Talk:Xeni Jardin/Archive 4

Birth year 1972
Confirming per LA Times:

"Jardin, 32, was born in Richmond, Va., the older of two children."


 * Piccalo, Gina (April 10, 2005). Behold, the wizard of blogs. Los Angeles Times.

This assumes the 5 August birth date in the current article. Will try to confirm that, too. Jokestress 01:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From boingboing entry:


 * "Besides being my birthday (w00t!), and Jason DeFillippo *and* Reid's birthdays (Thanks, Joi!), Tuesday August 5 is National Pray for Fox News Anchor Bill o'Reilly to Die Day, according to California gubernatorial candidate Larry Flynt."


 * Will try to confirm elsewhere. Jokestress 01:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Criticism" section redux
Coming to this with no prior information, I read the archived Talk page and wanted to share the following suggestions:

I looked at the xenisucks.com site and was pretty underwhelmed by the quality of the content. Further, the site really doesn't seem to be that notable. Alexa has it at 270,000th or something like that. The "criticism" is basically one tepid potshot for each BoingBoing post made by this article's subject. If you are going to rant on someone for their "lameness," your rants better not be lame in comparison.

I am going through this and doing footnoted references, so I propose these criticisms be footnotes. If there were substance to the xenisucks posts, it might warrant a sentence or two in the article, but as it stands, it really doesn't seem notable in any sense. The filter seems more interesting and notable to me than the hate site.

Minutemen: The uncaptioned photos, especially the poster, would have been better presented with additional information, but it seems like sloppy reporting rather than an attempt to imply the poster was made by the Minutemen. The poster claims to be produced by a group called "Campaign for Public Awareness," which does not appear to be any officially recognized organization. Mark Ebner's site doesn't have this in its archive, and I don't have access to the Globe article to see if it ran there with a caption.

So, to sum up: hate site non-notable (maybe as footnote), filter worth mentioning, criticism of non-captioned photo of poster legit. Thoughts? Jokestress 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue of the site, which was featured by Xeni herself and in the NY Times has been debated ad nauseum and there is a consensus that it is notable. The use of "hate site" reveals what appears to be a non-NPOV, and seems to be the wording of choice for everyone who decides to stop in and have Xenisucks removed. LikeItsABadThing 17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't come up with "hate," to describe xenisucks.com, New York Times did. Now cited in the article. Jokestress 19:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways, either is notable enough for you to word it the way you did, or it's non-notable as you earlier claimed. I find your present wording not only not NPOV, but intellectually dishonest the way you use the cite to get it to read the way you think it should. You also added the site creators name back in. If you want to say "what the NYT called a hate blog", fine, do it, and do it NPOV. I have edited accordingly. LikeItsABadThing 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am working toward consensus. I think it's unimpressive and non-notable, but since we are going to have to do a hardcore WP:CITE on this, let's reach consensus on this talk page.


 * I added the name for parallel construction. The bullet above it contains the author's name. I propose this:


 * In 2006, Matthew Neal Sharp opened XeniSucks.com, a site the New York Times called a "hate blog." It openly criticizes and parodies Jardin's posts on Boing Boing.


 * For balance, we can add that the New York Times said Mr. Sharp seemed a lot like the Comic Book Guy. If any other published sources have described xenisucks or Mr. Sharp and his writing style, those would be great to add, too. Let me know what you think of the revisions above. Jokestress 19:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on the Xeni sucks item had been reached for some time. You have come in today and decided there is none, because you say there isn't?

I'll leave reverting the other questionable edits to another editor.LikeItsABadThing 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'd say three weeks is a long time, but the cool thing about Wikipedia is that when a new editor comes along with a few issues about an article as it is presented, we all work together to make sure it's accurate and meets NPOV. That's how articles improve, through these ongoing challenges and re-examinations. When I got here, this article was pretty poorly cited, so I am trying to do that first and foremost. You can't have it both ways, either the NYT article you mentioned is notable enough for me to word it the way I did, or it's non-notable and shouldn't be included. Jokestress 19:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly personal for you and I'm excusing myself. 19:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, then I'm going to be bold and put the NYT citation you mentioned back in. Jokestress 20:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Minuteman criticism
Trying to think of how to tighten this up:


 * In April 2005, Jardin published an entry entitled Snapshots of volunteer "Minutemen" on US/Mexico border containing three pictures. Two pictures are of Minuteman Project volunteers, and the third photo is of a poster. The poster is from a different, unidentifiable group and runs counter to the stated Standard Operating Procedures of the Minuteman Project. The entry does not explain the source of the photos and based on the title of the entry, many readers may have falsely assumed that it was a Minuteman Project poster.

How about this:


 * On April 15, 2005, the blog lonewacko.com criticized Jardin after she published uncaptioned photos sent by Mark Ebner while covering a Globe piece on the Minuteman Project . One uncaptioned photo showed a provocative poster but did not explain that the poster was not part the Minuteman Project and in fact went against their policies.

Disregard notes 1 and 2 above-- just an artifact of earlier refs on the page. 3, 4 and 5 are for this bullet. This is half as long and conveys the same meaning, I think. Thoughts? Jokestress 22:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As a follow-up, does this criticism meet notability and verifiability criteria for published sources? I know we can use blogs, but was this reprinted in a newspaper? Jokestress 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless lonewacko.com is the only place that you found mentioning the minuteman thing, I don't think mentioning it in the sentence is necessary. It makes it seem like one guy (say, a lone wacko) had this criticism, and it therefore might not be valid. It is appropriate to link in the citation section.

Wikipedia incident
I just added this:

In August 2005, Jardin broke the news of a Wikipedia hoax regarding Boy*d Upp and Jamie Kane Jardin, Xeni (August 13, 2005) BB punks Wikipedia in game marketing ploy?.

Is this non-notable or too self-referential? Jokestress 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed it along with the page about her experiences about zero gravity. As I said in the edit, this is not Google and we don't include every article written. If that were the case then some journalists would have pages and pages of links.--Gerardm 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm basically with you on the Jamie Kane thing, but the Zero Gravity seems like a pretty notable thing. Originally, it said "innaugural flight," but I couldn't confirm that in a published source yet. Jokestress 22:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Date discrepancy- LA Times
Just a note for later. According to the LAT profile: "When Jardin was 8 or 9, [her father] developed Lou Gehrig's disease. He died a few weeks after Jardin's 10th birthday." SSDI gives his death as August 1980, which would put her birthdate at 1970, not 1972. Jokestress 08:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words
Right now the opening paragraph of the Criticism section is uncited and has a lot of weasel words. The statements need to be supported by verifiable examples in sources that meet notability requirements. These should either be inline refs of bullets.

Criticisms of Jardin focus primarily on her self-promotion. Criticisms of Jardin are mostly published online. Other criticisms disparage her irresponsible journalistic practices, her writing style and vocabulary , her choice of subject matter , and her appearance.

or

Criticisms of Jardin focus primarily on her self-promotion. Criticisms of Jardin are mostly published online. Other criticisms disparage her irresponsible journalistic practices, her writing style and vocabulary, her choice of subject matter, and her appearance.


 * "irresponsible journalistic practices quotation" and cite
 * "writing style and vocabulary quotation" and cite
 * "choice of subject matter quotation" and cite
 * "appearance quotation" and cite

As it stands, these generalizations don't really cut it. Jokestress 18:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me what you mean by weasal words in this context. I'm also not really very happy with the citation happiness that you've gone to. I understand it, but don't think it reads well. Anyway, I think the given criticism sites have all of these complaints. irresponsible journalistic practices is on the minuteman site, and xenisucks. vocabulary criticism is on xenisucks at a minimum. Complaints about xeni's topics is at xenisucks at a minimum. Criticism xeni's appearence is at xenisucks at a minimum. However, citing all of these things to xenisucks alone will make it appear as if it's the only source of these criticisms, when I don't believe that is true. Dstanfor 19:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read the first link in my post above for what I mean by weasel words in the context. Basically, we can't say, "Critics have remarked on her appearance." We have to say, "___ said Jardin "looks like a ___ that had its __ ___ed," or whatever the criticism is, with a citation and a quotation. This is so that the reader can look up the source (verifiablity), and a judgement can be made regarding the notability and credibility of the source. This is necessary on articles that are controversial in order to maintain neutral point of view. I have no opinion of Ms. Jardin one way or the other. My interest is making sure that Wikipedia biographies of controversial living people are not in violation of Wikipedia policies. Her best friend and worst enemy should both be able to read each sentence of the article and say, "yes that's true." The only way to do that is to cite sources for each fact presented. Jokestress 21:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That opening is unsupported, so I am moving it here for now. Here's what is said:


 * "Criticisms of Jardin focus primarily on her self-promotion. Criticisms of Jardin are mostly published online. Other criticisms disparage her alleged irresponsible journalistic practices, her writing style and vocabulary, her choice of subject matter, and her appearance. All of these criticisms can be found on Xenisucks.com, and specific examples may be found in any of the references below."


 * I propose this:


 * "Criticisms of Jardin are generally posted on other less notable blogs. While some blogs have questioned Jardin's journalistic practices, others, notably XeniSucks.com, mix criticism of content with ad hominem attacks."


 * Then go into the specific examples. Jokestress 00:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'less notable' wording sounds dismissive and biased to me, I think it would read better without those two words. --C33 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One other note on that...BoingBoing used to have open comments and they were pretty much overtaken by criticisms of Jardin. Cory Doctorow eventually turned them off, if I remember correctly. I'll hunt for this in their archives and report back. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 01:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The last Boing Boing post with comments is here, but the post where Cory Doctorow lambasts the participants of the forums appears to be gone. Comment on prior posts do contain some of the criticisms of Jardin ("The depth of Xeni's ignorance never fails to amuse me.", etc.). You can look through the remaining comments (some have apparently been deleted wholesale) here. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 01:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing "less notable." Mentioned the comment removal in the Lehrer citation in the earlier section. If we have a citation that they removed the feature because of comments about her, we should definitely add that here. I could only find that they were removed. Jokestress 01:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting) Hmm, surely some of the detractors would have kept a copy or commented on this significant change in policy in their own blogs. Given how high emotions seem to run among some of these bloggers, there must have been a lot of contemporaneous cheering and booing. If that's the exact date (September 1, 2003), we should note that in the article and see if we can find any commentary on Slashdot-type sites or the blog search sites. Ms. Jardin does not mention specifics on PBS except to say the Boing Boing system wasn't well thought out, or words to that effect. Jokestress 01:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting claim over here (search the page for 'One of the most riotous'). Basically, they say that people were impersonating the writers of BB. They also link to what I guess might have been the now-deleted comments about this. It's all kind of fishy-sounding, especially for a site that's openly anti-censorship, but that's just my opinion (and may belong in a criticism page on Boing Boing). -- Kickstart70 - T - C 03:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Same claim at StreetTech. The Quicktopics program BB used for comments did not vet sources, and people were posing as editors Doctorow and Jardin. Claim could use better sourcing for us to include here, but we can certainly mentioned they used Quicktopics and had problems. Other people have had to remove comments section, like Rosie O'Donnell, LA Times wiki, or referral-only comments on LiveJournal, etc.
 * Boing Boing citation: Undead Quicktopics. Jokestress 06:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I have basically added the old criticism section back in. It's very clear that Xeni has been criticised for all those reasons and to remove them is to hide what people think of Xeni. --Gerardm 07:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to add examples. There are only two right now:


 * "irresponsible journalistic practices quotation" and cite (example given - lonewacko.com)
 * "writing style and vocabulary quotation" and cite - NO EXAMPLE
 * "choice of subject matter quotation" (example given - de-Xeni script)
 * "appearance quotation" and cite - NO EXAMPLE
 * "self-promotion quotation" and cite - NO EXAMPLE


 * For more on why this is being done, see the discussion above. Jokestress 07:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You do not have to cite everything, otherwise Wikipedia would be a collection of links. If you want to be anal about this, everything listed above is covered by people on Mefi and xenisucks.com. Would you like a copy of Xeni's birth certificate to prove she is who she says she is? Her name isn't cited; it could be made up.--Gerardm 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You do have to cite anything that is not ridiculously easy to verify. You do have to cite what appears to be supposition or claims to clearly supported by other citations. What I would suggest is dividing the criticisms section according to Jokestress' 5 dividers, then providing at least one cite for each. Really that's not too challenging a task, as that information is available in existing links. And yeah, a birth certificate for her would be nice, to end the questions about her real, original, name. Currently it's far too easy for Wikipedia editors to add whatever crap they want and then claim that they don't need to cite it. It's making WP quality drop and combatting that is well worth the (minimal) effort. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 15:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Jokestress, let's compare the two versions of the criticism section.

Original version "Though readership has jumped more than tenfold since 2004, some readers have had a negative response to Jardin and her work. These criticisms of Jardin focus primarily on her self-promotion. Other areas of criticism highlight her irresponsible journalistic practices, her writing style and vocabulary, her choice of subject matter and her appearance."

Your version "Though readership has jumped more than tenfold since 2004, some readers have had a negative response to Jardin and her work, citing her choice of subject matter and journalistic practices."

So comparing the two you want to me to prove someone criticising:

her irresponsible journalistic practices - http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50418#1259338 "I love how Xeni added in the personal data on the guy behind the site, sent in by some real cool internet detective. I guess the whole privacy/anonymity on the internet ends when someone makes fun of you?"

her self-promotion - http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50418#1259546 "I would side with those who say Mark/David's contributions are the best. I think Xeni and Cory ought to concentrate on adding new stuff to the site and not flogging whatever projects they happen to be working on. But I have met Xeni briefly in person before a couple of times, and she seems totally nice and genuinely interested in her job as a reporter. She is an asset to the site for sure but just needs to tone down the "look what I'm doing" as it is a bit off-putting. posted by cell divide at 6:09 AM PST on March 28"

her writing style and vocabulary http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50418#1259380 "Xeni and Cory make me gag. They're like the kids who start working at the highschool newspapers so they can write articles about how cool their friends are."

http://www.xenisucks.com/index.php?entry=entry060417-151523 Xeni clearly demostrates that she has no idea what the phrase "ad hominem" means.

her appearance http://www.xenisucks.com/index.php?entry=entry060501-095418 Comments on that post reveal many attacks on her appearance. Same is true of many other posts.

So let's run through what your edits achieved. You decided that anyone who looked at Xeni's page shouldn't be able to see the main reasons why people don't like Xeni and in the process of your edits you left a massive grammatical typo. I'd say given the amount of edits you have done on this subject it is rather clear you have some hidden agenda here.

The criticism section goes back to the way it was.

Also, don't start quoting to me Wiki guidelines and removing what I have said about you from this talk section. I have cleary pointed out that in your haste to water-down criticism of Xeni you left a massive grammatical typo. That is not good editing practice. More haste, less speed. It was not a flame; it was and is fact. I have removed the only word that could have been considered a flame which was my sarcastic use of the word "Bravo".--Gerardm 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Though readership has jumped more than tenfold since 2004...", this is a false correlative argument, in any case. The increase in readership might have nothing to do with Xeni, or the increase may have been better without her contributions. Wording suggestions? -- Kickstart70 - T - C 18:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, that reference go out too because it can't be linked to Xeni and the way Jokestress was worded it implies a massive increase in people who read Xeni's work exclusively.--Gerardm 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That fact should go on the Boing Boing page and not imply the jump is because of any one factor. I added a thing there about the comment feature removal there. Jokestress 18:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm struck thru if you don't want it removed. Please maintain civil tone, and that extends to your edit summaries. Focus on improving the article and reaching consensus per Wikipedia policies, not making personal comments about other editors. Jokestress 19:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jokestress, I don't think it's cool for you to edit what other's have said about you. Gerardm appears to be irate because you have taken it upon yourself to re-edit a page that we had finally got agreement on. His complaints about your editting don't appear to be uncivil to me. Dstanfor 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Gerardm is being disruptive and sarcastic. Comments were removed per WP:NPA. I suggest we all try to focus on the article. Personal comments have no place here. I have worked on many controversial articles, and you have to assume everyone is working to make the article as accurate as possible, even if they disagree with you. And for the record, I haven't expressed an opinion either way on Xeni Jardin. However, this article as it stood when I got here was poorly sourced. I am primarily concerned that any reader who comes here can look up the sources and confirm everything in this article. I have worked on articles of people I admire as well as people I find morally repugnant, but my interest is always verifiability, NPOV, and notability. Now, let's move down to the next section and discuss those citations of anonymous comments on blog pages. Jokestress 19:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Once I've had my dinner I will unstrike my comments. I am being civil; I just don't agree with you. With your focus on improving the article you put in citations that were incorrect and gramatical errors. Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.--Gerardm 19:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, please resist the temptation to be sarcastic. See Etiquette. Jokestress 19:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And again, it's totally not cool for you to strike out another editor's comments about your editting on the talk page. Dstanfor 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism citations
Gerardm suggested the following as citations:


 * http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50418#1259338
 * http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50418#1259546
 * http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/50418#1259380
 * http://www.xenisucks.com/index.php?entry=entry060417-151523
 * http://www.xenisucks.com/index.php?entry=entry060501-095418

I don't think the first three are notable or substantive. The fourth one seems the closest to being citable, and the last one is about me more than Ms. Jardin. Maybe the fourth one, but it seems pretty trivial. Is that the best there is? Jokestress 19:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are not notable or substantive? They are a person's opinion and one that backs up that people are criticising the work of Xeni. Does someone writing in the LA Times have more right to an opinion than someone on Metafilter? After all, they are both human beings. It's not the best evidence for the dislike of Xeni but who cares quite frankly? They serve to prove that people criticise her and her work. Or would you like more evidence? Is that the logic you work by? If more people have an opinion then somehow it is more valid? Opinions are, by their very nature, subjective.


