Talk:The eXile/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

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.

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)

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)

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.

• • 1 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

• • 2 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

• • 3 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

• • 4 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

• • 5 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)

• • 6 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)

• • 7 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)

The eXile is an extremist organization (see e.g. [36] "Jew Hunter"). As such there are special rules on how they can be cited. The cites (and non-cites!) on previous versions seem to have the purpose of simply repeating their libels. No way is this allowed.

"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.”

Peter D. Ekman 17:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for yet another link to an obviously satirical article. You can't be serious that the author of that article really thought Cheney was Jewish: it's a parody of Russian antisemitism. The eXile is not an extremist organization, it is a legal newspaper that comes out twice a month. In any case it is not "widely recognized as an extremist group," it is only you who call it that, and if you are who you say you are, you have an obvious bias. None of the other editors agree with you. By the way, you have violated 3RR. Dsol 18:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR violation has been posted at the 3RR noticeboard. While I agree that the article needs work, this is not productive.

As you so rightly quote, the eXile may be used as a source about itself. I would be eager to discuss the merits of various paragraphs and sections, but please do not revert or resort to gambits like this. --Mgreenbe 19:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've listed the reasons for my edits above and now numbered them from 1-7. If you want to conduct a civilized discussion, please just quote which edit you are referring to, and we can discuss it.

The key words about the policy are obviously "should avoid, and "with caution and sparingly.” Any claim that they make about another person (e.g. a journalist, a tennis player, or even who their own columnists are) is clearly suspect. They can clearly report their own opinions about themselves.

Peter D. Ekman 19:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

All seven reasons are either

A)based on the claim that the eXile cannot be used a source on its own article page, or

B)highly subjective

In both cases, consensus is against you. Dsol 20:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC for 69.253.195.228

An RfC has been put up regarding the behavior of this user, in relation to material on this page. All editors of this page are invited to contribute to dialogue there.

If you are coming here from the RfC page and have never heard of the eXile, it is a controversial Moscow-based english-language newspaper that publishes both serious journalism and "shocking" satire. This link to an excerpt from a book by its early editors gives a lot of good background on what the eXile is. And of course, feel free to contribute to the article! Dsol 23:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ekman section, issue of linkspam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dsol 17:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This suggests the exile doesn't have much of a readership. "American libel lawyers can't touch the paper in Moscow, and Russian censors pay little attention to a tabloid that reaches only the minuscule Anglophone minority of voters." [37] Do you happen to know what its circulation is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Can the eXile be cited in its own article?

This has been a debate on this page for a while. Arguments against have included references to NPOV, NOR, and CITE policies, as well as the claim that the eXile is too disreputable to be quoted at all, being an "extremist organiztion" etc. I don't think these are valid arguments in this case. When a newspaper prints something, we can say "newspaper X print Y" without another source claiming "newspaper X has printed Y." The issue is not validating that Y is true, rather the issues are validating that Y was really printed, and that the printing of Y was notable. I think that to claim otherwise is an excessively broad interpretation of policy that was not intended. If possible, please list any quotes from policy pages with links below that apply specifically to this. Hopefully we can reach a consensus on this here, otherwise I suggest we seek arbitration of some sort, as at least 3 other editors seem to share my opinion (see above). Dsol 21:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• To repeat my comments above, citing newspaper X itself for a statement of the form "newspaper X published Y" is the most credible citation scenario I can think of. Citing a tabloid for a statement of fact about someone else is a mistake, but I don't think we're doing that. Brighterorange 21:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Slimvirgin, you have not adressed these comments, nor answered the questions I have left on your talk page. I still do not see any policy reason against the reinclusion of the Ekman, Bure, etc. sections. Note that we are clear about the difference between citing something as a fact and citing it as a claim. If you think it's a quesiton of notability instead of policy, let's have a call for consensus on this issue from all editors. I will reinsert the material shortly if no reply is received.Dsol 23:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The eXile is not a credible source. It makes things up, it forges documents, it confesses to having done so, it withdraws the confession. In addition, it's a freesheet, we know nothing verifiable about its circulation or how many staff it has, if any. For all we know, the editor is self-publishing on his Mac at home, writing and distributing it himself. Please read WP:NOR and WP:V. If you would actually read the policy pages, you would see the problem. The criterion for entry into Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability.

If the London Times publishes that it has a staff of 500, we can repeat that and link to the Times. But if the eXile says it, we can't: we need an independent, credible source.

Please stop edit warring over this material, Dsol. You're violating policy by re-inserting it, unless you can find proper sources, in which case you're welcome to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, your analogy is totally flawed. My post above did not discuss the sourcing of factual statements such as "the eXile has 20 employees" to an eXile source. Rather, it discussed sourcing statements such as "the eXile printed that..." or "in such and such article, eXile editor so and so claimed that". This difference is crucial, and any argument that fails to recognize it is a straw man argument.

