Talk:Xeni Jardin/Archive 1

Xeni's name history

A google search shows that Xeni went by the name "Xeni Jardin Hamm" when she worked for Latham & Watkins in 1999. Are there earlier references to other names she's used? I ask because a commenter on Metafilter said that her original name was Jennifer (Jenny?) Gardner. --Zippy 10:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

partly answering my own question, I found this link to her work with the Traveltrust travel agency, where she used the name Xeniflores Hamm. Here's an excerpt from the page:

Traveltrust

Address: 445 Marine View Ave Suite 200, Del Mar, CA 92014

Company Contact: Xeniflores Hamm

...

Website: http://www.traveltrust.com

Description: Travel discounts for cruise packages, lowest airfares and discounts for princess, holland america, crystal cruise lines royal caribbean, celebrity and more Leisure Business Travel. Traveltrust, Travel, San Diego, Corporate Travel, Leisure Travel, Low

An archived page for Traveltrust contains the text Site design graphics, Navigator logo, feature articles ©1995-1997 by Xeniflóres Hamm. On this page, the name Xeniflores Hamm a hyperlink mailto for travel@traveltrust.com.

"Jardin doesn't reveal [her given name], she says, because she wants to avoid dangerous people from her past." (From LA Times article) What do you think, Zippy? --Christopherlin 21:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good question. In the same article, she gives the full names of her father, mother, and brother, along with photos of herself. These, plus the fact that she works hard to be in the public eye, make we wonder whether she is really concerned about being recognized. --Zippy 19:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a journalist and a blogger. While it's accurate to say that this sort of role involves working hard to distribute information publicly, and being publicly visible in relation to that work, there's a big difference between that and "works hard to be in the public eye," which implies other motivations that don't fit here. Regarding the rest of this statement, please be aware that I did not write the LA Times profile, nor did I "give" the LA Times the photo that ran with it. --Xenijardin 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. In one of your recent comments you claim it is untrue that you've tried to obfuscate your past, yet when we're discussing something very easy for you to simply tell us (namely given name and birth year), you continue to be vague. One of the main criticisms on the xenisucks.com site is the focus you have on yourself and your friends, which is certainly not typical of most journalism standards. And it's also certainly not difficult to find photographs of you, on your own website taken by your mentor and your friends. 208.20.220.72 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And every single article, comment, news story, radio show, radio story, magazine article, seminar (ad nausea) that Xeni has ever given has been solely about her friends? Wow I would like to be one of her friends then! The jealousy and scrutiny over this woman's career is amazing to me. I would like to have half of her exposure! Look at this page! I must find a way to make maladjusted men not like me so that way I can get lots of publicity too. Maybe I will move home and live in my mom's basement. Matt N 20:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Xeni, I wasn't trying to imply a motivation, and I apologize that it came across that way. Regarding the photo, I didn't mean you handed them the photo, I meant that you apparently gave them permission to photograph you for the article, and this, along with naming your family members, birthplace, etc, seemed at odds with Christopherlin's quote that "[you] want to avoid dangerous people from your past." No motivation implied, just puzzlement on my part. --Zippy 06:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think her full / original / legal / birth name should be listed on the main page, assuming it can be confirmed. --PaulSchreiber

Hey, everyone: Xeni Jardin is my real, legal name. My (deceased) biological dad's last name was Hamm. Xeni is short for "Xeniflores," which is cumbersome for people to pronounce and write -- so the name was shortened to "Xeni" over time, and that's now my legal name. Period. My father gave my name to me. I didn't make it up, and it's not an alias for some other name. I use one name. Mine. There's no conspiracy here. My name is not now (nor has it ever been) Jenny Jardin, Genie Garden, Jenny Murden, Jennifer or Jenny Gardner, John Jordan, nor am I related in any way to Fox Mulder, although I do believe he has an excellent hairdo and an enviable collection of personal firearms. Hope that clears the matter up. --Xenijardin

Darn it, I was just working the Fox Mulder angle! Thanks for the clarification, Xeni. --Zippy 03:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Xeni - would you like to clarify this particular piece of text from your L.A. Times profile? I don't think there's any doubt that Xeni Jardin is currently your legal name, but from the particular piece of text below (which you do have archived on your own website, without any disclaimer or statement that it is incorrect) seems to indicate that "Xeniflores"/"Xeni" and "Jardin" are nicknames that you aquired as an adult, and that your "given name" different and for some reason concealed.

Xeni Jardin, pronounced SHEH-nee zhar-DAN, isn't her given name. Jardin doesn't reveal that, she says, because she wants to avoid dangerous people from her past. "Xeni" comes from "Xeniflores," a word with origins in Guatemala's native culture. Jardin means "garden" in Spanish and French.

It was a nickname that stuck during her travels through Mexico and Guatemala with her mentor, Dr. Munir Xochipillicueponi Quetzalkanbalam, a writer, performer, director, composer, entrepreneur and Mayan expert whom Jardin considers her adoptive father.

If you would address the specifics of that statement and how it does or doesn't conflict with your statement above, it would be much appreciated. Glowimperial 05:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Glowimperial. No, my name is not a "nickname acquired as an adult." I've already responded to the questions relevant to maintaining a factually accurate Wiki entry, and I'll take leave of this discussion now. --Xenijardin

I take it to mean that it would then be 'factually accurate' to state that Xeni Jardin or Xeniflores Jardin is not her given name, as the LA Times article states. Presumably, she previously went by Xeniflores Hamm since there are plenty of google searches returning this name, including this article stating that a Ms. Hamm was due a refund from the IRS, but they couldn't find her (because of a name change perhaps?) http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/10/29/business/news/11_39_1310_28_05.txt 208.20.220.69 20:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And we have a 'Xeni Jardin Hamm' (http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing/archive/archive-jul-1999/msg00143.shtml) --Gerardm

I am just about ot edit the page to include a reference to what would appear to be Xeni Jardin's birth name, Xeniflores Hamm. Feel free to correct this if the name is incorrect but I would ask you do not delete it. This place is about facts; if Xeniflores Hamm is Xeni's birth name and it deserves to be included.

