Talk:Sarah Jeong

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.

References

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].

References

Bestest, XavierItzm (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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)

References

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

Not seeing how "Others commented on her statements" adds any meaningful information at all, unless the goal is to draw attention to these specific opinion columnists (Roberts & Sullivan) over certain others, say [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] – once again, that would be undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

In this case, there ought to be no objection to:
"Others commented on her statements."
Now featuring the sources you have commendably contributed. XavierItzm (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

What, only six footnotes after "commented"? I think we can easily get that up to fifteen or sixteen, what with all the commentary that's out there now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Anti-police statements

Evidently over a long period there are also numerous anti-police statements as well;[11][12] "“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.[13] 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)

Per WP:BESTSOURCES, it states the best available sources and in this case, availability is the choke point. The best available among reliable sources. It could well be that UK paper Daily Mail is the best available source, or some other news organisation. If there are better, let's use those. It has won] one of the Press Awards. AadaamS (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:DAILYMAIL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The currently proposed sources do not include the DM. XavierItzm (talk) 05:20, 7 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)
• Support 3 or 3a I've explained my reasoning ad naseum in these pages. This arrangement is the least POV and most accurate representation of the controversy. Criticism of Jeong was not limited to the conservative bogeymen, it was widespread and articles defending Jeong were forced to offer critical descriptions of her tweets (see my list [[14]]), even if they spend the rest of her article parroting her defense. SWL36 (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Since the bulk of the articles are given to "parroting her defense" as you say, then due weight would require us to focus on that aspect, not the supposed criticism, which nobody but Wiki editors is calling "criticism" anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:37, 7 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)

You could always try informing "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" that good encylopedia writing takes time. We want to get it right, especially with sensitive topics. That's actually part of our BLP policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:03, 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."[15] Plenty of issues with both tweets, but "racist" does not apply to either.

Ready to close?

• The survey discussion seems to have settled. So should we call for a formal closure, or would editors like to wait (say) another day? Abecedare (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think now's fine. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support close with tentative consensus I think discussion has moved downward to new proposals based on what is currently in the article. Its worth closing and letting battles over the issues with this wording be fought in newer discussions (noting that both discussions have large support for overturning this current, tentative consensus). If this option is not possible, I would support leaving it open and starting an RfC to flesh out a rather thin discussion supporting option 2. SWL36 (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose close. Nobody has adequately addressed the points here regarding this as part of a bad faith effort to quotemine. The Columbia Journalism Review is a reliable source on journalism (which everyone ignored in the linked discussion) and the statement from a former employer is serious. Other sources show statements were entirely stripped of context and made them seem offensive[16][17]. Fortune has a good article that provides context.Citing (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Lets let the survey run a few more days to see if more editors would like to opine, or add other options to the survey. There is no real rush. Abecedare (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, you yourself wrote that the discussion seems to have settled. Now you've apparently closed off the option (of a formal closure) to let the survey "run a few more days," apparently based on one editor's comment. I hope you'll reconsider. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no rush. In the meantime take a look at what I posted?Citing (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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: [18]. -- 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

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.

---

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)

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.

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.[19]

NYT stands by writer after anti-white tweets, August 4.[20] 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 [21], 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)

I think "mainly" or "primarily" is accurate, based on existing sources, so yes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, as that's a misreading of the CNN article and of the AP article. AP says "mainly conservative social media" (emphasis mine), and CNN, which we are not currently using says "criticism and indignation from conservatives". If we add mainly, then we need to also add the strong support from journalists which is mentioned in that CNN article and several others including Yahoo Finance and those mentioned by Citing in a thread below. Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed about defense by other journalists, since CNN, WaPo, CJR, Vox, The Independent, and The Guardian give this and the statement by The Verge comparable space to the NYT statement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 7 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)
  • We should adhere to the sources we use – Or we could, you know, add more up-to-date secondary-source analysis to the article. We don't have to rely just on breaking-news outlets.. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:47, 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)
• Support Bnmguy's suggested version: 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 on social media. It's inappropriate to call out conservative media's negative response to her tweets without mentioning the significant support she's also received. This more neutral version is a nice balance without having to go into huge detail about who supports or opposes her tweets, especially when there are unclear cases like articles in CNN or BBC (not typically considered conservative) that have spoken out against the tweets. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I posted this in a different section, but it's apparently more relevant here. This was posted above, but not under its proper heading for votes.

