Talk:Sarah Jeong

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2018

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. The line "Soon after being hired... was found to have posted a number of... racist messages directed at white people," is not in two important ways. First, it uses the word "found," which suggests a mainstream authority, preferably a scientific one. Second, ThePostOnline is an explicitly right-wing news site, according to wikipedia's own article on it, and therefore not a reliable source. I suggest one of three courses of action:

1. Add a "needs a better source" tag to the citation.
2. Change the line to something like: "Jeong has been accused of posting a number of messages on social media platform Twitter that are racist, hateful, violent, and aggressive."
3. Remove the line entirely.

JeanLackE (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Done per 3. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Offsite efforts

Since the subject joined the NYT, offsite efforts from conspiracy theorists and their ilk to cherry pick social media quotes have begun. Examples:

• example 1
• example 2
• example 3

Looking at the history page this has already led to some bad faith edits to push an agenda.Citing (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeong made a number of RACIST tweets with regards to "White people." The New York Times, Jeong herself, the Twitter archive, and Fox News all admit that. anyone with a brain took offense to the tweets. The New York Times replied to their concerns. This was a newsworthy happening.

So I have a question.

First: what right leaning site is acceptable to Wikipedia? If Fox publishes a story on it, can that be used as a citation? Second: Obviously the New York Times and the Washington Post lean left. Why would they be acceptable sources if Fox is not? Third: If the tweets themselves exist, why does it matter what source points to them? If Wikipedia only accepts left wing sources, then all the left has to ever do is not report on anything ethically problematic for the left, e.g. embargo leftist racism.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/02/new-york-times-editorial-board-just-hired-virulent-racist/ , https://www.nationalreview.com/news/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-hires-writer-racist-past/ , must be "conspiracy theorists" attacking a sweet innocent woman out of nothing more than bad faith. How dare anyone get upset about racial hatred directed towards whites! 174.52.219.29 (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Biographies of living people must adhere to very high standards. If you are curious about sourcing please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. In this case there is a clear-cut effort to push an agenda using unreliable sources (see examples above).Citing (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

All the tweets in question are archived on archive.is which is considered a reliable source on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Using_archive.is 195.138.52.26 (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Generally you're not supposed to link to primary sources, especially in a biography of a living subject. Their archival is not the problem. The problem is this is clearly part of an effort to discredit someone and Wikipedia is not the place for this.Citing (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this the right way to edit? It seems my last set of questions did not come through.2601:281:C501:3BE8:26:FE3C:149:9B37 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Twitter behavior/ abusive tweets are included in someone's biography. Quick random example I could find browsing I just wonder if a well known conservative journalist or politician had made similar remarks on black people ie. referring to genetic inferiority as Sarah Jeong did and National Review a 62 year old publication published a story on it. Would you object to an edit too? 195.138.52.26 (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That guy got arrested for tweets. The policy on biographies of living people is to be very careful with what gets added as this is an encyclopedia and not a source of breaking news. Don't give undue weight to minor topics. This biography is, what, three paragraphs long with one of those dedicated to some tweets, with absolutely no context? This does not look like a good-faith effort to improve the article.Citing (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not an "effort to discredit her", Wikipedia is for factual information and this is just stating the facts. It's not discrediting her because of the tweets, she discredited herself when she made the racist tweets. I know you have a clear bias and an agenda to help a racist, so this will only turn into another pointless edit-war. Luchador619 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's up on Fox now. Here is a comparable Wikipedia article. Notice the controversy section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_D._Williamson

The left leaning NYT has acknowledged her tweets now, so it's fine to add to this article under a controversy section.