 * Before the Internet, not only would we not have Wikipedia but we also wouldn't have a way for ANYONE to express their opinion on any subject. Now *you* want to take that voice away because *you* deem their views to be non-notable or not substantive. You make a mockery of the Internet and Wikipedia with your transparent attempt to hide any criticism of Xeni Jardin and quote meaningless Wiki guidlines whilst at the same time flouting them. Essentially being a bully who hides behind their keyboard. --Gerardm 21:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, Gerardm, please refrain from statements with the word "you" in them. They are almost always about the person, not the content. Now, regarding the content of the above criticisms, I don't think anonymous comments on a weblog meet the notability criteria. See the recently added templeofme citation for an example of a specific criticism that gets close to meeting a minimal standard: established site, specific criticism. Too bad it's anonymous, but at least there is some substance and specificity to it. If this were an article about a film, we wouldn't consider an anonynmous blog reader's message in a comments section to be worth inclusion as a notable review. We have to look at criticisms in that sort of context. The metafilter citations above just don't cut it. Jokestress 23:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello? I can make statement with the word "you" in it because I am talking about *you*. Who on earth do you think you are?--Gerardm 00:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But this isn't an article about a film, its an article about a blogger. Since this article is about a blogger, other bloggers represent the subjects peer group and seem like a perfectly reasonable source of criticism. --C33 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The peer group would be other professional award-winning bloggers, not all bloggers, and certainly not readers making anonymous comments on blog pages. Just because I shot a home movie doesn't mean my opinions of a major studio film are notable enough to include in the Wikipedia entry. If I started a blog today, my comments about Boing Boing or Ms. Jardin would be irrelevant here. Jokestress 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since Xeni posted about the spoof site herself, on her award winning blog Boing Boing, it validates the criticism and the site. It was noteworthy enough to be posted there.216.39.146.25 15:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, I agree that anonymous blog posts aren't notable for inclusion into Wikipedia, but at the same time I think the opinions of those consume of her product (blog readers and other bloggers) should be considered relevant. If BoingBoing allowed comments, I think those would be relevant, but since they dont, we're left searching elsewhere for expression from her rank and file readers.  Is there a compromise that captures the sentiment of a community of critics yet meets notability requirements?  --C33 00:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The source of the sentiment needs to meet notability guidelines for websites (again, I'm not sure xenisucks.com meets this). My interest is in stabilizing this article, and then having a few other neutral parties take a look at the evidence to determine its notability. There are obviously a vocal group of people who dislike Ms. Jardin and her work, but the article needs to reflect the critics' relevance in relation to Ms. Jardin's life and work. As it stands, the criticism section seems way out of proportion to the article as a whole. Jokestress 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem we come across is the notability requirement. For instance, I'm having a problem finding a 'notable' website mentioning xeni and self-promotion. However, a google search of xeni self-promotion returns many individuals remarking upon xeni jardin and cory doctorow's use of boing boing for self promotion of themselves and their friends. There are also references of xeni using her friend sean bonner as a source in a Day to Day story. So it does seem relevent that many individuals are saying this, but there's not a very convenient place to link to describing this. What is your suggestion in this case? Dstanfor 23:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I don't think individual comments under a blog entry really qualify as notable or verifiable. I recommend we do all the new ones you added as bullets. It looks like most of them can go under one xenisucks.com bullet, since that seems to be the source of most criticism. Since Mr. Sharp appears to be the primary source of criticism, it makes sense to put all that together. That allows readers to get a better sense that most of the verifiable attributed criticism can be traced to Mr. Sharp's website. If you find other sources, preferably at Boing Boing's level of notability, those would be ideal. Jokestress 23:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Mr. Sharp is not the sole writer behind xenisucks.com. Does it make sense to give him all the credit/blame for the contents of the site? Dstanfor 01:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to press this point too hard, but do you have a cite for your understanding? -- Kickstart70 - T - C 01:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sharp is no longer the sole writer of XeniSucks.com. There is at least one additional writer (Mr. Quicksilver is his/her nom-de-blog), and I have no reason to believe that Sharp has any motivation in sockpuppeting additional writers for his site.  Glowimperial 01:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If we have a verifiable source naming other contributors, we should by all means list them (real names, not blog micknames). His is the only name I have seen in a published source, and the domain is registered to him. The xenisucks entries average about 300 views and a dozen comments a day so far this month, which gets to my earlier point about web notability. That's not exactly a lot of traffic, especially when compared to Boing Boing. As I said, it's about contextualizing the criticism relative to the article's subject. Jokestress 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't have access to the logfiles for xenisucks.com, and are basing your number of "views" on what SimplePHPBlog is willing to show you. Further, the domain isn't registered to me, it's registered to 'mnslab', a separate entity. Additionally, I hereby verify that I'm not the only one writing content at xenisucks.com, and despite your protestation about "blog mickmames" [sic], I don't feel any particular need to prove there's anyone else writing for it, much less their "real name", as I know it to be factual. That burden is hereby proclaimed to be yours. I don't have any interest in giving you a count of page hits per day, nor any other information, as, ultimately, I don't care whether you, or anyone else, thinks xenisucks.com is "notable". It's certainly "notable" enough that Violet Blue felt the need to declare herself a physical threat to me. As well, since you've been the subject of mockery on the site in question, I hereby suggest you should verify in some form or fashion that you are, in fact, neutral about whether the site remains in this biographical entry or not. One more thing; comparing *any* blog's notability to what is widely accepted to be the highest-trafficked blog is a strawman argument, and either indicative of faulty logic, or evidence of a deliberate bias, with likely intent being to remove the criticism, entirely. Mnsharp 03:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So, if you criticize everyone making edits of this page that you don't like on your site, does that automatically make them a conflict of interest? That seems like a convenient way for you to get your way on how this page is editted. If I recall correctly, you didn't bring jokestress up on xenisucks.com until she made edits here that you disagreed with. Dstanfor 06:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While I see your point on this, I think it's still something that should be considered for the sake of discussion. While I don't feel Mr. Sharp should be able to simply criticize anybody who edits this article and scream NPOV, I think the fact that Jokestress was called names and her entire livelihood ridiculed might affect her motives. Perhaps Jokestress could recuse herself from the Xenisucks issue and continue with her edits on the rest of the article?


 * I think it should also be noted that the only other editor name specific attacks I was able to find on Xenisucks were to MattN, who's user page and archived comments on this article make very clear that he was extremely biased and could not be reasoned with. In my opinion Jokestress has come over and made some very biased and wholesale edits, and has spent a great deal of time and text arguing for the removal of Xenisucks in a very focused and one sided manner.  Calling Xeni sucks a "hate site" from the beginning and throwing in all the things she has, I don't see NPOV in the area of criticism.  What I do see is a legalistic, cluster bomb approach to taking over the editing of this article.  In my opinion her interest in this article appears aggressive, and she has been "talking down" to other editors.  That indicates to me that she is serving her own interests and not those of a peaceful and credible Wikipedia, as it at least appears that she is driven by an agenda.  I could be completely wrong.  These are my observations on this issue that I wish to contribute.


 * 216.39.146.25 15:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your point is totally meaningless. Are you (yes, I will continue to use the word *you* inspite of your stupid suggestion not to) seriously saying that because xenisucks.com doesn't get as much traffic Boing Boing the criticism is less notable? If Boing Boing hadn't removed their comments system it would appear a lot of criticism would be directed there. There are people out there who do not like Xeni Jardin. Accept that fact and maybe we can all move on.--Gerardm 02:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And I don't think the citations in the introduction are necessary. I think that they are a common thread linking the different xeni criticisms. I'm not sure if they meet kickstart's 'trivial to find' test, but there's not much info on Xeni that's trivial to find to begin with, simply because she's primarily notable due to boingboing. I think in your trying to clean up with citations you've gone overboard in providing cites for things that are trivially easy to find, and insisting on cites for things that are not contentious. I don't think a citation is necesasry for the 'wizard of blogs' since it's part of the links already. I don't think the defamer description needs a cite if it's part of the links. Where her mother and brother live isn't contentious, nor are most of the things in the LA times article. None of her career is contentious either which I think means the cites are unnecessary. They are certainly distracting.  Dstanfor 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We should always have a citation for a quotation. The standard is not if something is contentious, but whether it is verifiable. So, if Ms. Jardin went by another version of her name previously, we need to show that. It's not contentious, but it does need to be verified. On articles like this, where there are polarized opinions/positions or POV issues, it's necessary to cite almost everything. See race and intelligence for another article that has had to do the same thing, or Daniel Brandt for another public figure involved in similar editing disputes. Jokestress 20:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is another website with criticism of Xeni specifically. http://www.templeofme.com/archives/2006/03/the_death_knell_of_boingboing.html

216.39.146.25 21:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

QuickTopic feature removal
The criticism section should probably include something about the removal of the QuickTopic reader comment feature in September 2003, but we need to link it to this article. It seems that it was removed in part because of comments about Ms. Jardin, but we need some good citations, preferably quotations from Boing Boing editors. Previously, Ms. Jardin had written a testimonial for QuickTopic:


 * QuickTopic is an indispensable part of every blog project I've been part of, from BoingBoing to kevinsites.net. The ease-of-use for both administrators and audience is unparalleled. Half of what makes a great blog great is what the blogger has to say. The other half? What the audience has to say. QuickTopic rules my blogosphere.

On the NewsHour citation I added yesterday, she said:


 * Well, it's not something that's unique to The Washington Post or even newspapers. Other blogs, other Web sites that allow anonymous comments, it's just a problem that crops up when a really hot issue is being discussed or when the site starts to get really a lot of traffic.


 * Part of the issue here is that when people are able to comment anonymously, I mean, we all believe in the importance of free and anonymous and protected speech on the Internet. But it seems that when people are able to sort of fling mud without having to be attached to any kind of identity online or otherwise, things can get out of hand very quickly. So it's definitely a crisis that happens commonly on the Internet.


 * Well, I know that the weblog that I co-edit, Boing Boing, I we had to shut down a comment system because it wasn't set up in a smart way. I think this really is a technology issue more than it is an issue of any one publication.


 * Definitely systems that require registration are helpful but really one smart thing is for newspapers to tap into the energy of their readership. If people are excited enough to congregate online and comment about your stuff, sometimes readers can be encouraged to kind of govern the comment section themselves.


 * Sites like Metafilter and Slash Dot, you'll see some interesting kind of self-policing, self-organizing happening among the people who frequent those forums.

I recommend adding the comments in bold as part of a bullet on QuickTopic and their removal of the feature. Thoughts? Jokestress 21:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The comments in bold make it seem like this is not an issue relevent to Jardin's biography page. Instead it would be more relevent to BoingBoing's page. There have been references above and on some of the criticism links saying the the removal was due to someone mimicing Jardin successfully, but I haven't seen anything that meets your criteria for 'notable' evidence. If the removal was directly related to jardin then it may belong. Dstanfor 21:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems like a good assessment. I wish there were some better sources (Wired, or at least /.), because there's a pretty good amount of circumstantial evidence it was related to spoofing and abuse (some of which was directed at Ms. Jardin). I'll add it to the Boing Boing page later. Jokestress 21:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I second Dstanfor's comment. This is a Boing Boing related issue. Glowimperial 01:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Direction of this Article
I've been on a wiki break while I help out starting up the BME Wiki, but I've been following the development of this article from a distance. This article has taken what I can only describe as a wierd turn. It is now over cited, with those citations being used, IMHO, to back up both POV and NPOV material.

This is an article on a minor web journalist people. I cannot believe the amount of attention and bickering that has been committed to the subject of the article here. Initially there were two questions as to the nature of this article. First the nature of the subject's name, which has still not been resolved, despite the 20+ citations on this site, no one has been able to answer that question to any real satisfaction. Secondly, there was the question as to the inclusion of mention of the website xenisucks.com, and whether there was a need for a critisism section.

Despite all of the citations, this article is no better than it was when we started. Information explaining the nature of Xeni Jardin's name history is still not present, and although there is now a "wealth" of information regarding various critics of the subject in the article, I still fail to see how those critisisms are noteable. By including numerous web based critisisms of the subject in this article at all, we begin a descent down a slippery slope where our easy access to those critisisms deforms the quality of this article. I also feel that the "press release" ("wizard of blogs", "interstellar blogger sent from fifteen minutes..." nature of much of the introductory paragraph puts the article on poor footing.

While normally I'm an anal retentive Wikipedian, I cannot help but feel that this article is butchered beyond all repair. The numerous citations and the selected references from those citations serve only to calcify this article, making it a poor reference. The over citation of the article strikes me as a editing "nuclear option", forcing potential editors to operate in a manner out of touch with the normal process of consensus that produces good articles here on Wikipedia.

I pose this question - Is it too late to abandon this ridiculous conflict, or will this article continue to function as a battleground for the critics and defenders of the subject? Glowimperial 05:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I, for one, don't think it's too late for this article. Yeah, the recent period has sucked, but it's recoverable. I've held back direct edits for the last bit, while giving (hopefully) constructive criticisms where they were needed. What needs to happen now is some task management. Who wants to take on the following?
 * Research to settle the issues with her real name - I wouldn't expect any help from the people who know her who have posted here, but has anyone directly asked XJ? A recent answer as to why would be better than this guesswork.
 * Cleanup the citations - a good place to start would be removing any citations from sites that have already been used once (esp. xenisucks.com)
 * Have a written agreement that allows for flexibility in content here including criticisms that (once again) allows consensus among editors
 * I have a baby on the way in the next few weeks and a full time job and classes, so I'm not able to take on anything more than what I am now doing, but I will help where I can. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 05:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As to the name issue - in an archived comment section I went back and forth with Xeni as to the nature of her name. After giving a vague and "mutiply interpretable" answer, she abruptly left the conversation.  It is my belief (and I haven't edited the article to this end because it would be speculation, and any research I would have to do to confirm this information would be "original research", which I'm trying to avoid doing on the subject.) that the name "Xeniflores Jardin" orginates with her Guatemalan association (given to her by Doctor Q., who she regards as her "father"), and that she was born under a completely different name given to her by her biological parents.  I found her "contributions" in this are to be unsatisfactory.
 * Frankly, I'd like to put this article into the wayback machine and go back to an earlier version and start from there. The citations in this article have become a crutch that is preventing proper editing.  Using the cites in the article right now, I could re-write the article to either heap holy praise on the subject or to tear her a new one.  Right not the cites in the article seem intentioned to do a bit of both.  A balance of POV edits does not make an NPOV article.
 * The subject of the article does not seem noteable enough to me to merit such a detailed and lengthy article. By artificially promoting every detail of her public life, we are inflating the noteability of the subject herself, which I don't see as a good thing.  We are also inflating the significane of the critisism of the subject at the same time, which is as I said, a slippery slope that can only lead to critisism centered article inflation throughout Wikipediea, something I am concerned about.  This is often a problem with "internet celebrity/website" articles.  The ease of finding references artificially inflates the size and depth of the article, and thus the percieved importance of the subject.
 * I too am exceptionally busy. I'm just trying to step in to apply a little "let's put this in perspective" here.  I don't have the time to play "global thermonuclear war" over this subject, and I hate to see this article dominated by those who do. Glowimperial 06:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It seemed like there was a lot of consensus on the article prior to jokestress stepping in. For whatever reason, some of her edits have been contentious. I think removal of citations would be helpful. I also think with removal of citations, we can trim down some of the PR ish ness of the intro, and reduce the size of the criticism section. It be nice if most of the source of this article did not rely solely on the LA times piece, but there's not a lot of published info out there so there's not a way to fix that I think. I also don't think we'll straighten out the birth name issue. With a family members named Monica, Carl, and Glen, Xeniflores is pretty unexpected. Xeniflores guatemalan source seems to imply that she got the name in from either her mentor, or in her travels to guatemala. But this is all speculation, and without doing some original research on our part, we won't find anything in google. At this point it seems like the best way to keep from raising anyone's ire would be for some of the recent editors of the main page (gerardm, jokestress, and I) to try to do some trimming of our own additions. Dstanfor 05:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Glowimperial, the article is totally out of perspective. The criticism section is a litany of non-notable POV whining from a small group of people and the rest of the article reads like a press release. Except for the career portion, which reads like some creepy private investigator's report (where are the afterschool jobs?). It's amazing to me that people would put this much effort into arguing about the article, but no one is willing to do decent research to write a REAL BIO! Just simple bio! If it's worth having an article and worth having a critic's section, you would think it'd be worth it to someone to actually write something worth reading. Did I say that it was amazing to me? Maybe I meant to say that it's telling, very telling. I'm glad Jokestress is at least making an effort to clean the article up, she's doing a better job than those who "already reached a consensus".--66.92.15.224 06:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this article is too polarized. The criticism is too extreme/personal and for the most part, not relevant.  While much of the rest of the page (especially the intro) reads like a vanity page.  It needs more objective facts (name, education, useful biographical data) to fill out the middle ground.  I've tried to contribute positively here, but I find myself being drawn into an almost political argument here.  I think I'm going to excuse myself and try to work on some less controversial articles.  Good Luck all!  --C33 06:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * When I first read this, it sounded like a dossier put together by an unhinged cyberstalker with a long history of antisocial behavior (which turns out wasn't far off). There's this weird "gotcha" mentality in the blogger world, where every quibble gets blown out of proportion. Hence this criticism section here, which really comes down to a web filter, some vocabulary flames, complaints about uncaptioned photos and a hate site which claims "notability" based on one paragraph in a tech column that said the owner seems like the Comic Book Guy. The criticism could be dispensed with in a sentence or two, max (with citations, natch). It's barely notable if at all.


