Talk:Sarah Jeong

Proposal: deletion of "conservative" media

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.

---

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.[1]

NYT stands by writer after anti-white tweets, August 4.[2] 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 [3], 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. Only a handful of liberal sources say that only conservative media criticized the tweets. wumbolo ^^^ 10:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Very strong support. I scavenged too many newspapers. Not one says "conservative media". It's either "right-wing media" or "conservative social media". Very strong support for the version mentioned by GorillaWarfare. It is accurate, and perfectly neutral (good summary of nearly all newspaper articles). wumbolo ^^^ 17:25, 15 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)

@Galobtter: wait a minute, searching for sources is OR? wumbolo ^^^ 13:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

No. However, using the fact that some sources considered liberal are criticizing the tweets to say that all media (not just conservative media) are criticizing it would be WP:OR Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:12, 11 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)

References

• 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)

Strong Support It is not just "conservative" media being critical of her. Galestar (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Comment: So far, I see 12 supports & 4 opposes. I think there is only 1 proposed textual edit. Which is to say, including the support of the original poster and that of my proposed edit, 14 people that support this in total. Can we please get a resolution on this issue. I feel like this is hurting Wikipedia's reputation the longer it remains unchanged. —Bnmguy (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Bnmguy that resolution would be nice. XavierItzm (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Support removal of conservative But I'd rephrase it to be more specific and distinguish between a negative reaction to the tweets which was almost universal and a negative reaction to the hiring which was more divided. I haven't reviewed the Russian sources (ha!) but if someone links them I might revise. D.Creish (talk)

• Oppose, the majority of the sources say conservative. Note that most of the support !votes seem to be grounded in original research performed by editors (who took it on themselves to assess coverage and categorize it as critical / uncritical), which isn't a policy-based argument when we have strong sources unambiguously describing the attacks on her as coming from conservative media. --Aquillion (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Aquillion: only a handful of these "strong sources" (WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE apply). They aren't even that strong, just reliable. Support voters constantly cite these three or four (liberal) sources that say that only conservatives criticized the tweets. wumbolo ^^^ 13:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• If you feel that the Associated Press, BBC and CNN (all sources cited above or in the article as describing the attacks as coming primarily from conservatives or from the conservative media) are WP:FRINGE sources, you're free to take it to WP:RSN, but I don't feel you're likely to prevail. Meanwhile, people who want to ignore those sources and remove the descriptor have presented nothing to back their position beyond WP:OR based on their personal feelings that certain sources are criticizing her and are not conservative; if it is true that the criticism comes from across the political spectrum, it should be easy to find sources directly contradicting the AP, BBC, and CNN accounts, given that those sources are extremely high-profile, generally high-quality, and would attract attention and criticism if they got the facts wrong. Nobody has been able to produce anything of the sort, just vague handwavy assertions backed by, at best, WP:OR (and, often, misreading of sources that quoted or reported criticism from conservatives without endorsing it.) Relevant quotes: ...mainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets... (AP), Conservative critics said the New York Times board's decision... (BBC) --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• The sentence with the word "conservative" is well-sourced, factually accurate, and informative; removing the word "conservative" does not improve any of these features. ("Right-wing" might arguably be more accurate or informative, but it is not sourceable.) Leave it in. --JBL (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do not use talk page for general discussion. See also WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed by simonm223. Please do not modify it.
The leftward leaning bias is absolutely UNBELIEVABLE. It has no place here. It is ridiculous what people will do do push their own agenda. These people will do anything to protect their progressive heroes. Wikipedia has lost all credibility. 73.61.23.140 (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Removal Does not add value to have that label. PackMecEng (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per JBL, Aquillion and Sangdeboeuf. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 13 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.

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: add sentence for The Verge and other journalists

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

---

The 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.

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.

---

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)

• What? How? Especially for CJR and Fortune.Citing (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The Verge editors statement version B

Multiple independent sources covered the response by The Verge's editors. Here's the text I propose adding (source quotations can be omitted):

Editors at The Verge defended Jeong, saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context and comparing the episode to the harassment of women during the Gamergate controversy.

References

Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support with addition [ETA: possibly, at a later date] mentioning Verge is her current employer. I think it'd be a worthwhile disclosure in all directions, even though the info's already in the article; it lets readers know where that's coming from (whether they think that weakens the credibility or strengthens it is up to them) and explains why secondary sources paid particular attention to this comment. Thanks for pulling all the refs. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the fact that she works for Verge is the second sentence in the section Career. Do you really intend to include that info a second time? (Obviously the earlier sentence is likely to change when it is no longer true, but I presume that the Verge will continue to be mentioned somewhere in that section before this point.) --JBL (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok either way. Just if people felt reiterating the context was needed. But yes the entry's pretty short so maybe not at this time. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support either version. Better than what I wrote above.Citing (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support I think it's OK without reiterating that The Verge currently employs her, since we can add "her then-employer" at a later date. XOR'easter (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Very sensible, works for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Same objection as I had for version A. Btw, someone maybe should move this new version to the bottom of the talk page so more people can see it and weigh in. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Your objection to biased defenses by former and current colleagues has no basis in Wikpedia's policies and guidelines that I can see. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:29, 18 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.

Pruning and clean up

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

---

The article 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)

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.

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)

Actually, not a bad idea, Scaleshombre. For the last couple of weeks, one of the excuses that has been used for not expanding the article in any way has been that any contribution is out of proportion to the bio; the Kim Davis thing shows that no such compunctions existed in her case. XavierItzm (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Davis is a politician whose actions in office resulted in being jailed for contempt of court and lawsuits filed in multiple directions, appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court. The comparison does pretty usefully demonstrate just how drastically different this situation would need to be to warrant expanding the coverage in an encyclopedic bio. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Good example. In Davis' article, there are numerous well-sourced facts in the article. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to be, include all the facts and let the reader form his/her own opinion. In this article's discussion, there are too many calls to exclude information. Put it in and let the reader draw their conclusions.Aceruss (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I see no comparison between a person who defied a U.S. federal court order and violated her oath of office with a person that made idiotic tweets. O3000 (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts, no matter how well-sourced. It is meant to be a summary of existing mainstream knowledge, with views and details chosen according to their prominence in published, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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.

---

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 -- Edited: The sponsored content belongs to an advertising block that my adblocker had removed ESparky (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC))
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)

Sangdeboeuf My bad, I turned off my adblocker, and there is indeed a block of ads stuffed into the article above the tag cloud and just below the "Sponsored Content" header. Since the article was ultimately sourced three times in what appears to be an autobiography, I assumed the "Sponsored Content" went to the interview, much like a press release. ESparky (talk) 10:25, 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)

Jytdog I'm surprised to see the Above The Law reference sustained your edit, you have pretty brutal reputation in the press. Am I to assume that a "hat tip" can go to writing on law, technology and internet culture? I see a new WAPO cite that credits Jeong for digging up the court filing and "spreading it around" with a link to the tweet. Under this logic, shouldn't we be identifying the person who "spread around" the Jeong tweets? Rather than attributing to social media? It is a very easy trail to follow and the Twitter address is not obscured in the media reprints of the tweet. A point of contention is that it was not the hiring that caused the media storm, it was the media spotlight pointed at her tweets, discovered in social media (i.e., journalism following the logic), and the deferential treatment she received in comparison to Quinn Norton.

The video touches on the RS status of college news sources, the contention here is the fact that they are just event announcements and that Jeong is connected to the Harvard source. As the editor of Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, Jeong very likely worked shoulder to shoulder with Berkman Center for Internet & Society (at Harvard) personnel. (I.e., independent reliable sources)

Concerning the 5 Useful Articles blog, why are we calling it a "periodic newsletter" in this case? Judging from the footer, it is very likely a free Wordpress site (hence the powered by Wordpress credit in the footer) and all blogs have email subscription functions.

Finally, the Forbes independence question.

1. Forbes published, the 92 page, ebook, The Internet of Garbage, July 15, 2015, ISBN 9781508018865. This date clearly falls within the known publication dates of Jeong's contributions to Forbes.

• "Did Gawker Just Break Hawaiian State Law?", June 24, 2014
• "Global Security Update - Forbes", July 30, 2016

2. The fact is that she has/had a paid relationship with Forbes. The Forbes, 30 under 30 media award was announce on Epoch 1484528343339, which translates to a "GMT: Monday, January 16, 2017 12:59:03.339 AM", article publication date.

The 30 under 30 award obviously covers works performed in the 2016 time period. It is not WP:OR to do basic math and date calculations and I believe the topic needs a rewrite. (perhaps in another proposal) Regards, ESparky (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC) 14:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog there is nothing there.ESparky (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There is now. Things take time to write. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• I addressed the points raised here in the following diffs:
  • fixing dupe toast ref
  • Above The Law
  • use of primary source Higgins blog about 5 useful articles
  • remove the MarySue
  • move Toast interview and Harvard video to ELs Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 21 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: include "intended as satire"

Our current version reads:

Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to ...

I propose:

Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "intended as satire" in reaction to ...

As it now reads "counter-trolling" appears to address the charge of racism. Of course, it doesn't. One can respond to harassment and verbal attacks by saying hurtful things that one doesn't mean or one can respond by bluntly saying the truth. That she "hit back" doesn't tell us whether or not she meant it. There's another possibility. She said she "mimicked the language of my harassers." This also doesn't address the charge as she might hold it racist for her harassers to use such language but that she is exempt from such a charge since she is not a white male. It is only the phrase "intended as satire" that expresses the idea that what she said should not be taken literally. This phrase is important and it is reported in our sources. It's more important that "counter-trolling." If we had to include only one, we should pick "intended as satire." Jason from nyc (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• You may wish to make this an RfC since it is being glossed over. Swarm ♠ 06:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Whether the text addresses any "charge" is not an encylopedic concern. Wikipedia is not a courtroom and Jeong is not on trial. However, I think the mention of intended satire adds important context and is more easily understood than "counter-trolling". But we should omit the quote marks, which could be read as editorializing. The phrase intended as satire is relatively banal and would be properly attributed anyway, so there shouldn't be any copyright problems.

If we remove the part about "counter-trolling", then the statement that Jeong "regretted" the tactic no longer makes sense. It may be clearer to state something like:

Jeong apologized for the hurtful comments, which she said were meant to satirize online harassment toward her as a woman of color.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose this is a borderline BLP violation. Jeong never said that the tweets were intended as satire. Never. The sources you cite are merely editorializing the "counter-trolling" statement. wumbolo ^^^ 21:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Strongest possible support. This makes a day-and-night difference. Of course most mainstream media didn't mention it. We can then remove "inflammatory" (or however the article currently calls the tweets) since "satire" assumes something being inflammatory, and gives it an entirely new specific context. wumbolo ^^^ 07:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

  Minor issue: if Jeong said the tweets were satirical, they were. No need to state that she said it, when it is satire if she (she wrote the tweets) says it is. wumbolo ^^^ 07:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Jeong's statement is here. She says, I engaged in what I thought of at the time as counter-trolling. While it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers. The Associated Press, CNN, The Guardian, and The Independent all quote from this statement directly. I'm sure you will strike your strong oppose now that you see your error. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The subject's main claim is "counter-trolling." Period. Then the subject enters into subordinate clauses regarding what she says were her intentions, her current feelings, and what she thought she was doing at the time. It is unencyclopaedic for Wikipedia to use its own voice to go deep into the weeds and try to parse the subject's statements. Plainly the subject claimed "counter-trolling" and this is what needs be presented. XavierItzm (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • And what does "counter-trolling" mean in this instance if not satire? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

DOB

I found this [4], and subsequent replies [5] [6]. Does this satisfies WP:V? I didn't find any other tweets by Jeong mentioning her birthday (using my script). wumbolo ^^^ 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

She seems to be implying that the tweet was posted on her birthday, but I'm not sure. Perhaps it's because I'm not from an anglophone country. Edit: Clarified a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.80.213 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. Regardless it goes against Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources.Citing (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Citing: Citing the verifiable subject publishing a tweet saying their birth date goes against DOB? If we trust anyone claiming to know someone's DOB, then it must be the person themself. wumbolo ^^^ 19:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's wrong, just not sure it jives with policy to trawl through tweets to find a DOB.Citing (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

wumbolo, per WP:Twitter-EL it looks like the birthday is perfectly usable and the source should be the tweets. XavierItzm (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:DOB, we can include dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. This tweet satisfies neither condition; it does not explicitly mention a specific date, and it has not been widely published. Other reasons for excluding are similar to those put forward at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian, such as avoiding giving online harassers another tool to use. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Subsequently in the chain Jeong makes clear that the original tweet conveyed the date.[7] The subject's tweets have in general been widely published, and she most certainly did not make an attempt to object to its publication/hide her birthday (including from her alleged twitter harassers whom she was allegedly counter-trolling - on twitter - same forum/period in which she posted the bday) - quite the opposite - she very publicly posted it herself. AVOIDVICTIM is irrelevant here (for multiple reasons, including her prior notability).Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: you previously argued [8] [9] [10] that Jeong is primarily notable for the tweets that sparked the recent backlash, when it was a question of quoting the tweets in the article. Now you are saying, when it comes to protecting the subject from further harassment, that she isn't? It can't be both – either she was notable before the tweets came out or not. Which is it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Most certainly can be both. She met wiki-notability (just barely - I think she would've been borderline at AfD, but probably would've passed keep or no-consensus if someone would've AFDed the article a couple of years ago) prior to the NYT hiring scandal. However, over 90% of the coverage of this individual is due to her being hired by the NYT and the tweets. She was (just barely) WELLKNOWN prior to 2018. When assessing DUEness / scope of coverage of material within the article - we should follow scope of coverage in external sources - which is at this point (and probably in the future, unless she does something else mega-notable - but this requires a BALL) is focused on the hiring scandal.Icewhiz (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that your "over 90%" figure is correct, AVOIDVICTIM certainly applies, as to living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions (emphasis added). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Being hired by the NYT does not make one a victim.Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

