Talk:Sarah Jeong

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

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

---

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)

*** @XavierItzm: I have changed your comment, since the BBC changed the article today. For anyone wondering, the BBC used to say "racist" but now says "inflammatory". You can see somewhere below where I criticize this decision by the BBC, but if they changed it, we have to respect that. wumbolo ^^^ 16:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted this Orwellian change. Changing someone else's comment on a talk page is not acceptable.2600:1012:B147:F1EA:F559:8E27:8070:B4CB (talk) 09:32, 5 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) Whereas I still think the above contribution would have been fine, its simple one-sentence statement of fact was never greenlighted by the powers that be and instead got derailed by suggestions of having an entire paragraph. So now I support an alternate proposal below. Cheers to all. XavierItzm (talk) 06:31, 4 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)

Innisfree987 argues that "Reiterating the BBC's version is what news aggregation sites do," as if the BBC were unique in reporting these facts, as if the Beeb were somehow fringe, when in fact, up until yesterday, the BBC was considered a gold standard among WP:RS around the Wikipedia. Innisfree987 also implies that the BBC is somehow unique, when there are other WP:RSs saying the exact same thing. For example:

 Jeong’s Twitter feed is filled with a host of messages that could be construed as racist and offensive. Jeong compared “dumbass f-----g white people” to dogs, said that “old white men” were “lemmings,” opined that white people would “go extinct soon,” and used the hashtag #CancelWhitePeople.

[emphasis added] Bottom line, Innisfree987's objection lacks merit. XavierItzm (talk) 05:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If there is a demonstrable range, perhaps just include that? "The tweets were described as racist by some, and merely derogatory by others." Mracidglee (talk) 09:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Support see Alternate proposal ESparky (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 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 without a COI mention. 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, book published by her employer (Forbes), 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)

Strong oppose nothing racist about her tweets, no reference for the tweets being racist either. Openlydialectic (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Openlydialectic vandalized my comments above on this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Jeong&diff=next&oldid=853211687 . Editing other people's comments is not acceptable. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 06:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: 1) That's not a ocunter-argument to anything that I've said above. Thats' your original research that her comments were racist - they were not. 1.1) You have to provide arguments why her claims are racist, preferably some good sources, you didn't cite any. 1.2) You can't be racist towards the so-called "white people"

2) That's not vandalism. Read what vandalism is before making new comments.

3) It was an accident. I have no idea how that stuff happens, your contribution that got removed was published 3 minutes before my contribution that, apart from adding my comment, somehow removed yours. I assume the comment that you've added and that was removed was added AFTER I started editing the page but before I published it, but when I pressed to publish the page I didn't receive any warning about edit conflicts or else. To that matter, one my comments (specifically, this one: [1]) disappeared from that talk page too, and I've seen other people complaining about their comments disappearing there. So I have no idea what happened, but it's probably a wiki glitch ot something along those lines.

4) Based on the two talk points above: assume good faith ffs.

5) See my talk page Openlydialectic (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a few RS references who use either racist or hate in the title:

• "Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter". BBC News
• "The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People". Reason.com
• "Newest Member of NYT Editorial Board Has History of Racist Tweets". National Review
• "New York Times stands by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist tweets surface". Fox News
• "New York Times Hires Left-Wing Writer With Long History Of Racist Tweets". The Federalist
• "NYTIMES’ NEWEST HIRE SENT TONS OF ANTI-WHITE RACIST TWEETS". The Daily Caller
• "New York Times defends newest hire Sarah Jeong amid controversy over racist tweets". Daily News
• "New York Times stands by editorial board hire despite racist tweets". New York Post
• "NYT Recent Editorial Board Hire Sent Hate-Filled Tweets About White People — Now the Paper Responds". Independent Journal Review
• "Sarah Jeong's racist tweets spotlighted after New York Times hiring: 'White men are bulls--'". Washington Times
• "NY Times defends hiring of editorial writer after emergence of past racial tweets". The Hill
• "NEW YORK TIMES HIRES RACIST". Herald Sun

This is Five pillars -- WP:5P2 -- Due weight, this is more coverage than she has had in her life. ESparky (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"No source for the tweets being racist" is patently false, I have linked to many sources multiple times and in multiple places on this page. Here's an archive link to yesterday when the BBC had this story as a front page story with the headline: "NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter": https://web.archive.org/web/20180803003558/https://www.bbc.com/news Ikjbagl (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Mild Oppose The sentence misleads by omission. We must add her "defense" that it was "satire" and that the NYT accepts it otherwise it reads that the NYT accepts the expression of anti-white racism. I'm sympathetic to those who see WP:NOTNEWS but there now seems to be diverse reliable sources and comments from both critics and defenders. A tentative line or two could be considered although I usually to prefer to wait (and I'm usually ignored in this request.) Jason from nyc (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Support a multi-sentence paragraph. This is how Wikipedia works: it has articles, and articles have paragraphs, and paragraphs have sentences. Sentences in a paragraph have to make for a cohesive paragraph. Jeong was employed by the New York Times and a paragraph in her biography should describe her job at the New York Times. It's unlikely that she will receive this much coverage in the future (I really hope something like this will not be repeated). This has gained international coverage in the UK. Therefore this should receive WP:DUE coverage in the article. So more than one sentence. Especially more than one sentence since there's the harassment context which is crucial information. Since there will be multiple sentences on this incident in one paragraph, the paragraph shouldn't contain any other information on her NYT job (and future coverage she gains on her NYT job). So a decent three-sentence paragraph should be perfect.

I've only read this source so I'm not the most informed; please correct me somewhere if I'm wrong. The fringes on the left and the fringes on the right jumped on "it's not racist because of WHITE PRIVILEGE" and "she was hired BECAUSE of her racism", respectively. The paragraph must contain the fact that the Editorial Board defended her (her not the racist whatever). If we ignore the sensationalism and attempt NPOV, we should clearly state that it was considered racist (not "racially-charged" or whatever) by this, this, and those sources (as per WP:RACIST). wumbolo ^^^ 11:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Support I support the sentence as proposed. I fail to see why this is an issue stating fact here. Numerous statements were made that disparaged white people. At the time she apparently had no problem whatsoever with publicly broadcasting them, and her statement now that she was "counter trolling" falls on its face by analyzing the context with which they were made. Also, she is not a comedian, so she can not claim that she made them in the "joke" context. Is there some sort of mystical-magical ceremony that someone goes through that removes all traces of previous racial hatred because suddenly they want to get a paycheck from the Times? I do not understand the apparent multiple standards that Wikipedia appears to be embracing with these apparently biased editing decisions. As such, I think I could also support the statement somewhere "The New York Times has decided to hire a known anti-white racist." Perhaps maybe in the article for the NYT even. Nodekeeper (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Support It can be argue that she is/will be more notable for such a controversy than for everything else in her career.93.36.191.55 (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Support a second sentence I support the sentence proposed but we should also include the NYT response to the

controversy to address WP:NPOV concerns. SWL36 (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Support inclusion of event but do not use the word 'racist' to describe the tweets. Racist is an opinion which should not be done in Wikipedia's voice. I wager to include This version of the events as it is the most accurate according to WP:RS. It should be noted that the reliable sources do include examples of the tweets themselves. Per WP:DUE weight with all the of the WP:RS, this is a significant event for the subject and deserves a mention in the very least. We have to word it correctly to abide by WP:BLP of course, but it does not deserve to be excluded. Tutelary (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

While I sympathize with most of the comment, it is quite a slippery slope to start saying that racism is a matter of opinion. In this particular case, we have the BBC reporting it straight that the subject "wrote racist tweets". There is no opinion: it is news reportage from what (up until yesterday!) was considered by many to be an unimpeachable WP:RS. But as this very thread and threads above show, the BBC is far from being the only one straight reporting racism. Consider, for example, the preeminent news organisation in Australia:

A JOURNALIST who tweeted racist abuse about “dumbass f***ing white people” claims she was only “counter-trolling”.

[emphasis added]. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: actually, the BBC is no longer "reporting it straight" that the subject "wrote racist tweets". They changed "racist" to "inflammatory" and provided this explanation:

Update 3 August 2018: This article and its headline were updated after reflecting on Sarah Jeong's statement explaining her actions.

It's really depressing how journalists find defending their journalist friends more important than facts. Seriously, someone "apologizes" for something you think is racist, and then you no longer think it's racist?! But the BBC still describes harassment against her as including racist slurs. wumbolo ^^^ 16:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Two points. 1, This is actually exactly what WP depends on RS to do for us: exercise editorial judgment in making and revising a professional analysis as they gather increasing information, since we do not have experts to do so (RIP Nupedia). For those who don't think that's a good standard, or no better than the average person's opinion, there's Everipedia or you know, literally any other platform. But it's what we work with here. 2. Within that model: I think this exemplifies why it is wrong to rush to incorporate breaking news, especially on something like this: the first wave of news reporting may really not be an accurate picture of the ultimate story, or, whether there's any lasting story at all. That it was in the news for a day or two is not enough to decide it rates inclusion, and it's definitely not enough to decide how the encyclopedia should describe it retrospectively, for the problem the changing BBC coverage illustrates. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment The kindest thing to do here may be to delete the article. Before this episode, the article references are either not independent of the source (college or employer), or mentions in articles that are not about her as the subject. Even her book is self-published published by her employer (Forbes). Even with this coverage, it could be considered one event, so though notable, her notability is not sustained. Seems a shame to ruin her life when the real problem is with the way the NYT has treated Jeong vs. Quinn Norton episodes. ESparky (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We can certainly agree that this episode as it stands to date (coverage of tweets, nothing more) would never form an adequate basis for passing AfD; that's why we're having an conversation about whether it should even be included in the article, which is a lower standard than "notability" for having a standalone entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If the article were legitimately pruned, what would be left would not meet WP:N. I threw out a bone here, a compromise suggestion. If it is notable enough for the lead that the NYT offered her a job, WP:DUE would indicate that it is notable that the NYT confirmed an openly racist journalist for a job. Not only does this deserve a mention, it deserves a mention in the lead. It is the only thing she is legitimately notable for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ESparky (talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree, if it were not for this event then she would not be notable at all and probably should not have a Wiki article. It's silly that we're having this big debate about whether to include the only notable thing about the person on her encyclopedia entry. As mentioned elsewhere, the sources on her page so far are blogs, university blogs, interviews, and things she, herself, has written. But, as the world stands, this event DID happen and she IS notable for these tweets now. It was on the front page of BBC news for like twelve hours. It should therefore be recorded on her page. Ikjbagl (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There is one feature article about her naturalization that could go to notability, if Vox (publisher) and Verge (employer) were not the same company. The only way the article can sustain is with this episode in it. ESparky (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A biography that exists solely to disparage its subject for a single event definitely violates policy. She's been on Forbes' 30 under 30 - claims that she should only be known for tweets (instead of her work) are specious.Citing (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a single event. She published multiple tweets on different dates on a public forum which most news sources agree are racist. There are also tweets where she is hateful towards police officers which should also be cited in her article. TexasGermanGuy 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Suggestion to move discussion forward

Since I have protected the page and requested editors to arrive at a consensus for what to include, I guess it falls on me to help move the discussion forward. So

• A proposal followed by a bunch of support, support buts and oppose votes, as seen above, just leads to stalemate and preservation of status quo (even if almost every participant disagrees with the status quo!)
• To make progress try following the proposal → feedback → concrete revised proposal → feedback/counter-proposal → ... cycle, till you (hopefully) converge.

If someone knows the help-page or essay (which I'm sure exists) that explains this, add a link. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

New proposal

Including this sentence on her article has 8 supports and 3 opposes but many supports want more information as well. However, all of the supports and the mild oppose agree that this information should be included in the article. To address the concerns of those that want more context on the controversy I propose that this section be included after the sentence noting that she was hired:

In August 2, 2018 conservatives commentators on social media drew attention to tweets that Jeong made in 2014 that were disparaging to white people.'The New York Times' issued a comment noting that she was a target of frequent online harassment and that the tweets were Jeong responding by "imitating her accusers." The 'Times' has also said that they do not condone Jeong's tweets and that Jeong regrets her approach to responding to harassment.

I trimmed down the section I originally proposed by stripping the quote and using some of the more encyclopedic wording that Innisfree987 included in his take of this section. I have maintained two key distinctions from his diff though:

One: using "drew attention" instead of "criticized". The reliable sources were replete with criticism of Jeong's tweets and their involvement magnified the controversy, it was not just conservatives on twitter complaining about her.

Two: I stated "disparaging to white people" instead of "criticized... as disparaging to white people." The reliable sources are in agreement, whether they label the tweets as racist or not. This CNN article is a full throated and unequivocal defense of Jeong. In it they say: "Jeong, who is Asian, had drawn scrutiny after the resurfacing of a number of years-old tweets in which she spoke disparagingly of white people." The inclusion of "disparaging to white people" should be uncontroversial, it avoids having to use the word racist and sources on both sides of the issue use the phrase or a variant to describe her tweets. SWL36 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know that I could agree with the way you've written this. Citing "conservative commentators" and not mentioning that it was a large news story in mainstream news makes it sound more partisan than it actually was. I also don't know if avoiding the word "racist" is the right thing to do at this point; certainly we shouldn't describe her as racist, but when the BBC has a headline up for 12 hours on their front page characterizing the tweets as racist, and when many (if not every) other major news networks have done the same, it seems most appropriate to characterize them as racist. Still, if you want to avoid the word, I would change your first sentence back to being something about receiving widespread criticism in the news media, because we have plenty of sources to back that claim up. Maybe make it:

 In August 2018, Jeong received widespread criticism in the news media in response to tweets she had made in 2014 that were disparaging to white people. 'The New York Times' issued a comment noting that she was a target of frequent online harassment and that the tweets were Jeong responding by "imitating her accusers." The 'Times' has also said that they do not condone Jeong's tweets and that Jeong regrets her approach to responding to harassment.

And I would append the following three sources as citations:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45052534
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-times-stands-hire-sarah-jeong-twitter-furor-56994680
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/business/media/sarah-jeong-new-york-times.html

Ikjbagl (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Support 1&2 I'm fine with mine or with yours, I thought my version might be a bit more palatable for those that feel this is some sort of "harassment campaign." The "drew attention to" wording also is similar to the section that was included in James Gunn. SWL36 (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

i'm a right-leaning white guy who actually DOES get the satire she was going for. i don't find the tweets inherently offensive really unless u don't get the joke. and i doubt she's actually racist.

either way, tho, they DO need to be mentioned. what are all the comments above about "i added a section..." "i changed the section to..." etc etc? i don't see ANYTHING on the matter! vandalized? 173.9.95.217 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Same problems I've mentioned before. Undue weight in a relatively short biography contravenes policy on biographies of living people. Basically every sentence is loaded in some manner. Whether the tweets were disparaging in the first place (e.g. articles linked above have characterized them as tongue-in-cheek). Dredging up the tweets has been described as a bad-faith effort to harass/discredit/fire a journalist. To discuss all this would require a lot of original research and misusing the site since Wikipedia is not a news aggregator.Citing (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the WP:UNDUE argument was well addressed by the first proposal, few agree that this does not merit inclusion as the RS coverage of this even dwarfs any previous coverage she has had before. Her taking this high profile job (as a lead writer at the NYT!) increases her standing from "niche psuedo-blog journalist" to notable writer for one of the most respected publications in news. The idea that this is WP:OR is laughable, the proposals and past diffs have been well sourced and communicated what those sources said accurately.— Preceding

unsigned comment added by SWL36 (talk • contribs)

Focusing a biography on a single negative event, especially one that has been characterized as taken out of context and in bad faith, is against policy. It is definitely undue weight in terms of a person's entire life and career. News sources are still changing their headlines so it's pretty hard to avoid OR here.Citing (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Except it isn't a "small" negative event. It has been major news by just about every news source out there. Plenty of people only have Wiki pages because of a negative event. I hardly think this is undue weight. 50.35.49.65 (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the watered down version Google reports "About 66,400 results (0.56 seconds)" for a search of "racist" on en.wikipedia.org. There is no evidence an embargo of the term "racist" on Wikipedia. Additionally, the proposed references do not include the RS sources who are doing the criticism. And the prose does not mention that the NYT rescinded an offer for the very same position for the very same reason to another journalist. "New York Times slammed by critics for 'hypocritical double standard' after standing by Sarah Jeong". IMHO the only neutral source includes racist in the title, "The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People", Reason Magazine. ESparky (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:RACIST as to why I wanted to avoid using it. Also, you should specifiy whether you support Ikjbagl's proposal because I think it does address concerns about not including the RS criticism of the tweets. SWL36 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't have to use the word in our prose, it is in the title of a dozen articles. ESparky (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC) removed content moved to Alternate proposal below. ESparky (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

ESparky, I'd wonder if you'd reconsider the "New Proposal" instead of your "Alternative Proposal". Newspaper rhetoric is not optimal for encyclopedia writing. The phrase "disparaging to white people" might seem like an insipid replacement for "racist" but it moves us away from headlines into more scholarly prose. Why not take this compromise given the vast spectrum of opinions here today? Perhaps we can get a consensus for this. The links still provide ample details on the story. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the use of euphemisms is not scholarly prose. We have a word for the practice, it is called racism. She was called out for racist statements in at least dozen RS headlines, not disparaging remarks. The following is state of mind, “oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men", it is not disparaging remark, there is no target, just a race and gender. The terms "disparaging" and "rhetoric" is the apologetic spin that came later. Your version even avoids citations with "racist" in any of the titles. Racism is the actual accusation levied. I think my alternate explains the entire story concisely, to include the previous woman who was fired for the same thing. The apologists can tack their spin to the bottom going forward. ESparky (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 with some copyediting. This is basically the same as James Gunn and Kevin Williamson, except they were fired. And to everyone saying racism requires inline attribution, please see Roseanne Barr. But I don't care about the racism label, since "disparaging to white people" is simple, accurate and sourced. And I don't understand the mega-panic surrounding BLP here, since harassment is legal. wumbolo ^^^ 20:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 - with bbc, abc, and nytimes sourcing, and neutral, encyclopedic wording covering the issue, this version is a reasonable addition to the article and, given the significant coverage, a valid addition to this BLP. None of the WP:NOTNEWS critera apply here, or are a valid argument for avoiding this well-documented issue in the article.Dialectric (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASarah_Jeong&type=revision&diff=853293682&oldid=853293554

