Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Discretionary sanctions

The discretionary sanctions prohibiting bold edits to this page are absurd at this point in time. This is a low-traffic article that has received little continuing coverage—the requirement that all editors must obtain "consensus" for any edits to the tweets section is a) difficult and unreasonable to consistently enforce b) places an unnecessary impediment before editors seeking to make improvements to the article. This is precisely the opposite of what DS sanctions should be imposed for; limiting edits to editors with extended confirmation is appropriate, but the additional layer is absolutely overkill. There is no reason that this article should have sanctions which essentially lock in one iteration. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I think if you want DS lifted, you should make a request on WP:AN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I would have been quite sympathetic to an appeal for lifting the discretionary sanction as no-longer-needed, were it not for the editing history of the last few hours. Cannot support such an action at the moment given that editors are still willing to edit-war and name-call over what are pretty minor variations in phrasing. Abecedare (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Disagreement is to be expected on somewhat contentious BLPs, but we can all act like grown-ups. I think that at least downgrading the page to WP:1RR and removing the DS on the section on her tweets would give everyone a lot more breathing room to improve the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I, as the admin who placed the particular discretionary sanction, am not comfortable lifting/modifying it at the moment WP:AN or WP:AE would be the right venue to appeal them. Abecedare (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• The assertion that the tweets controversy has been forgotten and the restrictions no longer necessary (much less "absurd") are highly dubious. As of today there is an article in The Sunday Guardian, where the writer is stewing about how she was rewarded for being a racist towards white people.[1] A few days earlier, a writer for The Epoch Times labels her an "anti-white racist".[2] In January, we have The Federalist using her as an example on how NYT is sympathetic towards non-white racism.[3] That same month, Ann Coulter describes her tweets as "venomous", "anti-white", "racist attacks", and touts her as an example of "the media’s actual hatred of whites".[4] And that's not even mentioning the blogs that are still talking about it.[5][6][7] Oh, and there's still IPs trolling this talk page as of February. I'm not buying the notion that the restrictions are no longer needed, and would argue against lifting them in a formal appeal. Swarm– ^{Sting · Hive} 🐝🐝🐝 21:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  We stick to RS not these blogs or dodgy sources (even though I really like some of these authors). See e.g. "That controversy has quieted down", from Willamette Week. A bit arduous to understand why you linked to these BLP-violating sources without trying to enflame old wounds. wumbolo ^^^ 21:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

We're discussing the need for special BLP protections, which this user is purporting are unnecessary. When I link to numerous right-wing blogs and media sources that are still talking about this, it's only to refute the notion that the article is presumably no longer a target for BLP violations. They're not being suggested as sources for article content, but they're convincing evidence that the bitterness in right-wing circles that leads to BLP violations has not dissipated and remains an issue. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not about "special BLP protections." Requiring extended confirmation is enough to keep IPs from the editing the page, and any content linking to unreliable sources can be justifiably and immediately removed on any BLP. This is about a set of discretionary sanctions that are limiting the extent to which experienced editors can improve and make bold changes to a page. There are many, many more controversial figures than Sarah Jeong, and such a strict set of DS is rarely applied. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The sanctions place absolutely no burden on editors' ability to improve the article, just a single paragraph regarding a single controversy, that has been subjected to, and is still at risk for, bitter disputes and BLP violations. Even then, the only "burden" is to discuss any changes before making them, which is best practice anyway. That's hardly a draconian restriction or an unreasonable standard, and it has not impeded any uncontentious improvements that the article, and it's actually a little strange that you're portraying it as such. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It is absolutely a burden to obtain talk page consensus for every single possible change to the section, no matter how minor. Bold editing is crucial to the improvement of any article and a fundamental principle of WP, and these discretionary sanctions effectively prohibit bold edits to one of the prominent segments of the article. I don't see the prospect of disagreements over content (imagine that!) as a compelling reason to keep such a restriction in place. Instead of looking to obscure partisan sources to evaluate the likelihood of disruption, we should review the actual page traffic; this article attracts less than a few hundred visits per day, and there are far more high-profile articles with less severe limits in place (Enforced BRD, which is another more appealing alternative). I understand why the DS were initially imposed, but they have served their purpose, and I think that it's against the interests of the platform and the community to keep this "nuclear option" in place without overwhelming evidence that they are vital to "protect" the article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There is evidence that the issues that led to the DS still exist. On the other hand, there is no actual evidence whatsoever that the restrictions are unreasonably blocking constructive improvements. It's just empty rhetoric. If you really wish to push this further, you can formally appeal in the proper forum, as has already been explained to you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hypothetical BLP violations (I assume these would have to be by experienced editors, because the page is under extended protection) are not a reason to prolong overly restrictive DS sanctions. I just made a case based on Wikipedia policy and the facts at hand, and addressed the types of broad policy issues that administrators should be concerned with. To your argument, evidence for the risk of BLP violations has to do with patterns of behavior by editors, not the presence of "right wing blogs." I suppose to you, that's "empty rhetoric" because you think the page is fine as is and doesn't need any further improvements. I don't think that's an appropriate use of DS, and I'll consider filing my request in the appropriate forum. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: remove paraphrased NYT statement