That's the most frivolous interpretation of any policy I have seen in my 12 years at Wikipedia. WP:VICTIM is about CRIME VICTIMS, not about left-liberals who said something daft and got media attention. ffs. --Pudeo (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Where does it say anything about crime? Being subjected to a partisan smear campaign certainly qualifies Jeong as a victim of others' actions, as per The Guardian, Columbia Journalism Review, and Jeong's employers/colleagues at The Verge, among others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The Verge is deeply in Conflict of Interest here and it cannot be used as a WP:RS for "victimization". Likewise any other sources which engage in copy-paste of The Verge. Evidently all Pudeo and Icewhiz and Wumbolo are correct and dragging COI sources here adds no value. XavierItzm (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

How exactly are The Guardian and Columbia Journalism Review "COI sources"? (I'll add The Independent as well, which says "Since the tweets were uncovered [Jeong] has suffered a wave of abuse, including racist language".) Not that it matters, since we aren't proposing to use them directly as sources for any material about such a smear campaign (yet). If we reasonably think that adding info to a BLP will contribute to harm toward the subject, we can decide to omit it, period. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:AVOIDVICTIM seems like an irrelevant policy to existing articles. If our mission is to be an encyclopedia, the sum of human knowledge, then we can't arbitrarily ignore information published by reliable sources because it may "victimize" someone. wumbolo ^^^ 12:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The relevance of WP:AVOIDVICTIM is that Jeong is currently the victim of a brigading campaign to get her fired; Wikipedia should avoid participating in that. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS for that? WP:NOTAFORUM XavierItzm (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: where has Jeong's DOB been published in any reliable sources? Also, AVOIDVICTIM is part of the Biographies of living persons policy, which applies everywhere in the encylopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to include quotes in the article

I've changed this edit request to a proposal, to try to establish official consensus for an edit request.

A recent proposal to include quotes of some of Jeong's commonly quoted tweets received a large amount of support and attention. Therefore, I've decided to make a proposal with a suggested edit so we can have discussion about specific wording. I propose we add a pair of sentences to the paragraph on the controversy:

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." A second tweet read: "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.

There are probably 20-30 sources for each quote, I've decided to include 2 for each. BBC and The Independent for the hydrant quote and Fox and WaPo for the cruel quote. If we want to be robust, and REALLY prove the "widely reported" label, we could include 4 each as the fire hydrant quote is quoted by The Hill, Vox, Slate, Washington Times and more. The cruel quote has been reported by CNBC, LaTimes, BBC, Vox, Washington Times and plenty more.

I have pored over the WP:BLP guidelines before resubmitting this section. I do not see any major areas for concern. WP:BLP1E has three prongs that determine whether or not a subject should have an article. This has been settled by the speedy failure of a recent AfD: this subject has had some RS coverage prior to this and is now a public figure with a central role in an event with a week's worth of major media coverage. WP:AVOIDVICTIM has been cited by a few editors but in this instance Jeong is not a victim of a crime; she sent out inflammatory tweets to no one in particular in response to nothing specific in particular. In this case I think the tone (WP:BLPSTYLE) of the current article is not neutral and tries to avoid including criticism from the mainstream reliable sources while also refusing to include quotes that were used by those RS. WP is not here to provide a censored version of the event or one that the subject would like.

Today Sarah Jeong is still generating articles in opinion sections and news sections (Slate, The Atlantic, Wash Examiner.) This event is highly significant, a weeks worth of RS coverage is a bar that not many controversies or events ever reach. Including the tweets of Sarah Jeong to this article would not violate her privacy. These quotes are included in articles by most of the most reliable sources on WP. Biographies must be written conservatively, but that does not mean biographies must be sanitized and written to give a subject the most favorable coverage of an event possible. SWL36 (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• oppose. Doing this fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOT by a) going into this level of detail, which is entirely UNDUE and driven by a wrong-headed WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM approach to the encyclopedia. It is far too soon to judge "significance"; a media circus =/= "significance". To argue from another perspective, this fails NPOV from the perspective of -- if we are going to quote tweets, this does not also cite the kinds of tweets to which she was responding, which have by now also been well described in multiple RS (including ones cited in the OP, like Vox) Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering how to square your comment with reality on Wikipedia. RoseAnne's infamous tweet was posted to her page the very day it became news, and no one had a problem. It is even in her Lede. We need to stay consistent and avoid bias at all costs to remain credible as an encyclopedia. petrarchan47คุก 21:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Your opinions as to a) whether this situation is equivalent to Barr's action toward Jarret and b) what the editing community needs to do to remain "credible", are not appropriate here. Please refrain from offering them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Disagree. Relevant observation and entirely appropriate comparison by Petrarchan47 above. More constructive feedback might by suggesting why the tweets are different, or by explaining that the other article failed to observe BLP protocols. Personally, I find Barr's excuse more credible than Jeong's, as Barr's tweet wasn't explicitly racial, and she said she didn't know Jarrett was African American. Barr's verbatim tweet and her excuse are both included in her article, FYI, which serves as a reasonable pattern for this one. Wookian (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Barr's tweet wasn't explicitly racial What??? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I find Barr's excuse more credible than Jeong's – this is off-topic and irrelevant. We base articles on published, reliable sources, not Wiki editors' personal beliefs or experiences. See WP:V and WP:OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
        • My personal-opinion-sharing comment was off topic, and I withdraw that portion of my comment, whilst thanking Sangdeboeuf for the reminder. To GorillaWarfare I'll just say maybe "more credible" is the wrong way to say it, and "less incredible" would be more appropriate. :D Wookian (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Additional comment; it would have been far wiser to wait for a close of the section above on whether we should quote the tweets or not. Now we have the same conversation in two different places, which diffuses the discussion. We should probably close the discussion above at Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Why_the_reluctance_to_tell_readers_what_tweets_said? since it is the same conversation. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  Hi Jytdog, I am not sure about your suggestion here. An admin added a note toward the end of that section implying that all the "support" statements, even though reflecting consensus of including the tweets, could not be taken as supporting a specific edit proposal, in that consensus had to be built after a specific edit proposal, not before. As such, OP's effort here appears responsive to that admin's feedback. And if that section is never going to go anywhere, I personally don't want to focus on it. Agree? Wookian (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  User:Wookian, You misunderstand the note. It was about changing the article. What I wrote above, was about WP:CONSENSUS-building, which is a process here in WP. By launching this before that discussion was closed and there was a sense of consensus on the principle of whether to quote the tweets, that issue is simply going to be re-litigated. By launching this you have rendered that discussion a complete waste of time. I am in no hurry, but I do protest things that waste other people's time. Volunteer time is our most precious resource here. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  No, I didn't misunderstand the note. "Changing the article" was precisely the goal of everybody who registered "support" statements in that section. Those editors will find the relief they seek on this section, and unfortunately not anytime soon on that one, per the admin's guidance. If, on the other hand, the goal is to embroil the question of inclusion of tweets in an interminable bureaucratic process, then extending that section would make perfect sense. So in fact this new section is much more useful to the "Support" voices such as myself, and in fact most of the editors who commented back there. Just to drive it home, you may notice that the very end of that section consisted of an emerging consensus that pretty much was transferred directly to this section, where we can observe the proper order of things (proposal first, consensus after). Wookian (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  This is not worth pursuing further; you don't understand what I wrote and are not interested in understanding. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support thank you for a very tedious amount of work. This provides more context for the average reader who makes it here wanting to learn more (making it more clear what caused the controversy instead of just pointing to the controversy from afar). As I said above, "other than being two of the most widely reported tweets, these two were chosen because they need the least amount of context. They aren't replies to anyone and were standalone thoughts. The only explanation Jeong ever gave is already in the text ("counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced) and the language was kept as neutral and simple as possible to avoid endless edit wars.

This seems like a fine starting point and refinements can be made from there, but the burden shouldn't solely be placed on people who want to make the controversy less opaque. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• • Actually what caused the controversy is described in Vox piece. It is not described in the content, at all. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jytdog above. Given what the Atlantic piece provided by the OP actually says – as Wikipedia is of this world, it, too, must be a place to immortalize (or attempt to immortalize) Jeong as racist ... To get Jeong’s tweets mentioned is to tag her with them for the rest of her career – I find this proposal ironic to say the least. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Including sources that defend Jeong actually bolsters my arguments, even articles that go out of their way to push a POV and defend Jeong will quote the tweets. This makes it harder to argue this is a WP:POV issue as reliable sources across the political spectrum are reporting on them verbatim. SWL36 (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The issue is not whether any of the sources "defend" Jeong; the issue is whether by reproducing the tweets stripped of context, as multiple sources suggest they have been, we are adding to a partisan campaign of demonization. That is explicitly against policy and incompatible with the project of writing an encylopedia. As for POV, multiple sources report the tweets while devoting plenty of space to context and explanation. Extracting the tweets from the midst of such explanations gives them undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
      • If you look at the proposed wording, it contextualizes the tweets. ("Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced...") Why do you cast aspersions on editors' motives ("partisan campaign of demonization") and not AGF? To me, this is strictly a matter of not shying away from presenting the essential facts of this matter, no matter how controversial. FWIW, I go out of my way on white supremacists' pages like Richard B. Spencer and his ilk to make sure they're correctly identified as white supremacists and not the subtly more "benign" term white nationalist. Obviously I'm not suggesting the subject of this article is a racial supremacist, but her RS actions need to be documented in this article. Otherwise the article is a joke. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
        • The partisan campaign of demonization is the one identified by Jeong's employers (see § Proposal: add sentence for The Verge and other journalists above) and also described by several RSes. Our own good faith is not the issue; BLP policy states that Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging victimization of living persons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• Support Notable topic, notable quotes, found in reliable sources. No reason to exclude it. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support The "support" side already has achieved consensus for a change very much like this, as a quick skim of some of the sections above will reveal (see in particular: Why the reluctance to tell readers what tweets said?). NPOV concerns are moot in that reliable sources that quote the tweets are either neutral or arguably politically aligned with Jeong; we can let these secondary sources speak in the article without POV concerns. BLP and NOTABLE are not meaningful objections - we've already crossed that bridge by including a summary of the controversy. Finally, it is no doubt confusing for readers that we don't just let them see some of the tweets, hence editors' dissatisfaction with the article and the consensus that has been building around including these two tweets. Wookian (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Consensus has not been determined in the section above; it has not been closed. In addition, no one has mentioned notability and in any case notability is completely irrelevant with respect to a bit of content within an article. Again, the policies and guidelines are not memes. Waving around opinions about "what readers expect" is not persuasive in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The NOTABLE discussion seemed to be around deleting the entire article. Sorry I was vague here, and thanks for your didactic efforts (not sarcastic, I appreciate your attention to detail). Wookian (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is about the prominence of information and views in the most reliable, published sources; it's not about the political leanings of such sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Question - Can someone explain why quoting someone's own statements (albeit controversial in nature) is a violation of BLP? Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Your !vote above is really saying "the tweets are quoted in reliable sources, so it is fine". Your vote is based solely on the WP:V policy. (I have no idea what your references to "notable" mean; WP:NOTABILITY in WP is about whether an article should exist or not and is not relevant here) If V were the sole criteron for including something in Wikipedia, then we would not have the other policies, like WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP at all, now would we? But we do. I suggest you read them, and think about them. It is far too much to explain in the midst of a proposal. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support with caveat/comment. I do think this most closely resembles the vast majority of reporting, good job! I would feel more comfortable if the statement about her anti-white tweets being mostly from 2013-2014 had direct attribution ("According to ___,") because I think it is a misleading statement at best (see evidence here); the media outlet(s), not Wikipedia, should be held responsible. petrarchan47คุก 21:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Wookian above. Scaleshombre (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jytdog and Sangdeboeuf. This will end up being a coatrack of tweets. Also does not mention the prominent perspective that quotes are being deliberately taken out of context, in bad faith, as reported in many sources([11][12][13][14][15][16][17]).Citing (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Is there any source that provides (verbatim, not in vague platitudes) the specific exculpatory context for the above two tweets? If so, please share it. Otherwise, the OP has already disposed of that objection in two ways: first, by noting that the tweets stand alone, not as part of a conversation, and second, by noting that Jeong's excuse is already described in the article, so we're taking every precaution against unintended BLP harm. Wookian (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I am writing too much here, so this will be my last post in this thread for a while, unless I am asked questions directly. No one has mentioned anything about exculpation. Part of the problem with highlighting these tweets is exactly their decontextualization (as you say "stand alone") as described in sources you yourself have cited and as mentioned in the !vote to which you are responding. One of the ways that quoting the tweets fails NPOV, is because it is contextless detail. Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog you've made this point several times, but the section in the article already provides Jeong's claimed context for the tweets. I say claimed, because reliable sources do not report on the veracity of these claims but do note that she has in the past (some tweets from 2016 where she is slurred and insulted are provided by some sources) been subject to harassment. What context would be required to include these tweets? If this is your objection to inclusion than surely you can provide context and sources that would allow inclusion of the subject matter that is at the heart of the controversy and is quoted by countless RS. (Forgot to sign post initially) SWL36 (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this level of detail is appropriate, this close to the events. So, no, I won't generate such content. There are sources available that have started to do the contextualizing, so that anyone who wants this much detail could generate contextualizing content on the same level of detail as her tweets. Again it is remarkable that no one advocating to "show the tweets" -- who wants to go into the weeds -- has done that.Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC))