The fact that the eXile is a freesheet is totally irrelavant. The village voice is a freesheet. So what?

More generally I don't think it's a question of categorizing it as a reliable or nonreliable source and leaving it as that. I think that the appropriate interpretation of policy (and I have read and reread those pages carefully) is that the reliability of a source can depend on context. The eXile has published many satires and parodies, but that does not mean nothing it says can be taken seriously. It has published seriously on many subjects, and has found glaring and unrefuted errors, as well as ethical problems in the journalism of such sources such as the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and other you seem to have no problem quoting. I am not mentioning this to champion the eXile, but to point out that its reliability depends on context and the basic ability to discern what is parody. This is also the consensus on the talk page prior to your arrival, which you are ignoring. As for the possibility that the eXile is a guy on a mac, you might consider their print circulation cited in your reason article and the rolling stone column about them. Also that ridiculous theory leads me to remind you of the policy, wikipedia:Contribute what you know or are willing to learn about. If you will continue to insist on this narrowly legalistic interpretation of verifiability that refuses to recognize the question of context, or the presence or absence of satirical tone, I don't think we will reach consensus on our own, so in that case I will propose arbitration of some sort. Dsol 23:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The key issue is, as always, whether the eXile is REPUTABLE. It's simply not reputable. Therefore it can't be used as a source to say anything about anybody other than itself. Therefore it can't say anything about Wines - especially when the intent seems to be to try to humiliate him.

As far as "most foul hack journalist" I'm not sure that's an exact quote, but it would be the nicest thing that was said about him in the article.

Why remove "neo-Fascist" from in front of Limonov? Does anybody really in good faith doubt that he is a neo-Fascist (Fascist, Nazi, extremist - pick the one you think is best)? He did found and still leads the National Bolshevik Party and the Party's flag is still a Nazi flag with a black hammer and sickle replacing the swastika.

Peter D. Ekman 69.253.195.228 03:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi 69, now that there's a non-eXile source for the Wines incident, [38] WP can report it. The key is whether independent, credible sources find an incident both accurate and interesting enough that they'd want to report it. If they do, it means we can publish it too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Book about the eXile

Amazon.com's book. Anyone read it? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There are excerpts from it linked from Ames' article, and maybe from here. Dsol 10:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Names of columnists

If we have these, it really would be good add them to the article. Even if we don't wikilink them due to non-notability! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the ones that have WP articles to See also today, Ta bu. If you want to add the rest, that'd be fine with me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Summary of Archived Edits

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

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

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

• Which activities of the eXile are notable?

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

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

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

• Does this article need a factual or NPOV tag?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dsol 16:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV transition plan

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

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

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

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

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

Edit by Rd232

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

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

Dsol 14:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverted because

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

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

Ekman section, issue of linkspam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dsol 17:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This suggests the exile doesn't have much of a readership. "American libel lawyers can't touch the paper in Moscow, and Russian censors pay little attention to a tabloid that reaches only the minuscule Anglophone minority of voters." [39] Do you happen to know what its circulation is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, as far as the eXile being a reputable source for citing sources which WP claims as facts, that's a tricky issue because it requires some subjective interpretation of the satirical/serious tone of their articles. But that's not what I meant, or what you meant either I think, so I won't get into that too much. What I will say is that the only demonstrable case of the eXile publishing a false statement that is not absolutely dripping with satirical/parodical overtones is the kiryenko letter forgery article, which I would still argue is totally sarcastic.[40] I mean look at that article, the photos are pretty ridiculous, I don't think they meant for their claim of responsibility to be taken seriously. Their "undisclosed location" is obviously their office, and if they had sent from that fax they would have been detected easily. Certainly the Russian authorities didn't take their claim (or the congressmen's claim) seriously enough to arrest them.

