![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
Very long but nothing particularly helpful here for improving the article. Specific proposals on improving the article is most useful. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Discussion at
AFD page. Don't need parallel discussion/voting here.
|
---|
Time to put this baby to bed: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Jeong /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Internet_of_Garbage ZinedineZidane98 ( talk) 14:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
|
No reliable sources presented,
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
(Redacted) I can't fold this into the article now, but it's depositive. https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5 kencf0618 ( talk) 17:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
For those editors that are confused as to what is going on here and do not know the backstory, this video explains it in a very succinct, lucid, and clear manner. Scaleshombre ( talk) 20:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was posted above, but not under its proper heading for votes.
I propose the following changes:
Change the line:
″The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014."
To:
"The hiring sparked strong public reaction after numerous disparaging tweets, made by Jeong between 2013 and 2014, began making the rounds in the media and on social media."
Neutralizes the language, remains accurate, and won't appear biased. — Bnmguy ( talk) 20:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Will some people read that article and come here? Probably. Will SPAs who post "why does article not say she is a racist?" have much influence on the final outcome? Probably not. There should not be a mass culling of newbies in this section because they are unhappy with WP's coverage of Jeong. Almost everyone but the handful of people who supported the current version are unhappy with this article. SWL36 ( talk) 22:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Almost everyone but the handful of people who supported the current version are unhappy– consensus does not require a majority. Please see WP:POLL. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/wikipedia_caves_permits_a_tiny_mention_of_sarah_jeongs_famous_tweets_on_her_wiki_page.html https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/far-left-editors-at-wikipedia-refuse-mention-of-sarah-jeongs-seething-racism-on-her-bio-page/ 39.41.80.213 ( talk) 14:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think given the notability of the controversy at least a subsection under "Career" titled "Tweet controversy" is called for. Thinker78 ( talk) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
In August 2018, Jeong was hired by The New York Times to join its editorial board as lead writer on technology, commencing in September. [1]
References
I've closed the AfD: there is no way that it is ever going to lean delete, given the overwhelming number of keep votes. Please see the AfD if you want more words. Drmies ( talk) 20:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article says that Jeong have received "negative reaction in conservative media". This is misleading as her comments have been criticised by BBC, ABC,... all not conservative media. Moreover the sentence is misleading because it is inconsistent with its two sources, in which the exact sentence is "in MAINLY conservative media". I see the removal of the fundamental specification "mainly" as an example of POV and bending sources to our POV. I request the adding of the world "mainly", which is in accordance with the two sources provided. 93.36.191.55 ( talk) 10:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
no reliable sources, veering into accusations
|
---|
Tl;dr there is some controversy involving Sarah Jeong between Vice and a Chinese engineer Naomi Wu, regarding alleged endangering of sources by Vice. I have been unable to find much media coverage of it by uninvolved parties, except a NextShark article. Naomi Wu alleges that Vice endangered her safety by publishing personal information/interviews she asked them not to, and accuses Sarah Jeong of trying to silence her. I have doubts regarding its noteworthyness; there was significant discussion regarding the controversy on Reddit a few months ago, but otherwise relatively few mentions in the media. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pax3q7/a-note-about-shenzhens-homegrown-cyborg-naomi-wu https://nextshark.com/naomi-wu-vice-controversy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.80.213 ( talk) 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I do think the controversy belongs in the article, but this may not be the best time. Maybe wait until things wind down on the tweet controversy? petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Recommend adding: "Sarah Jeong breached Wu's contract terms. Jeong/Vice had Youtube drop Wu's video response and Prateon to drop Wu, destroying Wu's livelihood." OR "Sarah Jeong breached Vice's contract with Naomi Wu and destroyed her livelihood at Prateon" This breach of journalistic and social ethics is the real harm committed by Sarah Jeong, as explained in Naomi Wu's long article at https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5 DLH ( talk) 14:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why are the examples of Jeong's racism removed? As noted above, controversial racial statements by other public figures are available in the articles on them. The removal sanitizes Jeong and leaving the Times' rationalization of her tweets on the article are POV in favor of Jeong. Dogru144 ( talk) 14:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sarah Jeong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced though it does show a long standing apttern of online harrasemnet and racism on her part Dj79 ( talk) 14:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A recent proposal to include quotes of some of Jeong's commonly quoted tweets received a large amount of support and attention. Therefore, I've decided to make an edit proposal so we can have discussion about specific wording. I propose we add a pair of sentences to the paragraph on the controversy:
The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. One widely reported tweet read "oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get from being cruel to old white men." A second tweet read: "dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants." Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced, and that she regretted adopting that tactic.