 * I also agree with the comments about the opening PR type stuff being unnecessary, so I took it out.


 * Now that all the cards are on the table in terms of the substance of the criticism, I think we can start working toward putting it in proportion with the rest of the article. Jokestress 08:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't believe we are still debating whether xenisucks.com is notable or not. If nothing else the campaign waged on here to stop it being included in Xeni's wiki entry makes it notable. Without Xeni, xenisucks.com would not exist. Clearly there is a community of people, who knows how big, who think Xeni sucks and point out reasons why. Your argument that it doesn't get the same level of traffic as Boing Boing is laughable. The site was also mentioned in the NYT for crying out loud. Seriously, what else do you want before *you* consider the criticism on xenisucks.com to be notable? --Gerardm 09:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting)

Criteria for web content

Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
 * The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
 * This criterion excludes:
 * Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[4]
 * Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
 * This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[5]
 * The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[6]
 * The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[7]

The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section.

From WP:WEB. Jokestress 09:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". Great; that describes the site. Now let's move on. --Gerardm 10:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What well-known site distributes xenisucks content? Jokestress 10:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Eeek, well I totally misread that. Ahem. --Gerardm 10:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I just reread your link:

"This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web specific-content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia"

How is that relevant to our discussion? Notable means, in my mind and in the mind of a dictionary, to be "worthy of note or notice". We are not talking about xenisucks.com having it's own page on Wikipedia so I have no idea why you linked to that other than an attempt to justify the removal of xenisucks.com with a totally irrelevant Wiki guideline.

First *you* tell me what I can't use the word you. Now you link to a Wiki guideline about giving web-only content it's own article. Seriously, what are you on? It's great you keep on quoting these Wiki guidelines but how about a) sticking to them yourself and b) quote some that are relevant. It's becoming more and more obvious you are just a bully. --Gerardm 11:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Save the hysterical accusations and shrill rhetoric for your LiveJournal or MySpace, Gerardm. The rest of us are trying to get POV and balance issues with this article resolved in a civil manner, and we're doing it without resorting to rants about other users. Jokestress 19:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are a joke, you really are. In your effort to try and remove xenisucks.com from Xeni's article you suggest that the site is not notable and quote a Wiki guideline. I pull up the fact that the guideline you have quoted has NOTHING to do with mentioning the site on Xeni's entry and you get all pissy. Face it, you got caught out. You tried to look all clever and instead you have looked rather foolish. Clearly you are NOT trying to get balance because you have essentially tried to mislead people by quoting incorrect Wiki guidelines in your effort to remove criticism of Xeni. You have tried. You have failed. Move along now.--Gerardm 01:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Woah there cowboy. Calm down a little. This is definately not a civil response. Dstanfor 02:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What response would you suggest to a bully who tries to ruin an article by misquoting Wiki guidelines in an effort to suit her own agenda?--Gerardm 08:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is all sofa king ridiculous. I said above I think Xeni is lame, and still do, but Wikipedia doesn't need to include that. Can we go back to the version of the site before the Minutemen poster controvery and all of Jokerstress's edits? I thought we had a nice criticism section then: all it said was somebody created a Greasemonkey script to cull her out of BB and Matt Sharp had started xenisucks.com, which a NYT writer took notice of and which also got a reaction out of Xeni, the subject of this article. I can't really help on the name issue; I'd like to know what the real deal is but we may never know, so it seems like the only reasonable thing we can do is document the fact that she does not appear to want her birth name known. We should revert the page. Ryan Norton 13:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On controversial biographies, especially ones where the subject or editors have raised concerns, it's necessary to cite sources. One of the best ways to counter claims of POV is to have the citations in the article. Unfortunately, most biographies of living people do not currently have this rigor, though they should.


 * Regarding name, Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm appears to be the full name she's used her whole professional life, with Xeni Jardin being the shortened version of that under which she writes. Lots of actors and personalities do that (Jon Stewart comes to mind). Until we have a published and verified source that it was something else previously, any other implications or speculations are POV and original research.


 * I don't feel a revert is necessary. This is now getting culled down as we examine the source and weight of each bit of information. I believe the pre-journalism work history can be dispensed with in a sentence, and that some other notable reportage like the Zero Gravity trip should be mentioned. Then comes the criticism, which is pretty forgettable and probably shouldn't comprise 25% of the article. It emanates from fewer than half a dozen very grumpy people and an unknown number who could do without her, but haven't devoted their energies to hate sites and camping out on Wikipedia articles. Jokestress 19:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, now; I see you *do* know what an ad hominem is. Consider the fact that there was a consensus before you came along throwing your agenda-laden mud, and you're one of a half-dozen minus five demanding it meet *your* criteria. And lay off the ad hominems on me on Wikipedia. This is the second time you've done it, and I'm getting tired of it. If you have proof that I'm "grumpy", cite it. If not, retract it. If you have proof that I'm an "unhinged cyberstalker with a long history of anti-social behavior", cite your evidence, otherwise save your hysterical accusations and shrill rhetoric for your LiveJournal or MySpace, "Jokestress". Mnsharp 19:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If there were a Wikipedia article on the person you say you are, I'd certainly cite sources there, but unfortunately, Matthew N. Sharp is not a notable human being. Jokestress 19:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jokestress: having a Wikipedia page doesn't make you notable. Also, you are damaging this article with your obsessive edits and biased point of view. If you really need a pet article to maintain, maybe you should pick something that you can be objective about. joeynelson 20:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is at this point that it becomes plainly obvious that Jokestress should end her edits on this article now. She is not objective and clearly has much venom for the author of Xenisucks.com.  I would hope from this point on she is reverted at every turn.  This is ridiculous.  Someone recently said to me that Wikipidia was degenerating into Usenet 2.0.  The situation on this article seems to confirm this.  Somebody please revert this article to what it looked like in April?216.39.146.25 20:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The front page says "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". While I agree that Jokestress' edits have not been overall 100% helpful, we should not be telling her she can't edit this article. Instead, working toward a non-biased consensus is far more important, and if she makes edits that we don't like, then we certainly have the options of fixing them, undoing them, or ignoring them. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 20:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tightening up and adding notable stories
Since she's known for journalism, I tightened up the pre-journalism work stuff, which is all detailed in the references. We should examine some of the stories she has covered though. The Zero Gravity flight report seems notable (it included other notable people), but there was a question from another editor. Thoughts? Jokestress 19:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, here is the article, which was already listed on the Zero Gravity page by someone a while ago as a reference. Jokestress 19:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

FKA
This recent edit suggests these other versions of her name are aliases:


 * Formerly known as Xeniflóres Hamm, and Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm, she currently goes by Xeni Jardin.

Her full name is Xeniflores Jardin Hamm. She has used that since at least the mid 90s. I don't think the Jon Stewart article would ever say:


 * Formerly known as Jon Liebowitz, and Jon Stuart Liebowitz, he currently goes by Jon Stewart. "

The wording implies some kind of subterfuge or deception. I suggest:


 * Her full name is Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm. "Xeniflóres" is a Guatemalan name meaning "protector of plants/flowers", and jardin is the Spanish word for "garden."

That way it doesn't sound like she is on the FBI's most wanted list with aliases or something. She has a nickname and a pen name which are variants of her full name. No biggie, right? Jokestress 20:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, since she pronounces Jardin the French way (zhar-DAN), not the Spanish way (har-DEEN), should we say it's the French word to help reduce confusion? Jokestress 20:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The current edit is correct. She was formally known as those other names, and now goes by xeni jardin. It is suspected that she had an entirely different birthname, but there's nothing but circumstantial evidence. According to Xeni, her legal name now is xeni jardin, not xeniflores jardin hamm. And there is circumstantial evidence that her name changes have confused the IRS as well. the names on the current page are all names that she has signed to her own work post Dr. Q. There's no evidence to be found about her pre- Dr. Q. Dstanfor 20:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is awkward, because we are dealing with a subject who has deliberately changed their entire name (I don't think that is speculation at this point, it is obvious) from their birth name, rather than simply shortened or "Americanised" their name for professional purposes. It is further made connfusing as her birth name (as in the name that appeared on her original birth certificate, outside of the "Hamm" is unknown to us.  In addition, the subject has publicly stated that the name change was made for practical reasons (avoiding "bad people" from her past) which are not explained by the subject anywhere accessable to the public.


 * These factors make the Jon Stewart example a poor one to use in this case. A better example would be an individual who has permanently and legally changed their entire name from their birth name for purposes unrelated to their profession.  The earliest and most reliable reference we have to the name change is a newspaper article listing residents in North San Diego County who are owed monies or property being held by the State of California.  There she is listed as Hamm, Xeniflores J., and the monies owed most likeley date from the period of her employemnt at Traveltrust, where there is a confirming reference of her name at that time.  It seems clear to me that she changed her name at one point, but continued to use the last name Hamm in her professional life.  Maybe a better example would be someone such as Genesis P-Orridge who has wholly abandoned their birth name, for personal reasons.  I normally like to lead articles where the subject has changed their name by including their birth name along with their dates of birth and/or death as is shown there.  It settles the matter, provides the reader with the information, and moves onto the article itself.


 * We have a problem, however, because the subject's birth name is both unknown (to us) and subject to some degree of controversy. We have a subject about whom there is not only speculation as to the birth name, but who's gender at birth is also routinely speculated about, and who has gone to great effort to sever connections with her own past at a certain point, and who has provided little information of substance about herself prior to that severing (which is her right - but it is frustrating for the lay biographers here at WP).  Some mention needs to be made of her life prior to "becoming Xeniflores Jardin" ( is her current legal name Xeniflores Jardin or Xeniflores Jardin Hamm?), as she has leveraged heavily on that "mystery", and it plays no small part in her public persona, and therefore her professional success.


 * Perhaps we could address the "birth name" issue by adding the text "birth name unknown" to the birth date in parentheses section.   Also - we shoudl remove the cite on the year of birth - we don't need citations for that sort of thing, and the article needs less cite-clutter".  The "Early Life" section needs to address what appears to be (from all of the resources available, including direct statements from the subject) a total and complete change in persona, right down to the name.  Eariler variants on her legal name should be addressed there, as well.  It is neither suspicios or criminal to have had previous aliases, it is simply unusual.  I don't see that material as necessarily POV, but until someone can say "she was born " "in 19-- she changed her legal name to ", it may be the best we can do.  Also on a minor note, indicating that she does use the French pronunciation of "Jardin" should replace the Spanish.  Glowimperial 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree this biography has interesting challenges. I have been working almost exclusively on challenging biographies likie this for the last several months because each one has unique issues. This one is kind of like Daniel Brandt, who considers the article on him an invasion of privacy. He has also been rather cagey about his biographical details and has not been photographed in many years.


 * This article is interesting because the author wishes to cultivate an aura of mystery, but it's important that the article not ascribe motivations or make suppositions.


 * Birthdate: The only published source (LA Times) contradicts itself. I would say, either a footnoted date, or no date at all. No date is probably most neutral, but the note shows that there's a loosey-goosey feel to self-provided published info about her early life.


 * Name: "Birth name unknown" seems inaccurate. For all we know from the published record, that was her birth name. Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm seems to be the name she has used previously. It doesn't seem necessary to list "Xeniflóres Hamm" "Xeniflóres J. Hamm" and "Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm," when all are variants of the same name.


 * Thanks for this helpful feedback. Jokestress 21:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's also difficult to write the article without knowing why the author cultivates an "aura of mystery." Does she seek to avoid the "bad people" from her past, as stated in the LA Times article.  Or has she developed a persona to further her professional  work?  Or a combination of the two?  Or neither?


 * There is something about the L.A. Times article that has always seemed suspect to me. It is essentially a puff piece, and I don't think that it was fact checked very well.  I'd avoid using it as a reference if we can.  Unfortunately it's the largest piece of media where the subject talks about herself, which makes it important.


 * Birthdate Didn't Xeni discuss her DOB in a citeable BoingBoing post? I seem to remember getting the reference from there.


 * Name:I know this borders dangerously close to speculation and I don't want this article to become speculative in nature, but from my conversations with the subject (all of which took place on this talk page), I feel very confident in saying that neither the words Xeniflores or Jardin were in any way part of her "birth name" as given to her by her biological parents Monica Rumsey and Glen Hamm. Given her backstory - it would be entirely too coincidental and statistically nigh-impossible for her birth parents to have given her and obscure Guatemalan/French name (which also just happens to sound like "Zen Garden"), only to have her later taken up by a "mysteriously undocumented Guatemalan scholar and artist" who took her under his wing.  Although we do need to "cite our sources" here on Wikipedia, listing her birth name as Xeniflores Jardin would be to pile improbable upon improbable to the point of ridiculousness. Have you read through the conversation that I had with the subject earlier regarding her name?  I found the her responses to be unsatisfying and vague, and she left the conversation at a point where several well worded questions could have either settled the matter or elicted a revealing unwillingness to answer those questions. Glowimperial 22:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have the citations for her birth day under the heading "Birth year 1972" above. However, she did not mention her age or birth year in the BB cite. I'm sure there are other sources. I ran into the same issue on Paul Barresi last month. He is also very loosey-goosey with early life info and provided some information that was open to interpretation.


 * Name: I had read your exchange before, and I too very much doubt her birth name was her current name. Still, we have to stick to verifiability. Strictly speaking, that is unverifiable and original research. As it stands, "birth name unknown" kinda cuts both ways POV-wise: it adds to the "mystery" on the positive side, and it suggests some sort of nefarious "deception" on the negative side. Better to err on the side of NPOV and avoid "birth name unknown," it seems. Had she answered your questions, that would still have violated WP:NOR as a self-reference. Jokestress 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? 216.39.146.25 20:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the entry is fine right now. Covers her career, summarizes the reaction against her, and everything the entry claims is documented. We should just leave it alone and see if anybody who isn't already deeply entrenched on one side or the other wanders in and changes stuff for the better. Ryan Norton 20:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Zero Gravity
This seems like a notable accomplishment:

In 2004, she reported for both NPR and Wired as a passenger on the launch of Zero Gravity, a commercial parabolic flight service.

It was picked up at several outlets and is included on the Zero Gravity article here. Let's discuss its inclusion or deletion. Jokestress 04:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As has already been suggested, this is not the place to publish a link to every single article written by the subject. It's not the first flight of its kind and it is merely Xeni reporting an experience. Not worthy of inclusion.--Gerardm 08:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is noted on the Zero G page, and that's probably all that's necessary. With the addition of the wired article link at the bottom, people can find articles by Xeni there. Unless she gets an abnormal amount of attention for any particular article, it's not noteworthy beyond showing that she writes articles. Dstanfor 14:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If that's not a notable article, what is??? --66.92.15.224 02:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * many journalists write articles. yet it would be ridiculous to discuss any particular article a journalist wrote unless it was particularly notable. Particularly notable articles win awards or are discussed by other sources. I don't believe an article about a topic that has a 5 sentence wiki article is notable.

Education
This was removed earlier today:


 * She received a scholarship to the San Francisco Art Institute, where she studied for a year. While in San Francisco, she met Dr. Munir Xochipillicueponi Quetzalkanbalam, whom she considers her mentor, and traveled with him to Mexico and Guatemala. In the mid-1990s, she took journalism courses at San Diego State University.

This seems relevant, does it not? It's all from the LA Times. Jokestress 05:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Does she do art? Does a journalism course(s) vs a journalism degree have relevence? is it notable? I don't think Dr. Q is notable since the only time he comes up is in reference to Xeni. Dstanfor 14:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems at least as relevant as the travel agency job. It helps show how she ended up in SF and early influences. Jokestress 17:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really think the travel agency job is relevent either. It would be relevent that she currently lives in SF. Without anything to relate her early influences to ( And that's why she does blah-de-blah) they seem unnecessary. And its odd with an unusual name like Dr. Munir Xochipillicueponi Quetzalkanbalam that the only time he shows up on google is in regards to xeni. It's probably still worth mentioning that "Xeni considers Dr. Munir Xochipillicueponi Quetzalkanbalam her mentor". Dstanfor 17:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section removal
After reading the article and this talk page:


 * 1) The section intro is wildly POV and full of unjustified claims.
 * 2) I can't think of any reason to include the greasemonkey link. It's not criticism. A greasemonkey script to selectively ignore authors might (and I do stress might) make for an interesting point in the boingboing wikipedia article... but it has no place here.
 * 3) Justifying the xenisucks.com link on the basis of it being mentioned in the NYTimes might be a good argument... except that the NYTimes article is clearly calling the author of the site a loon with a grudge/crush -- far from supporting its inclusion, the NYTimes article backs up its removal. Beyond that, it has no value as a Wikipedia source. See next entry.
 * 4) The final entry links to an unnamed blog author "Domoni" at "templeofme"... to argue that as being valid criticism for inclusion in Wikipedia is ludicrous. You may as well point to a wikipedia user page.

I have a long-standing problem with "Criticism" sections on Wikipedia articles. Including criticism in an article is welcome if it is properly sourced and balanced... but it should be written into the article not just dumped in its own section. A separate section labelled "criticism" is just a craphole into which random editors dump every complaint, gripe and whinge that they've dug up on the web. It's a challenge to find something to fill it (no matter how thin), and an opportunity for everyone with a grudge to add one line with a link to a blog that they claims backs it up. No chance as far as I'm concerned. I expect Wikipedia articles to be of a much higher standard than that.