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

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

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

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

Dsol 20:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Limonov

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

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

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

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

Are you pointing to the right link here? Because describing the AFP article you point to as "an unashamed attack piece" seems frankly bizarre. Comparing AFP and the Nation in terms of POV is bizarre too. And since the WSJ article is subscription only, I've no idea what it says. (It does seem to refer to "the National Bolsheviks’ symbols",[41] and we can hazard a guess what that means.) Also, (not sure you did this, but I think someone did) removing "neo-fascist" without at least replacing it with something like "extreme right-wing" looks like pushing an agenda. Rd232 ^talk 17:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Flag and emblem of NBP, which combines Nazi and Soviet symbolism according to no source in particular

The Russian courts and legal terminology are a bit confusing. The final final Supreme Court descision (leaving only possible appeal to European Human Rights Court) was on this Tuesday November 15. You might note how widely the interpretations differ, but the basic fact is that Russia's top court banned the NBP. [42] [43] [44] [45]

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

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

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

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

first source reputable (PBS), second source Limonov in eXile writing about himself. See quote [46] [47] “During three days BBC crew have filmed President of Serbian Republic of Bosnia and me talking, visiting positions of Serbian army. Dishonest, BBC boys also in secret have filmed me firing submachine gun near Sarajevo. In 199-1995 that very film was showed in England, in the United States, by Franco-German channel "Arte," etc. I got a reputation of a bloody killer all over the Western world.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

....

October 1993. Participation in White House uprising."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limonov's party has been referred mostly to as "ultra-left" since Dugin quit his party in 1998. Here the liberal Moscow News [48] calls them ultra-left, as does the BBC [49]. It seems we should change this section to reflect this. 28 November 2005

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

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

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

Limonov is extreme left, not extreme right.

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

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

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

Broken Link.

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

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

Libel Discussion

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

"The paper has taken advantage of Russia's relatively poor enforcement of libel laws [50] to deliberately publish libellous stories (partly in the name of satire), which however in 2002 led to a successful libel case against it."

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

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

"The newspaper has admitted to printing many statements, satirical and otherwise, that would be considered libelous under most jurisdictions. {{fact}} In the opinion of the editors, these statements are justified both by what they see as the odiousness of their targets and the inefficiency of ordinary journalism at raising public awareness. [51]"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

notice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

future directions

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

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

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

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

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

Editor/Source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Dsol that the Ekman controversy deserves the section because it is so long-running and because Ekman seems to be a regular "feature" or "villain" of the eXile. Readers remember that in fake issue about Bush assassination [52] the assassin named "Pedro Pekman". I would also think that eXile's gratuitous takedown of Thomas Nolle [53] should be included because this is sort of vicious, funny stuff that makes the eXile unique, popular or hated. But Ekman is more important as his public fight with eXile newspaper continuing for several years now. I found on google that just recently he wrote an atttack letter [54] to Hartford Advocate against Mark Ames with the aim of discrediting him and accusing him of being Fascist. Now I also remember that Ekman wrote a similar letter to Silicon Valley Metro last year after Ames story on Kiriyenko letter, but I cannot find it online. Also the eXile accused Ekman of being behind letter to Philadelphia City paper [55] attacking Ames. And this brings me to my biggest question for everyone on this discussion page: IS PETER EKMAN A HOAX? Does he really exist or is he a hoax created by Ames to promote eXile and controversy? If you think about it, it's possible. His recent letter to Hartford Advocate is just too stupid and looks like marketing for Ames, making him out to be a bad-boy. I think many people will buy his book just because grumpy Peter Ekman says that Ames is a violent fascist (his letter is funny too). This brings me to another point I want to make about the so-called Fascism of eXile on this entry which is linked by way of Limonov. First point, Limonov is not identified with extreme right for many years, but rather extreme left. For people who follow Russia news and politics, Limonov is now allied with official Communist party as well as having relationship with liberals of Yaboloko and SPS. Sorry I do not have time to find this, but someone can or I can later if this discussion continue. Another related point to this, is that Limonov is also a regular contributor to GQ Russia magazine [56] as is Ames. Does this make GQ possibly Fascist too? Should it be deserved a mention in the GQ entry like "GQ and Fascism" or Limonov and Fascism on GQ page? It may be relevant for eXile entry, I don't know, but the fact that Peter Ekman is the one who pushes this here makes me think no, it's a red herring, or maybe if Ekman is a fake character so it's part of the eXile campaign to make their image more dangerous, or they just having more fun. My point in sum is that some form of Ekman section, maybe with mention of Nolle and speculation that he is a fictional hoax, is relevant and should be included in the eXile entry, and section on Fascism needs to have more perspective at very least.

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

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

Query

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

"Ames wrote that he feared for his safety as a result of Bonilla's condemnation. In the preceeding [sic] weeks Bonilla had called for the Russian Government to take "tough action" against Forbes Russia editor Paul Klebnikov, and Klebinikov was subsequently assassinated. The episode earned the eXile a "website of the week award," from the Philadelphia weekly City Paper. [57]"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please start editing collaboratively and please find good sources and use them properly. The link you supplied [58] doesn't say that Ames "compared his predicament to that of" Klebnikov, and I'd say the fact that the only place that would publish this is what looks like a Bay Area freesheet speaks for itself about the significance of the story. Does Ames ever get published in real newspapers i.e. somewhere with some checks and balances?