There are probably 20-30 sources for each quote, I've decided to include 2 for each. BBC and The Independent for the hydrant quote and Fox and WaPo for the cruel quote. If we want to be robust, and REALLY prove the "widely reported" label, we could include 4 each as the fire hydrant quote is quoted by The Hill, Vox, Slate, Washington Times and more. The cruel quote has been reported by CNBC, LaTimes, BBC, Vox, Washington Times and plenty more. SWL36 ( talk) 14:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sarah Jeong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Retain Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced, and that she regretted adopting that tactic.[19]
Add Based on a snippet of a talk Jeong made at Harvard Law School where she stated "Everything is implicitly organized around how men see the world. And not just men, how white men see the world. And this, this is a problem. This is why so many things suck." Source. (Redacted) Redtobelieve ( talk) 15:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Proposal: Regarding discussion of Jeong's mindset in controversial Tweets, reference Harvard speech "Sarah Jeong on The Internet of Garbage"
There is currently disagreement over Jeong's mindset when making her controversial Tweets. Defenders have suggested that she was engaging in satire or "counter-trolling" against people who were directing abusive messages in her direction. Those more critical of Jeong have analyzed her prior works that she undertook with apparent sincerity and questioned whether the attitudes expressed in her controversial tweets are actually at odds with her long-stated outlook. One way to consolidate discussion around this issue would be to reference Jeong's Harvard presentation on her book, The Internet of Garbage. In her Harvard speech presenting her book, Jeong appears to say with complete sincerity, "Everything is implicitly organized around how men see the world, and not just men, white men, and this is a problem, this is why so many things suck." I don't think that anyone editing this article would argue that her entire book, The Internet of Garbage, was a satire, or that this Harvard speech was satire. So what we glean from the Harvard speech is (Redacted) Her speech was published here by the Harvard institute for your review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUSctMLLNUE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.77.46 ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Can we incorporate this article as a source "When Racism is Fit to Print" by New York Magazine? I don't have Wikipedia account so I can't change anything. Therefore I am suggesting editors consider this article and incorporate it as a source somehow. Thanks!
Deferred for later discussion (time TBD)
|
---|
I propose modifying the lede to incorporate the reason Jeong has drawn so much attention, similar to other BLPs notable primarily for one event or issue. Perhaps something like: Sarah Jeong (born 1988) is an American journalist specializing in IT law and other technology topics. Jeong is a senior writer for The Verge and in September 2018 will join the editorial board of The New York Times. Jeong gained international attention in August 2018 when conservative and social media highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that she had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. She was previously a contributing editor for Vice's Motherboard website. She is the author of The Internet of Garbage, a non-fiction book about online harassment. Thoughts? Scaleshombre ( talk) 00:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
|
Please bring issue to my talkpage if you have question about my
WP:BLPDS actions.
Abecedare (
talk)
23:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
|
---|
So the user
removed the template, and
did so again after I reverted him. He claims the template violates
WP:BLPDS, because it includes mention of an article on Breitbart with a provocative title. He claimed that on [
own talk page] where he started a discussion on the matter. Yes, he started it on his talk page and not on this one, and I suspect it was done to hide the edit from users participating in discussions on this page. I've attempted to reinstate the template without mentioning the far right sources like Breitbart and Daily Caller (so that now the template only includes the article from
The Atlantic, which certainly does not violate the
WP:BLPDS. As a responce to that
User:Abecedare threatened me with a block
on my talk page. |
The term "white people" should be linked to the corresponding article, since it is a complex social construct and not a defined race or ethnicity. Javiero Fernandez ( talk) 00:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:10 year test. -- Softlavender ( talk) 01:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I invite you to ask me to weigh inI looked at a bunch of those, and only Kevin D. Williamson mentions the content of "old tweets dug up by someone on the left". wumbolo ^^^ 13:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't have the proverbial Wikipedian crystal ball handy, but hindsight is 20/20, and this article is very reminiscent of Gamergate controversy, shifting walls of text and all. It's become what I call a nexus magnet; everyone wants to control the narrative, and to be present at the creation, which is precisely why this encounter battle is taking place. kencf0618 ( talk) 15:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I think calling it ephemeral or a 24 hour news cycle is missing the point (if anything the proposed addition on the "2016 mobbing from bernie bros" is much, much more ephemeral and received a minuscule amount of attention compared to this). While a 10 year test obviously has a large degree of subjectivity, to me this has all the signs of the kind of firestorm that strikes about once a year and is not merely something which will be forgotten in a week. I am thinking of examples like Rachel Dolezal, Walter Palmer, and James Damore. About her notability before this, it's true she was known enough for the NY Times to hire her, but her article was a tiny stub which hadn't received a single edit between January 9 and August 2. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 ( talk) 19:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
"No one will care about or remember the content of her tweets in 6 months...
