Talk:Michael Wines

Taibbi attack

How about some kind of mention of his infamous run-in with Matt Taibbi, where Taibbi actually flung a cream-pie filled with horse semen in his face while Wines was still Moscow bureau chief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.7.9 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. If this writer is noteworthy enough to have an article, then surely the defining moment of his career could be mentioned, too. Any objections? 69.129.196.12 (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. The material is all at the eXile, along with extensive sources. There is no conflict with WP policy (such as BLP), as established by numerous discussion there and at the WP:BLP noticeboard. Ideally, we would contact Taibbi and get him to release copyright on the pictures of Wines and Pobornik, so we can include them there or here. Dsol (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's alright that it is *there*. The incident says a lot more about The eXile than it says about Michael Wines.

Let's put it this way: once upon a time, somebody pied Bill Gates. This notable incident is widely reported on Google, yet the article on Bill Gates does not even mention it. Why? Because it is a childish prank of no consequence; it says nothing about who Mr. Gates is or what is his place in history.

And horse semen or no horse semen, lofasz or no lofasz, that is the case with the insult humour publication The eXile. It pulled a stupid prank -- and if Wikipedia is going to report on the prank at all, it will be on *that* page, not here. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 00:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This material appears elsewhere in Wikipedia, and I have added it to the page, only to have it removed on the grounds of "→Personal: removed scatological material - wieght, reliable sources, BLP, NPOV - you name it, there's a problem" by user Idlewild101. The material is not scatological, as it refers neither to faeces nor obscenity. Weight is a non-issue - this is a stub, and as such will be added to by other users. As it is factual information, confirmed by a New York Times spokesperson, it is not defamatory, and does not contravene Wikipedia's BLP guidelines. The reliability of the eXile as a source may be called into question (although in this case the link includes photographs of a person who is clearly Wines with pie on his face), so I have sourced another reference, from Media Life Magazine, to whom the aforementioned Times spokesperson confirmed the incident (although the contents of the pie are unknown to them, hence the "alleged" nature of the semen). For these reasons, I have reverted to a version where the pie incident is included. Any further discussion or attempts to remove this edit should be reported to the BLP board, where the Wines's relationship with Columbia University willl be discussed. "you name it, there's a problem" is not recognised Wikipedia terminology. Richard Cooke (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you....there was a quite some contention about including this material at the eXile but in the end it was abundantly clear that WP policy supports its inclusion. It is definitely notable (according to secondary media sources), verifiable, and certainly not a BLP violaiton. If you want to insert it here, I would recommend using all 5 sources referenced at the eXile and writing it in as neutral a manner as possible. The most acceptable way might not be to state facts directly, but rather to write sentences of the form e.g. "publication X reported, that Y and Z occured...." dsol (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you advice Dsol, I've used some of the referenced material from the page on the exile to ensure a NPOV. Cheers. Richard Cooke (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note the POV-pusher is also removing information the The eXile article. Isn't there an admin somewhere who can show this guy a few key policies, especially WP:CENSOR. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren has removed the information, without discussion. I have reverted his removal, pending discussion not what amounts to an assertion of ownership of the article by stating "if Wikipedia is going to report on the prank at all, it will be on *that* page, not here." This is a notable incident involving this person, and it is neutrally worded in the article, and is sourced to reliable sources. Now, maybe there is no need to have this in this article, but this is done by discussion and gathering consensus, not by continuing to remove information without discussion. We need to have reason to remove information, and WP:CENSOR comes into play, and yes, WP:BLP is active on the article, but for removal to take place under that policy, a clear reason needs to be given which is inline with that policy. Not because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

After having a look at this, the only information that is sourced in the article is relating to this eXile incident, and what is left does not give him any degree of notability. A more suitable course of action would likely be to take the article to WP:AFD instead, because he doesn't seem all that notable without the eXile prose. Thoughts? --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You just inserted the following segment: The person described in this BLP article "...had a pie allegedly made from equine semen flung into his face by Matt Taibbi.". Do we want such "content" in BLP articles?Biophys (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it is good enough to know that Wines had a horse sperm pie thrown into his face. In retrospect, his support for Putin (which was common among American 'experts' at the time) is to blame, at least in part, for the current mess that we're all in. It's good enough to know that when people think of Michael Wines, they think about the fact that he had a horse sperm pie thrown into his face. It doesn't need to appear in the article, in spite of anyone's perfectly justifiable loathing for Wines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.36.205 (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit wars

Warning: if the current edit wars [1] continue without any attempt to resolve the dispute on this talk page, people are going to get blocked. Meanwhile, I note that the statement has 4 references. Why? If any one of them is any good, one of them will do William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Superfluous references

There were 5 references numbered 2-6. I've removed all except #4 the media life one. #2 and #5 are clearly not reliable sources, #3 is a broken link, #6 does not mention Wines.

