Talk:Xeni Jardin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

The subject of this article, Xeni Jardin, has edited Wikipedia as User:Xenijardin. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

This article was nominated for deletion on December 13. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents 1 Archived talk 2 Respect for consensus 3 Changes 4 The new and improved article 5 Clean up 6 Readers 7 CONSENSUS SUMMARY 8 Later comment on consensus summary 9 FKA redux 10 Broken link target 11 No link to xenisucks.com 12 Xeniflóres 13 Why don't people like her? 14 Ridiculous 15 Lack of link? 16 BLP 16.1 Third opinion

[edit] Archived talk

• /Archive 0: February 28-May 1. Xeni's name history discussion
• /Archive 1: March 27-April 19th. Discussion of xenisucks.com relevancy and strawpoll on including link.
• /Archive 2: February 28-May 1. Confirmation of birthplace and family, Career, Xeni Jardin has editted her entry
• /Archive 3: april 7 - april 25. inactive criticism and criticism redux.
• /Archive 4: May 1 - May 17. Birth year. Criticism discussion and RfC that led to the second consensus.

[edit] Respect for consensus

This page is now unprotected. For the record, I won't allow users to ignore concensus. I added this page onto my watchlist and I will make sure concensus is respected. Send me a message if you have any problems. :-) --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I just want to note my complete disagreement with the "consensus" and with the process used to determine it. Lost Goblin 16:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I've made a few modification with the consensus in mind. I explained in the edit summary which points I addressed such as heading, criticism etc. I've also split the LA Times reference away from the note about birth date because the LA Times article is used multiple times and the birth information isn't relevant on those other occasions. I also made a slight modification to the wording of the link to the Boing Boing xenisucks.com article... the reference is to it, not via it. - Motor (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've restored an entry that was removed before the edit war, page protection and mediation. I'd like to clarify the comment I made in my edit summary when I restored it: this item wasn't related to the dispute. Anyway... I can't see why it's not notable, and the NYTimes is a reliable source. So I restored it, since the consensus is try to build up the article some more. I've also restored the NewsHour mention removed with this edit. An appearance on NewsHour is notable, the source is reliable enough... and there's no reason why it cannot be mentioned both here and on the Boing Boing page. However, the article is starting to look a bit list-ish at the moment, but it is filling out a little... which is good. - Motor (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Being a new york times regular is notable, as is being a regular on Jim Leher's show. Many many people write editorials for the times, and many many people appear as guests on talk shows. It's only notable if you're trying to show proof that she's used as a technology pundit, which I think is unnecessary.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dstanfor (talk • contribs) .

Writing an op-ed piece for the NYTimes, or appearing on NewsHour is certainly notable (and in both cases a reliable source)... the fact that a number of other people have also done it doesn't change that. On a larger article with a much more notable person they might not be worth mentioning... but in this case, I think they are. Especially when you consider the criteria for notability/reliability we are applying to other parts of the article. - Motor (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to defer to your wiki experience then, motor. Dstanfor 13:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The new and improved article

I think the new version of article on Xeni Jardin shows us everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. Whilst it may have been constructed using consensus, it is laughable. It is harder to read than the previous version, has massive spelling and grammar errors and can't even list the events in chronological order.

In other words, it's a total joke. Congratulations to everyone involved. I will now be going through to at least try and make the article readable--Gerardm 23:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The article has just had extra information added. Some of it has typos and is misordered. It needs sorting and cleaning, and some of it condensing. You are welcome to do that if you wish, but I suggest you be more careful with your choice of words... bearing in mind the recent fuss. - Motor (talk) 23:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gerardm and I hope more people speaks up against this supposed "consensus". --Lost Goblin 21:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I've tried to collect together and condense some of the material (without using headings) in order to cure the "listy" problem of the article. I dropped the Ceiling Out and Grand Theft Auto spots for the time being. Note: I added the line "provoked a response from a small but vocal group". I think it's a fair description. None of the contentious items have been changed. - Motor (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In view of recent comments, I have added a "Life and work" heading as a neutral means of tidying the article, which I feel is compatible with the spirit of the consensus. If any of the consensusees (undoubtedly not a proper word) disagrees, feel free to revert.Tyrenius 14:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Readers

