Talk:The eXile

facts are facts - please check them out on the links provided in the libel judgement section. The LIBEL judgement needs to be at the top to inform the reader about all the cited libel that follows. Putting it at the bottom clearly distorts everything in the article.

 I fully expect exile employees to try to revert the material on the libel judgement,

cut it, weaken it, put it at the bottom of the text, etc. This would clearly be wrong. Facts are facts. Sincerely,

Peter D. Ekman

(Ames delete this material even before I got off the discussion page!)

Dispute Notices etc.

This article now reads like an advert written by 2 exile employees, demonstrating the exile's policy of using the internet to harass innocent people. It should be made clear that the exile is in the business of libel, as described in the editors own book "The eXile: Sex, Drugs and Libel in the New Russia."

I don't think that anybody will believe anything written here now. It is not just the unreadable exile style, but also THE "FACTS" ARE CLEARLY IN DISPUTE.

e.g. in the section that libels me, the text does not agree with the sources quoted. (Bizarre as it may seem, the current editor of the exile seems to be trying to libel Mark Ames). I cannot edit something this bizarre and unbelievable - and I'm sure the 2 exile employees would just revert over it in any case.

e.g. Congressman Bonilla asked the Russian government to prosecute Mark Ames and the exile for forgery, not for "a prank." Klebnikov has absolutely no relevance to this section.

e.g. Every mention of "prank," with one possible exception, actually refers to a criminal act. The gulf between "crime" and "prank" is unlikely to be bridged in this forum.

e.g. a large percentage of the so-called contributors are clearly ficticious.

e.g. exile does NOT maintain a COMPLETE archive of all articles published since 19xx. Some have been deleted or are otherwise inaccessible.

e.g. Ames's and the exiles's conviction for libel needs to be added in order to make any sense of what they are talking about. See http://www.pbfc.org/Oldnews/may02/may02.html#02may29a

The clear bias is in every paragraph and is only multiplied by the numerous errors of fact. The article is unsalvagable and nobody will believe it.

Sincerely, Peter D. Ekman

Do not delete the section on Libel Conviction. Trying to hide this fact by calling it "civil" is pure nonsense. The name of the victim and the smut you were convicted for are not notable, not encyclopedic. The LIBEL CONVICTION is notable.

Sincerely, Peter D. Ekman

First of all, feel free to adress me as the purveyor of "this smut" but I have nothing to do with the eXile. I haven't been to Russia since 2004.

• As for the above, excuse me but that is wrong. A conviction is possible only in a criminal case, and this was a civil case. The eXile (not Mark Ames) was found liable, not convicted, and this is a matter of public record. Since you are ignorant regarding legal terminology, please improve your knowledge before belligerently modifying this article in an incorrect way.
• As regards relevance, so far there are two opinions against removing this info from registered users with many non-eXile related edits, and one for from an anonymous ip who has done little else but get himself banned for removing info here. Other users, let's hear from you too...
• "Self promotion" makes no sense and has no context. There's a wikipedia rule against editing articles on yourself, if you really think I'm an eXile editor, ask an admin to check my ip# (I'm at a university building in germany).
• "This is the only example that can be found..." is misleading. Found where, a google search? American media? How do you know, did you check Russian legal records? Again, check the definition of a conviction before calling it so.

Dsol 15:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this article making progress instead of revert wars. Both sides deserve some credit for that. Let me just make some corrections:

• I banned the fake User:Peter Ekman for impersonating the real Peter Ekman. I haven't ever banned any IPs for blanking on this article, and I don't think any other admins have (but I could be wrong). But repeated blanking is pretty poor behavior.
• There is no policy against editing an article about oneself, as far as I know.
• As for my opinion, I think this libel case is definitely relevant. (Especially given Ekman's refutation of the claims made against him.) I would like to see the actual libelous statement left in, because it is actually pretty ridiculous. We don't remove content merely for being "smut" or otherwise objectionable (Wikipedia is not Censored), so that is not a good reason to remove it. Can someone find the actual quote?
• Certainly in the US, a conviction is only for criminal matters; it might be different in Russia? Even if that is the case, in an English language encyclopedia to use the word "conviction" is at least highly misleading.
• The accusations that this article is written by solely by eXile employees is pretty silly at this point. Administrators actually don't have the ability to check IP addresses, but it's obvious that there are several people editing this that aren't associated with the eXile.

— brighterorange (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for chiming in. Actually I was refering to the 24 block (not a ban, I was wrong) applied to the Ashton, PA comcast ip involved in the recent edit war. Also the most recent debate are about the Bure libel case, not the Ekman libel allegations. Also please not the highly POV edits I reverted in the past 10 min. Oh, here they come again...Dsol 16:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that we're talking about the Bure case; I meant that the fact that the eXile has gotten trouble over libel should clue in the reader to take their allegations (against Ekman and others) with a grain of salt. This should help make the article less objectionable to Ekman. — brighterorange (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I merged the content about the "Libel" with the Pavel Bure section since they have the exact same content; the only difference is that Ekman's paragraph was prioritized before all other content and was written from a biased perspective (that excluded, for instance, any mention that the original article was satire). There was one new piece of information: a claim that the judgement against the exile was the only libel judgement against an English language periodical in all of Russian and Soviet history. This claim would be notably but it's very hard to believe and I can't verify it.

A libel conviction is a libel conviction. Do not pretend that you are a Russian legal expert. Do not remove this material

thank you for providing this link, 69.253.195.228. it mentions a case against the eXile, not against Ames, so I will put it on this page, not his, unless you can provide further info. I will leave the dispute statement up for a short time as a measure of good faith, but since you've already shown that you're online since I made my comment below, I insist you carry out meanigful dialogue by responding to it, and or at least explaing what you think remains factually in error (providing sources where necessary). You have already experienced what happens when you make unilateral decisions without explaining yourself on the talk page. Finally, for the sake of readability please respond to new comments below them, instead of modifying your previous comments (as you did in providing the link), and please increase the indention for each response with the colon character at the beginning of a paragraph. Dsol 20:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, 69.253.195.228, allow me to make a few humble suggestions. On wikipedia it is customary to put new material on a discussion page at the bottom, and to put a title (as I have done) so that it will show up in the table of contents. Also it would help to create an account, especially if you want to sign your name with any credibility (I'm not sure if Comcast shares ip adresses among its customers). If you want anyone to believe that you are Peter Ekman, prove it (e.g. mention these edits on a business website, photograph yourself editing wikipedia, etc.).

I think your points here are generaly quite good and I will incorporate them at once. Wikipedia has a "be bold" policy, and you don't have to mention your suggestions before you make them. There's also no need to put a factual dispute notice when you can just correct the errors. A few individual things:

• in what way does the Ekman section not agree with works cited?
• is there any conclusive verifiable proof that any contributors are fictitious? this is an issue that has appeared before on this discussion page (see the history), and the consensus reached at that time was not to assert this without proof. such theories are further discussed on the respective pages where appropriate (e.g. Denis Salnikov, Gary Brecher).
• what conviction for libel? do you have a source?
• what articles are not available online? do you have a title or a broken link? don't forget to try their legacy archive.
• what pranks were criminal acts in the jurisdcitions where they took place? and why can't a criminal act be a prank (e.g. toilet papering someone's house is obviously illegal as tresspasing)?

Otherwise I generally agree. Thanks for doing the research, don't be afraid to edit the page yourself (as long as you don't start indiscriminately blanking again), and keep up the good work! Dsol 17:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head as to why there is a dispute of the facts here. YOU CONSIDER A CRIME TO BE THE SAME AS A PRANK, I DON'T.

Peter D. Ekman

I have removed the sentences containing the ultimate libel victim's name. To include it just spreads the libel further. I've also labeled the libel judgement as LIBEL - lets call things by their right names - and corrected the math. In 2002 the ruble /$ rate was about 30, giving $16,667. Since the exile wants to minimize this, I've rounded way down to $15,000.

Nothing here should be taken as any approval whatsoever for the "facts" expressed in the rest of the article. I just don't want a new section to effectively continue Ames's libels.

Sincerely,

Peter D. Ekman

Again, please indent your text for readability. Also don't put equal signs to demarcate text, as this messes up the table of contents. Moving on to substance,

• there is a cited source that names the amount as $10k, and the rouble fluctuates considerably (btw the case came in 2001, reread the article).
• I have no objection to calling the libel judgement actual libel, but there is no wikipedia policy for censorship of libel victim's names, and in any case the name is a matter of public record due to the court case. certainly all the US (googleing "pavel bure" +"two vaginas" even turns up a dead msnbc link) and russian media outlets running stories about this did not censor the name, or even the nature of the libel itself, and there is no reason for wikipedia to outdo them in self-censorship.
• aside from this, don't take out bg information about the case without a justification. blanking without a reason has earned you a ban already.
• finally, whether or not you approve of the "facts" in the rest of the article, if you don't name which facts you believe in error (citing sources as necessary), and continue to post the disputed notice, I suspect the administrators will resond as previously. Otherwise, I am happy to make changes and work out any disagreements by consensus Dsol 22:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about the actual libel itself - it's completely sophmoric.

Yet, it may (and was intended to) hurt somebody. That part has no place in an encyclopedia, it is not "encyclopedic." You can print anything you want to in the exile, due to the poor enforcement of Russian libel laws. So it is notable when you are convicted of libel.

Peter D. Ekman

That the libel was sophomoric I can't deny, whether it was intended to hurt someone I'm not sure. If you took the time to read wikipedia's policies, however, you'd see that neither of these is grounds for exemption. The only question is notability, which will be decided by consensus, not by one anonymous ip from Aston, PA. No one ever said a prank and a crime were the same thing. They have different definitions which can overlap, see a dictionary (I gave the example of toiletpapering someone's house) Dsol 09:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A section about a spat between the eXile and Peter Eckman is not encyclopedic I would suggest that regardless of your opinion of Peter Eckman or Johnson's Russia List, including two paragraphs about this alleged incident anywhere in the encyclodepia, even here in the Exile article, far overstate the importance of the spat. Made 'during a visit from Ekman's mother-in-law'?! It just makes us all look bad. At best--if those with knowlege of The Exile think it is an important event in the paper's history--it deserves two sentences in the 'pranks' section or something. To repeat Tiabbi's comments ('balding' etc.) is, from the point of view of an impartial observer, childish and petty; it is also inherently not NPOV.

--Squibix 14:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not DELETE items in this discussion. Peter D. Ekman

The message following this one was certainly not written by me, Peter D. Ekman. The user "Peter D. Ekman" is not the real person Peter D. Ekman. That user's message just shows how low some people will go to impose their viewpoint on others.

