Talk:The eXile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The eXile article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
The eXile was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: September 2, 2006
To-do list for The eXile: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • find sources for the removed text comparing eXile to spy magazine, and commenting on the reasons for spy's bankruptcy, and reinsert it if sources are found
  • find additional sources for the bure libel case, and consider whether naming the woman violates WP:BLP or WP:LIBEL
  • Add links to the eXile website as references for the "features" section, as per GA assessment recommendation
  • Fix/add links for Bure/libel section
  • Add page numbers for exile book references
  • Add more interviews and press coverage, especially some negative to balance out the positive
  • for kiriyenko letter refs, find english versions of russian links where possible (not likely)
  • try to find sources for previously removed unsourced statements, which can be seen at Talk:The eXile/removed unsourced statements
  • incoporate material from new sources: [1][2]
  • resubmit for GA assessment

Archive: 1

Contents

[edit] blanking

WP:BLP has been misinterpeted by the recent anon newcomer. Please familiarize yourself with the policy in more detail. All statements regarding living persons have been well sourced. If you still think the policy has been violated, please explain your reasoning here.

From the policy page:

"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say."

Dsol 08:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left messages on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and at User talk:24.127.156.41, and I am waiting for a response before reverting again. This anon has no edits prior to removing info from this article. Dsol 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I am now reverting since the anon is refusing to engage in discussion. Dsol 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Wines pie incident.

  • "Times spokesperson Katherine Mathis confirmed to Media Life that Wines was hit by a pie, but she could not verify that the pie contained horse semen."NY Times Moscow chief gets a nasty faceful
  • "In 2001, while editor of the wacky, ex-pat magazine the Exile, Taibbi burst into the Moscow office of The New York Times and flung a cream pie filled with horse sperm into the face of bureau chief Michael Wines."Editor out over pope parody This is from Yahoo News' "Page Six" gossip column, which is not a syndication of another column

Dsol 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In the same vein, is there any reason not to name Kournikova in the section about Bure's lawsuit? The cited sources already name her, and we are acknowledgin the claim is false. Therefore I don't see that we are asserting any untrue, unsourced or potentiall libelous claims about any living person. Once again I will wait a day before reverting, I ask any possible dissenters to read the sources and policy pages a bit more carefully than they may have done in the case of Michael Wines. Dsol 14:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
regarding the relevance of who Wines is, the fact that he was NYT moscow head is highly relevant to the article. Though I don't know why I'm bothering to explain this when no one is engaging in discussion. Dsol 12:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, there is a discussion involving the presently blanked [Michael Wines]] section ongoing at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. At issue is whether the section was properly sourced. Given the two sources immediately above, I am at a loss as to how anyone could be in doubt, nonetheless comments are welcome. Dsol 09:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have responded at the BLP page. I think we should try to keep the discussion centralized. The Evil Spartan 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from User talk:The Evil Spartan

I'm at a loss on how you can conceive of an article saying that a named person has two vaginas is not against WP:BLP. And how can you revert this "information" back in? It is not a case of verifying that the eXile has said this (even though the sources provided are laughable - A New Zealand student criticism paper?!), but whether the material is conservatively presented or whether it is simply tabloid sensationalism. I'll revert any such obvious BLP violations whenever they occur without discussion, as provided in WP:BLP 24.127.156.41 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The section I reverted was mainly about the Pie incident - I was not going for the vaginas section, though that section is equally well documented, as was apparently known in the media (the fact that it is explicitly mentioned, name and all, in Pravda, is important). The pie section is extremely well sourced, and it is not a violation of BLP if it is well sourced. The crux of the BLP page states, exactly, Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia. And yet it is well sourced, and it fits all the three main criteria - WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. I am cross posting this on the article talk page. The Evil Spartan 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I've protected the page in response to edit-warring and a request at WP:RFPP, for 2 days. It appears discussion is in progress here and at WP:BLP/N, which is good. In the meantime, please avoid edit-warring. If consensus is reached before the protection expires, you can request early unprotection at WP:RFPP. MastCell Talk 20:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the attempt to curtail edit warring, I don't think it's accurate to say that discussion is really in progress. The anon ip is not adressing the points made by others, not making rational arguments, has repeated false claims multiple times without addressing detailed rebuttals, and has explicitly stated that his/her own "interpretation" of BLP policy will trump any arguments or consensus from other users, and that reversions will continue. I have made a detailed argument several times on the BLPN page and gotten at in return at best highly subjective claims that the material is too salacious or not presented conservatively enough, despite multiple sources on a fact no one has ever denied. Dsol 13:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] federal investigation

I don't have time go work on this now, but here are the sources if anyone is interested:

Dsol (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)