This whole episode is somewhat silly but goes to, in my mind, prove a point. You can't pick and choose what facts appear in an encyclopaedia. --Gerardm

The LA Times article states "Over the years, Jardin says, Quetzalkanbalam taught her "how to craft stories, how to deliver on-camera and on-radio; he taught me voice, acting." She traveled with him, acquiring her new name, ...". Xeniflores Guatemalan source seems like the sort of thing to come from Quetzalkanbalam, the Mayan expert and Jardin's "surrogate father" 208.20.220.69 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not satisfied that Xeniflores Hamm is Xeni's birth name (as in the name she was given by her birth parents in 1973). To add that information as her birth name would be speculative at this point. We've been fortunate to have the subject of the article weigh in on the matter, but I feel that her involvement has not cleared the water on this issue in a satisfactory manner. I'd rather have the article not have a birth name than have us put up incorrect information at this time. Are we in a hurry here? Glowimperial 12:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I am quite satisfied that Xeniflores Hamm is Xeni's birth name. First off it appears quite logical and second, I'm sure if it wasn't then Xeni will be in touch. We aren't in a hurry but until proved otherwise the evidence suggests Xeniflores Hamm is her birth name.--Gerardm 16:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to know her birth name you need a birth certificate. Only her family can get one though. The second option is to get yearbooks/class photos from her elementary/middle schools.--69.236.102.234 15:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

XeniSucks.com

Xenisucks.com: parody site or attack site? Should it be included in the external links? Of course, when an anon adds it, it looks suspicious. It was linked off of Boing Boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/27/xenisuckscom.html) by Jardin herself. "This is a total hoot." --Christopherlin 21:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

eh. why give anons like me edit abilities if our changes are all going to be reverted anyway? I'd say it's a vicious parody site, and it can certainly be Npov to at least link to someone pointing out jardin's foibles. 67.184.95.163 13:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a question best asked at the Village Pump. Typically, however, attack sites need to be scrutinized -- particularly when we're dealing with living people here. In this case, though, I don't see the problem as Xeni took note of it in her blog. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 14:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling this a "parody" is like calling the Swift Boat Campaign "all in good fun". The XeniSucks site [is not parody]... To allow ... XeniSucks.com to thrive is a blight on Wiki. Matt N 18:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Given this new information, I am all for the removal of this link (despite Xeni's own mention of it in her blog). -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I move that the Xeni Jardin page be protected for a few days. I have had to remove the libelous link several times already. Anon trolls are appearing under the guise of furthering "satire" when they are in fact seeking to libel and damage this woman via XeniSucks.com ... Matt N 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, the only page you've editted is the Xeni Jardin page. Perhaps you're Point of view on this matter is not neutral? ... It seems to me that this should be resolved in a similar manner as the corysucks.com site addition to the Cory Doctorow article. As long as the link is labeled correctly (something like vicious parody of Xeni Jardin's Boing Boing posts) then readers of the wikipedia know what they're in for. It's certainly not libelous, nor is it going to 'damage' Ms. Jardin 208.20.220.72 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of my perceived interests, the information is solid. The XeniSucks site is a libelous defamation of this woman's character. ... [This] work is most certainly not "parody" nor "satire" ... Matt N 22:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we refrain from adding the link to the article until the XeniSucks site stays up long enough to be relevant. I'm sure there is tons of brief critisism of Xeni (or any other web personality) available on the internet already. If the XeniSucks site stays up and actually continues to critique the subject on an ongoing basis, maybe then it would be relevant to link to the site. If it is a short term project then it really doesn't merit a direct link, IMHO.