The main push in the criticism section appears to be concerns over "responsible journalism" -- well, ok, a section called "Responsible journalism" would be justified *if* there are facts and reliable sources to suggest that discussion of such a matter on a bio page is necessary. Whinging on blogs and comments sections just don't count... no matter how keenly felt. Are there any reliable sources raising concerns over her journalism? Additionally, I removed the ext link to the furniture dealers... and the blog links. - Motor (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor, the text of the NYTimes article is below. Your interpretation and/or opinion of what they said is irrelevent and appears to be baised. None of the words you use above were included in the article.  I interpret it as some tongue in cheek press, intended to be witty or snarky, but again, that's just an interpretation.  What is undeniable is that it's press from one of the world's most notable newspapers.  And it even gives a nod to the creator's band.


 * If you google specifically for blogs linking to this article or to Xenisucks.com, you'll find an endless supply of pages as I did.


 * "WORST. HATE BLOG. EVER. Matthew Neal Sharp, a programmer and blogger, has concluded that he does not think much of the peripatetic technology journalist and blogger Xeni Jardin (NPR, Wired News, Boingboing). So Mr. Sharp decided to create a blog dedicated to continually dipping her virtual pigtails into the digital inkwell. The site is replete with nasty, sarcastic invective delivered in spot-on Comic Book Guy tone.


 * Ms. Jardin tried to be a good sport, posting on Boingboing that Mr. Sharp's blog is "a total hoot." But that only enraged Mr. Sharp further.


 * You can see the love — er, that is, the hate — at xenisucks.com. An interesting side note: Mr. Sharp plays in a band, Mathgeeks, with Ms. Jardin's colleague, Rick Karr, who reports technology and culture for public radio."

19:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What a load of nonsense. From reading Xeni's entry now it would appear that all the press and opnions about her are positive. Very clearly there are a number of people who not only do not like Xeni but also pull up her when she makes mistakes. I am putting the criticism section back in. Any attempt to remove it can only be seen as a way to deny that Xeni has critics. --Gerardm 11:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, if you had looked through the debate you would have been consensus had been reached on creation of a criticism sections weeks ago. For you to wade in and remove the section without even looking at the debate and contributing to it is reckless at best. You just added your comments and removed the section. I would like to think that is not how Wikipedia works. --Gerardm 11:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, why do comments on blogs not "cut it" as you suggest? Surely criticism of someone is valid no matter what medium it is written in? For example, posters on xenisucks.com talked about Xeni not understanding the phrase "ad hominem". Their criticisms are valid and yet they appear in a comments section. The medium matters not, the content does. --Gerardm 11:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * even looking at the debate and contributing to it is reckless at best -- I read the talk page... twice thank you. None of your arguments have any real worth. If you want to include criticism of Xeni Jardin, *you can*... but it must be properly and reliably sourced. Links to whinges from malcontents on blogs do not cut it. I made my argument with regard to the NYTimes article -- the article backs up the removal of the xenisucks.com link. You quoted it as a source, now you must live with its conclusion.


 * What a load of nonsense. From reading Xeni's entry now it would appear that all the press and opnions about her are positive. -- "Press"? A bunch of malcontents on a blog are not "the press". As I said above, if you have reliable press sources for the complaints, you can include them. You don't. All you have is 1) A greasemoney script 2) a NYTimes article that clearly calls the xenisucks.com creator a loon 3) an anon blogger. Are you seriously claiming this is valid criticism? Let me re-state the part above that you appear to have ignored -- the section appears to be complaints about reliable journalism. If this is the case, then it is a valid part of an article regarding Xeni Jardin... but if all you have to back this up is a bunch of malcontents with a grudge and a blog... no deal. Wikipedia, and I, have higher standards than that.


 * In addition, if you had looked through the debate you would have been consensus had been reached on creation of a criticism sections weeks ago. Not with me it wasn't. There is a reason why Wikipedia insists on reliable sources... it's so that nutters can't fill wikipedia with nonsense. Give us reliable sources. Additional: Reliable Sources:


 * At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.


 * Please read this wikipedia guideline, and then you can go on to make constructive contributions to the article. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well in that case out goes any reference to Xeni.net, as it is her own personal page and Boing Boing, as it is a weblog.


 * As I say again, criticism is valid no matter what medium it takes. You talk of an anon blogger; who cares? Wikipedia itself encourages anonymous additions from anyone. If you don't believe an anonymous contribution is valid then Wikipedia is screwed. What is your definition of reliable? People very clearly criticise Jardin and their criticisms in most cases seem to have some logic. Why shouldn't the views of these people be heard?


 * The question is ask you is why should criticism of Jardin be hidden? As we had a long debate about the criticism section I am going to put it back in. If the current discussion leads us to have it removed then so be it. But for the moment the status-quo should be maintained. Whatever you may think I think you will not be able to deny that clearly there are people who criticise Jardin and everything currently contained in the criticism section is factually accurate. On that basis I feel it wrong for it to be removed until we have debated this (again). --Gerardm 12:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well in that case out goes any reference to Xeni.net, as it is her own personal page and Boing Boing, as it is a weblog. -- WP:External links. External links, in the ext links section, to her own web page are allowed (and encouraged) by Wikipedia guidelines. Using her as a single source for extraordinary claims would be out. If she claimed to have been an astronaut on her web page... it would clearly not be reliable and using it as a source to say she's been an astronaut would be wrong.


 * The question is ask you is why should criticism of Jardin be hidden? -- I have already answered this question... twice. It really would help if you actually read what you are replying to: Criticism should not be hidden. It should be properly sourced. It hasn't been in this case. You are welcome to provide reliable sources per the Wikipedia guidelines. Until that time, the information will continue to be removed. - Motor (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I will leave this for now as I have to get back to work but I think your responses are laughable. It is a rather pathetic attempt to hide any criticise of Jardin. If your standards for Wikipedia are that you can hide people's opinion then I worry for you.--Gerardm 13:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern for me, but it's really not necessary. Please take the time to read the Wikipedia guidelines re: sources. I look forward to constructive contributions from you in the future. - Motor (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * here's something I don't understand: Why does criticism of a blog need to be on a source more reliable than a blog? Xeni is certainly arguably most notable because of boingboing, a blog. Criticisms of her posts on boingboing appear in other blogs, yet these other blogs aren't notable? A number of editors have worked to add in a link to xenisucks. When this link keeps getting removed, due to a specific complaint, the complaint has been responded to and the link added back in. I'm not completely sure the article has improved because of this. However, I still don't see how a link to a parody site is not a useful addition. The Factor page has a link to the colbert report. Is that not acceptable as well? Dstanfor 13:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * here's something I don't understand: Why does criticism of a blog need to be on a source more reliable than a blog? -- Is BoingBoing (the blog) the source of the information for the BoingBoing wikipedia article? If so, then that information isn't particularly reliable. It needs more. You are quite welcome to argue that Jardin and/or BoingBoing isn't notable enough to justify a wikipedia entry (though since she's also a radio/print journalist, you'd have a tough time of it). As for the xenisucks.com link -- I don't see a reason for it.. in fact, I don't see a reason for "X"-sucks.com external links on wikipedia at all. Should The Factor article mention The Colbert Report... possibly. It's a lot more notable than a bunch of whining on a blog. - Motor (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that no criticism on a blog of a blog is notable? or that xenisucks.com in particular isn't notable? If the latter, what sort of test does one do to determine if a blog is notable? Dstanfor 14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No "blog" is notable on Wikipedia. Websites that are peer reviewed, or that can prove they have been fact-checked by a third-party group would be notable. Without one of those processes the "blog" is considered simply a series of editorials and self-published articles. That said, all of Xeni's work on boingboing is not notible, though a mention she works there is acceptable. Even editorials by the New York Times aren't usually notable. domoni 14:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Link copied here for time being: Xeni Jardin profile: Scan of 2005 Los Angeles Times piece -- this seems to be a copy of an la times article held locally at xeni.net. If we can track down the original at the la times site, then it could be used as source rather than an ext link. - Motor (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Like many newspaper web pages, older articles are either for pay only, or not archived on their site. She has the text and a scan of the article on her page. If that's not reliable enough, then most of this xeni article will have to be removed since that LA Times article and Xeni's own webpage are the basis for most of the info here. Dstanfor 14:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It was printed in the LA times, so that makes it ok as a source... it doesn't have to be web accessible, it would just be nice since it would easy for other editors to verify. However, since we are quoting a printed reference we should be following the guidelines for citing a newspaper. We can keep the link to the version at xeni.net in the reference as long as it is alongside the newspaper cite. - Motor (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have gone an re-added the criticism section, and I've also requested that the page get full protection. These weakly justified attempts to establish a moving bar for citable criticism, or somehow explain criticism of an extremely opinioned blogger as inappropriate are just getting silly. Hopefully, if the page is protected, we can calm down in talk and see what should stay. 63.107.91.99 14:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And Motor just hit his third revert, clearly a violation of Three-revert rule --217.8.243.104 14:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm curious... how does the 3 revert rule work? Does it apply to motor's reverts? why? Dstanfor 14:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Motor: It would help your point if you do not insult the others. "Malcontents", etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Though you specifically did not have the opportunity to weigh in on the decision to create a criticism section you must know your opinion carries no more weight than any other editor. That said we should debate if the article content fits the Wikipedia guidelines, not debate the truth or fairness of the content.

"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The key is expecting the untrained to understand “reliable source.” Wikipedia answers that question: "Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)." ..."A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is regarded as unreliable as a source."

With those points in mind I would have asked the editor who included the link to my website to delete it. I am a freelance writer/editor who previously worked as a reporter and editor for the print press. Even though I can prove every fact I publish, and can defend every editorial I write, I do not use fact checkers nor peer reviews for my website entries. That means they should not be cited here. It does not mean they are false, but that they do not fit Wikipedia's goal. (Note: While writing this the entry to my website was reinserted. As stated I do not believe the link belongs here.)

Wikipedia is not the place to debate a person's life. Xenisucks.com, the boingboing parody sites, and the numerous editorials about Xeni and boingboing are doing the job of debating her work. Those sites, boingboing, and other online publishers should not bring their debates, no matter how valid, to Wikipedia.

Truly, Xeni Jardin deserves a page on wikipedia no more than the many other freelance writers working today. She is well known to only a small segment of the population at large. She is notable primarily as the figurehead of a cult of personality and not her work. Even so, the straw poll concluded that the entry stay and we need to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. domoni 14:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It would help your point if you do not insult the others. "Malcontents", etc. -- How would you describe the contents of xenisucks.com? You might also note that I was not referring to Wikipedia editors.


 * You could describe the content with a Neutral Point of View, maybe. And seeing as how I am a "Wikipedia editor", your claim that you were not referring to Wikipedia editors is demonstrably false. Calling me a "malcontent" is your subjective opinion. It is not fact. Your precious Wikipedia rules apply to you, as well, "Motor".Mnsharp 16:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Truly, Xeni Jardin deserves a page on wikipedia no more than the many other freelance writers working today. -- and as I said, anyone is free to argue that she does not deserve an article. But given that she has an article, it must follow wikipedia guidelines... and keep in mind the current situation with Wikipedia regarding libel. I'm glad that you, at least, realise that your article has no place being cited as source here. - Motor (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * are you implying that the criticism section was libelous? You keep mentioning this (here, on the protection talk page, and the admin who protected talk page), implying that editors are trying to libel Ms. Jardin. Dstanfor 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting that it makes a lot of claims that are not backed up... and that Wikipedia is currently in a fuss over biographical articles that are libeleous. Whether this section is actually libelous is a matter for lawyers... the section is, and remains, lacking in reliable sources. Again, no-one is objecting to the inclusion of criticism in this article... just the fact that it is not sourced. - Motor (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like this is a backdoor attempt to remove the section though, instead of an attempt to improve the article. Being summoned by jokestress due to your doctorow edits makes this seem the case as well.


 * Anyway -- on to attempt some sort of consensus building. Jokestress and Motor are not satisfied with the current criticism section and want it removed due to sources. Gerardm wants the section there to try to balance the article. Would it be acceptable to all parties if instead of adding detail more information was cut? At this point Xeni's article is larger than many more notable journalists because of the resume section and criticism section.


 * On a link to xenisucks.com -- the archived strawpoll says to include it. Motor and Jokestress disagree and discount the strawpoll. Is there anything that could be done that will leave the link in and satisfy those who have been removing it? Or vice versa, is there a way to remove the link that will satisfy those who have been adding it? This is a tough one... Dstanfor


 * It looks like this is a backdoor attempt to remove the section though, instead of an attempt to improve the article. -- hardly, I didn't bring up the idea of deleting it... and in fact, if I wanted it deleting I would have supported the original poster. You are just being argumentative here. Being summoned by jokestress due to your doctorow edits makes this seem the case as well. -- My dislike of special "criticism" sections is long-standing... and my edits to the Doctorow article are part of that. As for being "summoned"... I'm sorry, but how is this relevant? Someone pointed out that this article was in need of the same kind of attention given to Doctorow... at the time I hadn't even edited this article. I read the article, read the talk page two or three times and then double-checked with the guidelines. The links supplied could not possibly be considered reliable as sources. Even the author of one of them agrees. Anyway -- on to attempt some sort of consensus building. -- there is a consensus, and it is one backed up by wikipedia guidelines... there's nothing in the section of worth on an encyoplaedia. Let me repeat myself again: you may add criticism to this article... if you provide reliable sources. The post from Domini actually agrees with me, it was a link to his article that was being deleted.


 * Would it be acceptable to all parties if instead of adding detail more information was cut? -- that would depend entirely on what you want to cut. At this point Xeni's article is larger than many more notable journalists because of the resume section and criticism section. -- size of the article relative to more notable journalists is not a reason to cut it down, this has been argued on Wikipedia many times in the past. In fact, every time someone has a grudge against a particular person. The standard answer is: If more notable journalists have poor or no articles, I suggest you spend time creating/improving them. - Motor (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There was consensus. And then Jokestress and you started editting the article. At this point there certainly isn't consensus among those actively editting the article. If you aren't willing to compromise in any way, consensus will have to be built without you. Dstanfor 16:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The author of one of the links -- one of the better written ones, even if it isn't reliable -- wants his link removed. So what were you saying again? Now matter how many times you and your friends repeat the same fallacious information, it won't make it true. Citing those sites as sources is against wikipedia guidelines, and it has particular problems in a bio article. If you want to add criticism to this article, it must be properly and reliably cited... if that is done, then I have no problem with it... if it is not reliably cited, then it has no place here. It's that simple. Can you provide links to cites that meet wikipedia guidelines or not? Do you have any criticism that doesn't rely on a the opinions of bunch of 12-year-olds who have decided to edit Wikipedia? - Motor (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor keeps pointing to the rules of citation. As he's aware, blogs are fine primary sources for citation.  The blogs, containing criticism, are being cited as primary sources (the blog itself is the criticism), not as secondary.  This means that the citations are valid. - 63.107.91.99 16:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor, I am not a "12 year old who decided to edit Wikipedia." Would you then like to include my criticism? Let's keep the insults out of this please. Also lets use the terms correctly. My original post is "reliable." However, according to Wikipedia guidelines, my website can not be cited as a "reliable source." In an effort to maintain some semblence of sanity Wikipedia has thrown out almost all personal websites. I do believe Wikipedia needs to loosen the guideline to address these fluid debates. Often they are going to be wagged by the 21st Century equivlent of the dueling newspaper publishers of the 19th Century. We need a provision to reflect when website peers have disagreements.domoni 18:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I ruled you out of that statement with the first line of my post. The 12-year-old comment was clearly not aimed at you... and as far as I'm concerned your article is not under discussion any longer because you have admitted that it does not meet the guidelines and you want it removed. If it wasn't obvious that I respect your honestly on that point, then consider it made explicit now. The 12-year olds are xenisucks.com -- a description I stand by. If you want the guidelines loosened to allow work such as yours to gain inclusion in Wikipedia as sources, then you are arguing in the wrong place. - Motor (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain that literally everyone involved in this debate is over the age of 12. joeynelson 18:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a helpful hint: Ignore_all_rules. Right now I am pretty sure this argument qualifies. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 18:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection
This page has been protected due to edit warring. Please achieve concensus on article content, the place a request on WP:RfPP for unprotection of the page. Thank you. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 14:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it valid to request the information be added as part of the boingboing entry and the article deleted? I do know a previous straw poll concluded keeping the article. However, the debate on this living person has grown larger than the scope of Wikipedia. Let the various sites debate Jardin outside Wikipedia and let the conclusions to her notability come after history judges her work. domoni 14:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds valid to me, but I doubt there will be consensus. Dstanfor 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Valid to speedy delete the article? I don't think so. You can submit it to articles for deletion, if you like. - Motor (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor, the protection was done because there was an edit war; your interpretation of the citation policies does not particularly change that there was an edit war. Pleading on the protection page to unprotect the page on the basis of your interpretation, if anything, amplifies to other readers that there's a problem here.  If you would like to help reach consensus on this matter, the forum is in this talk page.  - 63.107.91.99 16:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:63.107.91.99 'nuff said --66.92.15.224 02:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you re-read the guidelines. I have done no pleading... merely pointing out that a Wikipedia article is not the place for linking to blogs as if they are any kind of reliable information. They are not... and the guidelines are quite clear on this matter -- as primary or secondary sources. You also seem to be overlooking the fact that one of the authors of the blogs cited agrees with this as far as his article is concerned. - Motor (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor, methinks it may not be me who is confused here. I have quoted a section from Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources for our benefit below:


 * Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources.


 * The above was taken from the section on reliable sources. Clearly, nobody says the criticism web sites are anything but examples of the criticism, and the criticism sites are not relevant as secondary sources.  Nobody quotes those sites in an effort to demonstrate Jardin's misdeeds or good deeds, but rather, those sites are given to show people disagreeing with Jardin's approach to journalism.