The whole paragraph about the hiring controversy is textbook recentism, in my opinion. There seemed to be little appetite for caution and long-term reflection during August's mad editing frenzy, but now I hope we can consider some tightening of the prose. For example, I suggest we remove the statement: The Times said it had reviewed her social media history before hiring her, and that it did not condone the posts.

As I've stated before, this just reads like PR boilerplate, just the sort of statement we'd expect any employer to make in the face of such a (manufactured) controversy. Are we expecting the Times to say either a.) they didn't care about a tech writer's social-media history, or b.) they did condone their new hire making fun of white people? I don't see how this adds to a meaningful understanding of Jeong's life and career. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Just because it's "boilerplate" (or any other WP:IDLI reason) doesn't mean we shouldn't include the reaction by the most important party to the controversy (which, btw, is not manufactured and your repeated characterization of it as such is bordering on WP:REHASH), other than Jeong. wumbolo ^^^ 09:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

And what does the reaction by the Times tell us about the subject of this article, namely one Sarah Jeong? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Mostly that the other party in the controversy agrees it was poor judgement to post things like that. Also the Times reaction is heavily covered by almost every RS when talking about the situation. It would be a disservice to our readers not to include a common thread in most RS. PackMecEng (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

We're not here to evaluate the quality of anyone's judgement, so if that's what you mean, all the more reason to omit this information. Whether the Times "agrees it was poor judgement" appears to be your own interpretation of the source. Another one, equally likely in my view, is that they're covering their own asses. In any case, it doesn't tell us anything about Jeong herself.

There are lots of common threads in the sources that we haven't replicated in the article – directly quoting Jeong's tweets, for example. When the sources are all news outlets, exercising that kind of discretion is vital, because Wikipedia is not a news source, and such details are often out of proportion to their overall importance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I've answered these objections. If there are no others, I propose removing the text as described above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)  Done —08:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yet another example of Sangdeboeuf serving as both judge, jury, and "executioner" (as in, executes changes w/o consensus). WP:RECENTISM is a policy about how much space to dedicate to particular events, not a Swiss-army knife to selectively remove certain viewpoints and statements that you disagree with or frame the subject in a way you don't like. I'm restoring the content, as you don't have consensus to implement this proposal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Could you perhaps find a less assholeish way to engage? Your message is hyper-personalized and contains no content. --JBL (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I see a process issue here, and I'm commenting on it. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you could raise it without calling names. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed the sentence related to the NYT-reaction since its recent re-addition violated the applicable DS (see this discussion for a lengthier explanation behind that judgment). That said, the removal of the NYT reaction on March 22nd, at best enjoyed a weak-consensus through silence and so it would be good to discuss the issue on its content (as opposed to procedural) merits to decide if its inclusion or exclusion is preferred. Pinging @Sangdeboeuf, Wumbolo, PackMecEng, Joel B. Lewis, and Wikieditor19920: to make them aware of the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment The notion that Sangdeboeuf's proposal had any sort of "weak consensus" is patently false. SDB made the proposal in December, and two editors disagreed - indicating consensus against the removal. Two months later, SDB returned to the discussion and proceeded to make the same exact changes that had already been objected to. Without the DS sanctions, this would just be another bold edit, but the sanctions require talk page consensus for any such change. You said that WP:SILENCE implies that the lack new objections means consensus has been reached, but the policy says just the opposite: As far as the difference between dissent and silence is concerned, if you voice dissent, failure to make your dissent heated and continuous does not constitute silence and therefore does not constitute consent. Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor does not give that editor consent to do what they like. SDB did not "answer" or address the concerns of the two (now three) dissenting editors in any substantive way, and the fact that SDB's unilateral removal of the content went unchallenged in the article for two weeks - likely because few editors watch this page - is irrelevant, because they did not gain talk page consensus in the first place.

I'll also note the irony in the fact that the very reason that these "procedural" issues are even relevant is because of the discretionary sanctions that you applied, and which, in my opinion, have long outlived their usefulness. Disallowing bold changes to an article in perpetuity without an extremely compelling reason is, IMHO, in direct contradiction to the spirit of Wikipedia as an open-source encyclopedia and inhibits the process for improving articles. If you would be willing to lift this unnecessarily stringent DS, then we'd be far more able to dedicate most of the discussion to content rather than procedure.