That sounds reasonable. How long is long enough? 2 months? 208.20.220.72 14:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We will know if it's relevant when we see it. If Xeni or her blog-mates over at BoingBoing continue to make an issue out of it, or if litigation actually happens, or if Sharp's site becomes a center for critisism of Xeni's writing, it should make itself obvious within a month or two. If Sharp and Xeni battled it out with pistols at 20 paces at a tech conference this weekend, it would be immediately relevant. I've noticed this problem with BoingBoing related Wikipedia edits before. These articles tend to attract rookie editors who want to passionately debate the relevance of a blog post only hours old, as if its immediate inclusion into Wikipedia is a crisis of some sort. Glowimperial 15:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That being said, it's hard for me to consider the site a "potentially litigous personal attack". Although [the] critique of Xeni via XeniSucks is harsh and aggressive, it's well within the bounds of parody and satire. Depending on your perception of Xeni, [the xenisucks.com site creator], it may appear to be in bad taste, but we're not in the business of regulating taste here on Wikipedia. Regarding the libel issue - what exactly on [xenisucks.com] page would be considered libel? Xeni herself seems to have no issue with linking to or promoting XeniSucks.com, I have a hard time seeing how she or anyone else could make an argument that she is being libeled, when she herself has actively promoted the site, and seems to be taking the critisism without a hint of seriousness. Glowimperial 23:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to 67.184.95.163) They're not all reverted. There are lots of anons who make great edits, and there are plenty of registered users who do bad things. This is my guess: Contributions from anons are scrutinized more. Newbies and others less familiar with Wikipedia tend to not create accounts - "I'll just change this one thing and be done with it." That and much of the vandalism comes from IP editors (or at least seems to). That's the perception. I read somewhere that anonymous editing is one of the fundamental parts of a Wiki. Of course, you could always create an account... :-> I hope this helps. --Christopherlin 15:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Chtistopher - lots of anon users contribute in a positive way to Wikipedia. I will add that 99% of the vandalism I revert on an almost daily basis is by unregistered users. Contributions by anonymous users do get scrutinsed and reverted much more agressively because of the massive number of anonymous vandals here. It's really easy to set up an account, and it's a great way to say that you're serious about making a real contribution to what we're doing here, even if your not going to edit every day. Glowimperial 18:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the page to its last known good state on the 22nd of March. Any and all edits after that point were either vandals or people cleaning up after them. Please don't change the page and add unverifiable facts. Ioerror 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that bold of an edit was warranted - is there an issue regarding the verifiablity of Xeni's birth name and her other alias(es)? Also, given that your photography is the subject of direct critisism on XeniSucks.com, isn't it a bit inappropriate for you to make edits regarding this issue? Glowimperial 20:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha. I hadn't even noticed that he was refering to me as I'm not a teenager. That's cute. And yeah, my issue is this: there's no backup to the supposed "facts." "Content must be verifiable." Where's the source? This is clearly the result of an interpersonal fight. The clear choice was to revert back to the point before all this fighting and to discuss the changes from that point on. This way sockpuppets and other non verifiable facts can be left out of the article. Seems reasonable, doesn't it? I personally think if this crap keeps up, the page should be protected until all this blows over. Ioerror 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean to ride you, I'm just anal retentive on potential conflict of interest issues (such as editing a page on yourself, or about an issue in which you are personally involved. Given the potential issue it might be a good idea to keep your inputs regarding the XeniSucks issue to the talk page. Or not, this is a minor issue, and your involvement is pretty distant, but making edits on this issue might be interpreted as a response to that critisism, or that you represent Xeni's personal interest in your edits. Why do you not consider the traveltrust archived page with contact info for "Xeniflores Hamm" to be not verification of her previous alias? I don't have any reason to believe that that page was fabricated and exists solely to "out" Xeni's "transitory alias" from her birth name to her current name, it should probably stay in the article. I haven't seen anything verifiable regarding her birth name yet, so that can stay out, but the earlier alias should stay in, IMHO.

I don't see this page as needing a lock-down. The rate of trolling is pretty high, but I'm not seeing the kind of sockpuppet madness that goes on over at Sollog, yet. Glowimperial 20:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto on the above: certainly the Xeniflores Hamm aka was attested for. I don't see why that particular bit of information was removed, even if it was entered by an anonymous user. It seems Ms. Jardin has acknowledged the Xeniflores name was an alias, it seems logical if perhaps not proven that her birth name was Jenny. And the Xenisucks author reads as if he knows people who know/knew Ms. Jardin personally so it's not unreasonable to assume that he actually does know her "real" name. Why not get in touch with him? Mvuijlst 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been through this debate on other articles. If the subject doesn't want their birth name made public, us Wiki editors have to provide linkable, irrefutable evidence of the original name, or it will never make it into the article, possibly triggering an annoying revert war which is not usually worth the time. Glowimperial 23:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And it is also worth noting that, in general, such information is entirely unencyclopedia and should be omitted on purely editorial grounds anyway. (There are exceptions, of course... the point is that this is a valid editorial judgment, even if there is linkable irrefutable evidence.) --Jimbo Wales 22:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that there's significant interest in the the subject's past and the "backstory" behind her unusual name to merit inclusion of previously used names in the article. Some brief internet research reveals that Xeni has likely used several different variations of the name, and there seems to be sufficient confusion and interest regarding the subject's history and what appears to be her attempts to obfuscate that history to warrant inclusion in this document. Her "mysterious identity" is a key feature of her role as a pop culture celebrity and is one of the factors that have been part of her success as a blogger and internet personality. If this article, and by extension Wikipedia itself, is intended to be a comprehensive document than it should include data regarding the subject's name. Glowimperial 23:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I hate to disagree with The Jimbo Wales here, but call such information "entirely unencyclopedia" is total crap. The first two words of the Ringo Starr article are "Richard" and "Starkey". Is that entirely unencyclopediac, too? Front243 00:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant, and John Wayne all have their given names listed as well. 208.20.220.72 00:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Should birth date also be ommitted? It seems in reverting my sentence about her current name not being her given name, you also reverted the info I added about her birthdate. It also seems like this discussion should be under the name heading instead of the xenisucks.com heading. 208.20.220.72 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

One clarification. Nothing I found indicated that Xeni was trying to hide her name changes, so if we use "alias" in this discussion it's not in the sense of "witness protection program" alias, but just that she used the first name Xeniflores at time X, and shortened it to Xeni at time X+1. --Zippy 03:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, this whole discussion of hiding her birth name seems really hypocritical in the face of how many times Xeni and her supporters have posted the full name (and all variations thereof) of the xenisucks.com author. (I count twice on boingboing and at least nine times above.) Front243 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, believe that Jacob Applebaum, a known close associate of Xeni Jardin, hardly represents NPOV in editing Xeni's page.