• Proposal for neutralization of a single line

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 on social media."

Neutralizes the language, remains accurate, and won't appear biased. As a side note, those advocating for keeping in the controversial "conservative media" part have given a number of sources for doing so. However, the vast majority of articles do not use the qualifier, and those that do are injecting an opinion, as they offer no sources in the articles themselves for the assertion. Wikipedia has a responsibility to be accurate. Articles with consensus of opinion aren't necessarily indicative of accuracy. This proposal seeks neutralization as a solution. It is no less valid and just as accurate after the edits. —Bnmguy (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Support It feels like the survey for the current was rammed through in order to achieve a desired outcome after 5 or so previous proposals. The focus on conservative media aims to try to minimize the widespread media backlash that she received. Previous discussion did not favor using "conservative news and social media" as the only critics. These discussions that were tens of thousands of words and a week in length were tossed by the wayside after a day of discussion and a lesser consensus then many previous proposals.

Removal of the "conservative" tag accurately reflects the reliable sources BBC called her tweets "Inflammatory," CNN states that she had "drawn scrutiny after the resurfacing of a number of years-old tweets in which she spoke disparagingly of white people." (Note: BBC very quietly watered down its criticism of Jeong, and called the tweets racist until they changed it after believing her defense as fact.)

These outlets are not right-wing. These outlets talked about conservative criticism but included some of their own. Sarah Jeong is not a household name right now because Mike Cernovich and Breitbart were her only critics. This article should reflect the coverage of her and not try to dismiss it as a right-wing smear campaign. SWL36 (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Where did CNN, BBC, AP et al. "criticize" Jeong? direct quotes from the sources would be helpful. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There are quote marks in the post with the criticism from CNN and BBC. Here's another criticism from The Independent (pretty left-wing in US terms): Ms Jeong, 30, posted a string of offensive and apparently racist messages including “#CancelWhitePeople” and “white men are bulls***.” WaPo described her tweets as "derogatory towards white people."

Each of these sources criticized her tweets. I don't think I need to also include criticism from Fox, NR, WashTimes, or other right leaning sites here, its been repeated plenty in these pages. If the words "derogatory," "inflammatory," "offensive," "disparaging," and "racist" are not critical of the tweets, I don't know what is. Each of these articles criticize the content of her tweets before offering up her defense of them. SWL36 (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"Apparently racist" is not quite the same as "racist". That's a clear qualifying term by The Independent. The bulk of their coverage is given to background explanations by Jeong and her current employer, including the similarity between her harassers and GamerGate. Their intention is clearly not to "criticize" Jeong.

I think in general we are dealing with a confusion between criticism and analysis. Saying that somebody wrote something "disparaging" is not a necessarily a criticism; that's just news reporting. It would be a criticism to say that because of their disparaging statements, they are unfit to work at the Times. Most of our reliable sources go on to describe in detail that the bulk of the criticism came from right-wing and right-leaning sites: CNN says the backlash "mainly [came] from the right". The AP directly states that "mainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets".

That is the criticism we are describing in the article based on published, secondary sources. To treat the BBC, CNN, et al. as primary sources for their own (supposed) criticism would be a reversal of our policies on primary and secondary sources as well as due weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References

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

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.

---

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)
• Oppose per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIT. This goes here. Oren0 (talk) 19:15, 6 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.

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)

Thank you for pointing out this error to me, and I have striked out the mistake and changed my stance from "strong oppose" to "oppose" to reflect this. I still question the political bias of the author. I did not spend further time in analysis at this moment with the Salon tweet article because there are multiple tweets and not just that particular one that is being discussed. Nodekeeper (talk) 21:37, 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)
• Oppose unless you can find sources stating this under their own voice that didn't used to employ her (context, The Verge is part of Vox Media, so anything under that umbrella is tainted unless the COI is explicitly mentioned). Not to mention, there are dozens to hundreds of these tweets (depending on how sensitive you are), so the claim that it's in reaction to others strains credibility. Oren0 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment this issue has in fact been given comparable space to the NYT statement by other independent, reliable sources such as WaPo, CNN, Vox, The Independent, and The Guardian, several of whom quote The Verge's editors at length. Due weight would suggest we include this; however, I wouldn't use Salon here, since it's more or less editorial commentary. I'll work up some proposed text and post it here unless someone beats me to it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Vox is garbage as well. --2001:8003:4023:D900:6CC4:70F5:BCF2:3091 (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The sources are partisan with direct links to Jeong. Scaleshombre (talk) 05:25, 7 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 [22], and received a topic ban as well [23]. Tendentious and uncollaborative argumentativeness here (for which you have already received usertalk warnings [24], [25]) 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 that not quoting the tweets that made headlines is normal for Wikipedia. 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)