Lastly, as for the actual merit of the content itself, inclusion is clearly warranted by policy. The controversy involved both her tweets and the New York Times' decision to bring her onto its editorial board. Their viewpoint is pertinent to the subject matter and should be afforded space in the article per WP:DUE based on the fact that we have numerous reliable sources covering it.[8][9][10][11] SDB's assertion that somehow WP:NOTNEWS presents a basis for excluding this line is a mistaken, as this policy prohibits original or routine reporting - not substantial secondary coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

"Original reporting" is only one application of NOTNEWS, which states, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Fortunately, NOTNEWS was only one of the policies I mentioned; another states, "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". The same sources that covered the Times's response also quoted the tweets themselves, but an earlier discussion≤ found no consensus to quote the tweets, with several users explicitly citing WP:DUE as an argument against including them. I think the same logic applies here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

As to secondary coverage, according to policy such sources do not just report something that was said; they offer their own analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Which content of this type would you suggest we draw on for the Times's response? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wikieditor19920’s hyperaggressive fillibustering demonstrates exactly why this page needs DS, and also suggests that WE19920 should probably be warned about stalking — notice their very first edits here are phrased to incorporate them into an ongoing dispute at other articles. (Sangdeboeuf also could dial back the amount of text on the talk-page, but has been editing this article constructively for months.) The NYTimes sentence is weak, its removal was fine: if the Times had dropped her, their justification for doing so would be an important part of the story, but this is just “The Times said ‘Meh’.” —JBL (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis I have no idea what you're talking about, and frankly, I'm just inclined to ignore you. SDB, I don't find your argument coherent. A primary source would be the statement released by the NYT itself; an article that covers the Times's statement is a secondary source, which is what's been provided. You haven't applied the policy WP:PROPORTION to the situation, you've just defined it with the apparent assumption that it supports your point of view. It doesn't. There is agreement that the NYT hiring controversy belongs in the article, and an important piece of that is their own comment on the matter. WP:DUE requires we note all significant views that have been published on the topic, and the Times' "not condoning" her tweets is within that category. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy please never ping me again. --JBL (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I already quoted the policy definition of secondary sources, which refutes your statement. Once again, where is the analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis you would like to include? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The definition of a secondary source is not limited to that narrow definition, that is just one component of what makes a secondary source. That also does preclude the use of the sources that have already been provided. The Times's statement on her hiring is both germane and well-sourced. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Where do you see any other definition of a secondary source? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

In the definition offered by major universities like Princeton. The NYT is the most obvious viewpoint to include in this section. You have given no substantive reason for removing this line except a lame, technical (and mistaken) argument, when the true reason you apparently want to exclude it is because you believe it's an example of [The New York Times] covering their own asses. Highly opinionated and subjective assessments of the merits of viewpoints themselves are not how their relative weight is determined. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Does that mean you'll also refrain from giving your own "highly opinionated and subjective assessment" of the NYT's viewpoint? That would be great.

Princeton's website says, "A newspaper or magazine article, if determined to be sufficiently authoritative, balanced and well researched, might be used as part of the analytical discourse ... In this case, the article is a secondary source." Those are some pretty big "ifs".

"Secondary sources are theoretical or critical texts which are part of the professional wisdom on or related to your primary object of study." Where do you see any theoretical or critical analysis about the NYT statement in the above sources? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You certainly don't see me making comments about the NYT "covering their own ass." The sources provided (BBC, NYT, Associated Press) each meet first set of criteria in the Princeton definition. Whether or not you want to read the sentence you cherry-picked as covering or not covering news articles is irrelevant, because the page goes on to explicitly state that news articles are secondary sources. I have yet to hear a substantive argument or reason from you why the NYT statement on her hiring is not worth noting with regard to the hiring controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyone is free to disagree whether or not the Times is expressing genuine disapproval or simply doing damage control, but the fact is there's very little sourcing to support either interpretation. It's hard to see how news sources can be "part of the analytical discourse" if they don't contain any analysis of the specific issue. It's also debatable how "well researched" they are if they're just quoting or paraphrasing a press release.

So far, Vox seems to give the issue the most attention ("the Times came to Jeong’s defense and stood by its decision to hire her ... While the Times explicitly stated that it 'does not condone' Jeong’s past tweets, it also made clear that it understood the context in which they were made"), but even that doesn't tell us what to make of the "condone" statement.

