Talk:Xiaxue

refs

References showing that xiaxue made racist remarks, insulted handicapped people, insulted christians, is unpopular and is definitely not a celebrity. Read the entries, the related entries as well as the comments.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk) December 2, 2005

AFD

please no... AFD!!!! __earth ^(Talk) 12:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an AFD! Non-Notable everyday Singaporean. Mods please list it thanks. 202.156.6.54 04:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? She's definitely not unknown, and is internationally one of the best known female bloggers. Check out the links on the page, and realise that she doesn't qualify for deletion on any instance. Hauser 09:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is subjected to various opinions. While she is not unknown, she is surely not notable. There are other "internet celebrities" out there who does not have a wikipedia entry. 180.180.95.225 (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Xiaxue urges her readers to update her page

Xiaxue urged her readers earlier to update her page[12], and resented the fact that Wikipedia editors "can't be bothered to upload a chio photo of me despite me splattering them all over the place."

To all of her readers that may follow her link here and happen to see this, I draw your attention to WP:FU, which states that "any non-free media used on Wikipedia must meet all of these criteria: 1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information ... if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." Thus, grabbing one of her "chio photo[s]" that she did not license under an acceptable free license or release into the public domain is prohibited. Please do not do what Xiaxue seems to want us to do, that is, grab a photograph off her blog and upload it onto Wikipedia. Instead, wait for someone else to take a photograph of her and license it under an acceptable free license or release it into the public domain, do this yourself, or wait for her to license her photograph(s) accordingly.

I'm saying this because her blog supposedly attracts up to 20 000 readers per day, many of whom would probably not be familiar with Wikipedia policies and are immediately marshalled to upload a photograph of her. —Goh wz 02:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, someone could ask her to provide a photograph that she agrees, in writing (e-mail or whatever), to release under the GFDL. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the picture because it has so much crap on it and does not fit the tone of an encyclopedia. Please have a non-animated picture. Secondly, we need something a bit more explicit as to permission given; i.e. it has to be GFDL-compliant. Whoever uploads the image should include the text of the e-mail in the copyright tag. Best case, get her to write something on her blog confirming it so we can verify that she has indeed given permission. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot of website added. This should resolve under WP:FU Cocoma 11:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

i think there is a need to talk about Vandalism since it is so rampant. it is to be expected since she has offended quite a lot of people. please discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relaxtoda (talk • contribs) January 17, 2007

"Xiaxue" or "Cheng"?

Should the article refer to her as "Xiaxue" or "Cheng"? I personally prefer "Xiaxue", but I'm not familiar with the Manual of Style. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Xiaxue, since most people refer to her by that name usually. Keep it the same for now. Terence 14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Impact of Xiaxue on youths in Singapore

In my opinion the statements contained in this section are not written from a neutral perspective and thus do not belong on Wikipedia. Thank you Deconstructhis 04:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Xiaxue → Wendy Cheng, Cheng Yanyan or Wendy Cheng Yanyan — Should be moved to her actual name. In any case, xiaxue is a Chinese phrase meaning "It's snowing". — —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Unconvincing. What is she usually called? We should use that, as we do Atrios. The Chinese phrase is not a problem, unless we (rather than Wiktionary) should have an article on it, which I doubt; compare Cher, although cher is a French word. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names). You'll notice from the articles external links that Xiaxue is what she's referred to. And xiaxue is not a "Chinese phrase meaning 'It's snowing'." It's a romanization of 下雪 which is a Chinese phrase meaning "It's snowing." This might be an ambiguous title if this was Wiktionary or Chinese Wikipedia but there's no ambiguity at an English encyclopedia. — AjaxSmack 14:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. No case made in terms of WP:NC; As noted, external links indicate that the current article name is correct. Andrewa (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notability

There's no serious question that she's a notable blogger. See http://www.xiaxue-media.blogspot.com/ for her "media center" which includes a couple dozen instances of coverage in print media and television. Outside of what she's collected herself, http://www.straitstimes.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=1f435ce1e874c110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=19e4758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD is an article in the Straits Times documenting the controversy with Lang. I'm deleting the {{Notability}} tag. TJRC (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability, again

How in the name of F*CK does this person deserve a wikipedia page? OK, she blogs, she tweets, then what? There's tons of internet personalities who are much more famous and still not found in wikipedia. Whoever started this page is either an idiot or herself. Please dont pollute the environment for true useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.199.250.253 (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Bitter much? This article needs work but she's clearly notable enough to warrant one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.143.27 (talk) 06:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Refs, notability etc.

