Thursday, August 2, 2018

Sarah Jeong Journalist

Sarah Jeong Journalist --- ===

Explanation: She said she had thought of her comments as “counter-trolling,” and that “while it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers. These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns. I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context, and would not do it again.”

She was  harassed by the trump worshipping mail bomber Sayoc: Cesar Sayoc Jr., Alleged Mail Bomber, Threatened Democrats on Twitter. Sayoc account has tweeted violent threats and pictures of death at Sarah Jeong, a New York Times opinion columnist who became the subject of a right-wing troll mob this summer over her old tweets being perceived as “anti-white.”


Sarah Jeong, Harvard, and Strategic White-Bashing - The Atlantic

Aug 6, 2018 - I thought of this when Sarah Jeong, a much-admired technology journalist with sterling credentials, became the center of one of our periodic ...

Sarah Jeong-New York Times controversy: conservatives have it ... - Vox

Aug 3, 2018 - Conservatives are up in arms over the New York Times's latest hire: a tech writer namedSarah Jeong whom they allege to be racist against ..

NY Times stands by new hire Sarah Jeong over ... - Washington Post hours ago - The New York Times reaffirmed its support Thursday for new hire Sarah Jeong after social media criticism of her tweets from several years ago ...  Explanation: She said she had thought of her comments as “counter-trolling,” and that “while it was intended as satire, I deeply regret that I mimicked the language of my harassers. These comments were not aimed at a general audience, because general audiences do not engage in harassment campaigns. I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context, and would not do it again.”

Wow! NYT Hires Sarah Jeong to Editorial Board -Who Has Twitter Page Littered with Racist Filth  The Gateway Pundit
The New York Times also released a statement Thursday morning, painting Sarah Jeongas the victim. “Her journalism and the fact that she is a ... It wasn’t hard to discover that Sarah Jeong has a Twitter page littered with racist filth.


She'd be perfect at Salon if she gets dumped by the Slimes.
Open in a new tab and zoom in.

    NYT's Handling of Sarah Jeong 'Controversy' Is Pathetic

    Newest Member of NYT Editorial Board Has History of Racist Tweets
    National Review s expressed open disdain for white people in numerous tweets sent between 2013 and 2015.

    Jeong’s Twitter account is replete with racial insults against white people, whom she has described as “groveling goblins,” “bullshit,” “miserable,” and “dogs.”

    “Dumba** f***ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” Jeong wrote in November 2014. “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster un the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins,” she wrote a month later.

    Jeong, who was hired Wednesday as the Times‘s lead editorial writer on technology, attended Harvard Law School and has previously written for the Atlantic, Motherboard, the Washington Post, and the New York Times Magazine.

    Jeong’s comments, which have drawn considerable backlash among fellow journalists on Twitter, emerged months after the Times fired another new hire, Quinn Norton, over racist and anti-gay language in her old tweets.

    Times cast Jeong’s tweets as ill-advised responses to online harassment i

    The Verge's defense of Sarah Jeong highlights what the New York Times got wrong

    Fast Company  In reaction to these vicious onslaughts, she has been known to write biting (and very funny) tweets that target “white men.” Now, over the last day or so, bad-faith online trolls have dug up her past tweets in which she criticized this extremely dominant class of people, and have deemed them “racist.” An online brouhaha ensued, with numerous conservative personalities and blogs like the Gateway Pundit calling for the Times to fire Jeong.

     she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers,” the Times communications account tweeted. “She sees now that this approach only served to feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media. She regrets it, and the Times does not condone it.”

    It's not racism it's self defense???

    New York Times Supports Sarah Jeong After Alt-Right Smears

    The Mary Sue Hire Sarah Jeong After Alt-Right Trolls Accuse Her of “Racist” Tweets
    That's not how racism works, guys.  by Chelsea Steiner | 3:17 pm, August 2nd, 2018   Jeong is not a white man; she is an Asian woman writing about tech, which means she exists in the nexus of an ungodly amount of racism, sexism, and other hateful trolling from the Pepes of the world. Jeong’s tweets, a sampling of which can be seen below, make fun of white people and mock white male fragility: A tweet reading “#CancelWhitePeople” is hardly racist. It’s a reaction to trolling What’s missing from all this conservative outrage is that these tweets are in response to relentless, actually racist trolling that Jeong receives.