Many sources are covering this controversy as well as the response of Jeong and the NYT which are starting to also be included in new articles . I think its unavoidable at this point that this must be included in the article; whatever we include will be contentious and it should be hashed out of the talk page instead of in a pointless edit war. Also, by waiting a bit more articles from a wider variety of sources will probably come out, to satisfy those who have an intense dislike of fox/NR/WT. SWL36 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Is placating people who dislike RS because they (the editors) are biased something we really should be playing along with? Demigord (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Can also add the SF Chronicle and Reason to sources publishing on this. Daily Telegraph, too, apparently.Demigord (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Thank you. Obviously I am learning. While I lean right (classical liberal, Locke/Mill), my main interest is with internal consistency between Wikipedia articles. I think it would be possible to eliminate more of the inherent bias by simply requiring different types of articles to be consistent with each other. In this case, by looking at the Kevin D. Williamson article above, we can see there is a controversy section which outlines a situation very similar to what we have with Ms. Jeong's bio. I am not experienced enough yet to directly edit the article. Hence my several formerly unsigned comments. Again, I am trying to work in good faith to help improve Wikipedia. Other editors have made some suggestions about sources. I want to reread the article on Wiki bias as well, and do what I can from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias Other suggestions are welcome. I have a lot to learn, but I believe I can sign now. Thanks again.2601:281:C501:3BE8:26:FE3C:149:9B37 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The Williamson example is not at all commensurate given that he was fired over the issue (thus it is much more significant to his career and an encyclopedic biography of him), but additionally that section of his bio is very poorly done and does not reflect the kind of encyclopedic summary of reliable secondary sources WP content policies ask us to aim for (WP:QUOTEFARM among other issues). I don't have time just now but I will go improve it as soon as I can. In the meantime, no one should take its current version as a model. For those new, please read WP:Other stuff exists on the care to take with reasoning by comparison to other entries--Wikipedia is a constant work-in-progress and just because one entry looks a given way does not mean it has been brought up to standard or should be emulated. See also WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Some comparisons can be useful but it is often more advisable to consult content policies and the WP:Manual of style for best guidance. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"The Williamson example is not at all commensurate given that he was fired over the issue(thus it is much more significant to his career and an encyclopedic biography of him)". I would think that since she is actively working on the editorial board of the New York Times that makes her a far more significant influencer. That is, her position of power in our society relative to Williamson would seem to indicate the opposite of what you have said; she merits a more thorough entry. Nevertheless, thank you for attending to the Williamson article if the quality is poor by Wikipedia standards. Also, thank you for the help pages. I will create a username soon. 2601:281:C501:3BE8:26:FE3C:149:9B37 (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, questions like, 'what is the relative influence of the Atlantic versus the Times?' are judgment calls that WP policy (developed by community consensus) explicitly forbids users from making on their own; we should only follow what reliable secondary sources say about the topic at hand. The main content policies WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:No original research go into this in much more detail and are worth a read as well--I know a lot of WP policy can be very counter-intuitive (or at least it was to me when I started editing!) and operates very differently from journalism, academic research, and so forth. (There are whole sites, like Everipedia, created entirely because some folks strongly disagreed with, e.g., Wikipedia's relatively high bar for what's permissible to include here). But in any case welcome and happy editing! Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions getting oriented that I can help with! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Again here are her tweets (I don't understand why someone would delete them):

• https://archive.fo/byEMf
• https://archive.fo/yXccF
• https://archive.fo/3JXbr
• https://archive.fo/QyWKK
• https://archive.fo/CIlmU
• https://archive.fo/HTSXh
• https://archive.fo/HYPOI
• https://archive.fo/BmBJ0

It's not about politics. It's about truth. Those are the things she said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.39.64.68 (talk • contribs)

Tweets are fine for the talk page. Editorializing about them (as happened previously) is not, per WP:NOTFORUM, and as the notice at the top of this page reminds us, all WP policies on WP:Biographies of living people apply here as well as to the entry itself; violations will be deleted. As for the tweets, WP:No original research as well as other content policies like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUEWEIGHT govern what may be included in the entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but someone deleted them from the talk page and wrote something about "white genocide conspiracists". I'm not sure this is what Wikipedia is about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.39.64.68 (talk)

I didn't see anyone removing the tweets from this talk page (though correct me if I've missed it). Someone did remove my comment about conspiracy theorists trying to get her fired and edit the article.Citing (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw them getting removed. Thereafter your comment appeared. I was like "Holy shit, there are some strongly biased people here."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.39.64.68 (talk)

Please sign your posts with ~~~~, it makes the conversation easier to follow. I can't find what you mentioned. Point me to a specific revision in the page history.Citing (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

If all you new editors who are so interested in dropping these tweets and blackballing a living person without secondary sources could pay a little attention to Wikipedia's policies, that would be great. 185.39.64.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), you could start by reading WP:SECONDARY, and while you're at it, please SIGN YOUR MESSAGES. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Controversial tweets

I've added a new subsection on the controversy. The information is sourced from reliable sources and I went out of the way to include who found the tweets, what the tweets said, what context the tweets were said within, and the response from the NYT and Jeong herself. SWL36 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

one of these tweets included her saying “Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.