• Oppose as TOOSOON for the reasons I enumerate here and the discussion of the changing BBC coverage that immediately precede my comment, which are just one example of the moving target here. WP is not a news ticker (and that is for the better, as we'd do a very bad job of it). Innisfree987 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 or 2 with a slight leaning towards 2. These add context and defense, which is important especially in a WP:BLP. It's also brief enough without losing sight of the context. I don't support adding a comparison to others (i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFF) that may be in a similar situation with or without a similar outcome (as has been suggested by some.) Jason from nyc (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• There's at least one example of a quote being taken out of context. There's no rush to make changes or assume significance.Citing (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 or 2. Both of these proposals seem to reflect the WP:RS nearly to the lettering. The distinction of conservative commentators can definitely be left out if that's what it takes for WP:CONSENSUS. Either way, they only reflect what's in the sources, does not unduly disparage the subject, and complies with WP:BLP. Tutelary (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose 1 & 2. Observe that all three cited sources mention the parallel case of Norton, whereas the proposed paragraphs omit it entirely (why?). Second, note also that the NYT cit. is not a secondary source and ought to be deprecated in favor of something else that is simply not an apologia of itself and of its recent hire. Third, look at how #2 says the subject "received widespread criticism in the news media," which actually contradicts the first and second source that only make reference to "social media". In fact, only the NYT, which is inescapably partial and partisan on its own behalf, makes a reference to actual news media, and in attack mode to it, to boot (partisan!). But then again, I already explained why the NYT cannot be considered WP:RS when reporting on its own mess. I could continue on and on, but the larger point is that these paragraphs withstand no scrutiny. Pity, that. XavierItzm (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Over the years I've opposed the insertion into BLPs of criticism that originates from hostile sources until either neutral sources or the subject have a chance to respond. WP:BLP encourages special consideration due to fairness and liability concerns. As her apologetics and her employers statements are available, we should allow them to respond. I have done this even when only primary sources were available as this has been common practice in the case of BLP controversies. However, their response is being discussed by other sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Exactly right, and precisely "because their response is being discussed by other sources", it must be a selection of these other WP:RS sources that is used instead of the primary source. XavierItzm (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the initially proposed variations. To source these criticisms as coming from "conservatives on social media", without mentioning other widespread criticism, including from the BBC, is not a reasonable telling of these events. Something more in the realm of Ikjbagl's suggestion below 1&2, perhaps softening the language, is more in the ballpark IMO. Oren0 (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, does not accurately reflect a need for comprehensive documentation of this now widespread issue. Lokiloki (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support Why on earth is there no mention of perhaps the sole notable episode in the life of Sarah Jeong? Does 48 hours of international news coverage by literally nearly every media outlet of record not warrant one sentence in an article that mentions such trivialities as the fact that she and someone called 'Peter Higgins' launched a newsletter? Jeong's open racism, and the supposedly liberal-leaning (but suddenly 100% fine with racism) NYT's defense of her *is* the reason she is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, to most of the world. --Proustfala (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in current form: "widespread criticism" is misleading, given that multiple independent sources published since the initial furore, such as CJR, Vox, CNN, WaPo, The Guardian, and The Independent, describe the criticism/backlash as coming almost exclusively from right-wing figures. Several also explicitly paint the controversy as a bad-faith trolling campaign, including The Guardian, Vox, and CJR. The stuff about regret/not condoning etc. is The kind of PR boilerplate we would expect from any public figure, and their employer, in such a situation; by themselves, those statements don't add much to readers' meaningful understanding of the subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Alternate proposal

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

---

There are over 60,000 instances of the term "racist" on the English Wikipedia. There is effectively no embargo on the word and at least a dozen RS articles use the word in the title concerning this event.

Suggested prose:

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, noting that the New York Times had rescinded an employment offer to Quinn Norton, for a similar position, under similar circumstances. An official Twitter account, NYTimes Communications, attributed Jeong's Twitter statements to rhetoric, confirming that they were aware of the Tweets and that Jeong's hiring process would proceed.

References

I think this covers the controversy section and avoids editorial injection. Reason Magazine is a libertarian publication. ESparky (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. The damn thing has been talked to death already. At this point, the fact that there is no mention on her Wiki says more than if the event were included; it looks weird that it's not there. As someone else pointed out, she was given an award by Forbes, but this is clearly a more noteworthy event by secondary-source standards than anything else that has happened in her career so far. I would prefer slightly different wording that makes it clear that she was criticized across ALL major news outlets, not just on Fox and the National Review, but this might have to do for now. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This was an accounting of the controversy as it was happening. It started in social media, Fox, National Review and Reason had he earliest articles published. ESparky (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Emphasis on 'Reason Magazine' should be avoided here given that there is significant coverage by more mainstream press.Dialectric (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't have an obligation to use "more mainstream press", especially while both sides of the mainstream have an agenda, Reason Magazine is the most neutral of the RS references. We do have an obligation to be neutral and not sugar coat it with verbiage that would not describe the controversy. The next closest word would be bigoted Tweets, but that word is not in the titles of the sources. ESparky (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging interested editors from last 100 Sarah Jeong talk page edits. @Abecedare, BenMcLean, Citing, Drmies, Galobtter, GRuban, Innisfree987, Jdcomix, Nodekeeper, Sangdeboeuf, SWL36, Wumbolo, XavierItzm, and Neptune's Trident: -- ESparky (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Mild support I'm not sure its necessary to use the reason article or mention the other new hire writer who was fired in a day. However, I think this proposal is fine as any mention of the most significant event in Jeong's career should be mentioned. SWL36 (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure what we're doing or voting on here, but "most significant event"--wut? are you talking about the tweets? because being hired by the NYT is kind of a big deal too. {{U|ESparky]], we're not on 4chan here: "the fact that there is no mention on her Wiki says more than if the event were included" is conspiracy stuff. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  This is clearly the most significant event of her career. These tweets and their associated controversy are headline news in CNN, BBC, ABC, etc. I'm sure she's thrilled to be hired by NYT, but that by itself didn't merit mentions in almost any press. Oren0 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies I don't believe the quote is attributable to me.ESparky (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

ESparky, if I misattributed the quote, my apologies. With all the "new editors" coming out of the woodwork, editors who seem to care more about turning Wikipedia into the NEWS than working within our guidelines, including for talk page etiquette, it can be difficult. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose as the passage of three hours has not resolved my TOOSOON concerns. I additionally share SWL36's sense Reason and Norton are being shoehorned in here. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Your too soon concerns don't make sense at this point. The event is over, the news stories are done; it's yesterday's news. This topic is unlikely to receive more coverage in the secondary sources, so I'm not sure what is left for you to wait for. Still, by secondary source standards, it is more notable than the rest of her career and should be included on her page as such if she even deserves an article, which several people in here have argued that she is not noteworthy enough to warrant an article in the first place. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Great. If it's yesterday's news, then we can look at it tomorrow or the next day or later next week and see how significant, or not, it looks; see WP:10 year test. "People were mad for one day about tweets" is not encyclopedic. It certainly wouldn't pass AfD as an WP:NPERSON claim and I'm still not persuaded it even rates mention. And if it turns out your prediction isn't correct that it's over and in a few days there's a different aspect that does seem encyclopedic, then we'll write something more appropriate. The hour-by-hour rush to dash something off so it's there, whether or not it's encyclopedic, is just not what WP is for. There are plenty of places on the internet to do so. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Then we're in agreement with the other people on this page who say that the article should be deleted as being about a non-notable person. Why don't you go nominate it for deletion and I will come support you. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I said the tweets wouldn't establish notability, not that the entry wasn't notable. Please don't put words in my mouth, it won't help us get to consensus here. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't misquote you, I misunderstood. I really don't understand how you can claim this event is non-notable in secondary sources, but I'm not going to argue with you over it, I've provided no fewer than a dozen completely valid secondary sources from major news organizations. How many times can I state that the BBC had this as a front page story for over 12 hours? What else in her career has been this notable? At this point, she has done nothing else really notable (no- being hired by the New York Times is not WP:Notability; plenty of people work for the Times and don't have their own Wiki article, and have never occupied a front page space on BBC News), and it really doesn't seem likely that anything in the rest of her career will be as noteworthy as this event has been. It would be completely appropriate at this point to have a Wiki article on her containing only this event. I've already discussed numerous times how poor her current page is, with nothing really for sources other than blog posts and things the subject has actually written.

In any event, I'm personally done with this article. These replies feels too stubborn and partisan for me to care anymore. To say that this event is not notable and shouldn't be on her page is incomprehensible, it defies logic; I've never seen elsewhere someone claiming that a story run by every major news organization is not notable. I've already told you why I disagree with your too soon characterization, it feels silly; anyone coming to her page in the last two days would have been looking for information on this event, and probably left disappointed. Additionally, administrators don't seem to be respecting the rule to wait for consensus before making edits. What a circus show, this is really something special.Ikjbagl (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the misunderstanding, I do appreciate it. And I think at some point we just have differing views on what rates inclusion; to me the "BBC had this as a front page story for over 12 hours" is really a WP:NOTNEWS assertion that won't stand up to WP:10 year test, rather than a robustly encyclopedic one, but I get that you see it differently. So it goes, hence the consensus process; one view or another (or some other altogether!) will prevail. As for notability for the entry, I'm working on sourcing as I can. Agree completely being hired at the Times is not alone a claim of notability. I work on entries on journalists for WP all the time, so, I'm familiar with common sourcing issues. I don't have a firm view as yet. We'll see. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggest you go and refamiliarize yourself with WP:10 year test which certainly does not decree that current, breaking events should not be documented contemporaneously, even if the "dust hasn't settled" or there is not unanimous consensus, and particularly, as in this case, there's abundant, neutral sources:

After "recentist" articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum, why not initiate comprehensive rewrites?

As such, feel free to come back in a few months and revisit all of this. But, until then, don't deny others the ability to properly and contemporaneously document an important and evolving issue. That you might not consider 12 hours on the front of BBC (and pretty much every other major, neutral news site) sufficient for durability of this topic is irrelevant to the need to properly document. In future, with the benefit of hindsight, you are welcome to revisit. Lokiloki (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong Support The article should of course have a section mentioning her controversial tweets. Add some various sources to this section from Reason Magazine, BBC, The New York Times. Neptune's Trident (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Strongest possible support - At this point, having just something here would be fine, but this is a well sourced, neutrally worded section that absolutely deserves inclusion in the article. As many others have said, it says more that there isn't something covering the controversy than if it were just biased. Thank you for the excellent proposal. Jdcomix (talk)

Strong Support This wording seems to have a lot more traction and is neutrally worded. It also includes the media response, which is the meat of this criticism. In this respect its an improvement over my wording and the previous suggestions. SWL36 (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain why quoting Reason or mentioning Norton represent an encyclopedic summary rather than cherry-picked examples? Innisfree987 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Norton is relevant because the sources question why the double standard between this candidate and Norton. Same employer, virtually the same position, same offense.

• "Back in February, the editorial board fired Quinn Norton hours after touting her as its next lead opinion writer to cover the "power, culture and consequences of technology" when old tweets she'd sent were unearthed. Norton had sent several controversial tweets, once claiming she was “friends with various neo-Nazis” and retweeting a word deemed derogatory to African-Americans."Fox News
• "Jeong’s comments, which have drawn considerable backlash among fellow journalists on Twitter, emerged months after the Times fired another new hire, Quinn Norton, over racist and anti-gay language in her old tweets." National Review

Nothing is cherry-picked, sources collected and composed as the press emerged, check the timestamp on this.diff Cheers! ESparky (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support - I agree that the text as proposed 'tells the story' of the controversy and why it became such a hot topic in media from the UK to Australia, as opposed to laying out a defense of the the tweets, which was the emphasis of the previous proposals. XavierItzm (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support - I really do not understand why we have to go through this rigamarole by stating accepted fact - by all parties and numerous news sources. If the New York Times does not have a problem with her tweets (and Sarah herself does not deny any of them), then surely none of the editors of this article should not either. The article and talk page is now being actively WP:Disrupt by a small minority of editors who are not working towards WP:Consensus and actively deleting comments against WP:TPG Nodekeeper (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support to talk about the issue as it is notable and widely controversial and talked about but for what it is, that means explicity referring to her comments as racist as they have been called in multiple sources cited above. No self-censoring or POV here, only sources. 93.36.190.141 (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose This is a bio about Jeong and not a general article on bias policies. Talking about other cases, hypocrisy, or past actions are not appropriate to this biography. Besides, not all sources discuss the comparison. Let's stick to the facts about Jeong and her response. I'd leave out references to Norton. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. I would add a few more sentences even, including the BBC's description of her tweets as "inflammatory" and at least one group that has defended her (The Verge, as her former employer, might be a decent choice?). This article definitely has to say something. Oren0 (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support Good choice of source, well-worded, neutral.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support, it's better than nothing, and certainly better than a stripped-down version that doesn't reveal anything of substance about this issue. Lokiloki (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. Lokiloki said it best: the wording may not be perfect, but it's better than the minimalist version and way better than the current silence. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. She's already a meme everywhere for her tweets. Obviously they should be mentioned now. The proposed language is perfectly fair.Paul Siraisi (talk) 06:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. Though there does appear to be a new definition of the word 'racist': (adjective) that which the editorship of Wikipedia agrees that Sarah Jeong is not. --Proustfala (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose: breathless summations of commentary by various talking heads are not good BLP material. The stuff about Quinn Norton is off-topic for the article. As explained under § New proposal above, we now have multiple reliable, independent sources commenting specifically on the media furore. More may emerge in the next few days; these are the sources we should use to write up a balanced summary of the event and the various parties involved, while keeping things duly weighted. Or maybe this will turn out to be a storm in a teacup. In any event, we will soon find out, so there's nothing to be gained encyclopedically by dashing something off as soon as possible. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. Clearly the main focus of the article should be on the controversy about her tweets, nothing else about her is remotely as important. In the meantime at least something should be added, exactly what is less important as long as it properly sourced and neutrally phrased like the sentence above. MathHisSci (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose much worse than the previous proposals. wumbolo ^^^ 11:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

opposesources are from within the fray; too much detail, too close to the events. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Note - an alterantive proposal is below, at Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Proposed_content. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose While I disagree with User:Innisfree987's TOOSOON concerns, which are actually what seem to be shoehorned in here, I see no reason to discuss Quinn Norton in this article. Technically, this is just an article on Sarah Jeong, not on the NYT's reactions to allegations of racism or bias. Let's stick to the point. - AyaK (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support The tweet controversy has clearly been the most important moment in her career thus far. At least some details need to be added. The sentence above is neutrally phrased. FreeEncyclopediaMusic (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support There is now a story out about how her wikipedia page has nothing on the racism issue that probably hundreds of thousands of people are talking about. The fact that there is already this level of delay in any mention of it is proof to readers that wiki is biased. GreenIn2010 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Random suggestion: wait two weeks

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

---

Only coming from BLP/N, given that WP is NOT#NEWS and we avoid RECENTISM, I strongly suggest holding off on any of the criticism of her past social media stuff for at least a week, if not two. Since the NYTimes has said they aren't changing their hiring decision, then there is no impact yet on her career so there's no need to rush to add this if it this is just a storm in a teapot. If it still is a subject of discussion then in RSes, then we can consider adding, using the degree to which it is still covered by sources. This might blow out in a week, which means encyclopedicly it wouldn't be appropriate to include. --Masem (t) 15:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose waiting. This is a subject who was barely notable before this event. Any reader visiting this page now is highly likely to be coming here to learn about this controversy, and not mentioning it at all appears to be a whitewash. While the language will not be easy to agree upon, the article has to say something. Oren0 (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

WP is not required to be up to date, and with this being a BLP and a controversial topic, we want to make sure it is presented as neutrally as we can, which means we need the initial dust to settle to figure out how to present it. (This should be applied across all WP topics). It's not a whitewash to wait and see what the situation is. --Masem (t) 19:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose waiting. WP is not required to block editing to an article to non-admins either. Not mentioning any trace of criticism while the iron is hot implies WP IS biased and keen on whiteknighting for somebody who has explicitly talked about the controversy herself. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Wikipedia is not a news source. Policy enjoins us to be fair to our subjects at all times, and this means avoiding breathlessly documenting faux scandals driven by partisan trolling. Reliable sources have already begun to emerge questioning the “critics” ’ narrative here. Let's wait a week or so longer; that will allow us to take the time to put together a neutral summary of the events based on the most authoritative published sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support for reasons I've elaborated at length up stream. I'd only add mine is not an ivote never to include, just an ivote to wait until we have something more settled to evaluate. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The best way to be compliant with WP:BLP/WP:NPOV is to approach the article patiently and cautiously.Citing (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, by not having any information at this point it looks like Wiki has taken a side and is supporting Ms. Jeong. Anyone coming to this page isn't looking for information about her books; the edits with non-notable information should stop and the actual controversy belongs on the page. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Again, I ask the proverbial question: if there is no further coverage of this in two weeks, then the controversy was just a tiny blip on the overall radar from this person, and should not be included per numerous policies. If there still is significant debate after two weeks, then we have a better way to judge how to write it in a manner that meets BLP, NPOV, and other policies. We are not required to be up to date, readers coming here to think this is a newspaper with up to the minute information are sorely mistaken. --Masem (t) 01:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I cannot disagree more strongly. You characterize this as a "blip on the radar", but the reality is that this person was not otherwise on anyone's radar. She was not notable at all before this event, and likely will not be notable afterwards. This could be the only event for which she's ever really notable. Additionally, the story is over; all you'll get now are political commentators throwing their two cents out, which is not something that belongs on Wikipedia anyway. The information is out there and should be on the page right now. Ikjbagl (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Oppose This is a standard applied to no other article. Waiting two weeks is absurd, there is no reason we cannot include well sourced and neutral information on the most newsworthy (thus significant according to WP) event of her career right now. We have many good suggestions with neutral wording that adhere to the WP:BLP policies, any one is acceptable to me, and we have plenty of support for the most recent wording. SWL36 (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, it doesn't make sense to have a two week lag on current events, particularly those that have abundant sources from major, neutral publications (such as NYTimes, BBC, etc). Lokiloki (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, as this seems a completely unprecedented move. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, so keeping up with current events is not our top priority. But neither should we freeze an article for two weeks, for the sole purpose of not keeping up with current events. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• An ad-hoc policy for a fellow traveller. Ha! Where were these voices for "two week holds" when it was other people who made "inflammatory" tweets (to use the exquisitely "reconsidered" BBC term)? Sorry, but must oppose this proposed ad-hoc policy unless it is raised on the proper forums and until it is made a Wikipedia-wide policy. XavierItzm (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Edited to add the word "tweets" that was missing. XavierItzm (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We know most of the facts already they won't change two weeks from now. Nodekeeper (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is not news but there is no policy to deliberately not keep pace with news coverage. Such a policy would be damaging to Wikipedia by making it less interesting and relevant for users and by discouraging edits when editors probably feel the most motivation to make them. MathHisSci (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I had originally shared your view [2]. At the time the only sources were hostile and right-wing. Eventually we heard her side of the story and from her employer. Reliable sources are now diverse and we can write a line or two. A quick search shows few new articles aside from a stray editorial or two. Enough exists to describe the controversy. Let's consider the 3 proposals above and see if we can reach a consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support By then trolls will have abandoned the article and we'll be able to re-write it properly and include all the info about the harassment campaign she's been enduring Openlydialectic (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose On the one hand, Wiki is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia doesn't need to be up to the moment. On the other hand, most of the arguments that I'm reading here (both pro and con) are infused with partisan spin, and the idea behind waiting seems to be that one group of partisans hopes the other group of partisans will go away so that they can provide their preferred spin without opposition. That's not a rational editing decision; sorry, but this should be resolved now, while so much attention is focused on it. - AyaK (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposed content

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

---

The article currently says:

Jeong has been appointed to the New York Times editorial board, to begin in September 2018. She will be the lead writer on technology.