The Princeton site isn't saying that news articles are always secondary sources; they're telling students how to evaluate different types of publications for secondary-source material. It also happens to be written for a specific writing seminar, so its applicability here is quite limited. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Articles contain both pertinent facts and relevant analysis. The fact we're discussing is that the NYT released a statement in which they "did not condone" the subject's tweets. This is rather straightforward and does not need to be accompanied by extensive "analysis" to be included in the article. If we were to judge each sentence by the basis you're establishing (any newspaper article can be categorized as a primary source and must be removed on that basis alone), the size and substance of almost every article on Wikipedia would be substantially diminished. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Considering that most Wikipedia articles are made up of obsessive fan trivia, that would be no bad thing. We shouldn't document every factoid contained in a source just because it contains some analysis, however minor. That would be treating it effectively as a primary source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The NYT's statement on her hiring is not a minor factoid. It's a relevant viewpoint per WP:DUE. Don't conflate policies on content that can genuinely be described as "trivia" or "factoids" with those regarding which viewpoints are worth including. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Users are free to disagree on the relevance of various statements and viewpoints. I for one am not convinced that The Times said ... it did not condone the posts is all that meaningful or relevant. The next logical step would be a request for comment. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV allows that all viewpoints published in reliable sources must be afforded coverage. Your opinion about which viewpoints are valid and which are not is meaningless, and this one is of particular relevance because its by the organization that actually hired her. You are engaging in WP:STONEWALLING which no one's required to abide by. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says nothing of the kind. And your opinion about the validity of the Times' viewpoint is no more valid than mine, I'm afraid. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't express a viewpoint about the NYT, I said that it's been covered in reliable, secondary sources. Per WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Your personal opinion that a significantly covered viewpoint is "trivial" is exactly the kind of editorial bias we should not be introducing in the article, either by excluding or including material. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The key word there is significant. You appear to think "The Times does not condone it" is a significant viewpoint; I don't. We'll see what others have to say. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No, the key portion is that have been publised by reliable sources on a topic. You have presented absolutely no argument for your position, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is no viewpoint more relevant and more significant on the topic of the NYT hiring controversy than the times itself, and it's been published widely in reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No, not even a little bit. That is not the key portion, and several other policies, and other portions of NPOV, prove that. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and WP:UNDUE both show that just being published in a reliable source is not sufficient. nableezy - 14:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, really? Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The majority of articles covering this story, of course, include the NYT statement on the matter of her tweets and her hiring. Our job as editors is not to pick and choose which viewpoints are valid and which are not based on subjective criteria—it's to assess whether it's significant based on the proportion of coverage, and then include it in the article accordingly. What's under discussion here is a single sentence. Having been on this merry-go-round with SDB before, I presume the next "counter-point" will be "Oh, well it's an isolated criticism! It shouldn't be covered! This, too, is incorrect. The NYT own statement on the controversy surrounding her addition to its editorial board, by any objective evaluation, has broader connection and relevance to the story. This sentence should have never been removed in the first place with a) such spurious reasoning and b) without consensus. This is, in my view, part of a concerted, disruptive effort to remove this section by death by a thousand cuts. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The only part of this comment (the most recent in a seemingly endless parade of tedious, wikilawyerly walls of words) that is salient is The majority of articles covering this story, of course, include the NYT statement on the matter of her tweets and her hiring, but you don't actually provide any evidence to support the assertion. --JBL (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Refer to the citations that have already been provided. If you don't believe me, do the research yourself. WP:YOUCANSEARCH, too. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes really lol. Significant is the operative phrase in that. Unlike the nonsense that anything published in a reliable source has to go into an article that you apparently believe here but disbelieve elsewhere. As far as majority, proof by assertion does not an argument make. nableezy - 13:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this edit is misleading in its presentation. Yes the Times said this, they also stood behind her (per both the cited source and Vox). If one wants to include that the NYT issued a statement where they said they do not condone the tweets they need to include the full context that that statement came as part of a defense of Jeong. nableezy - 17:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with this. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong employer in infobox

According to her own website, she is now "a writer for the New York Times Editorial Board" & has bylines "at the Verge, the Atlantic, the Washington Post, New York Times Magazine, Motherboard, Forbes, the Guardian, and more." So it seems to me that her main employer is the New York Times, not The Verge. Aapjes (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks. I have updated it. --JBL (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Career

Please add the following update to Sarah Jeong's career.