well, i did post a "something" below. Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jytdog, Sangdeboeuf and Citing. XOR'easter (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support This is just not a hard thing for anybody except for it appears a handful of Wikipedia gatekeepers. Nodekeeper (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  !voting against you in a discussion to establish consensus is not gatekeeping. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • The way in which the current wording was established, then locked, and even though consensus is reached in Talk some editors continuously close discussion then reopen the same discussion under a new section hoping that maybe if its rehashed the 4th time they'll get a different outcome - that's gatekeeping. Galestar (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Nodekeeper, we can do without your bad faith. Please read up on what all is covered under the discretionary sanctions. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose including the tweets, especially without providing considerable additional context around the situation. Including them in this manner is undue, POV, and only serves to amplify the damage that Jeong's opponents who dug up the tweets have already done. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  Alleged damage done by exposers of the tweets is an opinion given by some of the sources that are sympathetic to Jeong. Other sources, more journalistic and less editorial in tone, are content to present the facts, quote Jeong's tweets verbatim, give her excuse in order to be fair, but in the last analysis, let her stand or fall on her own merits. To put it another way, presenting facts is not (by default) considered to be damaging a person. If they are damaged by that, it's typically their own doing, by (you know) writing the tweets in the first place. An encyclopedia does not need to be concerned with the danger of damaging a person by printing their public tweets which were covered abundantly in reliable sources - that's not "on us" in any meaningful way. This is an important point, as I would never want to "damage" a person (BLP etc) as a unilateral act. Wookian (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  • The additional context that you refer to is her explanation, which is already included in so far as she has actually explained it. We do not have a neutral source that can provide any additional context other than "she claims she was being harassed". What more do you propose that we add? The contents of the tweet belong here. Galestar (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    • For additional context, see as WaPo, CJR, Vox, and The Guardian. The section § something below by Jytdog offers some of this context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Wookian: avoiding harm to a person is indeed on us, according to the relevant ArbCom decision. It's also a central part of Biographies of living persons, which enjoins us to write conservatively and to be fair to our subjects at all times. If you find sources such as WaPo, CJR, The Guardian , etc. to be insufficiently journalistic, you may want to open a discussion in the appropriate forum. Crucially, journalism isn't our mission. Summarizing mainstream, published knowledge is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support including the tweets is necessary for the reader to understand what was said. Especially considering that the tweets themselves are the actual subject under discussion and the center of the entire controversy, it is appropriate that they be included for clarify AND for encyclopedic value. Galestar (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Several published sources suggest that the center of the controversy is actually a bad-faith campaign to get Jeong fired, not the tweets themselves. We don't in fact have a complete picture of what was said, precisely because the tweets have been stripped of their context. Nor is "what was said" necessarily an encylopedic concern; Wikpedia is not a news or gossip site. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. We're not going to cherry-pick like this, with extensive detail and quotations of what some said her tweets meant, and nothing but an apology from her side, without further context or more of her own defense. SWL36, aren't you a seasoned editor? I'm surprised to see something this slanted and incomplete. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

To not include them is slanted. If you would like additional context to her explanation, propose that additional wording as well - unfortunately you may not find it since she has made a claims of harassment without a whole lot of verifiability. Blanket statements to not included the contents even though they are extremely relevant is very suspicious. Galestar (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Your response is grammatically challenged, and it seems that you did not read what I wrote. Plus I wonder what you mean with "suspicious". Drmies (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, Cherrypicking is not what is occurring here, I've quoted around 10 reliable sources that quote one or both tweets and discuss them. Cherry picking would be me combing through Jeong's 20,000 tweets and adding the worst ones to this article. The inclusions that I am requesting are backed up by a massive array of sources, only a handful of non-opinion pieces decline to quote and discuss either the 'hydrant' or 'cruel' tweets. SWL36 (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you cherry-picked the tweets--you picked the very material that surrounds it, giving her a half a sentence to respond. The criticism in the conservative media is mentioned, but not the defense (or contextualization) by non-conservative media. That's what I mean with slanted. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, and basic BLP guidelines. It doesn't matter how many editors support this, or how many people come here to lobby for this from being canvassed off-wiki or via The Daily Caller, Wikipedia policies are still in effect. The fact that there is a barrage of insistence that this happen actually draws that much more administrative attention to this article. And no matter how many news outlets quote tweets or embed them, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A NEWSPAPER. Anyone who wants to read the tweets has only to read the citations or any number of news reports, or do the very simplest of Google searches -- they are not hidden and that's what all of those venues are for; it is not what Wikipedia is for. Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  1. The subject is the tweets, and they are easy to include without violating WP:UNDUE. In fact it would be WP:UNDUE to not include them since they are the actual words that she wrote!

  2. You can't just wave your hands and ignore consensus with "number of editors doesn't matter". Get a better argument.

  Galestar (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Galestar, Wikipedia policies (and guidelines) are the only arguments that matter and hold weight on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 01:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender you have yet to adequately demonstrate your position using policy, this is what the majority of people that you are trying to dismiss are arguing. The tweets have value and add context, if you do not wish to include them your accusations of "canvassed offline" do not hold any weight whatsoever. Use policy and refrain from this pointless tangent. Galestar (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I cited and linked a number of policies. My other comment was an aside to let newcomers, SPAs, blatant POV pushers, and editors who haven't edited in a great while and were canvassed/recruited off-wiki know that disruptive and repeated POV-pushing only brings more administrative eyes to the situation, and may even eventually lead to individual sanctions (as it already has in at least one case). Merely a word to the wise. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Linking a policy does not automatically mean that policy agrees with you. In fact, it would be WP:UNDUE to not include the tweets yet include her explanation. Galestar (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You and a couple of other editors who are defending Jeong to the death have repeatedly insinuated ulterior motives and bias in those of us who think it only makes sense to have a few sentences on what was actually said and reported on by literally dozens of reliable sources. I'd like to remind you about WP:GOODFAITH. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

— 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Attack the argument not the person. Galestar (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Your link states: "Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits."

Even though a benign explanation exists I don't care to further dignify your remark. I'll just note you're yet another editor insinuating sinister motives and plots. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:UNDUE The quotes are taken out of their context. Which is not surprising seeing how this nom, considering the nominator and his supporters previous comments on this and other pages, feel very very politically charged. The nom feels like an attempt at a shaming campaign Openlydialectic (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  It would be WP:UNDUE to NOT include them. They are directly relevant as they are the exact subject under discussion in this section. If there is some context you also wish to add to add this assertion of missing context, feel free to propose it. Also on your point of "previous comments" lets have a look at your "Only the conservative/Russian (is there any difference at this point?) did" comment - if that doesn't "feel very very politically charged" I'm not sure what does! Galestar (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  You are treating "UNDUE" like a meme. It isn't. We say "the tweets were criticized as racist" and we give her statement in response to that. Those are the same level of detail. Quoting the tweets that were criticized, is going into a deeper level of detail. An UNDUE level of detail this close to the events. It is also UNDUE to quote only her tweets and not the kinds of tweets -- and the amount of them -- to which she was responding (to get a sense of that, see the Wired ref cited in the article) Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  UNDUE isn't a meme - its a policy that you actually need to take seriously and you seem to misunderstand. If you want to show additional context in addition to the tweets that she wrote, propose those as well. Galestar (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Well imitation is a form of flattery. See here, for a description of the problem. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a meme, this isn't imitation, and I am not attempting to flatter you. I'll ask again - Please start taking WP policy seriously. We must include the tweet text in order to satisfy UNDUE. Galestar (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The tweets aren't taken out of context, because the tweets themselves ARE the context. Simply going to the pages for the two tweets included in the above proposal (I will not link them directly, because 1) I am not well-versed on Wikipedia's rules regarding doing such, and 2) they're easily found by a simple Google search) shows that they are both freestanding, and neither connected to nor in response to any priorly-existing tweet. 2602:306:CC45:B8C0:4445:31C4:84CB:1FC2 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. The tweets are the context here. Every time someone complains about the tweets "lacking context" I ask for them to propose edits that would add the required context and I'm either met with silence or with random tangents about WP policy somehow being a meme or some-such nonsense. Very little in the way of actual arguments coming from the oppose side. Galestar (talk)

Multiple reliable sources describe the tweets as being taken out of context; where are your reliable sources saying they stand alone? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

When accessing a tweet via a direct link, the tweet will always appear in context. For instance, in visiting the page for "Tweet B", if it was made as a direct reply to "Tweet A", Tweet A will appear above Tweet B; If Tweet B is a retweet of Tweet A with a comment added, an embedded preview of Tweet A will appear within Tweet B. For retweets, if Tweet A has since been deleted, where the embedded preview would normally be displayed will be placeholder text saying something along the lines of "This tweet is not available." However, (and I was not aware of this until testing it myself just now) if Tweet B is a reply to a since-deleted Tweet A, there will be no placeholder, and it will appear as if Tweet B is a freestanding tweet, with no appearance of Tweet A having existed. In light of that, my stance is now that, without direct confirmation from Twitter itself, there is no substantive evidence to prove or disprove any greater context having existed. 2602:306:CC45:B8C0:4445:31C4:84CB:1FC2 (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

So kind of you to explain, but I do know how Twitter works. Edit: Coming back and AGF: did you maybe mean to indent so you were replying to Galestar? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not you knew how Twitter works never crossed my mind when typing that out. My only intent was to clearly explain the rationale behind my claim in a way that anyone (whether or not they know how Twitter works) can follow. I regret that you interpreted my response as talking down. 2602:306:CC45:B8C0:4445:31C4:84CB:1FC2 (talk) 05:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies if I misunderstood. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll ask for the umpteenth time - if you believe there is additional "context" that is not already captured in the article, propose an edit to add it. The article already included her explanation, what else are you looking for here? Galestar (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

For the tweets to not be included, given that the additional context necessary to present them neutrally would result in an altogether much too long section on this issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The additional context is already included in her explanation. I think your problem isn't the possible length of the section but rather the lack of evidence for her claim - you do not actually have any additional context that you could possibly add here. You are being misleading by claiming that there is and then when asked for it you dodge with "oh it would be too long so we won't bother". Galestar (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a fun ABF but no, additional context abounds if you'll just read the sources. If Jeong's tweets are going to be included so should tweets like "If I saw you. I would sock you right in your lesbian face." or "Shut the fuck up you dog eating g***". That people are so focused on Jeong's tweets and not the considerably more explicit ones against her is quite telling of what's going on here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The sources linked in the article do not include those tweets. No original research please, provide your sources. Galestar (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Good to confirm you've been paying absolutely zero attention to the sources I've provided multiple times, including just up-thread. If you'd just clicked in to the first link I provided ([18]) you'd see it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Its not up to me to hunt around the talk page to source your claims. Next time you need to source your claims when you make them not put the burden of finding sources on others. That's pretty elementary I thought you would know that by now. Okay, onto the sources. Those are her claims that are not independently verified. She is quoted as having made that claim (and creating that image), not the same level of veracity of her original tweets. Galestar (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

More to the point, it is not Wikipedia's job to take sides on whether the alleged existence of hateful texts morally justifies Jeong's texts. We should follow the example of our most neutral sources e.g. WaPo in giving both sides, and then trusting readers with Jeong's uncensored tweets. We shouldn't construct an elaborate narrative favorable to Jeong. There are many (mostly right-leaning) editorializing sources who reject Jeong's excuse, and many (mostly left-leaning) who accept Jeong's excuse. Neutrality (imitating top journalism) is our best approach here. Wookian (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Imitating any kind of journalism isn't our goal. Wikpedia is not a news source And neutrality does not mean giving equal weight to both "sides". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add "support" or "oppose" in bold so we can register your vote for the proposed text. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

IP-editor, please read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. There is no voting in Wikipedia, that is, we don't make decisions based on votes conducted by IP editors with no prior history of engagement with the encyclopedia who have exclusively edited this talk page, this talk page alone! and that obviously are either sockpuppets or just came here to brigade. We don't register votes at all. Instead, we make conclusions based on whichever policy has the best arguments, and so far you and your vagoneers have none. Openlydialectic (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