Oh how harmless. Another tweet included her saying: "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" and another one "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins".Template:Subset:unsigned IP

Here are some reliable sources discussing this issue.[1][2][3][4] Truthsort (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It's undue weight and inappropriate for the article. This article is a stub and most of it is about the tweets and as I mentioned above this is part of an effort from many online communities. Mentioning them only makes sense in the context of her work and research on online harassment and the fact that she is often on the receiving end of it. Oddly, I don't see a lot of volunteers to add that content.Citing (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I'd start the sentence with --

• On August 2, 2018, Reason Magazine published the title, "The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People", after FOX News, and the National Review, reported on her controversial Tweets. An official Twitter account, NYTimes Communications, attributed Jeong's Twitter statements to rhetoric, confirming that they were aware of the Tweets and that Jeong would be hired to write for the Editorial section.

References

cheers ESparky (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both, SWL36 and Truthsort; I did not feel the first version had sufficient coverage to warrant inclusion and so I have removed it until we can find consensus here, per WP:ONUS, but I will read the new sources now and then weigh back in. Thanks much. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• A few new RS ABC News, NY Daily News, and NY Post. Plus the NY times has now talked about it via twitter PackMecEng (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The initial version, cited to the tweets themselves, was contrary to WP style and a poor BLP addition. The revised version, citing to RS sources, was a definite improvement. A single sentence cited to multiple independent articles on the subject is a reasonable addition to the article. Neutral wording is important, but given the amount of coverage, we certainly have enough significant secondary source coverage" for a brief, factual mention of the tweets.Dialectric (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was one of the editors removing the original section due to WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR (as you note). The number of reliable secondary sources are an improvement and we should have at least a sentence. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, so, the Post has limited credibility (by WP standards) in general; The Hill fouls up theirs seriously by claiming she's 49 which is just factually wrong by about two decades; and the NYT covering itself we would never use to evaluate something's significance (i.e. we don't use NYT reviews of books by NYT writers). I think the thing to do is give it a few days and see what happens. All should keep in mind that Wikipedia does not aim to be (nor is equipped to be) a news outlet: this entry is meant to gather an encyclopedic biography of this individual and it can be hard to tell how encyclopedically significant an event is (especially something like Twitter outrage) until later. What Wikipedia should not do is place a thumb on the scale by imposing our own opinion in violation of WP:NOR before reliable secondary sources are clear enough--most of all, we categorically are not here to make the news. (Can be frustrating, I know, but sometimes WP is just not the right venue.) Innisfree987 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the post is iffy. But Fox, ABC, and NY Daily are solid. The importance of the NYT twitter responding is validation of issues, not something to be put in the article directly. The sources listed above mention the response from NYT and those can be sources for that to help balance the view. PackMecEng (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed those are the better sources; but a few legit sources doesn't necessarily imply encyclopedic significance. Per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS, we definitely don't chronicle every Twitter dustup even that gets some press; for many of our living subjects, that would shift our account from an encyclopedic summary to a Borgesian map. This is in the news right now so it can feel pressing for WP:Recentism reasons, but we need to make sure it's an event of biographical significance. I don't think it's possible to know that just yet. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with slowing done a bit, articles are still being churned out and we will know more about where this stands by the day's end. This hour we now have articles from leftwing newblogs like splinter, thecut, and the marysue coming out in defense of of Jeong. I think by the end of the day we will have a better idea on how important the section is. I think that the coverage right now from just WP:RS is more than enough to warrant at least a sentence on the controversy, and if it lasts more than a day, a second might be needed. SWL36 (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Eh wouldn't hurt to give it a day or two and see if it keeps running or dies. PackMecEng (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the tricky bit is that in truth some media sources look at Wikipedia and it can influence how they cover a topic, while our entire content policy is premised on following their independent, professional editorial judgment on something's significance (WP:NOR), since we don't have our own experts to make that evaluation reliably (RIP, Nupedia). For the WP model to work, we really need RS to decide independently how to deal with it first, and then trail behind to develop our version accordingly (we're a lagging indicator of significance, as economists would say), in the context of our other policies. So I think a few days' breathing room and then look at what we have would work well. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The one-sentence approach seems fair for the following days. If you allow me a suggestion, what about using Template:Current on the following days? This alerts readers about eventual pitfalls and seems like a possible stem towards consensus. --Brandizzi (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The current template is good for when something unquestionably merits inclusion in the encyclopedia and there's debate about how to cover it (say, an on-going coup). Twitter conflict is more in a category of things that may or may not merit inclusion at all--for instance, if it ends up being in the press only one or two days, I'm really not sure that's encyclopedic material. So while it's accurate the entry's subject is currently in the press, a "current" tag puts weight in the subject's biography on that particular bit of press--and we don't have consensus yet that this is in fact material for an encyclopedic biography. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to disagree strongly. The article barely mentions her work, giving undue weight in a biography of a living person for something that could be completely irrelevant in the long run. For context, she has done a lot of work on online harassment and the gamergate controversy, making herself known to many communities that are known for bad faith engagements and attacking women and minorities via distributed harassment. I've linked some example conversations about her/this article. I doubt it's a coincidence that suddenly her article is getting a ton of attention, and that so many of the edits are purely negative.Citing (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd be correct to say you are concerned many of the editors adding this content have negative opinions about Sarah Jeong? --Brandizzi (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. I am concerned many of the editors are not acting in good faith. Here is a user removing my comment about outside communities. Here is another making false claims that I removed talk page material and then wrote my initial comment.Citing (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe we do not even need to use the NYT tweet as a source, since ABC is a secondary source to the content of the tweet. --Brandizzi (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, we have a couple secondary sources that mention NYT's tweet. Using it as a source on it's own would be a primary source issue. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit drafts