The Politico ref is just churnalism, linking to the NYT announcement, and adds no value. We should just go with the NYT announcement. We should date that per RELTIME. We should have a bit on the subsequent blowup. So...

Jytdog's version

In August 2018 Jeong has hired by the New York Times to join its editorial board and to be its lead writer on technology, commencing in September. The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media highlighting tweets Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. The critics characterized her tweets as being racist against white people; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced, and she said that she regretting adopting that tactic. The Times said that it had reviewed her social media posts before hiring her, and said that it did not condone the posts.

References

We do not need to go into the weeds. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.

If we can agree on content and sourcing (the sourcing should be outside the fray and describing the fray - not from within the fray) we can post a "protected edit request", but we need consensus first.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Overall, I think your proposal is good. That said, I don't think "conservative media" is accurate. I just watched today's episode of CNN's Smerconish and it also had a negative reaction, although perhaps not a strongly negative reaction. Perhaps drop both "strongly" and "conservative"? Also, part of the controversy is that she Tweeted anti-police statements that were clearly not "counter-trolling", at least according to CNN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Surely ref 1 can be replaced with a secondary source? And I simply do not agree with putting BBC as a source. The BBC has already issued a correction, and it may change again. wumbolo ^^^ 00:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It would also be nice to have some counter-balance to the "counter-trolling" defense as it doesn't make much sense to fight racism with more racism, although I'm not sure if we have a source for this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Please do not cite any "talking heads" as sources for this. We do not want commentary. No Smernish or the like. Just reporting on facts and high level, not in the weeds. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting Smerconish as a source, but as evidence that left-leaning CNN also had a negative reaction. In any case, what do you think of my suggestions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You brought a poor source and have suggested that we go into the weeds by having a response to the response to the response. I am not in favor of either. We summarize reliable sources, and we aim to keep this high level.Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Here, I'll try again and number my suggestions so that they're easier to follow:

1. I don't think "conservative media" is accurate because there have been negative reactions from liberal media, too. Perhaps drop both "strongly" and "conservative"?
2. Part of the controversy is that she Tweeted anti-police statements that were clearly not "counter-trolling". This should be included.
3. It would also be nice to have some counter-balance to the "counter-trolling" defense as it doesn't make much sense to fight racism with more racism. I do understand that you like including this reaction, but if you check out a similar controversy of a notable person making racist Tweets, Roseanne_Barr#Valerie_Jarrett_tweets_and_Roseanne_cancellation, you'll see they do include Ambien's manufacturer's response, "While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication." So, there is historical precedence for this.

I hope this helps. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text doesn't reflect concerns that the tweets were dug up in bad faith or that in context are anti-racist.Citing (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't use Salon as a reliable source on Wikipedia, they are essentially a blog and their credibility has been questioned a few times. Jdcomix (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The relevant part of Salon article is fine for demonstrating how context reverses the interpretation of a statement. Here's another article framing this as bad-faith interpretations and part of a harassment campaign.Citing (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this content is pretty good with the exception of adding the "conservative media" part. As for the concept that this "goes into the weeds," I'd prefer if you actually gave a real Wikipedia guideline, policy, or even essay to argue against its inclusion. It's notable, relevant, cited, and does not receive undue weight. Nuke (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Independent, reliable sources that I have seen are near-unanimous in attributing the uproar to conservative/right-wing sites and personalities. The AP (also picked up by USA Today and U.S. News & World Report) and BBC cited above are among the most solid, mainstream sources we could use for current breaking news. But also see:

• The Independent "After being uncovered [the tweets] quickly spread and were picked up by conservative media including the Daily Caller and Gateway Pundit websites"
• The Guardian "The response has infuriated those on the right, including Mike Huckabee and Rod Dreher, who have accused Jeong of being racist against white people ... Jeong’s experience in the last two days has highlighted the way the 'alt-right' is unearthing problematic social media posts in order to try and get opponents fired"
• The Washington Post "At right-leaning outlets such as Fox News, the Daily Caller, the Gateway Pundit, Breitbart and Infowars, Jeong’s tweets were skewered as 'racist,' 'offensive' and 'anti-white' ... To some conservatives, her hiring, and the subsequent defense issued by the Times, was an example of how liberals get away with their own brand of racism — against white people"
• CNN "Faced with criticism and indignation from conservatives, the New York Times on Thursday said it is standing by a new hire ... the backlash, mainly coming from the right, was matched in intensity by a show of solidarity among fellow journalists"
• Vox "The New York Times announced this week that tech journalist Sarah Jeong will join its editorial board — and the ensuing outcry from right-wing Twitter was both swift and familiar ... the alt-right used her old tweets to accuse her of being racist against white people"
• Columbia Journalism Review "Right-wing media outlets dredged up a series of inflammatory tweets Jeong sent between 2013 to 2015, in which she appeared to demonize white people ... The Times and The Verge both put out statements Thursday following the uproar among conservatives over Jeong’s tweets"

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree with most of the paragraph as it attempts to perform a slight subterfuge by saying "The critics characterized her tweets as being racist against white people;" Do we really need "critics" to define the tweets as racist when everybody agrees that they are. Or, is it because that they happen to be against white people, then they aren't really racist? Also, saying that they were "mostly in 2013 and 2014" ignores the fact that her twitter was active through 2017 when her anti-police statements appeared. Were those "counter-trolling" as well because of harassment? Harassment from who? I think we need to separate the so called "counter trolling" tweets from the others. Perhaps two or three sections. Her anti-white anti-male "counter trolling" tweets in one section then another section describing her other anti-police tweets at later dates. A paragraph describing her first tweets, then the New York Times response, then a paragraph describing her later twitter statements. Nodekeeper (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Please provide a reliable, published source for "everybody agrees that they are". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    • You only need a reliable source for article content, not talk page comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support the paragraph, its not ideal but it does the job as its pithy and is backed up with RS. The lack of mention of this global controversy is undermining trust in Wikipedia as a neutral source. Keith Johnston (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• This is good, much better than "#Alternate proposal" above; I've modified it a bit to make it read a bit better:
• Sorry if this is redundant, but someone rearranged the article and I don't think it was clear that I am going to strong oppose both this and Galobtter's versions. It makes no sense to call mainstream sources like BBC, CNN, NBC, The Guardian, the NY Times itself, and others "conservative media and social media". It's worse than misleading, it's flat out wrong. Ikjbagl (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter's version

In August 2018 Jeong was hired by the New York Times to join its editorial board and to be its lead writer on technology, commencing in September. The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced, and that she regretting adopting that tactic. The Times said that it had reviewed her social media posts before hiring her, and that it did not condone the posts.

References

Not everyone knows what the tweets are about so a description in the form of "tweets derogatory to white people" is necessary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Galobtter I would accept "about white people". I don't believe that "to white people" is supported by the sources. Otherwise your proposal is fine with me. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I changed it to "of" which is what AP uses Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Well that is just weird grammar which is why, I am guessing, you had changed it to "to". "derogatory tweets about white people" is OK... Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, good suggestion, reworded Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, the reliable sources such as BBC (which had this story on the front page for 12 hours) are not right-wing hate groups harassing her. EVERY major news organization ran this story- are you saying that every major news organization is "conservative media and social media"? No, that's just silly. The story was not about hate groups attacking Ms. Jeong, the story was that Ms. Jeong wrote horrible and racist things about white people. Ikjbagl (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The content says nothing about "right wing hate groups". How odd. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, must have seen that elsewhere. Still, it's ridiculous to start calling the BBC and CNN "conservative media" or "social media"; your proposal is just as wrong in my opinion for the same reasons. Literally every mainstream news network reported on this, not "conservative media" and "social media". For that reason, I maintain a strong oppose.
• Support either Jytdog or Galobtter. I would add "initially" so that either reads "strongly negative reaction initially in conservative media ..." This should satisfy those who note that reports aren't limited to conservative venues. I would still prefer that both paragraphs be more terse but these are good enough. BTY, we should reframe from commenting on her defense (as some have suggested) or other tweets as these are not universally discussed. We report the essential story common to most reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Sorry if this is redundant, but someone rearranged the article and I don't think it was clear that I am going to strong oppose both this and Jytdog's versions. It makes no sense to call mainstream sources like BBC, CNN, NBC, The Guardian, the NY Times itself, and others "conservative media and social media". It's worse than misleading, it's flat out wrong. Ikjbagl (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• This page is sprawling -- just noting here that there is an edit request below, to implement a different proposal covering this above. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Tweak of proposed content:

Winkelvi's version

In August 2018 Jeong has hired by the New York Times as a member of their editorial board and as lead writer on technology, beginning in September 2018. The hiring resulted in a strongly negative reaction by various media as well as in social media when tweets Jeong had posted in 2013 and 2014 were revealed Criticism of Jeong's tweets labeled them as racist against white people. Jeong responded by claiming the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced; she further stated she regretted adopting the tactic. According to the Times, the paper had reviewed her social media posts before her hiring and further stated it did not condone the posts.

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Submission is evolving to bury the word "racist" from the prose, the latest version has no attribution for "Criticism of Jeong's tweets" sentence. Not mentioning the Quinn Norton firing from the same job at the same firm for the same offense is highly discussed -- Norton is discussed in both references submitted (BBC and ABC-AP), leaving the comparison out is tone deaf. Alternate proposal (above) currently has 16 support and 8 oppose with no revisions. ESparky (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Slight oppose, This is one of the better descriptions on the page, but I think there are better alternatives. Ikjbagl (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

References

• Support - I don't know what further wordsmithing of this will accomplish. As I posted previously, there is no reason to discuss Quinn Norton in this article; it's an article about Sarah Jeong. Let's get this done. - AyaK (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

If you are going to say "Critics characterized her tweets as being racist" then we need to include the tweets themselves. They are clearly incredibly racists remarks and the language used strongly implies her tweets are open to interpretation, which no fair minded person would agree with. So just include the facts, all the facts, and let the readers make up their own minds. Publish her tweets. Abwillingham (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Fellowships

This likely merits a mention in the article. According to the Yale release, "The fellowship brings to campus journalists from a wide variety of media outlets who have made significant contributions to their field."

Jeong was a Poynter Fellow in Journalism at Yale University for her work covering cybercrime trials.

I recommend putting this after the newsletter bit for chronological order. I don't know the significance of this other position, but she's a fellow at the Internet Law & Policy Foundry.Citing (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

How are two fellowships, that aren't notable enough to have WP articles, notable enough for bypassing the administrative page lock? Why not wait two weeks like for everything else? 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The admin lock is for policy concerns. The Yale fellowship is recognition from a major institution for significant contributions to a field.Citing (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: these are of negligible additional biographical value. Lokiloki (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• A journalist receiving a journalism fellowship from Yale is perfectly relevant for a biography.Citing (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is WP:TOOMUCH purposely designed to introduce biographical fluff into this bio to out-shadow the inevitable inclusion of the most germane details about this person's bio in terms of third-party readers. Instead of delaying w/ procedural rules, and dilly-dallying w/ minor esoterica, perhaps you can help work out a way to properly amend this bio about the current controversy, vs fellowships not notable enough to have WP articles from years ago? Lokiloki (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• The fellowships are mentioned in sources for all of her positions listed. Fellowships don't need to be notable enough to have their own articles.Citing (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, there is already WAY too much fluffery going on here. This is not notable, and neither are the edits about her books that have been recently made to the page. As Lokiloki said, this is way WP:TOOMUCH. This edit should not be made and the edits about her book should be undone. Ikjbagl (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Moderate-strong oppose - Bordering on fluffery and isn't notable enough for inclusion, same with the book edits. Jdcomix (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 5 August 2018 2

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

---

The most recent wording on the twitter controversy has attracted 11 supports (assuming ESparky supports his own proposal) and just 3 opposes. The inclusion of this controversy is widely agreed on, the reliable source coverage of the event is staggering. Proposals to wait hold little water, this is not still a churning controversy- article creation about it (of which there was plenty, this being a major event!) has slowed significantly and consists mostly of opinion pieces and their takes on this event which by all appearances has taken its course. ESparky's wording and the wording of the previous proposals adhere as strictly as possible to WP:BLP.

Therefore, I make the following request: Add ESparky's proposed paragraph after the sentence about Jeong joining the NYT. SWL36 (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support: it's unfortunate that this article has zero reference to ongoing and well-documented controversies emerging from the hire. People come here to understand what's happening; this article currently fails. Lokiloki (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This is the opposite of the argument SWL36's proposal is predicated on: is it ongoing or has the dust settled? That it continues to be a question is why I don't think we're equipped to write an encyclopedic summary. And many more people have made similar points than the 11-3 nose count mentioned above; and still others have objected elsewhere to this wording. All of that reflects on whether there's consensus here. Worth keeping in mind consensus is a discussion not a vote. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    • That a situation is evolving should not preclude substantive documentation early and often. To the extent that the "dust settles" (whatever that means), then the wording can be changed at that time. The Trump Administration is still on-going and the dust certainly hasn't settled there. Same for the Russia investigation. Should neither of those be documented contemporaneously? Ridiculous. Lokiloki (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
      • "Early and often" is just what we should not do--on all of the topics you mention. Some of them are immediately clear as having encyclopedic worth so there won't be the debate we're having here about whether tweets rate mention in a bio at all. But even when an incident clearly will have some mention, we have many policies (whole projects!) in place prioritizing deliberate care over speed in describing sensitive subjects, as the goal is to write something robustly encyclopedia, not a newsticker. Editors who want to do the latter should seriously consider a different venue (take to Twitter, apply for a journalism gig, start a podcast--the options are endless). I think there is really misunderstanding about this on the part of many people editing this page. Which is fine, I get that it's counterintuitive and that WMF does not do a good enough job explaining to readers what the mission is here--so when readers become new editors, they have understandable misconceptions. But seriously, please read the numerous policy links that have been provided throughout this page. They've been developed over close to two decades with an eye toward what volunteer editors can do successfully and what really not; wanting the site to be something else is not going change those policies (though you're welcome and encouraged to make suggestions on the policy talk pages). Innisfree987 (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I have been a Wikipedia editor for over 12 years, so I do not need policy guidelines from you as a means to obfuscate and WP:GAME. I do not believe you are acting in good faith. Lokiloki (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Well my comment wasn't solely meant for you, but your contributions looked as though you mostly haven't edited in twelve years, in which time the site has evolved dramatically. In any case, no one has to take my word for relevant policies; I'm hardly the only one pointing to these pages. I'd ask you take care with the accusations tho please; I take it you know the policy on personal attacks. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
            • I encourage reading WP:RSBREAKING as there seems to be some confusion as to the stability and reliability of the sources referenced in some of the proposed edits. This is the main thrust and caution within WP:DUST after all: that WP should not be a "breaking news" or "scoop" resource. Fortunately, as in this case, there are abundant neutral and well-established sources, and we can pick and choose from them to properly document this notable event. Lokiloki (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• The version under discussion is Alternate proposal (section) ESparky (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support adding the best (declared as) consensus verbiage while under protection and then Jeong's motives and extraneous logic can follow under normal editing. ESparky (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support this should be added to at least start to bring the article current. There is no good reason not to. Nodekeeper (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support I would support any mention of the controversy since it is widely reported in reliable sources. Not to add it just smacks of censorship. Hzh (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support I'm listed as "opposed" in the discussion of ESparky's "alternative version" because I think it should be improved but as consensus is not unanimous, it appears that his/her version has a consensus if any version does. We can still tweak it later if outstanding problems remain. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: I personally think this version is somewhat misleading because it implies that only a couple of news outlets ran the story. In reality, it was a story run by every news organization and received a high amount of media coverage. Still, I am not going to oppose at this point because it is ridiculous that there is nothing at all on the page. If the only thing we can get on the page is a version so incredibly watered down that it's now inaccurate, I guess it will have to do. I would give full support if we changed "after Fox News and the National Review reported on" to "after major news organizations, including CNN, BBC, ABC, and Fox News reported on" . I don't know why we have to cite the National Review when there are literally dozens more reputable news organizations we could be citing. Further, citing only Fox News and National Review makes this look like a partisan attack since both of those organizations are known for leaning to the right; in reality, EVERY news organization ran this story, including those known to be non-partisan (BBC) and those known to lean left (CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post). Ikjbagl (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support - As stated earlier by me, this is the best proposal.Jdcomix (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• oppose for an edit request to succeed it needs clear consensus and this is far from it - my alternative and a variant of it by Galobter at Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Proposed_content has also garnered support. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per the oppose votes in that discusion. wumbolo ^^^ 15:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This talk page looks like a rehash of the bitter partisan disputes taking place around Jeong's appointment, not like the reasoned discussion of encyclopedia editors. Simply put, there needs to be some mention that takes into account the views of both sides, because there isn't going to be one objective position that everyone agrees with. Wordsmithing this issue into oblivion is also not likely to happen, so I'm not going to argue over clauses or phrases. But there isn't any reason to use the language referenced above, if that's the language under discussion. It's time to move on with something reasonably neutral, as in the original Jytdog/Galobtter proposals. (NOTE: I originally supported this, because I thought that's what was under discussion.) - AyaK (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• I wonder if the most appropriate thing might be an RfC proposing some versions. We should have clear consensus on whatever gets added... Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with this; the more of this thread I read, the less clear it is what everyone (including me) is supporting in those votes. - AyaK (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose no idea why this proposal quotes the entire headline of a Reason blog article, or why it is so supported, when we have multiple high quality sources that we can summarize as Jytdog has done and I've revised. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• now that there is a new consolidated discussion I suggest this specific edit request be closed as "no". Once consensus is reached that proposal can be edit requested. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons given under § Alternate proposal above: too detailed, sources too close to the event, strays too far from actual subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk at Harvard

Another source completely outside of the "twitterverse" and presumably then not while being "harassed" has appeared. She gave a talk at Harvard Law School - The Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, on October 30, 2015. She said;

Everything is implicitly organized around how men see the world. And not just men, how white men see the world. And this, this is a problem. This is why so many things suck.

Source. I think this needs to be included after the New York Time's statement that they issued. Nodekeeper (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is that? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

redacted forum-y and snide comment + response. Abecedare (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that for that to be included more sources are needed and probably a section on the subject's political views, like the one here, for example. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• This talk page is strictly for discussing existing content and generating new content. It is not for general discussion of the subject matter. Please see WP:TALKNO and WP:NOTFORUM. This section should be closed unless a content proposal is brought. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support closing. The source is a snippet of a talk she gave, posted by an anonymous YouTuber, possibly a violation of copyright. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

First, the snippet of the talk most definitely falls under WP:FU and is entirely acceptable if it were used. SCOTUS has held up as much for larger pieces as fair use for discussion - hence your claim is patently false. Secondly, you seem to have a singular purpose here which seems to be to censor content on both the article and talk page, and not develop WP:CONS Nodekeeper (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Commentary on white men

The issue on which the OP focuses is too narrow to be included. Instead, the issue to be included could be broader. A suggested text could be: "Others commented on her anti-white men statements," and supported with citations along the lines of:

a vicious hatred of an entire group of people based only on their skin color. If that sounds harsh, let’s review a few, shall we? “White men are bullshit,” is one. A succinct vent, at least. But notice she’s not in any way attacking specific white men for some particular failing, just all white men for, well, existing.	