We also don't WP:BITE the newcomers and we assume WP:GOODFAITH and finally vagoneers is not a word. "New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility." 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I find it useful for people to lead with "support" or "oppose" or some flavor of these, as it can prevent ambiguous readings. However Openlydialectic is correct that such a leading is not enough by itself. Editors must make an encyclopedic case for (or against) the proposal above. Some commenters register agreement with somebody above by name, which also serves the purpose. Wookian (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jytdog, Softlavender, Citing, Sangdeboeuf, GorillaWarfare, Openlydialectic, and WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:UNDUE says we need to include. The text of the tweet is prominent in every source, and this is her words not some conflicting viewpoint. Galestar (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that's backwards; no policy says we "need to include" anything in Wikipedia. The burden is on those seeking to include content to convince others that it belongs in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tweets are already summarized; adding individual tweets would be undue (per numerous explanations above) as well as arbitrary. Unlike in the Roseanne Barr/Valerie Jarrett or Kevin D. Williamson comparisons made previously, there's no single pivotal tweet connected to a bigger biographical event (losing a job, in both of those cases); the overview (more than) suffices here. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  There isn't a proposal to include all tweets, just an example to give the reader an idea of the language used. The difference you point to wrt Roseanne Barr is not relevant. Additionally you have misunderstood UNDUE. Galestar (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  By my count, you've made this argument about your reading of WP:UNDUE seven times just on this subthread. If you haven't read it before, I'd recommend reading WP:BLUDGEON. Also, WP:AGF. When there are ten experienced editors--long-term volunteers demonstrably committed to building the encyclopedia--who are saying your interpretation of the policy is mistaken, there's wisdom in at least considering they might be offering good guidance. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  The amount of edits that they make does not give them license run rough-shod over WP policy. Perhaps it is not UNDUE itself that you misunderstand but rather the source material. Galestar (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  Bottom line is, nobody here has demonstrated why the tweets in question shouldn't be included. It appears we're just engaging in stalling tactics now to hold off the inevitable. Scaleshombre (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  As someone who's voted in these conversations it's not up to you to make that decision. You've been here for a while, you should know that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Both tweets have been reported widely, and discussed also by those who defend Jeong (e.g. Vox). The individual is primarily known for making these (and similar) tweets and getting hired by the NYT - so definitely DUE - as we should devote an amount of space in our article to this affair that is commensurate with the proportion of coverage of Jeong in RSes on this matter.Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE/WP:DUE. If this article were 30,000 or 40,000 bytes long (it's not even 10,000 bytes), we might have the % of space necessary to include two tweets and also their context and also the rebuttals by various journalists to the criticism the (reportedly) out-of-context tweets have received. But even at that article size, including the tweets would still violate WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and some BLP issues. And even choosing which tweets to include (regardless of which ones are most widely reproduced) would still misrepresent matters (and context) overall since as a minority activist she has a long history of deliberately making button-pushing tweets. Softlavender (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The subject's own words do not violate "BLP issues". She's primarily known for these tweets (made a while ago, and covered recently) - it is definitely DUE to include them. Applying the WP:10YT - this is probably the issue she'll be most known for going forward - tech writers generally do not generate national (with international echoes) controversies.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, you don't seem to have read the actual proposal above. The OP noted that there is no context to include, so these tweets can be very concisely stated. The only context even alleged for these two is Jeong's excuse, which is already included. If you can link to RS's giving any other verbatim context, please do so (friendly editorial defenses don't count). Wookian (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The OP is quite incorrect. Again it is remarkable that no one calling for the tweets to be quoted has offered to a) post quotes of the kind of tweets to which she was responding, and b) something about their number and the context of harrassment online and how women respond to it. The content proposal fails to do, and implementing it would be a violation of NPOV and doing that on a BLP would be a BLP violation. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The tweets quoted above were not made in response to tweets by others - other tweets were, but these specific two - not.Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please do not inject your own personal opinion into this by claiming that we need to include a bunch of other tweets (without specifying which tweets), when our RS's don't. If these other tweets even exist that are directly related to the two tweets above, you need to demonstrate that using RS's and not use this Talk page as your personal soapbox to to argue that we need to circle the wagons around Jeong to protect her from her own mistakes. Our reliable sources don't feel such a need, nor should we. Wookian (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz I am not sure what you mean by "in response" by "the kinds of tweets to which she was responding" I was not describing back-and-forth exchanges with individual people. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wookian, It is not personal opinion; it is judgement about how policies apply here. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me state it a different way. There are multiple RS's that quote these two proposed tweets verbatim. However, I'm not aware of any RS's that give other (racist, third party) tweets that these two tweets are alleged to be responsive to. When you seemed to suggest above that we should dig up such third party, racist tweets and construct a narrative for the reader about women defending themselves from online abuse, you were injecting your own opinion into this over and above the example of our RS's that OP suggests following. (Threats of admin sanctions do not concern me when I am making a very clear and honest point, thanks.) Wookian (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not what I am saying. Again please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And do see my !vote at the top of this thread; each comment I have made here is an elaboration of that !vote. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Support I agree with pro arguments. There is really no reason not to include them. 93.36.190.141 (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of specific tweets. The sources we are citing, highly respected ones like the BBC, CNBC, The Independent, and the Washington Post, quote these tweets specifically, clearly they thought they were necessary to the story. Yes, we do need to put the quotes in context, as the sources do. --GRuban (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  GRuban, when you say "support" and "yes, we do need to put the quotes in context" are you expressing agreement with the specific edit proposal at the top of this section? Hoping to avoid ambiguity, thanks! Wookian (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, I support the proposal. I would probably support an additional sentence or two of equally well cited context, for balance. --GRuban (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  User:GRuban as Wookian noted, this thread is about the specific proposal in the box at the top of the thread, not the general idea of "quoting the tweets". The question here is -- should the boxed content go into mainspace.

  If this proposal lacks information required for NPOV (if that is what you mean by "balance"), then it is unclear to me why you support this proposal.... Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  For the reasons I wrote? If I had thought this proposal would violate any of our policies or guidelines I wouldn't have supported it. I think it might be improved further, but am not making a proposal myself; I do, however, greatly respect several of the people who oppose saying it needs more context, and welcome and would quite probably support their proposals to improve it. "Wow, what a great play, for all these reasons. I'd have liked it better if Romeo and Juliet had lived, though." "Then it is unclear to me why you support it, since you think it trivializes death, glorifies suicide, and is a pernicious influence on our nation's youth." --GRuban (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. I do not agree with your assessment of whether this complies with policy; the analogy with aesthetic appreciation is not apt in my view. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Support The quotes are essential for the reader to understand the controversy. Plenty of public figures have been reprimanded or terminated from posiitons for lesser acts. As the article now stands, it merely says "controversy." Yet, the article has no examples, so there is no illustration of the controversy. On another point, it would be understanable if Jeong used the supposed sarcasm over the span of a week and then dropped it. However, she followed this pattern for several months. This is clear racial animus. The article lacks a full portrait of her when it does not give the depth and length of the animus. As others have said, there are over a dozen sources for many of the quotes, sources that are on the professionalism level of the BBC, so these quotes and sources should be given here.Dogru144 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. When you say "This is clear racial animus", I would like to add a friendly note that this is not just your opinion, but rather in putting this thought out for the encyclopedia you would be following secondary sources critical of Jeong such as this. The real kicker for those who would complain that Jeong's critics tend to be right leaning, is the observation that simply quoting the tweets makes her critics case for them. As my link indicates, the tweets are absolutely indefensible (when not censored as currently in the article), including in the full context in which she publicly tweeted them. Wookian (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Your source is an opinion column. I think we need to stop repeating the sentence: “This is clear racial animus”. I don’t know if it is or not as it is not clear to me and I haven’t seen full interchanges. But, this is a BLP, and talk pages are covered by BLP restrictions. O3000 (talk)

Objective3000, you are entitled to your opinion that "dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants." doesn't necessarily constitute clear racial animus, as various left leaning editorial sources promote that somewhat strained view. Similarly, Dogru144 above is entitled to say it's clear racial animus, as many reliable secondary sources espouse that view in turn. Fortunately, the encyclopedia doesn't have to take sides on that question. In quoting these two tweets verbatim, we espouse neither view, however (as per the non-Jeong-defending sources), it is likely that readers will conclude that the tweets constitute "clear racial animus" if they are not censored on the article, since "dumbass fucking white people" sort of does in fact communicate racial animus. Your post (like many, many other posts on here) talks about "full interchanges", which as far as I can tell is a reference very much like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Often mentioned by those who want to defend Jeong from "harm" (in one editor's words), but never produced for these two tweets. The OP already dealt with the issue of context, as reading their proposal at the top of this section will make abundantly clear. Wookian (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that making claims of clear racial animus is a BLP violation.You have made it abundantly clear to me that these tweets belong nowhere near Wikipedia, including the talk page. O3000 (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we should make that claim in Wikipedia's voice. However your reply is extremely revealing. If the tweets themselves implicitly make that claim, then censoring them from the article to avoid letting Jeong damage her own reputation reflects a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's responsibility under BLP. We don't have to defend Roseanne Barr from damaging herself, nor Sarah Jeong from damaging herself as either of those individuals posted their tweets publicly on the internet. Instead, we follow the best examples available to us of neutral journalistic care such as WaPo and let the tweets speak for themselves, along with Jeong's excuse, and any other appropriate context that seems necessary - of course, in this case as OP explained, no additional context is either necessary or frankly, available. Wookian (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wookian, where's your funny bone? It's not "racial animus." It's just her effervescent sense of humor. She's the Mel Brooks of her generation. Scaleshombre (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose this is just poorly worded (funny almost), and I generally oppose quoting tweets per the reason given in the previous discussion (context issues). wumbolo ^^^ 20:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Quoting tweets in an encyclopedia article is a terrible idea in general; there is nothing about this particular case that makes it a good idea. If anything, including them interferes with communicating the important information about them/this event. --JBL (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Her words (as expressed on Twitter) are the very crux of this event. Scaleshombre (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This comment just shows that you don't understand the principles of encyclopedic writing. --JBL (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jytdog and Sangdeboeuf.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jytdog et al - but also this looks pretty clearly like editors with an axe to grind against a public figure based on her political leaning, and as such should be inappropriate for Wikipedia from an WP:NPOV standpoint on top of everything else.Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Depending where you look, it can also be viewed as an attempt to omit inconvenient, widely-reported, reliably-sourced truths pertaining to the subject. But it's definitely not a violation of NPOV. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the tweets - widely reported by media worldwide, including, for instance, today, The New York Times: "“oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men”". Since preference has been given to the NYT so far in the article, to the point of citing press releases from its parent company, now that the NYT is actually printing the tweets, why should these be censored out of the article?

References

-- XavierItzm (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The source you provide is an op-ed in the Times' opinion section. It's reliable for Stephens' own statements and little else, especially for BLPs, which have more stringent sourcing requirements than other articles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

20 sources were already provided above; the NYT citation is in support of the 20 WP:RS. Furthermore, are you claiming that when New York Times-paid employee Stephens writes on the pages of The New York Times that the subject wrote "oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," this is a false? That the subject never wrote such words? XavierItzm (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Whether Stephens is telling the truth or not misses the point entirely. WP:RS and WP:V don't mean we can cherry-pick only the parts of sources that we want, and ignore the rest. The kinds of mainstream sources that we should ideally use, such as WaPo, CJR, Vox, and The Guardian – the ones that offer interpretation and analysis, not just breaking news, and have robust editorial oversight – give the tweets considerable more context than what is proposed here. See the text Jytdog offers below under § something for another illustration of what I mean. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support These tweets are the two most reported. As to whether to include any tweets, I try to apply a casual reader test. How likely is it that after reading our article the casual reader will search for that info. If likely, include it. We have the accusation that the tweets are racist and the defense that they're counter-trolling. It's likely a reader sees merit in both claims and wants to judge for themselves, so include. D.Creish (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, clearly WP:UNDUE. The controversy has already mostly died down, and generally speaking it's better to rely on paraphrasing summaries from reliable sources in any case. A few tweets don't become noteworthy enough to be quoted in the article after just one cycle in the news. --Aquillion (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support, provided there would be a full context to what led her to post them: I don't really have any big problem with the racist tweets or the person of Sarah Jeong, but there are these two things that I really loathe to maximum level: censorship and double standards. And this seems to me exactly like that. Other articles of similar nature, about people who posted some inappropriate tweets are getting these tweets quoted on Wikipedia, so why are we making an exception here? Because making an exception is politically correct? Biased Wikipedia is not what I want. We should be neutral. No censorship. No double standards. Both left and right wing news media are quoting her tweets, so what's the problem? If we never did that in any other article, then be it, but we do it and it's obvious that people here are protesting addition of this content for political reasons and that's not right in my opinion. Petrb (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• What about misleading readers—would you loathe that? The tweets are obviously (and reliably sourced as) "imitating the rhetoric of her harassers" so at worst they were misguided. Jeong opposes that kind of language and apparently felt that by imitating it, the people who think it is ok to make similar comments about her background would think again (doubly mistaken!). Exercising editorial judgment is not censorship—please find a dictionary. Regarding "articles of similar nature", please post a couple of links so others can investigate the claimed double standard. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Johnuniq, if that's the case then we can put this information in there as well to give the readers whole context. Try to look at this from different perspective. Even if as you say "she opposes this and was fighting something" it doesn't change that what she posted looks like an act of hate, affecting and insulting large amount of people, which is probably one of reasons why this topic is now so widely discussed all around internet. People might be looking for Wikipedia to find out more, because Wikipedia is typically unbiased source of reliable information. They can read about these tweets everywhere on news media, be it right or left wing, and then they come to Wikipedia to figure out what is actually going on and boom... nothing. Like if this whole thing didn't happen. Now how does that look if not as censorship or some kind of a double standard? Do you think that's really going to help anyone? If I was an alt-right extremist looking for reasons to hate her, tweets missing in this article would just give me one, because this would look like a double standard to them, when people who are spreading hate against other races are quoted on Wikipedia, while she is not just because her target are white people. So why not instead provide full context, the reason why she tweeted this, what she tweeted and that she does indeed regret it (if that's even the case). That way you wouldn't need to censor anything and would provide an actual unbiased information that would be helpful to everyone, including Sarah herself. Hiding some information from people just because you don't believe they are capable of properly interpreting them, is going to lead to a disaster. Just interpret them in a way that people understand what is actually going on. Censorship is evil. Double standards are evil. Racism is evil. Petrb (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Articles are not written to suit alt-right extremists. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Did you even read what I said? Because you are literally making it suited just for them. Petrb (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• The correct way to parse Johnuniq's statement is: "what alt-right extremists think of our articles is not a consideration in how we write them." --JBL (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Much more clearly expressed, thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Petrb the section below has "something" providing more of the story. I do not pretend it is the "full context". Also please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Undue and would mislead readers (see my comment just above). Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support Supporting because the controversy needs a context and the tweets themselves are the context so it would be extremely important to add them. MayMay7 (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support including text of tweets as utilized in reliable sources. At the present time the lack of details on the Twitter controversy is so pronounced that it creates an NPOV issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• The problem I'm seeing is that some of you believe that she was "counter-trolling" and others seem to think that she was just plain being racist/genderist. It really shouldn't matter what we think--we should be proposing balanced text that covers the issue. I tried to write something balanced but frankly I don't have the time. I think the two proposed bits of text (above and under "something") are honestly not that far apart. I think the "something" text is too wordy and spends too much time providing her side of this. But the text above doesn't provide enough context. So perhaps someone can find a happy-middle? The tweets *must* be here. I can't see a justification for not including them--they are well covered by a wide-variety of media outlets and clearly relevant to the article. But they need more context than proposed above (and less defending her in Wikipedia's voice and via quotes from editorials) than the "something" text below. Hobit (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