    New York Times defends newest hire Sarah Jeong amid controversy over racist tweets - NY Daily News

    NY Daily News

    , Sarah Jeong on Twitter,+Sarah+Jeong

    Search results
    1. Don't call for Sarah Jeong to be fired. She can say what she wants to say. Quit buying and reading anything by the company that hires racist people who hate white people.
    2. NYT knew about Sarah Jeong's racism and not only didn't care, they justified it because she too was the victim of racism. Pathetic.
    3. Okay so I finally read those Sarah Jeong tweets and I dunno man, I don't see how they can be saved by contextual argumentation. I think she really is just a garden-variety casual racist, albeit towards a subgroup it's socially permissible to express bigoted thoughts toward.
    4. Donald Trump: “We need stop illegal imm....” New York Times: “THATS RACIST!!!” Donald Trump: “MS13 gang are animals” New York Times: “THATS RACIST” Sarah Jeong: “Cancel white people.. White people are bullshit... I enjoy being cruel to White people” New York Times:
    5. I'm calling BS on the NYT for defending Sarah Jeong. Getting harassed is no excuse for posting blanket statements insulting and attacking people based on race or gender. That and they even fired Quinn Norton for similar things.

    sarah jeong

    Hi all, I have a statement about the tweets that have been going around:
    6 hours ago · Twitter

    NYTimes Communications

    Our statement in response to criticism of the hiring of Sarah Jeong.…
    6 hours ago · Twitter

    nilay patel

    Here is a longer statement about @sarahjeong from the editorial leadership of The Verge. We will not stand for intimidation and harassment of this kind, and neither should any other newsroom.…
    3 hours ago · Twitter

    Jonathan Haidt

    How to reduce the internet mob problem: Step 1: @nytimes does NOT fire @sarahjeong Step 2: We all agree that, from now on, no organization shall fire anyone if a mob is demanding the firing, especially if it's because of... tweets. Social media messes with our moral matrices.
    4 hours ago · Twitter

    Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸

    The fact that Sarah Jeong refused to apologize and only posted a two-tweet “statement” about her years of bigoted racist tweets tells you how little the left respects their audience…

    Cathy Young

    I see that the @nytimes is standing by @sarahjeong despite her racist tweets b/c apparently she was just "responding to harassment"…Glad to see the tweets are being unequivocally called racist, at least

    Mike Cernovich 🇺🇸

    Sarah Jeong hates white women, but whatever, good to know that this is what the NY Times endorses. And any of you who ever apologize to them, well you deserve to lose.…

    Mark Dice

    Sarah Jeong not being fired by the New York Times for her racist and hateful tweets is example 93,687,887,482 of liberal hypocrisy, and more proof that liberals embrace and encourage hatred of white people. It's a central tenet of liberalism today.

    New York Times stands by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist ... hours ago - The New York Times is standing by its hiring of tech writer Sarah Jeong despite several derogatory tweets of hers aimed at white people, which ...

    Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter - BBC News
     The newspaper said Sarah Jeong regrets her remarks and she had been responding to online abuse.

    Newsrooms must stand up to targeted campaigns of harassment - The ...
     Since announcing her new job with The New York Times, a widespread campaign of harassment has targeted Verge reporter Sarah Jeong for ...his abusive backlash is dishonest and outrageous. The trolls engaged in this campaign are using the same tactics that exploded during Gamergate, and they have been employed in recent years by even broader audiences amid a rise in hostility toward journalists. Until she begins at the Times, Sarah is still one of us — a senior writer at The Verge. During her time working with us, she has produced remarkable journalism, 

    Sarah Jeong - Wikipedia
    Sarah Jeong (born 1988) is a South Korean-born American journalist specializing in legal and technology topics. In 2018, Jeong joined the editorial board of ...
    Sarah Jeong (born 1988)[1] is a South Korean-born[2] American journalist specializing in legal and technology topics.[3][4][5] In 2018, Jeong joined the editorial board of The New York Times.[6] She has previously written for The Verge and Vice's Motherboard section, and has also written articles for Forbes, the Guardian and The New York Times.[7][8][9]

    Early life

    Jeong attended the University of California Berkeley and Harvard Law School, where she was editor of Harvard Journal of Law & Gender.[1]


