Talk:The eXile

Template:Comment Guidelines Archive: 1

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 NFL 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 nep-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." [1] 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.[2] 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",[3] 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. [4] [5] [6] [7]

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 [8] [9] “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 [10] calls them ultra-left, as does the BBC [11]. It seems we should change this section to reflect this. 28 November 2005

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 [12] 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. 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. [13]"

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

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

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 [14] the assassin named "Pedro Pekman". I would also think that eXile's gratuitous takedown of Thomas Nolle [15] 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 [16] 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 [17] 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 [18] 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)