something

I do not favor the following, but wanted to provide something that would approach meeting NPOV and BLP.... this is sourced entirely from references cited above, or in the article already.

In her book The Internet of Garbage and in other posts, Jeong has written about online harassment and how it has taken the place of spam as the main kind of garbage making the internet unusable for its targets, who tend to be women and people of color.

Like other women and people of color, she has been the target of online mobbing. In January 2016 for example, she was reading social media posts by Bernie Sanders' supporters attacking women and supporters of Black Lives Matter, and counter-trolled them; according to Andy Greenberg in Wired, she tweeted a "list of political carica­tures, one of which called the typical Sanders fan 'a vitriolic crypto­racist who spends 20 hours a day on the Internet yelling at women.'" This set off a wave of attacks against her that lasted for weeks, including someone who told her he wanted to “rip each one of [her] hairs out” and “twist her tits clear off.” Greenberg reports that this harassment put her in "crisis mode", and she made her Twitter account private and took an unpaid leave from work. A few years earlier, she had engaged in similar counter-trolling, some in response to tweets directed at her, like “If I saw you, I would sock you right in your lesbian face." and "Shut the fuck up you dog-eating gook”, and some that were sarcastic commentary on white privilege and its fragility, and she tweeted things like “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet like dogs pissing on fire hydrants”, "Having things you like criticized is not pain or marginalization" followed by "#CancelWhitePeople", and "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men".

When The New York Times announced her hiring in August 2018, she became, as described by Aja Romano writing in Vox, "an obvious target for the right-wing internet mobs that have been especially active of late, launching organized smear campaigns against left-leaning celebrities by weaponizing their old jokes and tweets." Her tweets were stripped of context, gathered together, and circulated with descriptions of them as "racist". Both she and the New York Times became targets of social media mobbing campaigns. The social media outrage about "racist tweets" was picked up by websites on the far-right margins and moved across the spectrum, and the outrage was eventually reported in mainstream media. Previous social media outrage campaigns had led to people being fired, but in response to this one, the Times released a statement saying that it did not condone the tweets, and that it had reviewed Jeong's social media postings before it had hired her; Jeong also released a statement saying that she had been counter-trolling, and that she regretted having done that.

References

Something like that. The level of detail in quoting tweets is now equivalent (her tweets and tweets at her are both quoted), but this is still not proportional, as the tweets of one =/= the tweets of mobs. And there is context. Again it is remarkable that no one advocating "quote the tweets" has been able to put something like this together. All these sources are present in this thread, or in the article.

But it is too soon for this, and something like the brief, high level content that is in the article now is much more appropriate.Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 presents Jeong's explanation of her motivations in wiki voice - we should avoid that. We should present Jeong's tweets first, and then present Jeong's explanations. Paragraph 3 leads off with what is essentially an opinion piece from Vox which is not a neutral source.Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I know this is just a thought experiment, but it's not a particularly convincing one. To take just one point, pointing to a 2016 example to explain tweets from 2014 and 2015 doesn't make much sense. Also, I mostly agree with Icewhiz's points above, with the caveat that I don't think any sources are "neutral" (because that's a meaningless notion). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that this is a "thought experiment" (nice phrasing).... Is providing context "explaining"? Hm. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not talk about the context (which I am fine with); I talked about the example (which I'm not). Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging. I wrote this "something" thinking about the whole article. The wave of harassment described in the Wired piece is something that this article should perhaps mention. (it was discussed at the time; I didn't introduce these sources because part of the "thought experiment" was using refs already in the thread or article, but what happened to her, was part of the "Bernie Bro" discussion during the election campaign -- see BBC, quartz, vox, even this cosmo piece). So I included it here, going into the weeds to show what something "showing the tweets" might look like if it were aiming at NPOV. The article is about her. I recognize the news-driven desire to focus on the decontexualized tweets and the current outrage (which you are also resisting); this is not about that but includes that. That's where i was coming from, anyway. I may propose something about the Sanders incident, separately. it will need consensus as it is "related" to the current issue, of course. Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how this better approaches NPOV. I noticed on Roseanne's talk page you characterized her tweet being racist as a "sky is blue thing", ie not worth debating. In contrast, here you're putting racist in quotes and taking Jeong's post-hoc explanation completely at face value (and even expanding on it). 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Where Are We At?

Besides the addition of specific tweets, or their any other major areas that need to be hashed out on the talk page before improving the article, or does BE BOLD apply to those areas? If someone can summarize/list remaining hot-button issues, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

article by a lecture in local government, Yascha Mounk discussing the tweets

Some interesting comments by Yascha Mounk, a lecturer on government at Harvard University.[19] Doug Weller talk 09:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: That's not "Slate on the tweets" any more than this opposite opinion via Slate is "Slate on the tweets": [20]. The article you posted is Yascha Mounk on the tweets. Would you mind changing the heading of this thread to something more accurate (like "Article on the tweets")? And perhaps tell us why you are posting it? There are hundreds of articles (opinion pieces) currently floating around about the tweets, and everybody has an opinion. Wikipedia is not about opinions, it is about objective facts. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I largely agree that we should not be including commentary at this juncture. Someone else above suggest that we use Andrew Sullivan's essay (which, incidentally, Slate references), see Suggested Source above. It's not unusual for Wikipedia to have a "Controversy and Criticism" (as we do for David Horowitz or "Reception and influence" (as we do for Noam Chomsky). We might even have a section on the "White Race as a Cancer" as we do for Susan Sontag (see Susan Sontag#White civilization as a cancer.) But these seasoned intellectuals of some influence who wrote extensively on the topics in journals and books. To do this for someone relatively unknown for tweets that she has disavowed as satire is overkill and an example of WP:UNDUE. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION: Criticism sections are discouraged and deprecated -- the possible exception being for very large articles on very prominent people; beyond that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. There is no way a 9,000-byte article on a little-known, specialist journalist would merit a Criticism section. What is happening here is that a short-term news cycle -- someone's years-old tweets were dug up and complained about -- is at its peak and so people are up in arms about it or reading about it. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and its function is not to give voice to every ephemeral news cycle that gains temporary traction. Softlavender (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the section heading, I meant it to mean "article by y published in z on the tweets" but I can see how it's confusing. Changed it. I also agree with the comments above. Doug Weller talk 14:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Nothing interesting there; it's the same as every other news story about the tweets. wumbolo ^^^ 14:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Separate section on tweets?

Should there be a separation separate section concerning the article subject's controversial tweets? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just corrected my amazingly illiterate error. My apologies. Apparently people responding to this understood my meaning thanks to the section header. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. The overwhelming majority of the independent, reliable sources concerning her deal with the tweets, they are why we have an article on her in the first place, and not having the tweets in a separate section gives insufficient weight to this aspect of the subject and makes the article non-neutral. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ephemeral news cycle. A separate section would violate WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:ATTACK, WP:BLP, WP:RECENTISM, WP:CSECTION, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't violate Wikipedia policies based on the number of editors in favor of an edit. Softlavender (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  We also don't decide edits just because you link a hundred irrelevant policies. Once again I have to remind you that linking a policy does not automatically mean that that policy agrees with you. In fact some of the policies that you link run contrary to your comments on this talk page. Galestar (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• No it would make the article much worse. The current layout is bad enough. I also support closing this since this article is pretty stubby. wumbolo ^^^ 12:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• no. Two reasons. First, per WP:CRIT (only an essay yes but a widely cited one) such sections are unwise. Such content should be blended. Second, content about the tweets is under a strict discretionary sanction and would have to get consensus here first anyway. The focus should be on developing consensus around specific proposals rather than how to format it. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. It is quite obvious that this extends beyond a single news cycle, and that Jeong is primarily notable for the tweets, hiring despite the tweets, criticism, justification, whatever. In fact - a standalone article on the New York Times hiring of Sarah Jeong would pass notability for WP:NEVENT, and they'd be much more to write about (due to more extensive sourcing) than what there is to write about other aspects of Jeong. So yes - it should be a separate and lengthy section in this article (even if we have a standalone article as well). This would not be a WP:CSECTION but rather a section on the subject's views on race relations, support, criticism, and effects on the subjcet's employment.Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes That's a significant reason for her notability and they are notable in connection with her, especially for the controversy they caused. Btw i would like to point out that the two sources provided for the sentence "The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media" actually says "Soon after, mainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets". I suggest changing the sentence to "a strongly negative reaction in mainly conservative media" in order for the sentence to be in accordance with its two sources, otherwise these sources are merely being bent to a POV, as they actually say a different thing (they claim the issue came mainly not exclusevly from conservative media: it's a huge difference). 93.36.190.141 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes It's her claim to notability. A separate section is warranted. Scaleshombre (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• No per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM, at the very least. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• No People can click around and find them, the emic Wikipedia wall of text notwithstanding. kencf0618 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• No In addition to Softlavender’s comments, the tweets alone would provide no context. Attempting to include context would require that we determine what she was reacting to, and that require OR/SYNTH. WP:BLP WP:OR. O3000 (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes This is an essential part of her biography and noteworthiness. She would be less remarkable without this.Dogru144 (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. It's undue at this point, and it's too recent to know if the news will die down or if this will remain a lasting discussion point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes The New York Times had to come out and release a statement because of the tweets, so this should be covered in her Wikipedia biography. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. No strong opinions on structure, except that after tweets quotes are added the article will read better/easier without a huge last paragraph. It is certainly possible to title and phrase such a paragraph in a BLP respecting way and to quote the tweets and also provide Jeong's excuse in a neutral way, thus imitating the best of our neutral, journalistic RS's. Arguments about what is due ignore the reality that Sarah Jeong has unintentionally attained a place as a permanent fixture of the national debate on racism, journalistic standards of speech, and societal practices in holding people accountable for tweets (or lack thereof). The NYT's decision not to fire does not change that editorials all around the country are focusing on this event with her tweets. The tweets and their fallout are quite notable and deserving of treatment under the standard of due weight. Wookian (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• No And we've already established why up above. The discussion is going in circles... AGAIN! Openlydialectic (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• YesAnd we have already established the reason why above. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Not yet per GorillaWarfare et al. There's not that much to write yet, and too early to know whether this will have a major impact or will die down. Right now, a single paragraph basically covers it. This is not her main claim to notability, lots of people say stupid things on Twitter and don't have articles, but not many people are high profile tech journalists. I like the way User:Kingsindian puts it below: imagine if she had tweeted all this, but not been hired by the NYTimes, would she still be notable? Whereas if she hadn't tweeted but been hired? --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  Seems to be spreading rather than dying down. Let's make this "not yet", but may need to revisit. --GRuban (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• No, that would be UNDUE for reasons abundantly enumerated above; and as it was UNDUE in the biography of Kevin D. Williamson, which I edited down accordingly when it was brought to my attention upthread here. Before, after. Our task in encyclopedic biographies is to write a summary of people's whole lives, not bulletins on what's in the news right now. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