Sincerely, the real Peter D. Ekman

• I blocked this account, since we have a policy against impersonating other users. Everyone, jeesh, some civility! — brighterorange (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

***** Dear Editors of the eXile page, 

I would like to formally apologize for my recent crusade against the eXile wikipedia entry. I became clouded with rage and acted irrationally because of my contentious history with this publication. By attempting to delete this page multiple times, by obnoxiously reverting, by marginalizing links to the eXile entry from other pages, and by concocting outlandish and false charges of libel, I commited many wrongs. I now realize that I did more than hurt the exile: I hurt the wikipedia community. I have violated several wikipedia policies and betrayed the trust wikipedia places in the everyman. For this I am deeply sorry.

I now realize that I cannot get my way just by childishly reverting the article and making empty threats of legal action. I must communicate to others with respect in order to be respected. You can be sure that I will act accordingly in the future.

Sincerely,

Peter D. Ekman****

Please keep the obvious libel off this page. I believe that I have gone through all the proper channels to have this removed, and that the removal of an obvious libel is completely in sinq with Wikipedia policy.

Thanks, Peter D. Ekman

• I disagree. Blanking entire sections is not a proper channel, nor in sync with wikipedia practices. As an easy criticism: you removed the section about the eXile book, but this doesn't appear to have anything to do with the "libel" you claim exists. This and the repeated bad-faith nominations to AfD (1, 2) indicate a clear vendetta against the eXile, which is not surprising given who you are. However, wikipedia is not a place to push one's own personal agenda, and I think you'll find many people here are in fact encouraged into vigilance by attempts to censor content. The repeated blanking is thus not only non-productive and not in line with the wikipedia spirit, but probably counter-productive to your goals!

As for the libel being "obvious", I and others just don't see it that way. It seems to me that the section simply reports on something that the eXile has published, and that you have denied. Elaborating on why you think this is libelous, or (much better) improving the text so that it is agreeable to everyone, would be a much better way to proceed. Most of us are interested in building a comprehensive encyclopedia, not in personally attacking you. — brighterorange (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• I also disagree. No one is doing anything to this article to spite you. Don't turn this into a personal matter. There is information on wikipedia that you don't like. If you want to improve it, by all means go ahead and do so. If it's inaccurate, provide proof. If you consider something libelous, support your allegations. But considering that this entire time you've been absolutely alone in all your allegations, I would suggest trying to get some sort of consensus on the talk page before touching the main article in the future. Remember, it's not up to you to decide what is up on wikipedia or not. It's up to the community. Not one single person has agreed with your edits, or supported your point of view so far. Like you said, you did go through all the proper channels, in addition to the improper ones; and all of them turned you down. Didn't they?

Images

Can we use one of the covers on the website? I'm guessing they're copyrighted Dsol 16:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Necessary Content

I see a number of things that I think we should to add to this article. 1) I think we need to have some more representative links to eXile material.

2) the pranks section is desperately in need of information since it doesn't come close to describing the spirit of the eXile. We at least need to talk about: a) Hitting New York Timesman Michael Wines in the face with a horse semen filled cream pie. b) the meta-prank where the eXile accepted responsibility for a notorious bogus fax that it didn't send and earned condemnation from US Represenative Bonilla. c) The Buns McGillicuddy "Touch my Buns" prank where an eXile intern successfully posed as an international nightclubbing celebrity. d) The Gorbechev/New York Jets prank. . . There are some other ones, too, but I can't think of them right now.

3) an Enemies list detailing those with whom the eXile has a contentious relationship with: Michael McFaul, Michael Bass, Michael Wines, Fred Hiatt, Victor Davis Hanson, ... this list is actually very long now that I think about it.

Regarding

"The accusations of fascism were discounted by many in part because of the eXile's Jewish roots - Ames, along with the eXile's publisher, deputy editor and several contributors are all Jews - and because of the paper's satirical editorial bent"

I agree that this info should go in, but it sounds kind of like opinion (espcially the "by many") and should be sourced. Also I think the main point is satire, not the fact that someone is Jewish (anyone can be a fascist). On another note, I intend to add some more to this section when I have time. Dsol 17:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 07:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It survived a second nomination as well. — brighterorange (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Salnikov/Brecher

Regarding the recent change by 212.46.255.138, I don't see why the fact that the identities of Brecher and Salnikov are dispute should be left out. I'm reverting in 24 hrs if no explanation, till then realphabetizing the list. Dsol 13:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: Salnikov/Brecher

In answer to above, it makes this alleged "dispute" the primary important piece of information on these two. The "dispute" in each case is almost non-existent in the larger body of web discussion on them, though it does arise in perhaps 1% of the total info out there or less. More accurate to keep this "dispute" to each one's page, rather than making it the primary relevant bit that distinguishes them.

The larger body of web discussion on them? The fact is that absolutely nothing concrete is known about either. I don't mind leaving it as it is for now, but after cleaning up Brecher's article a bit and making one for Salnikov, I'd like to revisit this issue later. At the very least we might put a footnote on their names. Dsol 11:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Clarence Thomas

Great work overall. Especially the extra pranks etc., I'm glad someone did this as I've been meaning to for a while but way too lazy. Two minor changes I'm going to make though 1)Rename "Johnson's Russia List" Prank to Ekman Prank, the list plays only a minor role 2)Take out the links to the articles for sexist, otherwise objectionable, etc. If someone has made a statement that those articles are those things, then we need a link to that statement. To make an unsourced blanket statement about sexism etc. and back it up with links to eXile articles is orignal research.

I also would like to add the Combed Over prank [1] if I have time. Dsol 15:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the links on "sexist, racist, otherwise objectionable":

Basically, I think the exile isn't so much "sexist" or "racist" as it is rude, blunt, and willing to use stereotypes when they fit. There's a reactionary association with the labels "sexist" and "racist" and this clearly isn't the case here. I think people should be provided with specific examples of the kinds of content that people might find objectionable so they can decide for themselves.

Clarence Thomas

Libel

I deleted the inacurate and libelous material about me in this article. I think the whole article should be deleted as it is just an advert for a very low class newspaper. I deleted the listing of the exile's book, this was pure advertisement. Sincerely, Peter Ekman

Dear Mr. Ekman,

I restored the content in reference to you since the article clearly describes the eXile's allegations about you as such, and qualifies them with adjectives such as "unsubstantiated" and "unverified." Since the article is merely describing what the eXile said without making any claims, implicit or explicit, about the eXile's accuracy, the wikipedia article cannot be libelous.

As you know, whether or not a subject is "very low class" or not does not determine the subject's suitability for Wikipedia. Since the article survived a vote for deletion last summer (100% voting to keep) I believe it has been established that the eXile magazine is a worthy subject. If you think there are problems with the eXile article, then why not help us write a better one? That seems to me like a constructive way to handle your objections.

We welcome your help.

Clarence Thomas

Repeating a libel and then saying - of course this is unfounded and has no justification, we're just reporting what was said - is simply a ruse. There is no purpose for including the statement, except to continue the libel. If a statement libels somebody and is unfounded then it should be deleted. The entire purpose of the exile is "Sex, Drugs, and Libel" according to the title of it's own editors' book. I will pursue this, through the proper channels until the libel is permanently removed. I'm sure Wikipedia has lawyers, who will recognize the statement in question as libel, so you will lose. The libel will be permanently removed.

Mr Peter Ekman,

Wikipedia has a policy against the use of legal threats, so I hope you will instead abide by Wikipedia's policies for resolving disputes. I believe we can work out any differences on this page.

Let me address your concerns regarding libel. Libel has a legal defintion, and this definition specifically excludes facts from being considered libelous. This definition is not "a ruse," this is a well-established legal precedent. If you cannot find factually incorrect claims being made by the article itself, then I would ask that you cease accusing the authors of this page of illegal conduct.

If you can find libelous statements, please correct only those statements without eliminating swaths of valuable content. Since we seem to disagree about what constitutes libel, it would be constructive for you to explicitly list the offending claims here in the talk page. I believe this will expedite a resolution.

Finally, this article has already survived a vote for deletion a few months back. If you cannot demonstrate why the previous vote was flawed, then I am going to ask you to stop trying to delete this page.

Again, we invite you to make constructive contributions to our resource, but please respect the rules of Wikipedia and of other Wikipedians.

Clarence Thomas

I've made no legal threats here, I've simply identified an obvious case of libel. I will continue to try to work through the Wikipedia system. I haven't "eliminated swaths of valuable content" - only about 2 paragraphs of pure libel that have something like "of course this is completely unsubstantiated" appended at the end. Very clearly the wording of this section is a transparent ruse, used to pretend that it is a statement of fact. Since the personal attack is completely unsubstantiated, I believe that Wikipedia rules say that it should be deleted.

 I am under no obligation to dignify an obvious case of libel, by trying to refute

individual parts of the whole. The whole thing is libel, unsubstantiated, unverifiable, and untrue.

Mr. Peter Ekman,

I am going to insist that you abide by the Three Revert Rule. You have made seven revisions to the eXile page in the past day. This is becoming egregious. Please note that violating the three revert rule is grounds for being banned from wikipedia.

You claim that you are under no obligation to "dignify" an "obvious case of libel." Mr. Ekman, we are governed by consensus here. You do have an obligation to justify your actions, especially when these actions are called into question. We expect anybody who makes accusations of criminal libel against other wikipedia authors to, at the very least, be able to name the libel they believe took place.

Clarence Thomas

A section about a spat between the eXile and Peter Eckman is not encyclopedic

I would suggest that regardless of your opinion of Peter Eckman or Johnson's Russia List, including two paragraphs about this alleged incident anywhere in the encyclodepia, even here in the Exile article, far overstate the importance of the spat. Made 'during a visit from Ekman's mother-in-law'?! It just makes us all look bad. At best--if those with knowlege of The Exile think it is an important event in the paper's history--it deserves two sentences in the 'pranks' section or something. To repeat Tiabbi's comments ('balding' etc.) is, from the point of view of an impartial observer, childish and petty; it is also inherently not NPOV.