 * I appreciate the domoni has suggested that he'd rather his website wasn't given as a source; what I don't appreciate is why that has any relevance on the citation rules. - 63.107.91.99 17:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor - when we are writing an article about someone who is solely noteable as a blogger, other blogs are potentially a relevant reference. In this context, the writings of other bloggers do, to some extent, represent the writings of her peers, and as such are much more likely to be relevant than they would under other circumstances. It is our responsibility to intepret the guidlines on this issue - not to blindly follow them to the detriment of the quality of articles here. Glowimperial 17:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've quoted this once already. "Using online sources - reliability": At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. -- there's no primary or secondary about it. Personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards and usenet posts are out of the question as either primary or secondary sources in this case.


 * Your own quoted section has this: [StormFront]Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources. -- To themselves do you really think using a link to StormFront as a source on an article about Jews would be appropriate? No, clearly not... it's not a reliable source. Primary or secondary. - Motor (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We are not using them as sources of information on the subject, we are addressing them in their relation to the subject. You are misinterpreting the policy.  It referes to using information garnered on blogs as if it was verified and factual.  One of the details of interest about the subject is that the subject has been critisised throught her medium (the internet) enough to merit mention in the article. I still don't see why we have to list and cite every instance of that critisism, but it certainly bears mention, even if it is a brief sentence that states that her professional work has critics. And yes, we can reference blogs for that, so long as we do not accept their critisisms as factual about the subject.


 * As to the stormfront example. No we don't need to address stormfront in an article on judiasm, any article on judiasm would still make mention of the long standing persecution of jews globally, with specific mention of the holocaust and other historical events. As those events are in and of themselves significantly notable, they have their own articles where they are explained in detail. Glowimperial 17:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are wrong... the guidelines are explicit. Blogs, usenet posts, bulletin boards are not reliable sources of information -- primary or secondary. Using them in the article by saying that "Jardin" is criticised and then linking to them is using them as a source. To be considered worth linking to, the source must have some kind of reliablity, or its simply a matter of setting up a blog for a particular person with whom you have a disagreement and then linking to it from Wikipedia... and then engaging in this kind of rules lawyering. It is you who are either misunderstanding the guidelines. By your reasoning any link can be justified on any article providing you use enough weasel words to cover it. It is transparent nonsense. - Motor (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Glowimperial, I don't read those guidelines in that manner. While I stand by my assertions that Xeni used an ad hominem attack on a person working for a censorware company I don't see how that should be part of her encyclopedia entry. My post was an editorial. And though I am Ms Jardin's peer as both a blogger and journalist my editorials are not considered by Wikipedia to be peer reviewed or fact checked. Until Wikipedia changes their guidelines I don't see how parody sites, editorials by bloggers or the New York Times, or Metafilter discussions have any place in this encyclopedia. domoni 17:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor - I will continue to read the guidelines in that manner. BLogs and other websites are reliable, if what we are addressing is them.  They are not reliable as sources of factual information.  That usage is what the guidelines are intended to prevent in my interpretation.  I would further argue that some blogs are now operating at a level that is comparable to print journalism, and that those guidelines need to be re-examined.  I don't think we need to use either weasel words or rules-lawyering to reference extant, published material, such as the various internet critics of Jardin.


 * Yes, any jackass can set up a hate, parody or satire site - that alone does not make it noteable and worthy of inclusion in an article such as this. I have repeatedly argued that xenisucks.com is not (at this time) noteable enough to merit direct inclusion or linkage from this article.  I wouldn't consider the temple of me post to be noteable to the extent that it is mentioned here, and the de-xeni greasemonkey script seems more like a boing boing issue than a Xeniflores Jardin issue.  It is our job to use a consensus process to prevent non-noteable sites from destabilising an article, and I think we are up to that task.  It is that ongoing activity by editors that prevents non-noteable materials from being included in articles like these, not a firewall of policy that may prevent articles from being comprehensive and well written. Glowimperial 18:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor - I will continue to read the guidelines in that manner. - Despite the fact that I've already explained how your interpretation allows nonsense to be propagated? If you want the guidelines changed, that's fine... you are welcome to go to the guideline discussion page and explain why and see if you can convince them. The guidelines are quite explicit in ruling out rubbish like xenisucks.com. Were we arguing about some of the well-established and respected blogs, you might have a case (it would depend on the site, obviously)... but you aren't, and you do not have a case. No-one in their right mind would defend xenisucks.com as a reliable source. The criticism section in in its entirety consisted of: 1. the grease monkey site (which I said right at the beginning, might be applicable on the BoingBoing article but not here). 2. a link to an article written by someone who now wants it removed because it is not suitable for Wikipedia under its current guidelines. 3. One link to a site that could charitably be described as crazed. Hence the reason the entire section was removed -- there was nothing in it of value in an encylopedia article -- and hence the reason I've stated over and over again that I am not opposed to criticism in this article, just poorly sourced criticism. You appear to be agreeing with my original position on this. Are you?- Motor (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor - It is our actions as editors that prevents the propogation of nonsense, not an overzealous and poorly iplemented policy. There is a tremendous wealth of intelligence and effort present amongst our editing and admin populations, as a group we are certainly both mature and diligent enough to write articles that are well crafted without considering a whole population of published materials to be "untouchable".  XeniSucks.com is a reliable source on one thing - XeniSucks.com.  If we were to consider it a reliable source on factual information regarding the subject, we would be fools.  What we have been debating here is it's relevance to the subject of the article, and I do not consider it to be noteable enough (at this time) to merit any direct inclusion in the article, nor do many other editors.


 * I do not agree with your initial position. I retain my re-evaluated position as stated in my "the direction of this article" comment.  The entire article is poorly written and we would be best served by nuking it and re-writing the whole thing. I have been advocating restraint on the critisism section from the beginning of the xenisucks.com business, and will continue to do so.  I believe that your objectivity is in question regarding the critisism section, as well. Glowimperial 18:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you still objecting to? Is it my claim that the sources listed are not reliable (and hence the section as it stands) should be nuked -- this don't appear to be objecting to that? Are you taking issue with my statement that you can add criticism if it is properly sourced, and interpreting that as bias? What exactly are you objecting to... since you appear to be agreeing with my original position, but posting for the sake of keeping this going. Nuke the section... whatever happens after that is another matter. If you find some reliable sources for criticism, please... include it with no argument from me. I've said this a number of times already. If you put this article up for deletion and it get deleted as not being notable... fine. If you completely rewrite it using reliable sources... fine. So to what, exactly, are you objecting? My evil bias in attempting to ensure that Wikipedia only uses reliable and properly source material -- particularly in bio articles which are a very sensitive issue at the moment? I'd really like to know where you stand now, because if you do not object to the removal of the criticism section until some reliable information is found... then what is holding this up? - Motor (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What a damned shame it had to come to that. Regarding "the debate on this living person has grown larger than the scope of Wikipedia": that is a completely ridiculous assertion. Pages like "Gay Nigger Association of America" continue on here even while constantly vandalized and under much more pressure than this one. Consensus is a very important thing here on Wikipedia and I'm stunned that people who have come to this page in the past month are completely ignoring the fact that concensus has been reached on keeping the page and then keeping the criticism section. Perhaps the volatility of this issue or indeed a sign that the page needs to exist and that XJ is notable enough on her own because of the controversy regarding her as well as the writing/speaking/whatever she does. My suggestion is to all step back, take a deep breath, and realize our individual opinions on this page are no more important than anyone elses. It's only as a group (editors of this page, editors of Wikipedia in general) that we accomplish anything at all. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 16:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NOTE: no-one is against including criticism here. Criticism that uses reliable sources is fine. If it doesn't, and in fact, directly violates guidelines, then it goes. It's not much to ask... if you want to criticise do it properly. As it stands the criticism section has no value on an encyclopadia. You would think that if Jardin was such an awful, unreliable journalist you would be able to find some solid reliable information rather than a lot of whinging by 12-year olds. - Motor (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you re-read that reliable sources page again, or even the section quoted above. You don't have a leg to stand on when claiming this is policy or guideline. I think it's also clear that you are coming to this page biased and editing without NPOV in mind. If you want to follow Wikipedia guidelines, perhaps you should try to follow them all. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The editors who object to including a link to xenisucks.com seem to have two arguments against it: 1) that it's not notable in the context of Xeni Jardin's Wiki entry and 2) that including it doesn't meet Wikipedia's source guidelines. I don't think they really have a leg to stand on with 1), since the New York Times and Xeni herself called attention to the site.  Whether the site is "criticism" or just notable as a reaction to Xeni is I think where we may be able to find a consensus.  I don't like Xeni but I didn't like the Criticism section either.  To me something far more reasonable would be to include a section or statement, without a whole "Criticism" section dealy, that just points out that Xenisucks.com is a clear example of the anti-Xeni reaction that exists on the internet.  Xeni herself as editors on both sides of the issue has mentioned is primarily notable for her presence on the internet; therefore internet reactions to her are also notable. If it's not, then her entry should only list her achievements/career items outside her web presence, i.e. works for NPR, contributes to Wired, and has some kind of art gallery project going.  Oh, and I forgot to add, I don't consider myself experienced enough in Wikipedia policies to offer an interpretation of 2), the citation issue; however, citing the major example of anti-Xeni internet sentiment as an example of the undeniable anti-Xeni internet sentiment hardly seems to contravene the SPIRIT of the blog/website citation guidelines.Ryan Norton 17:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been a trend since the Seigenthaler incident to look at biographies of living people and ensure they are carefully sourced. This is especially true on criticism that could be construed as libel or harassment. Xenisucks.com is by an obscure middle-aged USENET troll and offers little of substance, unless you consider satellite photos showing Jardin's address to be substantive "criticism." I personally don't think cyberstalkers are especially notable or reliable sources. Jokestress 17:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that you wrote this in this way shows to me very clearly how biased you are in this issue. That really doesn't help A) consensus, B) maintaining NPOV, or C) this page. The general concensus IS that the page is notable. Xeni herself thought it was notable enough for a BB post. You really need to put those accusations of 'cyberstalking' away. They border on libel. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 17:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Kickstart: You must realize that simply because a consensus was once reached does not mean it still holds. The beauty and pain of Wikipedia is that it is a very fluid document. I do not see how this endless bickering is helping. As you said we all have equal importance in stating our opinion. We do not all have an equal interest in the subject. What we actually need are disintertested editors to help arbitrate these questions. domoni 17:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jokstress: That was not helpful in this discussion at all. By insulting one of the editors you've broken a guideline and simply thrown this discussion in the mud. Could you please stay to the point. And, stalking and cyberstalking are serious crimes which my family has suffered from. Creating a website that openly ridicules another is not cyberstalking. domoni 17:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What would you call that entry I linked to? Jokestress 17:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A photo of some random street. How would anyone know the address from that photo? How was the photo obtained? Have you any proof that stalking is being done? If so, please report it to the police. It is not information to use to make a debate attack. It is a serious crime and as someone with evidence you have a obligation to give it to the police. domoni 17:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "not notable"? It seems that's what you want to say everything on the site you linked to is when it's convenient for you. How is it suddenly notable when you are engaging in libelous ad hominems against me? WHOIS provides the address for the legal owner of any given website. I used WHOIS to look up xeni.net. I then pasted that address into Google Maps, took a screen shot, and uploaded it, in order to demonstrate just how simple it is to do basic research of the type that, had Xeni herself bothered to do when initially attempting to provide the world with my personal details, would have prevented her from initially referring to me as "Seattle-based". Using simple, basic shell tools to find publicly available information isn't "stalking". It isn't "cyberstalking". It isn't against the law. You know what *is* against the law? Repeatedly writing that someone is breaking a law when, in fact, they aren't. But I suspect you don't care about that, as this has become entirely personal for you; you cannot accept the fact that you're wrong, and refuse to back down, despite an obvious majority of people who think you're wrong. There's a word for that, but I'm not going to use it, as that would just be an ad hominem attack on you, and I don't do that at Wikipedia. Perhaps you should give some thought to not doing it, as well, as the guidelines here specify that it's a no-no.Mnsharp 18:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I dealt with this in my very first post on this matter. The NYTimes link states that the xenisucks site is essentially worthless. It rules it out as a reliable source of information. If you put any value in that article, it discredits the site... plus, merely ackowledgeing the existence of a site about you does not make it notable. I don't like Xeni -- well, that's where we differ. I don't care about her. I care about the integrity of wikipedia as a reliable source of information. The only way to preserve that is to ensure that, in turn, its information comes from reliable sources. Put simply: If Jardin is an unreliable journalist... this is worth noting in an encylopaedia article about her, providing it is backed up by reliable sources. Are you seriously going to claim that xenisucks.com is a reliable source worthy of citation in an encyclopaedia? - Motor (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think xenisucks.com is particularly reliable, no. But the original criticism section, which had consensus, listed a note about "ad hominem attacks on her appearance", and xenisucks.com is a worthwhile example of that criticism. It may qualify for others. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 17:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way for us to have a hidden version of the xeni page that we can use to edit to work towards consensus? If not, is there some other good way for us to work towards consensus that doesn't involve arguing until this page is a megabyte? Dstanfor 17:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you could create User:Dstanfor/Xeni Jardin and use it as a sandbox. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I've tentatively done that here. I would suggest that people be tentative at this point since being bold is what got us into this mess. Dstanfor 19:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to reach consensus
I've personally stayed out of the Wiki wars except to comment on xenisucks because I don't want to be involved but you guys over at Wikipedia seriously have some problems when the farking talk page for Xeni Jardin is longer than Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. and Talk:Joseph Stalin.

The problem here is that nobody seems to be able to add any meat to the actual substance of her biography therefore making it seem that the criticism is blown out of proportion. I think this is likely because there's not much susbtance there other than the LA times article. She comments on things in a blog and on a radio program. If one were to judge the contributions to society based on that alone there would likely not be much to write about. She has made a profession being a personality on the internet and nobody wants to admit that internet presence alone doesn't make for a good real-life biography. Based on this I think we should give those in the pro-Xeni camp atleast a week or so to add some *real* substance to the article (without removing the criticism that we have come to a flimsy agreement on). If it doesn't gain any substance and the criticism still remains the most poignant part of the article then I think steps should be taken to bring it back up for deletion based on lack of substance. This massive talk page can be used as evidence for it. Mr. Quicksilver 18:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So, I take it that there has actually been a consensus. The arguments regarding the Criticism section have all been pretty much dealt with. Let me summarise the situation: None of the links in the section are reliable by wikipedia guidelines. One admitted by the author (which, presumably he intends to try to change), one that could charitably be described as crazed and no-one could reasonably claim is a "reliable" source, and one to a grease monkey script that is unsuitable (but may be well be better suited to the BoingBoing article). So the section can go? If later, you want to put it up for deletion because it is lacking in material... that's of no interest to me. And just to be clear about this: that was my position from the first post, as anyone can read back if they wish.
 * Is there anyone still trying to defend the links as reliable sources? If not, the section can go. - Motor (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the "Criticism" section has really failed to do its job. The point of mentioning xenisucks.com in the entry, and I don't care whether it's a footnight, its own section, an External Link (which it was for awhile), is that it's a notable feature of Xeni's existence on the internet, NOT that it's being used to prove that she's a bad reporter or liar.  If Xenisucks.com were a footnote citation to a statement like "Her critics allege that her articles are inaccurate and distort the facts" then it's a perfectly reliable source.  If the statement it's documenting is however "Her articles are inaccurate and distort the facts" then yeah, totally unreliable.  That's why the valid/invalid citation argument isn't very important: either this entry includes the premise that Xeni's web presence, and thus reactions to it, is notable alongside her contributions to NPR and Wired, or the web presence is not notable at all.  But the site's protected and probably will be for awhile, so the semi-mangled Criticism will stay up there, I guess. Ryan Norton 19:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not call this any form of consensus. Are you perhaps trying to shove through an agreement where none exists? I, for one, think that the criticism section needs to remain and be rewritten. Whether that rewrite contains the current cites or different cites or none at all until better ones are found, that's debatable. So, no, I don't think there is any concensus on removing the section and sating your bias. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 19:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have a consensus yet, either. I'm sure that there are editors who have worked on this article who haven't had their say in the matter, and their views are important and relevant.  Simply because strong cases can be made that the critisism section is overblown and does not serve the needs of the article, does not mean that the section needs to go.  There seems to be at least a consensus that she is critisised, and that there should be some mention of that, but I do not see that we have consensus on how that section should look, or what information should be there.


 * I would not call this any form of consensus. Are you perhaps trying to shove through an agreement where none exists? -- are you are being deliberately provocative? Since the post was a question meant to bring the discussion down here and collect the main points together to try to make some progress. So, no, I don't think there is any concensus on removing the section and sating your bias. -- you know, unless you happen to be actively trying to muddy the waters and cause problems, I don't actually see any point to your post. I've stated time and time again that criticism can be included if it is properly sourced -- there isn't, at this time, any reliable information for the section. Therefore it should be removed. If you wish to find some reliably sourced criticism feel free to add it... after the current unsourced stuff has been removed. Is there any question over the greasemonkey link? Do you think xenisucks.com meets the standards for reliable sources? The author of the final link wants it removed... meaning that isn't even in question. There is nothing left in the section. So there you go... please restrict yourself to these questions, and perhaps we can move forward. Thanks. - Motor (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be ok with removal of the criticism section if we leave a link to the xenisucks site stating that it is a parody. Since you don't seem amenable even to that, Let's go through bullet by bullet. Before I start, another option beyond you inviting everyone else to find sources that you deem credible is that you find a source that is credible. Anyway, on the greasemonkey link -- it is specific to both xeni and boingboing. It is arguable if it belongs on this page or on the boing boing page. Either would be acceptable to me. On Xenisucks -- as long as some sort of reference exists to this site on the page I'll be satisified. On templeofme-- Not to be rude to domoni, but his opinion alone is not enough to remove a link to his article. As many other editors have stated, a blog criticizing a blog should be enough of a source. linking to this page certainly could be phrased in a manner making it clear that it's what a critic says.