By comparison to Kevin Williamson's case, perhaps you would support paraphrasing what was said in Jeong's tweets, as per your final revision of the Williamson article. However, it seems like the "oppose"-ers on this Talk page don't want readers of the article to know what Jeong tweeted, whether quoted verbatim, or paraphrased as you did with Kevin Williamson. Hence multiple mentions of WP:CENSORSHIP by supporters of publishing the tweets. Wookian (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The tweets are not censored, they're summarized. They're actually described in two sentences, double what I put for Williams, who lost a job over his, which makes the episode much more encyclopedically significant than this one is to date. I therefore think the version we have for this entry is already too much. It's certainly not censorship. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr's tweet is also paraphrased. People can scream WP:OTHERSTUFF all they want but at the end of the day, our bias will be judged by the consistency with which we uphold and apply our own rules. If you have kids, you would already know this. If you are not consistent, people will scream WP:CENSORSHIP or WP:BIAS and rightly so. We should either always include the tweets, or never include the tweets when someone says something inappropriate and apologizes. I don't personally care which chose we choose, but could we please be consistent so we don't go in circles for days like this? It is a waste of time, resources and causes a bunch of strife in what little community we have left. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It's true, a one-size-fits-all rule is often what kids want, but OSE asks us, as mostly-adult and some excellent contributors who are minors!, to be precise about where a comparison matches up, where it does not, and make decisions appropriate to the respective situations (to extend the kid example: "sorry, but your brother does get to stay out later, because he is 17 and you are 13".) I've detailed my view of the similarities and differences, and what that warrants, just above your comment as well as here. You can tell at least I've examined this pretty closely, and put work into improving other flawed entries, across the political spectrum. As with kids (now I guess we're just talking about people): ya do your best and sometimes people are gonna scream regardless! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• No per X'OReaster. --JBL (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per FigureOfNine and others - the coverage of the subject surrounds the tweets, and now the fallout (with sites like Slate criticizing major media for their coverage of the kerfuffle, and WaPo crediting her with "sparking a debate") by probably 50 to 1, compared with coverage of Jeong prior to the NYT hiring. The article has no choice per WP rules to mimic RS in terms of weight given to any particular aspect of the subject. petrarchan47คุก 02:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• No - undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes her page was averaging 9 views per day in the month prior to this scandal. She was virtually a nobody, and the article in its current state fails to give any proper indication of just how massive this is for someone like Jeong. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• No - We should wait until this situation is in our rear view mirror. It's mentioned in the article, so why are we rushing to overemphasize a small portion of someone's career as the event is unfolding? I believe they call that WP:UNDUE. Nihlus 05:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes — Citing the fact that she wasn't fired as evidence for the tweets' non-notability misses the point. If she'd been fired, nobody would be talking about this. Ylem (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• No per WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, and Kevin D. Williamson. Gamaliel (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• No At present the information related to the tweets is almost half as long as her entire career information. Certainly it cannot be said that WP is attempting to ignore or minimize the issue. I am satisfied that the present presentation in our article is fair and reasonable and I don't believe that any changes are needed. Gandydancer (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, but for those of you who are interested in an honest examination of whether your opinions might be biased by your politics, a good experiment might be to examine the article of Kevin D. Williamson and think how you would treat the paragraph on his tweets. It's not a perfect parallel (he got fired), but it's close. ~Awilley (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't include the tweets in either article. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, include. The subject wouldn't be known at all were not for the controversy; therefore a section is DUE. I find it funny that people who oppose list policies (without enunciating the argument). So for example, some have included WP:RECENTISM... yet the article currently includes this: "In August 2018, Jeong was hired by The New York Times". "WP:RECENTISM for thee and not for me" seems to be the mantra of the day! XavierItzm (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• No Classic WP:Undue. AIRcorn (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• No. One news cycle about some tweets doesn't deserve its own section; the amount we have on it already is pushing it. --Aquillion (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• No A separate section would be undue and would mislead readers because Jeong opposes the kind of language in the tweets and apparently felt that by imitating it, the people who think it is ok to make similar comments about her background would think again. Try again in three months if there is continued fallout; until then, WP:NOTNEWS applies. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• No - Just another case of WP:NOTNEWS and is WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• No - WP:UNDUE. If the question were whether we should at some point have a subsection for the content down the road, when we have a fully fleshed out article, then possibly, but not now. weight isn't just about writing what's in reliable sources, it's about presentation of those sources in the current article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - This controversy is one of the things she is most widely known for. OtterAM (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes The Tweets are her notability and they're likely to be a lasting legacy. As another editor already noted above, the article was getting an average of nine hits a day prior to the Tweets. The tweets are what she is known for. Before that, by and large, no one knew her name. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

WP has always distinguished between notability and fame; even if it didn't, arguing by pageview would be WP:OR; claims about someone's "legacy" after 10 days are WP:CRYSTAL. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that this will be part of her legacy. We are allowed to express our personal opinions when casting !votes in surveys and discussions. If I had said, "put in the article that this will be part of her legacy", that would be a suggestion to violate WP:CRYSTAL. Since I did not do that, bringing up crystal in relation to my comments/!vote is without merit. My opinion and !vote stands based on the reality of what the tweets generated in regard to her notability. WP:COMMONSENSE should be applied here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: frankly speaking, her tweets are most notable part about her person. While she did have article even before, she wasn't really widely known. She became widely known thanks to the tweets and I believe that majority of people who are reaching the article right now are doing that because of the tweets. If you google her name, tweet affair is what you see on top. It's just Wikipedia that looks like there is nothing really going on. Tweets should have a large separate section explaining everything. Petrb (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It's just Wikipedia that looks like there is nothing really going on: indeed, because Wikipedia bios are explicitly not meant to focus on what is going on right now. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes as this has been the usual way to handle controversy topics by having them in their own section or even in own article if there's many controversies like with some public companies. MayMay7 (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) and if it comes otu to mean nothing it can be changed back later. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• No This is an undue focus on a salacious current event and it's all being driven by an attempt to derail her career. Notwithstanding policy, which does not support inclusion as per comments up-thread, I don't think it'd be right for us to give extra weight to these tweets at this time. Honestly, I maintain we shouldn't even mention the darn things. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• No and FoN should be trouted for the biased RFC question: "controversial" is a word used by the rightist keyboard activists who want her fired, but it seems like the controversy is more drummed up by said activists than an inherent quality of the tweets. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) Topic is notable enough for it's own section. A topic readers of the article would be interested in locating in a quick and efficient way, and it's own section seems like the easies ways to do that. Comatmebro (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• No The current section on the topic needs expansion (including at least one of the relevant tweets) but given the size of the article an entire section isn't warranted. Hobit (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I do not have any firm opinion on this question, but I see this point being raised all over the place that Jeong is "primarily notable" for her tweets. How does this follow? This is a very recent controversy. Well before this stuff, she had a Wikipedia article, so she was wiki-notable. I wish WP:NOTNEWS was taken a bit more seriously here.

And even this controversy is not primarily about her tweets, but also the fact that the NYT hired her to be part of the editorial board. My assertion is very simple to prove: consider a thought experiment: what happens if you keep all her tweets but the NYT never hired her? Exactly. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This is well-put. --JBL (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

But the 'news' considers it news, so we follow suit. If the NYT had never hired her, her tweets would never have been brought to light. But they did, and they were, and it made the news. A lot of people who make derogatory comments (satirical or not) about groups of people based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc., make major headlines. It's a very hot topic lately, especially since Black Lives Matter and similar movements have brought the subject into the light. petrarchan47คุก 02:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Your first sentence is so deeply confused that it's hard to know what to say. This is not a news site, period. What gets coverage in today's newspaper is related to what has encyclopedic importance, but the relationship is not direct or proportional, and "X made major headlines" is neither necessary nor sufficient for X having encyclopedic value. --JBL (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

WP has no choice but to follow "news" since we rely on WP:RS for article fodder. It's most unfortunate, but in my experience at WP, it is the case that our coverage reflects what news sources consider important. I'm not sure how it can be argued otherwise. petrarchan47คุก 20:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, if only we had policies that could be used to inform editorial choices, or something. --JBL (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I think our policies are quite clear in requiring that the article reflect the coverage in reliable sources. While not pretty, the fact is that overwhelmingly her notability is related directly to her tweets. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This is so tiresome. What gets coverage in today's newspaper is related to what has encyclopedic importance, but the relationship is not direct or proportional, and "X made major headlines" is neither necessary nor sufficient for X having encyclopedic value. --JBL (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I realize that but I think the "notnews" argument is being carried to extremes here. We'll see how the RfC goes. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

2016 mobbing

I propose adding the following, just after the paragraph on Internet of Garbage, where it would fit in chronological order

Jeong supported Bernie Sanders' bid for the US presidency. In January 2016 she posted a tweet criticizing some Sanders supporters' online behavior attacking women and supporters of Black Lives Matter, which set off an online mobbing against her that included threats of sexualized violence sexual violence. The harassment lasted for weeks and drove her to make her Twitter account private and to take an unpaid leave from work at Motherboard.

References

--Very open to tweaks, improvements, etc. This is not directly about "the tweets" but because it is related, I am seeking consensus instead of just boldly adding this. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC) (two tweaks Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)) (redact, simplify to address concern about "too confusing" Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC) -- Struck, yielding to better version below by Innisfree987 at 00:01, 10 August 2018 Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I wasn't aware of this, but if we have to include anything about her twitter, I think this context matters. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. No comment on the length or the wording, but as mentioned including this gives context to her career.Citing (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• I changed the phrasing slightly. Sources don't explicitly say "sexualized violence", though that's what they are. This outlines death threats.

Jeong supported Bernie Sanders' bid for the US presidency. In January 2016 she tweeted criticism of some Sanders supporters' online behavior attacking women and supporters of Black Lives Matter, which set off an online mobbing and death threats. The harassment lasted for weeks and drove her to make her Twitter account private and to take an unpaid leave from work.

References

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Citing (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support Not conditional. However what is "from work"? Where was she working at the time? --GRuban (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Source says "And she took a two-week unpaid leave from her job as a contributor to the tech news site Motherboard."Citing (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Then I'd write "... work at Motherboard". --GRuban (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I'd change it to "sexual violence", which I think is how it's generally phrased in America. Gamaliel (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note - am OK with either version. I wrote "sexualized violence" per the " “twist her tits clear off.”" as described in Wired piece. That would be encompassed in some definitions of sexual violence for sure. Either way is fine with me. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment not opposed to this but since it's a whole other can of worms (and during the utterly chaotic 2016 presidential election) it might be best to postpone this while everyone's attention is on getting her tweets controversy right. I do remember "Bernie bros" being maligned in different ways during that time, which isn't to suggest that many of them didn't act awfully, but to suggest a more critical lens might need to be applied here too. Not to mention, the 10 year test. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I avoided all that commentary about Bernie Bros; this segment of Bernie supporters ~may~ have been or included Russian agents/contractors/bots, as described in the recent Mueller indictments. People wrote a lot of stuff back then about them, and about the labelling, with no awareness of this aspect of what was going on. So yes we should not go into detail. The Bernie Bros page will carry that freight. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you at least add your original bit about how "according to Andy Greenberg in Wired, she tweeted a 'list of political carica­tures, one of which called the typical Sanders fan a vitriolic crypto­racist who spends 20 hours a day on the Internet yelling at women.'"?

It was later found that during that time the largest Black Lives Matter page on Facebook (with hundreds of thousands of followers) was a complete fraud. Again, not opposed, just noting the insane amounts of deception, trolling, hacking, political operatives, etc, and why it may be best to postpone this addition until we get the tweets controversy right. Presenting a simple narrative here about a woman facing down hordes of toxic bros might easily become misleading. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

the answer to your first paragraph is "no" for the same reasons that I and others have given about quoting tweets.Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose for now (not fundamentally opposed to it) as this makes less sense the more I think about it. Does it pass the 10 year test, despite it getting a very minuscule amount of coverage compared to the main tweets controversy, which people are currently arguing doesn't pass the test? And why did you yesterday include that line by Andy Greenberg about Sarah's inflammatory caricatures of "Bernie bros" as vitriolic crypto­racists, which you said "set off a wave of attacks", while now flatly rejecting it? I'm not asking you show her tweets, just re-include your own line about what preceded the mobbing. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

As I noted there, the "something" content was at a level of detail I do not support and was a "thought experiment"; it was not a proposal. This is a proposal for actual content. Do not continue to misrepresent what I have written or pull things out of context. See WP:TPNO. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You said your experiment "would approach meeting NPOV and BLP" and I'm just asking why that line is now being flatly rejected. It seems important. I'm certainly not intentionally misrepresenting anything, so please assume good faith here. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose with conditions. If we are going to expand the article to include things that got little coverage, then things like Jeong's tweets regarding killing cops and all men should also be included (yet it is not).