--Squibix 14:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page for Mark Ames, removal of information is not a good way to achieve NPOV. The eXile's pranks are one of the most important facets of its history. It is absolutely innapropriate to leave them out. If you think the style is wrong, then rewrite it yourself without taking out information. Also the comment "if those with knowledge of the eXile" is surprising...if you don't know and haven't read it or about it at least somewhat, then don't edit this article -- this is wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Contribute what you know or are willing to learn more about). Dsol 18:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Dsol. The attempt to obtain NPOV by Squibix eliminated some important information such as the tone of the periodical, what the millions of eXile readers enjoy about the periodical, as well as how the periodical is disregarded by it's detractors. I also concur with Squibix that the Ekman paragraph is poorly written. It's summary under the pranks section is far too long. Nor does the contentious exchange between Mr. Ekman and the eXile constitute a prank in any way. The eXile wasn't joking when they claimed that Ekman was a philander who sexually propositioned their leggy blonde secretary; they were being dead serious.

Clarence Thomas 18:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In some cases, removal of information is the only way to achieve NPOV. From what I was able to determine from the sources available to me, this particular interpersonal conflict is non-notable and unverifiable, and therefore doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, even assuming that The Exile is itself notable--which it was determined to be in the AfD debate--it seems to me that this particular episode is not.

You'll notice I made no attempt to edit it; if you can manage to make it sound like something more than the gloating of Exile fans who don't like Peter Eckman, and also demonstrate its relevence and notability, more power to you. Otherwise, I'll continue to think that it's unencylopedic, and a detriment to Wikipedia. - Squibix 01:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

With the notion that NPOV must under any circumstances be achieved by omission I disagree wholeheartedly. That was the gist of the RfD debate, and there's no need to rehash that debate over every particular facet of the eXile's existence. The key issue as to inclusion of information is notability, as I mentioned above it is only the presentation of this information that must be acheived by NPOV means. This episode is notable not only because of the controversy it generated, but because it is such an exemplar of the eXile style which establishes the newspaper's readership and notability in the first place.

The issue of verifiability you raise is an important concern, but I think a misplaced one. Have you read the original article at the heart of this scandal? The important fact is not that Ekman groped a secretary (I personally doubt if he ever did), but that the eXile printed this claim! This latter assertion is not only trivial to verify, but also quite notable. Notable in that it exemplifies the eXile's style, and notable in that it could not have been dared in a US publication. The issue of verifiability is thus one of context: the whole scandalous episode would be unthinkable in an encyclopedia article about Eckman, and yet here it is essential. To say otherwise is really just to repeat the argument from the failed VfD, that the eXile is in such bad taste that it has no place in an encyclopedia. The consensus was against that argument in general before, and I'm confident it will be so in the particulars again.

Finally (such a long winded argument for such an insignifcant subject!) I admit that the connection between these pranks and the overall eXile style is less than crystal clear. I intend to add a "journalistic style" section to the page in the moderately near future which should make clear what I think is already obvious to the eXile's devoted readers and haters. Dsol 01:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

After I read "Peter Ekman Groped Me," I personally had little doubt that Peter Ekman made sexual advances towards the secretary of the Exile. The accusations are entirely credible. Furthermore, Ekman's behaviour on wikipedia has entirely vindicated the Exile's portrayal of Ekman as a petty, vindictive, and passive-aggressive man.

I think this question has been decided. No libel. Some civility on this page is requested. And there has to be something notable - not just repeating a lame attempt to trash my reputation.

Sincerely, Peter D. Ekman

Peter, nobody ever agreed with you there ever was any libel on the page. Even the wikipedians who are most sympathetic to you have explicitly maintained that no libel ever took place. You assertion that "this question [of libel] has been decided" is a feeble attempt to assert concensus is on your side by playing make-believe. The only point ever to be seriously considered in this discussion is how relevant the Peter Ekman section is, a point that, coincidentally, wasn't made by you. If I was a former "Financial Editor" of the Moscow Times, I would feel rather sad that I was relying on anonymous wikipedians to provide a cogent argument for my position. Clarence Thomas 18:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this guy might just be the genuine article! I took him for a random troll before, but his ip resolves to Comcast in Aston, Pennsylvania, only about 2 hours from where he teaches (his students complained about him to the eXile) in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr. Ekman, if that's who you in fact are! But I don't see you anywhere on ship.edu, and you're not in the Faculty directory. So why are you still in Aston Pennsylvania? What are you up to these days? Dsol 17:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit war

First of all, to whoever in Aston PA keeps reveting the page, please if you must use your 3 daily reverts, only revert relevant material. There's plenty of new stuff in there without any bearing on your issue, so please edit more carefully. The last edits have taken out unrelated material; this is vandalism as per wikipedia policy. Also it is quite clear that a opinions should be taken for what to do about the Peter Ekman section, obviously as its author I would:

• Keep in all present info, though open to stylistic changes. It may seem a small point to make, but I don't think cencorship concessions should be made in these cases. I concur with the comments of Brightorange and 24.168.5.223 above regarding the question of libel, but in any case I don't think Wikipedia:Libel could even remotley apply here, since quoting a libeleous source as "an allegation" is not libel under US or Florida law (the policy stems from legal issues). This particular scandal could probably be substituded for another to give the same effect, but random individuals have no right to censor wikipedia because it does not aggree with them (Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). As for verification, I think that reading the policy page should convince anyone that the article makes no "unverifiable" claims about it's subject or anything else. Finally, on the subject of relevance, I think that even if the eXile had made a statement that was libelous in american jurisdictions (not the case here), that only would add to the statement's relevancy in an eXile article, e.g. “We were out of the reach of American libel law, and we had a situation where we weren’t really accountable to our advertisers. We had total freedom,” --Matt Taibbi ([2]). A description of this view ultimately needs to figure more into the article, not less..Dsol 21:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• ...

I would like to hear further opinions about what to be done about this. In the meantime I reiterate, don't revert unrelated sections of the page, as this is Wikipedia:Vandalism. Oh and please Sign your posts on talk pages Dsol 21:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

69.253.195.228, The latest revert comes with the title "leave out libel, take out pure opinions, filler." First of all, I don't see how most of the removed material (e.g. extended list of contributors, Taibbi's early role as editor, prediction of debt default, existence of detractors...) could be counted as any of these 3. Second, wikipedia works via consensus, not edit wars. Please state your opinion clearly, and explain why you think your version is better. You have already violated the 3RR rule and continue to glibly remove contect without adding anything to the article or even justifying yourself in more than a few buzzwords. I and others have assumed good faith and tried to engage in meanigful dialogue, but to no avail. There are measures to restrict this kind of behavior, but our administrators are busy enough, and I hope this can be settled by a consensus that involves you. Dsol 01:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. It appears that Mr. Ekman has been banned for the next 24 hours or so and I hope everybody that has been entangled in this article can take advantage of this time to make the eXile article a more comprehensive and more concise work. My goal is to one-day improve this article to the highest standard of wikipedia as "featured article".

Our first priority should be resolving residual issues with Ekman as best as we can without sacraficing content. I'm going to attempt to rewrite the Ekman section and I invite others to assist me. I think the Ekman episode needs to be clear and brief and its relevance to the rest of the eXile needs to be obvious. I hope we can avoid future revert wars. I think it's a shame how much effort we are wasting quibbling on the discussion page when we could be adding to the resource. Clarence Thomas

Definitely with you there. I filled in the Michael Bass section, McFaul should be next...I really think that sections on style and ideology would help a lot, and that the rest of the article would seem less disjointed that way. Hopefully I'll have the energy to do this soon. Dsol 02:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

A section about a spat between the eXile and Peter Eckman is not encyclopedic I would suggest that regardless of your opinion of Peter Eckman or Johnson's Russia List, including two paragraphs about this alleged incident anywhere in the encyclodepia, even here in the Exile article, far overstate the importance of the spat. Made 'during a visit from Ekman's mother-in-law'?! It just makes us all look bad. At best--if those with knowlege of The Exile think it is an important event in the paper's history--it deserves two sentences in the 'pranks' section or something. To repeat Tiabbi's comments ('balding' etc.) is, from the point of view of an impartial observer, childish and petty; it is also inherently not NPOV.

--Squibix 14:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not DELETE items in this discussion. Peter D. Ekman

gorbachev/ NY jets incident

did this really happen? i can't find the original story on their website, and only vague mentions of it in a million other places. it's mentioned in comber over Dsol 23:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah it happened. That was mentioned in an article in reason magazine as well as in the Exile book.

Clarence Thomas

Please leave my comments alone!

I think the call for consensus is premature. People need to think about the new material presented that shows that libel is the essence of the exile's business. There are certainly much more damaging FACTS that can be presented about the exile, but why bother when, with the new material placed at the top everybody can see this (and check out the facts), and know that what they are about to read is all libel cited from the exile. 2 important points. 1. Clarence Thomas is obviously Mark Ames - the editor of the exile. Nobody else in the world can write in such a bizzare style. 2. It shows bad faith for Dsol to call for a consensus on removing the tags and then immediately remove the tags on his own. Sincerely,

Peter D. Ekman

2 calls for consensus

calling for consensus on whether to put the bure libel case in at the top, or to restrain it to the bure section. put your opinions below in list format, please give a nonbilligerent reason Dsol 20:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• at the bottom, this one case is not sufficiently significant in the history of the eXile. the current revision even has it above Taibbi's joining. much info is repeated. gives the article a disjointed feel. lacks sufficient context for newcomers. the new york times has lost libel cases, shall we put those at the top if its article? Dsol 20:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• at the topthe remainder of the article is just a list of cited libels, reports of assault, intimidation, etc. The reader needs to know about the believability of these unsupported or one-sided claims before he/she starts reading them.69.253.195.228
• at the bottom with Pavel Bure Section under Detractors, this is a no-brainer. The wikipedia article is not Peter Ekman's soapbox to advance his agenda against the eXile. Ekman's segment is written from a biased perspective that has many distortions and omissions that suit his vendetta. Ekman's demand that his personal opinion on the eXile be given preferential treatment is yet another example of his childish nature. Clarence Thomas 20:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• bottom', obviously. The top section should be reserved for entirely neutral facts about the newspaper: date founded, editors, broad discussion of subject matter, etc. One sentence about the paper's controversial nature would also be good up there, but specifics about allegations can go later. - Squibix 00:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• bottom seems better to me, as well. This is standard practice for controversial groups on Wikipedia, although it is also standard to forward reference it with a short remark in the opening paragraph. Wikipedia doesn't exist to pass judgment on its subjects. — brighterorange (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• ...

also calling for consensus on whether to remove the factual dispute notice. put your opinions below in list format, please give a nonbilligerent reason Dsol 20:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• remove, as present discussions don't seem to be touching on any facts here, only on the presentation and relevance of info..Dsol 20:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep lots of facts in new section, should clear up some of this. But the majority of the old information seems to come straight from the exile (yes, its style is disjointed and unclear). Some folks here still want to call a crime a "prank." I think that shows strong disagreement on the facts.69.253.195.228
• remove: as far as I can tell, the facts are not in dispute. My only concern is with the overall tone of the article, which in sections comes off as a bit fan-boyish. However, even that seems to be improving steadily under continued editing, to the point where I'm just about ready to remove the NPOV notice as well; I'm convinced that the folks editing the article are aiming for NPOV, even if their style is a little different than mine. - Squibix 00:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• ...

