your 'newspaper' and prevent anybody else from editing it! Examples of "creative facts" and POV are in every paragraph. A few examples follow:

1.Some have interpreted these statements as an admission that the eXile freely engages in libel. Others interpret these remarks as a criticism of western libel laws, suggeting that these laws are too easily abused by the powerful to suppress marginal viewpoints. Spy, an inspiration of the eXile, needed to employ a team of lawyers to defend against libel allegations -- a contributing factor to Spy's bankruptcy.

2.The eXile claimed that the original article was a parody and suggested Bure's influential status may have compromised the judgement.[18]

3.""The eXile" regularly publishes columns by the politician, Russian dissident, and avant garde writer Eduard Limonov." - "avante gard"??? Why can't the term "extremist" be used here? If the founder of the "National Boleshevik Party" is not extremist, then nobody is.

4."In the next issue, Ames clarified that the contentious article was a joke, saying it had been inserted as filler on production day.[33] In columns for the eXile and Metroactive, he wrote that he had been followed and harassed as a result of the claim, and that he feared arrest or violent reprisal." - Why "clarified," instead of "retracted"?

5.In short most of the "facts" you are giving are simply quoting yourself, which since the exile is clearly not a reputable source is something that should only be done in a very careful and limited manner, and not in a way to glorify yourself, as is done here throughout. Really123 10:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

First, we've widely established the use of Exile quotations presented as such is legitimate. Second, I'm not Mark Ames. This has been autheticated by numerous admins and users at Wikipedia who have personally met me. Third, you cite the paragraph on Spy magazine as your primary example of POV and "creative facts". What precisely is the "creative fact" in that paragraph? That the eXile admired Spy magazine? That Spy magazine employed a team of lawyers to defend against spurious lawsuits? That Spy Magazine went bankrupt? All claims in that paragraph are verifiably true. --Ryan Utt 13:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There are 5 examples given above (now numbered). The one example that you claim has "All claims in that paragraph are verifiably true." contains the sentence "Others interpret these remarks as a criticism of western libel laws, suggeting that these laws are too easily abused by the powerful to suppress marginal viewpoints." This is completely unverifiable. If you believe otherwise please explain who did what to whom, and who is doing the interpreation of these actions, and how you are going to verify all this? If you don't think this question is fair, then the page will continue to be TOTALLY DISPUTED. Really123 15:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First, if you create obviously bogus claims, nobody needs to waste his time refuting the claim as applied to each excerpt you cut and paste. One refutation is more than sufficient. Second, your rationales appear to be shifting. Originally you claimed that the article contained "creative facts" and POV statements. Now you claim that a particular statement is unverifiable. Be very specific about what you find problematic citing the specific Wikipedia policy.

Given your contentious history with this article (dating back over a year) it is evident that your goal is to portray the eXile as an uncredible source. I believe you will reject any claims that undermine this premise, regardless of their consistency with Wikipedia policy. Consequently, if you want to be taken seriously, you need act cooperatively to resolve issues. This means being specific in your complaints, citing the exact policy. This means no specious claims. And this means accepting the article as "undisputed" if you don't have any specific issues. Can you abide by these conditions? --Ryan Utt 23:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)