[Emphasis added for clarity]. A second supporting citation could be the OP's, for example. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The OP's source, if not actually pirated from a published video, is a primary source for exactly fifteen seconds of a lecture (looped for emphasis). It's unusable for anything related to what others commented on. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"[A]nti-white men statements" is a contentious opinion and needs attribution, which brings up issues of due weight. Sullivan's commentary has been treated as a footnote in most of the published secondary sources I've seen. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The attribution is one Andrew Sullivan, who is subject of a Wikipedia entry (i.e., "bluelinked"). As to what published secondary sources you've seen, maybe you haven't seen it all? Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If New York (magazine) is not considered a sufficient WP:RS, what about Fortune (magazine)? You could add a second citation, to wit:

“how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”

[Emphasis added]. Bestest, XavierItzm (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

References

But perhaps these sources are not good enough. What about the Washington Post?:

“Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men,” she wrote in one.

[Emphasis added]. Happiness to all, XavierItzm (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

References

The Roberts column from Fortune says "Commentary" right at the top. As an opinion column, it's reliable for the author's own statements and little else, just like Sullivan's essay. As for Rosenberg in The Washington Post, he follows up those tweets with:

"Without evidence that they had any bearing on Jeong’s extensive body of work ... these statements could have perhaps been unceremoniously dismissed as insignificant ... [but] in a country in the midst of a painful debate about white supremacy and privilege, Jeong’s episode has exposed a deeper rift ... pointing to a fundamental disagreement about the nature of race and power in the United States."

As you can see, there's a lot more here than "anti-white male tweeting". Focusing on the tweet(s) in isolation and ignoring the context provided by the source looks a lot like cherry-picking. That's not how to write an encyclopedic biography. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The proposed text is about comments on her statements and this remains true for the Washington Post, which says these had no bearing on her body of work, but reports it and comments on it. New York mag comments on it. Fortune comments on it. Yes, they comment on it, and that's what the proposed text says. I'd like to add a fourth citation and re-list the proposed text, for the avoidance of confusion:
"Others commented on her anti-white men statements."
Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You are using Rosenberg as evidence of "commentary" but ignoring the substance of that very commentary, while conflating news analysis in The Washington Post with editorializing by opinion columnists, in utter disregard of due weight and reliability. Once again, "anti-white men statements" is a contentious opinion that cannot be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Neither BBC nor The Washington Post call these "anti-white men statements". I could find you an equal number of sources "commenting" that the tweets were not anti-white, anti-male, etc. because they were deliberately taken out of context. In any case, such statements require attribution. We already have secondary sources on the "commentary"; pulling together several opinion columns on this one aspect is arguably improper synthesis and certainly out of proportion to the mainstream coverage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Bottom line, you don't like the "anti-white-men" characterization. How about an anodyne:
"Others commented on her statements."
I deleted the BBC report, so as to not be acused of SYNTH. Any objections? XavierItzm (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

References

note about closing sections

I am in the process of closing sections that are done or where they duplicate existing sections to generate actual content. In my view these sections should be archived as the page is becoming unmanageable. If anybody disagrees with the section closings by all means revert me. The intention is just to help people focus on where the actual content discussions are.

I won't do the actual archiving but suggest that admins watching this page do so. Also it would be useful if admins would close (with the "archive top/bottom" tags) answered edit requests to help folks be able to see what sections are "active"more clearly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I strongly support closing and archiving those sections. The repetitive "add something about the controversy" sections only clutter up the page and hinder constructive discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure an involved non-admin should be doing this. In any event, I reverted where it did not seem appropriate. XavierItzm :::(talk) 15:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed Lokiloki (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Good plan. I'll start manually archiving section where either (1) the discussion has closed, or (2) are not focussed on proposing improvements to the article. If you believe I've made an error,just bring the issue to my talkpage (so as to not further clutter this page with such meta-issues) and I'll be happy to resurrect archived sections for any borderline cases. Abecedare (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, you archived the Anti-Police section which I had reverted as per request from Jytdog and to which he had commented that not a forum and something to the effect that specific content proposal... this back and forth of it within seconds of you archiving it, result in me having to open a new section with a specific content proposal to be added/appended to the consensual text that's under discussion for the 'racist tweets' (as formulated by the BBC) section..

References

XavierItzm (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I resurrected it already (see below). Does that work? Abecedare (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, done. The archived discussions can be seen here. Please don't add comments to or edit that page yourself (if you are an involved editor). Instead ask me or any other admin for help, if you want to revive a discussion from there. Abecedare (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note, continuing what I did above, i have closed the initial proposals since there is a new section consolidating all the proposals, seeking to reach consensus on the "tweet" content. Again, this is to focus discussion to facilitate consensus building. And again feel free to revert. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Anti-police statements

Evidently over a long period there are also numerous anti-police statements as well;[3][4] "“If we’re talking big sweeping bans on shit that kills people, why don’t we ever ever ever ever talk about banning the police?"

"“let me know when a cop gets killed by a rock or molotov cocktail or a stray shard of glass from a precious precious window.”

"“Cops are assholes,”

I would not be opposed to deleting the article and merging with the NYT article a single sentence that states that they hired Sarah Jeong, an anti-white and anti-police racist for their editorial board. Anybody want to help me defend the edits? Nodekeeper (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

You would have to get this article deleted via afd first, which is unlikely given the significant coverage of Jeong.Dialectric (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If you actually read Neutral point of view and Biographies of living persons, you would see why describing anyone in Wikipedia's voice as an anti-white and anti-police racist is a non-starter. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

At this point there is a myriad of sources calling her views racist. --RandomUser3510 (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Statements, yes possibly. Views, possibly (depending on the reliability of the source). That does not mean we characterize the person herself as such. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC) (edited 23:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC))

That's fine, but please explain how this only applies to Sarah Jeoung and not others. Right-leaning people are carpet bombed as right supremacist Nazi skinheads via the ADL (see Lana Lokteff) even when they deny being so. Yet Sarah Jeoung gets the benefit of A) her statements =/= her views and B) not even having it mentioned in the article despite numerous articles about it --RandomUser3510 (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a red herring. "Other crap exists" has no bearing on the improvement of this page. Much of the commentary on this talk page (let alone the blatantly partisan media commentary cited as sources) also has more than a whiff of concern trolling about it, which doesn't inspire too much confidence in the proposed changes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a red herring, it's an example of bias. Sarah Jeong is getting privileges added to her Wikipedia page, whereas other people (right-leaning) in politics are not. Indicating bias is a step in improving the article. I can accept that Sarah Jeong can get these privileges but at least we can have consistency with others going forward. --RandomUser3510 (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. If you really care about the quality of those other articles, that is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The anti-police statements are also cited elsewhere. For example:

Police? “Cops f—king suck” and “they’re f—king horrible,” according to this Harvard Law alumna, who hates the men and women whose job it is to enforce the law. She responded to the 2014 race riot in Ferguson, Missouri, by aiming obscenities at the police and declaring “America is f—king racist.”

[Emphasis added]. It might be worth mentioning at some point. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose minor, unimportant trivia. If we were to add every random tweet to each and every article on Wikipedia we would seize to be an encyclopedia. Also, the context. It's pretty obvious that attempts to add these tweets are yet another extension of the harassment campaign. The article has been around on Wikipedia for months and got no attention, but then the campaign started and boom - multiple attempts at vandalism so much so that the article had to be locked by an admin Openlydialectic (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Any source that uses such charming phraseology as "No one at Harvard or at the New York Times will speak a word in favor of white people, Christians, heterosexuals, or police officers ... the white males at the New York Times would probably commit suicide en masse if they believed such a gesture might help Nancy Pelosi win back the House Speaker’s gavel" and describes the subject as having "made her bargain with the Devil" is quite obviously an opinion essay and not reliable for factual statements, especially in articles about living persons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Ad-hominem attack, irrelevant to the citation. The citation merely cites facts, which is what can (and should) be included in an enyclopaedia.XavierItzm (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If the only secondary sources for these tweets are a couple of polemical essays in partisan outlets (The Daily Caller should never be relied upon in a BLP), then the material is clearly unduly weighted for the article. Merely being "facts" does not make something encyclopedia-worthy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources, it was reported on by every major news outlet. Ikjbagl (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Where do any of these sources (The Washington Times is borderline at best, and New York Post is a non-RS tabloid) mention "anti-police" tweets? —21:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support But the anti-cop tweets stretch up to as recent as 2017 and the sentence needs to reflect that.[5] These are independently verifiable tweets for those who might want to question the sources. It's silliness at this point to do so. Nodekeeper (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Also, it appears you are !voting in support of...your own proposal? Or am I missing something? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:Twitter-EL, which allows for twitter to be used in cases such as this. In any event, you said the sources are only a couple? Here's another source for your reading pleasure:

“f– the police,” and not for the first time, according to a compilation by the Daily Caller.  Others included “cops are a—holes” in November 2015. Eight months later, she asked, “If we’re talking big sweeping bans on sh— that kills people, why don’t we ever ever ever ever talk about banning the police?”

[Emphasis added]. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

References

• This talk page is strictly for discussing existing content and generating new content. It is not for general discussion of the subject matter. Please see WP:TALKNO and WP:NOTFORUM. This section should be closed unless a content proposal is brought. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The para could be along the lines of "Jeong also tweetted often against police." And then you could add references such as:

“Cops are a**holes,” she tweeted in 2015.  “Let me know when a cop gets killed by a rock or molotov cocktail or a stray shard of glass from a precious precious window,” a tweet from 2014 read.

[Emphasis added].

References

-- Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

In my view the sourcing is unacceptably low, we don't need to quote the tweets, and the specific tweets are far too deep in the weeds. Something about negative statements toward police could be added to one of the pending proposals, and I suggest you find a much higher quality source and propose adding "and the police" to one of the pending proposals. btw please see Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Raise_source_quality Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the suggested text does not quote the tweets. With regard to the source, do you think the source is falsifying the tweets? XavierItzm (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

No I don't think the source is falsifying the tweets. If you read Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Raise_source_quality (and all of that essay) you will see why it is all the more important in controversial articles to generate content by a) finding high quality sources and b) summarizing what they say. Wanting to add X and finding some old source that talks about X, is always the wrong way to build content in Wikipedia and will almost always fail to generate consensus on controversial topics. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, you don't consider the source, which according to you is providing real information, to be good enough. What about two sources, to wit:

Source 1

“f– the police,” and not for the first time, according to a compilation by the Daily Caller.  Others included “cops are a—holes” in November 2015. Eight months later, she asked, “If we’re talking big sweeping bans on sh— that kills people, why don’t we ever ever ever ever talk about banning the police?”

Source 2:

“Cops are a**holes,” she tweeted in 2015.  “Let me know when a cop gets killed by a rock or molotov cocktail or a stray shard of glass from a precious precious window,” a tweet from 2014 read.

[Emphasis added for clarity]. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

References

• Oppose generally: the idea of including the anti-police statements. There is just no need, it's not WP:Notable, and Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The information about the current racism controversy should be included because it is notable and widely discussed, but so far I have not seen this discussed in the media. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so well-sourced material is only to be added if you have seen "this discussed in the media"? XavierItzm (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:N notability criteria apply to articles-as-a-whole, not content in articles. The threshold for content is verifiability by WP:RS. AadaamS (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The threshold here is really WP:WEIGHT and as Ikjbagl WP:IINFO because of how much material that is verifiable out there; thus coverage in high quality reliable secondary sources (i.e in this case the news media) would be the main criteria Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

But wait, WP:IINFO does not apply. No-one has suggested including the tweets at all. It is not part of the suggested text.XavierItzm (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The police tweets are mentioned on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, in the UK paper Daily Mail. How could mentioning anti-police rhethoric in this article, which has reached international attention, be WP:UNDUE weight? Of course WP:RS should be used. AadaamS (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems the last remaining objection may be WEIGHT. So maybe an update is necessary for those who thing no-one's reported on this?
"Jeong also tweeted often against police."
Cheer! XavierItzm (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV, arguably the most crucial policy on wikipedia - it is crucial that there be WEIGHT for this. A few opinion pieces/news from some obscure sources does not establish WP:WEIGHT; you don't start with the goal of trying to include something and later on trying to establish that it matches NPOV and other policies by trying to find whatever sources you can on it; you start with looking at the best sources, seeing what they say, and summarizing them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Survey: What text describing the controversy should be put in the article?

I think we have a reasonable consensus that something should be put about the controversy, and two main proposals for what the text should be, both with quite a bit of support. So I'm making this survey so that we can decide which one should be put in the article, and thus hopefully resolve the issue for now after some hours of discussion here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 1: Esparky

Option 1 is by Esparky, which I've assumed is going to be added after the current sentence on her hiring:

Option 1

Jeong has been appointed to the New York Times editorial board, to begin in September 2018. She will be the lead writer on technology.

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, noting that the New York Times had rescinded an employment offer to Quinn Norton, for a similar position, under similar circumstances. An official Twitter account, NYTimes Communications, attributed Jeong's Twitter statements to rhetoric, confirming that they were aware of the Tweets and that Jeong's hiring process would proceed.

References

template added to separate references, strike irrelevant reference pasted from article. ESparky (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: option 1: I'm copying my comment from above and changing my opinion to oppose; we can cite reputable news organizations like BBC, CNN, NBC, The Guardian, etc.; we have the references already on this page. There is no reason we need to be citing Fox and National Reporter to this, because citing those organizations makes it look like only right-leaning organizations criticized the Tweets. This is simply not true. See my comment from above: Ikjbagl (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • my old comment: Comment: I personally think this version is somewhat misleading because it implies that only a couple of news outlets ran the story. In reality, it was a story run by every news organization and received a high amount of media coverage. Still, I am not going to oppose at this point because it is ridiculous that there is nothing at all on the page. If the only thing we can get on the page is a version so incredibly watered down that it's now inaccurate, I guess it will have to do. I would give full support if we changed "after Fox News and the National Review reported on" to "after major news organizations, including CNN, BBC, ABC, and Fox News reported on" . I don't know why we have to cite the National Review when there are literally dozens more reputable news organizations we could be citing. Further, citing only Fox News and National Review makes this look like a partisan attack since both of those organizations are known for leaning to the right; in reality, EVERY news organization ran this story, including those known to be non-partisan (BBC) and those known to lean left (CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post). Ikjbagl (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose option 1: No reason to use partisan sources and cite Quinn Norton. So, no. AyaK (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The Google News search yields 649 results for "sarah jeong" AND "quinn norton". The double standard at the NYT is what this controversy is about. Even BBC and AP acknowledge ESparky (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support option 1 Seems the most accurate and neutral portrayal on how the controversy started and developed. Alternatively support option 2 also option 2 is good, but the term "conservative" should be taken away because it is a misdleading label.93.36.191.55 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• oppose option 1 uses sources from within the fray, dragging WP into the fray. Our goal is to describe it, not be in it. See WP:Beware of tigers. Really - please read that. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Option 1 by esparky - Support - I agree that the text as proposed 'tells the story' of the controversy and why it became such a hot topic in media from the UK to Australia, as opposed to laying out a defense of the the tweets, which was the emphasis of the previous proposals. XavierItzm (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC) I moved this to here because for some reason it showed up under 1a, which was never my intent. XavierItzm (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The first thing we're going to mention about the controversy is Reason's response to the controversy supporting her? So we're going to quote the headline of an article from News Outlet 1 about why this controversy is irrelevant before even mentioning a reliable source about the controversy? And we're not even going to put a headline from another news outlet that criticizes the tweets? And we're not going to tell people what the tweets are? Really? Red Slash 15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Modded version, no change in verbiage, attribute Norton controversy/comparison confirmed by ABC-AP and BBC.ESparky (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 1a

Jeong has been appointed to the New York Times editorial board, to begin in September 2018. She will be the lead writer on technology.

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, noting that the New York Times had rescinded an employment offer to Quinn Norton, for a similar position, under similar circumstances. An official Twitter account, NYTimes Communications, attributed Jeong's Twitter statements to rhetoric, confirming that they were aware of the Tweets and that Jeong's hiring process would proceed.

References

Comment Note that even the NYT printed statement (not the tweet) acknowledges the Quinn Norton firing is core to the controversy. source ESparky (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose both versions as they contain extraneous detail (title of Reason article) and because reference to tweets implies that tweets are previously discussed in the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

oppose modified version still is using opinion pieces and primary criticizing pieces for sources; we do not need to go there and should not go there. The main content should be derived from independent sources reporting on the fray, not sources in the fray. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (both) - convoluted, starting with Reason then going to earlier pieces, not clear that Reason specifically is such a big deal. Better choices below. --GRuban (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose 1 and 1a. The language is accusatory, POV, and non-encyclopedic Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The first thing we're going to mention about the controversy is Reason's response to the controversy supporting her? So we're going to quote the headline of an article from News Outlet 1 about why this controversy is irrelevant before even mentioning a reliable source about the controversy? And we're not even going to put a headline from another news outlet that criticizes the tweets? And we're not going to tell people what the tweets are? Really? Red Slash 15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 2: Jytdog

Option 2 is Jytdog's/my tweak of it:

Option 2

In August 2018 Jeong was hired by the New York Times to join its editorial board and to be its lead writer on technology, commencing in September. The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced, and that she regretting adopting that tactic. The Times said that it had reviewed her social media posts before hiring her, and that it did not condone the posts.

References

• Option 2 Option 2 uses the highest quality sources and summarizes them as per NPOV. Option 1 quotes the title of a Reason blog for no apparent reason based on sourcing, uses lower quality blog/primary sources, is confusing if you don't already know about the controversy, uses and is poorly written. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• At this point, either is fine. However, for Option 2:

• Please remove "conservative" from "conservative media" as per WP:YESPOV this inaccurately conveys that the coverage and concern was exclusive to "conservative" sources (moreover, there is debate as to whether any of the referenced sources are actually conservative or not);
• Please change "derogatory tweets" to "racist tweets" to comport with their representation in neutral, well-respected sources, including the BBC. As such, please additionally remove "critics characterized her tweets as being racist" as that is already prima facia established.