Harassment campaign? None of the RSes mentioned characterize this as a harassment campaign (though I'm sure there are more unreliable sources that characterize it as such) and instead discuss the contents of the tweets and the response from the NYT. Mentioning that the controversy was started when the tweets were unearthed by conservative commentators is fine, because several sources characterize it in that fashion. The controversy is not about her being harassed, its about her making racist statements in the past. SWL36 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Her current outlet is considering it a coordinated harassment campaign.Citing (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Are any neutral sources saying that? I can't find any news organizations she is not currently or soon to be employed at saying she is the target of a "harassment campaign". I only see sources talking about the "harassment" that was the Tweets this conversation is the subject of. I looked through all of these articles from major news organizations:

BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45052534

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ny-times-stands-by-new-hire-sarah-jeong-over-twitter-furor/2018/08/02/48e2bfd0-968c-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html?utm_term=.6f612920d4c8

New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/media/sarah-jeong-new-york-times.html

The Hill: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/400121-ny-times-defends-hiring-of-editorial-writer-after-emergence-of-past-racial

Washington Times: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/2/sarah-jeongs-racist-tweets-spotlighted-after-nytim/

CNN: https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/02/media/new-york-times-sarah-jeong-twitter/index.html

FOX: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html

NY Post: https://nypost.com/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-editorial-board-hire-despite-racist-tweets/

US News: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-york/articles/2018-08-02/ny-times-stands-by-new-hire-sarah-jeong-over-twitter-furor

ABC: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-times-stands-hire-sarah-jeong-twitter-furor-56994680

Ikjbagl (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's one agreeing with the portrayal as harassment. Give it a few days and there will be a bunch of thinkpieces and talking head interviews too because that's the nature of the beast. I'm repeating myself but we need to be careful with biographies of living people.Citing (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

An opinion piece in a magazine is hardly a WP:RS. This conversation is still largely pointless as we still want to wait a bit before drafting a statement. SWL36 (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Citing: I have to agree with SWL36 that that is NOT a reliable source. Not to sound like a parrot myself, but every major news organization seems to agree with the overall story and none of them characterize this as a "harassment campaign". Reporting that this person has tweeted racist things does not equate to harassment, and no reputable sources have claimed otherwise. In fact, the BBC openly characterizes this as "Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter". Ikjbagl (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