Consensus-Building Related Discussion (votes go immediately above)

regarding opinions expressed above: whether to call a crime a prank is here a question of presentation, not fact. the unproven claim that exile workers wrote some of this article is obviously not reasonable grounds for that tag. while no other objections are mentioned, as mentioned before, if you're too lazy to edit, don't tag. Dsol 21:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the call for consensus is premature. People need to think about the

new material presented that shows that libel is the essence of the exile's business.

There are certainly much more damaging FACTS that can be presented about the exile,

but why bother when, with the new material placed at the top everybody can see this (and check out the facts), and know that what they are about to read is all libel cited from the exile.

2 important points.

1. Clarence Thomas is obviously Mark Ames - the editor of the exile. Nobody else in the world can write in such a bizzare style.

2. It shows bad faith for Dsol to call for a consensus on removing the tags and then immediately remove the tags on his own.

Sincerely,

Peter D. Ekman

Dsol, how long do you intend to hold open the call for consensus? It's clear right now that Ekman is a solitary vigilante with zero support. At this point we should at least have a preliminary motion towards our current consensus even if the debate is to continue. Notice: there would not be any debate about this at all if Mr. Ekman did not demonstrate a willingness to righteously and stubbornly flout consensus and to flout wikipedia policy to impose his perspective. I believe even holding a call for consensus is an act of appeasment which, in the long run, goes against Wikipedia's interest by encouraging obnoxious behaviour and empowering those with sufficient spare to time pursue a blanket strategy.

I have not yet corrected the article myself because I do not wish to get further entangled in Mr. Ekman's imaginary power-struggle with Mark Ames. But we need to have some sort of timetable for progress.

Clarence Thomas

Agreed. I'm not really so experienced with this kind of thing, to tell the truth. I wanted to do this consensus vote so that a newcomer to this page with no knowledge of the eXile ("Ekman" could leave messages on admin pages for example) would have no doubt whatsoever what is going on. I was hoping for a few more voices here but the consensus is still pretty clear. I think it's been long enough, and this anonymous ip has been outvoted 3-1/2-1. I'm going to act on the 3-1 issue now, and give the 2-1 issue another day for people to mention facts that are indispute (so far we have only the definition of prank). Anyone else reading this, don't hesistate to vote just because I 've already acted. Dsol 20:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Pure crocodile tears, Mark. Fairness? Reread the Libel Judgement section then comment on fairmess. All I want is the obvious libel (unsubstantiate, untrue, unverifiable) about me on this page to be removed. Or just let it be clear upfront that that the exile has a policy of libelling innocent people and a legal history to match. Sincerely, Peter D. Ekman

Facts Currently in Dispute (fill in below)

• Definition of 'prank,' depending on what is a factual issue. I hold that an act can be a prank and a crime, whereas 69.253.195.228 disagrees. I also don't think this is a factual issue, whereas 69.253.195.228 disagrees. Dsol 20:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• ...
• ...

NPOV Issues Currently in Dispute (fill in below)

• ...
• ...

title section

attention 69.253.195.228. I reverted title section since

• 1)NPOV obviously not an improvement by any standard
• 2)NOR] no wikipedia user's opinion is valid as content, this is official policity
• 3)CITE who has called the eXile fascist? source? is the source relevant? is the whole affair relevant enough to go at the top when we already have a detractors section?

I won't ask for another call for consensus if this keeps up. this behavior demands a request for comment on your ip, proposing that you be blocked from this article for at least a week. other users don't deserve to have to babysit your antics, I for one would rather spend time improving the article. All this said, if you can do a better job on the title section without soapboxing, be my guest. Dsol 23:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

NOR ? Surely you must mean something else.

Surely the facts I put in are not in dispute, you must only be disputing whether they are the most relevant facts. You can't get rid of the close Limonov neo-fascist relationship without deleting the whole exile archive, and still there are copies of things across the internet.

 I do admit that I didn't prepare all the examples well enough, or supply the documentation.  Should the documentation go 

in the head or in the body. If you are going to have an ideology section, there is no way to omit Limonov. He is your "hero" (that's a quote), so be proud of him and don't hide him as a mere contributor.

You also need to get rid of the fluff. "Loyal readers appreciate" ya ya. That's what Ames get for never having a real editor. I'll see what documentation I can round up in a few minutes.

Sincerely, Peter D. Ekman

removing unsourced claims

I'm removing some unsourced info and original research. Point by point:

• "(or crimes according to its critics)" what critics? you need a citation. claiming to be a critic and using your own opinion violates NOR. also, we already have a detractors, critics, and enemies section, where this belong. feel free to link to it from the first paragraph.
• "Its content is sexist [1][2] and racist[3]." Those links are to the content, which never calls itself sexist or racist. You need a source that actually calls the eXile that, and you should use "has been called..." not "is..." since as Brighterorange has remarked, wikipedia does not exist to judge its material.
• "antidemocratic and fascist" unsourced as above.
• " neo-fascist" to discribe Limonov unsourced as above. No one is denying a close relationship with Limonov, however.
• "reminded Russians of the relative strength of the American election system versus the faulty Russian system" the superiority of the US system is obviosly a POV issue and needs to be presented as opinion
• "which was observed by the Russians with great amusement" needs a source.

• "a remarkably large sum at the time in Russian libel cases" needs a source.
• "front page apology" the retraction (which specifically mentions that there will be no apology) is on the front page of the website[3], but I'm not sure what it means to have a front page apology printed in the eXile. They don't even have a "front page," only a TOC.

Please learn and follow wikipedia policy. Dsol 12:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The Nature of Victimization

Greetings folks, I'm going to jump in here to provide what I think is some necessary counterbalance. I have a very good understanding of the dynamic going on here. Mr Eckman is feeling victimized by an entity that is clearly known for its cleverness and victimization of people (smashing pies in peoples faces constitutes battery). And the Wiki community has unknowningly become the stage for this play. It's apparent to me, anyways, that Mr. Eckman is frustrated because he doesn't have the eloquence, or full understanding, to make his case properly. And it is probably even more frustrating to him to see his claims of victimization taken wholly intellectually such as side debates forming, in response to his requests, as to whether a prank is a crime or not.

Take, for instance, the example of the pie-in-the-face prank. It doesn't belong here. That the eXile has engaged in pranks which are destructive and criminal in nature is sufficient information for a reader to continue his research. Or, perhaps, if the following week, Mr Wines or Mr Eckman delivers a goat-semen cream pie to the face of Michael Ames, we can add that in, because, after all, it would be a fact, right? And then if Michael Ames responded by catapulting a donkey carcass through the window of Mr Eckman's house, we could tack that on, too, ad nauseum, until someone dies and the exchanges end, right?

I'm new to Wiki, but I'm not new to life. And I know what an attempt to promote one's childish ways by presenting them as "simply facts" looks like. I think it is very important that inclusions be considered from a higher vantage point than "Facts/Not Facts" or "Relevant/Not Relevant" but rather, "Is this really necessary?" and that will open up a can of worms because a lot of people aren't clear on what is really necessary. And the last thing any of us want is for Wiki to be manipulated, however subtley, by some clever person, or persons, in an effort to victimize, or extend the victimization of, anybody.

In that light, I think the references to Peter Eckman should be either removed or pared down substantially. While the case can be made for its being factual and relevant, the section is written with a very subtle, albeit powerful, bias. To cite example of this bias in an other section, reference the debate on this talk page as to whether the word "conviction" should be used in conjunction with the term "libel" since libel is a civil crime and not a criminal crime.

Yet in this sentence: "As punishment the eXile pelted Wines in the face with a cream pie filled with equine semen and published a narrative of the pelting, with photographs, in their next issue."

The term "punishment" is inappropriate as it suggests Wines has done something wrong other than to get on the bad side of a notorious, activist, editing staff whose pranks include smashing pies in peoples' faces. If, as has been determined, a "conviction" suggest a crime, then a "punishment" suggests an infraction of some kind. And there is no infraction; just some unfortunate person whose expression of his right to speak out lands him on the "hit list" of a troublesome organization.

We, also, have the eXile violently "punishing" someone with an act of battery and humiliation. If the pie in the face is a fact, then it's also a fact that it's a crime to assault and batter someone, so let's make sure that these things are not presented as "clever knee-slapping pranks" but violations of law, unless it's legal to humiliate, assault and batter people in Russia and I just don't know about it. Amongst friends who have established a prior relationship where such indiscretions occur occasionally, a pie in the face is a prank. In the context of humiliating an ideological opponent who could never be mistaken as to having consented to such things, it is a crime. Let's call it what it is. Thanks. Sam Freedom10:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sam. You don't have to run everything by others on the talk page, if you think something should be changed, then be bold. With regard to paring the Ekman section, previous debates have arrived at the consensus that all that info should stay in. Of course such decisions are never final, but make sure you've read those discussions carefully before you decide you have a new reason not to follow them that was not presented previously. With regard to the use of the term "as punishment," I agree this is a POV term and that it should be changed or put in quotes. I will do so if you haven't already. If you see any other POV phrases, change them, but try not to remove info or introduce another variant of POV.

On the more general question of relevance, I suggest you read a couple issues of the eXile. I think that all the major pranks they've pulled, crimes or not, are important both in terms of facts and in terms of what they say about the eXile's ideology. These pranks are not random squabbles but a concerted (if unorthodox and sometimes illegal) effort against what the eXile editors percieve as dishonesty and other faults, mostly in the press. For example, there is a reasonable argument, albeit a highly POV one that doesn't belong in this article, that Michael Wines really did deserve that semen pie. Neither does your assertion that the eXile is a "troublesome organization" belong in this article, or in our philosophy of editing here: we must remain neutral. If you think you detect a stylistic bias, then by all means fix it (be bold!). As for what goes in, according to wikipedia's rules hurt feelings alone are not a reason to omit information. This and many of the other issues you raise are adressed in wikipedia's policies, including the issue of what's "really necessary."