" - And yet, look what to happened to
James Gunn as a result of Tweets he made 6-10 years ago. Of course, the content of those actual Tweets haven't been included in his BLP either, but this is the internet age, nothing ever goes completely away or is ever completely forgotten. Just sayin' -
theWOLFchild
22:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's not just critics who label the tweets with the term "racist". Even fellow columnists at the same place of employment did:
Have fun sweeping this under the rug. 86.123.17.225 ( talk) 09:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Jeong was criticized by other New York Times writers." [1] [2]
References
"White men are bull—"; "#CancelWhitePeople"; "oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men" and "f— white women lol." She has also bashed the police, called for censoring a fellow journalist, and believed the 2014 University of Virginia rape hoax, in the course of which she lashed out at "white men" and "white college boys." Read The Times's statement on Sarah Jeong We should call many of these tweets for what they are: racist.
"Here's @BretStephensNYT offering a classy welcome to a colleague who has yet to prove she deserves one," she said.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Changing "Critics characterized her tweets as being racist" to "Critics characterized her tweets as being racist and anti-white". Various reliable sources, including conservative ones, use this label - [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Javiero Fernandez ( talk) 22:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
And this also includes the establishment figures like Ari Fleischer and publications like the National Review, the folks wailing about an Asian woman’s “anti-white racism,” as if there were such a thing.But even that is actually commentary.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
Very long but nothing particularly helpful here for improving the article. Specific proposals on improving the article is most useful. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 17:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Discussion at
AFD page. Don't need parallel discussion/voting here.
|
---|
Time to put this baby to bed: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Jeong /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Internet_of_Garbage ZinedineZidane98 ( talk) 14:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
|
No reliable sources presented,
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
(Redacted) I can't fold this into the article now, but it's depositive. https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5 kencf0618 ( talk) 17:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
For those editors that are confused as to what is going on here and do not know the backstory, this video explains it in a very succinct, lucid, and clear manner. Scaleshombre ( talk) 20:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This was posted above, but not under its proper heading for votes.
I propose the following changes:
Change the line:
″The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014."
To:
"The hiring sparked strong public reaction after numerous disparaging tweets, made by Jeong between 2013 and 2014, began making the rounds in the media and on social media."
Neutralizes the language, remains accurate, and won't appear biased. — Bnmguy ( talk) 20:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Will some people read that article and come here? Probably. Will SPAs who post "why does article not say she is a racist?" have much influence on the final outcome? Probably not. There should not be a mass culling of newbies in this section because they are unhappy with WP's coverage of Jeong. Almost everyone but the handful of people who supported the current version are unhappy with this article. SWL36 ( talk) 22:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Almost everyone but the handful of people who supported the current version are unhappy– consensus does not require a majority. Please see WP:POLL. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/08/wikipedia_caves_permits_a_tiny_mention_of_sarah_jeongs_famous_tweets_on_her_wiki_page.html https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/08/far-left-editors-at-wikipedia-refuse-mention-of-sarah-jeongs-seething-racism-on-her-bio-page/ 39.41.80.213 ( talk) 14:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think given the notability of the controversy at least a subsection under "Career" titled "Tweet controversy" is called for. Thinker78 ( talk) 22:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
In August 2018, Jeong was hired by The New York Times to join its editorial board as lead writer on technology, commencing in September. [1]
References
I've closed the AfD: there is no way that it is ever going to lean delete, given the overwhelming number of keep votes. Please see the AfD if you want more words. Drmies ( talk) 20:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article says that Jeong have received "negative reaction in conservative media". This is misleading as her comments have been criticised by BBC, ABC,... all not conservative media. Moreover the sentence is misleading because it is inconsistent with its two sources, in which the exact sentence is "in MAINLY conservative media". I see the removal of the fundamental specification "mainly" as an example of POV and bending sources to our POV. I request the adding of the world "mainly", which is in accordance with the two sources provided. 93.36.191.55 ( talk) 10:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
no reliable sources, veering into accusations