Actually I'll remove the whole section in a second but that is a different matter, based on the discussion at WP:BLPN which is clearly against inclusion of this matter. Idlewild101 (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at BLPN

This is at WP:BLPN so the discussion here might also be superfluous. The consensus there is clear. Users:DGG, Tom, Digwuran, and myself are completely against including this material here.

Will Beback says a one sentence non-scatological summary might be included if Wines acheivements/awards are also included.

All this is based on BLP, NPOV, notability, and weight issues

Dsol and Cooke want it included - but don't actually say why - only arguing that it can be included.

5 vs. 2 looks like a consensus to me, as far as it can be done in this matter.

Here Biophys is against inclusion, RussAvia mimicks Cooke, and there's a new editor without a previous edit history mimicking Cooke as well. Idlewild101 (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your repeated insinuations I am sock-puppeting, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, are a disgrace. You have already been blocked from editing this entry, and I will report you for disruptive editing if you make such a claim again. I edit Wikipedia under my own name for a reason. Two editors have objected to your executive removal of sourced, noteworthy material on spurious grounds without recourse to the talk page - why is it such a surprise they would do so independently? This issue has previously been resolved on BLPN in favour of inclusion, your arguments have no reference to WP (other than a selective and spurious use of the "human dignity" clause and a reference to "scatalogical material" which is both incorrect and as far as I can see is mentioned nowhere in WP), and the editors in favour of your position admit that they have not read the material in question, seem unable to comprehend it, and seem to take your scurrilous suggestions at face value for reasons unknown ("that's nassstiiiee" is not an argument). I could just as easily accuse you of sock-puppeting on the basis that someone is agreeing with you, only it would be asburd, rude, and not in the spirit of WP. Consensus is not a vote, as you well know. I'll be taking this up on the BLPN in detail. I am warning you politely not to make that insinuation again - it is insulting and baseless. You seem to keep accusing me of operating in bad faith, when I have repeatedly and politely asked you to involve yourself in the discussion surrounding this page, and you have only done so to make baseless accusations against me. Richard Cooke (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If a real consensus forms for inclusion, then fine, otherwise leave it out for the numerous reasons given above and on the BLP board. --Tom 17:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What is a real concensus supposed to be in this case? What part of the BLP policy precludes including at least some summary of what secondary sources have said? Also, I don't think it's appropriate to phrase your opinion as an order given to another editor in this case. dsol (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would probably say that "real consensus" is probably a few, ie 3-5, univolved parties that say this material belongs. Have we seen that yet? --Tom 15:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was seen, back in 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive25 TWilliams9 (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the link, but that doesn't look anything like a consensus for inclusion and we all now that consensus can change either way, especially when more editors are involved, which I always favor. --Tom 22:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reincluded on clear basis of WP:N (Taibbi, Wines and Ames all national award winning journalists, material is included in pages on Taibbi and the eXile), now with single Vanity Fair reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Cooke (talk • contribs) 06:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment by Smallbones. I do not see where I have discussed this before, but but my current view is that

1. The eXile is not quite an ordinary tabloid--see our article on it, which quotes CNN documentary saying, "Brazen, irreverent, immodest, and rude, the eXile struggles with the harsh truth of the new century in Russia...Since 1997, Ames and Taibbi have lampooned and investigated greed, corruption, cowardice and complacency.", The Moscow Times saying "The eXile, which publishes Gonzo-style journalism on topics such as drugs, prostitution and Moscow nightlife side-by-side with political analysis, has often pushed the limits of decency..." and Newsweek calling it "brilliant and outrageous."
2. Accounts of their more notorious stunts is best done in the article on them, where we may or may not want to include the name of the victim, depending on circumstances. If we were to include it there, it might for example say "An American Moscow journalist for a mainstream US paper" . The conclusion of the earlier BLP discussion was to not include it even there, and there would need to be good reason to change it, such as continuing coverage from good sources.
3. They presumably had some reason for picking on him in particular. It seems possible they picked him as being a reporter for a particularly staid & conventional publication that was giving positive coverage to politicians they disliked. I would include it here if, and ONLY if, the matter is in some way politically or culturally of great significance and there are other multiple sources --and very good sources--that describe not just the act but the motivation I rather doubt it. The burden would be on anyone asserting it. DGG ( talk ) 15:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm more or less fine with leaving it out of Wines' article, which is basically a stub anyway. The eXile guys did cite a Fairness and Accuracy in Report peice criticizing Wines, which should be cited. Vanity Fair is a reliable source on why they did it, I'm not sure if there were other in depth sources. However, I don't agree that Wines' name should be left out -- he's a public figure and the fact that the NYT Beaureau chief was targeted is key to the story. I'm not aware of anything in BLP policy that says we should censor ourselves here. dsol (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Was there ever a consensus reached about this? FYI the reason why they targeted Wines is because they held a "Final Four" bracket contest of the worst journalist in Russia and allowed to people to vote; Wines was the clear winner in their poll. It's not something HE did, but it's something that happened to him. It's a highly unusual situation. Wikimandia (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Photo