It seems clear to me that this piece of "news" is being suggested as an addition in order to help justify the "counter trolling". If it was considered newsworthy on its own, it would have been added to this article years ago. It's not uncommon for people to be harrassed online, and to have to make their accounts private in response, I'm not sure this constitutes news, though indeed it was mentioned in 2 sources. It might make sense to add it to the tweets section (assuming there will be one) as it does seem part of that story, given her mention of past harassment as justification, but we should be allowing additional material there even when it doesn't make Sarah out to be a victim for NPOV. Once again, weight given any particular aspect should be determined by coverage in RS. petrarchan47คุก 19:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether we "show the tweets". Likewise, whether this is "news" is not relevant in WP. This is quite relevant with respect to somebody who published a book about this just a few months before this happened, as the two cited sources, and several more, point out. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"Show the tweets"? I'm not sure if this is meant as a response to my post, but my suggestion is that if this harassment is mentioned, it might make sense to add it to the section about her tweets. petrarchan47คุก 20:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no "tweets section". The article is currently arranged simply in chronological order. Jytdog (talk)

• Support inclusion of the paragraph as proposed - evidently a notable event in the career of the subject. XavierItzm (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose confusing. Did Jeong's tweet criticize BLM supporters, or did the Sanders supporters harass BLM supporters? wumbolo ^^^ 20:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I have simplified it. Keeping it higher level and less detailed is better in any case. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC) (remove diff Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC))

What if instead of cutting the phrase, switching "attacking" for "toward", to clarify the grammar but keep the context? Otherwise it starts not to make sense; she's a Bernie support but criticizing Bernie supporters? For what? ETA: needs an apostrophe after "supporters" to indicate the possessive--this should also help with clarity. (I will post a separate suggestion on succinctness below.) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've left it at "Sanders supporters' online behavior" - she supported him and criticized some of his supporters' online behavior (apostrophe added above just now). That is clear enough yes? Jytdog (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for making it as short as possible, and I agree with your comment above about relying the Bernie Bros link to contextualize more fully, but I think it starts to get genuinely hard to parse what followed without some more indication here of what she criticized--she didn't get mobbed for saying their online behavior was too demure, you know? Innisfree987 (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Firm Oppose Two problems. First the author (Greenberg) and Jeong coauthored a book in 2015 [21] so his article isn't 'the reflections of a neutral observer' and shouldn't be cited as such. Second, it's unbalanced to devote similar coverage to a story reported in one article (with the aforementioned issue) with a blurb in a second, as to a story reported in dozens. The disparity is even more obvious when considering only the top RS. I would support an addition to the existing text ("in reaction to harassment she had experienced...") along the lines of "that at one point caused her to set her twitter account to private." We can cite Wired, and the BBC source which is listed under blogs-trending but I assume is subject to editorial review. D.Creish (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the basis for only two sources existing on the Bernie Bro mobbing? That is an odd argument. With regard to Greenberg, you seem to be saying that the source isn't independent; that is a very weak argument especially with regard to three sentences providing facts about events that are relevant to her career. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your objection. Your proposal cites two sources so I read them and commented. D.Creish (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

What you wrote Second, it's unbalanced to devote similar coverage to a story reported in one article (with the aforementioned issue) with a blurb in a second, as to a story reported in dozens That is a statement about the actual coverage. Feel free to redact it if it is not what you meant. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

FWIW multiple sources talked about this too. Not that "number of headlines generated" is a good rule for inclusion in an encyclopedia.[22][23][24].Citing (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Now I get it. The Guardian article doesn't mention setting her account to private but it can supplement the general harassment claim. I don't know if QZ is RS but I really hope cosmo isn't. That's why I mentioned top RS. Restricted to that we have probably one source, the BBC. D.Creish (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

So a shifting grab bag of weak reasons and poor analysis (the Guardian piece is opinion, btw). I've heard your "oppose" in any case. I won't make any changes based on thisJytdog (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

What? No. I haven't revised anything in my initial vote and I don't see a need to. I also don't think it's constructive to oppose every oppose. (You have 228 edits to this page.) D.Creish (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support modulo phrasing. I like the version given by Citing above, but I'm not quite sold on the second sentence. What about this: "In January 2016 she tweeted criticism of some Sanders supporters, whose online behavior included attacking women and supporters of Black Lives Matter, and her criticism set off an online mobbing against her that included threats of sexual violence." Anything much longer than the original suggestion would violate WP:UNDUE. XOR'easter (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes tweaked? The concrete consequences make the encyclopedic value straightforward and single focal tweet easy enough to summarize; can we say similar slightly more briefly/neutrally? E.g.

"Jeong supported Bernie Sanders' bid for the US presidency. In January 2016, she posted a tweet criticizing some Sanders supporters' online behavior toward women and supporters of Black Lives Matter. A campaign harassing Jeong, including with threats of sexual violence, ensued, lasting weeks and driving her to make her Twitter account private and take an unpaid leave from her job at Motherboard."

References

Doesn't have to be that exactly, just for instance (could combine first and second sentences but I see the reason to separate--the Sanders support is its own thing). Would particularly suggest avoiding "set off", to take care attributing causation. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• This is my favorite phrasing yet. XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• fine by me. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Maybe strike "with" in "including with threats"? Edit: Oh, I see; maybe also move "ensuing" before the subsidiary clause? --JBL (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you think reads best there is fine by me--I just did it for the perhaps pedantic grammatical distinction that it was the overall harassment campaign (verified claim) rather than the sexual violence threats specifically that lasted weeks (unverified). But clarity for readers is what matters, not arbitrary grammar rules, so whatever folks think is easiest to read. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Too many possible permutations of words and clauses :). If this gets added, I'll think about it more then. --JBL (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Wait wait wait. I'm fine with the addition, at least in principle, but I don't get the Bernie bros/some Bernie supporters thing. "Bernie bros" is mentioned only once in the BBC article, and it doesn't prove that a. it was those bros (yuk) who did it or b. that she aimed her tweet at them--nor does the Wired article enlighten us. So, that link should go; it works in ordinary conversation, but not here. Note: I saw above that one of the editors had a "firm" oppose, which sounds very manly, so I'll make this a rock-hard endorsement in principle but with moderately velvet-textured objections, just to balance it out. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Drmies most odd. Just odd.

• The ref " In what was meant to be a hyper­bolic joke, she tweeted out a list of political carica­tures, one of which called the typical Sanders fan a “vitriolic crypto­racist who spends 20 hours a day on the Internet yelling at women.” .... By the time Jeong went to sleep, a swarm of Sanders supporters were calling her a neoliberal shill. By sunrise, a broader, darker wave of abuse had begun....Sarah Jeong, the Motherboard writer who was silenced by Bernie bros....".
• The BBC ref: Author Sady Doyle said her tweets about Sanders supporters resulted in "several hundred angry notifications in a 24-hour span from that cohort," she wrote. "Someone also said *I* should die if I thought some Bernie supporters were kinda sexist."....Some say Sanders is the symptom, not the cause - the "Bernie bro" is just an old troll with a new name. Indeed, Sarah Jeong, a journalist who is the frequent target of sexist attacks, has received so much vitriol in the name of Sanders she set her Twitter account to private - even though she too is a Sanders fan."
• See this posting by her about it. "I kept an eye out for pro-Sanders abuse on Twitter, but what I saw was a surge of apparently real people harassing commentators, pundits, and ordinary citizens for not supporting Bernie Sanders. Then they came for me. I tweeted a criticism of Sanders supporters, and it kicked off weeks of persecution. One man sent a series of death threats to a friend who had defended me. Another man claimed that he'd "twist my tits off." Others spread lies about me in hopes that more would jump in (it worked)."
• rewire: "Nor is there acknowledgment of how tech journalist and legal analyst Sarah Jeong found herself swarmed by violently angry Sanders supporters after she tweeted criticism of Sanders’ record on race. Despite her position as a confirmed Sanders voter, the abuse—which included rape and death threats—became so noxious and torrential that Jeong had to lock her Twitter account."

There is no doubt that a bunch of women were treated like shit on social media by people claiming to support Sanders. It ~appears~ that those people/bots may well have been or been stoked by Russian agents (there is a bit in Bernie Bros about that, which hopefully will become clear with time). But "Bernie Bros" was definitely a thing, and that thing did some very ugly shit, including to her.

What is the question, exactly? Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The question is--no, there is no question, just a problem. Yes there are Bernie bros, yes Bernie supporters did such horrible things as described in the articles (it seems you think I doubt these things?). But we can't automatically assume that what we describe as "Bernie bros" are those people who harassed her, and by wikilinking the article to the phrase "some Bernie supporters" we would be equating them. In other words, if you leave out the wikilink the problem is gone. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I usually understand where you are coming from. I don't here. The sources all explicitly say "Sanders supporters" and this is exactly the "bernie bro" behavior as described in those sources. What i hear you writing is "I don't believe the sources" -- I guess you would need to go see the harassing tweets yourself and verify that these accounts were Sanders supporters? But that is not what we do here and not the kind of argument i have ever seen you make before.

I don't care so much if it is wikilinked or not; not a big deal to me. If that settles this, that will do. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support It is significant enough and related to her online interactions, which is also the focus of her book. The Wired source is more than a passing reference to her ordeal. It could be more terse but I still support it in its current form. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: I can only describe this proposal as absurd.

  First, are we now adding text to the effect of "was the target of online harassment" to people's biographies? It may have been deeply unpleasant for her, but this counts as a significant event in her life or career? Second, this is much too thin a sourcing for inserting this text in this article which is barely more than a stub. Just compare this sourcing with the stuff about the tweets. Instead, add it to the book article which deals with this topic. Third, as D.Creish points out above, basically the only serious source is a Wired article, which was written by a person who was a co-author. The BBC "blogs-trending" is a lightweight story which mentions her in passing. Fourth, her own "counter-trolling" tweets aren't quoted, which even the cited source does. Fifth, if the aim of this is to provide context for the tweets, it should be part of the proposal above.

  I can come up with five more legitimate reasons very easily, but I'll stop here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

And i don't understand this at all. Somebody who is an authority on intenet law and culture and harassment, gets harassed off the internet.... If there were no big brouhaha and I had come across this page and was looking to improve it, this is something I would have added. The Wired ref has been in the article for a long time, and this event is discussed in it, first thing. But i get it that you oppose. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, same: my argument throughout has been that we should look for some concrete impact to indicate encyclopedic significance before we rush to include a Twitter controversy, and I've now edited down three more BLPs (across every imaginable variety of politics) that had included way too much Twitter outrage; but, when verifiable, harassment that forced a journalist to withdraw from participation in the public sphere, and moreover take an unpaid leave from their job, would fit my bill if I came across it in any of them. And I don't think the factual information is in dispute, right? (No one thinks her co-author/Wired isn't reliable to the matter of her employment status, I presume.) Innisfree987 (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the "impact" argument and support the insertion. But I also worry about the weight issue that some have mentioned. Delete the sentence that says she was a Bernie supporter, it is not needed and irrelevant. I'd make the remaining text into a single sentence. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I too would like it to be shorter but I tried for longer than I'd care to admit and could only cut about 10% from Jytdog's version. Who someone supported in a presidential election, if it was part of the public coverage of them (as the sources on this invariably do--arguing it is relevant to this incident), would not be unusual to include in an encyclopedic bio; we could make it a separate (preceding?) graf but I'll bet a dollar we get someone along immediately behind to complain about single-sentence paragraphs... FWIW I also have trims I would make in the section on more recent maelstromm but basically I think, at this point we're editing by (massive) committee and getting in the right ballpark is realistically the best we can hope for... and I do think adding this gets us closer to the right answer. It can, one day, be revisitinInnisfree987 (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as worded: This is overwhelmingly relying on the first three paragraphs of the Greenberg Wired story. But that does not at all describe her tweet as “criticizing some Sanders supporters.” “Criticizing” is not used, nor any close synonym. About a fifth of that key text is devoted to saying she meant to make a hyperbolic joke; that it created multiple political caricatures; that she called the typical Bernie fan a vitriolic cryptoracist who spent most of their day yelling at women online; that the tweet was ill-advised; and that Jeong agreed her tweet was provocative and absurd. This was more like a troll tweet, about typical Bernie fans (not “some”). Much more accurate would be:

  In January 2016, Jeong posted an absurd, provocative tweet equating the typical Bernie Sanders enthusiast with those attacking feminists and Black Lives Matter advocates (despite Jeong supporting Sanders herself)...

  I have more problems. Is there a harassment “campaign”, that’s organized? Greenberg doesn’t say, but describes how the initial firestorm degenerated into something darker and abusive. Jeong argues organized “harassment” in other articles, but doesn’t seem to believe death threats are being directed by the people she’s accusing. Why then are death threats included in the campaign, rather than being something separate from the harassment campaign?