|
---|
Tl;dr there is some controversy involving Sarah Jeong between Vice and a Chinese engineer Naomi Wu, regarding alleged endangering of sources by Vice. I have been unable to find much media coverage of it by uninvolved parties, except a NextShark article. Naomi Wu alleges that Vice endangered her safety by publishing personal information/interviews she asked them not to, and accuses Sarah Jeong of trying to silence her. I have doubts regarding its noteworthyness; there was significant discussion regarding the controversy on Reddit a few months ago, but otherwise relatively few mentions in the media. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pax3q7/a-note-about-shenzhens-homegrown-cyborg-naomi-wu https://nextshark.com/naomi-wu-vice-controversy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.80.213 ( talk) 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I do think the controversy belongs in the article, but this may not be the best time. Maybe wait until things wind down on the tweet controversy? petrarchan47 คุ ก 22:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Recommend adding: "Sarah Jeong breached Wu's contract terms. Jeong/Vice had Youtube drop Wu's video response and Prateon to drop Wu, destroying Wu's livelihood." OR "Sarah Jeong breached Vice's contract with Naomi Wu and destroyed her livelihood at Prateon" This breach of journalistic and social ethics is the real harm committed by Sarah Jeong, as explained in Naomi Wu's long article at https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5 DLH ( talk) 14:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why are the examples of Jeong's racism removed? As noted above, controversial racial statements by other public figures are available in the articles on them. The removal sanitizes Jeong and leaving the Times' rationalization of her tweets on the article are POV in favor of Jeong. Dogru144 ( talk) 14:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sarah Jeong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced though it does show a long standing apttern of online harrasemnet and racism on her part Dj79 ( talk) 14:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A recent proposal to include quotes of some of Jeong's commonly quoted tweets received a large amount of support and attention. Therefore, I've decided to make an edit proposal so we can have discussion about specific wording. I propose we add a pair of sentences to the paragraph on the controversy:
The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. One widely reported tweet read "oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get from being cruel to old white men." A second tweet read: "dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants." Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced, and that she regretted adopting that tactic.
There are probably 20-30 sources for each quote, I've decided to include 2 for each. BBC and The Independent for the hydrant quote and Fox and WaPo for the cruel quote. If we want to be robust, and REALLY prove the "widely reported" label, we could include 4 each as the fire hydrant quote is quoted by The Hill, Vox, Slate, Washington Times and more. The cruel quote has been reported by CNBC, LaTimes, BBC, Vox, Washington Times and plenty more. SWL36 ( talk) 14:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Sarah Jeong has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Retain Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong said that the posts were "counter-trolling" in reaction to harassment she had experienced, and that she regretted adopting that tactic.[19]
Add Based on a snippet of a talk Jeong made at Harvard Law School where she stated "Everything is implicitly organized around how men see the world. And not just men, how white men see the world. And this, this is a problem. This is why so many things suck." Source. (Redacted) Redtobelieve ( talk) 15:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Proposal: Regarding discussion of Jeong's mindset in controversial Tweets, reference Harvard speech "Sarah Jeong on The Internet of Garbage"
There is currently disagreement over Jeong's mindset when making her controversial Tweets. Defenders have suggested that she was engaging in satire or "counter-trolling" against people who were directing abusive messages in her direction. Those more critical of Jeong have analyzed her prior works that she undertook with apparent sincerity and questioned whether the attitudes expressed in her controversial tweets are actually at odds with her long-stated outlook. One way to consolidate discussion around this issue would be to reference Jeong's Harvard presentation on her book, The Internet of Garbage. In her Harvard speech presenting her book, Jeong appears to say with complete sincerity, "Everything is implicitly organized around how men see the world, and not just men, white men, and this is a problem, this is why so many things suck." I don't think that anyone editing this article would argue that her entire book, The Internet of Garbage, was a satire, or that this Harvard speech was satire. So what we glean from the Harvard speech is (Redacted) Her speech was published here by the Harvard institute for your review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUSctMLLNUE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.77.46 ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Can we incorporate this article as a source "When Racism is Fit to Print" by New York Magazine? I don't have Wikipedia account so I can't change anything. Therefore I am suggesting editors consider this article and incorporate it as a source somehow. Thanks!