    In March, 2014 she launched[10] with Electronic Frontier Foundation activist Parker Higgins a periodic newsletter titled 5 Useful Articles[11] that offered a wry take on intellectual property issues, current and historical. The newsletter went on hiatus in 2015. She writes on technology and internet culture,[12] including a book, The Internet of Garbage, on online harassment[13][14] and responses to it by media and online platforms.[15]
    In 2017, Forbes named Jeong to its "30 Under 30" media list.[16]
    Jeong was appointed to the New York Times editorial board on August 1, 2018 and will be the lead writer on technology.[17]

    Controversial tweets (completely whitewashed) 
    In August 2, 2018 conservatives on social media[18] drew attention to tweets that Jeong made in 2014 that were disparaging to white people; one of these tweets included her saying “Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”[19] The New York Times defended Jeong by saying that she was a target of frequent harassment and that the tweets were Jeong responding by "imitating her accusers."[20] The New York Times has also said that they do not condone Jeong's tweets and that Jeong regrets her approach to responding to harassment.[20]


    1. ^ Jump up to:a b "Sarah Jeong". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-08-24.
    2. Jump up^ Lind, Dara. "A legal journalist on the 'surreal' experience of becoming a US citizen under Trump". Vox Media. Retrieved 12 August 2017.
    3. Jump up^ Greenberg, Andy. "Inside Google's Justice League and its AI-powered war on trolls". Wired. Condé Nast. Retrieved 12 August 2017.
    4. Jump up^ Chung, Nicole. "An Interview with Sarah Jeong, Author of The Internet of Garbage". The Toast. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
    5. Jump up^ Zaretsky, Staci. "Pro Se Filing Of The Day: 'Notice To F*ck This Court And Everything That It Stands For'". Above the Law. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
    6. Jump up^ Okun, Eli; Lacy, Akela; Lippman, Daniel; Palmer, Anna; Sherman, Jake (August 1, 2018). "POLITICO Playbook PM: Trump calls for Sessions to end Mueller probe". Politico. Retrieved 2 August 2018.
    7. Jump up^ "Sarah Jeong profile". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
    8. Jump up^ "TODAY: Legal reporter Sarah Jeong to discuss "How to Cover a Futuristic Cybercrime Trial"". Yale University. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
    9. Jump up^ Jeong, Sarah. "Should We Be Able to Reclaim a Racist Insult — as a Registered Trademark?". The New York Times.
    10. Jump up^ "Newsletter launch: 5 Useful Articles". Retrieved 21 December 2017.
    11. Jump up^ "5 Useful Articles".
    12. Jump up^ Newitz, Annalee (January 15, 2016). "How Twitter quietly banned hate speech last year". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2017-02-26.
    13. Jump up^ "The Internet of Garbage with Sarah Jeong". Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
    14. Jump up^ Chung, Nicole. "An Interview with Sarah Jeong, Author of 'The Internet of Garbage'". The Toast. Retrieved 9 September 2016.
    15. Jump up^ Myers, Maddy (July 23, 2015). "Sarah Jeong's The Internet of Garbage Takes Cyber Crime Seriously". The Mary Sue. Retrieved February 26, 2017.
    16. Jump up^ "30 Under 30 2017: Media". Forbes. 2017. Retrieved 26 February 2017.
    17. Jump up^ "Sarah Jeong Joins The Times's Editorial Board". New York Times. 1 August 2018. Retrieved 2 August 2018.

    External links

    Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2018[edit]

    Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. The line "Soon after being hired... was found to have posted a number of... racist messages directed at white people," is not in two important ways. First, it uses the word "found," which suggests a mainstream authority, preferably a scientific one. Second, ThePostOnline is an explicitly right-wing news site, according to wikipedia's own article on it, and therefore not a reliable source. I suggest one of three courses of action:
    1. Add a "needs a better source" tag to the citation.
    2. Change the line to something like: "Jeong has been accused of posting a number of messages on social media platform Twitter that are racist, hateful, violent, and aggressive."
    3. Remove the line entirely.
    JeanLackE (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Offsite efforts[edit]

    Since the subject joined the NYT, offsite efforts from conspiracy theorists and their ilk to cherry pick social media quotes have begun. Examples:

    Submission Statement:
    We are currently in the process of archiving her entire social media footprint but the above link shows you a small taste of what kind of person she is. There will be more to come. If the NYT doesn't fire this wretched woman then you know that everything they publish is tainted.
    There is definitely a war against white people.  pizza hut would fire you if they discovered your Twitter was an openly racist swamp of hate against another race. But The New York Times feels it's appropriate to hire this anti-white bigot to their editorial board. Impressive.
    I dare you people defending this cunt by downvoting the truth about her to comment and openly defend this instead of hiding behind your anonymous vote.
    level 2
    64 points · 10 hours ago
    Please spam every one of NY times social media pages with this information. She needs to lose her job.
    level 2
    57 points · 8 hours ago
    Yes u/cben27 is correct. If james gunn can loose his job over jokes, this person needs to loose ot over being racist. If privilege is wrong then no one should have it. Dude... You need to do this as a project. Send these to new York times and other online places.. somebody needs to pick it up. Send it to rival media outlets too

    Looking at the history page this has already led to some bad faith edits to push an agenda.Citing (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Jeong made a number of tweets with regards to "White people." The New York Times, Jeong herself, the Twitter archive, and Fox News all admit that. Many people took offense to the tweets. The New York Times replied to their concerns. This was a newsworthy happening.
    So I have a question.
    First: what right leaning site is acceptable to Wikipedia? If Fox publishes a story on it, can that be used as a citation? Second: Obviously the New York Times and the Washington Post lean left. Why would they be acceptable sources if Fox is not? Third: If the tweets themselves exist, why does it matter what source points to them? If Wikipedia only accepts left wing sources, then all the left has to ever do is not report on anything ethically problematic for the left, e.g. embargo leftist racism. , , must be "conspiracy theorists" attacking a sweet innocent woman out of nothing more than bad faith. How dare anyone get upset about racial hatred directed towards whites! (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Biographies of living people must adhere to very high standards. If you are curious about sourcing please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. In this case there is a clear-cut effort to push an agenda using unreliable sources (see examples above).Citing (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    All the tweets in question are archived on which is considered a reliable source on wikipedia (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Generally you're not supposed to link to primary sources, especially in a biography of a living subject. Their archival is not the problem. The problem is this is clearly part of an effort to discredit someone and Wikipedia is not the place for this.Citing (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Is this the right way to edit? It seems my last set of questions did not come through.2601:281:C501:3BE8:26:FE3C:149:9B37 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    This isn't the first time Twitter behavior/ abusive tweets are included in someone's biography. Quick random example I could find browsing I just wonder if a well known conservative journalist or politician had made similar remarks on black people ie. referring to genetic inferiority as Sarah Jeong did and National Review a 62 year old publication published a story on it. Would you object to an edit too? (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    That guy got arrested for tweets. The policy on biographies of living people is to be very careful with what gets added as this is an encyclopedia and not a source of breaking news. Don't give undue weight to minor topics. This biography is, what, three paragraphs long with one of those dedicated to some tweets, with absolutely no context? This does not look like a good-faith effort to improve the article.Citing (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    It is not an "effort to discredit her", Wikipedia is for factual information and this is just stating the facts. It's not discrediting her because of the tweets, she discredited herself when she made the racist tweets. I know you have a clear bias and an agenda to help a racist, so this will only turn into another pointless edit-war. Luchador619(talk) 16:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    It's up on Fox now. Here is a comparable Wikipedia article. Notice the controversy section:
    The left leaning NYT has acknowledged her tweets now, so it's fine to add to this article under a controversy section.
    Many sources [1][2][3][4] are covering this controversy as well as the response of Jeong and the NYT which are starting to also be included in new articles [5]. I think its unavoidable at this point that this must be included in the article; whatever we include will be contentious and it should be hashed out of the talk page instead of in a pointless edit war. Also, by waiting a bit more articles from a wider variety of sources will probably come out, to satisfy those who have an intense dislike of fox/NR/WT. SWL36 (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Is placating people who dislike RS because they (the editors) are biased something we really should be playing along with? Demigord (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Can also add the SF Chronicle and Reason to sources publishing on this. Daily Telegraph, too, apparently.Demigord (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Thank you. Obviously I am learning. While I lean right (classical liberal, Locke/Mill), my main interest is with internal consistency between Wikipedia articles. I think it would be possible to eliminate more of the inherent bias by simply requiring different types of articles to be consistent with each other. In this case, by looking at the Kevin D. Williamson article above, we can see there is a controversy section which outlines a situation very similar to what we have with Ms. Jeong's bio. I am not experienced enough yet to directly edit the article. Hence my several formerly unsigned comments. Again, I