 * Is there any other portion of the page we need to reach consensus on? The rest of it needs work, but hasn't been as contentious as the criticism section or a xenisucks.com link. Dstanfor 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As said earlier, the original criticism section had mention of xenisucks.com as an example of "ad hominem attacks on her appearance", and I don't think that should be ignored. The discussion here today seems to hinge on the current version, which is a decimated version of a rather sane original -- Kickstart70 - T - C 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * are you are being deliberately provocative? - perhaps a little, in kind response to words used like 'crazed' and 'cyberstalking' on the other side. I'll try to ease that off if you and others will. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 19:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor - Also I think you should refrain from continually describing xenisucks.com as "charitably described as crazed", if you want to continue to edit this article. I have no reason to suspect that xenisucks.com exists as the result of mental illness or that the authors are deficient in any way.  The crisisism of the subject's work on that site is done in a style that is extremely hostile towards the subject, and the authors of that site have made the deliberate aesthetic decision to use mockery and parody to attack the works of the subject.  While that does mean that they are unlikely to be taken as a serious source, it does not make them insane, deficient or any other such characterisation. If you cannot take a more objective and neutral position towards the material whose inclusion we are discussing here, it may be difficult for us other editors to take your contributions and perspectives seriously.  Glowimperial 19:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The site speaks for itself. Do you have any arguments to suggest that it meets the requirements of a reliable source, or should I just assume that you will continue this game as long as possible, and take that as a need to push this to arbitration? Thank you in anticipation of a prompt answer. - Motor (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you were speaking for/about the site. I really do urge a drop of the POV language on this talk page (especially among anti-criticism advocates) so we can move forward. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor - then let it speack for itself. I have made my argument (weeks ago), that it is only useful as a reliable source on itself, and that although as a reference it does help establish that critisism of the subject exists, the critisism there is not of real value due to the context and character of the site. This is not a game. "Thank you in anticipation of a prompt answer"?  Are we on a timetable or a schedule here? - let the debate take it's course. Push this to arbitration?  Have a little faith in all of us editors to deal with this situation ourselves. Glowimperial 19:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor - then let it speack for itself. - it speaks for itself... off wikipedia since it is clearly not a reliable source. Have a little faith in all of us editors to deal with this situation ourselves. -- The greasemonkey site is not criticism and doesn't belong here. The author himself wants the templeofme link removed. The only thing left in the criticism section is the xenisucks.com link, which clearly falls outside the guidelines for reliable sources. Should I push the issue of the xenisucks website to arbitration or not? Do you have any reliably sourced criticism to include or not? If not, I see no reason why the section should not be removed, and I will ask for arbitration to sort it out. - Motor (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * what's wrong with being patient and letting all the editors speak their piece? (peace?) You're comment makes it seem like the only way you'll be satisfied is if you get your way. Dstanfor 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll ask you the same question: What do you think should remain in the Criticism section, and why (preferably after you've read over the threads above and with regard to the wikipedia guidelines)? - Motor (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose we look at a few other articles on Wikipedia about notable bloggers or tech journalists to see how this kind of thing is handled. On the one hand, I think this article should mention that Boing Boing has won notable awards since Jardin joined. It seems it should also mention notable things she has covered, like the Zero Gravity suggested above.

The criticism, especially xenisucks.com, is the most interesting thing to me in terms of Wikipedia policy. I still question its notability. Dan Mitchell, author the NYT mention, has apparently been criticized by a blogger who is Ms. Jardin's friend, and he sent her a note about it which she published. My guess is that if Ms. Jardin had it to do all over, she would have ignored the incident completely.

The final interesting thing to me is how to handle an article where a bunch of brand new editors with fewer than 100 edits and a specific viewpoint have recently camped out, whose participation is basically limited to this one article/issue. While I have seen this on lots of controversial topics (abortion, intelligent design), and I have harmoniously edited with partisans before on biographies like W. Mark Felt and Samuel Alito, there was a distinct difference in those cases. Everyone's first goal was clearly a good Wikipedia article. In this case, we have running commentary about this article offsite, laden with personal attacks on Wikipedia editors. That is certainly in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia, it seems.

So, I feel this article is an opportunity for dealing with a couple of emerging issues surrounding biographies of living people about whom there are polarized opinions. If everyone is game, let's take a look at some other bloggers or tech journalists, preferably some who have generated strong responses. Jokestress 21:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note here that my opinion of Jardin isn't polarised -- I don't have one. As I stated way back up this talk page my only interest, both here, and on the Cory Doctorow article is to ensure that *only* reliable information is used in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collection of facts gathered together to make an encyclopaedia. It is only as reliable as its sources. In the case of this, and the Doctorow article, it might as well be a blog itself for all the value it has as an encyclopaedia. As I've been forced to repeat over and over again, criticism is fine by me if it is reliably sourced. Despite my sticking rigidly to this fundamental building block of Wikipedia... I've been accused of all kinds of things by editors on and off-site (meh... it's not the first time, and it won't be the last) who seem incapable of finding reliable information to back up their attempts to include information. If they find those reliable sources... then the problem is solved as far as I'm concerned. Everyone else can carry on discussing whether she is notable, or which bits of her career should be mentioned. - Motor (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but you've also made it clear that you won't accept a blog as a cite even if it's only used as an example of what's talk about (example: citing xenisucks.com as an example of attacks on her appearance). If you can, give us an example cite that would work for such an instance. If we're talking about blog issues, then we've got to be able to bring blogs into the equation. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 21:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A blog used in that way is a cite -- weasel words don't change that. I could start a blog about a celeb, fill it full of inventive about their personal habits and then try to link it on wikipedia, under your definition, by stating that "X has been criticised for Y". Your argument is transparently utter nonsense. You *are* citing xenisucks.com as a source, and it therefore falls under the guidelines regarding reliablity -- which are there to prevent this kind of thing. If you cannot find a reliable source, then you are facing up to the problem that it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It does not mean that you should fall back on using junk sites like xenisucks.com. - Motor (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * From the guideline you continue to call upon: "A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the owner of the website or the website itself".. We are writing about the criticism of Xeni Jardin, of which xenisucks.com is the primary example. Even if we are to take this as a 'partisan website' under the same rules (which it certainly is, "should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group", so, apparently in your way of thinking, we can start an article at Criticisms of Xeni Jardin and reference these as we wish, correct?
 * Now, even without calling Ignore all rules, I am going to continue to add this, as it appears to me to be valid usage under all the guidelines, not just selected ones you prefer. If you will rip it out, we will get into an edit war and this will get even uglier. So, how about you back the heck up, try to find an acceptable middle ground, accept that your way is not the only way, realize that WP:IAR was put in place for a reason, and we move on. If you cannot do this, then where is the problem really lying in edits to this page? (Hint: look into a mirror) -- Kickstart70 - T - C 00:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughtful edit summary -- I hope it was duly noted by readers. I really suggest that you calm down... I am merely asking you to justify why you think the site is a reliable source, when it so obviously isn't. Regarding your latest attempt to reinterpret the guidelines: Ignore All Rules is not there to allow you to do anything *you* want. It's to remind people that Wikipedia is about building an encylopaedia, and the wikipedia rules should be whatever best serves that end (keeping in mind that it is a task that implies certain responsibilties and restrictions). It not there to allow you to pass off patently unreliable web sites as reliable sources and reintepret guidelines to suit yourself while claiming that you are allowed to ride roughshod over the very basic requirements of an encyclopaedeia. Putting aside your abuse, threats and beligerence... citing a blog as a source is not allowed (certainly one like xenisucks.com). The guidelines are right there and explicit... I've quoted them enough times for you, but here it is again: Online sources -> reliability: At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. -- it doesn't get much clearer than this. xenisucks.com has no credibility... strenuous assertions from you don't make it credible either.


 * Your argument about an article called "Criticism of Xeni Jardin" is strange... I suggest you re-read your own post. The guidelines refered to StormFront -- if this was an article about that site, then a limited cite from it would allowable. How does this apply in your case? An article "Criticism of Xeni Jardin" article would be as empty of reliable sources as the criticism section here. No difference. Are you stating clearly that you will instist on including this worthless site as a source... in clear violations of the guidelines... and that you will continue to add it no matter what? If that's the case, the there really is no other alternative to arbitration. I would be very comfortable with an admin judging the value of xenisucks.com and considering the arguments provided here. Please note: I'm quite willing to allow criticism in this article, providing it is from a reliable source... I've stated this many times. You, on the other hand, seem hellbent on including this one site. Who is it that is failing to compromise here? - Motor (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, then it's time to bring in the arbitration. I think your blind following of the letter of the law and not the intent is wrong. I don't accept your statements as reasonable guides to editing, and therefore I would like external opinions. It's not just about xenisucks.com, but you are very clearly saying that no blog should be ever used for a cite, and that's just plain wrong. Even further, when the guidelines do give leeway in how rules should be applied, you ignore that. So, bring in arbitration. I doubt this is going to be settled in any other way. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 01:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * but you are very clearly saying that no blog should be ever used for a cite, -- that's not what was said. That's not what was quoted. If you continue to distort what other editors post, then this will clearly get no-where: Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.. As for arbitration -- very well. - Motor (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You said:  Blogs, usenet posts, bulletin boards are not reliable sources of information -- primary or secondary. Using them in the article by saying that "Jardin" is criticised and then linking to them is using them as a source. To be considered worth linking to, the source must have some kind of reliablity. -- and so...you say blogs are not reliable, and that any source cited must have some kind of reliability. Do you now retract this or wish to restate it in some less rule-mongering way? Am I distorting what you said? I quoted it all without editing (other than some appropriate bolding). So, where is the request for arbitration listed? Please, let us all know so we can participate fully. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 05:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the number of times I have been forced to quote the guidelines... in full, with the exceptions... I would think you would actually have taken the time to read them by now. You are using a blog as a source... it is not allowed. Here, let me help you again: Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. None of which applies in this case. Are you finished trying to change the subject now? - Motor (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Much is made of my belief that my own post doesn't fit the Wikipedia guidelines. Of course, I don't believe this is the place to argue if personally published websites, magazines, and newspapers fit in Wikipedia as reliable sources. I'm willing to bet everyone here has already made a decision how they interpret that guideline. As for me, I'm too close to the subject to contribute further. If the consensus is to keep the mention please edit it for correctness: ""Criticism of journalistic standards: Domoni, at Temple of ME, editorialized that Ms Jardin, and other bloggers, resorted to an ad hominem attack on a Director of Filtering for Smartfilter: 'How are you any better than any other rumor monger? '" domoni 21:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your site is not a reliable source. 1. It is a blog. 2. It appears to be anonymous. Although it is better written than xenisucks.com, it remains unreliable as a source... and adding your suggested text changes nothing. For a start (quite apart from the explicit guidelines re blogs): are you willing to attach your real identity to it? - Motor (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes, it is a personal site, but not a "blog." You also forget that I agreed the Wikipedia guidelines don't list blogs as "reliable sources." Nor did I feel my website fit Wikipedia's standards. The suggested text change was for whoever got the citation wrong in the first place. 2) I am not anonymous. I am a very easy person to find. I have an extensive online and offline presence. In other words, I am that "unique snowflake." Do you expect all others but yourself to use full names, social security numbers, and date of birth to sign every Wikipedia entry? Also, part of our identity is an understanding of our expertise and experience with an extensive online and offline history. You can find my tiny tracks in many places if you are really bored. On the other hand, without any means to learn about you through your website and non-Wikipedia work I have no idea if your expertise is bona fide. Do you have something other than Wikipedia edits to your credit? Should I ignore your contributions simply because your work here has amounted to little more than playing the part of Bowdler?. With only Wikipedia as your sandbox, how can anyone know you are not merely a sockpuppet? It seems on Wikipedia editors merely spring from the forehead of Zeus domoni 01:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a personal site, but not a "blog." -- a distinction without a difference here. You also forget that I agreed the Wikipedia guidelines don't list blogs as "reliable sources." Nor did I feel my website fit Wikipedia's standards. -- I did not forget. I felt it necessary to restate the facts of the matter for the benefit of readers. I keep having to do this because certain editors have found it necessary to repeatedly trying to muddy the waters and divert any attempt to make progress. I am not anonymous. I am a very easy person to find. -- so that's a "no", then is it? You aren't willing to put your name to that site. Thanks... but you could have said it using fewer words. Should I ignore your contributions simply because your work here has amounted to little more than playing the part of Bowdler?. -- Wikipedia is not orginal research. It collects informatiom from reliable sources and uses it to create verifable articles. This is why the reliable sources guidelines exists, to ensure that whinges on blogs/personal sites and junk sites doesn't end up being propagated as part of an encyclopaedia. Since you've already agreed that your site shouldn't be here, it naturally raises some questions as to why you feel the need to continue this particular line. - Motor (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone, please stop casting doubt on other editor's motives. it's not productive. Dstanfor 21:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So we are to discount the contributions to this article of editors who have little to no previous Wikisperience (me)? Please to tell me where the Wikipedia kiddie pool is, so that I can go over there and edit until I have enough edits to my credit to contribute to Xeni Jardin's entry. Then I'll come back and continue to suggest that arguing over the validity of xenisucks.com as evidence of Xeni's journalistic accuracy is spurious, that the criticism left much to be desired, that the anti-Xeni reaction deserves some mention here, and finally that www.xenisucks.com is the best example of that reaction.

