User:Tyrenius/Xeni Jardin - towards consensus
Xeni Jardin - towards consensus[edit]
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[edit]
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)
- 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)
Hey folks[edit]
Please note statement above:
- 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)
This page ain't for debate, so the start of a debate has been cut off from the previous section in this section. I invited you all in for a cup of tea. Tyrenius 17:11, 12 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)
- I'm not going to argue this point, but it certainly is a weird and uncomfortable situation to link to a news article about a website, but not link to the website itself. Some sort of false protection. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- And yet... you are arguing about it. Protection of what, exactly? I'm not interested in having Wikipedia link to a site of that type -- from any bio article. I don't personally think that it should be mentioned in this article at all, since just because a newspaper columnist makes a minor mocking reference to it doesn't justify the inclusion... but if there is an insistence on including it, then my condition is that it is done without directly linking to it. - Motor (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is a difference between commenting and arguing, and I was not intending the latter. I do note that you've said the one very telling thing here: "I don't personally think that...". That's been the problem all along, with everyone involved (including myself) bringing their own preference and ego into the equation. That's what made this an argument without the ability to reach consensus, that's what led us down this convoluted path, and that's what's currently pushing me to leave Wikipedia altogether. I'm currently trying to think of reasons to stay, but can't think of any that are worth the frustration and I'll likely just abandon the hundreds of hours I've put into this place. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Personally" was a conscious choice of word to avoid setting off another policy/guidelines quote war. I believe that the Biography of living people guidelines are pretty clear about things like this: sites like this are not acceptable, and using the fact that a newspaper columnist once made fun of it in a minor mention is just a fudge. I am, however, willing to compromise in order to move this forward... with the one condition that the site is not directly linked from Wikipedia. - Motor (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is a difference between commenting and arguing, and I was not intending the latter. I do note that you've said the one very telling thing here: "I don't personally think that...". That's been the problem all along, with everyone involved (including myself) bringing their own preference and ego into the equation. That's what made this an argument without the ability to reach consensus, that's what led us down this convoluted path, and that's what's currently pushing me to leave Wikipedia altogether. I'm currently trying to think of reasons to stay, but can't think of any that are worth the frustration and I'll likely just abandon the hundreds of hours I've put into this place. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- And yet... you are arguing about it. Protection of what, exactly? I'm not interested in having Wikipedia link to a site of that type -- from any bio article. I don't personally think that it should be mentioned in this article at all, since just because a newspaper columnist makes a minor mocking reference to it doesn't justify the inclusion... but if there is an insistence on including it, then my condition is that it is done without directly linking to it. - Motor (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to argue this point, but it certainly is a weird and uncomfortable situation to link to a news article about a website, but not link to the website itself. Some sort of false protection. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please do not continue this conversation on this page. It's not going to get anywhere constructive. It's going round in circles again. We know what the points of view are. Anyway, Kickstart70, please don't leave. There must be plenty of other articles which would not incur all this angst. Tyrenius 17:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)