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

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

"Ames later wrote that he regretted the claim of responsibility, and that it was "not the smartest move in humor history." In columns for the eXile and Metroactive, he wrote that he feared arrest or violent reprisal, claimed that he had been followed and harrassed, and compared his predicament to that of recently murdered Forbes editor Paul Klebnikov, whom he claimed to have known personally.[59]"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't have time to go through every one, but they are listed in Ames bio. Here is proof of The Nation [60] which at least answers your question if Ames is ever published in a paid-for magazine. One gets the sense from your own bias that you do not like Exile much and you are putting out red herrings and road blocks, then once they are solved, you put the same ones up again. Why should it matter if a person is published in a free or paid-for? The Village Voice is free, does it not qualify under your theory? Wikipedia is free, does that make it disreputable? Exile book is published by Grove Press. Is this not "reputable" enough? Cover of their book which I have here has a quote by Andrew Meier of Time Magazine who says, "No one describes...life in Moscow better than the eXile. They hit it right on its ugly head."[61] Back cover has quote by CNN: "Brazen, irreverent, immodest, and rude, the eXile struggles with the harsh truth of the new century in Russia...Since 1997, Ames and Taibbi have lampooned and investigated greed, corruption, cowardice and complacency." [62] How much more burden of proof do you want, or is your agenda something different?

NPOV/ Accuracy tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for getting back to the issue at hand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The basis of your case seems to constantly rest on two wrong assumptions: 1) that since the eXile is a freesheet, it's not reliable; 2) the eXile is allegedly very "small" or irrelevant. I wrote above to answer this and you didn't respond so I'll post it again here. In answer to 1), if being free was a sign of a media outlet's unreliability, this would make both The Village Voice and wikipedia worthless. In answer to 2), Exile book is published by Grove Press. Is this not "reputable" enough? Cover of their book has a quote by Andrew Meier of Time Magazine who says, "No one describes...life in Moscow better than the eXile. They hit it right on its ugly head."[63]. Does Time saying they are relevant qualify in your mind? Back cover has quote by CNN: "Brazen, irreverent, immodest, and rude, the eXile struggles with the harsh truth of the new century in Russia...Since 1997, Ames and Taibbi have lampooned and investigated greed, corruption, cowardice and complacency." [64] Is CNN reputable enough of a news organization for you? How much more burden of proof do you want to show that the eXile is not irrelevant, or is your agenda something different?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

Rolling Stone article

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

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

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

Bogus Time quote to be removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SlimVirgin, here is another place where the quotes are used, on Grove/Atlantic's site.[65] Grove/Atlantic Monthly is a reliable source in accordance with wikipedia policy, so the issue is not as Peter Ekman says whethr this is a "bogus quote" but rather if it is relevent information. It is relevent because as I wrote above some people not familiar with the eXile or some people who want to vandalize eXile's article want readers to believe that the eXile is not relevent, but as you can see reputable sources confirm its relevence. I look forward to your response, thank you SlimVirgin! User:Tictoc 18:39 9 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

69.253.195.228 21:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

CNN Quote and Grove/Atlantic Monthly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SlimVirgin, it is very easy to answer you and I provided evidence to you, but you ignore it. Andrew Meier was Time Correspondent from 1996-2001.[66] The Rolling Stone article was November 1998, as listed. So Meier was Time correspondent when he gave the quote to Rolling Stone. User:RyanUtt provided the original Andrew Meier quote taken from an interview he gave to Rolling Stone about the eXile so you should not revert that since it answers exactly your question "where Meier's quote comes from." Rolling Stone decided that it was worthy to mention Meier was the Time correspondent in the article. Please explain why wikipedia, not you but wikipedia, believes Rolling Stone does not follow credible journalism practice.

Regards to CNN, I found the date and name of the show and transcript. "The Russia Factor," aired August 23, 1999 on CNN Perspectives, producer Jack Hammon.[67] Here is one site that printed the transcript with the quotes used.[68] SlimVirgin, I hope you are being a disinterested editor and not simply vandalizing something you don't like. User:Tictoc 14.36 10 December 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Exile Book

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

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

Archiving

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

New Direction

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

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

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

Happy Holidays,

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

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

I don't believe Peter Ekman is a hoax

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

Dude, is this Kara Deyerin's webpage?

my sources say yes.

http://karadeyerin.com/about.html

Nice work

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

GA Assessment

Working in reverse order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-You've got a couple of {{fact}} tags in the text which need clearing up.

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

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

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

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

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

Limonov clearly an extremist

Flag and emblem of NBP, which combines Nazi and Soviet symbolism

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

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

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

Totally disputed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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