No viable reason in your opinion, yet can you explain why RS would have done it? Have you read much about this story? Nearly all quoted the tweets. In this case your opinion differs drastically from RS which is problematic. petrarchan47คุก 19:19, 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)

You are, of course correct. No more can be said, under pain of banishment. Cheers! XavierItzm (talk) 21:19, 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)
  • Summarizing published sources necessarily means omitting detail. As you say, news orgs quoted the tweets and gave context and explanations. Unless we paraphrase entire news articles, then quoting individual tweets would give them undue weight, not to mention contribute to an ongoing campaign of harassment against a young writer. That is fundamentally incompatible with the project of writing an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:31, 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)

I agree with you on your first point, and have said the same elsewhere. I was mostly responding to those who are worried about Wikipedia getting outside flak for how we address this. Regarding whether the content of a Wikipedia article can cause further harm than what's in reliable sources, I disagree with you; news articles tend to fade fairly quickly, but Wikipedia articles tend to remain at the top of search rankings. I don't mean to say that Wikipedia shouldn't publish sourced negative content on BLPs, we do that all the time and I support it. I do mean that we should use caution when repeating material that's part of a harassment campaign against someone. As for "since when," at least since WP:AVOIDVICTIM has been around. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:32, 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: [26] Jason from nyc (talk)

  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)

  What do they mean by "context"? Are those quotes even relevant to this conversation? As far as I can tell, the mitigating "context" for Jeong's remarks is the concepts of intersectional social justice. These non-NPOV sources you've cited are consistent with that, and don't really help the case when they blindly accept Jeong's excuse without giving us any juicy examples of this "context" to chew on. Wookian (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  I have linked the articles if you're not sure what they mean by context. You were saying that "we haven't reliably sourced any evidence for that excuse" so I have produced some. As for them being "non-NPOV", those are reliable sources and as far as I can tell none of them are in the "opinion" section or otherwise exempt from editorial review. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  Let's take the Romano Vox piece as an example. It uncritically repeats Jeong's excuse that the racist tweets were satirical responses to other racists, but doesn't give any support to that excuse. And it (like your other links) has an extremely politically biased POV that favors the left, and thus Jeong. It is hardly NPOV. It would be interesting to see a substantiation of Jeong's excuse from a reliable source, but I haven't seen it yet. Seems more like just a bunch of leftists defending their team. Wookian (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  I believe Vox is quite regularly used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Disagreeing with a reliable source does not make it unreliable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  So you are saying that we should not quote the tweets because a writer for Vox said they are "stripped" of context? While no one is able to give examples of this cryptozoological "context" either from Jeong's twitter account or from the Vox article or from any of the other articles? Can you explain exactly what was meant by "stripped of context"? Can you quote or link to some of the verbatim "context" that was "stripped"? Feel free to use an RS to answer this question, but kindly give the verbatim context that was stripped, not just a bunch of editorializing like in the linked articles. Note: You obviously don't have to answer my questions here. They are rhetorical in nature, and I think it's obvious that you can't answer them. However these are all important questions for WP editors deciding which sources are NPOV and which are just blindly adopting Jeong's unsubstantiated and rather flimsy excuse. Wookian (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  She is an employee of Vox Media and a Senior writer for their vertical "The Verge", it says right in this Wikipedia article. Their commentary on this controversy is nothing else than protecting their employee and colleague and can't be NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.85.131.154 (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2018‎ (UTC)

  This Salon article gives context for one of the tweets Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you, Galobtter. That's interesting, and would make a good link and/or explanatory snippet from a verbatim quote of the "white people=underground goblins" tweet in the article. Did Jeong intend to be hateful to white people in that tweet? Maybe. Per pretty much all RS's, it comes across that way, and it's not clear that the context would change this. There's still no reason to censor the tweet just to protect Jeong's narrative. Wookian (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  As I've said above, we should not quote the tweets unless the whole situation is explained in detail, and to do so would create an unduly long section. You asked for sources saying they were stripped of context, I've provided them, and now you're asking me to explain what the writers were saying regardless of the fact that the articles themselves explain the context. I'm not sure there's anything I can say that would satisfy your requests, since the goalposts seem to be moving.