User:Dstanfor - you asked a question "is the segment of reader's size actually known?". The answer is: Two readers are being noted in the article... nowhere do we state how many people read the site in question, because there is no reliable source of information about that. You, rightly, raised the question over precision, and that is the answer. - Motor (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User:lost.goblin, I thought I'd already explain about reliable sources, but reading back over my comment... I may not have been explicit enough, apoligies for that. So here goes again: How many people comment on xenisucks.com? One person with an obsession? I have no idea. In fact, no-one other than the site owner(s) know, since it is not a reliable source -- that is why its contents are not included here. This lack of reliability has already been bounced up to the mailing list once. Quite apart from the reliablity issue, the number of comments at xenisucks.com is immaterial. The article, in this form is a simple summary of what the rest of the paragraph contains (as it was intended)... namely that she has provoked a reaction from two people whose contributions are mentioned in this article: Jessie Andrews and Matthew Sharp. Nowhere does it state that only two people criticise her, and does not imply that only two people criticise her. Neverthless, in light of your concern and in the spirit of compromise I have changed it to "two readers in particular" -- since that makes the matter clear even to a (hypothetical) person who is determined to misread it. We are noting that two particular readers took bigger steps to criticise her than merely posting a message on a web forum. It also responds to Dstanfor concerns over the vague nature of "small segment of readers". - Motor (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That was just an example, this talk page itself is clear enough proof that more than two persons have reacted. And your claim that xenisucks.com might only have two users is rather ludicrous, I agree the content of xenisucks.com can't be considered a reliable source in any way, but the fact that it exists, and that a user base over 2 would be hard to deny. Also there are numerous reactions in various other forums. So in my opinion saying "response from two readers in particular" is very misleading. By the way, I have not been paying much attention to this article recently, but why is the Criticisms section gone? I thought there was consensus about its contents. Lost Goblin 16:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, the number of people who have reacted is not the issue. Web forums are specifically not reliable sources. As I said before we take no position on how many there are because there is no way to know... and the article does not in any way state that there are only two. I can only suggest that you read it again to clear this up this misconception. As for the criticism section: it was disbanded and a compromise solution was hashed out with discussion that (as I said above with a link) went to the wikipedia mailing list. When you edit the article there is a prominent comment at the top of the edit box that ask editors to read the consensus on the talk page before editing. Scroll up this talk page a bit and you can find the consensus agreement that was established with the help of User:Tyrenius. Hope this helps. - Motor (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that the wikiwar has escalated considerably while I was away, oh well... Anyway, the fact that xenisucks exists is a verifiable fact that anyone with a web browser can check. Claiming that it only has two users is again ludicrous, and this talk page is more than proof enough that more than two persons have reacted. Other criticisms of xeni can be seen in corysucks.com and many other public forums. The current content of the article does a clear reference to the number two, which I think is completely unjustified and misleading, saying "has provoked criticism from some readers" would be OK (I would say "many", but I'm ready to compromise with "some"); "has provoked a response from two readers in particular" is completely unacceptable. Lost Goblin 17:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating the long explanation I posted above -- nothing in this version is vague, ambiguous or misleading, and nothing posted on this talk page has justified changing it. It is a summary of the rest of the paragraph. It does not imply in any way that there are only two people who don't like her -- it merely the states clearly that we are about to mention the two notable ones. The version Dstanfor readded is redundant and vaguely worded, and that's why I have reverted the change. - Motor (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to make another try to come up with a wording that is acceptable for everyone, if you still disagree I think we will need someone else to help us sort this out. --Lost Goblin 21:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your last change was a clear consensus violation, regarding links to the site in question. You mentioned that you had read the consensus above... could you read it again please? In addition, you still reintroduced vague and imprecise wording. Can you explain why you think it is misleading? Obviously, I'm not in a position to simply keep reverting this, since I will fall foul of the 3RR much earlier than two people working at it... but since my choice of words is a simple, clear and precise statement of fact with regard to the sources we are using in the article, I am quite happy to have it judged by a wider impartial group. I've asked Tyrenius to comment... other impartial editors are welcome too. - Motor (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