In August 2019 Sarah Jeong decided to leave the New York Times editorial board. Her relationship continues as a contracted opinion writer for the NYT.

dmode (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

References

X to Y

dmode (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. | abequinn^fourteen 20:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Article should be updated

Jeong has recently left NYT (Reported by CNN and The Hill).--Mayimbú (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. | abequinn^fourteen 00:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

NY Post

FWIW - I read the NYPost source and it is factual and reliable information. It is actually less tabloidy than the other source to The Hill. Reliability is often a matter of particulars on the specific page and the fact being cited. -- GreenC 15:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think either source is necessary to be honest, the CNN story is enough.Citing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

That's just one sentence we can provide readers with more in-depth reporting. -- GreenC 16:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the WP:RS ought to be restored. XavierItzm (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

But it's not necessary, there is already an uncontroversial reliable source. Just the CNN source would suffice.Citing (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

References

See WP:BLPSOURCES: material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. The New York Post is not The New York Times; it's a tabloid. All it does here is recycle the CNN report along with quoting some of the old tweets for the sake of sensationalism. Not usable, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

No material is being added other than the quote itself. Therefore the cited text from WP:BLPSOURCES does not apply. The citation is due. XavierItzm (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the subtext there is we shouldn't use garbage sources in BLPs. The Hill already counts as a reliable source; the New York Post article doesn't add anything except sensationalism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Sangdeboeuf: there's no point in using a worse source for something when we have a better source. --JBL (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Sangdeboeuf and JBL. We need fewer tabloid sources on Wikipedia, not more. There's no value add here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Please focus on content, not other contributors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gee four people in less than 24hrs aligned on such a minor thing, I've seen stranger! -- GreenC 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Um ok why don't you take us all to WP:SPI and see how that goes? --JBL (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Their goalpost moving is also amusing: first it was an ungrounded appeal to WP:BLPSOURCES; when exposed, then it was "the subtext". Next, it will probably be "emanations and penumbras." XavierItzm (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Alrighty then. --JBL (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/P, the Post is considered a marginal source; that generally means it shouldn't be used for statements about a WP:BLP, where higher sourcing requirements apply. If people don't think the existing sources are good enough, then we should omit the sentence entirely. Also, RS/P indicates that The Hill is more reliable than the Post (there's a clear consensus towards the Hill's reliability, not so much for the Post.) If you think The Post should be considered "less tabloidy" than The Hill, you can take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think you'd get anywhere - that seems like a fairly idiosyncratic opinion to me, since The Hill is, well, not a tabloid? --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS/P never says the Post is "marginal." The citation is due. XavierItzm (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

If you mean, "due to be forgotten, hopefully forever", then I agree. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Alrighty then. --Pelirojopajaro (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no functional difference between [12] and [13], they both are gossipy repackaging of social media statements. The Hill is tabloid for pundits, stronger on some things than others; NYP has home advantage in that NYC newspapers have a traditional role in covering each other's woes. Nemo 05:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The Hill is tabloid for pundits – I don't quite understand this. The article in question is by a regular reporter, not a pundit. And it goes into significantly more detail about Jeong's history with the paper, including the circumstances of her leaving the editorial board. It's a proper piece of journalism. The Post source, by contrast, is shorter, punchier, and gives proportionally more space and prominence to the old tweets which "raised eyebrows", etc. I also don't see what any home-court "advantage" has to do with evaluating WP:RS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Goodness sake, the New York Post is definitely a tabloid. I can take or leave the Hill as a source; I don't think it's that great in general TBH. But the Post? No. Fire that into the sun as a source. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The Hill article doesn't provide any additional reporting work. It's only more quote-stuffed with additional tweets, which in my books don't make it any more useful or reliable. The NYP article quotes the same sources and provides the same amount of original reporting (zero), but at least the NYP is closer to the scene and is more likely to know what it's talking about. The Hill article was published a few hours later and even reuses some identical wording to comment on the tweets, it's probably "inspired" by NYP (can't say plagiarised because there's no original content).

It's important to know what each source's strengths are, because average reliability is of scarce use in specific disputes. The Oak Park Journal is more likely to be a good source on yesterday's pot holes on Oak Park's main street than the Hillsboro Free Press is, and vice versa. The Hill has more experience handling Washington leaks and political "gossip" while NYP has more experience handling NYC business. But if you use The Hill to establish relevance for some Republican statement, or the NYP to decide whether to include some scandal about some NYC person, you'll be disappointed. Nemo 13:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

closer to the scene There is no "scene" here -- this is a Very Online Controversy, the location of the NYP's printing press didn't offer them any advantage in covering it. It's a crappy paper, there's no reason to use it when other alternatives are available. --JBL (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Concur with JBL. I think there’s a lot of merit to the argument about source reliability being context specific, but in this case the entire topic is about something that was on Twitter, and there’s no special advantage to an article that was published by a company headquartered in NY when covering this as far as I can tell. Michepman (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The Hill

The Hill (2019) writes:

The Times said in a statement at the time that it stood by its decision to hire Jeong and had reviewed the writer's social media accounts prior to her hiring, while calling the content of the tweets "unacceptable."