As this whole discussion should prove to you, adding in a link to xenisucks.com is not vandalism (a poor editorial decision, maybe, but not vandalism). Besides, name-calling is uncool, and you should be counting your reverts. Front243 12:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to reinforce that - we don't have a vandalism issue here, what we have here is a dialogue regarding two seperate situations. The first situation is the relevance of XeniSucks.com to this article, and the second situation is the importance or non-importance of the inclusion of previous names used by the subject, different than her current legal name. What we should be doing is refraining from making edits to the actual page right now, excepting grammar or other basic style edits, while the issues are discussed and we come to a consensus on how to make this article the best article it can be. Right now, I support the removal of the XeniSucks.com link, as there is no real consensus on the relevance of that link yet. We can afford to be patient here, no one is going to suffer if that link doesn't make it into the article immediately. Glowimperial 17:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This whole argument about xenisucks.com has nothing to do with any perceived legal issues and everything to do with hiding the truth. Since when has Wikipedia had issues with linking to potentially sensitive/illegal content? Look at this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocuast_denier). That page contains links to content that if published in Germany or Austria could see you experiencing jail time. This is not a place to boost one's ego or to only display information which portrays people in a good light. It is a fact that xenisucks.com exists. It is a fact that Xeni has in the past had different names. Last time I checked encyclopaedias were based around facts and there is therefore no reason why all the above information should not be included in her entry.Gerardm 10:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

... what I would propose is the creation of a new Wiki page specifically for XeniSucks.com. On this page we can examine the lives and histories and contributions to society of the ... people involved... Matt N 20:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I quote from (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/join/) "You Have the Right to Blog Anonymously.". Who cares if he tried to remain anonymous (the WHOIS info on xenisucks.com would suggest otherwise), if nothing else the creation of xenisucks.com proves that Xeni Jardin/Xeniflores Jardin/Olive Jardin/Whatever writes material that provokes a reaction. ... what matters is the concerted effort by Xeni and others to ensure that her entry here is exactly how she wants and portrays her in only in a good light. That is not how it works here or indeed in any encyclopaedia. ...Gerardm 21:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If facts are found about names or whatever I say post them. Xeni can complain about it but facts are facts. XeniSucks.com, however, is not a place where factual information is presented, and being that it was created in the spirit of extreme negativity and personal malice, I say it has no place on her page. Matt N 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Without Xeni Jardin, xenisucks.com would not exist. For that reason alone it is relevant to, well, Xeni Jardin. Are you saying in the parody section of Wikipedia we should not link to theonion.com (http://www.theonion.com) because it is not a place where factual information is presented? It belongs on her page because it shows that for whatever reason Xeni Jardin inspires someone to create a .website dedicated to her. Would you object if I created ilovexeni.com and someone linked to it? ...Gerardm 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

XeniSucks is not a parody site. It's a scathing PERSONAL attack, not satire, not parody. A site like "ILoveXeni" would also be irrelevant and improper for inclusion here. The Onion is a fine site, and you would never see something like the content of XeniSucks there. Even Defamer would probably poke fun aggressively but they would never stoop to specific personal attacks. Matt N 23:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not the same person as gerardm. We do seem to have some of the same pov on these issues, but are not the same person. Arguing with MATT N certainly won't change his mind, but I'd urge the other editors to actually check out the xenisucks.com top couple stories. The site links to Xeni's boing boing posts, and does parody them and mock them. The top posting at this moment is mocking a mash-up, followed by asking what's wrong with police gathering evidence of a crime, and mocking Xeni's "Drop Kittens, not Bombs" t-shirt.

The wonderful thing about all this, ... is that Xeni will continue to enjoy a fine and fabulous career, regardless of what's posted here, or elsewhere. Clearly, a majority of the world that's aware of Xeni finds her fascinating, highly intelligent, noteworthy, and professional. A small but vocal minority has gathered tar and feathers Rock on, Xeni! By the way ... Matt N 23:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

... What I do hate is encyclopedias being tainted by biased opinions. It is abundantly clear to one and all your bias in this situation and that has been further compounded by your false accusations. Gerardm 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As to glowimperial's objection that we'll know it's relevent when we see it, it certainly seems relevent now, more relevant than the dead links that had been on the article since this discussion has started that I just removed. If it ever becomes unrelevant, that seems the time to remove the link, instead of waiting for it to hit us with a relevancy stick.

Finally, I know inserting this comment here is confusing but it is a reply to Matt N. Who should be the one to take initiative and clean up the talk page? 208.20.220.69 23:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardles of how much bile [the xenisucks.com creator] has for Xeni Jardin, his site is obviously critisism via parody. I still don't think that makes it deserve mention (yet) in this article, mainly because the way the site is constructed it does not really provide serious critisism that would make it a valuable reference to Wikipedia readers, nor is the site in and of itself notable enough to deserve mention, IMHO. Maybe I'm not seeing it yet - I think we should monitor the XeniSucks.com situation for a few weeks and see if it merits mention in the article then. It's not that the critisisms of Jardin there aren't viable points of view, it's that the parody medium, combined with [the creator's] obvious seething dislike for Jardin blunts the value of his arguments tremendously.Glowimperial 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

... Frankly, I think the whole XeniSucks thing will have it's brief moment of internet novelty (as these things tend to do) and then slowly die off, making it not a good link from this article, nor a reference of any value. As xenisucks.com holds what is an obviously NPOV attitude towards Xeni and has an obvious axe to grind, his website is not a good source of data for this article. That being said, should his website be responsible for some notable activite in the life of the subject of this page, or become a wellspring of actual critisism (other than the griping that's there now) of the subject, it would be a worthy addition to this page. Critisism of individuals or their works (in this case the subject's published writings) are commonly linked to on Wikipedia, in an effort to provide varied perspectives of the subject or their works. That also being said, I see no need for a XeniSucks.com page here on Wikipedia. It is not notable enough to merit a page of it's own. If every "I'm complaining about this or that" blog on the internet had a Wikipedia page, we'd clock past that 2,000,000th article at the speed of light. Wikipedia may not be paper, but we sure as hell don't need to clutter this place naming every grain of sand in the internet universe. Glowimperial 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