After spending a good time browsing this monstrous talk page I managed to find the (supposed) "consensus" again (or what I think you refer to, which is a copy of something in Tyrenius talk page), and I can't see anywhere in it that precludes from making xenisucks.com a link, I personally don't care much either way, but I have yet to see any reason why it should not be a link, specially being a domain name already which the users would just have to copy and paste in his browser address bar (or look up the reference and follow the link there), either way it seems a disservice to the user, but again this is not a big deal for me, I really can't understand why anyone would care much either way. About the "two" vs. "some", "some" indicates that there is at the very least uncertainty about the number, which I think is clearly the case, and two would both misleading and redundant as two is already the number of given examples. By the way, I hope that your reference to "impartial" editors is not trying to imply the partiality of the editors that disagree with you, I certainly have no relation with this subject except having been a intermittent reader of BoingBoing over the years. --Lost Goblin

I suggest you read the consensus page again. It is quite specific, indeed you replied to a message regarding this. You are free to disagree with it, of course. IMO, the site is not worthy of mention on a Wikipedia biography at all, since it is in no way a reliable source. Its only real claim to any kind of notability is that a NYTimes columnist made a minor mocking reference to it, and that doesn't justify its inclusion here, and certainly none of its "random lunacy" that has previously been included and justified with wording such as "she has been criticised for". Nevertheless, I compromised over the inclusion of the NYTimes reference in order to make progress, with the sole provision that since we are referencing the New York Times article and not the xenisucks site, there are no direct links from Wikipedia to it. Disservice to the reader? Only if you think Wikipedia's function is to make linking to hate sites filled with unreliable content easy. I do not. I hope that explains the reasoning behind my provision to the consensus.

Regarding uncertainty -- quite correct. There are no reliable sources regarding the numbers because the contents of the site in question are not reliable. We don't reference it at all. My choice of wording is a simple statement of what is in the paragraph. It's is precise with regard to sources, clear, simple and not in any way misleading. I hope that your reference to "impartial" editors is not trying to imply the partiality of the editors that disagree with you -- this seems rather argumentative. I was calling for editors who are not, and have not in the past, been involved in this article to judge the wording. Perhaps you would be interested to know my interest in Boing Boing and its editors? None whatsoever. I think I've opened the Boing Boing page twice in two years (following a slashdot link). My interest in this article is purely from a Wikipedia guidelines and WP:BLP point of view, and the rather disgraceful off-site editor intimidation that has gone on in the past. A matter that also made it to the WP mailing list. - Motor (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CONSENSUS SUMMARY

This is a summary of the final points of a consensus reached over disputes about the article content.

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) Delete footnote which has a link to xenisucks, but retain footnote, 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.

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.

The final position was that xenisucks would be mentioned, with the text as in the protected article, but there would not be a direct link in the article to xenisucks.

This was signed by the following editors:

• Jokestress 07:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• 216.39.146.25 16:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• --Kickstart70-T-C 23:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Dstanfor 19:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• domoni 14:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Motor (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This editor did not sign, but stated (s/)he would respect the consensus:

• 66.92.73.52 00:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This note was added by an admin:

This page is now unprotected. For the record, I won't allow users to ignore concensus. I added this page onto my watchlist and I will make sure concensus is respected. Send me a message if you have any problems. :-) --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The consensus has been respected by the above editors to date. The consensus can be changed by a new consensus.

I was not involved in editing this article, but participated in negotiating the consensus via a RfC. I have posted this summary on the suggestion of Lost Goblin, who pointed out that it was difficult to find in the middle of all the talk.

