![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
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)