Lokiloki (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The BBC described the tweets as "inflammatory" (the headline puts "racist" in quotes). The Associated Press described the tweets as "derogatory of white people". CNN described the tweets as "disparagingly of white people". The Guardian described the tweets as "criticized and made jokes about white people". Fox News only calls the tweets racist in its headline, saying later that "could be construed as racist and offensive". There is absolutely not the representation within sources to straight up call the tweet racist in wikivoice. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The BBC initially headlined them as racist without the quote marks, but modified their headline as documented in a footnote for that article. In any event, okay, that's fine. Lokiloki (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between a) media initially criticizing X and b) media reporting on the criticism over X and reaction to it; c) media commenting on the criticism. Our content should be generated from b), not a) or for sure not c). Sources in b) characterize the sources in a) as "right wing" or "conservative", for the most part. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose option 2, as I have said repeatedly it makes no sense to call BBC, CNN, The Guardian, NBC, Fox, NY Times itself, and many, many other news organizations "conservative media and social media". It is flat out WRONG. All reputable news organizations that I checked have covered the tweets. I would like to see some secondary sources that are calling these news organizations "conservative media and social media", or saying that those are the places that covered the story.Ikjbagl (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, all those news organizations have covered this, but "conservative media and social media" is what media that had a strong negative reaction to her tweet, per sources (e.g Associated press: "mainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets") Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a few RS references who use either racist or hate in the title:

• "Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter". BBC News
• "The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People". Reason.com
• "Newest Member of NYT Editorial Board Has History of Racist Tweets". National Review
• "New York Times stands by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist tweets surface". Fox News
• "New York Times Hires Left-Wing Writer With Long History Of Racist Tweets". The Federalist
• "NYTIMES’ NEWEST HIRE SENT TONS OF ANTI-WHITE RACIST TWEETS". The Daily Caller
• "New York Times defends newest hire Sarah Jeong amid controversy over racist tweets". Daily News
• "New York Times stands by editorial board hire despite racist tweets". New York Post
• "NYT Recent Editorial Board Hire Sent Hate-Filled Tweets About White People — Now the Paper Responds". Independent Journal Review
• "Sarah Jeong's racist tweets spotlighted after New York Times hiring: 'White men are bulls--'". Washington Times
• "NY Times defends hiring of editorial writer after emergence of past racial tweets". The Hill
• "NEW YORK TIMES HIRES RACIST". Herald Sun

Quinn Norton is a major part of the the story, even in the ABC-AP and BBC story. This version is incomplete without discussing that comparison and naming/citing the "conservative media" and "critics". ESparky (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

What matters is what the highest quality sources like the associated press say, not what the Daily Caller says. The body of the text should be preferred over headlines because headlines are not written by the journalist themself. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support option 2: I'm less worried about the description of Jeong's critics as "conservative media" than I am about the lack of anything on Wiki about this controversy. - AyaK (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support option 1 Seems the most accurate and neutral portrayal on how the controversy started and developed. Alternatively support option 2 also option 2 is good, but the term "conservative" should be taken away because it is a misdleading label.93.36.191.55 (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support option 2 I feel this is good and reasonable wording to include, although I'd agree that the word conservative can and should be excised given the reporting across other media including the response by the NYT itself. Phil (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support this option over the other proposals, although I think the mention of "regretting" and "did not condone" is unnecessarily detailed in the PR boilerplate area. The term "conservative media" is accurate given that multiple independent sources published since the initial furore, such as CJR, Vox, CNN, WaPo, The Guardian, and The Independent, describe the criticism/backlash as coming almost exclusively from right-wing figures. Several, including The Guardian, Vox, and CJR, explicitly paint the controversy as a bad-faith trolling campaign, which should also be mentioned somehow. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose option 2 This paints the "conservative media" and "critics" as an unnamed lynch mob, when in fact RS sources (virtually all of them) are questioning the NYT's difference in handling Norton vs the Jeong situation. ESparky (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Any questioning of the NYT's actions belongs at The New York Times, not here. Allegations about Jeong's supposed anti-white racism came from conservative/right-wing media according to multiple RS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Option 2 is IMO the most encyclopedic version of what on the table, altho I think latter two sentences of Option 3 describe the Times’s reaction more precisely. They could perhaps be combined. My other remarks stand. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support this option with the proviso that the word "conservative" be removed from "conservative media." I agree with ESparky above, except that removing that one word seems sufficient to deal with the situation. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose per my other oppose votes, and above. wumbolo ^^^ 20:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons and analysis stated above - i.e. "conservative media and social media" is factually incorrect as all media reported it, not just so called "conservative" media. This really needs to be corrected. If somebody wants to mention the BBC, then mention the fact that the BBC changed the headline outright as well. Nodekeeper (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The statement "strongly negative reaction in conservative media" is supported by multiple independent sources. Whether it was "reported" by others is not the relevant issue; reporting and criticism are not the same thing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support option 2; aligns with mainline sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The sources do, in fact, support the "conservative media and social media" lines, ABC says that in almost those words, while BBC says "social media" and "conservative critics". --GRuban (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Option 2. Succinct, BLP-compliant, avoids WP:UNDUE. Summarizes major citations neutrally. Softlavender (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

And here comes Jytdog out protecting his progressive friends! This moderator should be banned from publishing ANY work on WP.

• Oppose. Not just criticized by "conservatives" or social media; also, why are the tweets not shown? Red Slash 15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 3: Ikjbagl

I am going to modify and re-propose my version as an Option 3 because I am dissatisfied with the others so far; they make it seem like only conservatives were targeting Jeong. Ikjbagl (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 3

In August 2018, Jeong received widespread coverage in the news media in response to tweets she had made in 2014 that were considered racist towards white people. 'The New York Times' issued a comment noting that she was a target of frequent online harassment and that the tweets were Jeong responding by "imitating her accusers." The 'Times' has also said that they do not condone Jeong's tweets and that Jeong regrets her approach to responding to harassment.

References

• Support option 3 - Neutral and well worded/well sourced. Jdcomix (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support option 3 The best of the three. They all have merit but this is terse, giving it due weight in her bio. I leaves out Norton, which is a plus since this isn't a BLP on Norton nor an article about the NYT's hypocrisy. We don't need the whole headline from Reason nor specifically mention National Review. This gets the essentials. Option 3' below is even better. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment add this? "The New York Times decision to retain Jeong after firing Quinn Norton in February, for her Tweets, was questioned in most major new outlets" (Long list of references) ESparky (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment "noting" is a WP:WTW and should be replaced by "saying". Also, Wikipedia should not repeat Jeong's defense in Wikipedia's voice as if her explanation is the undisputed truth. Therefore, I suggest:

Option 3a

In August 2018, Jeong received widespread coverage in the news media in response to Tweets she had made in 2014 that were considered racist towards white people. 'The New York Times' issued a comment saying that she was a target of frequent online harassment and that the Tweets were Jeong responding by "imitating her accusers." The 'Times' has also said that they do not condone Jeong's tweets.

References

--A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• • I would support that edit / the removal of the last few words, but I don't think it's necessary. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC) I changed my mind, I do not support the removal of this bit because I disagree with your reasons. I do not see "noting" on the words to watch page; perhaps you are confusing this with "notably" or "it should be noted"? Those both carry slightly different meanings because they both work to point something out or signify/exemplify, while "noting" just works to add in a quote. Please explain if you think differently on this, I do not quite understand what you are getting at. Also, we are not repeating in Wiki's voice here; it simply says that The Times repeated Jeong's defense, which they did. We are quoting/paraphrasing their words, not putting them in Wiki's mouth. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    • "Note" is under WP:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Synonyms_for_said. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• oppose This is better than 1 for its sourcing, but the last bit should not be sourced to the NYT, and it mischaracterizes where the initial criticism came from as described in high quality sources reporting on the matter. Other than that it is fine. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC) (strike part of that Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC))
• Oppose: "widespread coverage" elides the issue, which was a backlash in right-wing or right-leaning media to the tweets, which many commentators (as cited in secondary-source coverage) argued were deceptively taken out of context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC) (edited 03:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC))
• Second choice to 2 - the sources all do make a point that the criticism came from conservatives. --GRuban (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support 3a, not 3 - nice job correctly summarizing the issue. "Noting" is, indeed, problematic. Red Slash 15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 4: Wumbolo

I will write a paragraph based on option 3, without citing The New York Times and the BBC, but still using highly reliable sources. I will also better use citation templates, and do some restructuring and some content changes. wumbolo ^^^ 18:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Why would you avoid citing the Times and the BBC? The BBC is one of the most trusted news organizations that exists today, and the Times is the organization that hired her- the one that caused this whole controversy. Removing those two sources makes no sense to me. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The Times has a conflict of interest, obviously, though I don't know why we're avoiding citing the BBC. Jdcomix (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree about the conflict of interest, but we are not quoting them for factual information, we are quoting them for how they (the employer) responded to the controversy about Jeong (their employee). It would be a conflict to report their opinion of the situation (i.e. to say "The Times thought this was a silly news story."), but to report their continuing desire to hire her and that they parroted her defense does not introduce a conflict of interest, just a statement by the employer. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It's still preferable to use secondary sources, than primary, because it fulfills the comprehensiveness requirement of featured articles. With regards to the BBC, it has issued a correction very recently, and I wouldn't want to cite them at the moment, since it's likely another correction will have been published in the near future. We do want stability here. wumbolo ^^^ 19:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Option 4

In August 2018, Jeong received widespread criticism in the news media in response to tweets she had posted in 2014 that were considered racist towards white people. The tweets, which included statements such as "Oh man, it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men", were first revealed on conservative, and antisemitic far-right social media after her hiring. The New York Times issued a statement saying that her "journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment", and that she responded sarcastically "by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers". Jeong alleged that the online harassment of her included threats of violence and racial slurs. The New York Times also said in the statement that it "does not condone" Jeong's approach, and Jeong said that she "would not do it again".

References

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wumbolo (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hm. This is now my #2 choice after my own suggestion. The sourcing is good, but there are too many quotes, and the "revealed" is misleading; it is not as though these social media posts were secret. The posts were definitely republished and amplified. Would be fine with this if the quotes were removed and if "revealed" were changed to something like "highlighted" or "republished" or the like... Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree with "highlighted". wumbolo ^^^ 20:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as it contains unnecessary reference to antisemitic media. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Figureofnine: so you support if "antisemitic" is removed? wumbolo ^^^ 20:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    • My remark was excessively cryptic. I meant to say that the phrase "were first revealed on conservative, and antisemitic far-right social media after her hiring" is POV and well-poisoning language, considering that this has become a far wider controversy. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
      • A "far wider controversy" according to whom? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Jytdog on there being too many quotes and "revealed" being problematic. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: The sources used do not support the idea of "widespread criticism in the news media". Source #1 (AP/WaPo) refers to "social media criticism" and says that "mainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets". Source #2 (Le Figaro) refers to "une polémique grandissante sur Twitter", saying further down that "de nombreux confrères ont manifesté leur soutien" (colleagues have expressed support) for Jeong. Sources #3 and #4 attribute the criticism/backlash mainly to right-wing media sites. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It's true that we don't have any tertiary coverage of secondary sources criticizing Jeong's tweets. But otherwise we'd have to have a WP:CITEBUNDLE listing the countless news media critics of her tweets. While my sources don't mention that other newspapers criticized her tweets, my sources do criticize the tweets themselves. wumbolo ^^^ 22:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Where do they criticize Jeong's tweets? I don't see any of the four voicing any opinion on the issue. If they did, they would be primary sources for those opinions and using them to support any statements about "widespread criticism" would be improper synthesis. In fact, there are multiple sources attributing the backlash to conservative/right-wing media; see my comment under Option #2 above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
      • There's an established consensus (throught multiple lengthy discussions) that the Roseanne Barr article can say "tweets were widely criticized as racist" with only a couple of sources backing it up. You can go check it out, the provided references don't say that others criticized the tweets as racist, the provided references criticize the tweets as racist themselves. wumbolo ^^^ 22:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Bringing up unrelated decisions made at some other page is off-topic for this discussion. In any event, we have numerous sources we can cite directly for attribution of the backlash, so there's no need for any synthesis of sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 4. Too POV, inflammatory, and wordy. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  You can't say something is POV without explaining why. I literally cited very highly reliable sources. "inflammatory" is a complete non-argument; I don't have a clue what it's supposed to mean. "wordy" might be true, but it's still just a paragraph. Wikipedia articles have to be comprehensive, and if you look at my WaPo ref that I cite after every sentence, you can see that it is appropriately summarized here. wumbolo ^^^ 10:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose reading over, agree on it being pretty POV. For some reason says that she "alleged" that harassment occured when the associated press piece referenced treats it near as fact, I don't see that the sources support "widespread criticism in the news media"; the associated press piece says "social media criticism" and "mainly conservative social media took issue" etc Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  I wrote "alleged" because it involves threats of violence, which are illegal. (so WP:BLPCRIME applies) With regard to the rest of your comment, I did include "conservative social media" and "social media criticism" in my proposal. Then we're left with "widespread criticism in the news media" which is not well sourced, but that's because I would have to cite the dozens of reliable sources that criticize the tweets. That would undermine my attempt to only source my content to the most reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 11:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support without "antisemetic", which may or may not be an accurate representation and in any case is not relevant to the criticism of anti-white comments made by a non-Jewish lady from a non-Jewish family.

Option 6: Winkelvi

Option 6

In August 2018 Jeong has hired by the New York Times as a member of their editorial board and as lead writer on technology, beginning in September 2018. The hiring resulted in a strongly negative reaction by various media as well as in social media when tweets Jeong had posted in 2013 and 2014 were revealed Criticism of Jeong's tweets labeled them as racist against white people. Jeong responded by claiming the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced; she further stated she regretted adopting the tactic. According to the Times, the paper had reviewed her social media posts before her hiring and further stated it did not condone the posts.

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

References

• Oppose It's in the right direction but is excessively wordy. Jytdog's proposal seems best at the present time. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Option 6. Per Figureofnine. Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Option five is better. Red Slash 15:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't think it is fair to put up a survey that starts from scratch and effectively discards all the input provided in the original proposals. So I'd like to page all the contributors on the original proposals. To begin, Esparky's: ESparky, Ikjbagl, Dialectric , SWL36, Drmies , Oren0, Innisfree987, Lokiloki, Neptune's Trident, Jdcomix, Nodekeeper , Jason from nyc, Oren0, S Philbrick, Lokiloki, Lawrence King, Paul Siraisi, Proustfala, Sangdeboeuf, MathHisSci, wumbolo, talk, AyaK, FreeEncyclopediaMusic, GreenIn2010. XavierItzm (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Previous Contributors to proposal 2, that I don't think are already on the previous: A Quest For Knowledge, wumbolo, A Quest For Knowledge, Citing, Jdcomix, Nuke, Sangdeboeuf, Nodekeeper, Keith Johnston, -- ψλ. Hope I got everyone! XavierItzm (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, so much for "there is no deadline on Wikipedia." People contributed to the proposals. Then someone created this survey, starting from scratch and w/o pinging the previous contributors and then the previous votes! counted for nothing. Then the editor who imposed the restrictions, "in the interest of time", chose option 2, put it on the article, and put up a new restriction that nothing can be changed without consensus on what is now six proposals plus variations. Someone tell me if I missed something. XavierItzm (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

With apologies to Churchill, all of the options are deficient, but the only thing worse is that we have nothing at all. I think there are serious flaws with option two but if it's leading, go for it, and we can work on improving it. That's how Wikipedia works. Right now, it's not working in the world is noticing. (As an aside, I'm not particularly active in political articles, and only became aware of this because I'm an active OTRS agent, and I'm fielding angry emails from readers who can't understand why there is nothing in this article. I've tried to explain our process but I'm running out of words that sound believable. If anyone has some suggested wording please let me know.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There are far too many proposals for people to easily navigate. People commenting support or oppose for any specific one. It's exhausting and confusing. From the time I contributed edits yesterday, the proposal I submitted a comment to was hatted and marked "abandoned" , and told to direct my attention to the lower proposals. The version that was instituted was proposed ~3 days ago. Some editors were supporting any proposal just to get it into the article. Now that it's in the article, we can talk about what issues still remain. One such issue is the New Yorks' time statement is a bit misleading, as outlined by this editor. Tutelary (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Sphilbrick option 2 has already been added to the article, so hopefully those angry emails stop :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I can hope. More importantly, I can respond that the article does mention the issue, if some come in after reading an older version.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Just as an aside, we did get another angry email, and I was able to point them to the addition to the article. (In case someone wonders why they didn't check the article before sending in, the email initially came to another address and was forwarded to us so I suspect their observation was accurate when they wrote it.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with this. We've already had the discussion, we do not need to say the same things over again. Other editors can add to previous discussions if they wish. Nodekeeper (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• User:wumbolo I apologize for this. When you posted your option you didn't sign it, and the next comment underneath it was this one by XavierItzm, and that is how I found it when I came across it, so I thought XavierItzm had proposed it, and you were still working on that. Which is why I did put it in a new section. I just went back and looked at diffs and see that it was yours. I apologize. I have signed your post, when you added your proposal, so it is now clear that it is yours, and moved my comment on it, back under it. Again my apologies.Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• XavierItzm, I agree that the powers-that-be should not have ignored the earlier discussion and made edits based on a brand new proposal. At this point, I don't have time to monitor this page 24/7 and vote on every single new proposal. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Racist doesn't cover everything We have, for example "Fuck the police" and "kill all men."[6] Plenty of issues with both tweets, but "racist" does not apply to either.

Book No Longer Available for Purchase

The article mention's her book The Internet of Garbage. I think it's worth mentioning that this book is now unavailable for purchase. [redacted per BLP] This is the link to the Amazon page where you could purchase her book https://www.amazon.com/Internet-Garbage-Sarah-Jeong-ebook/dp/B011JAV030/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 The page is still cached by Google so I assume it was deleted recently, possibly just before she was hired at the NYTimes. Notice it redirects to page not found. That should satisfy my claim that the book is not available for purchase even if this has not been picked up my any media outlets. I mentioned she failed to get rid of it though - you can find it on archive.org if you look.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlysle (talk • contribs) 17:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• This talk page is strictly for discussing existing content and generating new content. It is not for general discussion of the subject matter. Please see WP:TALKNO and WP:NOTFORUM. This section should be closed unless a content proposal is brought. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The content proposal was that we mentioned that the book is now unavailable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxlysle (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    • You seem to be correct that the book is not available anywhere - even searching ISBN 9781508018865 yields nothing. But we need a source that says that. A negative search result is not considered a reliable source in WP. Please do sign your posts btw. Just type four tildas as the end, and when you save your edit this will be converted to links to your userpage and talk page and a date stamp. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• It was a Forbes eBook, from 3 years ago, and Forbes regularly discontinues its eBooks. 33 of its 45 eBook titles have been discontinued: [7]. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Small article correction

Could someone correct this sentence near the lower half of the article -- capitalize the word "The" as in The New York Times and correct the link to The New York Times:

"Jeong has been appointed to the New York Times editorial board, to begin in September 2018."

So it reads like this:

Jeong has been appointed to The New York Times editorial board, to begin in September 2018."