Tyrenius 03:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Later comment on consensus summary

your "concensus" has created a reference-heavy, almost misleading article. i'll try to fix it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjlira (talk • contribs) . June 7, 2006

[edit] FKA redux

I'd like to revisit this:

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

I feel it is redundant to list two versions of the same full name. As an example, we wouldn't say "Formerly known as Jimmy Wales and Jimmy Donal Wales, he currently goes by the name Jimbo Wales."

I propose replacing the above with this:

She went by Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm before shortening her name to its current form.

Unlike others who use first and middle name as a working name (such as Shelby Lynne), we can't say "(born Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm)", since it's possible this was not her name at birth.

Seems simpler and clearer to me. Thoughts? Jokestress 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your proposed version is clearer and simpler. - Motor (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

and it glosses over the evolution of her name, which is discussed on one of the many archive pages. I like it the way it is. Dstanfor 18:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As it reads, it suggests that "Jardin" was added later, but there is no evidence of this. A couple of instances of not using one's middle name does not mean that "Jardin" is part of a naming evolution. As it reads, it seems like a WP:NOR issue to imply an evolution. Jokestress 18:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be evidence to suggest an "evolution" (and I have read the talk page mentioned). If, as Dstanfor's comment plainly states, the purpose of the wording was suggest such a thing, then you should go ahead and change/simplify on the grounds of removing original research. - Motor (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:NOR might also suggest that we include the LA times reference that this might not be her real name. It's one of the best external citations about her name available, and really the only thing we have to say it's not true is some statements by Xeni in this talk page. WP:NOR surely suggests that not be included! So, as long as we edit, let's put in that Xeniflores Jardin Hamm is reportedly not her birth name. - 66.92.73.52 22:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that omission is regrettable --Lost Goblin 07:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The following is a group of direct quotes from the LAT piece, as once sentence:

Xeni Jardin isn't her given name. It was a nickname that stuck during her travels through Mexico and Guatemala. She had gone by Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm before shortening her name to its current form.

It's important we avoid POV terms like "real" name, as this could be her legal name now. However, it does seem clear from the LAT piece that this was not her birth name. Jokestress 07:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm picking nits here, but the LAT article only states that the Xeniflóres part came from her travels. How about this slight rewording that emphasizes that, and steers completely clear of the birth/given name issue:

Xeniflóres was a nickname that stuck during her travels through Mexico and Guatemala. For some time after her return, she went by the name Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm and currently uses the shortened version Xeni Jardin.

What do you think? --C33 07:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, but per 66.92.73.52, we need to include that this was not her given name. How's this:

Xeniflóres was not her given name, but a nickname that stuck during her travels through Mexico and Guatemala. For some time after her return, she went by the name Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm and currently uses the shortened version Xeni Jardin.

Thoughts? Jokestress 07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me --C33 08:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to reasonable to me too --Lost Goblin 18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Me three. Dstanfor 20:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

More thoughts on this issue: I like the wording above. I tried to insert it directly into the article in place of the current FKA line, but I felt it was choppy and didn't read will. I'd like to introduce the above sentence with the time it fits and combine it with the explanation of what Xeniflóres means. I was thinking something like this:

"The origin of the name Xeni can be traced the period after she left Richmond. Xeniflóres (a Guatemalen name that means protector of flowers) is not her given name, but a rather a nickname that stuck during her travels through Mexico and Guatemala, while jardin is the French word for "garden." For some time after her return, she went by the name Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm and currently uses the shortened version Xeni Jardin."

I've tried to preserve the exact same meaning and tone as the above, while making it flow a little better with the existing article text. What does everyone else think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by C33 (talk • contribs)

Some minor fixes:

The origin of the name Xeni can be traced to the period after she left Richmond. Xeniflóres (which in Guatemalan means "protector of flowers") is not her given name, but a rather a nickname that stuck during her travels through Mexico and Guatemala, while jardin is the French word for "garden." For some time after her return, she went by the name Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm and currently uses the shortened version Xeni Jardin.