Hi all

I copyedited this article recently and put a note-to-self to come back when I had a little free time.

• Some of the refs are dodgy as there are few urls for anyone to check the validity of the claims. One ref says "my paper" as the source!!
• Are the Wizzbang LLC awards notable enough? They do not appear to be according to Blog award
• The last one is a primary source and a self reference, xiaxue.blogspot.com, and is definitely getting removed - she could change it to "received a BSc. in blogging from MIT" and obviously, as she can put whatever she likes, is totally unacceptable as a source.

While I appreciate that an editor that has worked on GAs has worked on it, the issue here is about this article and the sources and information this article contains.

I suggest that some thought is given to improving the validity and reliability of the sources and information used. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Chaosdruid, and thanks for your feedback! Having written GAs, I take the quality of what I write seriously. My responses are as follows:

• There really is a Singaporean newspaper called my paper (better known by its Chinese name, 我报 or Wo Bao). The Straits Times, The Sunday Times, The Business Times and TODAY are all mainstream Singaporean newspapers and reliable (despite complains about our unfree press). Some of the offline references were found through Xiaxue's own compilation of newspaper/magazine articles about her, but most were obtained through Factiva. In general, Factiva only indexes articles from reliable sources.
• I am not an expert on blogging awards, so I cannot be sure that the Wizbang LLC Awards are notable, though my research did not reveal any reasons to significantly doubt their notability. Perhaps we could ask the folks at WikiProject Blogging, who would be in a much better position to evaluate their notability?
• Wikipedia policy permits the use of self-published sources for information about themselves, under limited circumstances. Does the use of one of her blogs as a reference for the schools she studied at fall under these limited circumstances? I did not contest the removal of a sentence (referenced to the same blog of hers) that she practices a religion called "Wendism", because that information was absurd. If she claimed that she had "received a BSc. in blogging from MIT", that would also be absurd (I assume MIT does not offer degrees in blogging) and I would be happy to remove it. However, the schools she claimed she attended do exist and do not raise any red flags (they are not particularly prestigious). Perhaps we could seek input from other editors who are highly familiar with the sourcing and BLP policies? If the use of her blog as a reference for such information is deemed unacceptable, then I would question the viability of the Personal life section itself, though I am sure that if Jacklee helped me do another Factiva search, we could find a reliable reference for information on her brother and husband (the draft of this article was written before she married him and was thus outdated).

Once again, thanks for your input, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I raised my last point was that a google news search, though obviously not fully satisfactory, gives no results for Xiaxue or Wendy Cheng when combined with Singapore polytechnic There should surely be a Singaporean paper or magazine that can be quoted on that matter? Selfpub also stipulates that this information is "usually in articles", rather than a webpage claiming "I am a superstar", though I agree it is not self-serving nor apparently contentious (though I suspect that certain details in it are, such as: "Spoken Languages" = "Elfish" and "talks to ants") the education aspect does not appear to be. There is one ref to it, though I do not know their reliability: Readers Digest.

There is also this snippet in a Singapore Arts Council PDF, listing her in a 2005 writers festival, which refers to her with an extended (full?) name - p.111 Wendy Cheng Yan Yan

Most importantly from my point of view is that using her "in the media" page without url's the articles quoted cannot be checked. While I appreciate the mention that "Factiva only indexes articles from reliable sources." there are no links to those indexed articles or their entries, or the fact that they come from Factiva as publisher, rather than the newspapers and magazines themselves. Jack will most certainly be able to help I am sure, he has knowledge of archiving sites and so should be able to come up with something ;¬)

the blogging wikiproject seems like it is a little devoid of action over the last year, though you may strike it lucky.