am trying to work in good faith to help improve Wikipedia. Other editors have made some suggestions about sources. I want to reread the article on Wiki bias as well, and do what I can from there. Other suggestions are welcome. I have a lot to learn, but I believe I can sign now. Thanks again.2601:281:C501:3BE8:26:FE3C:149:9B37 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    The Williamson example is not at all commensurate given that he was fired over the issue (thus it is much more significant to his career and an encyclopedic biography of him), but additionally that section of his bio is very poorly done and does not reflect the kind of encyclopedic summary of reliable secondary sources WP content policies ask us to aim for (WP:QUOTEFARM among other issues). I don't have time just now but I will go improve it as soon as I can. In the meantime, no one should take its current version as a model. For those new, please read WP:Other stuff exists on the care to take with reasoning by comparison to other entries--Wikipedia is a constant work-in-progress and just because one entry looks a given way does not mean it has been brought up to standard or should be emulated. See also WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Some comparisons can be useful but it is often more advisable to consult content policies and the WP:Manual of style for best guidance. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    "The Williamson example is not at all commensurate given that he was fired over the issue(thus it is much more significant to his career and an encyclopedic biography of him)". I would think that since she is actively working on the editorial board of the New York Times that makes her a far more significant influencer. That is, her position of power in our society relative to Williamson would seem to indicate the opposite of what you have said; she merits a more thorough entry. Nevertheless, thank you for attending to the Williamson article if the quality is poor by Wikipedia standards. Also, thank you for the help pages. I will create a username soon. 2601:281:C501:3BE8:26:FE3C:149:9B37 (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Well, questions like, 'what is the relative influence of the Atlantic versus the Times?' are judgment calls that WP policy (developed by community consensus) explicitly forbids users from making on their own; we should only follow what reliable secondary sources say about the topic at hand. The main content policies WP:VerifiabilityWP:Neutral point of view and WP:No original research go into this in much more detail and are worth a read as well--I know a lot of WP policy can be very counter-intuitive (or at least it was to me when I started editing!) and operates very differently from journalism, academic research, and so forth. (There are whole sites, like Everipedia, created entirely because some folks strongly disagreed with, e.g., Wikipedia's relatively high bar for what's permissible to include here). But in any case welcome and happy editing! Feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions getting oriented that I can help with! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Again here are her tweets (I don't understand why someone would delete them):
    It's not about politics. It's about truth. Those are the things she said.
    Tweets are fine for the talk page. Editorializing about them (as happened previously) is not, per WP:NOTFORUM, and as the notice at the top of this page reminds us, all WP policies on WP:Biographies of living people apply here as well as to the entry itself; violations will be deleted. As for the tweets, WP:No original researchas well as other content policies like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUEWEIGHT govern what may be included in the entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    I agree, but someone deleted them from the talk page and wrote something about "white genocide conspiracists". I'm not sure this is what Wikipedia is about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
    I didn't see anyone removing the tweets from this talk page (though correct me if I've missed it). Someone did remove my comment about conspiracy theorists trying to get her fired and edit the article.Citing (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    I saw them getting removed. Thereafter your comment appeared. I was like "Holy shit, there are some strongly biased people here."— Preceding unsignedcomment added by (talk)
    Please sign your posts with ~~~~, it makes the conversation easier to follow. I can't find what you mentioned. Point me to a specific revision in the page history.Citing (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Controversial tweets[edit]

    I've added a new subsection on the controversy. The information is sourced from reliable sources and I went out of the way to include who found the tweets, what the tweets said, what context the tweets were said within, and the response from the NYT and Jeong herself. SWL36 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    one of these tweets included her saying “Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.
    Oh how harmless. Another tweet included her saying: "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" and another one "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins".Template:Subset:unsigned IP
    Here are some reliable sources discussing this issue.[1][2][3][4] Truthsort (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    It's undue weight and inappropriate for the article. This article is a stub and most of it is about the tweets and as I mentioned above this is part of an effort from many online communities. Mentioning them only makes sense in the context of her work and research on online harassment and the fact that she is often on the receiving end of it. Oddly, I don't see a lot of volunteers to add that content.Citing (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    I think I'd start the sentence with --
    • On August 2, 2018, Reason Magazine published the title, "The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People",[1] after FOX News,[2] and the National Review,[3] reported on her controversial Tweets. An official Twitter account, NYTimes Communications, attributed Jeong's Twitter statements to rhetoric, confirming that they were aware of the Tweets and that Jeong would be hired to write for the Editorial section.[2][4]