I am wondering why the fact the subject's employers found the tweets "unacceptable" is not on the article? I mean, clearly, over a year later, the RS deems this to be factual, relevant information worth bringing up to the attention of the reader. The RS so underscores the importance of the employer's statement that it even links back to the its own article on The New York Times' statement.

Seems relevant enough to include, and I propose it be done. XavierItzm (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Because it is still the case that this whole event was not very important, and so not every single thing that was written about it needs to be covered in an encyclopedia article about Jeong. (Why does this idea seem so hard for you to understand?) --JBL (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It used to be on Wikipedia we went by the sources. Above one "Joel B. Lewis" says The Hill is a pretty good source for this article. Not once, but twice. The Hill, a year later, again raises the fact that Jeong's employer assessed Jeong's tweets as "unacceptable." Seems odd that Wikipedia should censor out the WP:RSs as they come. XavierItzm (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Your inability to exhibit even basic compliance with WP:AGF reflects very poorly on you. Of course, your contributions to this talk page for more than a year have consisted of nothing but an obsessive desire to add negative information to the article, with complete disregard for any WP policies; so I guess your disregard for that particular guideline should not be surprising. (None of this answers the question of why you suffer from this bizarre derangement, unfortunately.) --JBL (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a big problem with including that information in the article to be honest. It doesn't seem to be an undue weight issue, since arguably the controversy over the tweets and her hiring by the NYT is one of the main reasons why she is famous and why we now have significant coverage about her. until that controversy. That being said, we go by consensus on Wikipedia, not just WP:RS -- the fact that something is in a good source doesn't automatically mean that it should be added. But when it comes to the specific issue of what XavierItzm is suggesting here, then I am on board with including it. Michepman (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It's typical news writing to give a brief recap of the context for why Jeong's employment is newsworthy at all; this doesn't add any new secondary-source evaluation. Going by the above text, why would we include the "unacceptable" remark but not that the Times "stood by its decision to hire Jeong"? That seems like a biased reading of the source.

Overall, I think the whole episode is given more than enough weight in the article, and I stand by my view from the last time we discussed this that the Times' statement doesn't add to a meaningful understanding of the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, obviously this is right, thank you for spelling it out. --JBL (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sangdebeouf - My understanding was that the proposal was to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision. I definitely agree that it would be undue weight to include just the "unacceptable" remark without noting that the Times stood behind Jeong though. Either way, I don't necessarily see a big problem with including that line, though after reviewing the prior discussion I can understand why others may disagree. All that being said, this is not a hill that I am willing to die on (no pun intended); it just doesn't seem like a big deal to me so if there's a general consensus here that this is undue weight or otherwise not necessary then I am totally fine with that decision as well. Michepman (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed 100% with Michepman and with Sangdeboeuf that it is correct to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision. XavierItzm (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see this as being particularly due. "Woman had crabby tweets, film at 11." The Hill isn't exactly a stellar source, and I question what value this inclusion would have to a reader beyond rehashing years-old muckraking on Twitter. Is that really encyclopedic? Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: seems to fairly unambiguously argue against your proposal to add that aside from the Hill to the article: Overall, I think the whole episode is given more than enough weight in the article, and I stand by my view from the last time we discussed this that the Times' statement doesn't add to a meaningful understanding of the topic. Are you sure you agree with them? Because if you agree with that, I think we can reasonably close this section as having reached a consensus not to expand the paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Why the rush to close? So far, we have one either way, one for, three against. The proposal has been up only a bit over 48 hours. XavierItzm (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Because you seem to be agreeing that the addition is WP:UNDUE, which is the point I was making. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

No, my agreement is quite clear: "it is correct to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision", i.e., exactly with Michepman wrote: "My understanding was that the proposal was to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision", and also full agreement with Sangdebeouf who wrote: "why would we include the "unacceptable" remark but not that the Times "stood by its decision to hire Jeong"?", i.e., why not indeed? Both need to be included, as per Sangdebeouf. I don't think there is much room for misunderstanding of the sort: "because you seem to be agreeing that the addition is undue". XavierItzm (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Both need to be included, as per Sangdebeouf. That's not what I wrote at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

One "Sangdeboeuf" wrote on 1 November that why would we include the "unacceptable" remark but not that the Times "stood by its decision to hire Jeong"?. I wholeheartedly agree with that "Sangdeboeuf" guy who said that, and which triggered Michepman to reply Sangdebeouf - My understanding was that the proposal was to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision. I have previously indicated my complete agreement to this clause here and here. Now, for the avoidance of doubt, I clarify that overall that "Sangdeboeuf" guy does not want to modify the paragraph, as he has made amply evident, and that is his right, and that's why already included him on the tally of "against" on 09:25, 2 November 2019: three against. At the time, the against the proposals were three: Sangdebeouf, JBL, and Simonm223. I find it a bit tiresome to have to document this with so much detail, as I am sure others do, but I do not wish for the misunderstandings to continue. XavierItzm (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