If this article survives the deletion process would this photo be allowalbe? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/foreign_correspondence/july-dec01/terrorism_9-18.html It is from PBS, a government entity, so is it in the public domain? Those who know a bit more I would appreciate your input. TWilliams9 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that PBS is a government entity? DHN (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Lousy entry

I can't for the life of me see why this entry should exist. Based on the content, Wines's career has been unremarkable. As it presently reads, Wines is "based" in China but has no apparent employer. Nicmart (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

evidently he still writes for new york times [2] - that much is obvious. Happy monsoon day 01:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Taibbi attack - again

[3] this deleted the thing about the attack.

personally i find the episode absolutely unbelievably revolting.

but should we delete this?

On what grounds? Happy monsoon day 01:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

does no one wish to state why this should or should not remain? frankly I'm quite ambivalent; it's revolting, and yet noteworthy. Happy monsoon day 18:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

WP policy could not possibly be more clear about it; secondary sources find it notable so we include it. The idea that we should leave it out because some editors find it distasteful is absurd. Every time it's been discussed in depth the consensus here or on BLP discussion pages is that it is to be included, but apparently some editors are waiting till discussion dies down and removing it again. This is a clear violation of WP policy. dsol (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

sorry, you should have weighed in on this at the BLP discussion page. the consensus was to turf the information. go start another blp discussion if you dispute that consensus.Happy monsoon day 20:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Those boards have pretty high turnover, could you provide a link to the previous discussion? Would have been nice to include a link to that on the discussion page here too. Thanks dsol (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

please let me know if i can make a coffee for you as well (ok joking...) hehe, here is my own lame contribution - and judging by the dates etc. you can navigate back and forth there.

frankly it is not a notable thing that Michael Wines did. It's a notable thing that Taibbi did. Happy monsoon day 21:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to have a look soon. I don't think that whether Wines himself did it, or whether someone did it to him is relevant for inclusion here--surely you would put the assassination attempt on Reagan's page, right? Or is there some relevant policy page I'm missing? I don't think Wines is merely incidental to this story either, since the pie attack was a direct response to his journalistic work. dsol (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

it was said to be a response to his journalistic work. the notability relates to Taibbi since the incident conveys more information about Taibbi than it does about wines. i don't see how it can be compared to the attempted assassination of an american president. Happy monsoon day 22:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPN

I have raised the issue of the recent restoration of an attack on the subject of this article at WP:BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I would have liked to comment there but I only check WP once a week, tops. The turnover on that page is insane. I would appreciate some advance warning here (1-2 weeks) if someone is going to open it for discussion again.

I am strongly in favor of inclusion, and I disagree with the claim that it's only the yuck factor that makes it notable. I think it's very notable without mentioning what was in the pie (which I would be fine with for this page, though the details should be included on the exile page). It's notable and unusual both as an example of gonzo journalism and as a rare case of vigilante pushback against the political agenda of a news organization. I agree with the statement on the BLP noticeboard that a thorough sourcing is in order, though this can certainly be found in the exile's history page. I believe there was at least one non-exile source that did confirm directly with NYT that a pie attack happened. There are lots of details in the vanity fair writeup too. dsol (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

all that is totally fine - as a subject for the page of the guy who supposedly did it. It's not suitable for this page. Happy monsoon day 19:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Wines. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015031851/http://nytimes.com/learning/students/ask_reporters/Michael_Wines.html to https://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/ask_reporters/Michael_Wines.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

stop putting the pie stuff on the page

I haven't been on wikipedia in ages but there has always been stuff on blps that has driven me nuts - this damn thing about the 'horse semen pie' is one of them. it is really disgusting, degrading, probably not even true, and the only evidence of its notability is stuff from taibbi. So whoever keeps putting it in, either stop or come explain why it is absolutely notable and not violative of a bunch of blp policies. thanks. Happy monsoon day 05:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)