  No, I'm asking you to justify censorship of the tweet contents, which is what this whole conversation is about. I haven't seen any "context" which comes close to justifying censorship of the tweets, or even anything particularly exculpatory of Jeong. Maybe it's out there, I just haven't seen it. (Galobtter's link was interesting, but still nothing to write home about - so she was mad about an article that discussed scientific studies of race and IQ, it's not obvious why someone would tweet hate speech against a race on the basis of that, and it falls far short of explanatory, much less exculpatory, context. Wookian (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  As for 46.85.131.154's point, I didn't realize that. Feel free to ignore the Vox sources, then, there are plenty of others. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion moved elsewhere GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The problem with those sources is -- except for a handful of old Tweets attacking Jeong -- they don't support her argument, which is that she was responding to specific attacks made against her on Twitter. The "context" your sources describe is an ethereal, highly POV universe where Jeong can't be held accountable for her comments because she's not white. That's a much larger issue that merits discussion, but it's not relevant in this specific "context." Scaleshombre (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Again, just because you disagree with a source doesn't make it unreliable. You characterize acceptance of her tweets as "an ethereal, highly POV universe", I characterize it as a reality where people are allowed to speak out against structurally oppressive groups of people even when they do so in exaggerated ways. But in the end it doesn't matter what we think, that's what reliable sources are for. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Per WP:PA it would seem advisable not to express agreement with Jeong's tweets against a racial group. Please criticize people's individual words or actions, not their identity? Wookian (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Excuse me? Where have I made a personal attack? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I don't know that you have, and I hope you haven't. Some would interpret your phrase above "structurally oppressive groups of people" in the context of your remarks and the wider context of Jeong's tweets, and make the interpretation that it's OK to make negative generalizations about groups of people by race or gender. Hopefully your intent was far from that. Wookian (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC) It's okay to criticize groups of people who have been structurally oppressive, including white people, men, and police. It is not a personal attack to say so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I am offended that you are saying it is OK to say bad things about a race or gender. I will decline to state how personally your insult of whites/males relates to me, since anonymity is prized around here, but please kindly just observe WP:PA and avoid insulting entire races/genders of people. It's not necessary in 2018 and goes against WP rules for you to speak so offensively against me and others. Wookian (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Take me to ANI if you want, but I'm not going to stop saying that there are groups of people who have historically been terrible to other groups of people. If it helps, I'm white. Maybe take a history lesson instead of denying objective facts about people who share your race/gender/occupation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Allow me to explain the difference between personal attacks and speech criticizing systemic oppression. "Fuck Wookian" is a personal attack, while "Fuck the Police" is a great song. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Making a negative generalization about people of a particular race is bad on WP when there are editors of that race. It's WP:PA whether or not you care to admit it. It's no different than a racial slur against blacks, against Jews, Asians, etc. It's offensive no matter the race of the speaker and has no place in a civil discussion about editing an encyclopedia article in 2018. Wookian (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Boy, we really ought to rework Reverse racism if that's the case, then. There is little to no empirical evidence to support the idea of reverse racism. Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States generally lack the power to damage the interests of white people, who remain the dominant group. Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism. Again, take me to ANI for incivility if you want, but I'm sticking with this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Maybe what should be reworked is WP:PA to make it clear that it's OK to say bad things about the race of other editors, but only if they are white? That's the implication above. I disagree, and furthermore don't find the term "reverse racism" useful. I'd rather call it plain old "racism" whenever people make a negative generalization about a race. But why belabor the point? Looks like we've both put in our statements on this issue and I have no desire to report GorillaWarfare to the admins for their hateful and untrue racial generalizations (like all negative racial generalizations, there may be truth historically and relating to the actions of individuals, but it is always wrong to negatively generalize an entire race). Wookian (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I'd certainly like to see that conversation if you propose the change to WP:PA. Ah well, I was kind of hoping you would take me to ANI so this could just be settled, but I understand you're putting yourself in a rough spot trying to argue the point. Anyway, we've been asked to move this discussion so feel free to take it to my talk page or wherever. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC) @Wookian: You'd do well to actually look at the page history before casting aspersions like Please don't censor this part of the discussion. Some readers might think you would want to censor it because you were caught making a racial slur against people based on color of their skin. You may retract your own ill advised (imo) comments, but please don't censor the wider discussion, which happens to be directly relevant to Jeong's tweets. I even linked to the diff above where we were asked to move the conversation. I stand by my statements and don't intend to retract them; I also am willing to move conversations without insulting those I'm conversing with when they're not entirely on topic, and I'd like you to do the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC) GW, I don't know where these editors come from--so here we have another one of the "good people on both sides" variety, proclaiming equivalencies where there are none. I note that the last time this editor was around they wanted to remove "debunked" from the Seth Rich murder article. So we have #civility thrown around from behind the wall of denial--very fragile. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I couldn't agree more. She's allowed to tweet whatever she wants, RS are allowed to report on it, wikipedians are allowed to come to a consensus on it, and are then obligated -- in line with the mission of this encyclopedia -- to construct an article in accordance with said consensus. On that note, the consensus on including her tweets seems to be overwhelming. Can anyone show just cause for further delay? Scaleshombre (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  Glad we agree on most of this, though we do very much disagree on what constitutes "overwhelming consensus". Presumably potential closers are waiting on something a bit clearer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per GorillaWarfare. WP:UNDUE is policy and it doesn't matter how many sockpuppets show up, that policy isn't changing. Gamaliel (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support If we don't mention the tweets, we're not doing our job. It was mentioned by most sources, and so should Wikipedia (if we claim to neutrally summarize sources). Kleuske (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support If it was a couple of tweets a decade ago then the argument to not include them might would be valid. But let's be honest, the tweets span a period from 2013 through 2017 and there are a large quantity of them. They are consistent in what they say, and show what the thinking of the author of them clearly is. In addition, most every news source is doing so. Nodekeeper (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:NOTCENSORED. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Winkelvi: see also WP:NOTFREESPEECH, since that's basically your argument. wumbolo ^^^ 21:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Update Looks like as of now 18 support (including petrarchan47) and 9 oppose, unless I missed someone. It's about 2-to-1. I'm still suggesting the "cruel to old white men" and "fire hydrant" tweets be quoted verbatim. Both were standalone tweets (not replies to anyone) and require less context, or no additional context since Jeong's explanation of "counter-trolling" is already in the article. Both are fairly self-contained thoughts and were two of the most widely reported. Others like "CancelWhitePeople" are rather vague or ambiguous, though I'm not completely opposed.

