Talk:The eXile

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The eXile article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

The eXile was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 2, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Politics and law / Mass media Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the mass media in Russia task force.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Archive: 1

blanking

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

From the policy page:

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

Dsol 08:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left messages on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and at User talk:24.127.156.41, and I am waiting for a response before reverting again. This anon has no edits prior to removing info from this article. Dsol 10:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am now reverting since the anon is refusing to engage in discussion. Dsol 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Wines pie incident.

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

Dsol 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, is there any reason not to name Kournikova in the section about Bure's lawsuit? The cited sources already name her, and we are acknowledgin the claim is false. Therefore I don't see that we are asserting any untrue, unsourced or potentiall libelous claims about any living person. Once again I will wait a day before reverting, I ask any possible dissenters to read the sources and policy pages a bit more carefully than they may have done in the case of Michael Wines. Dsol 14:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the relevance of who Wines is, the fact that he was NYT moscow head is highly relevant to the article. Though I don't know why I'm bothering to explain this when no one is engaging in discussion. Dsol 12:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Moved from User talk:The Evil Spartan

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

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

Protection

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

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

federal investigation

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

english:

radar online: [3][4][5][6][7][8]
the eXile [9][10]
Georgian Times [11]
AP via IHT [12]
radio free europe [13]
Wall Street Journal [14]
Fox News[15]
Telegraph UK [16] [17]
Reuters[18]
Mother Jones[19]
The Nation [20]
Danwei [21]
First Post UK[22]
Committee to Protect Journalists [23]

russian:

newsru.com [24]
lenta [25]
gazeta.ru [26]

german:

der spiegel [27](Russian translation of Spiegel article)

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

Is it just me, or does something about this story simply not add up? How could the paper be reliant on investors in this way? Are they not breaking even through ad revenue? Was someone else paying for the paper to be published? What kind of investment scheme allows investors to withdraw their money and cause a business to fold? Or did Ames mean that advertisers were afraid to place ads now? I would guess not, since Moscow restaurants still have ads on the website. Or were the investors simply assisting with liquidity, basically making small loans that were shortly repaid on a constant basis, and could that situation really persist for 11 years?

The only thing I can think of that makes even a bit of sense is that when Ames referred to investors, he really meant a Krisha who had been protecting the paper from bureaucrats' shakedown attempts, but was unwilling to confront whatever forces instigated the investigation at a price the eXile could afford. Or maybe it's just my poor business sense that keeps me from getting this.... Dsol (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the lens of Western business is instructive of examining the situation. From these articles it seems that nobody wanted to do business with him for fear of state reprisal. Not advertisers, not publishers, not investors. Presumably this has something to do with Putin's attitude toward dissident journalists. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that makes sense. But there's a difference between being unable to raise the capital you need and being blacklisted. Ames presented it, I think intentionally, in a very vague way. It rather seems rather that everything except money problems are shutting it down. Dsol (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the eXile be distinguished from the eXiled?

Since the paper was shut down, the servers were moved, and the name was changed, should a new article be set-up for the new paper? Most of the editors are the same, but I think a significant enough change has been made to warrant a new article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elzair (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of new website, and linking of articles

So far there has been a link to the old eXile website as, well as any eXile articles relevant to the content of this WP article. Now that they have moved to a new site, I assumed this would continue. However, some anonymous edits have removed all links to the new site on the basis that it is a blog. I would request a clarification of this claim on the following points:

Who says it is a blog? The new site refers to itself as a newsletter.[28]
Base on what policy should the site not be included? There is nothing in WP:RS against including a link to a website in an article discussing that website. See for example Jezebel (website), Drudge Report, etc. There is no policy that seems to preempt including a link here.

I will wait shortly for a response before reinserting a single link to the new website. I don't think further links are needed in the article now, but may be required in the future. Dsol (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the only news article referring to the new site I could find is this article from the Saint Petersburg Times, which refers to it as a "web site," not a blog. It also state that "the main journalists would continue to write for the site." Dsol (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend re-adding the link. Came here to remind myself of it again, and thought that it was really odd that it would have been removed. The anon removing it clearly has some axe to grind. 72.38.8.141 (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB

24.127.162.147 (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering that the link passes all the relevant tests on WP:SPS, and since the link itself mentioned in a newspaper article, I am readding it. I don't see any serious objections here. Dsol (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove purely scatological material

I'll remove the purely scatological material from the Pie Section. At WP:BLPN this has been singled out as particularly unnecessary, and nobody has bothered to defend it. I'll also remove the broken link in that section. More needs to be done, but this is a start. Idlewild101 (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Otago student newsletter makes a complete mess of this, calling Wines the chief Editor of the New York Times, which is simply untrue. That non-reliable source should be removed. If we were to accept their account at face value, we'd have to accept at face value the next sentence that says that eXile editor M.A. raped a girl in public in a bar. The Salon article doesn't mention Wines name so should be removed as well. Leaving it just with one reference, essentially saying "the eXile claims that this is what happened" which is fact - that is, that they made this claim. Whether it's relevant is another question, but let's leave out the nonsense references. Idlewild101 (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, you have removed all the references. Is that whay you intended to do? It is completely untrue that "nobody has bothered to defend it". And Idlewild - for the 1000th time - there is no reference to "scatalogical material" in WP that I can find, and semen isn't faeces. Scatology means pertaining to faeces. Richard Cooke (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If secondary sources cover it, it's notable and should be included. There's also another source on this that hasn't been included in the article yet, LA weekly, which specifically says that the incident happened and that the pie had semen in it. dsol (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koch brothers funding the Tea Party

Here is something that should be used as a source:

The eXiled Finally Given Props for Uncovering Koch Brothers/Tea Party Connection

The rest of the story can be found here: How the Koch family funding the Tea Party movement story broke?.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The eXile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The eXile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]