I tried to find examples of other bloggers' entries on Wikipedia, but was admittedly lazy and just looked through Category: American bloggers. Looking for precedent is a good idea and may help both the pro-include Criticism and the anti-include Criticism sides to be more flexible. Oops, forgot to sign in: Ryan Norton 22:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care much or how little you've edited wikipedia. If you provide a reliable source for your edits, that's fine. None of the editors demanding that the Criticism section remain as it is have done this, nor do they even respond to requests to do so. They just continue to insist that a site with zero content beyond bad-mouthing people is a reliable source. Just restating that you think it is reliable does not address the arguments I made earlier. Even apart from the semi-literate content and invective, it's not notable. It clearly falls under the guidelines for not being a reliable source. The fact that a NYTimes editorial rubbished it as basically grudge/crush driven and the worst. hate. site. ever, doesn't make it worthwhile including here. On the contrary, it is a good reason to get rid of it. Now do you have any reliable sources to back up the criticism section, or not? If you do not, then I don't see any reason why it should stay. - Motor (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously dude, neither MNS nor I care if xenisucks.com remains on the main page. It's hardly notable in the grand scheme of things because it's certainly a novelty, however, on the side of objectivity Cory Doctorow's page still keeps corysucks.com and even the far less notable Dr. Ouch's website. As it stands I personally feel that xenisucks.com is far superior in comedic quality to both sites although I'd like to see everyone combine their talents together for a much more notable parody blog.
 * I think a case should be made that criticism in some form or another should remain in, even if you guys decide not to keep xenisucks.com in there. The fact remains that Xeni is quite capable of bringing out very strong negative reactions and I think a strong case could be made that the criticism leveraged at Xeni (specifically directed at her flimsy journalistic standards) is right on the mark and perhaps even more accurate than the criticism that remains in Cory's wiki entry. MNS and I are certainly not the only people who feel this way., unfortunately you're not going to find a notable place to cite references that aren't blogs because the average person doesn't have a place to vent their feelings about it. Are blogs notable sources of references for criticism? Not necessarily. If you're going to keep it in the same spirit of Cory Doctorow's wiki entry, then certainly. Take out xenisucks.com if you want to, we're not so poor on visitors that we need Wikipedia to give us referrals, but some kind of criticism needs to stay to be objective. Mr. Quicksilver 23:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * RE: Doctorow. I was removing the criticism section from there too, since it is as lacking in reliable sources as this one. However, I ran into the same edit war with anonymous IP users trying to get it reported for 3RR violations. I'm not about to find that article protected too. If you would like to remove the equally poorly sourced criticism section from that article... fine, please do. And I say again, if you want to include criticism in this article... do it from reliable sources. If all you have is blog whinging... then it doesn't belong here, no matter how much you want to include it. There's no two ways about it. - Motor (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Kickstart70 here. How is a blog criticizing someone not a valid source for the fact that that person is being criticized?  xenisucks.com is not being cited as a source for Xeni's birthdate or other biographical information. joeynelson 01:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are some things you put in as factual because they're implied to be true. For instance, the article clearly indirectly implies that Xeni is a female although I can't find it cited anywhere that she was born a female. Are there any objections to using the word "her" in the article? Of course not-- some things are just implied. The LA times says "Jardin, 32, was born in Richmond, Va., the older of two children. Her father's homemade birth announcement read, "Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore," a sense of displacement that followed Jardin throughout her early life.'" Unfortunately we can't be positive what chronological reference point they're using for the word "her" so we can't be sure whether or not Xeni was born a female. Based on your criteria should we remove references to her gender? It isn't verifiable that she was born a female, and furthermore, there isnt any evidence of her performing an operation for gender change so we can't be sure she's a she. Mr. Quicksilver 05:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I hope anyone reading this is taking careful note of your post here, and the contents of *your* site. Put the two together, and it gives a useful insight into what exactly your aim is on Wikipedia, and its not to write an encylopaedia: Quote: Take out xenisucks.com if you want to, we're not so poor on visitors that we need Wikipedia to give us referrals - Mr Quicksilver. - Motor (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You can see my point quite clearly yet you don't address it. Wikipedia was never about citing the most references it was about people collaborating to write NPOV articles. I of course excuse myself from doing any editing and I've already established that there is zero at stake as to whether or not xenisucks.com makes it onto the page. I think it's certainly a bit frustratiing that you can't see the disservice you're doing to the public by trying to gloss over the fact that Xeni's contributions to the online world certainly can be very flawed. In a way I think that using blogs to cite criticism of Xeni is exactly the way Xeni would want it since she's always trying to give credibility to the blogosphere. That being said, we could always take an example from similar controversial bloggers:
 * Michelle Malkin who gets her own "Controversies" section which cites references to andrewsullivan.com regarding a spat between "bogus fundraising claims". Several critical links at the bottom are links to other blog based critical sites including "MalkinWatch"
 * Andrew Sullivan who gets his own "Controversies" section (this time right near the top!). His section is a travesty to your idea of proper wikipedia citing as it includes plenty of criticism but and plenty of notes that citation is needed but alas no citations at all.
 * Michael Moore has one of the larger controversies section. Go figure-- he gets plenty of hate websites dedicated to him and even references a link to Andrew Sullivan's blog. huh.
 * It would seem to me based on this that in the blogosphere there is already precedent to citing references to other blogs, including many blog-like websites dedicated to a particular person under the guise of "watching" them. . Mr. Quicksilver 08:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can see my point quite clearly yet you don't address it. I see the point you were making, and it has nothing to do with an encyclopaedia article, as anyone familiar with your site can see for themselves. With regard to other articles... because some of the ones you quote do not use reliable sources and have people asking for citations is not an excuse to allow you to cite a blog whose idea of criticism involves smearing and innuendo. Were I editing those other articles I would be saying exactly the same thing. You quote those articles as if they support your view... and they do not. They just show what a cesspool some Wikipedia biogs have become because of organised groups trying to subvert the basic standards of Wikiedia... and using weight of numbers of fill talk pages with irrelevant arguments and squash disagreements. Articles detailing people of less notablity, such as this one, are more susceptable to this. You are, unwittingly, making an argument to fix those articles and bring them up to a higher standard, not to lower this one down their level. It would seem to me based on this that in the blogosphere -- and? You still don't seem to get the central issue here -- this isn't "the blogosphere", it's an encyclopadia biography. - Motor (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So you don't think that Wikipedia articles about bloggers should contain references to other bloggers, even when the bloggers in question bring it up themselves? Thats pretty zen, dude. I mean I guess you're right, it is afterall an encyclopadia biography. I actually can't wait to hear what the wikipedia editors comments are going to be on this one because I'm really torn on how this could all turn out. There's obviously some precedent setting that will be resolved in this article and I hope that it will be resolved for the greater good. Mr. Quicksilver 08:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually can't wait to hear what the wikipedia editors comments are going to be on this one  -- we have that much in common, assuming you actually mean "other wikipedia editors" since you are already talking to wikipedia editors. Let's try breaking this down again, since you seem to want to muddy the waters again: 1. The principle of reliable sources is important on wikipedia because anyone can add anything... being able to justify it with a reliable source is the foundation of the whole system. It is doubly important on biography articles given the recent history of libel accusations. 2. Just because someone acknowledged the existence of a site about them does not elevate it to the status of reliable source -- primary or secondary, nor does it make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article about them. You and your pals, are making an argument that anyone can set up a blog site, fill it full of unsourced outrageous claims about person X and then come to Wikipedia demanding that it be linked/cited here as it proves the person is "criticised". Saying that the guidelines allow for this is a transparently nonsense argument -- and it describes your site and your argument exactly. I hope that it will be resolved for the greater good. -- yes, I'm sure that's your main aim here not simply self-interest with regards to xenisucks.com and its collection of busy little posters with nothing better to do. I repeat for the sake of anyone reading this: no-one is saying that criticism has no place here. Criticism from reliable sources is fine, rancid outpourings from blogs is not... not even links to them under some bizarre interpretation of the guidelines wrapped up in weasel words. If you actually had any reliable sources, you should have provided them by now given the length of time this argument has gone on (before I was even involved)... but you don't having any, and that's the most telling thing of all. All you have is nonsensical arguments that are used to prolong this as long as possible and muddy the issue. - Motor (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How on earth can you say that xenisucks.com isn't a reliable source of criticism. Did you see the name of the website? ;) You might want to read a little closer. I assure you that xenisucks.com isn't only a reliable source of xeni jardin criticism, but is currently the #1 source of xeni jardin related criticism on the web. How much more authoritative can you get? It's a shame I've already gone on record to say how little it matters whether or not we're linked to the article. Fortunately it sounds like we're in 100% agreement. You think there should be criticism in there and I do too. You don't want xenisucks.com and I don't really care if it's in there. Lastly, you're surely aware by now that Xeni Jardin has critics and that the idea is simply irrefutable. Unfortunately Greta Van Susteren and Matt Drudge haven't gotten around to reporting on it yet but when they do I'll be sure to get back to you ;) Mr. Quicksilver 11:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lastly, you're surely aware by now that Xeni Jardin has critics and that the idea is simply irrefutable. I've never refuted the idea that she has her critics... I merely say that including random whinges from people with grudges is not the function of a Wikipedia article. Not one single person has been able to dispute this. It's a shame I've already gone on record to say how little it matters whether or not we're linked to the article. -- Right, so you have objection to it being removed. One down... half a dozen other xenisucks.com denizens to go. Would you mind telling your pals from the site to let it go too and find a hobby, or is that too much to ask? Domini wants his link removed. You aren't bothered if your site is linked. I'm sure you'll understand when I say that pretty much everyone with an interest in seeing this article improve wants an end to this deadlock. I've already made my objections clear: unreliable sources and inappropriate external links. Without those I have no more interest in this article. How about it? - Motor (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, corysucks.com isn't really trying to be funny (unless you find numbers "a total hoot!"). joeynelson 01:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments
In accordance with the guidelines regarding arbitration, I have begun by escalating this to Requests for comments... in order to expose the issue regarding the use of anonymous blogs and xenisucks.com as 'reliable' sources to a wider audience. - Motor (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea, Motor. The issue though, is that you feel a blog, with criticism, does not provide evidence that there are people who have written criticism.  You have, however, said, that if a newspaper wrote an article, in which they said there is a blog with criticism, that that would be evidence that there is criticism. - 66.92.73.52 11:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * blog, with criticism, does not provide evidence that there are people who have written criticism. -- you cannot find anyone who *hasn't* been criticised by some nut somewhere on the web. The issue: is the criticism from a reliable source? The answer is no. It has no worth as a source, it doesn't belong here... no matter how many weasel words you use. See further up this thread for answers regarding newspapers and specifically the NYtimes. - Motor (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha, so the key issue is that the blogs which criticise Jardin aren't notable enough, or haven't had demonstrated notableness. I'm concerned though; if that standard is raised throughout the article, much of Jardin's accomplishments would go unnoted, as well. How then can we support these criticisms in a way that is a good cite.  The list provided varies, from Domoni's polite, cogent discussion of a sort of strange attack Jardin made on a person acting in a manner she didn't agree with, through to XeniSucks, which is often a pretty vile website, although at times also contains interesting commentary on Xeni.


 * Could we perhaps, then, discount these citations while including them? I think everyone here except one, and perhaps two people, feels that it's pretty reasonable to cite blogs which contain criticism of a blogger as evidence of a blogger having been criticised.  To the extent that the WP guidelines don't make it clear this is allowed, I suppose most folks would say that the WP guidelines are insufficiently clear on the matter.  So, given this majority interpretation, what is the appropriate discounting or description of the critical citations?  Would you like evidence that these critical blogs are well read, well cited by others, or perhaps a more careful phrasing of the criticism?


 * I am sorry to hear you feel I have used weasel words, certainly, even rereading my post a few times, I could not find any. To the extent you feel my writing contains such fluff, please read past it for the content.  I'm aware that you have mentioned the NY Times a number of times above, but I'm sorry that I was not able to find a reference which answered my rhetorical question.  - 66.92.73.52 12:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha, so the key issue is that the blogs which criticise Jardin aren't notable enough, or haven't had demonstrated notableness. -- no, the issue is "reliability as a source". A website with a hundreds of thousands visitors a second posting masses of claims and wild accusations is still "unreliable". This is an encyclopaedia biography... it's not a web directory.


 * I'm concerned though; if that standard is raised throughout the article, much of Jardin's accomplishments would go unnoted -- if you are concerned about this, you may edit the article further once the criticism section (as it stands) is removed. You may even submit the article for deletion if you think that the subject is not notable. I've been over all of this before, multiple times.


 * I suppose most folks would say that the WP guidelines are insufficiently clear on the matter. -- no they wouldn't. Unless they happen, like you, to be attempting to insert a link that is clearly well outside wikipedia guidelines. Please re-read my explanation above regarding starting blogs and linking them on wikipedia articles. If you spent even half the time looking for reliable sources, that you spend trying to twist words/rules and wear down editors with endless repetitions of the same arguments, you might be able to find something. Good luck. - Motor (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor, you're objections are clear, you've made them in almost every comment to this talk page. Perhaps it's now time to see what others have to say? Dstanfor 14:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * When my words are twisted (as they were above), then I will respond. An attempt was made to switch this from "reliable sources" to notabilty, and by yet another IP editor. - Motor (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Saw this listed on RfC. Motor (talk) is absolutely correct. Weblogs and websites are not reliable sources for a Wikipedia article.  -Jmh123 14:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the previous observation, weblogs are not reliable sources for facts, but they are reliable for saying that this is what the blogger has said, particularly if the article is dealing with the blogging world. Websites can of course be reliable sources, depending on the site. The major problem with this article is that it's too short. The editors working on it should spend less of their time debating and more time adding additional material to it. Then the criticism section would not be so prominent. However, even as it stands, I don't find it a problem. It's not saying that this is an "evaluation" of Jardin: it's saying these are the criticisms of her. That's why it's in a separate section. It would be good if there was a balancing "praise" section, but even that is not absolutely necessary. I would like to see the criticism section formatted differently. For example, the intro (my rewrite): Jardin's critics have accused her of self-promotion, irresponsible journalistic practices, poor writing style, eccentric choice of subject matter and even attention-seeking appearance. This makes it clear that she has detractors, whose view is being represented (as it should) but distances the Wiki editor from identifying with these detractors, and makes it clear the Wiki editor is making no attempt at a value judgement on the detractors' points of view. Removal of the bullet points and incorporating the criticisms into the paragraph would allow their presence, while also giving them less emphasis. As far as a blogger's criticism goes, I don't have a problem, as long as it is made clear that that is exactly what it is. It can be included either as representative of a wider blogging response or as a single rogue blogger making the criticism, as opposed to loads of other bloggers who love Jardin. Again, the thing is simply to represent the facts. Regarding Justifying the xenisucks.com link on the basis of it being mentioned in the NYTimes might be a good argument... except that the NYTimes article is clearly calling the author of the site a loon with a grudge/crush, the solution is simple again, namely just state the facts, put in the link, say that it was mentioned in the NYT and condemned by the NYT as "a loon with a grudge/crush". It is not a Wiki editor's job to judge whether outside sources are justified in what they're saying; it is the editor's job, from a WP:NPOV to represent what they're saying, so the reader has the facts in front of them. Tyrenius 14:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To include it at all gives it undue credibility (it has none). Can I suggest you start by taking a look at this. It is the story that was posted on the xenisucks.com website soon after this restarted, and is an example of the kind of "criticism" we are dealing here. It's also worth noting that editors of this article actually run that site -- unknown numbers of others are users of it. Having looked at the contents... do you really think this site has any business being linked in a Wikipedia biographical article? Even if qualified with statements about its nature? The editors of that site would be quite happy with that state of affairs because even that gives them more crediblity and exposure. That's why I say that blogs are simply not reliable sources -- anyone could play this game and insist that their blog site be listed on a Wikipedia biography.


 * Wikipedia biographical articles have no business listing every nutter with a blog and a grudge. To be included in an article as criticism requires a little more than just a loud persistant voice and a website. - Motor (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the attacks on your character on that site may make it inappropriate for you to continue editing this article. Motor - I have doubts about your ability to maintain an objective view after being publicy ridiculed on the xenisucks.com site. I could care less about what makes the editors of that site happy - it's not in my or wikipedia's interest to be concerned with their wants and desires. It's also not our job to write this article with the intention of preventing wider exposure of materials that we do not like or agree with. Glowimperial 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure your concern is entirely motivated by the best for Wikipedia... and has nothing to do with trying to undermine the case against this site and deflect the issue away from the site's status as a "reliable source". However, you should note: I do not use my name on Wikipedia, with good reason. You have no need to worry about objectivity. - Motor (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "It's also worth noting that editors of this article actually run that site" This is completely false.  Anyone who glanced at the contribution pages of Mnsharp or Mr. Quicksilver would realize that.  Motor, either you didn't take a couple seconds to research that accusation before you made it or you're being flat out deceptive.  In light of your non-stop rants about credibility, I'm not sure which is worse. joeynelson 19:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm really enjoying the ranting on the site that you and your friends keep claiming is worthy of a link in this article. It's all good stuff and definitely worth reading by those interested in the root cause of the long-terms problems in this article. I'd recomended some of the other articles too... and perhaps reading up on the approach taken to another editor, Jokestress, who disagrees with some of the 'independent' editors here. I'd like to suggest that you give the link, and the site generally, a good perusal, and then revist my first talk page post "Criticism section removal". Consider my view then, keeping in mind that the site started its criticism of me *after* I made that edit, and then consider my view now. It hasn't changed. I would hope that answers any questions of objectivity. The site was, and remains, a hopeless collection of aggressive malcontents with bad attitudes and a serious hang-up about the subject of this article. Still, to the lads on xenisucks.com, (and you are are no doubt reading)... keep going... you are a credit to the site. - Motor (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not actually a response to anything I wrote. I think everyone understands that you dislike xenisucks.com and don't think it should be included in the article for various reasons.  How about responding to this:  Were you deliberately lying when you said "It's also worth noting that editors of this article actually run that site"?  Or did you just not do even the slightest amout of research before making that claim? joeynelson 20:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, I don't hate xenisucks.com. Pity would be a better description. Complete indifference would be accurate were it not currently being granted more credibility by being linked from Wikipedia. As for your question -- there are Wikipedia editors who run the site, they've been filling this talk page with rubbish for days. I'm assuming they were not foolish enough to edit the article logged in... or got their fellow site occupants to do their dirty work for them, there does not appear to be a shortage of those (any admin with checkuser privs want to take a look at that). Now... would anyone like to justify why this site should be linked off Wikipedia or not? In one of the very few insightful IP edits I've ever seen... it was said "This page is pathetic." It is indeed... and what's more, it's pathetic going back long before I ever edited it. There is a concerted effort to bully and intimate (on and off site) any user who tries to bring this article more into line with Wikipedia guidelines... an quite impressive attempt to tie down any modifications in endless circular nitpicking arguments -- anything but deal with the basic fact that the xenisucks.com site is completely inappropriate for linking from an encyclopaedia biography. I don't see much choice here... I'm not willing to allow that site to be linked off Wikipedia, and the only option (unless something happens) is to push this up another level. - Motor (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For those of you who don't want to read through that lengthy comment, allow me to summarize it for you: "I, Motor, was deliberately lying when I said that the staff of xenisucks.com had edited Xeni Jardin's Wikipedia article." joeynelson 21:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I stand by my comment. I'd like an admin with checkuser privs to look into it. Thanks for the personal abuse though, it all helps. - Motor (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So you assume that anyone who disagrees with you on the validity of xenisucks.com as a source is part of some orchestrated xenisucks.com conspiracy? What information do you have that leads you to believe that the staff of xenisucks.com has had "their fellow site occupants to do their dirty work for them"?  Everything I've seen indicates that they really don't care about this article and that they've gotten some laughs out of the overzealous editing going on here.  Your ongoing attempts to mischaracterize the debate on this page (or more accurately, the position of those in disagreement with you) is not only frustrating to those of us who are following this, but is also sure to confuse any new participants who come along and try to sort this out.  I would suggest that you stop claiming that the staff of xenisucks.com has had anything to do with editing the Xeni Jardin article, and that you abstain from any discussion related to xenisucks.com.  This kind of deception should not be tolerated and I hope everyone following the discussion takes note. joeynelson 22:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So you assume that anyone who disagrees with you on the validity of xenisucks.com as a source is part of some orchestrated xenisucks.com conspiracy? -- now who is being disengenuous? I neither said nor implied that. There is clearly an orchestrated editing campaign going on though. but is also sure to confuse any new participants who come along and try to sort this out. -- confusion is the main aim here, isn't it? Having looked back over the archives of talk pages, confusion and endless circular arguments and subject chnaging appear to be the norm in an attempt to hold onto a link that is blatantly against Wikipedia guidelines. This kind of deception should not be tolerated and I hope everyone following the discussion takes note. -- I'm sure lots of notes are being taken, and if an admin with checkuser privs looks into it, I'm sure even more fascinating ones will be. I'll be more than happy to return to discussing the site in question when this is escalated again. I am still waiting for some basic answers to my questions. Like why someone setting up blog and filling it full of invective and bile about person "X" should be able to justify a link on "X"'s wikipedia article. Even if that person, at some point, acknowledges its existence. Wikipedia has standards, even if xenisucks.com does not. - Motor (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Further, I finding it rather telling that someone who has been pushing madly for strict definition of acceptable citations is here making accusations without any evidence whatsoever. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 22:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am pushing for reliable sources for the article. Trying to confuse the issue further seems to be a common tactic. - Motor (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated elsewhere, but I'll restate here for ease of newcomers: I agree that blogs are not reliable sources of information, but that's not the concern here. The section discusses people on the internet who are criticizing Xeni Jardin; without examples showing those criticisms, like xenisucks.com, we'd have to remove the statement entirely as an uncited claim. We're in a Catch-22, we can't claim something because we're not allowed to cite the examples of it, and we can't gives cites because the rules don't allow them. What it all boils down to is that regardless of whether blogs are reliable sources, we've got to be able to cite them when the blog itself is the pertinent matter. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 15:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no justification for including a statement in an encyclopdaeia biography that "people on the internet criticise her". All we have here is a group of people who setup a blog and demand attention on Wikipedia. The guidelines exists to stop this kind of thing being included in articles because otherwise it is open season. Are you seriously going to claim that people with a blog and a grudge against someone with an article on Wikipedia should have their site/blog listed? Really?