I am the creator of this article and the author of a fair chunk of its content. I don't claim any special editing rights based on this (wiki policies are against this in fact), but I think I should respond to your comments by explaining my aims in creating, expanding, and editing this article. I read and like the eXile, and I think it's interesting and notable. I want an encyclopedic article on it to be rich in info and NPOV. I don't feel that I've been manipulated by the eXile in writing about their pranks and rivalries (criminal and otherwise), and my intention was never to hurt anyone's feelings. Of course liking the eXile might give my edits a certain POV, about which I am always open to debate. That being said, removing relevant info just to make either other wiki editors or the figures mentioned in the article feel better is totally out of the question. Rather there must be another reason in accordance with conensensus and wikipedia policy.

I'd also like to ask you how you came to this issue. Did the person behind the previous anonymous ip (from Aston, PA) claiming to be Ekman ask for your attention here? You seem to have showed up just after he left, so I was just wondering. Anyway glad to have you here, and I hope you can contribute to this growing article. As user ClarenceThomas remarked above, it would be great to get it to featured status. Dsol 12:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dsol, thanks for a very well-reasoned reply. I'm not advocating removing material just to make people feel better, but I do believe that along with reporting "just the facts" comes a certain responsibility. In other words, if I have a vendetta against you, and really dislike you and want to do you a lifelong injury, all I need to do is smash a semen-filled pie in your face and then it ends up in Wikipedia for the rest of eternity. At least that's how it seems right now. I have found pranks funny when they're of good cheer, and well-intentioned, and all the parties agree it was such. And if we need to hang on someone's dictionary, most references refer to a prank as buffoonery or a practical joke. And people like you and I can go on arguing that "funny" is a matter of opinion, but I really believe there has to be standards.

A prank may start with funny intention but turn criminal once it breaks the law, or defiles another human being in a lewd and lascivious manner. So we can no longer refer to such a prank as solely just a prank if we are going to be truly neutral. We must say that "what began as a prank, turned criminal." if it truly began as fun mischief gone criminal. But if the intent was assault and battery with a bodily fluid that could potentially carry disease and would certainly mar one's character and reputation then regardless of the POV justifications, it's a crime we're talking about. Calling it a prank makes the originator sound fun, funny or clownish when the events being discussed here are clearly assault and battery which are criminal.

If you spit on someone. It's a crime. If you hit someone in the face with your hand. It's a crime. If you smash horse semen in someone's face, it's suddenly a prank? I believe your enjoyment of the eXile does bias you in this manner, enough so that you would remind me that things aren't removed to make certain people feel better - as I had never even remotely suggested that. It's my opinion that your bias caused a distraction from what I was trying to say and I'll reiterate it. Eckman, despite what foolishness or oddness one may wish to ascribe to him, is feeling victimized by a group of people who have taken it upon themselves to "right the wrongs" of society in their own peculiar way. He is having difficulty adequately expressing that the eXile has victimized people through verifiable criminal behaviour which is being mischaracterized as prankish.

As I've said, whatever one might think of the Eckmans or Wines of the world, that's their right, but the moment you start smashing semen pies in their face, it's no longer a right, nor is it funny, but it's malicious and criminal, and it stands to reason that criminally minded people think certain crimes are funny, which leads to arguments over who is right about what is funny and what is isn't. A criminal might find a crime exhilirating and laugh at it, but that doesn't make the crime funny.

Anyways, I've gone on enough. I just believe that you are on the edge of considering that maybe your bias has entered the article but. I think it would be a great thing if the article could really get across what eXile really stands for rather than listing their criminal actions under the prank category thus prolonging the victimization of their targets (whether or not you think there is a case for their deserving it.) I doubt the legal system in their neck of the woods advocates smashing horse semen in peoples faces.

I can completely understand why this Eckman fellow would be frustrated as heck at what he deems a grave misuse of Wiki to further his humiliation at the hands of an organization that thinks criminal behavior is really just a funny prank.

As for me, I don't know him at all, although I can see the beginnings of a naturally suspicious mind at work. I came here by way of Tregoweth who edited something of mine previously and as I was viewing his talk page, I saw first mention of an "edit war" referring to this article and came by to see for myself what it was about. And I've witnessed such things before where cooler heads have prevailed and a certain quality standard was maintained whereby those who play along the lines of "well, it's just a fact that I took a shit today so I should be able to express my thoughts on it wherever I please because it's a fact." were summarily dismissed.

One of the only others in the "consensus" that I've seen is this clarence thomas fellow whose very own user page thumbs a nose at the Wiki community whereby he acknowledges that he ought not be using the name of Clarence Thomas. But, since he only found out after choosing the name, he adds that it's incumbent upon the membership to either teach him how to change it, else they should just be able to suffer the indiscretion. It certainly doesn't seem very cooperative or agreeable, and I can safely assume that without any rationale he would naturally be on the side of rabble-rousing that confuses "funny" criminal behavior with the much milder term, "prank."

Anyways, thanks for listening, even if you still disagree, but I'd be quite surprised if you still thought of a horse-semen pie in the face as either legal, funny or a fact worthy of reporting. Sam Freedom14:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I'm beginning to see why the word prank seems POV to some; it suggests a certain harmlessness which does not apply in the given context. I think in this case, however, "crime" would be equally POV, so it's hard to resolve. Certainly there's an element of civil disobedience and vigilante justice which deserves a better description than a mere crime of passion or self-interest, though the damage done to the victim/target is significant at times and must also be adressed. With regard to both aspects of these actions, comparison to a description of defecation is, I think, unfair. Yet I particularly like your phrase "taken it upon themselves to "right the wrongs" of society in their own peculiar way," maybe it could go in the article, as it strikes a nice balance, though "peculiar" is kind of vague and possibly POV, and I wouldn't go so far as to ascribe any moral code to the eXile's editors. Ultimately I'm willing to take "prank" out of the article completely if a neutral substitute can be found. "Ekman" wanted to use crime, which I think was much worse in this context. Ideas?

I can't really accept your analogy that if you hit me with a sperm pie you could *poof* put in on wikipedia forever. I'm not notable enough, and for all I know neither are you. If, however, you run a magazine and splat me for an ideological reason, while I write for the NYT, that's a different story.

One objection I have to your comments above is that you seem to be positing wikipedia as a defender of the rule of law, i.e. that the fact these actions were illegal must color our entire interpretation of them. For example your phrases "I doubt the legal system..." and "no longer a right" -- is the fact that these acts were not legal or moral rights notable? Obviously a horse sperm pie is not the Boston tea party, but I don't think the criminality of these actions is the most notable aspect of them. Thus when you say "verifiable criminal behavior which is being mischarecterized as prankish," I disagree: the prankish aspect is much more notable for me than the criminal, though I see the criminal aspect (though fairly obvious from the description) needs to be explicitly adressed as well.

Another point of contention is the way you talk about understanding "Ekman"'s point of view, and the way he feels. You're right, you never said we should remove anything to make someone feel better, but I'm a bit puzzled with your expressions of sympathy. My reaction, in an entirely nonmalicious way, is who cares? I don't see how his feeling victimized by this article can be here or there, we have our policies, and that's it. Please don't think I'm doing this to spite him, note that his section was written long before he showed up, and toned done somewhat after. Also if I seem a bit cold about him, look at many of his billigerent and highly POV edits which border on vandalism.

Regarding Clarence Thomas, I think his name thing is a pretty minor issue, unless the real Clarence Thomas complains. He's made a lot of good edits here and elsewhere, see his contributions. I think the consensus was totally legit, though more voices would have been better.

Finally as far the article goes, I agree that the sperm pie was illegal, I don't think it matters whethere it was funny, and I do think it's totally worthy of inclusion. Inicidentally, I doubt a human could get sick from horse semen :) Dsol 16:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Dsol, that it would equally be a mistake to have the pendulum swing all the way in the other direction to mistakenly characterize eXile as a criminial institution. It's clear they don't exist to advance criminal behaviour. I just think it's POV to characterize certain individual with whom eXile, and possibly yourself, disagree as being punished and deserving of cream pies in their face. Then there's no central idea quoted from Eckman's work but only Matt Taibis's interpretation which is one-sided. Only then are quotes from Eckman offered, but only of his reactions to the stated "attack" and also representing him as a name-caller (in essence, "fascists, nazis and liar, liar.") You don't really object to leaving out the subjective quoting of others' POVs and leaving simple citations to the referenced works instead, do you? It would give the wiki reader the bare necessities without any kind of right or left leaning and a means for them to find and explore the original works.

Also, I edited the "punishment" paragraph mostly to make it a little smoother and less likely to be misconstrued as POV. I strongly recommend that if you're going to name names, then it wasn't just eXile that launched the cream pie but rather a particular person on behalf of eXile and their name ought to be included. After all, it must be a factual matter on record somewhere. We go so far as to inform the reader that it is semen in the pie, and specifically that of a horse, but then we leave out the name of the actual person who launched the pie? Do you know who launched that pie?

Regarding the nature of civil disobedience, I believe acts of civil disobedience are last ditch efforts by a mostly unified society against a government that is deemed to be tyrannical so I disagree with the correlation. First, if the society were not mostly, or completely, unified, then before civil disobedience would come civil war. Also, civil disobedience is more aking to Ghandi's sit-ins or hunger strikes, and not destroying peoples businesses or dumping tea overboard. That is not civil. Add to that, history is usually written by the victors so the "Boston Tea Party" might be painted as "civil disobedience" by those in the U.S. but is seen quite differently by those in the U.K. It was revolt. So if we agree that eXile's face smashings aren't merely pranks, but also aren't worthy of being characterized as purely criminal, then at the very least they need to be characterized as "revolting" - or "shock value" politics. And the fact that they are targetting individuals, as opposed to governing bodies, makes it an outright crime against another person. And there's nothing noble or passionate about smashing horse cum in your ideological opponent's face.

