Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Pressbox/This article has been mentioned by a media organization, again

Related discussions at [1] and [2].

Awhile back (for links, see this [3] version), we had more than The Atlantic in that template, there were also The Daily Caller, Breitbart and The Western Journal. I've never heard of the last one, but the other three seems clear enough "press" to me. Being "press" or "media" does not mean it has to be something we would use in mainspace.

A pressbox is quite optional, no talkpage has to have one, so we're within editorial discretion here (unless there's OUTING etc going on).

I'm for including Breitbart and The Daily Caller (no opinion on The Western Journal), "press" in this day and age can look like this (or like The Atlantic), and if it does, I think it's reasonable that the pressbox reflects that, it is not restricted to things that are more nice and pleasant. More aside, it fits well with the article's "strongly negative reaction in conservative media".

Opinions, and perhaps even consensus, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No objection to mentioning a few articles which significantly discuss this Wikipedia article (not just mentioning it in passing). — JFG ^talk 13:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Given strenuous debate about which sources to cite in entry, I don't really think it's a great idea to highlight sources that don't have consensus in a box atop the Talk page. I know that shades toward a distinction without a difference, since many of the sources are already cited on Talk in said debate. But we've no way to avoid that; whereas, as noted, we can skip the press box. I don't really know what value it adds, other than introducing a new thing to argue about (which articles to include). Innisfree987 (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The value of the press template is vague, isn't it. I have no idea what the creator(s) had in mind it would do. I'm generally in favor, I think they can provide some inspiration for the editors of an article (not necessarily what the author of the piece had in mind), interesting (and annoying) perspectives, sometimes lead to new useful sources etc. It's very individual, so I often lean to the inclusionist side in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• See related discussion on my talk-page, including my thoughts on the issue. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There was a discussion, a rather dumb one, about whether Breitbart and Daily Caller could be in the press box due to the fact they are sometimes not reliable sources. The press box was just meant to note an article's mention in mainstream media, regardless of the media's slant or perceived bias. See WP:PRESS, there is no mention of the source needing to meet some standard. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart and the Daily Caller are not "mainstream media". Anyhow, whatever is written at WP:PRESS can inform a discussion here, but it certainly cannot determine whether or not to use the template here without a corresponding consensus here. --JBL (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

If you want to pick nits, sure. But WP:PRESS doesn't require "mainstream media", whatever that means in your subjective world, either. It only says "Articles that reference Wikipedia content but which do not discuss the project itself should be recorded at Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source." 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why I am being accused of picking nits for responding to your wording. But the important part of what I wrote is the second sentence: whatever is written at WP:PRESS can inform a discussion here, but it certainly cannot determine whether or not to use the template here without a corresponding consensus here. --JBL (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Support - I don't see why the sources shouldn't be mentioned. That's what the template is for! Agree with JFG - mentioning all articles which significantly discuss this Wikipedia article. XavierItzm (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You write "Agree with JFG" followed by something different from what JFG wrote. --JBL (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