Thanks! Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Capitalizing the "The" is how The New York Times stylizes itself. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Actually, I believe the current version is just proper syntax. The fundamental subject of the phrase in question is "the board", while the name of the newspaper is a descriptor for the subject. So, you can rewrite the phrase by saying "the editorial board of The New York Times", but if you want to put the name of the newspaper before "editorial board", the proper "The" has to get dropped because the sentence wouldn't work the other way. For example, substitute the actual name for "XYZ". You could say "she was appointed to the XYZ editorial board", but "she was appointed to XYZ editorial board" wouldn't make sense. Though it would sound exactly the same in this case, the proposed change would not be correct, in the exact same way the latter example demonstrates. To use the full name of The Times, the correct rendition would have to be "The New York Times's editorial board". That's my understanding of how this should work, though I haven't delved into textbooks or anything. Swarm ♠ 18:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • See their own printing of it here, where they do capitalize the "The": https://www.nytco.com/sarah-jeong-joins-the-timess-editorial-board/. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"Sarah Jeong is joining The New York Times editorial board. Read more in this note from James Bennet, Katie Kingsbury and Jim Dao"

• Interesting. Maybe I’m wrong. HuffPost says “The New York Times’ editorial board”. New York Post quotes “The Times” but uses “the Times” in its own voice. National review uses the same syntax as this article currently does. Vox, The Washington Free Beacon and Salon use a lowercase “the” as well, and these different renditions have all presumably made it past professional editors. Perhaps RefDesk can provide a definitive answer as to what the most academically correct wording would be, because journalistic writing does not seem to provide a clear and definitive answer. That, or there is no definitive correct version. Honestly not sure. Swarm ♠ 20:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal/question

In my tentative read, in the above survey the rough order of support is 2>3>1 at this moment. Since the current article protection is set to expire very soon, my proposal is to implement option 2 for the moment and let regular (or possibly semi/ec-protected) editing resume for the rest of the article. The survey can continue to run in the meantime and can be formally closed by another uninvolved admin (ie, not me) once the discussion has wound down and that can decide what the stable consensus is.

The only alternative I can see is extending the protection till the final consensus is reached (which may be a few days) and not have anything in the article about the tweet-controversy till then, which I don't believe is anyone's preferred choice. Can anyone think of a third alternative? Abecedare (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding option 2 in for now and then changing it later. We just need to get something on the controversy essentially as soon as protection ends. Jdcomix (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I am in disagreement. Why considering only a survey that was put up only very recently, instead of all the contributions added in the full proposals above? XavierItzm (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

So what's the alternative you are proposing? Extend the full-protection? Abecedare (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I think extending the full-protection may not be a bad idea. Since this is such a short article, there aren't too many edits that really need to be made overall, and those that need to be can be implemented by admins after discussion here; I predict there being a lot of editing but the sum total to be lot of edit warring and BLP violations and not much actual improvement to the article for the next few days. At-least ECP would probably be helpful to stave off those BLP violations. Of course, waiting a bit to see what happens and quickly imposing things as needed is fine too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you'd get a very different result if you considered all the contributions; the survey is the only thing that actually tries to compare the options. Since there seems quite an agreement to put something in even if there isn't agreement what exactly, I support Abecedare's solution (in my obviously highly biased opinion) Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so people contribute to something over a relatively long period, !voting on it, then a "survey" is put up and this is license to ignore all the previous people's work? I think you would need to count each !vote from both parallel processes. Tedious? Well, should have thought of that before starting the second one. XavierItzm (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

No, this isn't ignoring all that work, the survey is the conclusion of that work, putting up the final options as decided from that work. It is hard to figure out if people would prefer Option 2 over Option 1 from those previous !votes, with many being from before even Option 2 was proposed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

---

• OK, in interest of time, I've done the following:
  • Implemented Option 2 for now ie, till the above survey winds down and is formally closed (I changed 'regretting to 'regretted' and corrected the BBC headline)
  • Imposed an discretionary editing restriction that editors are not to edit or expand the content related to recent tweet controversy without prior discussion on talkpage.

And by discussion, I do mean establishing consensus. Violations of the above restriction may lead to immediate blocks and/or topic bans. If there are any objections, my actions can be appealed at WP:AN, but I hope this proves to be a satisfactory (tentative) compromise for all involved. Abecedare (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Would enforcing that restriction on editing the content on the tweet controversy be exempt from edit warring restrictions (that is often the case with these sort of restrictions requiring consensus for changes..)? Also I think you'd see imposing semi-protection would already be extremely sensible. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC) (added the missing "not". Abecedare (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC))

Yes. Reverting editors who are not abiding with the restriction, would not count towards 3RR (use common sense though, and please don't try to come up with some clever ways to game this exemption). Abecedare (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you revert editors ignoring the restriction, please drop a BLP DS alert on their talkpage (ie, {{subst:alert|blp}} ) if they haven't received the notice within the past year. Abecedare (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I assume that's supposed to be "not to edit". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! :) Abecedare (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• • Comment: I oppose this idea. I don't think it's a satisfactory resolution of the problem, and generally it is my opinion that the page is being handled poorly. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Closing line - minor ammendments

User:Galobtter and others watching this page...

I'd like to propose 3 minor ammendments to the closing line in the article. I see this as a pure NPOV alterations to improve the general reader's understanding. This, I hope, can achieve consensus rather quickly. Currently the reads: "The Times said that it had reviewed her social media posts before hiring her, and that it did not condone the posts."

1) "said" should read "stated" given the response was a statement and said implies a personal reply.

2) The Times statement reads as if it stands alone in this entire incident and not in response to the incident. It would make sense to add a prefix to the sentence along the lines of "In response" or "In response to the incident"

3) The Times response was to explain/justify their hiring decision in wake of the conservative criticism (and the media coverage that followed). They didn't just state that they "dont condone" but that while they dont condone... ultimately their hiring decision stands. I'm not sure best way to word this but the point/stated intent of their statement is currently absent from the present page.

I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Journalists defending Jeong

Perhaps viewpoints should be added to this Wikipedia article that include content from journalists who defend Jeong and her controversial tweets such as in this HuffPost article or this article from The Verge:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sarah-jeong-new-york-times_us_5b64c745e4b0de86f4a16ae2

https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/2/17644878/the-verge-new-york-times-sarah-jeong

Thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, of course some people are defending her. We already have that the NYT is defending her and continuing to hire her, I think mentions of additional people defending her are unnecessary unless we are going to add more people attacking her. WP:TOOMUCH. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• There are going to be a lot of opinions around, which is why we should use high quality secondary sources and summarize them, rather than citing these opinions directly Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed with summarizing. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Sarah was a senior writer at the Verge and her actions reflect badly upon them just as they reflect badly on the NYTimes. There is a conflict interest then. Also, Huffington Post has a history of inflammatory posts especially against whites. If you want to include defenses they have to come from neutral ground - for example Reason put out a defense of her.
• oppose too much detail, too close to the events. We should keep this high level. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the current version

This came in the middle of a discussion, before opposers had time to oppose every single FPER filed. I propose that the current version is removed. wumbolo ^^^ 20:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. wumbolo ^^^ 20:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. @Abecedare: I removed it myself, see the edit summary for the explanation. The next time someone adds it without consensus (since Abecedare admits consensus is required) I will report it to ANI itself. wumbolo ^^^ 20:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If you're removing per BLP, you have to show that it is problematic in someway; while we certainly must get BLP articles right, the material inserted scrupulously follows V and etc.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

No, per WP:NOCON, if there is no consensus on BLP content, it has to be removed. wumbolo ^^^ 20:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong support Wumbolo's comment on this. This article is insane, and the behavior of almost everyone here is abysmal. Might as well delete the damn page at this point, this is outright shameful. Ikjbagl (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose obviously. While there is no deadline, I don't see anything wrong with helping our readers by describing the controversy while they are going to be most looking it up, and this currently has the most support in the survey. Of course, if something different gains consensus, then the text can be changed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  Maybe has the "most support" but that does not indicate consensus. wumbolo ^^^ 20:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. See the thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated BLP & consensus violations by Abecedare. wumbolo ^^^ 21:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo In this diff it would appear that contributing editors directly canvased an active arbitrator, even while there was an open discussion and unanswered Request for edit snapshot under discussion. Am I understanding this situation correctly? ESparky (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@ESparky: not sure which arbitrator you're referring to, but fyi the list of arbitrators is at WP:ARBCOM. wumbolo ^^^ 21:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo Perhaps arbitrator a poor choice of words. Never mind I misread the edit summary "(text courtesy User:Jytdog and User:Galobtter))" it looked like there was an additional unannounced discussion somewhere. Regards ESparky (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not participated in any discussion about this article outside of this talk page. I strongly doubt that any such discussions have taken place, but I can only represent what I have done. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@ESparky: the "courtesy X" is for proper "copyright attribution" purposes since the text I was adding was not my creation. As you can check Option 2 is marked as "Jytdog's/my tweak of it" by Galobtter; hence their names were included. Abecedare (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Curious to know why "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Protected_edit_request_on_5_August_2018_2" wasn't addressed before your temporary consensus determination on another submission. I thought we had an 11 to 4 consensus. What is published now came nowhere close to that. ESparky (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Because in my judgment that proposal is not BLP and NPOV-compliant (additionally it has numerous grammatical errors, misformatted citations etc, but those are secondary and easily sorted issues). So I would not add it to the mainspace article myself, but given that that is a judgment call I left the request open in case another admin thought otherwise. Abecedare (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: That wasn't my intention at all, the passage started out the the opinion that she should not be fired for her free speech. This is the way most conservatives feel. The problem is that the left has weaponized the term racist and it only applies to white people. The controversy here is Jeong's treatment compares to similar cases where the offender is white in employment related matters. As for citations, I use Yackyard, so perhaps the interface is out of date. ESparky (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support the original idea Ikjbagl (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2018

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

---

Sarah Jeong is infamous for her strongly anti-white tweets, which many interpret as being racist, as well as tweets suggesting "kill more men" and "kill the police." Despite this controversial history of inflammatory tweets she was hired to the Editorial Board of the New York Times where she will be able to write as an editor without specific attribution of her comments. 73.42.35.173 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read upthread which will reveal that this discussion is in progress.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Major concerns with how controversy/criticism section is shaping up

While obviously Wikipedia should not be a place for axe-grinding or demonizing, I have some concerns with how the inevitable controversy or criticism section is shaping up under Wikipedia's model of reaching consensus.

The proposed texts seem to not be accurately capturing the heart of the controversy or its relevance.

First a few observations:

<redacted unsourced content about a living person>

That last point might prove most contentious, and it's worth discussing. Other important elements in the controversy worth noting are NY Times not condoning the comments and calling them unacceptable, while standing by Jeong in terms of employment. Jeong also "deeply regretted" her comments while explaining them as "counter-trolling". Many people have rejected her excuse but it's still worth mentioning.

I hope some sensible text can be created which doesn't water down or ignore the heart of the controversy or its notable details. Please support or oppose with additional comments if warranted. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

None of this cites any reliable sources. Please don't post any further content about any living person anywhere in WP without citing reliable sources. What we do here is summarize reliable sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand. I'm not proposing any text and my comments are meant for discussion. I'm not involved in the editing so finding the RS would be responsibility of the editors. Thanks. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but you don't understand. It is your responsibility to cite sources for what you post about a living person, anywhere in WP. Discussion about content is anchored to sources. Always. I am not being so bold as to remove your post but it should be removed, and my comments on it with it. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

So, for example, I need a source for Jeong calling it "counter-trolling" even though its been cited here many times in the past days and is common knowledge? I am trying to build on what came before. If I only need RS for some things and not others then be explicit about which. I have spent much time in the past finding RS only to be told it doesn't matter anyway because of some other reason. So I'd like to see if there's merit to my suggestions before I waste a lot of time. Feel free to oppose but I'd like to hear from others before any unilateral action. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"None of this cites any reliable sources." This is the talk page, not the article and user 2600:... has posted an accurate and useful analysis. The talk page is meant to be used to develop and edit useful ideas into the article. I just do not think your criticism is valid in this instance. Nodekeeper (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Nodekeeper please be aware that BLP applies everywhere in Wikipedia. Talk pages are not open game for unsourced content about living people. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From your point #1 onward you have unsourced claims about a living person. Don't do that in the future. I have now redacted all of them. Don't repost them without reliable sourcing If you do that, please do it below. Please be aware that there is almost no chance that any "primary source" (like a tweet or an opinion piece) is likely to win any consensus to be used on a controversial topic like this. Please see WP:Controversial articles and please also be sure to read WP:BLP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

We had a whole talk page of sourced material about Sarah Jeong's tweets between 2013 and 2017 that was hastily archived here by admin Abecedare that supported directly what user 2600:... commented about. Maybe we should revert all that back? Nodekeeper (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

To 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28: With regard to your point #3, note that a section on sex, i.e., speech against men, used to have its own section, but its title was found to be "contentious" and renamed "Talk at Harvard." So #3 is already being addressed, and you can contribute there, or not. Note: As I don't want to have my comment likewise deleted or altered, (see warning here) I am supporting it with a citation. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems you have retracted the entirety of this great analysis as well as my commentary. While you are right to remove unsourced material not all points fall under BLP. In addition, by removing the points you prevent relevant sources from being brought to light.

Please sign your posts. WP:Sign You're entirely right though. Maybe we need to take it line by line and find sources for it all. Nodekeeper (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As I noted if there is any part of your analysis that does not make an unsourced statement about a living person please feel free to restore it. Otherwise you should only restore it with a reliable source (as defined in WP:RS.) Wikipedia is not reddit. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposing minor accuracy correction to current version

For accuracy, I propose to correct the sentence "Jeong was hired by The New York Times to join its editorial board and to be its lead writer on technology" to "Jeong was hired by The New York Times to join its editorial board as lead writer on technology". Jeong was hired to write for the opinion side of the paper rather than the newsroom; however, the unclear antecedent in the current version of the WP entry can read as if suggesting she'll be lead tech writer for the whole paper, which is not the case. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request August 5, 2018

Passage is unclear, sourcing is weak need to identify actors and sources.

In August 2018, Jeong was hired by The New York Times to join its editorial board and to be its lead writer on technology, commencing in September. The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced, and that she regretted adopting that tactic. The Times said that it had reviewed her social media posts before hiring her, and that it did not condone the posts.

References

Regards, ESparky (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with this tagging. This is encyclopedic content, not a newspaper. We summarize at a high level. So with regard to the "who" tag on "who criticized", we don't need to list all the individuals who criticized. I have no idea what you mean by "'Critics' does not pass the ten year test". "Critics" here obviously refers to those who made the "strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media" Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." WP:RS Regards, ESparky (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing reliable sources =/= WP:OR. At all. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: ESparky, the semi-protection is not preventing you from making the edit yourself; the editing restriction is. The remedy for that is to establish consensus for this or any other proposed change. {{edit-protected}} is not fit for that purpose. Abecedare (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of issues still with this section. First, if we are going to be so generous as to treat the NYT self-interest statement as a reason to give her the benefit of the doubt regarding racism, (a clearly defined, objective dictionary word) then we cannot include the line about "conservative media", which appears somewhat political, not to mention contrary to sources. Also, the "mostly in 2013 and 2014" seems unsure, like we are purposely omitting something. Fix that.

I propose the following changes:

Change the line:

   ″The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014."

To:

   "The hiring sparked strong public reaction after numerous disparaging tweets, made by Jeong between 2013 and 2014, began making the rounds in the media and social media."

Or a variation thereof. Bnmguy (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not "political" to summarize the contents of published, reliable sources, such as CJR, BBC News, Associated Press, Vox, CNN, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and The Independent, that attribute the backlash to "conservative media". Nor do we take a stand on whether or not anything Jeong said was "racist" according to the dictionary; we can only say, as reported in multiple published sources (not just The New York Times), that certain people saw the tweets as racist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It "appears" political (to the reader) when we subjectively decide that only conservative media had a problem with this, or to even make the judgement about wether or not a source is conservative or liberal. Like you say, that's not our job. As you can see, my suggestion would eliminate that. Your remarks did not address anything in my suggestions, but seemed more focused on proving a point somehow. There is no reason to include the "conservative" reference here. —Bnmguy (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No one is subjectively deciding anything. We summarize what reliable, published sources say without injecting our own biases. Where sources disagree, we rely on secondary and tertiary sources that describe the dipute from the outside. I've added a list of sources above; you're welcome to check for yourself on how they characterize the issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that we shouldn't add the "conservative" statement, just like we aren't using something like, "Jeong posted racist tweets", even though valid, accurate reports attributed that to her. Let's not be selective in our standards. And yes, it is being subjective, even if we are refusing to see it. —Bnmguy (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment "strong public reaction" is a better choice of words NPOV, if you don't think the left is reacting strongly, you haven't been keeping up with this discussion and the spin doctors on damage control. ESparky (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

ESparky, I agree. I'm not seeing a valid reason for the "conservative" portion to be left in either. As I noted above, Sandeboeuf isn't being consistent with his applications here. Not to mention, the articles that attribute to "conservative media" are also articles defending Jeong, which is troubling. Wikipedia needs to be balanced. This is not the place for SJW selectivism or tactics. —Bnmguy (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment We should drop "conservative." Of the two sources used in the article the AP just says "social media criticism" and then "soon after [the hiring announcement] mainly conservative social media ..." The BBC source says "outpouring of online criticism " but only towards the end does it add "Conservative critics" lodge a specific criticism. The adjective "conservative" doesn't reflect the tenor of the sources used. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Here are some more sources on the conservative/right-wing criticism:
    • The Guardian "Old tweets in which Jeong ... criticized and made jokes about white people were resurfaced on a rightwing blog ... The response has infuriated those on the right, including Mike Huckabee and Rod Dreher, who have accused Jeong of being racist against white people ... Jeong’s experience in the last two days has highlighted the way the 'alt-right' is unearthing problematic social media posts in order to try and get opponents fired"
    • The Independent "After being uncovered [the tweets] quickly spread and were picked up by conservative media including the Daily Caller and Gateway Pundit websites"
    • The Washington Post "At right-leaning outlets such as Fox News, the Daily Caller, the Gateway Pundit, Breitbart and Infowars, Jeong’s tweets were skewered as 'racist,' 'offensive' and 'anti-white' ... To some conservatives, her hiring, and the subsequent defense issued by the Times, was an example of how liberals get away with their own brand of racism"
    • CNN "Faced with criticism and indignation from conservatives, the New York Times on Thursday said it is standing by a new hire ... the backlash, mainly coming from the right, was matched in intensity by a show of solidarity among fellow journalists"
    • Vox "The New York Times announced this week that tech journalist Sarah Jeong will join its editorial board — and the ensuing outcry from right-wing Twitter was both swift and familiar ... the alt-right used her old tweets to accuse her of being racist against white people"
    • The Hill "the newspaper soon received strong backlash from social media and some conservative outlets after tweets emerged in which Jeong made racially insensitive comments ... The Times response comes after conservative outlets and social media slammed the paper for condoning 'racist' remarks"
    • Columbia Journalism Review "Right-wing media outlets dredged up a series of inflammatory tweets Jeong sent between 2013 to 2015, in which she appeared to demonize white people ... The Times and The Verge both put out statements Thursday following the uproar among conservatives over Jeong’s tweets"
    —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We're not using those sources. The sources we use describe the criticism without the limiting descriptor "conservative" but only use that descriptor when discussing either the chronology ("soon after") or a particular critique. As we are not doing "original research;" we should adhere to the sources we use. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree we should drop the word "conservative" as CNN has also been critical, not just of the racist Tweets, but the Tweets disparaging the police as well as her defense that the Tweets were taken out of context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: deletion of "conservative" media

BBC, CNN, etc, are not "conservative". Sangdebeouf spends most of his time monitoring the bios of ostensibly "left-wing" BLPs and pointedly characterizing any and all criticism as originating in "conservative media". In the BLP of Linda Sarsour, he inserted the qualifier "conservative" no less than six times throughout the article. He is the only person advocating this ludicrous qualification in this article, so the consensus is strongly against him. (Ironically, it is this kind of "identity politics" and "politics of resentment" which turns otherwise liberal-minded people against the legitimate Left... Sangdebeouf I'm sure thinks he's doing the right thing, but is in fact acting as a useful idiot of the reactionary Right... but that's another story...) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither CNN nor BBC criticized her. Only the conservative/Russian (is there any difference at this point?) did. Openlydialectic (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Not true. It was on CNN yesterday. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by 'racist tweets' reporter, August 2.[8]

NYT stands by writer after anti-white tweets, August 4.[9] ZinedineZidane98

(talk) 06:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• SUPPORT The term "conservative media" is highly subjective, and there has been much criticism from a variety of media sources that would traditionally be considered liberal leaning. Additionally, the wording of this sentence makes it appear that criticism is also generated from conservative social media. There is no sourcing of this statement, and in fact there is evidence of criticism coming from liberal leaning social media as well. Notably users on Reddit appear to have taken a strong critical stance. Reddit is generally considered to have a liberal leaning user base.--Dpolinow (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion about Reddit users' beliefs. wumbolo ^^^ 14:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ah yes, that bastion of liberalism known as Reddit, home of r/The_Donald and /r/pizzagate, among other social-justice communities. I'm sure that the women of GamerGate would agree. Or not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Polling has shown Reddit's userbase to be a strong majority liberal or moderate leaning [10], with a small minority identifying as conservative. Subreddits such as TheDonald represents a small and isolated fraction of the rest of the community, removed from eligibility from /r/all. The front page of the site as a whole is dominated by anti trump and anti alt right posts. It is most definitely not a conservative social media site.

