Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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)

Maybe we already have enough to warrant bundling? XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Good idea; I've started a new section below on this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:54, 25 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)
  • I don't think that's correct - the Verge article is still a secondary source, though not independent, right? Λυδαcιτγ 09:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The relevant part of the text is The Verge defended Jeong, saying ... and comparing ... Whatever the topic might be, the Verge is a primary source for what they themselves said and compared. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
    • The Verge source is the primary source for the editors of Verge defending Jeong; that is the piece in which they actually did that. It is 100% WP:PRIMARY for their defense of her. Just like Jeong's tweets themselves are the primary sources for her having said what she said in any given tweet. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Bundling, short footnotes

XOR'easter has suggested bundling citations in the article. I support this idea, but I'm not sure how to deal with repeated citations. It may be simpler to use shortened footnotes in the article to avoid cluttering the edit window with multiple identical citation templates. Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. Simonm223 (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for that. This is just fiddling. Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It may not be strictly needed, but I think it would make the text more readable. Is there a specific reason not to do it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Although some sources are cited in multiple places, most of them apparently aren't, and so could be bundled, even if that left a few places where a clause would have two rather than one superscript ^[#]: for example, all the citations attached to the final sentence could be grouped in one <ref> tag at the end of the sentence, since none of them seem to be used to support any other sentences. However, it doesn't seem necessary to make the bigger switch to an SFN format yet. It looks like no clause has more than three citations, anyway (which seems normal around here; contrast e.g. the Incel article which until June had strings of eight or nine). -sche (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is any readability issue. Bundling is for really big citations, like #8 in Intelligent design. If folks really feel that there is ref clutter or WP:OVERCITE we can probably trim some. This is just really small potatoes. I won't be replying further here; it is just not important either way. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Notification

There is a discussion at Village pump#Idea lab that you may be interested in. wumbolo ^^^ 13:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bnmguy Proposal

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

---

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)

  @Simonm223: A tantrum being thrown by Reddit and Fourchan and the BBC, Fox News, CNN, Washington Post, NPR, New York Daily News, Le Figaro, Die Welt, the New Yorker, National Review, MSNBC, Wired, the Associated Press, the Sydney Morning Herald, the New Zealand Herald, Columbia Journalism Review, The Wrap, the Independent, the Guardian, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Forward, Haaretz, the New Statesman, News Corp Australia, the Chicago Tribune, the Miami Herald, Reuters, the Irish Times, Politico, Bloomberg, CNBC, Le Monde, one of the largest Italian newspapers, and worst of all... The Times! wumbolo ^^^ 14:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I read/watch several of those that you have added and have seen no tantrum. O3000 (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: explain that to Simonm223. wumbolo ^^^ 14:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, there clearly appear to be tantrums thrown by Reddit and Fourchan users. Just not by the reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 14:36, 25 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)

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.

And social 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.

---

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 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"

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.

---

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)
    • A lot of things, actually. "imitating the language of my harassers" very much implies her harassing her harassers. Saying it's satire gives it all the context it would ever need. wumbolo ^^^ 13:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Please cease engaging in WP:OR by trying to personally ascertain what the subject "mean" (Sangdeboeuf, 05:13, 24 August 2018) and what the subject "implies" (Wumbolo, 13:03, 27 August 2018). The subject plain and simply wrote "counter-trolling." Period. XavierItzm (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
        • The full sentence from which the phrase "counter-trolling" comes is quoted above, as is the immediately following sentence. The latter begins, "While it was intended as satire ...". So in fact Jeong characterizes her comments in two different (complementary) ways. --JBL (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Even if one goes into the weeds by diving into the subclauses of the statement as proposed, the overall proposal is still a no go. By one parsing, "Jeong characterizes her comments in two different (complementary) ways." But the text proposed in this thread in no way considers both (supposedly "complementary") ways, and instead obliterates Jeong's claim of "counter-trolling." Parsing and interpreting of what the subject said is highly troubling. Parsing and interpretation could be interpreted by some as mansplaining or womansplaining of what Jeong was trying to say. The WP:OR should stop. XavierItzm (talk) 06:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Please stop calling things "OR", since you clearly lack even a basic understanding of what the phrase means and how to apply the policy. --JBL (talk) 11:17, 30 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 to include quotes in the article

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'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)

Extended content

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 @SWL36: the assertion that Jeong sent out inflammatory tweets to no one in particular in response to nothing specific in particular appears to be based solely on original research via analyzing Jeong's Twitter history. That doesn't outweigh published, reliable sources such as WaPo, CJR, Vox, and The Guardian saying that the tweets were, in fact, taken out of context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC) 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([3][4][5][6][7][8][9]).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. However, journalism isn't our mission. Summarizing mainstream, published knowledge is. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 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) 2602: "Context" is not limited to whether Jeong used "@JohnDoe" in any of her tweets. Context means the social, cultural, and media environment in which a statement was made. Amateur Twitter analytics aside, we do have several published, reliable sources saying that the tweets were taken out of context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:56, 24 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 ([10]) 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) 07:21, 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) Published sources explaining the context are amply available, as are BLP reasons to exclude this level of detail (see my earlier reply to XavierItzm). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 24 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 considerably more context than what is proposed here. See the text Jytdog offers below under § something for another illustration of what I mean. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:56, 25 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) That's not what "context" means; see my reply to 2602, above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:56, 24 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)

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.

DOB

I found this [11], and subsequent replies [12] [13]. 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.[14] 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 [15] [16] [17] 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)

where has Jeong's DOB been published in any reliable sources? her Twitter feed? It's a perfectly acceptable WP:SELFPUB source. wumbolo ^^^ 07:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Where? I haven't seen any published material by Jeong where she says, "My birthday is MM/DD/YYYY" or the equivalent. All we have is Wiki editors' own interpretation that she meant it that way. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

In an article for The Verge put out earlier this year, Jeong writes about deliberately using the wrong birth date on Facebook because of privacy concerns. Granted, the "birthday" tweets seem unrelated to that, but it does highlight the need for any such information to have unambiguous support from published, independent sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)