My question was a genuine question – not, as I assume you thought, a suggestion rhetorically phrased as a question. There's nothing to agree with or disagree with, unless you're agreeing that it's a good question, in which case you could try answering it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to expand that paragraph at this point; the Hill source only mentions the topic in passing, and it hasn't gotten much other coverage since the initial event. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe it adds anything to the article. Frankly I think we've given undue weight to the tweets as is.Citing (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. All indications are that the entire episode has been largely forgotten outside of a small cadre of professionally angry people. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

An interesting wiki editor position, that "the entire episode has been largely forgotten". The 2019 WP:RS may beg to differ. Some, such as The Hill and Willamette Week, and others (see below) even quote the "forgotten" tweets in full, in 2019. Here's a sampler of 2019 articles, one year after the episode, where WP:RS deemed the Jeong tweets significant enough to mention them:
* October 2019: "After the New York Times announced Jeong’s appointment to its editorial board, the alt-right used her old tweets to accuse her of being “racist” against white people. Journalists described this incident as an instance when erasing historical tweets would be justified." - Columbia Journalism Review
* August 2019: "Sarah Jeong, a new New York Times editorial board member, whose past tweets had led some to accuse her of being racist against white people." - The Washington Post
* August 2019: "branded anti-Semitic for his tweets and Sarah Jeong, member of its editorial board, as racist against white people for hers" - The Hill
* March 2019: "Sarah Jeong, who was hired to join the New York Times editorial board last year, tweeted years ago "how much joy she got out of being cruel to old white men" and asked if white people are "genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun." The Times said that, while her "rhetoric is not acceptable," it would hire her anyway, citing her "important voice" in the national conversation." - The Hill
* August 2019: "several derogatory tweets aimed at white people that Jeong sent in 2014 were unearthed when the Gray Lady announced she was joining the paper. “Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men,” Jeong wrote in July 2014 in one of several old messages went viral." - Fox News
* August 2019: "Sarah Jeong was appointed to The New York Times editorial board, it was discovered that she had sent dozens of vicious anti-White racist tweets over the years (Twitter had allowed these)" - Mint (newspaper)
* April 2019: "dredged up a handful of years-old tweets Jeong wrote satirizing racist and sexist comments from people targeting her. "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins," she tweeted in 2014. The Times received calls for Jeong to be fired" - Willamette Week
* August 2019: "New York Times editorial writer Sarah Jeong spent years tweeting vile insults about white people that would have ended her career had she written them about any other group or “race.”" - Tablet (magazine)
Forgotten? The 2019 sources beg to differ. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The items in The Hill are opinion pieces from the very professionally-angry cadre that I mentioned, and the Willamette Week explicitly calls them "a handful of years-old tweets" that were satirical in the first place and had to be "dredged up". In portions not quoted above, the Willamette Week also says "The newspaper refused to cave" and that the "controversy has quieted down". The screed in The Tablet is a gross misrepresentation that again falls into the professionally angry bucket. The WaPo item is a passing mention in a story about somebody else. The CJR gives it two sentences, does not quote Jeong's tweets, and says nothing about the Times finding Jeong's old tweets "unacceptable". The Mint item is also an opinion piece, not a reliable source. Most of that list is not worth pointing to. Going by our standards for reliable sources, the only remotely acceptable ones are the Willamette Week and CJR pieces, whose treatment of the incident is in fact evidence that we should give it less weight than we currently do. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

And again, I'll bring up that the existence of a source saying something about a BLP is not necessarily an indicator that the topic is encyclopedically WP:DUE mention. This is something that interests only a small subset of the general reading public - bitter far-right failsons upset that a woman said something mean about white men once - I don't see that as being a broad enough interest group to lend this tempest in a teapot even a single line mention. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

References

The test for WP:DUE is based on the reliability of the source. An individual editor's assessment of what's "interesting" is a much smaller part of the equation, and definitely does not hold much water if the content is published in enough highly reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Actual language from her tweets