JFG wrote: «No objection to mentioning a few articles which significantly discuss this Wikipedia article (not just mentioning it in passing)». I am in full agreement with JFG, broadly construed, i.e., a few articles which significantly discuss or all articles which significantly discuss. XavierItzm (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Breitbart and the Daily Caller: they are not (added) "mainstream media". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: did you miss a "not"? (Feel free to edit and remove this comment if so.) --JBL (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you; fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose having a press box in the first place if it's going to be the focal point of another interminable squabble two or three stages removed from the work of building an encyclopedia. To satisfy the completionists, link to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018 somewhere; maybe tweak the "If you came here because someone asked you to" to point there (e.g., turn "another website" into a wiki-link). XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support WP:PRESS makes no mention of requiring the press to be "mainstream media" which is entirely subjective. As mentioned above, Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018 highlights all Wikipedia press coverage and has already noted the articles by both Breitbart and The Daily Caller. There is no basis in Wikipedia's guidelines to keep this information out of the press box. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no basis in Wikipedia's guidelines for including the box, either -- like most things, it's something that is subject to consensus of editors. Any argument in favor should explain why it makes WP better. --JBL (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree there is no guidelines to include the press box, but the cherry picking of sources in the box that has been occurring is problematic as it has no basis in WP guidelines. Again, the main "Wikimedia in the news" article found all 3 articles notable. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding pointing people to unreliable sources definitely has a basis in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whether or not the "letter of the law" is applicable to this particular Talk-page template, following the general tone of those guidelines is a perfectly legitimate way to inform one's editorial judgment. Likewise, there's no rule saying we have to duplicate a link farm from some other page here, and it's fine to think we should hold a higher standard here than on a page whose goal is to catalogue everything. WP:PRESS certainly doesn't say that a list on a Talk page has to be comprehensive, or that such a list has to exist at all. (It contents itself with the remark, "The template {{press}} may also be used to document mention of specific articles on their talk page.") For my own part, I don't think the damn box adds any value, and I'd be more than content to see it go altogether. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support mainstream media are very often race-baiting, and The Daily Caller and Breitbart are certainly no strangers to that. wumbolo ^^^ 16:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain what the words after your !vote have to do with the question under consideration here? --JBL (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:PRESS states "mainstream media" should be provided. wumbolo ^^^ 16:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with what you've written, or the question raised in this section? (I am being serious: I think there is some connection in your head between the things you've written and the topic under discussion, but you have not made the connection in your writing. I suggest you take a minute to think your comment through more, and actually spell out what you are thinking. I do no object if you want to edit your original comment and remove my responses.) --JBL (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, you and the IP editor above who agrees with you seem to disagree on a simple factual point, maybe you two should work that out. --JBL (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: there is no central proposal here, so writing "support" or "oppose" doesn't make sense unless you spell out exactly what you are supporting or opposing. --JBL (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Read the original posting, I am guessing you are just being difficult "I'm for including Breitbart and The Daily Caller (no opinion on The Western Journal), "press"." 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The original posting discusses whether or not the box should be added, as well as a discussion of four different links that might be included if it is. Maybe you think "support" means "I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång", but this is not unambiguous; indeed, your statement of your preference is not identical to GGS, and similarly it is not at all clear how XavierItzm feels about The Western Journal. By comparison, three other !votes are much clearer, and will make it much easier for someone to judge consensus later. More importantly, the place to clarify is in your !vote above, not in response to me. --JBL (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Remove it all – We don’t even know what the box if for, we shouldn’t care what the press (or TDC/Breitbart) say, and it’s not worth the time to debate what goes in it. O3000 (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• It's an interesting question. I'm kind of torn. Come to think of it, I can't think of any examples of discussions on when/if to use this template. WP:PRESS is not about the press box, so isn't really so relevant here; it's about the projectspace list of press coverage and just links to the template in question. The template itself doesn't look to have much by way of guidance, either. My hunch is that the template wasn't intended for sources well-known to be on one side of a contentious issue, griping about Wikipedia's article because it doesn't conform to a particular