    Jump up^ "The New York Times Shouldn't Fire Sarah Jeong for Racist Tweets About White People". 2018-08-02. Retrieved 2018-08-02.
    ^ Jump up to:a b Flood, Brian (2018-08-02). "New York Times stands by new tech writer Sarah Jeong after racist tweets surface". Fox News. Retrieved 2018-08-02.
    Jump up^ Crowe, Jack (2018-08-02). "Newest Member of NYT Editorial Board Has History of Racist Tweets". National Review. Retrieved 2018-08-02.
    Jump up^ "NYTimes Communications on Twitter". Twitter (in Latin). 2018-07-24. Retrieved 2018-08-02.
    cheers ESparky (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you both, SWL36 and Truthsort; I did not feel the first version had sufficient coverage to warrant inclusion and so I have removed it until we can find consensus here, per WP:ONUS, but I will read the new sources now and then weigh back in. Thanks much. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    A few new RS ABC News, NY Daily News, and NY Post. Plus the NY times has now talked about it via twitter PackMecEng (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    The initial version, cited to the tweets themselves, was contrary to WP style and a poor BLP addition. The revised version, citing to RS sources, was a definite improvement. A single sentence cited to multiple independent articles on the subject is a reasonable addition to the article. Neutral wording is important, but given the amount of coverage, we certainly have enough significant secondary source coverage" for a brief, factual mention of the tweets.Dialectric (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I was one of the editors removing the original section due to WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR (as you note). The number of reliable secondary sources are an improvement and we should have at least a sentence. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Well, so, the Post has limited credibility (by WP standards) in general; The Hill fouls up theirs seriously by claiming she's 49 which is just factually wrong by about two decades; and the NYT covering itself we would never use to evaluate something's significance (i.e. we don't use NYT reviews of books by NYT writers). I think the thing to do is give it a few days and see what happens. All should keep in mind that Wikipedia does not aim to be (nor is equipped to be) a news outlet: this entry is meant to gather an encyclopedic biography of this individual and it can be hard to tell how encyclopedically significant an event is (especially something like Twitter outrage) until later. What Wikipedia should not do is place a thumb on the scale by imposing our own opinion in violation of WP:NOR before reliable secondary sources are clear enough--most of all, we categorically are not here to make the news. (Can be frustrating, I know, but sometimes WP is just not the right venue.) Innisfree987 (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah the post is iffy. But Fox, ABC, and NY Daily are solid. The importance of the NYT twitter responding is validation of issues, not something to be put in the article directly. The sources listed above mention the response from NYT and those can be sources for that to help balance the view. PackMecEng (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed those are the better sources; but a few legit sources doesn't necessarily imply encyclopedic significance. Per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS, we definitely don't chronicle every Twitter dustup even that gets some press; for many of our living subjects, that would shift our account from an encyclopedic summary to a Borgesian map. This is in the news right now so it can feel pressing for WP:Recentism reasons, but we need to make sure it's an event of biographical significance. I don't think it's possible to know that just yet. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    I'm fine with slowing done a bit, articles are still being churned out and we will know more about where this stands by the day's end. This hour we now have articles from leftwing newblogs like splinter, thecut, and the marysue coming out in defense of of Jeong. I think by the end of the day we will have a better idea on how important the section is. I think that the coverage right now from just WP:RS is more than enough to warrant at least a sentence on the controversy, and if it lasts more than a day, a second might be needed. SWL36 (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Eh wouldn't hurt to give it a day or two and see if it keeps running or dies. PackMecEng (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yeah, the tricky bit is that in truth some media sources look at Wikipedia and it can influence how they cover a topic, while our entire content policy is premised on following their independent, professional editorial judgment on something's significance (WP:NOR), since we don't have our own experts to make that evaluation reliably (RIP, Nupedia). For the WP model to work, we really need RS to decide independently how to deal with it first, and then trail behind to develop our version accordingly (we're a lagging indicator of significance, as economists would say), in the context of our other policies. So I think a few days' breathing room and then look at what we have would work well. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    The one-sentence approach seems fair for the following days. If you allow me a suggestion, what about using Template:Current on the following days? This alerts readers about eventual pitfalls and seems like a possible stem towards consensus. --Brandizzi (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    The current template is good for when something unquestionably merits inclusion in the encyclopedia and there's debate about how to cover it (say, an on-going coup). Twitter conflict is more in a category of things that may or may not merit inclusion at all--for instance, if it ends up being in the press only one or two days, I'm really not sure that's encyclopedic material. So while it's accurate the entry's subject is currently in the press, a "current" tag puts weight in the subject's biography on that particular bit of press--and we don't have consensus yet that this is in fact material for an encyclopedic biography. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    I have to disagree strongly. The article barely mentions her work, giving undue weight in a biography of a living person for something that could be completely irrelevant in the long run. For context, she has done a lot of work on online harassment and the gamergate controversy, making herself known to many communities that are known for bad faith engagements and attacking women and minorities via distributed harassment. I've linked some example conversations about her/this article. I doubt it's a coincidence that suddenly her article is getting a ton of attention, and that so many of the edits are purely negative.Citing (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    I'd be correct to say you are concerned many of the editors adding this content have negative opinions about Sarah Jeong? --Brandizzi(talk) 20:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    No, that is not correct. I am concerned many of the editors are not acting in good faith. Here is a user removing my comment about outside communities. Here is another making false claims that I removed talk page material and then wrote my initial comment.Citing(talk) 20:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    I believe we do not even need to use the NYT tweet as a source, since ABC is a secondary source to the content of the tweet. --Brandizzi (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed, we have a couple secondary sources that mention NYT's tweet. Using it as a source on it's own would be a primary source issue. PackMecEng (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Protected edit drafts[edit]