None of these sources are giving an overall story. A package of out-of-context tweets was posted this morning and a bunch of partisan sources ran with it. Various people are tweeting about it, and now news sources are talking about that, including many who think this is a bad faith attempt to get someone fired. A Wikipedia biography is not the place to sort this out. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is quite strict about this.Citing (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find any reputable sources that characterize this the way you do. I linked articles from ten major news stations and none of them are talking about this being a "bad faith attempt to get someone fired". No reputable sources that I've seen are characterizing the Tweets as out-of-context. Many of the news stations I linked are praised for being non-partisan (and are accordingly frequently cited on Wikipedia, including BBC), and I haven't seen reputable sources claiming that this is a partisan attack. The news sources pretty unanimously state the same story. I don't mean to attack you here; it would really help if you could provide some reputable sources that support what you're saying. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The CNN source you provided cites the Editor in Chief of HuffPo characterizing it that way as well as a few others. The Verge characterizes it that way (again per your CNN source). The section above about offsite efforts links examples of people trying to get her fired over this as well as trying to edit this article. Wikipedia is not a news aggregator and the community has a responsibility to write about living people very carefully. Given her history of writing about online harassment movements (including ones that have trolled Wikipedia!) there is good reason to approach this very cautiously.Citing (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The only place in the CNN source where it characterizes the current controversy as harassment is when it direct quotes The Verge's editorial. SWL36 (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Protection note

I have temporarily protected the article from editing given the recent edit-warring over content that raises BLP concerns. Please gain consensus on what exactly to say about the recent controversy, where to include it in the article, and what sources to cite and then use the {{Edit fully-protected}} for the edit to be implemented. If editors here cannot reach a consensus among themselves, consider asking for help at BLP noticeboard. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that the controversy of Jeong's Tweets should be mentioned.

Both the backlash to her tweets and the history of the tweets should be mentioned. Its obvious that this issue won't be forgotten, and its a significant part of her career due to the recent rising. Its the entire reason why this discussion exists.

Her response to the tweets surfacing should be mentioned. - AH (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Her racist tweets should be mentioned because it is the primary reason she is notable to most news outlets. Richard Spencer would not have a Wiki entry if he wasn't a white supremacist. 142.196.43.164 (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it's ridiculous to say that this isn't notable at this point, every news station is covering it and this will be the only reason people come to this wiki page for several months. I am aware that she is "notable" for appearing in earlier news articles, but anyone learning of her in the coming days will be learning about her because of this controversy, not because they are interested in a random journalist. I'm having a hard time understanding why it's not on the page already, maybe just because nobody has written about it neutrally yet. There is no shortage of reliable sources:

BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45052534

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ny-times-stands-by-new-hire-sarah-jeong-over-twitter-furor/2018/08/02/48e2bfd0-968c-11e8-818b-e9b7348cd87d_story.html?utm_term=.6f612920d4c8

New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/media/sarah-jeong-new-york-times.html

The Hill: http://thehill.com/homenews/media/400121-ny-times-defends-hiring-of-editorial-writer-after-emergence-of-past-racial

Washington Times: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/2/sarah-jeongs-racist-tweets-spotlighted-after-nytim/

CNN: https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/02/media/new-york-times-sarah-jeong-twitter/index.html

FOX: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html

NY Post: https://nypost.com/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-editorial-board-hire-despite-racist-tweets/

US News: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/new-york/articles/2018-08-02/ny-times-stands-by-new-hire-sarah-jeong-over-twitter-furor

ABC: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-times-stands-hire-sarah-jeong-twitter-furor-56994680

Ikjbagl (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that eventually after the article becomes unlocked, CNN, for example, could be cited. XavierItzm (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

References

BBC says (Headline): "Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter"

The BBC, which is generally considered a WP:RS around these parts, reports:

The New York Times has defended a new member of its editorial board who wrote racist tweets about white people.