perspective (that's not a perfect description of what's going on here, granted, since it seems like most of the criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the sometimes slow deliberative process, but it's not irrelevant either). It looks like, for example, we don't include articles in creationist sources criticizing our intelligent design article, Deepak Chopra's criticisms of Wikipedia on the Rupert Sheldrake talk page, etc. The same would go for, say, Jezebel (chosen only because I know I've seen criticism of Wikipedia article goings-on sourced to Jezebel). All that said, I wonder what the standard should be. Maybe it does make sense to include everything that's not a self-published source. I'd probably be more inclined to eschew the template altogether because why would we want sources about Wikipedia to affect our discussions of actual content, which should be based on what reliable sources say about the subject, not what an op ed says about Wikipedia process... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you other than WP:PRESS does mention using the press box. "The template "press" may also be used to document mention of specific articles on their talk page." Why anyone would refuse to put press sources already discussed and linked on the talk page in the press box of the talk page, is just stunningly dumb. I would rather see press box removed than cherry picked to fit a particular narrative. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it mentions the press box. It's not a guideline of how/when to use it. Lots of pages reference other related topics. My point isn't that it's completely unrelated, but that "per WP:PRESS" in the context of the press box is meaningless. That is also not a policy, guideline, or anything else regarding content of articles or talk pages but a page about Wikipedia broadly (which would live on Meta if not for its enwiki specificity). All of this said, I'm not aware of any specific guidelines as to when it should/shouldn't be used, so don't have a great policy-backed reason not to use it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Rhododendrites: There is historical value, I'd say, in a record of media responses to Wikipedia goings-on. (I'd go so far as to say a good record might have to include some self-published sources as well, e.g., when a wiki-notable scientist blogs about shortcomings in the Wikipedia articles about their specialty.) I don't see why that list has to live in a box here, and overall I incline to the position that we should, as you say, "eschew the template altogether". XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think I will open a discussion elsewhere about this. The more I think about it, the more I think there should be a discussion about when/if to use the template. BRB going to publish a source on medium about use of the press template on this talk page, then we can include that here (not serious). Ultimately our article should be about what reliable sources say about it, and this page about how to improve it. External sources, especially sources that wouldn't be considered reliable, may improperly influence discussions/the article by virtue of being the first thing people see when they visit the talk page. I think I would support either changing the display in some fashion or removing them from contentious subjects. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• I find myself thinking similarly. XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'd include them all, with the only restrictions being no self-published sources, and one article per source. We absolutely want to link to criticisms of our process. --GRuban (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "criticisms of our process" .... hm. Most of these pieces are just advocacy, trying to drag WP into the blogosphere and into the fray; we have handled them already with the {{Recruiting}} tag that is already on the page (which should really be at the very top of the talk page, btw). The "Atlantic" piece is kind of OK, as it is stepping back and doing more the WP:Beware of tigers thing, describing what is happening. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I'll agree with you and others that they're mostly unjust criticisms, based on political bias, and misunderstanding of our process. But pretending they don't exist isn't the answer. Answering them is. We could, for example, make a FAQ at the top of this page, the way certain other high traffic article talk pages have, that could briefly answer and point to more detailed explanations of our policies via links. (Actually that might be a good idea regardless of the news box, since many newcomers seem to have many of the same questions.) --GRuban (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • • I said nothing about just or unjust, and "pretending they don't exist" is just silly. We have no obligation to list every or any publication mentioning a WP article on the talk page of the article. (this is not on the level of following (for example) NPOV for article content; rather, it is just something that some editors waste time on, that has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia.) The Signpost usually has a feature on media coverage of WP; people who have a fuck to give about this could suggest them over there. I have no more to say here. I am dead out of fucks to give. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Well you seem to have enough "fucks" left to revert and leave. I would say there is no consensus for just the Atlantic in the press box or to even have the press box at all. There seems to be several experienced editors with an issue with how things sit now. Not sure where to go with an active gatekeeper, I would probably suggest removing it, but I am not going to re-edit the press template. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Boldly added the sources back to the press box per Gråbergs Gråa Sång recommendation. It seems there is no policy to keep them out, but the press box is not required either. I wouldn't argue if the press box was removed. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