If that's OK with everyone, I'll put it in for now. Jokestress 15:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion:

Xeniflóres is not her given name, but a rather a nickname that stuck during her travels through Mexico and Guatemala. For some time after she returned, she used the name Xeniflóres Jardin Hamm and now uses the shortened version, Xeni Jardin.<ref>Xeniflóres in [[Guatemala]]n means "protector of flowers"), and ''jardin'' is the French word for "garden."</ref>

This version has an up front mention that this paragraph is about the fact that it's not her real name... and then we go on to explain its origin (rather than talking about its origin first, and then revealing that it is a nickname). Also: "The origin of the name can be traced to the period after she left Richmond" - seems redundant. We've already said that it was a nickname that stuck during her travels in Guatemala... after leaving the place she was born. This version also puts the slightly off-topic translations into a note shortening it and avoiding complicating the flow. - Motor (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But it's just a suggestion. Your version will do the job. - Motor (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like moving the etymology to a footnote. Keeps things moving. Jokestress 16:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Duh... I just re-read it and released that I'd made a mess of moving the information around. I'll habe another go in a bit. - Motor (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What about mentioning the name change to avoid her past? It's in the LA Times article, and I think we can work it in to that area? - 70.52.223.169 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"jardin is the French word for "garden."" It is also the Spanish word for "garden". 66.168.24.202 01:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link target

somebody retargeted the 8th source (lat article, something about google) with the link that edits the article on xeni, can somebody who knows what they're doing fix this please

[edit] No link to xenisucks.com

Some stupid bot (Tawkerbot2) reverted my addition of xenisucks.com. The article mentions the site, why not provide a link? Most Wikipedia articles provide alternate views regarding the subjects of articles. Plus it even states in the article Jenny thinks it's a "total hoot". 206.53.16.16 02:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A long, laborious and contentious argument was already heard about this point. A consensus has been reached, which can be found under the heading CONSENSUS SUMMARY on this page. Until a new consensus can be reached, xenisucks.com shouldn't be linked from the article. --C33 03:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

no one asked me... if the "consensus" reaches is that a URL shouldn't be a URL, then shouldn't common sense and reality trump the absurd conclusion that a website shouldn't be linked? what is the purpose of confirming the reality of a site without linking to it? to discourage people to visit simply by making it slightly harder to cut/paste a URL than to click it? that's really asinine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.0.120.90 (talk • contribs).

How ridiculous is this article that you can write out 'Xenisucks.com' but not have it link to the actual website? And even MORE ridiculous is the reasoning behind this being that a link is unnecessary since Xeni herself links to the site in some old post she put up on BoingBoing. You wikinerds who argued over this really need to step back and get a little perspective on things...if one deems a website to be relevant to an article and one goes on to write out it's URL it follows logically that the website in question should be linked to. Any other solution than that is limiting the functionality of an article and just splitting hairs. The only viable reason I could see in leaving out the URL is because one wouldn't want to increase a site's lexa ranking and/or increase the likelihood of it being found by search engine bots. Just link to Xenisucks.com already... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.239.33.25 (talk • contribs)