I fail to see why this would not be included in the article. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anyone disagreeing that the tweets are in fact racist. At the very least, we could insert a sentence that says: "Sarah Jeong become the subject of widespread criticism in the media in early August 2018 when, upon her hiring by the New York Times Editorial Board, it was discovered that she had posted a series of racist Twitter messages disparaging white people." I don't think any of that is disputed in any way at this point.Ikjbagl (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Support inclusion of your sentence as proposed and using the BBC as source. Remember, the page has been locked up and a condition has been imposed that consensus on the sentence and source must be reached. XavierItzm (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Just adding that my response here could be used to add two or three more sources to back up that the criticism was "widespread", with no fewer than 10 major news organizations reporting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#I_think_that_the_controversy_of_Jeong's_Tweets_should_be_mentioned%2E Ikjbagl (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that additional sources could be added later. However, let's not muddy the waters and see if consensus can be reached. XavierItzm (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Support sentence proposed Conveys what occurred concisely, with the article in the BBC I think its nigh impossible to describe the event as not noteworthy. SWL36 (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding noteworthiness, the story is now on the Front Page of BBC.com/news, archive link here https://web.archive.org/web/20180803003558/https://www.bbc.com/news Ikjbagl (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per the above stated reasons for waiting to decide whether this should be included at all, and if yes per the sources, then how it should be characterized. We remain WP:NOTNEWS. We look at how a group of sources deal with a topic; decide if it merits inclusion in an encyclopedic account of, in this case, the subject's biography; then summarize the significant viewpoint or viewspoints. Reiterating the BBC's version is what news aggregation sites do. We're not that. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the not news point about Wikipedia, but I disagree with your characterization. All of the reputable sources linked so far deal with the subject in the same way. This single news event is more notable by Wikipedia's own (secondary-source based) standards than the rest of this person's career. The other secondary source mentions of her up to this point have all been in blogs, University blogs or lesser known websites (though she was cited by Forbes), and she now has an article on every major news website related to this incident. She has also had a multitude more edits to her page in the past day than she has had in her career. Waiting to see if the event "becomes" notable makes less sense when the event is already more notable than the rest of her page so far constructed. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I sure would like to work on expanding the rest of it but unfortunately I'll have to do so by edit request for now! Meanwhile. The number of edits has no bearing, really. We don't make decisions based on popularity. Other points: the term "racist" is definitely not being used universally; ABC, WashPost, and USNews use the expression "derogatory". CNN calls "disparaging" and notes many people defending Jeong call them "satirical". Who knows where it will land when the dust settles--if anywhere worth noting. Beyond word choice, your note above saying I don't think any of that is disputed in any way at this point is just the issue: as WP:NOTNEWS, we're not aiming to post an update "at this point" (which would be appropriate, for a news site!), we're trying to decide if an event is rates a mention of an encyclopedic bio, which I don't think we can see on a subject like this after one day. I'm not saying this should definitely never be addressed; I'm only saying WP:CRYSTAL applies in understanding the significance of this, or not, in the bigger picture. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Support There has to be something about this incident, otherwise the article does not meet WP:N (virtually none of the references are independent -- connected by school or employer), I've seen a lot stronger articles get deleted in AfD. I think the story here is that some feel it is racism (half of the headlines) and the NYT has discounted it as rhetoric. ESparky (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

ESparky, do you have a second account? The AfD counter doesn't show you have participated there at all. Additionally, I note the user page for this account discloses you are being paid by "Media Aggregators". Are you being paid for edits to this page? If so, you should please disclose that to this page with the template {{connected contributor (paid)}}. Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: No, but thanks for asking, that work is exclusively in the music industry and I don't edit any prose in the article space regardless of topic. Now, on this topic, I will disclose that I am a white male, otherwise, no COI. We have a woman with a self-published book where her college allowed her to make a presentation and a video about it, she won a 30 under 30 award from her employer Forbes, there is something about a blog she started but the references don't mention her. There are two articles where she is mentioned but she is not the subject of the story. As it stands, this article does not pass WP:N. Her racist comments are what makes her notable. ESparky (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Birthplace

I suggest removing "south-Korean-born" from the lead section. Jeong immigrated with her parents at 3 years old, and is a U.S. citizen. We don't mention the immigration issue in the body of the article at all. According to the Manual of Style, "previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse this request. It could fit easily and much more appropriately in the Early life section, e.g. "Jeong was born in South Korea and moved to the U.S. with her parents when she was three years old. She attended..." Innisfree987 (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Abecedare (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding a sentence describing her book

Proposed sentence to elaborate on the subject matter of her book (following that sentence), with ref:

The book discusses active moderation and community management strategies to improve online interactions.

Seems okay to me.Citing (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Done May I also suggest that you, User:Innisfree987 and other interested editors work in one of your userspaces to expand/improve the non-tweet portion of the article, and then post one substantial edit-request? (preemptive note of warning to anyone thinking of this as a loophole; WP:BLP applies in userspace too) Abecedare (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much for the suggestion--happy not to have to ping for every sentence I might suggest! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

References