The arguments for and against I'm seeing now are just being rehashed from previous days, so it might be time for someone with edit privileges to update the article. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTVOTE. Perhaps someone will come along and close the discussion shortly, but it's only been open for 15 hours or so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Support The version that is currently up was instituted after a day of discussion and reads as remarkably sanitized. The paragraph that is there provides ample context, linking the most commonly quoted tweet "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," (Fox) is a clear case of WP:NOTCENSORED. She said some things that sparked a visceral reaction and a heated debate about racism and social media backlash. Not including what she said and leaving in the passage that dismisses this as a right-wing smear campaign would say a lot about which POV wikipedia supports. SWL36 (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support per WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, she became notable for her Tweets. So why not include them? AG47 ^Talk 21:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• Just to respond to the repetition of WP:NOTCENSORED -- no one opposing quoting the tweets has said anything about not quoting the tweets because they are offensive. No one.

For all the many new folks here expressing a !vote (which is a "!vote" not a "vote") please do see WP:CONSENSUS and how it is evaluated in Wikipedia). The policies and guidelines aren't memes. They actually have meaning. Do see WP:CLUE. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, There was very little consensus for the current version of the article in all of the previous discussions on this talk page. It was instituted because it had more votes when the mods felt like they should add something to this article. Past discussion did not agree with the labeling of this controversy as a product of right-wing social media outrage; this is blatantly obvious because those active in those past discussions are here arguing against labeling the controversy like this. These are not editors voting without reasoning, this proposal has drawn significant discussion, and that discussion cuts against the status quo. The article at the moment is deeply flawed, and should be changed. SWL36 (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog has a point. Editors shouldn't be blindly citing policies and guidelines without understanding them or how they apply to this specific instance. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure WP articles can always be improved. This specific suggestion is not an improvement in my view and in the view other very experienced editors. I do fully understand that a bunch of people find this matter of old tweets to be Extremely Urgent; this urgency itself is an expression of an incorrect understanding of Wikipedia just as trying to meme-ify "NOTCENSORED". Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Our job as encyclopedia editors is to provide an informative and educational article about this topic. Readers wanting to learn more about this controversy are going to want to know exact what she said. I know I would. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• In that case, write an article on the topic. Otherwise, it is not WP:DUE here, particularly given that she was merely "imitating the rhetoric of her harassers". Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Let's be clear: She alleges she was merely "imitating the rhetoric of her harassers." Her claim should be included in the article, but not in Wikipedia's voice. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• The closer should be someone with sufficient experience to understand that WP:NOTCENSORED (the most popular ILIKEIT support reason) is not relevant to this discussion. NOTCENSORED means, for example, that a sex article might discuss gritty details or show explicit pictures. It does not mean that every factoid must be inserted. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  Disagree. Actually WP:NOTCENSORED is relevant to this discussion. Censorship relates to more than just obscenity, there is also political censorship. China's censorship of Tiananmen Square is not about the graphic gore of all the killing, but rather about political ideas people might get if they were exposed to certain inconvenient raw facts. Similarly here, a politically favorable treatment of Jeong's tweets would not include verbatim quotes, but would censor those since (as our best RS's recognize) the tweets are quite inflammatory. While some editors arguing "oppose" here may have only the purest motives, I agree with many above that WP:NOTCENSORED is sufficient reason to nip in the bud any attempt to sway the article with a non-neutral (and censorious!) POV. Wookian (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Administrator note The above discussion is useful to air various sides of the argument and compile relevant sources, but in order to make actual changes to the article someone will still need to propose specific language and then gain consensus for its inclusion. I am spelling this out since it may not be clear to many of the newer editors participating in discussions on this page. Abecedare (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you Abecedare. I find the proposal in the "Update" just above to be even handed in terms of following the usage of verbatim tweets in the RS's. It avoids context concerns by only including two specific tweets that are notable in their treatment in the RS's and also lacking in context aside from Jeong's excuse which is already well described in the article, so not really subject to objections about context. Wookian (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what Update section or proposal you are referring to (its a long page!). Can you please provide the link to the section? Abecedare (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Responsive to Abecedare's admin note... I would suggest that the Support side has both a clear numerical advantage and has articulated a clear encyclopedic case for following the examples of the Washington Post and others by quoting the tweets verbatim. Do any of those who voted "Support" above disagree with the specific proposal in the Update somebody posted above? Here is a copy for convenience: Update Looks like as of now 18 (now 21 I think) support (including petrarchan47) and 9 oppose, unless I missed someone. It's about 2-to-1. I'm still suggesting the "cruel to old white men" and "fire hydrant" tweets be quoted verbatim. Both were standalone tweets (not replies to anyone) and require less context, or no additional context since Jeong's explanation of "counter-trolling" is already in the article. Both are fairly self-contained thoughts and were two of the most widely reported. Others like "CancelWhitePeople" are rather vague or ambiguous, though I'm not completely opposed.

Unless we see contradiction from Support-voters, seems like there's consensus for this, however as Abecedare noted, somebody has to frame it into a specific edit proposal. Wookian (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wookian: The consensus does not come before a proposal and is not vote counting. See WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:POLL. Again, I'm spelling this out so inexperienced editors don't end up violating the edit-restriction, under the good-faith but mistaken belief, that they have consensus for a change. Abecedare (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining Abecedare, and I certainly ain't touching the article without clear consensus. However, I'm hoping that that really long list above of people's registered Support/Oppose statements above are not wasted. If they are, then I hope I'm not presumptuous in being disappointed in admins for allowing this thread to advance so far without anyone's "Support" statement counting for anything. If you are saying that there is no possible edit that can fulfill the "Support" statements above ex post facto then OK, but I would respectfully disagree. Wookian (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I can propose a pretty straightforward change. Someone with edit privileges will have to implement it.

Original: 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.

Update: 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. One widely reported tweet read "oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get from being cruel to old white men." Another took issue with "dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants." 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.