As I noted here I have fucks to give about consensus. If you misrepresent the status of the consensus in a talk page discussion again, as you did here, you can expect to be topic banned. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no fears about being topic banned and I didn't misrepresent anything as many editors have noted we can't define a policy-based reason to exclude the material or a policy-based reason to even have the cherry picked press box. This page, as others have also noted, has consensus on virtually nothing. This is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, we make decisions based on policy. I noted the policy issues, I made a bold edit, it was reverted, per WP:BRD we discuss, that's it. Threats are unnecessary. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#When_to_use_the_press_template_on_an_article_talk_page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding category

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.

---

I purpose we add Category:Racism in the United States to the article. This is not to call or imply the subject is racist, but that the event has sparked several conversations related to what racism is and is not in the United States. I am opening this discussion out of an abundance of caution due to the editing restriction since this is tangentially related to the tweet controversy. PackMecEng (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Firing of Shirley Sherrod shows that a page about a living person being in the Racism in the United States category does not imply that that person is racist. However, I can't find any BLP pages which don't explicitly state their subject matter to be racist, such as Shirley Sherrod, in that category, which leads me to think that the page needs to be directly about the events which cause it to be related to racism in the US to be in the Racism in the US category. Edit: Clarified a bit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.80.213 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

IP, please sign your posts by typing four tildas at the end before saving them. The Wikipedia software turns the four tildas into a link to your userpage and talk page and gives a time stamp. This is how we know who said what. Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought that was done automatically by the IP being appended even if you did not type it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.80.213 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Even as you wrote that, you didn't sign it. Sign your own posts. And stop going back and changing your own posts after others have replied. Please read WP:TPG. You are taking up other people's time here cleaning up after you. Again - 1) sign your posts; 2) do not change your own post after someone else has replied to it. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

There are several BLP articles listed in the catagory here. Such as Lawrence Auster, Amiri Baraka, and Dan Burros. PackMecEng (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't know how I missed those; I now support adding the page to the Racism in the US category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.80.213 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Support adding to the Racism in the US category.Dogru144 (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. The examples cited are people whose careers dealt with race as writers, activists, or in Burros' case, being an actual Nazi.Citing (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Citing: Those are just random people from the list since the IP had said they did not see any BLP articles there. It was not meant to be a comparison to this article in any way. PackMecEng (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's still only tangentially related to the subject.Citing (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Citing: I would argue that even outside the twitter incident that the subject has been pretty active on race relations in the US for most of their career. Even writing a book that largely had to do with racism on the internet. Again the category is not meant to call her a racist. PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

What is it meant for then?Citing (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well take a look at some of the content of the category. It's about racism in the United States, both giving, receiving, and commenting on it. Which she falls into with her book and her past harassment. PackMecEng (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not an article about racism; it's an article about a journalist. It's not due. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: A journalist that writes about racism. That was a large portion of her book, shining a big old light on racism on the internet. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that the term racism applies here (IE: to her tweets) anyway since the asymmetrical power structures that characterize racism don't apply. Even if you want to argue that she was being prejudicial to white guys, so what? It's not relevant except inasfar as white guys on the internet pissed her royally off. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: The addition is not meant to be in relation to the tweets and only in her past works writing about and combating online racism. PackMecEng (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support adding the category. Jeong has even written a [book, eBook]? that deals "especially gender- and race-related harassment" (source: Wikipedia), so clearly an author who writes about racist issues is topical to the cat. XavierItzm (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• @Simonm223: & @Citing: Given the discussion above do you still have an issue with adding the category? PackMecEng (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I still think it's not an appropriate tag for the context.Simonm223 (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Based on what? We have the feminist category based on her book and journalism, why not have the racism in America category based on her book and journalism? PackMecEng (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would remove both racism and feminism categories, since neither racism or feminism is even mentioned in the article. wumbolo ^^^ 14:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm concerned that it'll be used to back-door in more content about "racist" tweets once there's less attention on the page, I feel it'd be best to exclude the category tag for the time being. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would also remove the feminism category and portal from the entry. I actually thought to do so and stopped only because she edited a journal on gender in law school, but honestly that is not an adequate reference for "feminism" specifically. Anyone who wants to remove has my support. (While we're at it: why is the South Korea portal there and not the United States portal? Frankly the Free Speech portal is also pure WP:SYNTH...) Innisfree987 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Make a redirect specifically about the recent controversy (maybe Sarah Jeong hiring by the New York Times or Sarah Jeong tweet controversy) and add the category there, along with other relevant categories. If the argument is that she's written about racism, then we could create a category titled "Category:Writers about racism", along the same lines of "Category:Writers about communism". ^Falling_Gravity 08:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense. PackMecEng (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? Not that I support it (I am indifferent) but it certainly makes sense: it avoids BLP concerns by not attaching the tag to Jeong's article, but still provides the navigational benefit that categories are supposed to serve. --JBL (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure if it navigates here anyhow why not put it here? There does not seem to be a benefit to that. As for the Writers about racism category, we already have a category like that, Racism in the United States, so why create another? PackMecEng (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Because (as I already said), several users have expressed BLP-related concerns about including these categories on this article. And the suggestion is a compromise that achieves both navigational ends and avoids those BLP concerns. --JBL (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The BLP concerns were based on a misunderstanding of what the category is and ended with just doesn't feel right. There is no BLP issue with adding the category. But I would be fine with Wumbolo's idea above, if using her book is not okay for this category perhaps the others based on her book should be removed as well. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"Other people disagree with me" != "other people misunderstand the issues". Also, I have corrected your misspelling in the section header. --JBL (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the typo! Please note the above conversation on the misunderstandings, if there are any questions just let me know. PackMecEng (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Would urge against that route as inviting more problems than it solves. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Insufficiently NPOV for what's sourced at this time. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The other bios listed earlier should also be excluded, apart perhaps from the Burros' case. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Talk at Harvard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source. is the source for the complete talk, the comment above is at 1:03 - it was a surprisingly good talk IMO but definitely anti-status quo, which mean anti-male and anti-white in that comment - her professor opens that talk saying that she helped 'open up new avenues of radical feminism' by helping Catharine MacKinnon teach a class, a professor that seems to blend Marxist and Feminist theory in some manner, more research needed for me here as wellRedtobelieve (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ha, The Berkman Klein Luncheon Series, has just removed their post of her lecture. At their site [4] they state that it is "free and open to the public" but unless the youtube users downloaded the entire lecture, that lecture is now behind the iron curtain. Sad, although complex and perhaps embarrassing to them at times, it was still informative and paints a better picture of her circle and their though and beliefs. Redtobelieve (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