...Glowimperial, you are 100% correct and I agree with you. I wish I were as reasonable about my thinking sometimes. I think your view is reasonable and responsible. I think there is not good in this world without healthy and sometimes violent criticism, but it must be criticism that is not tainted with envy and jealousy. If [xenisucks.com] changes [its] tune, I agree that a site critical of Xeni's actual words would not be improper. No one is immune to criticism, but no one should have to deal with having their actual person assaulted by maladjusted and envious carrion crows. Matt N 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to seperate the two issues XeniSucks.com has nothing to do with the Xeni Jardin name issue, as far as I'm concerned. While I'm advocating that we wait a while before including or not including the XeniSucks.com link or reference (it's a bad reference, as it's decidedly not a source of POV information) it in the article, we certainly can settle the name/identity issue to the best of our ability. Glowimperial 17:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So while everyone was fighting for 1-2 weeks about whether the link to xenisucks was relevent to the article or not, there were 2 links going off to dead sites. It was ok for those links to be there when they were useless, but it's not ok to post links to xenisucks.com when it's relevent? Eventually it may become unrelevent, but I'd say delete the link then instead of waiting to 'know it when we see it.' At this point, the links are really the most useful part of the article, so it seems like keeping them complete is the best plan. 208.20.220.72 16:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Having read all the comments on here I have decided to put the link to xenisucks.com back on. The reasons for this are: a) it is relevant as it is about Xeni, b) without Xeni the site would not exist therefore it deserves to be mentioned as it shows the reaction that people have to what Xeni writes and c) because we can. Wikipedia is better than an old encyclopedia because it can adapt in seconds. We don't have to wait for the next print run to update the information here. At this point in time xeniscuks.com exists, people are talking about it and I believe anyone looking at the Xeni Jardin page on Wikipedia deserves to know such a site exists. If the site no longer become relevant then lets remove it but for now it should be on the page. ----

I think more than your own opinion is needed on this matter, especially given that Wikipedians are about to delete the Xenisucks article itself. If Xenisucks is going to be deleted, why should such a non-notable site be kept here? To satisfy your need personal to be right? or to serve some greater "good"? Matt N 09:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if we are getting into opinions, it is *your* opinion that the site is non-notable. I happen to disagree. The onus is for you to tell us why it shouldn't be included. There is a piece of information that is directly related to Xeni Jardin. Please tell me why it should not appear in an entry about Xeni Jardin. However I fear we won't get a senisble debate as your opinion on Xeni Jardin is clearly biased as your posts in this discussion have proved. I am putting the link back up. --Gerardm 11:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your single opinion does not amount to a "consensus". When the Americans are up and out of bed, let's see what they have to say. Until then, I will revert every edit I see until I'm either blocked or feel a democratic consensus has been reached. Your transparent agenda of denigrating Jardin is not at all hidden by your multiple phony accounts and false "edit sincerity". Matt N 11:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh so now we wait for the Americans to come and regulate Wikipedia? What planet are you on? Could you please tell me why you think xenisucks.com should not be listed? To help you out, "because it criticises Xeni" is not an acceptable answer. And for the last time, I am not behind the anonymous edits you accuse me of. Would you like to provide some evidence to back up your claim? So far you have accused me of making edits from an account in the USA and in the Xeni edit you have accused me of having accounts in Australia too! Wow! Seriously, do you have any evidence for this? I have no personal opinion on Xeni Jardin but I will not stand by while someone who clearly is pro-Xeni tries to remove any criticism of her. I am now adding the link back --Gerardm 11:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your assertions of not having an opinion are absurd. No one is as motivated as you are without some driving factor. Xeni is obviously someoe you despise, most likely because you, like the other Jardin Haters, are the kind of male I describe on my user page. Myself, I'm not so much pro-Xeni as I am anti-defamation, but my job here is now done. I know from a pair of 3rd party individuals that my activity here has made a difference, in more ways than one. This satisfies me no end and now I must go. Matt N 11:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you feel like you didn't need to address the serious allegations you made against me regarding anoymous edits/sock puppets? Or shall we all just sit back and listen to more of your amateur psychology? When you say "Xeni, is a bright, benevolent, positive force in the world" and "Clearly, a majority of the world that's aware of Xeni finds her fascinating, highly intelligent, noteworthy, and professional" it is obvious you have a pro-Xeni bias. Nowhere have I commented either way to my like/dislike for Xeni because it bares no relation to the matter at hand. Your activity here has proved that Wikepedia has serious flaws because any cretin can change an entry. Throughout this debate all you have argued is your pro-Xeni agenda and you have yet to provide one good reason why xenisucks.com should not be included in her entry. And because of that, back in it goes. --Gerardm 12:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Strawpoll on xenisucks.com

• I think it is time to archive the straw poll, since we all seem to agree that in its current form as of this writing, and since April 7, 2006 when I personally added the link back, the XeniSucks link is good to go and is fine to appear here. Matt N 10:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so let's stop fighting and name-calling, and let's try to reach a real consensus. Do you support or oppose the inclusion of a link to xenisucks.com? Please sign your votes with four tildes. Front243 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Abstain

• Abstain: I refuse to contribute to this poll as it is fundamentally pointless. What if I start a strawpoll with a load of creationists (I am not a creationist by the way) and we get the majority to agree evolution didn't happen? Would that make it valid if the majority agree?