This could be a starting point at least, then further discussion can isolate what problems remain. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd neutralize the language with the second tweet. Maybe make it replace "another took issue with" with "A second tweet read: ...". I think just quoting the cruel to white men tweet conveys the nature of these tweets well enough, but I am not opposed to both. I think someone else should make the edit request that can frame it a bit more neutrally. I can try my hand at it in the morning if we don't have a solid request up by then. Its critical that the edit is as neutral is possible so discussion can focus on whether it should be included and not on whether the words around the quote are appropriate. SWL36 (talk) 03:10, 7 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

No reliable sources presented, WP:NOTFORUM

(Redacted) 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) For those editors that are confused as to what is going on here and do not know the backstory, this video explains it in a very succinct, lucid, and clear manner. Scaleshombre (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jeong

I've closed the AfD: there is no way that it is ever going to lean delete, given the overwhelming number of keep votes. Please see the AfD if you want more words. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Neutralize a single sentence

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.

---

This was posted above, but not under its proper heading for votes.

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 on social media."

Neutralizes the language, remains accurate, and won't appear biased. —Bnmguy (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As a side note, those advocating for keeping in the controversial "conservative media" part have given a number of sources for doing so. However, the vast majority of articles do not use the qualifier, and those that do are injecting an opinion as they offer to sources in the articles for the assertion. Wikipedia has a responsibility to be accurate. Articles with consensus of opinion aren't necessarily indicative of accuracy. This proposal seeks neutralization as a solution. It is no less valid or accurate after the edits. —Bnmguy (talk) 20:28, 6 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.

Alert: The Daily Caller is trying to influence this Wikipedia article

• NOTE: The Daily Caller has alerted its readers about the article and is encouraging people to fight for inclusion of her tweets, etc., in the wiki article: [27]. So this article definitely needs more eyes/admins/protection, and weeding out (or blocking) of SPAs, newbies, and POV warriors. Softlavender (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe it just needs to be an intelligent, well-written and encyclopedic article rather than a call to WP:BITE any newcomers, that only feeds the drama. Assume WP:GOODFAITH is our mantra. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Have they actually explicitly encouraged it? Unless I've missed something it looks like they're reporting on the article and giving their opinions on what should be included, but it doesn't look like they're specifically encouraging people to meatpuppet. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks to me like they are not calling for a fight, rather reflecting on the ridiculous state of the article and its talk page. This is a person who is notable for a single event, and a handful of editors insist this thing is not in fact noteworthy and fight any attempt to include a neutrally worded version of the event.

Will some people read that article and come here? Probably. Will SPAs who post "why does article not say she is a racist?" have much influence on the final outcome? Probably not. There should not be a mass culling of newbies in this section because they are unhappy with WP's coverage of Jeong. Almost everyone but the handful of people who supported the current version are unhappy with this article. SWL36 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Examples of the racist Tweets should be included in the article regardless of who is making the argument. As for newbies, we should assume good faith, be welcoming and help them understand Wikipedia's rules and how we write articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Almost everyone but the handful of people who supported the current version are unhappy – consensus does not require a majority. Please see WP:POLL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll argue until I'm hoarse: this version does NOT have consensus. It is, according to Abecedare "a provisional stop-gap." It was instituted because the lack of coverage on the controversy was glaring and was added because the results of one proposal (of around 10) tilted in favor of the current option. All you have to do is look at the discussion in the last day; the currently version is hotly contested and NOT CONSENSUS BY ANY DEFINITION. Current polling and discussions oppose the current coverage at a ratio of around 2:1. SWL36 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Everyone is aware of that. There is a section above where various versions are being discussed; some consensus on one of those, or perhaps one that has not yet been proposed, needs to be arrived at. Or perhaps consensus will gather around some specific tweak as is being discussed in the section about removing "conservative". Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

SWL36, you are right that about the current version only being the one that had tentative/provisional consensus at the time the article's protection expired. Since more than a day has passed since then and the participation in the survey designed to determine the stable consensus seems to have settled down, I have asked above, if it is time to formally close it. Let me know if you (or others) would prefer to let the survey run for some more time. Abecedare (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

To SWL36: Yes, but is everyone aware that the editor who chose the current version did it after a 155-minute poll of editors who happened to be online during those 155 minutes? XavierItzm (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I pointed out earlier there was criticism on even lessor known conservative websites (i.e [28]). I don't think it matters because veteran editors of diverse political views are still committed to an accurate summary of reliable sources. I see the usual push and shove settling on a fair representation of the salient features of the story. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