I am not "dissin' yo' style", but rather hoping that such an interesting article can pass muster with regard to verifiability :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I know you are not dissing my style, for I am also concerned about verifiability. Glad you find the article interesting! I have found newspaper articles (thanks, Jacklee, for the Factiva search!) stating that she studied in Singapore Polytechnic and is married to Mike. These references have been added to the Personal life section. Hope that addresses most of your concerns. As far as I know, newspaper and magazine articles, as well as books, that are not available online, are perfectly acceptable as references (otherwise Wikipedia would suffer from FUTON bias, worsening our systemic bias). Factiva is not the publisher of the articles (the publishers are the newspapers), just as Google is not the publisher of a Wikipedia article that shows up in their search results. . --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It can never be repeated often enough: there is no requirement that a reference be to a source available online; none whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you have perhaps missed the point here Mike. The issue is not that there are refs without urls, rather it is the source for them which, as far as I can make out from the explanation, is that they appear to be taken verbatim from a self-published list that Xiaxue has on her blogsite, rather than from the original published sources. My request was that someone verifies them, or puts urls so that we can all verify them. For example "Who says I have a foul mouth" is taken from this image which is difficult to read and cited five times. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The references from Go Digital and Hardware Zone magazines, plus one newspaper article (cannot remember which one, checking would take a long time), are the only three offline references that I obtained through her media centre (and for all three references, the images were not difficult to read at all). The remaining 12 (out of 15) offline references were obtained from the Factiva database, although some (including the example you mentioned) were also on her media centre. I had read a few of the newspaper articles in their respective newspapers before, so I have no reason to doubt the reliability of Factiva as an archiver.

"Yan Yan" is a romanisation of her Chinese name. If we included it, we would also have to include the Chinese characters (and the Chinese characters of Xiaxue), cited to a reliable Chinese-language reference (and we would have to be wary of potential BLP issues from doing so). Last but not least, I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Blogging asking about the notability of the Wizbang awards.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have directly asked a member off the list at project blogging, rjansen, to take a look as it has been 7 days. No particular reason other than I looked at three and they were the most active. Chaosdruid (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I think this page should be deleted. This meets Wikipedia's policies for speedy deletion. Please feel free to contest with my motion. She's just an ordinary blogger. Other much more prominent and notable blogs like TOC and Minister for National Development's blog were not added in Wikipedia. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee480 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the Speedy. The article clearly does not qualify for A7: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." If you still believe it should be delted, see WP:AFD. TJRC (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

With multiple Best Asian Blogs awards and an inclusion in the Technorati Global Top 100 Blogs list, her notability extends beyond Singapore, where she has worked for national newspapers and television. By the way, Wikipedia does have an article on The Online Citizen. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions from Wikipedian Penguin

I've looked at the article, which seems generally well written. A few tips for language:

• No need to link Singapore(an).

  Not done The country that she is from is relevant to her notability and many readers would be unfamiliar with the Little Red Dot. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Her main blog, which attracts over 20,000 readers per day, has won prestigious blog awards and earned her sponsorship deals, as well as stints as a columnist and TV show host." – "more than" is always nicer than "over" in these places. Also, "Her main blog, which attracts more than 20,000 readers daily, has earned her blog awards, sponsorship deals and stints as a columnist and television show host." is tighter and flows better. Notice the removal of "prestigious", which I fear may be a subjective word to use.
• "However, she is a contentious figure in the Singaporean blogosphere, with some of her posts sparking national controversies." – "however" is usually too unhelpful to use. It's not particularly needed here. It only seems expected that a famous blogger would cause controversy. Speaking of cause, I think it's a better word than "spark" due to tone here.

  Done Thanks for the insights into English grammar! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "she also has a younger brother.[3] When she was younger" – If there is a possible work around from "younger" being twice so close together, it would improve readability.

  Done Should be obvious that she kept the paper diary when she was younger, so replaced that clause. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Quotations such as "spring clean" need citations.

  Done differently That was not a quotation. I removed the quotation marks, which were added by another editor. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Awkward tense: "she met online and had dated for three years" – simple past, then past perfect, even though the initial event occurred before the one after. "met" should be past perfect too.
• Unclear: what's a "geeky blog"?
• Why is "snowing" linked? Might it be because it doesn't happen in Singapore AFAIK?