Actually, now that the Fearless Leader has ordained that all external links from Wikipedia are nofollow, even those reasons listed above are invalid. Perhaps its time to open this issue up for discussion again. --C33 20:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy on WP:BLP has been made more stringent since the initial discussion and vetoes this link. I suggest you add good content to the article instead. Tyrenius 02:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is 'good' content Tyrenius and when did the goal of Wikipedia become exclusively showcasing it? The question is not whether content is 'good' or 'bad' but whether or not it is relevant to the subject. An entire website dedicated to the satirical critique of an individual who mentioned (and linked to!) it on her own blog certain qualifies as relevant. The question of 'good' or 'bad' is absolutely subjective. The real issue at hand is how absurd it is that the URL is listed but not linked to. There are only two options: 1) completely remove ANY mention of XeniSucks.com or 2) list XeniSucks and link to it. And since it has been deemed that XeniSucks.com is relevant to the subject it, therefore, should be linked to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.239.33.25 (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Good content exactly is that which follows WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:BLP. A consensus was reached as to how these should be applied in the case of this particular site, and this should be followed unless a different consensus is arrived at. Continued violation of it will lead to being blocked from editing. In the light of changes to BLP since the consensus, it is indeed a consideration that Xenisucks should not be mentioned at all. Tyrenius 19:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP Clearly states that content from unreliable sources should not be used as a citation for a claim within an article, but it says nothing about mentioning the fact that those sources (of criticism, in this case) exist. Clearly xenisucks.com is not a reliable source, but it is not being used as such. It is merely being used as an example of online criticism of an online persona. Also, the fact that xenisucks.com is cited in both her blog BoingBoing and the New York Times, provides the reliable sources that the criticism exists. Perhaps I'm confused, if so, could you please take the time to explain your interpretation of the policy. --C33 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My interpretation of the policy is that we don't include insulting things about living people unless they have substantial sourcing. Linking to such material counts as the same thing. We don't include "examples of online criticism" from minor web sites and blogs. The only reason it just about merits a passing mention is because of a small reference in NYT and a comment in Jardin's blog. This does not equate to substantial sourcing and is hardly a major factor in Jardin's life. Find some more reliable sources and it would be a different matter. The whole thing has been gone into and a consensus reached. The consensus is to mention it, but not link to it. Tyrenius 12:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comical. This is the friggin' Internet and we are mentioning a source without linking to it. Brilliant. I always wondered about the validity Wikipedia and this has pretty much confirmed it. Can you imagine if Google produced a list of search results without links? Not linking to XeniSucks.com serves only to make it more difficult to find out there are people who criticise Xeni's work. Knowledge by consensus is hilarious; if you get enough stupid people then it must be true. --84.9.37.73 13:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xeniflóres

I'm neutral on Xeni Jardin, but putting an accent over the o is incorrect in Spanish, and detracts from this article. If this word exists it is xeniflores. Putting the accent over the o may look exotic in a Mötley Crüe sort of way, but it shows ignorance of the Spanish language. I note that when Xeni herself comments (in the archived discussion) she doesn't use an accent.

Another problem with this article is the claim, in footnote 3, that "Xeniflóres in Guatemalan means 'protector of flowers'." First off, there is no such language as "Guatemalan". Guatemala is a country. People there speak either Spanish, or one of numerous indigenous languages. If the word xeniflores exists at all, it is a combination of a word from some indigenous language (xeni does not exist in Spanish) and the spanish word "flor".

--Pelkabo 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The ó is from the TravelTrust citation. LA Times didn't use it, though, and I made your change regarding Guatemalan. Jokestress 20:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why don't people like her?

The article currently states that her work at Boing Boing is controversial, but does not state why. Why don't people like her? Is it her politics, her personality, what? Kat, Queen of Typos 12:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

heh. In the history of the article it was in there, but editors wanted to remove the "criticism" section so now it's mentioned with no reference beyond the xenisucks.com, which by some crazy reasoning can be typed but not linked. 71.57.123.117 06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason there's no "criticism" section is that certain Wikipedia members enjoy free speech as long as it's speech they already agree with. For example the "Criticism" section of the "George W. Bush" entry contains numerous "weasel words" that have yet to be addressed by the Wikipedia community. I'm sure someday the integrity-driven users who policed this page will get to it. I suppose that entry is less important that this one - that of a minor internet celebrity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.93.99.97 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Please study WP:BLP for more understanding regarding negative comments about living people. You are as welcome as any other editor to address the "weasel words" you mention. Tyrenius 03:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking over Xenisucks.com, it seems that most of the posts relate to one of the followng:

• her seeming favoritism towards friends such as Violet Blue (which is more a feature of boingboing in general)
• her Shameless self promotion (again, which poster on bb doesn't do this)
• criticism of pretentiousness
• criticism of writing style and/or subject matter.