There have been, in my mind, no good agruments as to why it should not be included. Someone has suggested it doesn't add value; that is entirely subjective: some people may say it does. You can't have subjective arguments as to the inclusion of content. --Gerardm 15:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I will not participate in strawpoll. However, when Matt says "For the same general reasons that you would not put a link to the KKK on the Holocaust page", that is entirely not the point. There is not a 1-to-1 correlation between the KKK and the Holocaust; the KKK are not exclusively negative towards the Holocaust. xenisucks.com is exclusively commenting on Xeni Jardin. --Gerardm 22:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

• Support: I think the "energy" of the debate on this talk page shows the site is relevant, at least for now. C33 17:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (First and only edit by C33)
• Support: I agree with Gerardm, this vote is ridiculous, just like ANY internet poll. 208.20.220.69 18:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Then why in the world are you voting for Support? That's ridiculous. --Kickstart70·Talk 00:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support: It's become notable. Yes, that's a recent thing, but that should not be the determining factor on inclusion. Perhaps the info about xenisucks.com is not huge, but that's quite fairly because it's an external link about the person in question, and external links rarely have much information about them in Wikipedia. That's why external links are used in the first place, rather than just linking to a Wikipedia page specific to the external resource. --Kickstart70·Talk 21:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: As long as it's presented on the page as it is now, which is to say, in a neutral way, it's fine. A critical view is still a valid point of view. -- Mirrormaybe 05:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Criticism doesn't need to be constructive to be relevant, and parody can be very relevant specially when the subject is a controversial public figure. Lost Goblin 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: The vehemence with which the anti-xenisucks partisans decry xenisucks indicates to me that the site is relevant. Tafinucane 23:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Xeni is a writer, writing is a creative act, creative acts provoke criticism, that criticism is important.Delasky 06:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Notable critical site. Attacks are made based on published work and public facts and do not delve into prurient details or non-public incidents, although the attacks may be considered personal by a sensitive person. Look at all the anti-name of politician sites on wikipedia for instance. Calwatch 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: It's as relevant as an external link can be. I don't think a link should be excluded just because someone disagrees with the contents. Plus the wiki page for Xeni Jardin is all neutral or positive. There's nothing on the Xeni page that indicates anyone thinks she sucks. So the page should either provide the external link, or (in NPOV) explain that many people think Xeni sucks. Jjlira 17:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support: It's clearly become a notable site, as shown by all the discussion of it here and elsewhere, and although it is a rather distasteful 'attack site' it appears to contain nothing obviously false, libellous or illegal. It's mentioned in the article, so why not link to it? Terraxos, 20 April 2006
• Support It is relevant as an external link. Besides, it is also a notable critical site. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose: Primarily because it does not add any value to the article. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - The link contains no real further information about the subject, nor is the critisism there of any real value other than to establish that Xeni Jardin's work has critics. Given the broad critisism of Xeni that does exist (the sheer existence of the de-Xeni Greasemonkey script comes to min), perhaps the article itself could make mention of her critics in a broad sense. Glowimperial 15:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - For the same general reasons that you would not put a link to the KKK on the Holocaust page (the user C33 above is glaringly bogus, further demonstrating the kind of motivations behind something like Xenisucks). Apart from that, the Xenisucks site is simply the brooding ground of a vicious detractor with an obvious and rather pathetic personal agenda, adding no value to the page, no valid criticism (when there is an instance of valid criticism, it is so awash in hate and personal agenda that it becomes diluted). Were the site undertaken in a more scholarly and non-personal tone, there would be no argument from me. If you link this site, then why not link every site created in hate? Yes, let us include links to vicious attack sites created by non-notable individuals to all Wiki articles, equally. How about adding one to the Martin Luther King, Jr. page, or even the Bob Denver or Benny Hill or Sam Donaldson page? As it stands, Xenisucks is a rubbish site, constructed to defame and attack rather than analyze. There is nothing subjective about this assessment, unless you hate Xeni. Understand that I am aware that Xeni's excellent career and life will not see one blip of trouble from this Xenisucks site, and that no one with any sense whatsoever will give the site "the time of day" (in the professional world, or otherwise) but that is beside the point. Matt N 22:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the personal attacks! 129.55.200.20 13:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have no idea who this person is, but became involved because I reverted an edit. I followed the xenisucks.com link, and researched the Greasemonkey script. The xenisucks.com site provides no Constructive Criticism, rather only ridicule. If that's the case we could add that type of link for every individual in Wikipedia. The script is an interesting issue, and I'm split on that - however I will note that the creator's boss publically frowned heavily on the thing and apologised for its creation. Isn't there a link that provides actual, verifiable criticism of the subject? CMacMillan 22:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - We (wikipedia) really shouldn't be about giving people with a personal agenda spotlight. This is a personal attack site and it has no place in the wikipedia. If this was "XeniWatch" and the person had uncovered important facts about Xeni that would be one thing. It might be newsworthy, but this is just someone making personal attacks. If we allow this one that means anyone who wants to attack someone can create PERSONSNAME_SUCKS/BITES/IS-A-JERK and get a bunch of traffic. JasonCalacanis

These *sucks.com have been notable in the past. aolsuck.com and microsoftsucks.com were heavily involved in improving the customer service by those companies, and in the latter case dealing with the issue of contractor fair treatment. In any case, criticism is a valid form of expression, and you are intimately tied to the subject matter (being a friend and ex-employer of the person in question), so it's hard to put any weight behind your statements here. --Kickstart70-T-C 20:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that I know Xeni and worked with her puts more behind my statement. I've looked at the site and it is clearly of no importance when you look at her work. If there was something to this site beyond someone with a personal ax to grind I would agree with you 100%. If the person pointed out something of note about Xeni we should include. But someone putting up a site and saying "Xeni sucks" ten times a day is not "of note." Wikipedia shouldn't be the place for personal attacks. It should be the opposite, a place for accurate articles on a subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasoncalacanis (talk • contribs) .

