Talk:The eXile/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Necessary Content 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Salnikov/Brecher 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RE: Salnikov/Brecher 

message: 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  if I have time.
Dsol 15:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by Clarence Thomas 

message: 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 (). A description of this view ultimately needs to figure more into the article, not less..Dsol 21:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edit war 

message: 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)
thread_title:  gorbachev/ NY jets incident 

message: *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)
thread_title: Facts Currently in Dispute (fill in below)

message: 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)
thread_title:  title section 

message: :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, 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)
thread_title: removing unsourced claims

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/69.253.195.228|RfC]] for 69.253.195.228 

message: Amazon.com's book. Anyone read it? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are excerpts from it linked from Ames' article, and maybe from here. Dsol 10:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book about the eXile 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Names of columnists 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV transition plan 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit by Rd232 

message: 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)
thread_title:  future directions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, Ryan. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rolling Stone article

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Exile Book 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New Direction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I don't believe Peter Ekman is a hoax 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nice work 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Limonov clearly an extremist