It seems like there's no tangible or verifiable reason to criticize her, she has just rubbed a vocal segment of people the wrong way. Interestingly, about half of xenisucks.com posts criticize one of the the posters instead. -Hemidemisemiquaver 04:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you my own reasons as a devoted Boing Boing fan: she isn't as good as (for example) Cory at shilling for products and companies in a way that sounds genuine. and at least Cory is shilling for stuff like Ubuntu. take a look at Xeni's multiple post on the iPhone, and her "getting high with richard branson" advertisment for example. Roedelius 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

I just have to say that this page is ridiculous, mention of the site "xenisucks.com" but no link? Make up your fucking minds already...either mention the site + link or don't mention at all...jeebus christ

Farsnickle 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Minds have been made up: namely to mention it and not link to it. Please communicate in a more CIVIL manner. This is not an option. It is a policy requirement. Thank you. Tyrenius 18:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here to find out why Xeni is so controversial and the information is simply not here. Not even a link, as mentioned above. The article makes much of her being controverial, but doesn't say why - does this really make any sense?

I'd also like to know why there's such a discussion about her name, but her birth name isn't mentioned. If it is mentioned, it isn't made clear. Sarky Git 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't uses the word "controversial", so it doesn't need to explain something it hasn't said, which does make sense. Maybe no one knows her birth name, at least from a verifiable source per WP:V and WP:RS. If it isn't public in that way, we wouldn't include it. That's the policy per WP:BLP. I trust that answers your concerns. Tyrenius 05:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of link?

I'd like to bring up again the lack of the link to Xenisucks. Since Jardin herself linked to it not linking based on BLP seems hard to understand. I'm not at all convinced that there should be any mention of the website at all in this article, but if it is going to be mentioned, I see no good reason not to link to it directly. The situation of inclusion of mention but not linking strikes me as odd and unnecessary. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a massive controversy about this. The history of the present solution reached through consensus is at User_talk:Tyrenius/Archive_1#Clarifying_Xeni_Jardin_RfC and above on this page. I don't see it as advisable to open up this can of worms all over again for what is a essentially a trivial point, when the present solution has survived relatively peacefully for the last 18 months. However, if it is thought necessary to do so, a new consensus needs to be achieved. Tyrenius (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of those discussions, hence my phrasing "bring up again". I'm not at all convinced that there should be any mention of xenisucks (I'm not convinced the passing mention in the NYT column is sufficient) but we are a netbased project, the status of mentioning and not linking is illogical. I'm fine with removal or with linking, but the status quo really doesn't make sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you propose a change and if there are no objections within say a month, then make the alteration. If there are objections, then I'll leave it to you to negotiate a new consensus. I will not get involved in further debate. Tyrenius (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The consistent confusion from many unrelated readers over the mention of the site without the site link is objection in itself. This link to this site should be included unless there is some basis for not including it as a convenience for Wiki-readers. A round of negotiative consensus is not a viable solution over something so basic.Yeago (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. Jokestress (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly can understand how that applies to gobs and gobs of derogatory linking that people attempt to do at Wikipedia. This case is different: the subject of the article has made it her business to make notariety of the website. In the same breathe, she dismisses at as a "hoot"--if she's unconcerned about directing people to the website (in the NYT, no less!), I'm not sure what concern Wikipedia has. Wikipedia certainly doesn't mind mentioning the website--a link is just a matter of reader convenience.

There are a million *meme*sucks.com websites out there that should never be linked from Wikipedia. It was her own bidding to make this one different. Reader convenience, reader convenience, reader convenience.Yeago (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

The discussion has already been had. Moreover, the article already contains the name "Hamm" it simply includes it in a non-traditional place.Yeago (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest you provide the solid sources that show this and that it is mainstream information. Ty 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It is already in the article--there is no BLP dispute if it already exists. The dispute is over where it appears. Are you unfamiliar with the precedent which every popular wikipedia bio-article sets in putting pseudo- and given names at the beginning of the article?

As for sources, I must direct you (again) to the talk page archive where several pedians did more than enough legwork in this matter.