"I disagree: the prankish aspect is much more notable for me than the criminal," - That is why I'm pointing out what I believe to be your bias. You aren't yet convinced of the bias, but only of the possibility of there being bias, and I'm not suggesting Wikipedia be the defender of the rule of law, but there has to be a standard by which a crime is noted as a crime, and a simple act of mischief amongst buddies or colleagues is noted as a prank. That is purely objective and not any kind of a Wikipedian call to arms. The cream pie/punishment and Eckman sections, to me, are clearly expressive of the eXile POV and it's clear because I *truly* have no attachment to either side of this equation. :)

And lastly,"but I'm a bit puzzled with your expressions of sympathy. My reaction, in an entirely nonmalicious way, is who cares? I don't see how his feeling victimized by this article can be here or there, we have our policies, and that's it. Please don't think I'm doing this to spite him," Alright, let me see if I can make this a little more clear. I'm not feeling badly for Mr. Eckman. I'm saying his sense of victimization is two-fold - one of which can do nothing about and the other of which I believe we are compelled to do something about. The first is from whatever happened before this article. I have no business in that matter. The second is that I completely comprehend that he is inadequately trying to express the very same bias that I have been trying to highlight. That sections of this article have been written, intentionally or not, to represent eXile as these suave, clever pranksters with a noble cause, and their victims as buffoons who deserved what they got. And you even admitted that perhaps there may be a POV that their victims did deserve what they got "For example, there is a reasonable argument, albeit a highly POV one that doesn't belong in this article, that Michael Wines really did deserve that semen pie." which you rightfully state does not belong in the article. But my contention is that something of it has crept in, and I believe you have yet to see it.

In conclusion, I have made some minor edits to the wording of the "punishment"/"cream pie" paragraph which did not alter the meaning at all. It just stated the facts a little more clearly and smoothly and with a touch less POV in it. But I plan another edit which I submit to your approval, perhaps you'll want to roll it back, or modify it yourself and I'll be interested to know what you think. And again, thank you for offering me a very positive early experience on Wikipedia. I appreciate your quality of dialogue and your ability to withstand my lengthy disserations. :)

(in retrospect, I'm just going to leave it the way it is. I'm not attached to the outcome and I'm not at odds with you over this.)

Well taken. A few quick tidbits:

• Matt Taibbi threw the pie. he got his ass kicked by about 12 security guards after. this should go in. I'll find a link later
• I think we should leave the existing quotes in the Ekman section, but I agree that a better description of Ekman's peice would be good, possibly including a quote. you can find it online, and provide a summary.
• I like your edits to the Wines section.
• I think you're seeing the eXile's extreme actions on a spectrum only of joke vs. crime. but there's another dimension, a political or activist one, which is the important thing. without this dimension, the whole episode has little relevance, and that's why it should be the main focus. the ideology of horse sperm pies, that is.
• I agree the article still needs NPOV work, which is why I've left the notice up. is it possible that to some extent this perceived bias is just the facts speaking for themselves? Also I think I'm not the only one with a bias, for example your statement "there's nothing noble or passionate about ...." True perhaps, but a bit judgemental for an NPOV outlook.
• Finally, I highly recommend reading a few issues, if you plan on continuing to edit this article, and haven't done so already.
• "revolting" I think is POV and should stay out, but "shock value politics," if properly sourced via exile articles and interviews with the editors in rolling stone etc., could be useful, though I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean exactly.
• other less destructive pranks should round things out, like the gorbachev/ny jets prank

Dsol 20:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dsol, for levity sake, I did read both articles and found both author's to be sincere and well-intentioned though Matt's article included a few of those barbs that makes a meaningful reconciliation of viewpoints more of a challenge. That has nothing to do with our edits, but I wanted you to know that I did read both.

Now, do you think it would be entertaining and interesting to include how Matt obtained horse sperm for this? Or is that irrelevant?

About joke vs crime as opposed to "activist" - I was saying just the opposite. That I thought you were portraying it as activist with no distinction of degrees from funny prank to criminal behavior. And while "noble" and "passionate" might be POVs in some cases, I still believe that smashing horse semen in someone's face fails the test of nobility. It might be exhilirating, and produce a shot of adrenalin, but passion refers to a constructive love for something which can never be misconstrued with horse semen pies being smashed in faces. So I still feel I'm not giving a POV but rather making necessary distinctions. We shouldn't vilify eXile, but we should be careful not to deify them, or make them seem as celebretorious as "The Jerky Boys" had become in the U.S., either. (I am off and running, but will attempt the suggestions you made when I return, thank you Dsol).

Regarding the Peter Ekman Section

The consenus on the Ekman section was expressed before as follows. Peter D. Ekman

A section about a spat between the eXile and Peter Eckman is not encyclopedic I would suggest that regardless of your opinion of Peter Eckman or Johnson's Russia List, including two paragraphs about this alleged incident anywhere in the encyclodepia, even here in the Exile article, far overstate the importance of the spat. Made 'during a visit from Ekman's mother-in-law'?! It just makes us all look bad. At best--if those with knowlege of The Exile think it is an important event in the paper's history--it deserves two sentences in the 'pranks' section or something. To repeat Tiabbi's comments ('balding' etc.) is, from the point of view of an impartial observer, childish and petty; it is also inherently not NPOV. --Squibix 14:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 69.253.195.228

One comment does not a consensus make. Squibix reacted initially against putting it in, without really knowing what the story was about. 4 days later (voting for the Bure case/factual accuracy consensus), he wrote that he agreed with the current version (which included the longer version of Ekman) of the page, and was ready to remove the NPOV notice. Clarence Thomas and I had also originally wanted to keep the info in, and so did Brighterorange, who blocked you for 24 hours since you billigerently blanked it. I am:

• Removing the NPOV notice, since squibbix said it's ok and no has list any solid reasons to keep it in the week since I've made a space for it.
• Putting back all the information about the Ekman case, but condensing it somewhat.

I should point out that every time you've started a revert war you've been blocked or voted down. Please do not rehash the same issues as before in a different context over and over. Dsol 19:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

recent edits by 69.253.195.228

I have reverted these edits, since they are POV, and contain many new unsourced claims and original research. The editing is also sloppy, with facts inserted in irrelevant sections and replete with spelling errors, but if these were the only problems I would not have reverted. This is not the first time this ip has disregarded these policies, and while he ignores my posts on his talk page, I ask him publicly here to abide by policy, as he has been asked many times. Please.

There was only one new peice of info in these reverted edits with a citation, namely that "The "eXile" advocates political violence", with the link http://www.exile.ru/112/feature.php. This link is dead right now (I think the eXile site is down), but is available at the internet archive. The article, entitled "KILLING PEOPLE: The eXile Guide," is shock journalism and obvious satire. It is extremely bad faith to use this as a link for such a claim. Totally aside from this display of bad faith, it violates NOR policy -- you can only summarize what they say in the article, not make accusations based on it. For these reasons this "fact" was removed. Dsol 01:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Just check the facts.

When somebody give explicit directions on how to commit mass murder, it certainly is not obvious that it is satire or humor.

NOR policy ? - you don't know what you are linking to.

Bad faith? give me a break - it is the eXile that has the policy of libelling people.

Just check the facts and state which are not correct (they are all correct). Don't revert to eXile self-promotion simply because you don't like the facts. 69.253.195.228

No, it's you who must check the facts. Wikipedia requires that reliable sources be cited. It's not appropriate to put info into an article, and then demand that other people do your work for you by sourcing. If you want to put in info, you must find the sources. I don't have to say which facts I think are incorrect, I just have to say which are unsourced: citing sources is official policy. I'm saying it right now: all the new ones you out in, except the one discussed above. Note that the verifiability policy specifically states that truth alone is not sufficient for inclusion in wikipedia.

Regarding bad faith, it may be true that the eXile has a policy of libeling people. What that has to do with bad fatih on wikipedia I have no idea, and certainly doesn't excuse your unsourced POV contributions. If you have a personal bias, leave it out of your edits please.

Regarding my link to NOR, you're right, I didn't know what I was linking to. What I meant to link to was NOR: no original research.

I do think it's obvious that the article in question was satire, but even if you don't, surely you can't be sure that it was dead serious. Also I don't see much political stuff in there, and for it not to be a violation of NOR, the article would have to more or less specifically say : "we endorse political violence." If you think the article is relevant, then include a quote from it in a meaningful context, instead of making a deduction based on its content (again see NOR). In any case, I don't see how the blanket statement that "the eXile endorses political violence," with no mention of america, could possibly belong in the American politics subsection of the political commentary section.

Finally, you have not given any reason for the NPOV and factual tags you keep reinserting. The current issue is whether these new "facts" are to be included, not whether they are true. Factuality was decided by consensus (see above). NPOV removal was oked by squibix, and you have not added any other reasons for it to go in (I created a place for them above). Dsol 04:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

DISREPUTABLE AND UNRELIABLE SOURCE

DISREPUTABLE AND UNRELIABLE SOURCE

For several weeks I’ve been trying to remove an obvious libel against me on the_eXile page, but my edits keep on getting reverted, especially by users Clarence Thomas and DSOL who are the main authors of the page, and are also clearly editors or employees of the eXile. I did manage to get a section on the libel judgment against the eXile included, but DSOL and Clarence Thomas insist on editing this, breaking it up and burying it, and reverting any changes that I make to the section. They even revert the edits I made where I point out the libel against me and they add untrue material into the same sentence.

Their argument seems to be that it is a fact that the eXile printed certain accusations against me and others and therefore this fact cannot be removed under Wikipedia rules.

Their argument is wrong. Wikipedia rules require that a reputable and reliable source be cited. First I will quote Wikipedia rules. Then I will show that the eXile is completely unreliable and completely disreputable, as well as a part of an extremist organization (the National Bolshevik Party of Edward Limonov). I will wait a reasonable amount of time for your comments and then remove all “facts” in this article that are supported only by citing the eXile.

Relevant Wikipedia rules

From Verifiability

“One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher.”

“For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews or perform original research. Therefore, anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources.”

“Subjects which have never been written about in published sources, or which have only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility should not be included in Wikipedia.”

From Reliable sources

“If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor.”

“However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly.”

From Original research

“Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate). The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; ...”

IS THE EXILE REPUTABLE, RELIABLE, OR CREDIBLE?

A week after the 9/11/01 attack on the World Trade Center the eXile printed on their cover a large picture sexually mocking the victims of the attack. [4] [5] It’s clear that no reputable newspaper in the world would publish such a cover.

The eXile has been found guilty of libel in Russia, [6] despite bragging that they were free of fear of libel law because of Russia’s week libel law and weak enforcement against foreign language newspapers. As a former columnist at the reputable Moscow Times, I can say with a great deal of confidence that no other foreign language publication has ever been found guilty of libel in Russian history. Of course I can’t prove a negative, but I challenge the eXile’s folks to come up with a counter example.

Some quotes will illustrate the eXile’s contempt for libel laws.