Deferred for later discussion (time TBD)
|
---|
I propose modifying the lede to incorporate the reason Jeong has drawn so much attention, similar to other BLPs notable primarily for one event or issue. Perhaps something like: Sarah Jeong (born 1988) is an American journalist specializing in IT law and other technology topics. Jeong is a senior writer for The Verge and in September 2018 will join the editorial board of The New York Times. Jeong gained international attention in August 2018 when conservative and social media highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that she had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. She was previously a contributing editor for Vice's Motherboard website. She is the author of The Internet of Garbage, a non-fiction book about online harassment. Thoughts? Scaleshombre ( talk) 00:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
|
Please bring issue to my talkpage if you have question about my
WP:BLPDS actions.
Abecedare (
talk)
23:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
|
---|
So the user
removed the template, and
did so again after I reverted him. He claims the template violates
WP:BLPDS, because it includes mention of an article on Breitbart with a provocative title. He claimed that on [
own talk page] where he started a discussion on the matter. Yes, he started it on his talk page and not on this one, and I suspect it was done to hide the edit from users participating in discussions on this page. I've attempted to reinstate the template without mentioning the far right sources like Breitbart and Daily Caller (so that now the template only includes the article from
The Atlantic, which certainly does not violate the
WP:BLPDS. As a responce to that
User:Abecedare threatened me with a block
on my talk page. |
The term "white people" should be linked to the corresponding article, since it is a complex social construct and not a defined race or ethnicity. Javiero Fernandez ( talk) 00:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP:10 year test. -- Softlavender ( talk) 01:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I invite you to ask me to weigh inI looked at a bunch of those, and only Kevin D. Williamson mentions the content of "old tweets dug up by someone on the left". wumbolo ^^^ 13:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't have the proverbial Wikipedian crystal ball handy, but hindsight is 20/20, and this article is very reminiscent of Gamergate controversy, shifting walls of text and all. It's become what I call a nexus magnet; everyone wants to control the narrative, and to be present at the creation, which is precisely why this encounter battle is taking place. kencf0618 ( talk) 15:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I think calling it ephemeral or a 24 hour news cycle is missing the point (if anything the proposed addition on the "2016 mobbing from bernie bros" is much, much more ephemeral and received a minuscule amount of attention compared to this). While a 10 year test obviously has a large degree of subjectivity, to me this has all the signs of the kind of firestorm that strikes about once a year and is not merely something which will be forgotten in a week. I am thinking of examples like Rachel Dolezal, Walter Palmer, and James Damore. About her notability before this, it's true she was known enough for the NY Times to hire her, but her article was a tiny stub which hadn't received a single edit between January 9 and August 2. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 ( talk) 19:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
"No one will care about or remember the content of her tweets in 6 months...
" - And yet, look what to happened to
James Gunn as a result of Tweets he made 6-10 years ago. Of course, the content of those actual Tweets haven't been included in his BLP either, but this is the internet age, nothing ever goes completely away or is ever completely forgotten. Just sayin' -
theWOLFchild
22:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's not just critics who label the tweets with the term "racist". Even fellow columnists at the same place of employment did:
Have fun sweeping this under the rug. 86.123.17.225 ( talk) 09:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Jeong was criticized by other New York Times writers." [1] [2]
References
"White men are bull—"; "#CancelWhitePeople"; "oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men" and "f— white women lol." She has also bashed the police, called for censoring a fellow journalist, and believed the 2014 University of Virginia rape hoax, in the course of which she lashed out at "white men" and "white college boys." Read The Times's statement on Sarah Jeong We should call many of these tweets for what they are: racist.
"Here's @BretStephensNYT offering a classy welcome to a colleague who has yet to prove she deserves one," she said.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Changing "Critics characterized her tweets as being racist" to "Critics characterized her tweets as being racist and anti-white". Various reliable sources, including conservative ones, use this label - [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Javiero Fernandez ( talk) 22:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
And this also includes the establishment figures like Ari Fleischer and publications like the National Review, the folks wailing about an Asian woman’s “anti-white racism,” as if there were such a thing.But even that is actually commentary.