Previous discussion on quoting Jeong's tweets failed to reach consensus, which effectively means to exclude the disputed material. Closing thread which has devolved into tit-for-tat. Nothing new here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It seems a lot of this page dances around the offensiveness of her comments and NYT silent support or lack of care about her comments. Her Tweets are public domain for anyone to see - wouldn't it enrich the article and dialogue and better inform the reader to let them know she said: - "Oh man, it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” - "Caucasians were “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”" - "Dumbass fucking white people" - "#CancelWhitePeople" References If similar tweets were made by white supremacists/nationalists wouldn't wiki writers use this as proof of their status and be labeled as such in opening of page and categories on bottom? Rsarlls (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Why don't you go ask on some talk pages for white supremacists and nationalists instead of wasting the time of editors here rehashing stupid arguments? --JBL (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC) JBL are you always this dismissive and nasty? The prior discussion around this topic was "settled" due to non agreement, yet here again she is hitting the news for coming off the NYT Board which is again tied to her Twitter utterances - yet a reader of the page would lack the ability to see the material without going to Google or Twitter - seems to defeat the purpose of a proper and thorough Wiki page. Rsarlls (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC) I am indeed deeply dismissive of posts that begin by repeated stupid arguments on settled topics and end with insinuations of hypocrisy based on nothing. If you would like to be treated respectfully, you can begin by treating with respect the previous editors of this page and the fact of an established consensus. (While consensus can change, it does not change by repetition of an argument identical in all respects to the one that has been rejected, without any acknowledgement or understanding of why that happened.) --JBL (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC) "stupid arguments on settled topics" - pretty superior and imperious tone, don't you think? "insinuations of hypocrisy" - wow that's like you're taking this personally. Guess that continues to explain and reconfirm why wiki editor and pageview numbers continue to shrink. Enjoy your shrinking ghetto.Rsarlls (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC) Always nice to have first impressions confirmed. --JBL (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Unhelpful discussion not related to the article.Citing (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is Sangdeboeuf acting as the self-appointed arbitrator of which discussions are worth continuing? This one was closed prematurely. Consensus can change and it is inappropriate for users advocating for a certain side to be so heavily moderating talk page activity. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC) This discussion should not have been closed. Regardless, it doesn't seem worth going through the bureaucracy to re-open it. Instead, I think that all editors on this page should continue to discuss the matter. As I noted earlier, consensus can change. Consensus may well have been wrong. The tweets appear WP:DUE given (1) the extensive coverage of them in reliable sources and (2) the fact that they are a significantly noteworthy facet of her public profile and (3) it's difficult to understand the controversy without at least a single direct reference. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Consensus does not change by stubbornly repeating exactly the same arguments that have been roundly and repeatedly rejected before. Also, knock of the groundless assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks: this thread (to which Sdb did not contribute) lacks anything meaningful and deserved to be closed; no one is preventing you from starting a different one. --JBL (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC) No, that is not a valid reason to close a discussion. Only if there is a clear and overwhelming consensus and the conversation has been open for a long period of time does it make sense to close a discussion. I see reasonable arguments being made as to why inclusion of the tweets is justified. If you or Sangdeboeuf disagree on the merits, it is appropriate to respond but not close the discussion. This seems more like an attempt to stifle disagreement than encourage a robust discussion. That type of behavior is disruptive and an abuse of the closure tool. But let's stick to the topic at hand, which is the inclusion of the language of the tweets. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC) On the other hand, when further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view, then it should be closed sooner rather than later. As JBL points out, you are simply rehashing old arguments. Those arguments failed to reach consensus. For consensus to change, one would ideally present previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC) First, you should not be closing discussions at all given your non-neutral involvement in this thread. Second, consensus can and often is wrong or can be right at one time but wrong at another. That could be because a) a few highly opinionated editors overtook the discussion or not enough were involved, b) facts/reporting/situational changes in the real world regarding the subject, 3) availability of new sources or other information. I don't see a "widely held view" that the tweets should not be included. Bottom line: You should a) stop closing conversations, b) stop misusing oversight tools available to non-admins. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC) I wasn't involved at all until you started accusing me of acting inappropriately. If you think I've abused editing privileges, WP:ANI is thataway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC) You should be willing to correct your behavior without intervention. If not, I have no problem going that route. Cheers. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC) To your suggestion that you "were not involved." The archives of this talk page indicate you have been extensively involved in discussion about content on this page related to the tweets/racism accusations controversy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC) First, you should not be closing discussions at all given your non-neutral involvement in this thread. "This thread" does not mean any and all past discussions about the same or similar issues. Either take this WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE to the appropriate forum, or stop wasting everyone's time. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Conservative media

the article says that Jeong was criticised in "conservative media". the reference for this seems to be the BBC, NYT and the Guardian. These don't seem like conservative media to me.

Can the claim be support by actual reference to conservative media or likewise, since left wing/centrist media also ran the story, just remove the word "conservative"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Ebefl (talk • contribs) 11:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No, we use secondary sources here, not primary sources. All three references make very clear the sources of the criticism: far-right blog, those on the right, mainly conservative social media, Conservative critics, etc. --JBL (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Relevant past discussions are available here, here, and here. --JBL (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)