this is the public lecture that the Berkman Klein Center decided to recently take down..[[5]] ""Published on Oct 30, 2015 Women are disparately impacted by harassment on the Internet. Harassment can be framed as a civil rights problem, with legal solutions proposed and vitriol directed towards platforms for failing to protect female users. But, as Sarah Jeong -- a lawyer and journalist who covered the Silk Road trial for Forbes -- suggests, the Internet has figured out interesting ways to deal with other kinds of online speech -- like spam and""Redtobelieve (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The lecture is still up from what I can see. It's still a primary source; there's no meaning to be extracted about Jeong's "beliefs" without doing original research. What specific changes to the article are being suggested here exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Commentary on white men

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

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

[Emphasis added for clarity]. A second supporting citation could be the OP's, for example.

References

Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[Emphasis added].

References

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

Sources

Not seeing how "Others commented on her statements" adds any meaningful information at all, unless the goal is to draw attention to these specific opinion columnists (Roberts & Sullivan) over certain others, say [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] – once again, that would be undue weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Sources

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

You are right. OK, here are all the ones you suggested:
"Others commented on her statements."
Do we have a consensus?XavierItzm (talk)

Sources

I was being sarcastic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward, please note WP:SARC. OK, so we have to roll back to where the conversation was before SARC started. Can you please indicate to which of your comments should SARC apply? Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks as if there are no objections, then, to this version, which incorporated the compromise modifications as requested by Sangdeboeuf before he apparently started WP:SARC:
"Others commented on her statements."
If there are no further suggested modifications, the sentence should be added to the article. XavierItzm (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Don't be ridiculous: this objection is definitive for any possible version of this sentence. --JBL (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, that objection objected to the sources I brought to the table and brought 10 other sources. The sources were added, so there is no complaint at this point. XavierItzm (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the objection has several complementary parts, beginning with "Not seeing how "Others commented on her statements" adds any meaningful information at all." And indeed it doesn't: that sentence has no value whatsoever. It serves only as a coatrack on which to hang various commentaries on here statements. This is true regardless of which particular commentaries you try to hang on it. --JBL (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, you question whether "Others commented on her statements" adds any meaningful information at all." I think that might be a fair objection. TBH, the sentence got so severely pared down only because another editor objected to a previous version, which read:
"Others commented on her anti-white men statements."
. Should we go back to that earlier version? XavierItzm (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

No. --JBL (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

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)

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)

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)

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.[16]

NYT stands by writer after anti-white tweets, August 4.[17] 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 [18], 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.

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.

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.

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)