  Comment You are correct that snowing does not happen in Singapore. Since it is the English translation of her pseudonym, I linked it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "per day" → "daily".
• Redundant, remove "various": "...and posts paid advertorials about various products."
• "young adults, into fashion" → "young adults interested in fashion"

  Done Good one! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Also unclear is what "alternative voices" means.

  Done, please check Added quotation marks, as I was quoting the source. Conservative Singaporeans are not known for expressing opinions (especially non-mainstream ones). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Some uses of "also" are not necessary, such as in "She also has her own fortnightly series", "She was also accused of impersonating another blogger", "She also has a heated rivalry with blogger Dawn Yang"

  Doing Removed some instances of "also" and trying to determine which of the remaining instances are necessary. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the controversy section, the language gets a little repetitive: (she was this, she was also this, etc.). Try to reduce this repetition.

Hope this helps. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! 谢谢你！ --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome; the changes are looking fine so far. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 03:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested restructure

Hi- I don't want to commit to conducting a GA review right now (though I may later) but I am not convinced that the current structure is ideal. I'd recommend something like

[Lead]
-Early life
-Media career
--Blogging
---Controversy
--Other media
-Personal life
-References

The "controversy" seems to all be about blogging, while the other media is obviously still a part of her media career. Meanwhile, there seems to be something a little odd about running together her life pre-career with her personal life during her career. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've also added a number of categories- I hope none of these are controversial. J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the category additions, all of which were helpful and uncontroversial. Restructuring the article would require a significant rewrite, followed by another round of copyediting, thus rendering the article unstable. Several different structures have been proposed, but each (including the current one) has its weaknesses. Splitting information about her early life into a separate section would create two very short and disjointed sections. The Controversy section reflects that she is as notable for controversy as for her achievements. Nevertheless, merging the Controversy section into the other sections may give a false impression of the reception towards her blog and other media. Not all the controversy originated from blog posts; the iPhone video was from her Guide to Life series and Tomorrow.sg is, as mentioned, a blog aggregator website. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Photo display

It seems as if {{pp-semi-blp}} is making the photo much smaller. HYH.124 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Or this edit. HYH.124 (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request in August 2014

Persondata template, add place of birth as "Singapore", alternative names as "Wendy Cheng". 175.156.242.240 (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the improvement suggested. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

peer review template on this talk page

Volunteers, please merge peer review template with article history template, thanks! 175.156.242.240 (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Gushcloud saga

Hey, would the gush cloud saga be valid for inclusion? http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/social-media-marketing-firm-gushcloud-refutes-blogger-xi Thegreenspade (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Difficult to evaluate its importance when the saga is still ongoing, but probably valid for inclusion since mainstream media reported about it. After the saga dies down, I may add a sentence about it in the Controversy section. --Hildanknight (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding blog stats

Multiple times this article mentions that her blog stats are 50,000 daily. While that may have been true 10 years ago, she updates the blog a couple of times a year at best and it's highly unlikely that this statistic is even remotely true. I would suggest removing it entirely. The sources that are being sited are articles that are ten years old. Additionally, under "Blogging," you site that Xiaxue has ten blogs. She has one blog and you offer zero sources that site anything other than her main blog, so I would also like to suggest removing implication that she's juggling multiple blogs, when she has always only been known for one blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36B5:F270:713E:5EEB:EC8C:728D (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Update age

Update age to 38 2600:1017:B8A0:D0F6:4449:C353:2935:6C04 (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Xiaxue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Strong consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Very substandard BLP. Mostly proseline. About a quarter of the article by weight is an inflated 'controversy' section that I'm of half a mind to take to WP:BLPN, let alone permit the article to be considered a GA. Vaticidalprophet 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Second this. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Third. Does not hold up as a GA. Not sure what was the standards back then, but it seems that the last GA was briefly evaluated compared to the previous one. – robertsky (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Delist, per @Robertsky and @Dawkin Verbier.

Brachy08 (Talk)(Contribs) 04:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Xiaxue is a Sarong Party Girl

look up the entry of Sarong party girl on wikipedia. Xiaxue should be labeled an SPG slut given she only dated white men.

why nothing about that? 122.11.237.26 (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

that is a prejudiced perspective 212.58.120.69 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)