  Were there plural threats of sexual violence? I see one threat of sexualized mutilation in the Greenberg article, along with the same troll threatening nonsexual violence (ripping hair out). I’ve seen no other mentions of sexual violence. Some other articles do claim plural death threats, but if it’s changed to that, the article should be cited. Dillsom (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing "criticizing" to "critical of"; we can also change "sexual violence" to "death threats". The "equating" language would be WP:SNYTH (it may be how you read the tweet but it's not how the tweet is described in RS), and abundant sources note a harassment campaign, see sources cited in above thread. On the whole, I think there's general consensus this is encyclopedic material and factually accurate, and I think the current language is an appropriately neutral presentation of it. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

And social media

I don't really get where does this statement come from? Did the entire social media sphere gave the hiring a negative reaction? No! There were many people on the social media expressing support of her struggle, and if anything there were more people on her side than on the conservative side. What do you guys think? Should it be clarified? Openlydialectic (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

How about we just delete mention of the tweets as they are just a silly side-show cooked up by channers to get her fired for being a woman of colour while online.Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly support your proposal. I was going to mention 4chan in the lead, but was afraid of being accused of harassment/verbal offence as I already was on this talk page Openlydialectic (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - the sense of the sentence is clear enough. XavierItzm (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support the "some social media" version. I feel like there ought to be a better modifier than "some", but I can't think of it, and that one will serve. I wouldn't want to imply that all of the negative reaction came from conservatives, even if they were the predominant source of it. XOR'easter (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• I actually agree with XavierItzm about this: I think it is widely understood that "X happened on social media" means "X happened on [some subset of] social media", and duplicating the adjective "conservative" is awkward and heavy-handed. --JBL (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Now that you put it that way, I think duplicating the noun "media" is awkward, particularly since "conservative" and "social" aren't on the same axis. What about this: "The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative press and controversy on social media"? XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Or «hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative and some social media» Openlydialectic (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
      • That avoids repeating "media", which is good, but it still strikes me as awkward: with that sentence structure, "conservative" and "social" are being contrasted, and that doesn't quite work. We'd say "conservative and some liberal media", for example, or "traditional and some social media", and those would flow naturally. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
        • XOR'easter's version is the best so far. --JBL (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Even loyal readers of the NY Times are incensed a week later (sort by Reader Picks), and to suggest this is fabricated from whole cloth or largely driven by 4chan is beyond laughable. It was reported in dozens of mainstream RS and that's what has fueled the criticism. Such conspiratorial thinking is partly why it's become so hard to reach consensus on the issue of quoting her tweets verbatim in the article. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a note, this IP has never made a single edit outside of this talk page, so I think it's safe to say we can ignore him completely. Openlydialectic (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Openlydialectic, first of all please don't gender so easily, and second, no. This IP editor couldn't be more wrong on just about everything, but there is no good reason not to take them seriously. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
    • On the plus side, they've never been blocked for persistently making disruptive edits. But thanks for the heads-up, Openly. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Change to "The hiring sparked controversy. Conservative media highlighted derogatory..." Thinker78 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• oppose. The entire sentence is "The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media" Emphasis added; the sentence is describing where it started. The decontextualization is somehow consistent with this whole affair. The RS are clear that the outrage originated over yonder and the mainstream reported on it. The parsing is "conservative (media and social media)" but people are free to read however they like. Ambiguity can be useful. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - The current text is most probably correct. But, the cites are the NYT which is involved. Much as I respect (and subscribe to) the NYT, can we find other sources for such a conclusion? O3000 (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to point out that the (two) sources provided in the article say "MAINLY conservative media", so having a sentence that remove the term "mainly" (letting readers think that the controversy was sparked only by conservative media) is misdleading and POV. So i support changing to some or adding mainly, as this is what sources say.93.36.190.141 (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Overwhelming oppose per no source provided, and "in social media" already implies some social media. wumbolo ^^^ 12:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The AP source says ...mainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets...; it is the only source for the social media bit at all. Since your objection has been addressed, I assume you can now be counted as supporting this change? --Aquillion (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Overwhelming support, or, failing that, omit; the only source for the relevant part of the says mainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets. Cutting that characterization out is an unequivocal WP:BLP violation, since it implies broader criticism than the source indicates. The terms 'social media' must either have that qualification, or be omitted entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support: I would further elaborate on that as "right-wing social media", per sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Omit "social media" entirely; published sources attribute the initial social media backlash to conservative media personalities on Twitter such as Stephen Miller, Alex Griswold, Guy Benson Mark Dice, and Mike Huckabee. So "conservative media" arguably encompasses this already. (Writer Jeff John Roberts is also mentioned, not necessarily as a "conservative".) Meanwhile, others who defended Jeong on social media are named, including Edward Snowden, Jessica Valenti, Ijeoma Oluo, and even Quinn Norton. Several sources outside the fray, such as WaPo, CJR, and The Independent, barely mention social media at all, while emphasizing that the backlash was driven by right-wing media outlets. Clarifying the "social media" aspect would just take too many words for something that's arguably disproportionate to Jeong's bio already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• • I would be fine with that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as it's just extremely loaded extra weasel word. Also as other editors have already mentioned, many non-conservative papers and authors have also condemned her writings as text book examples of racism. MayMay7 (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am fascinated by the idea that "conservative" is a weasel word. Can you defend this idea? (Maybe you should include what you think the phrase "weasel word" means in your response.) [Also everything else in your comment is false, but I guess one thing at a time.] --JBL (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• I have no particular opinion on this matter, but I have reverted this WP:BOLD edit, because WP:BLPREMOVE is applied wrongly. I see no consensus in this section to remove the text. Simply saying that something is a BLP issue is not a good enough reason to ignore consensus. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kingsindian: there is no consensus as yet to include the phrase ...and social media. The original wording itself is still being debated in the survey above. The term was removed because it misrepresents the published sources. If I'm wrong, please show where sources attribute the backlash to social media beyond a few right-wing media figures. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Two editors (Aquillion and me) have objected to the phrase on BLP grounds. I've removed it from the article again; please note that the burden to achieve consensus is on those seeking to include material. See also the relevant ArbCom decision. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken, on both counts. Firstly, that's not the way BLP works. There is no BLP issue at all in using the words "in social media". It's not defamatory, poorly sourced or whatever. Therefore it can't be removed on WP:BLPREMOVE grounds. Secondly, the boot for WP:ONUS is also on the other foot. This text was the one implemented by Abecedare (wrongly in my opinion, but what's done is done) as part of a tentative consensus proposal; and it would require consensus to remove. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf and Kingsindian: I find it hard to see how the inclusion of "social media" is a BLP violation, so I'd request Sangdeboeuf to follow the edit-restriction to maintain the status quo for now, and not edit-war over it. Of course, the decision on whether to keep "social media", exclude it, change it to "conservative social media" etc is ultimately up to the editors discussing the issue on this page, but please let consensus be established before making any such change. Abecedare (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I prefer not to edit-war over the issue. However, I believe Kingsindian is mistaken in saying that the phrase "social media" is not poorly sourced, when a broader range of reliable sources are taken into account. Only the AP attributes criticism to "social media", quickly adding the qualifier "mainly conservative". Other sources paint a different picture, as I mentioned earlier. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll add that The Hill also mentions "backlash from social media", along with conservative media. The individual tweets they mention, however, come mostly from professional commentators in conservative media. The overall balance of sources still emphasizes the right-wing media reaction. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• If we're going to include the phrase "social media", then I think XOR'easter's version is the best that's been proposed. But I would also be okay omitting "social media". --JBL (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• OMIT it's not social media in general, it's conservative social media in particular. which makes adding "social media" redundant. -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the comment by Abecedare above before you reverted me? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

User:ForbiddenRocky you should self-revert, pronto, or you are liable to action under the specific discretionary sanction that is in place. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Since my earlier note on the subject is easy to miss in this lengthy discussion, I am reiterating its message more prominently. The decision on whether to keep "social media", exclude it, change it to "conservative social media" etc is ultimately up to the editors discussing the issue on this page, but let consensus be established before implementing any such change. And if in the meantime you believe that something in that paragraph needs to be removed under WP:BLPREMOVE, run it by an uninvolved admin instead of ignoring the posted edit-restriction and making the change yourself. Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The concept seems weaselly to me. Nodekeeper (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Omit "social media" entirely per Sangdeboeuf: "Clarifying the "social media" aspect would just take too many words for something that's arguably disproportionate to Jeong's bio already." Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Omit social media as per Sangdeboeuf. And in general, de-emphasize the tweet kerfuffle as per WP:DUE - we should not be a party to these sorts of brigading campaigns. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: Seems to me that someone was bullying someone on social media. Then the someone bullied them back. Then more someones on social media re-bullied the someone. Or maybe it’s the other way 'round. We’re spending an awful lot of time on this. O3000 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bnmguy Proposal

Which was proposed in a previous discussion, and is as follows:

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."

I support Bnmguy's proposal as the starter of this discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 11:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As per the several times we've discussed such revisions previously, if we must include reference to a stale-dated twitter feud it's important we contextualize it. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  The status quo is more decontextulized than my proposal. Also, everything is going to be "stale-dated" after some time. wumbolo ^^^ 12:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

  The difference is that most stale-dated things on this encyclopedia are encyclopedically relevant. A tantrum being thrown by Reddit and Fourchan users that a non-white woman got hired at the NYT who doesn't particularly adore white men is not encyclopedically relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: vaguer, less informative, omits well-sourced context (both about the tweets and about who objected to them). Also, there is the possibility that the discussion above will find consensus for removing the phrase "social media". --JBL (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Moves farther from being encyclopedic, NPOV. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clunky wording, adds no value. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Free speech portal

Out of an abundance of caution (considering the DS restrictions broadly construed), I'll ask here first whether there'd be any objection to my removing the "Free speech" portal. To me it appears to be WP:SYNTH analysis reflecting editors' personal interpretation of issues raised here, rather than anything that's been reliably sourced in the entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a stretch to me. Free speech doesn't mean there aren't consequences to speech and I don't see any gov't censorship. O3000 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's more WP:SYNTH. My point is we should follow RS rather than WP editor analysis. I could imagine situations where RS significantly discussed any number of aspects of this biography, including the issues she writes about in her book, in terms of free speech, but at the moment I'm not seeing that sourced. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah we do not really have anything from her book in this article. Is that something that should be here? PackMecEng (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it could def use an extra sentence or two. Given the book has its own entry, we generally would try not to create too much redundancy, but a bit more summary of what the book entry says (reception/reviews especially are generally fairly key info) + the link would be pretty standard to include on the author page. (If this were a longer entry, we'd have a header with a short summary and a "See main article" hatnote link to the book page.) Innisfree987 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Remove all portals. This is a contentious article, and it's too soon to decide which portals to include, when many topics of these portals are not really discussed in the article. wumbolo ^^^ 20:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Really? I'm kinda indifferent to use or not of portals generally, but I don't follow the "too soon" argument w/r/t the topics as of now other than free speech. She definitely is a journalist who writes about law and technology, and wrote a book on the internet in particular--that's all settled information. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that removing the free speech portal is a good idea, as its inclusion is POV, and frankly I feel that this article has POV problems already, due to the soft-pedaling of her tweets. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
• Ok for now sounds like at least there's not major objection so I'll go ahead and remove that one; obviously can be discussed at greater length if others have other views. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Or if new, sourced material added to the entry warrants revisiting the topic, of course. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

If anyone objects, it can go back. Portals are small beer, just not worth fighting over. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Section on Dispute With Other Internet Personalities

Since the article is on extended protected, I'd suggest a section or a discussion on the page topic's intervention in a dispute with an online internet personality, Naomi Wu, found here written by the [25]. Part 2 regards the discussion of Sarah Jeong's role, which seems quite notable. A third source, ostensibly not a neutral source is from The Federalist (website) here [26]. Though Sarah Jeong's role is seems to not have been in the initial problematic journalism controversy regarding Vice Magazine agreeing to not discuss but then reneging reporting on Naomi Wu violating Chinese laws (e.g. her activities on forming groups and advocating for gender-equality and so-on which are prohibited especially in foreign media), she does have a role in distorting the dispute between Naomi Wu and Vice (magazine) by egregiously casting it as some sort of cultural issue and constructs a strawman over the dispute (e.g. an imaginary racial conflict). From the initial Medium source, there was an attempt by Naomi Wu to have Vice Magazine editorialise some parts due to recent Chinese government crackdown and spate of arrests on internet gender-equality activism and remove sections but Sarah Jeong seems to have intervened in an attempt to re-write it as a non-problem by constructing a strawman and attacking the strawman.142.112.81.182 (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a grand total of 0 reliable sources there. --JBL (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia is not a repository for endless Twitter drama. See also WP:DUE, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:TWITTER and various previous discussions in this talk page of this issue. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Simonm223. Perhaps it was a serious enough matter that reliable sources should have covered it, in which case we lose out — but policy ties our hands. XOR'easter (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Add link to Verge article

Hi all! I propose adding a link to the Verge article discussed in the sentence, "Editors at The Verge defended Jeong, saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context and comparing the episode to the harassment of women during the Gamergate controversy." It seems quite strange to me to reference other discussions that mention this piece, but not the piece itself.

Thoughts? Λυδαcιτγ 01:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

References

No strong opinion either way, but if added, the footnote would have to go at the end of the sentence, rather than after the phrase defended Jeong. The extent to which Sottek et al. defended Jeong is for secondary sources to evaluate, not us. As a primary source, the ref might be valuable as a supplement to those other sources, that's all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. While linking directly to a primary source is generally less problematic if the writing of that source went through some measure of editorial control, it's at most a supplement (and, sheesh, that sentence already has a lot of footnotes). XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I don't have a strong opinion either way, but bundling is an option if we want to provide an additional ref without cluttering the text with lots of footnotes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• If the link is added note The Verge has a COI with regard to Jeong, and that The Verge can never be NPOV on an issue with regard to its own Senior Writer. XavierItzm (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The Verge doesn't have to be NPOV. They are a reliable source for their own position; see WP:BIASED. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
• No strong objection to adding a link to the Verge article; not much feeling either way, really. Since the very first paragraph of the article states that Jeong works for The Verge, a fact which it reiterates at the beginning of the "Career" section, I don't think we would need to add a third repetition of that statement. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• that's the primary source and there is no need to cite it and we should indeed not cite it; the OP's argument is actually the same argument that people writing QUOTE THE TWEETS are giving. All we need to do here is summarize the secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)