• Oppose per reliable-source mainline citations which we are citing. Softlavender (talk)

• You mean "support" then, right? Because, I'm citing reliable sources... ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 07:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Both of those sources specify conservative media: BBC says "conservative critics"; CNN says "right-wing ... right-wingers, people that identify with the white supremacist ideology". Also, please do not bold a "support" or "oppose" unless it is your own !vote (I have unbolded above). Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Only if you cherry-pick from the articles to the point of absurdity. Read the titles. Doesn't require an advanced degree in hermeneutics. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

ZinedineZidane98, if you cannot read and understand what articles state, then you probably do not have the competence required to edit Wikipedia. You have provided no quotes to back up your repeated assertions, and other editors have provided direct quotes as evidence. Wikipedia requires verifiability from reliable sources. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Titles/headlines are normally written by copy editors, not journalists. They exist to grab the readers' attention. That's why we cite articles, not headlines. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I read the articles. The CNN article also says "mainly coming from the right" which means not only conservatives. The AP article that we use also says "mainly." I trust you would at least accept the insertion of "mainly" into our article. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: "conservative" is supported by multiple published, independent sources (see preceding section). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Cherrypicking op-eds. Check the articles speaking in the voice of BBC, CNN, etc. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • OK, here ya go:
      • CNN "Faced with criticism and indignation from conservatives, the New York Times on Thursday said it is standing by a new hire ... the backlash, mainly coming from the right, was matched in intensity by a show of solidarity among fellow journalists"
      • BBC "Conservative critics said the New York Times board's decision to stand by Ms Jeong amounted to an endorsement of discrimination against white men"
      —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Thanks for proving my point - cherrypicking. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
        • No, Sangdeboeuf provided proof that the sources you mention specify that the criticism is from conservatives. If you cannot read and understand what sentences means and what articles state, then you probably do not have the competence required to edit Wikipedia. You have provided no quotes to back up your repeated assertions, and other editors have provided direct quotes as evidence for theirs. Wikipedia requires verifiability from reliable sources. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support While there may be some truth to the idea that conservative partisans, operatives, or whatever first spotted her tweets and complained about them, there's little doubt that most people know about this because the story was quickly picked up by CNN, BBC, The Hill, etc, ie mainstream news not "conservative news". 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, but this phrase is about what media had a negative reaction to the tweets, which is conservative media Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Sources generally refer to a conservative media backlash, e.g Associated Press: "mainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets", and so on as pointed out by Sangdeboeuf. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support. If the conservative media calling her tweets racist means that they criticized her, then liberal media calling her tweets racist means that they criticized her. The oppose voters completely disregard non-conservative sources (provided endless times in above discussions) that call her tweets racist, and I'd like to remind that it's a bit of POV pushing to only look at conservative sources. wumbolo ^^^ 10:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

What liberal media called her tweets racist? Per the high quality sources above (associated press, bbc, the guardian etc), which we summarize per NPOV, the negative reaction/backlash etc came from conservative media; even if one finds some liberal media criticizing it, using that to say we should change the sentence is WP:OR. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support and agree with Wumbolo, every news organization ran basically the same story. BBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, The Hill, The Guardian, literally every news organization. I can't find an organization that DIDN'T run the story. The notable thing here is the news coverage of the tweets, not what "conservative media and social media" said. This feels like POV pushing to me. Ikjbagl (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support: As the polling has moved to this section let me repeat what I wrote above: We should drop "conservative." Of the two sources used in the article the AP just says "social media criticism" and then "soon after [the hiring announcement] mainly conservative social media ..." The BBC source says "outpouring of online criticism " but only towards the end does it add "Conservative critics" lodge a specific criticism. The adjective "conservative" doesn't reflect the tenor of the sources used. As to the suggesting that other sources support the use of the word "conservative," we aren't using them and haven't yet decided are reliable. I said We're not using those sources. The sources we use describe the criticism without the limiting descriptor "conservative" but only use that descriptor when discussing either the chronology ("soon after") or a particular critique. As we are not doing "original research;" we should adhere to the sources we use. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We're saying conservative media and social media; the AP says social media criticism and conservative social media criticism. So we're basically saying what the associated press is saying. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not a mere conjunction as you imply. The AP lead paragraph just says "social media criticism." A subsequent paragraph notes that it originated in conservative venues by saying "Soon after, mainly conservative social media took issue ..." Even here the word "mainly" implies it is wider than just conservatives. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, initially, it was wider than just conservatives, it also included antisemites and the far-right, according to the Guardian. wumbolo ^^^ 13:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support removal of the "conservative media" verbiage - When one's source is the BBC, one would be hardly pressed to say, oh, yes, "conservative media" said the tweets were "inflammatory tweets about white people." XavierItzm (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support removal of the "conservative media" verbiage as per @XavierItzmKeith Johnston (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• oppose this is where the initial storm of protest arose as reported by subsequent high quality sources. This is what the content says - "sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media". Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  Of course. We want to keep saying that conservative social media initiated it, but it's not true that non-conservative media didn't continue "the storm". wumbolo ^^^ 14:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  I am responding to the OP. Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  BTY, I supported your version of the summary but suggested we add the word "initially" before "conservative". Many of the sources note its origin in conservative venues. And the word "initially" leaves open the possibility that it spread beyond conservatives. This word would go alone way to a consensus and conformity to the tenor of the sources we use. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  I think adding "initially" would make sense and help make it more clear for people who read too fast or uncarefully...That's a helpful suggestion. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support, clearly not a conservative/liberal split on this. Red Slash 15:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The tweets in question have been called racist by numerous publications, as shown above. Oren0 (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments about men and cops

The comments about men and cops that have come from her ought to be on this page. They're a big reason the controversy is increasing. See

and before you attack me for using a WaTimes link, when I searched "sarah jeong" on the AP News site, one of the results was the WaTimes link.

References

Atrix20 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Her defamatory comments toward police were covered on CNN yesterday. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

well all the more reason it should be on this page. It shows that her comments about cops are a big enough part of the controversy to make CNN.Atrix20 (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If editors think they should be in the article, they need to stay around to defend the edits or they'll end up deleted. It's not enough to post to the talk page once and then leave. Nodekeeper (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There are already sections about these subjects. The comments about men are on Talk at Harvard (yes, it used to have "men" in the title but someone objected) and the comments about police are on Anti-police statements. Bestest, XavierItzm (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for new Wiki page: Controversy caused by Sarah Jeong inflammatory tweets

Not already having this as a section on a page for Sarah Jeong makes Wikipedia literally incredible, but this controversy is deserving of its own page, considering the massive amount of media coverage already given it. As has been noted here, Jeong is only in/famous because of her vile, hate-filled, racist, sexist, anti-police tweets - not because of her work as an author or journalist. Gorkelobb (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If you think it's deserving of its own article, go ahead and create it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Gorkelobb, that would be a completely unwarranted WP:CONTENTFORK, and would be deleted very quickly. Softlavender (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

1) wp:fork 2) she isnt only known for this issue (otherwise you could just rename the page) I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually support this, but with a caveat. It should leave Sarah Jeong's name out of the title and instead be called "New York Times Editorial Hiring Controversy" which would broaden the article enough to include previous hire/fire decisions. Also, it would allow discussion of what to me appears to be a double standard i.e. the concept that it's acceptable to be racist to white people, but not other racial minorities, which appears to be gaining wide acceptance among those who believe left leaning ideologies. Or maybe discussion of the validity of the "outrage mob" in making hire/fire decisions. Also perhaps "free speech" issues. It would make a much better article imho. Nodekeeper (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I actually slightly support something similar – a list or category for people who were either engaged in Twitter controversies, or fired because of them. But in my opinion, "list of people who were fired because they said something bad" doesn't sound too encyclopedic and appropriate for a list, or even a category. wumbolo ^^^ 10:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support a broader version, but I agree that another article about Jeong would be too much / WP:FORK. Ikjbagl (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There's potential for a broader article covering societal reaction to offensive contributions to social media. This would cover more than just tweets, and more than just raises related comments. It would inevitably mentioned Jeong, but also Carol Owens, Quinn Norton, Roseanne Barr and other incidents. However, this is an ambitious and almost certainly contentious undertaking so if someone else wants to go for it, go for it, but a specific article on this person and her tweets sounds too narrow.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

While looking for something else, I stumbled on Online shaming, which is essentially the article I proposed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as the normal way to do this would be by adding a section to the NYT article and splitting it off if it becomes too large. I also don't understanding "editorial hiring" - what does it mean? Doug Weller talk 12:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is a broader cultural moment rather than just a footnote in Joeng's life. James Damore's memo would be a good example.Keith Johnston (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  We already have Overton window. wumbolo ^^^ 14:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well one could try but it would likely be deleted quickly. See WP:SUSTAINED. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or blog. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: add sentence for The Verge and other journalists

The response from her other employer and journalists as documented by Columbia Journal Review should be included. The Salon source documents that at least one of the quoted tweets was completely out of context.Citing (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The Verge and other journalists characterized the tweets as out-of-context and part of a bad faith attempt to harass a journalist.

References

• Support. Although this makes the paragraph a bit longer than I would ordinarily like (until the article gets fleshed out more), this adds an important element to the situation and contributes to NPOV. Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Personally I think the whole section should still be wiped until some time has passed to get proper perspective.... I took a stab at a quick CP of existing text to minimize text and maximize context.Citing (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

In August 2018, Jeong was hired by The New York Times to join its editorial board as lead writer on technology, commencing in September. Conservative media and social media highlighted tweets about white people that Jeong had posted. Critics characterized her tweets as racist; Jeong said that the posts were satirical and "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she experienced, and that she regretted adopting that tactic. The Times stated that it had reviewed her social media history before hiring her, and that it did not condone the posts. The Verge and other journalists characterized the tweets as out-of-context and part of a bad faith attempt to harass a journalist.

References

• Strong Oppose. Both of the links are highly questionable sources. The first one is written by David Uberti who works for the New York Times and is merely working on its behalf to defend its hiring decision, hence is a strong conflict of interest. The second link while it might be argued is response to another post - let's remember why Ms. Jeong is doing this - because she is being harassed and "counter-trolling." Instead, what Salon does is prove that she is not a "counter troll" because harassment, but rather seeking out arguments about race, because, you know, she hates white males. Nodekeeper (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

David Uberti does not work for, and has never written for, The New York Times. The Salon article proves that Jeong's tweets were a direct response/rebuttal to Andrew Sullivan proudly publishing chapters from The Bell Curve which he took out of context to excoriate 4 years later. Softlavender (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't support the rewrite of existing text which has already gained consensus (your rewrite is unclear and confusing), but I do support the addition of the last sentence. Softlavender (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If you include what the opinions of those sources are, then you need to include opinions from other news sources, like this one. Otherwise it's pretty blatant WP:CHERRYPICKING Nodekeeper (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Those opinions have already been summarized in the second and third sentences of the on-wiki paragraph. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support the single added sentence as an improvement over the current version. Softlavender's right that it becomes UNDUE plus this kind of chasing-the-takes is just what I hoped we wouldn't do, but once begun... Innisfree987 (talk) 05:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Marginal, argumentative, partisan sources. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There's very little in the article about this controversy as is, just a few sentences. If anything a few of the tweets themselves should be shown to readers so they have more context, instead of biased defenses by former and current colleagues. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose see WP:ONEWAY for conspiracy theories about "bad faith campaigns" by the "right-wing" BBC et al. wumbolo ^^^ 10:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, no reliable sources for this and all of the reliable sources (major news organizations, literally everyone covered the story) do not mention this. Ikjbagl (talk) 11:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Wumbolo. Jdcomix (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Why the reluctance to tell readers what tweets said?

It looks to be the norm in a WP article to partially or fully quote the tweets within the discussion. This article leaves the tweets themselves in some murky realm, which can be frustrating to someone looking for information.

Although these cases are not exactly the same, it could be helpful to look at how similar controversies were handled:

• Roseanne (see also her bio, ""controversial tweet, which many called "racist" and she later called a "bad joke"")

• Toby Young (see also his bio, where the tweets were mentioned and characterized as "misogynistic and homophobic")

It would be interesting to compare how long it took to add mention to this article with, say, Roseanne or any comparable tweet controversy. We are often blind to our own bias, but the readers are saying that they see it on WP pages like this one, and they are not pleased.

Perhaps add the most often quoted of the tweets from the most authoritative sources, like the BBC and the Guardian. petrarchan47คุก 06:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia is not censored. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• That would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. It's not Wikipedia's function to quote one or more of a dozen or so tweets from four years ago which were dug up and taken out of context. The news cycle about her tweets is over, and the controversy came to nought (unlike the Roseanne situation), nor did she delete tens of thousands of tweets or make homophobic tweets or sexual-harassment tweets (like Young). Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Original research. We report what reliable sources say (BBC, CNN), not your interpretation/opinion of the issue's importance. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

ZinedineZidane98, please read and learn what WP:OR means on Wikipedia, in addition to reading and learning about the other two Wikipedia policies I linked above. You've already been blocked six times in four years for disruptive editing [11], and received a topic ban as well [12]. Tendentious and uncollaborative argumentativeness here (for which you have already received usertalk warnings [13], [14]) can eventually become cumulatively disruptive and garner you another topic ban if you are not careful. Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool story bro. But you didn't address the point: we report what reliable sources say, not your own personal opinion of what they really meant, or how important you think they are. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We are reporting what the reliable sources say; check the on-wiki text and the citations. We are also abiding by WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, which are Wikipedia policies. Softlavender (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"It's not Wikipedia's function to quote one or more of a dozen or so tweets from four years ago which were dug up and taken out of context" - Wikipedia's function is to report what reliable sources say, with weight reflected by them. RS chose to quote her tweets, as have prior other WP pages. I asked for an example (but received none) of a WP page where controversy surrounded a tweet but the tweet itself was not quoted. We have already explained when the tweets were posted, as well as the defense that they were out of context. I still don't see why we refuse to elaborate with direct quotations as nearly every RS has done, and as WP regularly does. It is far from "not news". I don't watch TV yet even I have heard about these tweets.

"The news cycle about her tweets is over, and the controversy came to nought" - "nought" because she wasn't fired? She made headlines all over the world, in a world that had never heard her name before, no?