And do you not see that the fact you worked with/are friends with Xeni makes your opinion biased? Who cares about what work she has does? There are sites that parody God and I'm sure Christians the world over would argue the importance of his work; it makes no difference to the existence of the parody. Clearly there are a sizable number of people who do not like Xeni Jardin and any attempt to misrepresent the existance of those people is wrong. Yes in your opinion she does a lot of a good and that is represented in her Wiki entry. But also she provokes a reaction in some that is negative and that is represented too. Are you seriously saying you want Xeni's entry to be nothing but positive reaction? --Gerardm 23:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Parody site, not relevant... does not add NPOV. Xeni is a person, not a corporate entity with a major, high-profile detractor here. It's strange how badly some of you want xenisuck.com to be a part of an encyclopedia entry here... makes me wonder about possible ulterior motives with some of you. Cowicide 05:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Article for site?

I don't think XeniSucks.com would make WP:WEB guidelines. If it deserves any sort of encyclopedic writeup, it should be here under criticism, if it gets longish, under a subsection of critcism. Besides, it's kind of strange for a criticism section to be almost as long as the rest of the article. --Christopherlin 20:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:WEB states:

"Web specific-content[3] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."

XeniSucks.com has be referenced in both the New York Times and BoingBoing iteself. Doesn't that make it relevant per the guidlines in WP:WEB? C33 03:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Wikipedia is not censored.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Her real first name

I still don't understand why her original name, the one given at birth, is still unknown. Is there no one from her home town or grade school who knows what she called herself before acquiring the "Xeniflores" in Guatemala? I mean, how can we know Stalin's full birth name, and not Xeni's? --Petzl (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires a reliable source for such information. A grade school classmate or resident of a home town is not a reliable source. Jokestress (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"A grade school classmate or resident of a home town is not a reliable source." REALLY? My god you guys hold yourselves to higher standards than journalists. Does someone actually have to produce a birth certificate? Do you also have Stalin's birth certificate on file? Seriously though, in this specific case, what would be considered "a reliable source", just asking... --203.59.112.44 (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We are a different entity entirely than journalists. News does not 'break' at Wikipedia, especially when it comes to articles about living persons. A reliable source could be any notable, reliable say-so as to her first name.Yeago (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

June 2008 controversy

While a one-sentence summary of this matter should be mentioned here, I believe the details should be on the Boing Boing page. As it stands, it seems to meet WP:UNDUE if it's more than a sentence or so. Jokestress (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a very public spat that ended up finally at NTY, LAT, and ChicagoT. Could you please suggest one sentance that could adequately convey the matter? I agree, it is rather lengthy, but honestly I don't see how its 'more appropriate' at boing boing, as that was merely the stage for the spat.Yeago (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the mainstream news interest centered on how to define Boing Boing in terms of journalism and the novel ethical issues raised. How is this:

A June 2008 controversy over Jardin's "unpublishing" of posts and links associated with sex blogger Violet Blue led to discussions about journalism ethics and standards and media transparency.

Source it with the LAT, Tribune, and NYT pieces, and perhaps the Boing Boing article on the matter. The personal speculation in Valleywag etc. doesn't seem relevant or appropriate. I just looked at the Boing Boing article, which has an expanded account of this controversy already. Thoughts? Jokestress (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me, particularly removing the blog sources. There is a good article in The Globe and Mail, which covers reactions to the controversy. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080704.wgtfridayreads0704/BNStory/Technology/home It seems like including a link to the removed posts is worth keeping in though, insofar as it is a primary source on the topic. 76.91.90.112 (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal speculation definitely needs to go. However, the LAT article strongly emphasizes the blue->jardin spat. I definitely think a minimal amount of content on the matter is fine, as [the matter] is already throughouly chronicled elsewhere. Nevertheless, its telling that we're having this talk here instead of other placesYeago (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

How's this: "A June 2008 controversy over Jardin's "unpublishing" of posts and links associated with sex blogger Violet Blue in the wake of a falling-out led to discussions about journalism ethics and standards and media transparency." I'll let y'all choose sourcing from the suggestions above, though I haven't seen a reliable source that mentioned the collection of unpublished VB material. Jokestress (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it except for it leaves out mention of the looming clandestine personal dispute which triggered the removal of the posts.. Reread. Looks good.Yeago (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I just put in the new version with the LAT and NYT sources. I don't think we need a million sources on this, but if there is other national-level coverage, we can certainly add that. Jokestress (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well. I think there was link in Valleywag that mentioned the collection of unpublished material. I'm not sure if Valleywag is considered reliable or not. My suggestion would be to leave it as a reference, but not mention it in the article text. Here's the link:

http://valleywag.com/5021672/boing-boings-relationship-with-violet-blue-comes-full-circle 76.91.90.112 (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word "unpublished" in the article about this event is incorrect according to Wikipedia's standard, even when used in quotes. "Unpublished" is the doublespeak-style word with which Xeni and others at BoingBoing labeled the act of deletion, and they have been criticized for using that word. The criticism of the word is too diffuse to mention in the article, however. It is correct to say that the items mentioning Violet Blue were deleted from the publicly-viewable BB site, and possibly deleted even in BoingBoing's private web site records. We have no way of knowing if the latter is true, but the former is unquestionably true. The article should call a spade a spade: As far as any visitor to BB is concerned, the Violet Blue posts were deleted. HarshLanguage (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I just undid an anonymous revert that had no comment nor explanation here. But on review of the paragraph, I'm wondering if the term "unpublish" is important enough to this controversy to explain in a separate sentence. It would still be incorrect to use the term without first stating that it means deletion of the posts from the public website. Please keep in mind that "unpublish" is not a regular word; it is niche technical jargon in website content management systems only. However, because of the controversy the word "unpublish" itself stirred up, i.e. that BoingBoing was specifically avoiding the words 'delete' or 'remove' in order to soften the impact of their action, it may be worth a new sentence such as "Boing Boing described this action as 'unpublishing' the comment", with a citation of the BB post and comments where Xeni or another BB representative used it, and even perhaps references to the critiques of the word. HarshLanguage (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Age

How hard is it to actually pin down her age? Why are we just accepting random math instead of facts? If she's 37 (shaving off at least a decade, are we?) then I'm made of chocolatey nougat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.108.123 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it 5 years and still no consensus on her real name?

Cary Grant was born "Archibald Leach." Prince was born "Prince Rogers Nelson." Lady Gaga was born "Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta." I found this out on Wikipedia. Xeni Jardin was not born "Xeniflorès Jardin." How is it that Wikipedia cannot inform us what her birth name is?--Petzl (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If you would bother to read one of the references in the article (currently ref. #4) you will see the quote, "Xeni Jardin, pronounced SHEH-nee zhar-DAN, isn't her given name. Jardin doesn't reveal that, she says, because she wants to avoid dangerous people from her past." That should explain why Wikipedia has not sent out a private investigator to dig up her real name, thank you. --Skol fir (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I might add that she herself has weighed in on the issue here, at Talk:Xeni_Jardin/Archive_0, and insists that her current legal name is "Xeni Jardin." She also denies any other names that have been floating out there in cyberspace. Really, who cares what her birth name was? If she does not want to reveal it herself, maybe we should just respect her wishes. This is a BLP, after all, where privacy must be protected. --Skol fir (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You actually think that she's concerned about "dangerous people in her past"? What use is her name being shielded when her image is constantly in the media? When I read the "dangerous people" quote it appeared obvious to me that that was a tongue-in-cheek reference. For someone who is in the Witness Protection Program, yes, Wikipedia can relent, but someone who is a public figure should enjoy no such license. People who seek privacy don't become internet bloggers or TV personalities. Sure, some facts about BLP shouldnt be in WP (eg, current address), but something as basic as a name, especially for a public figure, should be in WP.--Petzl (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, for a BLP, "If she does not want to reveal it herself, maybe we should just respect her wishes." Did you not read her own contribution to the discussion at her Talk Page? Her rights trump yours in this case. --Skol fir (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Got it. We do have to record her assumed name, and the various, eccentric pronunciations and contractions of her assumed name, but we (or perhaps just myself, you seemed very specific), are forbidden from the Tree of Knowledge of her actual birth name.--Petzl (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Xeni's family name is Hamm. We also know who her brother, father and mother are, but nothing about her given name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inbody (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The most likely set of events is she has some entirely uninteresting given name like "Susan Smith Hamm" and she feels embarrassed by it. Generally, people do not have an reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their birth name, birth place or other general biographical details. Frankly, I don't feel her wishes on the matter are of import. When you live a public life, academics have a responsibility to capture you as you are, not as you wish to be seen.67.0.213.91 (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't exactly a case for Sherlock Holmes, just somebody who lives near a library with the Richmond Times-Dispatch on microfilm. Pop in the August 1980 reel, look for the obit of Glenn B. Hamm, and examine the list of survivors. You'll be able to improve the Glenn B. Hamm article with additional sourcing and have the satisfying solution to a very minor mystery. - Dravecky (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Schorlarly Article or Resume?

Almost all of the citations are from Jardin's work. That's okay if they are citing her opinions, but many of them are citing in regard to fact. Generally, there is a conflict of interest when someone describes themselves. Works of autobiography can give insight into someone's attitudes, but they are generally less factual than scholarly works of biography by independent academics.

A lot of this article seems like self-promotion. I am neutral on the issue of xenisucks.com; I'm not aware of enough independent citations to demonstrate the scope of this controversy.

If there are no citations from independent sources, then the content must be trimmed. I can say that I erected the Eiffel Tower and cite my blog post: I erected the Eiffel Tower. It doesn't mean its true, though.

This article needs major work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.213.91 (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Cory Doctorow, Xeni Jardin, Alice Taylor --Guy Macon (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Xeni Jardin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060703075026/http://jcgi.pathfinder.com:80/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,1011763,00.html to http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,1011763,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080711125025/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com:80/webscout/2008/07/xeni-jardin-and.html to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/07/xeni-jardin-and.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Xeni Jardin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704010555/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com:80/webscout/2008/07/boingboing-blog.html to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/07/boingboing-blog.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xeni Jardin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090325090313/http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/latimes/2005-09-25_latimes_xeni_google.pdf to http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/latimes/2005-09-25_latimes_xeni_google.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xeni Jardin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090507173426/http://gawker.com:80/5021288/how-xeni-and-violets-boing-boing-affair-went-sour to http://gawker.com/5021288/how-xeni-and-violets-boing-boing-affair-went-sour

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)