They aren't even picking a fight though. And this could be dangerous because this could lead to us blocking anyone you disagree with, which isn't going to happen. Jdcomix (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Add "Tweet controversy" subsection or section

I think given the notability of the controversy at least a subsection under "Career" titled "Tweet controversy" is called for. Thinker78 (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:RECENTISM and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We should have some kind of subsection that delineates it from her overall career -- "Tweet Controversy"; "Controversial Tweets"; etc. BTW, the recentism argument is pretty ironic, given that those tweets will still be around long after her career is over. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless you've got a crystal ball, that's something we should judge after considerably more than a week or two has passed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

One wonders how WP:RECENTISM is to be applied in the case of the current inclusion of this press release (yes, press release, look at the URL which is not from any newspaper):

In August 2018, Jeong was hired by The New York Times to join its editorial board as lead writer on technology, commencing in September.

References

Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please start using {{reflist-talk}} when you post a citation so that your citations don't clutter up the page. The one above appeared in the section below, which is just confusing. I have done this about ten times for you. Please do it yourself. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Propose removal of self-sourced, unreliable and unrelated sources.

Propose removal of self-sourced, unreliable and unrelated sources. Let's try this for a start.

1. Two references (#4 and #14) from The Toast are identical, at the bottom of the interview, is the statement: "SPONSORED CONTENT". (Action -- remove reference)
2. Reference #15, from The Mary Sue has the line "(via The Toast, image via Forbes)" the article is a rehash of the press release in Item 1. (Action -- remove reference)
3. Reference #5, from Above The Law has nothing to do with Sarah Jeong. (Action -- remove reference)
4. The following is a self sourced blog, with no RS sources. It says, "powered by WordPress. built on the Thematic Theme Framework." in the footer of reference #11. (Action -- remove paragraph)

Propose removal of entire paragraph -- adds nothing -- self-sourced

In 2014, Jeong and Electronic Frontier Foundation activist Parker Higgins launched a periodic newsletter called "5 Useful Articles",

discussing intellectual property issues, current and historical. The newsletter went on hiatus in 2015.

References

This should be an interesting discussion. Afterwards we can discuss the independence of some other references. ESparky (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Are event announcements from college newspapers RS? In my experience colleges news was not RS -- granted those colleges were not Harvard and Yale in the instances I was following. ESparky (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey ESparky, about the "Sponsored Content" thing at Toast.... That is very obviously a header to the stories below it, that the page says are "provided by outbrain" (at least for me; who knows what you might see with all of the digital targeting these days). This is very common -- See for example this story at Foxnews.com, where at the bottom you will find "Sponsored Stories You May Like" with stories below it (also "provided by outbrain", again for me). Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Second Jytdog here; people seem to be interpreting "sponsored content" as indicating this is native advertising or an advertorial; however, the suggestion that Jeong paid The Toast to publish this is somewhat far-fetched. The by-line is "Nicole Chung ... Managing Editor of The Toast". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the dupe Toast ref.

I agree that the MaryJane blog adds no value; it mostly quotes the Toast interview and gives some of the blogger's own thoughts.

I agree that Above The Law adds no value (it was sparked by a Tweet she sent - she paid Pacer to get the filing and tweeted about it - hence the hat tip at the bottom).

with respect to the newsletter launch blog post i reckon that is there solely to give the launch date. The best ref for the newsletter is probably this listicle, not currently cited. The end date has no ref and we would probably have to use (gasp) its twitter feed, just to source that it ended in 2015. Content would be" "Jeong and Electronic Frontier Foundation activist Parker Higgins wrote a newsletter called "5 Useful Articles" discussing copyright issues (cite listicle) from 2014 (cite "launch" blog post) to 2015 (cite its twitter feed)".

In my view the Toast interview and the video her Harvard talk should be moved out of the body as refs and moved into "external links" (and this podcast interview about 5 articles added there too)- i often put these kinds of refs there (instead of using them as refs) as they are useful for readers to get a feel for the person, and I prefer not to use interviews or talks or other primary sources for substantial content generation but rather only for very specific facts like dates if I can't find them in a secondary source. Jytdog (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

How far has wikipedia fallen

Very sad that they now try to censor the talk page. Who keeps funding Wikipedia and why? Mantion (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)