    Strongly agree, the harassment campaign against her should be mentioned in the article, however we have to remember the Undue weight rule. 1-2 sentences would be enough for an article this small. I propose the following: 1 sentence to explain how she became a target of the harassment campaign, and 1 more to describe the trolls/bots/influencers/etc who were behind the campaign. Openlydialectic (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    Harassment campaign? None of the RSes mentioned characterize this as a harassment campaign (though I'm sure there are more unreliable sources that characterize it as such) and instead discuss the contents of the tweets and the response from the NYT. Mentioning that the controversy was started when the tweets were unearthed by conservative commentators is fine, because several sources characterize it in that fashion. The controversy is not about her being harassed, its about her making racist statements in the past. SWL36 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Her current outlet is considering it a coordinated harassment campaign.Citing (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Are any neutral sources saying that? I can't find any news organizations she is not currently or soon to be employed at saying she is the target of a "harassment campaign". I only see sources talking about the "harassment" that was the Tweets this conversation is the subject of. I looked through all of these articles from major news organizations:BBC News: Post: York Times: Hill: Times: Post: News: (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Here's one agreeing with the portrayal as harassment. Give it a few days and there will be a bunch of thinkpieces and talking head interviews too because that's the nature of the beast. I'm repeating myself but we need to be careful with biographies of living people.Citing (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)An opinion piece in a magazine is hardly a WP:RS. This conversation is still largely pointless as we still want to wait a bit before drafting a statement. SWL36 (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Protection note[edit]

    I have temporarily protected the article from editing given the recent edit-warring over content that raises BLP concerns. Please gain consensus on what exactly to say about the recent controversy, where to include it in the article, and what sources to cite and then use the {{Edit fully-protected}} for the edit to be implemented. If editors here cannot reach a consensus among themselves, consider asking for help at BLP noticeboardAbecedare (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    I think that the controversy of Jeong's Tweets should be mentioned.[edit]

    Both the backlash to her tweets and the history of the tweets should be mentioned. Its obvious that this issue won't be forgotten, and its a significant part of her career due to the recent rising. Its the entire reason why this discussion exists.
    Her response to the tweets surfacing should be mentioned. - AH (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    I agree, it's ridiculous to say that this isn't notable at this point, every news station is covering it and this will be the only reason people come to this wiki page for several months. I am aware that she is "notable" for appearing in earlier news articles, but anyone learning of her in the coming days will be learning about her because of this controversy, not because they are interested in a random journalist. I'm having a hard time understanding why it's not on the page already, maybe just because nobody has written about it neutrally yet. There is no shortage of reliable sources:
    BBC News: Post: York Times: Hill: Times: Post: News:
    Ikjbagl (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