“Funny thing, but 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.” Editor Mark Ames in his article “Democracy Sucks” in the eXile. [7]

Taibbi started the alternative, youth-oriented, English-language magazine The eXile in Russia. “We were out of the reach of American libel law, and we had a situation where we weren’t really accountable to our advertisers. We had total freedom,” he said.’ and ‘He cited the high threat of libel in the United States and low finances as other hurdles for new, alternative publications such as The Beast, which continues to struggle. “Accountability to advertisers ends up being something you think about a lot,” Taibbi said. “The things we did in Russia we weren’t able to do here.” ‘

From NYU School of Journalism [8] Please also see the quote about Lawrence Summers and the pony in [9]

Former editor Matt Taibbi has demonstrated his techniques of libel and internet harassment in an eXile article. [10]

In response to the inclusion of these citations in the eXile article, DSOL and Clarence Thomas buried the section deep in the article and wrote as a defense “The eXile has admitted to printing many statements, satirical and otherwise, that would be considered libelous under most legal jurisdictions. In the ideology of the eXile's editors, these statements are justified both by the odiousness of their targets ([1],[2]) and by the inefficieny of ordinary journalism at raising public awareness.[3] This abandonment of journalistic norms for a specific end is a common point with the gonzo journalism style of certain other eXile content.”

The eXile has published a how-to manual on mass murder [11] When I inserted this citation into the article, DSOL (!) claimed on the discussion page that the citation was in bad faith because the article was an example of SHOCK JOURNALISM. I think the eXile must decide – does it want its articles cited or not? Just citing what the eXile wants cited is obviously not an option.

The eXile dedicated a whole issue to the supposed assassination of US President George W. Bush. [12]

PART OF AN EXTREMIST ORGANIZATION The eXile regularly publishes columns by Edward Limonov [13] who is the founder and leader of Russia’s banned National Bolshevik Party and a convicted felon (for purchasing automatic weapons). [14] Material from the eXile is published on the party’s official website – in particular one article calling Limonov “our hero.” [15] Ames (eXile’s editor) calls the neo-Fascist “The eXile's own Edward Limonov, one of the intellectual leaders of the radical right…” [16] The eXile glorifies NBP exploits and links to their website (just click on the NBP flag) [17] Ames has also published his own original articles in the official Russian-language NBP publication “Limonka (Grenade)”

In one of Limonov’s eXile columns, he seeks to justify the NBP terrorist raid on St. Peter’s Church in Riga, Latvia on the eve of the Latvian National Holiday. [18]

4 NBP members were later convicted on terrorism charges and sentenced to 10-15 years in prison. [19] In his article, Limonov tries to raise money for the terrorists’ legal defense and goes so far as printing a Russian bank deposit form (after asking permission from the eXile’s editors of course).

Limonov sketches his terrorist history in his own words in the eXile. [20] and [21] Perhaps his most famous exploit was being filmed by the BBC as a “guest sniper” of indicted war criminal Radovan Karadjic, shooting at civilians in Sarajevo. [22]

As a the English-language mouthpiece of the NBP, the eXile regularly publishes racist material [23] (by “Ridiculous Niggar,”) [24], [25] (“remedial slander” about Kurds,) and sexist material [26] [27]

I think it’s clear by now that nothing from the eXile should be considered to be from a reliable source. But it’s important to emphasize that it cannot be considered a reliable source, even about itself. For example in one issue it boasted about forging US Congressional documents, [28] in the next it retracted its confession [29]. As another example, the names of most of its contributors are obviously fabricated (e.g. Genghis Goldburg, Ridiculous Niggar).

Matt Taibbi is a particularly disreputable writer. He has left the eXile, and is now best known for his article in the New York Press mocking the death of Pope John Paul II. [30] This article caused a national scandal and Taibbi was almost universally denounced by senators, congressmen, other journalists and religious leaders. The outrage was so great that both Taibbi and his editor were effectively fired from the New York Press. [31] [32] [33] I don’t think that anything authored or edited by Taibbi can now be considered reputable.

Sorry, that this has gone on for so long. I welcome your comments, even if only to state the obvious – that the eXile is not a reputable or reliable source. I’ll wait for a reasonable time for your comments, and then, if nobody convinces me that the eXile is reputable, reliable, and credible, I will exercise my right under Wikipedia rules: “bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor.”

• Peter: I agree that the eXile, like any tabloid, is not a reliable or credible source of information about its subjects. So, if someone put in the article on Anna Kournikova a statement that she has two vaginas and cited the eXile, this would obviously run afoul of the requirement that sources be credible. I would immediately remove such a claim, and perhaps even block the user under the vandalism policy. However, the eXile is absolutely a reliable source about what itself has published—the issue that publishes the statement is an infalliable reference for the fact that the eXile published such a statement. In fact, I can think of no more credible circumstance. Thus, your complaint seems like it is actually designed to deliberately misinterpret the rules in order to justify the deletions that you want to make. You may, however, have a point that the eXile is not to be trusted with regard to factual assertions it makes about itself. If you have specific criticisms about facts not of the form "The eXile published ________," we're listening.

Also, I am quite sure that User:Clarence Thomas is not an eXile employee, having talked to him myself, and I believe User:dsol when he says he is not, either. (I certainly haven't seen any evidence for it.) — brighterorange (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The source must be "reputable." Nobody can seriously claim that the eXile is reputable. see Verifiability

“One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher.”

“For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews or perform original research. Therefore, anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources.”

Also from reliable sources: "editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly.”

There shouldn't be any doubt that the eXile is part of an extremeist organization (see above)

look again at their cover following 9/11/01 http://www.exile.ru/images/covers/large/exile125.jpg Reputable????

Peter D. Ekman

• I don't understand how this is a response to my comment. — brighterorange (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

the source must be reputable, the eXile is not reputable, therefore the eXile can not be used as a source (certainly not as the sole source).

from dictionary.com "rep·u·ta·ble adj. Having a good reputation; honorable." There are sections in "reliable sources" "no original research" etc. that talk about how to check out sources, but it seems to come down to the source checking facts, and being reputable.

From reliable sources

"Reliability

Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.

Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia."

and

"Partisan websites

Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source."

Very few of the citations of the eXile here have anything to do with the opinions held by the eXile or the National Bolshevik Party. Rather they are being used to try to establish some credibility to the alleged "facts". This is in direct contradiction to the "Partisan websites" policy cited immediately above.

I don't understand the argument either. What claims are being disputed? What particular statements are sourced to the eXile, where you believe the eXile is not a reliable source? There's a difference between linking to the eXile as a citation for a statement we claim is true, and linking to show that they published something. If you think the eXile is so untrustworthy that they might for some inexplicable reason change the text of their online articles to hide what they've written, I would not be opposed to your changing every link for the appropriate substitute at archive.org or google cache. Other than that though, I see nothing in this argument but a repetition of the failed AfD, i.e. the eXile is "bad," so please censor everything related to them. Finally, I should point out how ironic it is that you claim the eXile is a source too disreputable to be cited, and the go on to "prove" this by citing many of their articles. Of course your citations are no endorsement of the truth of these articles, and neither are the citations in our wikipedia article. Dsol 05:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Reputable is the key word here, that both of you ignore. All facts must come from a reputable source. How can a newspaper that has a policy of libelling people be considered a reputable source? How can a paper that prints a how-to guide to mass murder be a reputable source? Since nobody has claimed that the eXile is a reputable source, we should remove those "facts" that cite the eXile as a source.

But first, I'll remove those "facts" that have no source cited at all. In particular the so called contributors to the eXile are obviously bogus. "Genghis Goldberg"? The eXile also lists "Ridiculous Niggar" as having written a story. [34] They've even listed Peter D. Ekman (me) as an author in their pages, complete with a photo stolen (and then distorted) from the Moscow Times. I'll leave the 4 that I can find reputable sources on, if anybody else can find a reputable source (obviously not the eXile)for the others, please add them back.

Peter D. Ekman

Regularly appearing columns

other than 2 cites from the eXile (a disreputable source) for minor columns no sources were given at all. Please add these back if you can find a reputable source.

Peter D. Ekman

Pie attack section

No source at all was given here. Please add it back if you can find a reputable source. Please note that the absolute requirement for a reputable source means that the event must be at least somewhat NOTABLE to someone, i.e. if no reputable source has ever mentioned the event, it is clearly not notable. It is difficult here to see how the exile could quote itself here. A source that attacks a reputable journalist with a sperm-filled pie and then publishes a report on this would obviously not be a reputable source, and just as obviously be biased.

Peter D. Ekman

Introductory text under Detractors, Critics, and Enemies No reputable source was given, and the text actually didn't say anything, except refer to the obviously disreputable "Shit List."

Peter D. Ekman

Pavel Bure section

This section showed the dangers of relying on eXile reports about itself. Mark Ames's defiant refusal to apologize was 1 year before the court's judgement, not after the judgement as indicated in the old section. The actual court ordered apology (which seems to be absolutely groveling to me)is referenced by me with some hesitation because it is from a completely disreputable source that is part of an extremist organization. These types of references should only be used "sparingly" and as a report on the subject's own opinion of themselves. I think this qualifies.

Much of the verbiage seemed irrelevant, not notable, or intended to hurt the subject of the libel.

Peter D. Ekman 19:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

On Peter Ekman Section

I'm requesting comments on this because it involves me personally, and because it involves an extremist group, so obviously it is hard to be objective on this. I removed the cite of the eXile because it is from a disreputable source, and because the point of including seemed to be to make an unsubstantiated allegation against me - not to report on their own activities or state of mind - as is required for an extremist group. My original article from the Moscow Times might be included - I've nothing against this as long as its inclusion is mentioned in NPOV - but without the eXile cite it seems irrelevant.

I also removed the mistatement of fact about my letter to JRL (misstating what I wrote about Ames). The half sentence removed seemed to go on and on, apparently in an attempt to discredit my statement. There's enough from JRL in there already and the reader can read the whole thing in JRL if he wants. It's pretty short.

My only real question is whether anything on this topic needs to be included at all. Is it really a notable event that somebody accuses the eXile of libel? There seems to be only a single reference to this specific incident in any reputable sources.

Peter D. Ekman 21:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Bass Section

There is only a single reputable source given and it seems to be completely irrelevant to the opinions discussed in the section. I'll leave the one source in, but somebody ought to explain its relevance to anything or we ought to take the whole section out. Summary following that source looks suspect.