 * This isn't a catch-22 situation. You do not have any criticism of note, *that* is your problem -- everything else just flows from that. Blaming it on Wikipedia guidelines is very disingenuous. There is nothing here but a bunch of "malcontents" with a blog who demand that Wikipedia recognise them as something they are not. - Motor (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Motor, what people from the site are demanding anything? The two people actually affiliated with the xenisucks.com have made it pretty clear that they don't care what happens with the wikipedia article.  Please quit making stuff up. joeynelson 15:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As Dstanfor said above, you'v made your side clear, let other people come to this and make up their own minds. No one needs continual admonishment from you for their opinion on this. This is why we have the arbitration process...to hopefully stop the bickering. Continuing the bickering helps no one. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 15:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * When you misrepresent the state of affairs in the guise of informing newcomers, I will have my say. I expect, and have received, no different from you and others over the last 24 hours. - Motor (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, no one from the xenisucks site has "demanded" anything. Their blog wasn't set up to garner themselves a mention on this wikipedia page, and that hasn't been their agenda as far as I can tell. Glowimperial 15:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A request has been made on WP:RFC. This is being responded to by neutral non-involved editors. It is proper for the current editors to observe and listen to these third party comments, not to argue with them, particularly in the case of the editor who made the RfC in the first place. Thank you. Tyrenius 16:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, I will say no more for the time being... but I felt it important to note just what the situation is here, and the kind of site we are dealing with. - Motor (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing some perspective and sanity, Tyrenius.

My opinion: If the article is going to include that Xeni is a blogger, then criticism by bloggers is fair. I couldn't agree more with the earlier re-wording suggestion and simply linking to the site. The suggested rewording is much more balanced and states that there is criticism without taking a stand on it. I think it's fair.

For those who think it's not notable, then, I think the larger thrust of your discussion is whether Xeni's blogging is notable either. 216.39.146.25 16:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much completely not the way it works. If you are a notable person, then criticism from other notable sources may be included. But the fact that Markos Moulitsas Zuñiga has a blog does not mean that I can start the "temple of OMGWTFBBQ blog" and demand that my statement that Kos is a "flaming nutbag liberal jerk" be included in the encyclopedia as an example of criticism. FCYTravis 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this whole page is really pathetic, people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.139.91 (talk • contribs) Tyrenius 23:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

A summary of arguments
This is a summary that was posted in the section "Request for comments - for outside editors only". However, as the editor has been involved in the article talk prior to the RfC and has stated a clear position, I have moved it out of that section. It appears below. I hope existing editors will not respond to it at the moment on this page, or it will simply start up the whole loggerheads debate again. If anyone feels this is not an accurate summary, or other points should be included, you are welcome to put the point succinctly (i.e. keep it short and to the point) on my talk page. My reposting of this summary does not indicate any agreement or disagreement of my own on its contents. Tyrenius 18:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea-- five days of cooloff leading to outside opinion. Would it be advisable to try to condense the content of this talk page and the dispute into something shorter that outside commenters/editors could use to offer an opinion on the argument without having to read every word here?  Or would summarizing itself be too contentious and merely start a debate about the debate?  Either way, here's what I think the points of contention are:


 * 1) the pages linked as Criticism are not valid sources for specific criticisms of Xeni Jardin, i.e. a blog posting by the blog's author cannot be used as proof that Xeni Jardin practices inaccurate reportage, therefore the Criticisms should be removed.


 * 2) using xenisucks.com as evidence that people criticise Xeni Jardin on the internet is pointless because anybody could start any website critical of anybody and then justify that site's inclusion in the Wikipedia entry of the target of the site. Implied seems to be the theory that an internet-based source of criticism must have a certain undefined level of notability, attention, hits, etc. to be included in a Wikipedia entry.


 * I think that's the substance of the argument. I've weighed in more on the pro-inclusion of xenisucks.com side than the anti in the past, so I will try to stay out of discussion for 5 days while outside editors come share their untarnished points of view. Ryan Norton 17:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments - for outside editors only
I saw a WP:RFC and responded to this in good faith as a disinterested party, as have some other editors. However, such comments have been swamped by responses from involved editors, in particular the editor who made the RfC in the first place. I regard this as quite inappropriate. It does not show respect for the spirit of RfC nor the attempt by outside editors to help resolve this conflict. This section has been opened for outside editors only, i.e. editors who have not worked on this article, by whatever name, nor are connected personally to the subject of the article. I suggest that at this stage involved editors refrain from reacting to outside comments in order to demonstrate they are capable of restraint and are willing to take advice, and accept community consensus, even if that goes against them. If involved editors wish to communicate with me on my talk page, please do so (but keep it short). I propose no comments on this talk page for 5 days by involved editors to give the RfC a chance, and then see where things stand at the end of that time.Tyrenius 00:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In reading the article, I see that the featured critics are (a) not notable, (b) not significant, and (b) they are just people that don't particularly like this person's journalistic style. I would remove this section altogether. Had the criticism been reported in mainstream media, that would have been a different situation. I would invite involved editors to read Bioagraphies of living people: Opinions of critics, opponents and detractors for some useful related guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 01:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a solution may be to note in this article that some of her work has been controversial, and to move the material to a separate section in Boing Boing, which is a blog, thus making other blog reactions more acceptable. This article could have a link. Tyrenius 05:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Request to all editors for more material
I think a big problem with this article is that it is too short, so that any criticism section appears disproportionate. I have set up a temporary sub page Xeni Jardin (notes) to try to build up more information to enlarge the article. All editors are invited to contribute to this. It is not an article, but simply material which can be used as a resource. Interested editors are requested to familiarise themselves with the guidelines on Biographies of living persons. Please contact me on my talk page if you want to discuss this. Thanks. Tyrenius 06:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI
Jimbo says:

"A wrote:

1. Is a '____sucks.com' blog a notable or reliable source?

Usually not. In a case like this, some mention would seem to be in order since the site was mentioned in the New York Times, but the actual reference in this case is the New York Times itself, not the blog. Merely being mentioned in the New York Times does not license them to insert whatever random lunacy they may choose to print in their blog, into wikipedia as "critics say..."

2. If an editor is engaging in vicious personal attacks offsite, then coming here and demanding civility, is that a violation of the letter and/or spirit of the project?

Absolutely. The distinction between on-wiki and off-wiki (or on-project and off-project) behavior is one we should be careful about, but in general, the standard is not some rationalistic nonsense but rather simple good judgment about when someone is behaving badly and disrupting our work or not.

3. Are 'criticism' sections valid in general, or do they just become a repository for quibbles and an amplifier of relatively insignificant hatecruft about a person?

Often they are necessary and important, I think. But they are also a magnet for trolls.

4. If they are valid, do blogs count as notable or reliable sources? What if they are anonymous? Are there criteria in place for determining this?

Tough call, but editorial judgment of good editors should prevail. What I mean is: just because some troll tries to reinsert hate speech over and over again, citing some blog as an excuse, well, not good enough.

5. Should we formulate a guideline regarding living persons and this kind of criticism in their biographies?

WP:LIVING is a decent start, although it needs some attention I think so that we can bring it up to the standard of a full policy." WAS 4.250 14:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Full context
Those that want the full context of the above and other responses should go to Mailing list and scroll to, or search for, "Criticism sections on bios of living people". It shows a range of views on some of the pertinent issues and the best statement I can find in it is "Tough call, but editorial judgment of good editors should prevail." I should state that I have no intention of getting involved in the issue of offsite attacks and want to focus on getting consensus for the article, although I think at this stage it is obviously not in any editor's interest to be seen to be identified with such attacks. Let's draw a line under the past.Tyrenius 18:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Towards consensus
Do not alter the text in this section, as it is a record of a debate copied from a user talk page, not an ongoing discussion.

I have created a sub-page in my user space with a proposal to deal with the conflict. This is based on my understanding of Wiki guidelines, and how I feel the issues would be viewed by the wider community. You are invited to look at it on Xeni Jardin - towards consensus. Thanks. Tyrenius 05:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Below is the main text copied from that page. START OF COPIED TEXT ''This arises as a response to RFC. I have not been involved in editing this article and have no intention of doing so, or having any other involvement than providing a third party position.''

The article is a biography about a person and should contain what they have done. At the moment half of it is titled "Criticism". That's not the point of a biography, although it has a place in proportion to the rest of the article.

In order to resolve the conflict, I propose the following points.

1) Get rid of the headings. The article is short and doesn't need them. It gives too much weight to the material under "criticism".

2) Omit the "temple of me" blog which has already been removed by an admin, and will not be supported by wider consensus in BLP. Omit all such blogs for the same reason and deal with the issue in Boing Boing.

3) Omit interpretation, "Jardin and her work have not been without criticism. Her perceived self-promotion, her writing style and her choice of subject matter have been cited by her critics." Again, deal with this in Boing Boing. Stick to facts in this biographical article.

4) Keep the mention of XeniSucks "In March 2006, Matthew N. Sharp created XeniSucks.com [9], which criticizes and parodies Jardin's posts on Boing Boing. New York Times columnist Dan Mitchell wrote that XeniSucks.com is a "hate blog" that delivers "nasty, sarcastic invective delivered in spot-on Comic Book Guy tone" [10]. Jardin posted a link to the site on Boing Boing and described it as "a total hoot" [11]."

It is from an acceptable verifiable source, namely NY Times, and furthermore Jardin herself has responded to it. There should be a link in the Footnotes or External Links to XeniSucks.com.

5) Keep GreaseMonkey. If it is not placed below a "Criticism" title, it does not come across as particularly critical, just factual.

6) Until the article deals more fully with her life, say three or four times as much material, no more critical comments should be added. Editors who feel there should be more on criticism, should add to the main content of the article first.

Agreement
Editors who are prepared to accept the above points in order to reach a consensus are invited to sign their names below. If you do not agree, then please communicate with me on my talk page about it, not on this page. This page is for consensus! Thanks. Tyrenius 05:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Accept. Jokestress 07:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed 216.39.146.25 16:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept, with the provision that this needs to be clearly stated in the talk page for the article, including a link to this page. While I would also like to see something that states that a separate criticism section would be valid in the event that the article expands substantially in all regards, I'm not willing to push that at this time. Mostly, I'll agree because I'm sick of this issue and it's nearly made me quit WP altogether. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 23:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Point 6 leaves open the question of further criticism or a section or whatever, but does insist the priority is on good biographical content. I intend to copy any relevant text on my pages over to the article talk pages, when appropriate, but am keeping here for now so it's on 'neutral territory'. Thanks for your good will in accepting a way forward. Tyrenius 00:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree as long as the second paragraph of point 4 is retained. Dstanfor 19:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with the provision that an acceptable verifiable source is found for "Jardin is also currently a partner with Mar Doré in Ambience Doré, a southern California furniture dealer." Also, could editors who have merely cited a website find the information in a traditional media source? (Just a request...not a provision.) domoni 14:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * These points are straightforward, and there should be no problem in meeting them. Tyrenius 18:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ambience Dore is from the LA Times profile. Jokestress 18:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Accept, with the following provision: that the text "XeniSucks.com" is not made into a hyperlink, or a note with a hyperlink. The link is to the NYTimes... and that its inclusion at all is subject to review at a later date. - Motor (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Notes on the above
My proposal for 2nd para of point 4 is to do away with current footnote 9, but to retain footnote 11, which mentions XeniSucks. It is actually a link to the Boing Boing site and an article by Jordan herself all about XeniSucks; in this article, she has placed a hyperlink to XeniSucks. END OF COPIED TEXT

Links relevant to the above

 * Original text of consensus proposal + some extra talk following it
 * The background talk leading to consensus proposal and agreements as above
 * User:Tyrenius/Xeni Jardin (notes) Some material for the Xeni Jardin article.

Tyrenius 19:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

"Towards consensus" later comments
Please do not add to the "Towards consensus" section above as it is a record of a debate that has taken place and is copied from my talk pages. To add to it now gives the impression of comments made during the debate, whereas any comments now are made after that debate and after editors of different views have reached a consensus, despite their differences, in order to enable the proper editing of this article (i.e. adding content) to take place. This consensus should not be taken lightly, and anyone disagreeing with the consensus should seek a new consensus before editing against the agreement it contains.

The following is a comment on it, after it had been reached. It was added into the text below this text: *Accept, with the following provision: that the text "XeniSucks.com" is not made into a hyperlink, or a note with a hyperlink. The link is to the NYTimes... and that its inclusion at all is subject to review at a later date. - Motor (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC). It has been removed and posted here:


 * That is ludicrous. The only reason to do that would be to make it more difficult for someone to navigate to the site. Last time I checked the web was supposed to make information gathering easier not harder.--Gerardm 09:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius 18:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Tyrenius' proposal above, I agree. This needs a link to the NYT article, and the BoingBoing post by Jarding, but nothing else, in order to satisfy the consensus. This is a good proposal, especially since after considerable internal debate on the subject I was strongly leaning towards removing my acceptance of the consensus because of the provisions in Motor's. It is not appropriate to set down article-specific policy intended for all future edits in a momentary concensus. There may come a time when a direct link is appropriate. -- Kickstart70 - T - C 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but this whole "Towards consensus" stuff is ridiculous, I have no clue what it is based on and you are saying you don't accept disagreement except directly though you, great way to make it appear that consensus exists even when people disagrees. I completely disagree, and others have pointed elsewhere in this page they don't agree either, and I hope more editors will also publicly express their disagreement. Lost Goblin 16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * None of the editors involved in the consensus discussion were completely happy. We all compromised in some way (for example: I still maintain that the contents of the section were entirely unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Yet we all signed our names to a compromise in order to get the page unprotected and make some progress, and we've all subsequently demonstrated good faith by sticking to it. - Motor (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus next step
Sorry, I've had connection problems for the last 2 days, but I'm back now. I would first of all like to express my appreciation for the exceptional efforts made by all parties to reach a consensus, and I acknowledge this has meant accepting for the time being aspects that you may not entirely agree with and putting aside personal will to consider a bigger wiki interest&mdash;namely that co-operation with editors of conflicting views is a fundamental necessity of a collaborative project. I would also like to stress that nothing is set in stone forever, but that the main aim is to refocus on the purpose of the article, namely a biography of a person's life, and sourcing sound content for this. The consensus is that the article should be a minimum of three times its current length with neutral factual material before the issue of critical content is looked at again, and for the time being critical content will not be added.

I suggest that if and when that time comes, there is discussion first before posting such content (or deleting such content) and that if consensus cannot be reached on the talk page, then outside feedback is obtained, perhaps through a straw poll. The priority is to avoid getting bogged down again in irreconcilable entrenched positions.

I have left a note on the talk page of Deskana, the admin who protected the page. I have put forward the consensus with a request to remove the protection. Obviously if this is done, it will create a potentially dangerous situation, when new or anon editors may seek to thwart the consensus. I would like to make a special request to those who have agreed to it, to make sure that it is upheld. This is obviously a matter of integrity, and it would be the best procedure if editors were to revert any such edits which are in their favour, but which transgress the consensus. It should of course not be assumed that any such edits are necessarily malicious (AGF).

Should any editors disagree with this consensus, they should take the appropiate steps to attain a new and different consensus, before acting against it.

Tyrenius 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not as worried as you are, Tyrenius, about new or anon editors causing problems. Historically, IP editors here have respected the consensus, even in the Xeni Jardin page.  The problems that led to the edit war and 3RR has revolved largely around new editors, with accounts and names, however, they have all now joined the new consensus, with its weird red lines and all.  I think total unprotection is probably fine now. - 66.92.73.52 23:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've copied your note onto Deskana's talk page, so he can make up his mind. I agree I am probably being over-cautious. You haven't signed the consensus, or are you under another name/IP? Tyrenius 23:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I have not, and will not sign the consensus. I will respect it.  I have two reasons for not signing it, one sort of good, the other bad.  The sort of good one is that I think in order to reach consensus, silly compromises were made with respect to the microfine distinction between including an address of a web site, that when pasted into a web browser, instructs the website to show you that site, and providing a clickable link, that when clicked on, does the same.  The bad reason is probably mere grumpiness about the vague attacks some editors have made against IP editors, and our motives.  The tempest in the teapot about this article is just bizzare, as I'm sure everyone here agrees. - 66.92.73.52 00:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyhow, there's a lot of microfine distinctions in life... Thanks for respecting it. I know there are many good editors using IP addresses. Tyrenius 01:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So just to make sure this is clear, the article can say 'Xenisucks.com' but can't say 'XeniSucks.com' ? Dstanfor 02:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope that is not the case, that would be completely ridiculous. Lost Goblin 16:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)