    Sarah Jeong

    Can I get some extra eyes on this article? The subject joined the New York Times and immediately a bunch of users have started adding cherry-picked tweets as part of a campaign to have her fired or discredited. See Talk:Sarah_Jeong#Offsite_efforts.Citing (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Please stop your biased editing and reverting on this page. Directly quoting a person's Twitter page is not a violation of Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living people. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    It is literally a violation of the rules (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources).Citing (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    It's not a violation of Wikipedia's rules to directly quote the subject. Please stop with this nonsense. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Editor blocked. Let me be a bit more precise here: this is a BLP violation though I blocked for the easy one, edit warring (to a ridiculous extent); the edit consisted of primary sourcing, already problematic enough, combined with editorial commentary. What this board could help decided is if the edits warrant revdeletion. Drmies(talk) 17:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
    With coverage already widespread in secondary sources like FoxNR, and SFGate (not a particulary partisan source to my knowledge), I'm not sure that just including the primary source tweets (many of which are quoted in the articles) in the past reverts requires revdel, unless the editor included other libelous information along with the primary sources. I'm not fully sure of when revdel is required though, just wanted to add that the information is now well covered in the media.
    Jeong made a number of controversial tweets. They were noticed by message boards, confirmed and elevated to national news sites like Fox and National Review. The New York Times replied to the concerns. People all over the political spectrum are aware of the issue at this point.
    Certain Wikipedia editors are repeatedly wiping the mention of these tweets. Many people (I estimate thousands) would never have heard of Sarah Jeong if not for her controversial statements on Twitter. It's definitely noteworthy to mention in her Wikipedia.

    NYT's Handling of Sarah Jeong 'Controversy' Is Pathetic - Splinter

    4 hours ago - Yesterday, the New York Times announced that it had hired Sarah Jeong, who is by all accounts an extremely talented tech reporter, as a new ...

    sarahjeong dot net | thoughts longer than five tweets or so

    Email me: sarah at sarahjeong . net Yes, I use encryption: Fingerprint: 09E0 D1A7 5A67 57B9 B8D8 5485 7484 3790 352F 2B60 PGP Public Key available here ...

    Sarah Jeong: New York Times Hires Writer With Racist Past | National ...

    7 hours ago - Sarah Jeong, who will be joining the New York Times editorial board in September, has expressed open disdain for white people in numerous ...

    Times Responds to Tantrum Over Sarah Jeong's Tweets - The Cut
     Just hours after the New York Times announced its decision to hire tech writer Sarah Jeong as a new editorial board writer, right-wing trolls ...

    Sarah Jeong: NY Times stands by racist tweets reporter

    Sarah JeongImage copyrightSARAHJEONG.NET
    Image captionSarah Jeong's hiring was met with criticism online

    The New York Times has defended a new member of its editorial board who wrote racist tweets about white people.
    The newspaper's announcement that it was hiring Sarah Jeong met an outpouring of online criticism after her old posts were unearthed.
    In a statement, the Times said that Ms Jeong regrets her remarks and she had been responding to online abuse.
    The Times this year fired a new writer after old tweets that caused offence emerged.
    Quinn Norton was let go only hours after the newspaper announced her hire in February.

    ‘WUT?’ Sarah Jeong’s ‘statement’ about being exposed as racist is some straight-up BULLSH*T

    It’s really something:

    No, Sarah. The Onion is satire. The Babylon Bee is satire. Allie Beth Stuckey’s fake “interview” with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was satire. Your racist tweets were not satire. We’re fully aware of the context and you made it perfectly clear that you’re just an angry woman with a nasty racist streak.
    The New York Times may [pretend to] buy Sarah’s explanation, but over here in reality, we know she’s straight-up full of it.

    Your ability to play the victim is utterly astounding.

    These two examples are literally from unverified nobody accounts which weren't liked or shared by anyone, according 2 ur screenshot.

    Citing this as harassment is a slap in the face to folks who've suffered it for real.

    Your racist tweets predate your example, and continued for over a year after. This wasn’t some spur of the moment emotional response.

    View image on Twitter

    "I contributed to online hate because I'm a victim of online hate"


    No comments:

    Post a Comment