Also, what a cryptic standard "that this is mainstream information". This is an encyclopedia that catalogues facts that stand up to the notability test--Xeni stands up to the notability test and, short of miscellany, information about her is open to be included. The fact that she previously went by another name is not miscellany--this is evidenced by the fact that this information is already included in the article--albeit in a non-standard sub-section fashion.Yeago (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The only true BLP dispute that exists is whether this is her birth name or not. I am not concerned with presenting it as her birth name. Suffice it to say at some point in her life, for a very long time, she was Hamm. All the bumbling about this issue in this article is just inimical.Yeago (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. There is a BLP dispute if there are not solid references for material, regardless of it being in the article. It may need to be removed from the article. I've checked out the first five refs and they do not meet requirements. The only sound one, LA Times, does not give her name as Hamm, only her father's name, and children do not always have the same surname as a parent. Fine, if the legwork has been done, then cite the sources. At the moment there is only conjecture based on sources which are not conclusive or reliable. Ty 01:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Again you resort to 'children to not always have the same surname' but that doesn't explain why she used it Hamm professionally and as a tax-payer to the IRS. Also, I repeat, I am not interested in presenting it as a birth name until a verifiable source comes along.

She used the name Hamm professionally when she was with Travel Trust. There is nothing spurious about that. Also, the nctimes[1] article is entirely useful as a source because it includes a tax record clearly indicating that Xeni went by Hamm.

Until this article contains her given name and aliases (and we know that it is not Xeni Jardin by her own admission), and its mention is in the standard place at the beginning of the article and not shoved off into a sub-section, this article is incomplete.Yeago (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing wrong with only having a pseudonym, if that is the only name that can be reliably sourced. Using primary sources, like IRS records to source a name, is definitely not acceptable particularly when it's clear that the person does not want her full name to be made public. This person appears to be primarily known publicly as Xeni Jardin, and until we have a reliable secondary source which gives her real name, that is all we should discuss. It is not incomplete, if there is no reliable secondary source that gives her real name Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors may want to read the case of Talk:Brandy Alexandre/Archive1. While in this specific case, the person did not want her real name made public,While there are some differences the principles are mostly the same. Until and unless someone makes their real name public or it is otherwise available from a reliable secondary source, then it is unacceptable to dig through primary sources to find someone's real name when they are publicly known by another name Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As for this test of whether the subject prefers it or not--the subject did prefer it at TravelTrust which is why she published it as Hamm publicly on that company's website and several related websites as the official public contact for TravelTrust. The fact that she has renigged on the desire to be known as Hamm is an afterthought.

Also, I think you're mischaracterizing that debate about Brandy Alexandre--in the case of Brandy its simply clear that her name was not made public by a reliable source, not the subject herself. Two great sources exist in this case: the IRS as published by a notable news website and the subject herself in her professional and public role as liason to a former employer.Yeago (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The archive website of an alleged former employer is not a reliable source, indeed that is by definition OR (do you know for sure that it is the same person? Obviously not). This person is known because of her work on Boing Boing, not because of her work for TravelTrust. [2] is a list of people looked for by the IRS. Does it state that it is the same person? Obviously not. Again it is OR on your part to claim it is her. The fact that the list is published in a newspaper is fairly irrelevant since it is simply a list of names from the IRS, by definition a primary source. Did you read Jimbo's comments on the Brandy page? Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. So what? Those boneheads used an Amazon.com payment receipt and blog postings. I'm using the IRS and the subject's own admission. Now you're going to suggest its not the same person, and thus concludes sane debate.Yeago (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry. That page you keep linking nowhere connects a real name with the blogger's pseudonym. It is prohibited synthesis and original research for you to connect them without a reliable source doing so. Please stop this, or you'll end up blocked. FCYTravis (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're suggesting two Xeni's worked for TravelTrust?Yeago (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that you are not allowed to publish on Wikipedia original research and synthesis, which is what you are arguing for. I am unprotecting the page. Any further reversions of her real name will be dealt with via blocking. FCYTravis (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

In brief: FCYTravis is correct. — Athaenara ✉ 10:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Travis's interpretation is correct (came from the the BLPN). Lawrence § t/e 05:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)