"nor did she delete tens of thousands of tweets or make homophobic tweets or sexual-harassment tweets" - What is the relevance of this? I said the examples of how we've handled contentious tweets in the past aren't exactly like Jeong. But they aren't unique enough to ignore either, unless you can find a few examples (WP pages) that show this is normal for a tweet controversy (not quoting the tweets that made headlines). These tweets put her on the map, unlike the examples I listed. So, the tweets themselves are an even bigger part of her story than with the others. petrarchan47คุก 19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support I suggested two earlier, the "cruel to old white men" and "fire hydrant" tweets since they were two of the most widely reported. I see no valid reason to avoid giving that kind of context to the reader. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. It's not Wikipedia's function to quote one or more of a dozen or so tweets from four years ago which were dug up and taken out of context. The news cycle about her tweets is over, and the controversy came to nought (unlike the Roseanne situation), nor did she delete tens of thousands of tweets or make homophobic tweets or sexual-harassment tweets (like Young). Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't mentioned Roseanne or that other person (not familiar), but since you did I saw that on Roseanne's article her controversial tweets are indeed quoted. I think the tweets verbatim are appropriate context that only help the reader make sense of the controversy, instead of pointing at the controversy from far away. Saying the news cycle is over and nothing happened it editorializing. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia's function to report what the reliable sources say... NOT what an anonymous username (Softlavender) ranks as relative importance via analogy (Roseanne, Young) on the Talk page. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS, what you say is not Wikipedia's function; and per WP:UNDUE, there is no viable reason to quote the specific tweets directly. Softlavender (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• • Presenting tweets stripped of their original context as well as the context provided by the published, secondary sources that we use is the opposite of giving readers "context". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Reliable, published sources are saying that the tweets were dug up and deliberately taken out of context by people seeking to demonize journalists, and that as a result Jeong has been subjected to even more online abuse. By including the text of the tweets in our bio of Jeong, we would clearly just be doing the trolls' work for them, in clear contradiction to WP:AVOIDVICTIM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Jeong's original context (she says she was "counter-trolling") is already mentioned. But given NY Times called the tweets "unacceptable" and "contributing to the vitriol" and Jeong herself "deeply regrets" them I'm curious what extra context you think is needed? The tweets pretty much speak for themselves. They are the controversy, and they're what news reported on, so yes it's completely appropriate. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not how we write articles; see WP:WEIGHT. Of course, since the tweets "speak for themselves", then there's no reason for anyone to even read her bio, and no reason for this discussion at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

They're literally what the controversy is about. How is it undue weight to quote 2 tweets verbatim that were widely reported by dozens of reliable outlets? I'd like to hear from others not just you. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. My proposal above is one of few proposals which include a tweet as an example. wumbolo ^^^ 10:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Oppose. WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:AVOIDVICTIM indeed, but there are context concerns. Let's just call the tweets racist and call it a day. wumbolo ^^^ 18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Jeong's recently enhanced public profile is largely down to her tweets. I don't see why some people are trying to gloss over what she said and presumably (as there were dozens of racist tweets over a period of years) thinks. --Fahrenheit666 (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support: I don't see any reason not to include them. Major news organizations quoted the tweets extensively. They give context and explain what the controversy was about. Wikipedia is not a place to censor the tweets because they may be racist or difficult to read; they were part of a notable event/controversy, were widely reported on, and should be included as such on the subject's page. Ikjbagl (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose when summarizing down to a paragraph, the individual tweets become undue and it is hard to give appropriate context there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• It is easy to explain why experienced editors won't permanently record the tweets. To do so would mislead readers because picking comments made by someone in the past when they were trying to make a point would misrepresent Jeong's views—she opposes the kind of material in the tweets and was merely "imitating the rhetoric of her harassers". News outlets are different—they record today's turmoil which will be forgotten within a month. Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose via WP:UNDUE. This would be undue weight to a minor episode in her over 100k tweet history and larger professional experience. The sources seem to agree on the characterization; the details are not needed. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support No reason whatsoever not to quote the offensive tweets - clear double standards at play here. The claims of quoting what the subject stated on multiple occasions creating undue balance is utter nonsense, and confirms a clear hard left bias. Skijump777 (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The tweets were textually cited by most of the media. Wikipedia is not censored. What's sad is that if we say that the media commented on the tweets (without citing them), people say it is unfair because we are putting what the media said about them, and if we say, OK, just paste the tweets from the media, then people say it is unfair too! XavierItzm (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia is not censored. Also, it isn't UNDUE if reliable sources are covering it. Jdcomix (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Beyond NOTCENSORED, this is highly DUE as it seems a significant chunk of this individual's notability (from a little known tech writer to an national/international news item) is due to this twitter/NYT storm. We should of course include the subjects's response and justification.Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It's not Wikipedia's job to try to make her look good. Just put her words out there (like you have done with right wing personalities) and let the reader figure it out for themselves. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Undue weight, impossible to give context.Citing (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  What context? I'm sure context can be provided for whatever tweet. wumbolo ^^^ 14:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Then it becomes a coatrack article.Citing (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• oppose This is an encyclopedia. Not a newspaper, and although it is online and open to anyone it is not social media and not part of the blogosphere. (Parts of WP are shit and are continuous with blogosphere; those parts are lapses not exemplars). I find it somewhat remarkable that not a single person hollering SHOW THE TWEETS has suggested showing the tweets she was responding to and perhaps in some proportion. Hm. In any case I recommend the following to those who have no clue what she means about being trolled and counter-trolling see oh this from 2014 and this piece elaborating on that one, and this extensive report and this and this from Poynter and this from Sunday Morning Herald in Australia... that there is lots more context. With time independent secondary sources will emerge providing analysis and discussion of Jeong in that context. Until then, the high level summary we have is plenty for now. Woof. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

So you consider quoting the tweets to be "blogosphere" territory? You do realize you're including the Guardian, the BBC and any other media outlet that quoted them? What is the problem here? It's almost as if she is being protected regardless of the rules of WP, due weight and RS. That is bias - the death of an encyclopdia. petrarchan47คุก 19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• We need reliable sources discussing tweets she was "responding to". Her tweets are extensively mentioned in the news, and they can be in the article. wumbolo ^^^ 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  There are btw RS discussing tweets to which she was responding and it remains remarkable that not a single person above has called for quoting them. But again we are not a newspaper. And WP:V is the minimum standard for including anything; all the other policies and guidelines also come into play when the community considers what to include and not to include. NPOV, BLP, etc. This is all too much detail, too close to the events. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. It looks like we're hiding something or being deliberately obtuse. Red Slash 15:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Why is she even notable without the tweets' contents? And ditto the others who support.Atrix20 (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the tweets were quoted, it would require several paragraphs to discuss the context. At that point, discussion of the tweets and ensuing controversy would take up a large portion of the article; far more than is appropriate per WP:UNDUE. Also per Sangdeboeuf: many sources agree these tweets were dug up to harass and defame her and threaten her new job at the NYT. For those of you who seem so worried about the optics of not including the tweets in the Wikipedia article, please also consider the optics of reprinting harassment of a woman who has spoken out against online harassment and been a target of such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not about optics, it's about keeping this an encyclopedia, neutral and unemotional; facts don't have feelings. Anyway, she is not being further hurt by our reporting what RS has been doing for the past week, although we cannot base our content on how someone feels. How is showing the tweets, the subject of the paragraph discussing them, harassing HER? And since when does that consideration trump recording the facts as evidenced by RS (ie, "the sum of all human knowledge")? I also disagree with your claim that it would take up too much space. petrarchan47คุก 19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support the tweets are a big portion of her notability, and it is not our job to protect her from the consequences of posting offensive tweets. Lepricavark (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support The article makes no sense without mentioning the tweets. Scaleshombre (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support This foot dragging against simply putting reliably sourced material out there is embarrassing for Wikipedia right now. Editors should not allow the NYT or their employee, the subject of the article, to effectively censor and guide the narrative in what is clearly an embarrassing situation for the NYT. Many reliable right leaning sources are keeping this alive in the news cycle (it's not over, despite SoftLavender's somewhat desperate seeming lawyering above). Editors here seem to be taking Jeong's excuse for her racially hate filled tweets as reliable, which is a very peculiar assumption to make. It's not obvious at all that the tweets were part of a back and forth with racists, that's just the excuse she gave, without any reliably source substantiation that I'm aware of. Wookian (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not taking sides on whether Jeong's defense is good or poor. It is merely state what critics have said, how she defended herself and that her employer accepted her defense. This is what the sources write, without taking sides or critiquing who is right. Opinion writers, on the other hand, have much to say. That's not facts. Many right leaning sources are attacking Wikipedia for doing what we do, summarize reliable sources. For example: [15]

  OK, but you didn't address the primary point here, which was "why not quote the tweets"? The contents of some of the racially hateful tweets are fully quoted in reliable sources as mentioned above. The reason given by some editors above for NOT quoting them is that Jeong's excuse is to be taken as truthful - that the tweets were part of a conversation with hateful racists, and she was replying in kind. My point is that we haven't reliably sourced any evidence for that excuse, so why not follow some of our reliable sources and just quote the tweets? You have no good argument against that, as far as I can tell. Wookian (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  She's not disputing the fact that the tweets were hateful. Why do we need to present evidence when the accused pleads guilty? OK, guilty with an excuse, lame or not. But so what? These details aren't needed for our summary. There is no contention here. The summary reflects what's common to the widespread coverage in the reliable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• • In tweets like the one embedded above, Jeong appeared to be commenting on the idea that white people often believe they are being discriminated against when they aren’t. To equate “being mean to white people” with the actual systemic oppression and marginalization of minority groups is a false equivalency. But Jeong’s detractors removed this type of context, and began to circulate her old tweets in curated roundups that quickly went viral Vox
  • Jeong’s tweets, in context, clearly fit this type of rhetoric. Vox (click in -- was hard to quote this one without pasting a huge chunk of the article)
  • The alt-right is on the hunt for journalists’ heads, and their latest tactic, it appears, is to take tweets out of context and weaponize them against liberal writers. This week, the target of organized conservative trolls is tech and legal reporter Sarah Jeong Slate
  • Right-wing trolls are notorious for taking comments and jokes out of context and drumming up disingenuous outrage to target their opponents The Cut
  • But ignore the trolls you must. This includes the gleeful, snickering chuds who strip old tweets of their context and send them back out into the world. Huffington Post

  There are plenty of reliable sources saying the tweets were taken out of context. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Pruning and clean up

The article needs a good pruning (not related to Tweets).

Lead: The Internet of Garbage is an ebook, there is no print edition

These references have problems with independence. College publications are generally not RS and events usually not included in the Wiki. Three refs are paid content. One has nothing to do with Jeong. Several are duplicates

• Reference #1: Is Forbes 30 under 30 profile, does not disclose that she writes for them (Forbes)
• Reference #2: Is not independent, Vox owns The Verge, Jeong's current employer (Vox)
• Reference #4: Is sponsored content from (The Toast)
• Reference #5: Has a hyperlink to Jeong's Twitter, but otherwise has nothing to do with her (Above the Law)
• Reference #8: Is an event announcement from a college newspaper. (YaleNews)
• Reference #9: Is an article written by Jeong, not about her. (NYT)
• Reference #10: A self published Wordpress blog launch (how is this Wiki worthy?)
• Reference #11: Same as #10
• Reference #12: Duplicate -- same article as #8 (YaleNews)
• Reference #13: Another event announcement this time from her college newspaper (Harvard)
• Reference #14: Duplicate -- same article as #4 sponsored content (The Toast)
• Reference #15: Outakes from the paid content by published by The Toast (The Mary Sue)
• Reference #16: A page selling various books, Jeong's happens to be one of them (Gizmodo)
• Reference #17: Forbes 30 under 30 -- does not disclose that Jeong writes for them (Forbes)

Disturbing that the article does not mention the employee connection with Forbes, the ebook publishing arrangement and the 30 under 30 award. This seriously calls their editorial policies into question. Somebody more sympathetic to the subject than I am needs to do this pruning. It's very tempting, but I'm not going to touch it. ESparky (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I love a good conspiracy theory. I bet you think all these respectable journals and sources are also controlled by Illuminati too? Openlydialectic (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is horribly sourced. see WP:IS ESparky (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

In addition to being RS, references have to be independent of the source ESparky (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a bizarre article overall, to be honest. Sadly, Wikipedia is full of these "vanity pieces posing as BLPs". I'd say the article subject doesn't come close to being worthy of a BLP - but fat chance of it being deleted now, with the usual suspects determined to maintain it as a glowing CV as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, but that does not mean a bunch of puffery can't be removed. I don't believe there is any sanction against fixing this part of the article, but I've burned enough time on this and an edit war with this COI crowd would last for ages. ESparky (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree with you here and raised this issue myself numerous times elsewhere. I don't know why Wiki is allowing an article to be maintained based on blog posts and university publications, some of which were WRITTEN BY THE SUBJECT. Can anyone spell "conflict of interest"? I think the article needs to be reverted back to how it was before this controversy started and to have a quick, one or two sentence blurb added about the controversy. There has DEFINITELY been some fluffing/puffery going on. Compare how the article looked on August 1 to how it looks now. Someone has created a whole page for one of her books that didn't exist anymore, then added a sentence about it in this article's lead (what looks like just to fluff it up a bit)! Wikipedia is not a place for subjects and their supporters to build a resume (even using pieces the subject, herself, wrote!). Ikjbagl (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I just tried to nominate AfD. One of the usual suspects immediately reverted. Surprise, surprise. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

No, you were reverted because the article was speedily kept literally 2 days ago. You would also have probably been blocked for a potentially bad faith AfD nomination. Jdcomix (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

And yet here it is, open again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Jeong ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Biased article

Very long but nothing particularly helpful here for improving the article. Specific proposals on improving the article is most useful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I just read this article and to reverse several issues. I am a "strong" supporter of being careful about content on BLP's and that references be of a higher quality. I am also a "strong" supporter in an encyclopedia not being steered one way or the other by well-meaning editors (left, right, liberal, or conservative) that ends up resulting in a "junk article". I actually think that "if" an editor or editors cannot be "fair" and present any two sides of a topic or controversy as reported in reliable sources according to "due weight" (balance), neutrality, and other policies and guidelines that supposedly have the purpose of creating good quality articles, they might consider editing in another area possible by persuasion if necessary. I do not follow "tweets". I ran across information about the subject and controversy concerning a supposed previous "tactic", where she made derogatory remarks. I Googled her name and there was in fact several news agencies I read through that carried information so I "looked her up" on Wikipedia. My first reactionary thought was that the article leans in one direction so I looked at more sources, to gain some perspective about "sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media", since it was "vague" as to "which" conservative media and "social media so I looked at more. I was certainly shocked when I realized that Wikipedia talk pages and editors comments are now subjected to media news when I read the headline ACTIVIST WIKIPEDIA EDITORS FORBID ANY MENTION OF SARAH JEONG’S RACIST TWEETS IN HER PAGE. That article refers to remarks she used as "anti-white, anti-man, and anti-police tweets". SO now Wikipedia editors are again being hauled before the "court of reporting land" as being biased or protective. It should go without saying that even if corrected there will be no positive update. As a reader I expect to see relevant content, be it right, wrong, or indifferent, but assuredly reliable sourced concerning controversies. I didn't look to see if this was a "right-wing" or "conservative" news media, what the circulation count is, or investigate the "editor" that is actually a news reporter getting a "scoop". I was, and still am, shocked that Wikipedia, with all kinds of policies (including the fundamental principles) concerning neutrality, made headlines as leaning so far as to be "out of scope with reality", appearing in media as attempting to whitewash important information. Are we more concerned with making sure only "conservatives" are portrayed as being incensed? Are we using BLP concerns to "cover up things", or water them down so much as to be biased in another direction, appearing that Wikipedia supports (partially reports so watering down) someone that has used derogatory and inflammatory comments she "regrets as past failed tactics"? If it is reliably sourced, as far as I know, and we document what has been "published", there will be no BLP issues and we should fairly present "both sides". I DO NOT support that "tweets" be use verbatim just to "show" the vulgar language of the subject unless it is totally necessary in the context of the article (and because Wikipedia is reportedly uncensored) but something needs to be done. To me, the subject being a reporter does allow the "dredging up" of past actions when it is brought to light in reliable published sources. Wikipedia needs to stop being biased by using words like conservative, liberal, left-wing, right-wing, or any other descriptive terms to "identify" news media positions solely in an attempt to decide if they are not reliable or can be excluded because they "might" be considered conservative and unreliable. REALLY! SO if a news agency is considered liberal it is alright? If a news agency is "state owned", considered a propaganda media, or does not have the required editorial oversight we usually consider it reliable and just present "both sides". I think I have seen aljazeera used so that is debatable, however, we "should not" deem a news agency as unreliable "just because it might take a position we do not like". Information relevant to an article should not be unduly restricted. "IF" there are opposing views Wikipedia is reportedly required to fairly present both sides. The subject giving defensive reasoning supporting that these accusations were just a failed tactic, does not justify burying them. Maybe it was a "failed tactic" but maybe the subject is actually prejudice, and biased, and being a writer able to employ damage control. If not fired the employee will take the stand that they do not necessarily support or agree with the position of a writer. Now we have a major newspaper hiring a reporter that "may" not report fairly and in fact use the position to exploit these "failed tactics" getting them right the next time, and Wikipedia actually guilty of supporting this. Hiring biased writers is likely done every day but when it is a controversy in news media" we are supposedly obligated to cover both sides. When content states: "Critics characterized her tweets as being racist", the box is open. critic, and certainly what statement? Wikipedia can not attempt to be fair (that neutral thing) when opening a box, and cherry-picking what should be pulled out and presented. "IF" the subject made comments about men, white men, or the police, it is editorially responsible that content cover this. Not just that "her critics" (particularly conservative media and social media) consider remarks racist thinking that will suffice. I do not know the woman, and have never before read about her, so would not be considered a "critic". I feel this wording is portraying that only her conservative leaning critics would be incensed? I do not plan to edit this article. I do not support using "tweets" as sources but if reliable sources mentions controversies it should not be "watered down" to the point of being biased or protectionary. If editors go against consensus or there are BLP concerns then an admin should look to see if editor sanctions are needed. Discretionary sanctions on a "Start class" crappy article, potentially used as a weapon, might be a cause of what I consider negative publicity. How many objective and "fair" editors are going to shun editing when "one admin", that "could be" biased one way or the other, can administer sanctions. In my opinion it severely and unnecessarily restricts Wikipedia. The current wording falls so short of any good editing that it would need a rewrite which would mean endless battles (look at this pages history) to even correct biased or substandard content. This actually means that how the article is has been "accepted" by consensus being the editors that has hung around. Anyone else will not be accepted as a new set of eyes but an intruder trying to screw with consensus AND subjected to possible discretionary sanctions, which I feel does not need to be on the article, as there are too many other ways (consensus, dispute resolution, ANI) this page can be "watched", or "protected". It seems to me that Wikipedia is relegating the article to a biased barely out of stub piece of a joke. It is colored and covering the top of the article in edit mode: "You are not permitted to edit or expand the content related to recent tweet controversy without prior discussion and consensus on talkpage, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page", as well as: "If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned". Sanctions are certainly sometimes needed but I cannot see being needed on this article. I hope involved editors will revisit this issue of branding news media outlets and using partial content. If there is verifiable and reliable published sources with with derogatory information on a subject it should be covered fairly with balance (but not partially and biased) as I am one of those that would not have known about her but for this information being revealed. Have a nice day. Otr500 (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC) And herein lies the fundamental problem with Wikipedia and very specific, very controversial articles like this one.... for the most part, it is only the most hysterically biased editors who will bother sullying themselves with edit-wars and ludicrous wiki-lawyering over something so trivial... while neutral, disinterested editors like yourself, who conduct yourself with honesty and decorum, would prefer not to wrestle in the mud with the proverbial pigs. And so we have 4 or 5 editors holding sway over well over a dozen, because one of the 4 or 5 is an admin and has frozen the article to his/her preferred version, and threatens to block anyone who disobeys his/her instructions. Temple of the mind indeed. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I'm still trying to wrap my head around the notion that an editor with 10 years experience was not simply unaware, but actually shocked that the content of Wikipedia talk pages is discussed in Media News. How is this possible?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Article proposed for deletion

Discussion at AFD page. Don't need parallel discussion/voting here.
Time to put this baby to bed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Jeong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Internet_of_Garbage ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC) * KEEP. Why would anybody want to delete this WP:NOTABLE article? That would be just plain ridiculous. Castncoot (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Kim Davis article as guide

I suggest giving a good read to the Kim Davis article. It provides a useful structure for building a WP:BLP1E into a candidate for a Good Article. Scaleshombre (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a great example as Davis was completely unknown and didn't have an article before making the news.Citing (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not a "great" example but certainly a "good" one. Jeong was relatively unknown and had relatively little coverage before making the news. Like Davis, the controversy surrounding her has now received international coverage. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong vs. Naomi Wu

Sarah Jeong has had an adverse impact on Naomi Wu's livelihood. I can't fold this into the article now, but it's depositive. https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5 kencf0618 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I saw this unfold on Twitter a while back so I know what you're referring to. There's not really any coverage in reliable sources, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Granted, but just in case, we've got the basics here. kencf0618 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, we have Wu's allegations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The source provided is a blog, what the editing community calls a "self published source" or SPS. See WP:BLPSPS. We cannot use it. We've got nothing. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Very interesting article, but without independent RS coverage would not merit inclusion in the article (or even be includable per WP:BLPSPS) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)