Peter D. Ekman 22:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Ekman section is important. The ongoing rivalry between the eXile and the Moscow times is notable. Consensus has been to leave it in. It has already been condensed heavily as per your request. Your opinion is not more important than the opinions of others. What misstatement was made in the description of your letter to JRL? Were you misquoted? Feel free to rewrite but don't remove info without consensus Dsol 23:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

A summary of some recent edits by 69.253.195.228, and a response

First, let me sum up what was changed, since the discussion above was a bit hard to read for me:

• NPOV, and factual tags readded
• the link under the phrase "celebrity libel case" in the intro was changed from directing to the pavel bure section, to the libel subsection of the ideology section
• all regulary appearing columns have been removed
• all editors except ames, dolan, taibbi, and limonov have been removed
• intro to enemies section reduced to list title, mention of shitlist removed
• info removed from Ekman section
• info removed from bure section, and reinsertion of the phrase "found guilty"
• removal of vast from A vast audience for fringe voices

I'm doing the following

• removing the factual tag in accordance with the above consensus votes. I'm leaving the NPOV for now, but I don't see any coherent reason for it.
• redirecting the celebrity libel link to Pavel Bure & the Libel Case subsection; no explanation was given for the change, and I don't think the ideology section is relevant
• Reinserting names of columns. Adding an external source to a list of the eXile's columns, on their site. I don't think the eXile is not a reputable source about what it has published, and Brighterorange seems to agree with me. This really seems a non-issue to me, 69.253.195.228, but if you want to discuss it further, please don't re-blank until a consensus is reached here, as yours is not the only opinion that matters.
• putting back most, but not all, of the contributor names. the issue of which authors to put in is a tricky one. It has been adressed on the talk page before. I think a good policy would be to include a name unless it's obviously fake, this is what we agreed on before via Brecher and Salnikov. I agree that Ghengis goldberg etc. dont' need to go in. We don't need a source for each one, obviously (see the article on the New Yorker, for example). If you know why any of these names is fake, say so.
• the shitlist itself might be "disreputable", but that doesn't mean we can't describe it. This issue has been mentioned many times on this talk page. I'm putting it back in.
• I'm putting back all the info about the Bure and Ekman cases. Consensus has been to leave it on consistently, with the exception of 69.253.195.228's comments and one early comment by Squibix, after which he approved a version of the page containg the full versions.

changes I'm not reverting:

• removal of IMF crises info (no source)
• removal of some contributors (obviously fake)
• removal of "vast" from A vast audience for fringe voices (unsourecd and possibly POV)

General Points:

• In general I think the demands for citation made above are excessive. Compare to the Onion or the New Yorker.
• The argument that info should be removed due to length is a highly specious one. This is always a touchy subject that requires consensus on talk pages, and obviously all editors who worked on the info removed don't agree, to say the least. The fact that the removal "for length" is in accordance with an openly declared bias casts further doubt on the reasonability of these edits. Finally, the article is well under the recommended size for wikipedia articles. For comparison regarding the amount of information included, see for example the wealth of detail at Naruto (manga).

Dsol 22:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the Onion article is a good basic comparison. But there are at least 3 differences between that article and this one.

1) Nobody is being libelled in the Onion article (possible exception Bill Clinton - not really). But here private individuals are being libelled - all that is done is say "The eXile says ..." Libel is libel.

2) The eXile has a consistently stated policy of libelling people.

3) The eXile is part of an extremist group - neo-Fascist Eduard Limonov and his banned National Bolshevik Party.

Since the eXile is clearly a completely disreputable source, it can't be the sole source for anything. 90% of the changes I've made are just removing statements that HAVE NO SOURCES cited whatsoever. Unsourced statements will be removed. If you want something to be in the article just find a reputable source.

Peter D. Ekman

23:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for starting to sign your posts with a time. It's best if you use for tildes, ~~~~ to show your ip, otherwise it would be easy for someone else to claim to be you. If you want to use a name, then you may want to register an account. Also, if you would start indenting, that would really make my day. Moving on:

• There's nothing in wikipedia policy about mentioning or quoting libelous content (though wikipedia itself should not violate florida libel law). Thus the question of libelousness does not bear on inclusion, only the questions of relevance and verifiability, which will be answered by consensus here.
• As for whether the eXile can be used as a source regarding what its own content is, that should be decided by consensus. So far brighterorange and I are both against you, so please wait till you have at least a majority opinion before removing info.
• For the list of columns, I added a source at the bottom. Are you honestly claiming that the list of exile columns is inaccurate or unverifiable? Calling the eXile "disreputable" doesn't mean they don't have an accurate list of their own columns.
• For the list of contributors, note that the article reads "bylines have included", making no assertion that the names are not pseuodnyms. If you can provide overwheleming evidence that one of the names is fake (for example the name of the chinese wrestler xieu that I removed), then we should remove it or mark it as a pseudonym. Listing contributors without linking article is standard practice for wikipedia articles on newspapers. Many of the names you removed are real notable people, such as Thierry Maginiac, and others have their own articles such as Gary Brecher.
• I try to be patient with the more outrageous arguments I hear on wikipedia talk pages, but the statement "The eXile is part of an extremist group" is simply ridiculous. First, the eXile is not "part of" the banned NBP, it is its own 100% legal corporation in Russia. Second, your claim that Limonov or NBP are "extremist" or "neo-fascist" is both vague and totally unsupported. Not that this has any relevance to the eXile article.
• I still don't see why you want this "factual" tag. Calls for consensus established firmly to take it out. You don't seem to have anything to add to that discussion, except the issue of the eXile's "repuatability" which would relate to whether the article is properly sourced, not whether it is factually accurate. Even if the article had no sources at all, you shouldn't use the factual tag, but the citations tag (see Edward Limonov for example).
• Basically what I'm getting from your arguments is that the eXile is too "disreputable" to be cited at all. (Incidentally, this is similar to the call for boycott Ekman gave in JRL) If you insist on beating this ridiculous dead horse, we can have another call for consensus. But I think you know what the result will be, and if you continue to insist on wasting other editors' time pushing your own POV, instead of contributing constructively, and making outlandish biased arguments, maybe a user-conduct request for comment will be necessary. Please don't take this as a threat, I just honestly think you could use some independent input regarding your behavior here. Dsol 23:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The issue is whether the eXile is a REPUTABLE source. It obviously isn't since it has a consistently stated policy of libelling people. Its close ties to the convicted felon Limonov and the banned National Bolshevik Party are undeniable, and put it in a special class of disreputable sources called extremists in Wikipedia policy.

Citing a reputable source is a requirement, not an option. This requirement is not up for a vote! Reputable means "Having a good reputation, honorable." It cannot be the case that a source is disreputable for one set of facts and reputable for another.

The problems with citing disreputable sources include: 1. facts are distorted e.g. in this article - I have never stated that AMES fanatasizes about ponies. Rather I wrote that TAIBBI wrote a statement about a US politician having sex with ponies (100% true). Example 2, Ames inserts a self-citation purportedly showing that he never apologized for libel, whereas the court ordered apology was 1 year later - with the cite intentionally confusing the dates. 2. reputable sources have to check their facts and be concerned about libel suits everyday. the eXile doesn't. So just summarizing an eXile article is just putting in malicious unchecked material into an encyclopedia. 3. If a reputable source cannot be found, then the event is not in any way notable, at least for the purposes of an encyclopdia

If you want to put information into this article, all you have to do is find a REPUTABLE source.

Peter D. Ekman 04:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely can be the case that a source is reputable about one set of facts, and disreputable about another. If you don't agree with my interpetation of the rules, we need to call for consensus again. You know that no one will agree with you, because no one else shares your highly POV bias, and anyone with a neutral point of view can see the importance of context here. In general, when the interpretation of wikipedia policies are disputed, consensus is need to proceed. Dsol 10:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't just revert. Find a REPUTABLE source! The eXile readily confesses its policy of libelling people. It is also an extremist organization, e.g.

See its cover sexually mocking the 9/11 victims [35]

Peter D. Ekman 14:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion for a while, and I don't think 69.253.195.228's is a reasonable interpretation of the reputability requirement. brighterorange's comments (19:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC), above section) hit the nail on the head, and I don't think I need to go through the argument again. Your requests are tantamount to not quoting the eXile in its own article. Look at Weekly World News. I see no reason why this article cannot read like that, despite their own libels and disreputability. --Mgreenbe 15:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Checking Weekly World News there is only 1 link to Weekly World News, at the bottom under External Links. It also is not part of an extremist organization and doesn't have a stated policy of libelling people (actually it has a stated policy of telling the truth).

Peter D. Ekman 16:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my point. Indeed, there are few citations at all on the page. Why? Because everything was printed in Weekly World News; the article is about what was printed in the tabloid. If WWN had on-line archives, there would be links. A citation of Bat Boy Lives! would also suffice for many of the stories.

Please, all of the other editors (including myself -- I've made a few copyedits and have followed the discussion) do not understand your argument viz. libel, truth, and reputability. All you are saying is that the eXile shouldn't be quoted as telling the truth; nobody is saying that what the eXile said is true, but rather that the eXile said it. Reputability is not an issue; they really did say that they hit Michael Wines in the face with a horse sperm pie. Did they really? Well, the pictures in the archived article certainly seem to say so. Is that really a mermaid on the WWN page? Is the baby really parting Lake Michigan? Look at the picture and decide for yourself!

I hope you're not offended by this, but what you're doing is approaching blanking/vandalism, having made controversial edits for almost 24 hours straight. You are pushing up on 3RR. Your edits don't seem have consensus. I'm reverting, as this has gotten out of hand. Maybe you should take a break for a few days, cool down, help the WWN article? If you don't want to do that, perhaps we can have a call for consensus to see if the eXile is allowed to be quoted in its own article. --Mgreenbe 16:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Reputability is not an issue"????

Reputable sources are a requirement for Wikipedia articles. From policy on Verifiability

“One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher.”

“Subjects which have never been written about in published sources, or which have only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility should not be included in Wikipedia.”

I don't think these policies are currently up for a vote!

There are stricter limits for citing extremist groups.

The trouble with citing tthe eXile about itself, is that it lies about itself even about the most minor things, e.g. its list of contributors have included Genghis Goldburg, and Ridiculous Niggar

Peter D. Ekman 17:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If you like, all citations of the eXile can be of the original publishing, through archive.org. Beyond that, what you are saying is absurd. This article is about the eXile. The eXile is disreputable. Nevertheless, one may quote the eXile to show its disreputability and the manifestations thereof.

I could go on to make comparisons to The Onion and its fake contributors, to SomethingAwful, and so forth, but I am having an extremely difficult time assuming good faith on your part. You have made three reverts in the past 24 hours. I am reverting again — further reversions on your part violate 3RR. Seriously — take a break, cool off. It's just a small page on a huge website. --Mgreenbe 17:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)