![]() | 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 6 | → | Archive 9 |
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.
Note: User:Jytdog deleted this discussion from the talk page so I am re-adding it with additional explanations.
Point #1: I think it would be dishonest to avoid explicitly stating that there were no apologies from the Times or Jeong. (As per this source: "There was no official condemnation or apology from either the paper or Jeong." https://www.thewrap.com/twitter-verifies-sarah-jeong-after-outrage-over-old-tweets/amp/). Paraphrase as you will.
Explanation: The ending of the article is extremely terse which is understandable given the fuss over this page (the edit wars, the complete lock down for editing, the absolute abhorrent gatekeeping), but at the very least we ought to include a short line indicating the firm resolve by the Times and Jeong to basically admit to doing no wrong (ie claim of countertrolling).
If this were any other page there would a complete paragraph outlining the objections of the critics and another paragraph outlining the position of Jeong and her defenders.
As per User:Jytdog, reverting a legit discussion on a talkpage by claiming Wp:notforum does not apply here. The conclusion on the Jeong page is with the Times standing by their hiring decision. It would be reasonable to note (from a valid source) that neither the Times nor Jeong apologised for the controversial tweets as per above. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 03:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
No apology was issued. [3]
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." We should call many of these tweets for what they are: racist.
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."
There was no official condemnation or apology from either the paper or Jeong.
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.
There the present text is:
While here:
Only people with agendas don't see the double standard applied to these two articles. 86.125.95.166 ( talk) 10:52, 19 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.
Having raised a discussion on this topic only to have it deleted twice, by two different editors, and subsequently "closed" I am now very curious if other editors on this page have had their comments deleted, an action I think we can all agree is out of line with WP policies. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 00:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Non-admin closures of discussions on this topic (within days or hours of a discussion posted on the talkpage) comes pretty close to intimidation and censorship of editors from expressing their views on how this article should be edited. Closing a topic on a talkpage is rarely done on the millions of WP articles where current activity is taking place, and it seems inappropriate to shut down a discussion 24 hours after it begins. In the spirit of WP:TIND there is no immediate and pressing deadline to shut down discussion on a talkpage. In relation to this article, I propose allowing discussions to stay open for a minimum of 7 days from the first post. Any action taking place sooner than 7 days can be viewed as a possible intimidation tactic. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 00:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
|
I'm closing this. Given that this appears to be a contentious topic, it is best approached through consensus seeking discussions on specific pieces of text for inclusion/exclusion. --
regentspark (
comment)
00:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
|
---|
Evidently over a long period there are also numerous anti-police statements as well;
[1]
[2]
I would not be opposed to deleting the article and merging with the NYT article a single sentence that states that they hired Sarah Jeong, an anti-white and anti-police racist for their editorial board. Anybody want to help me defend the edits? Nodekeeper ( talk) 20:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Police? “Cops f—king suck” and “they’re f—king horrible,” according to this Harvard Law alumna, who hates the men and women whose job it is to enforce the law. She responded to the 2014 race riot in Ferguson, Missouri, by aiming obscenities at the police and declaring “America is f—king racist.” [1]
Where do any of these sources (
The Washington Times is borderline at best, and
New York Post is a non-RS tabloid) mention "anti-police" tweets? —21:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
“f– the police,” and not for the first time, according to a compilation by the Daily Caller. Others included “cops are a—holes” in November 2015. Eight months later, she asked, “If we’re talking big sweeping bans on sh— that kills people, why don’t we ever ever ever ever talk about banning the police?” [2]
References
“Cops are a**holes,” she tweeted in 2015. “Let me know when a cop gets killed by a rock or molotov cocktail or a stray shard of glass from a precious precious window,” a tweet from 2014 read. [1]
References
-- Cheerio, XavierItzm ( talk) 15:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
“f– the police,” and not for the first time, according to a compilation by the Daily Caller. Others included “cops are a—holes” in November 2015. Eight months later, she asked, “If we’re talking big sweeping bans on sh— that kills people, why don’t we ever ever ever ever talk about banning the police?” [1]
“Cops are a**holes,” she tweeted in 2015. “Let me know when a cop gets killed by a rock or molotov cocktail or a stray shard of glass from a precious precious window,” a tweet from 2014 read. [2]
References
Additional sources.
[5]
[6] Cheerio!
XavierItzm (
talk)
18:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
References
She has also bashed the police [1]
References
|
Is there an actual source for this quote? "Jeong said [...] that she regretted adopting this tactic." The source that's there is a statement by NYT, but it's not a quote of what she said. (And frankly, it sounds a bit like a parent apologizing on behalf of a surly child.) This sentence should be backed by a direct source, even if it's only her Twitter post. Mkcmkc ( talk) 00:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the addition of this material to the discussion of Jeong's tweet controversy. So far the only tweets mentioned are those regarded as racist.
Would there be any opposition to mentioning these as well? I see that we are adding material about a "Bernie bro" mob coming after her, and argue that expansion of this article is a good idea, but obviously it must be done with NPOV.
There are many more, as shown by screenshots of the tweets above. This coverage in media as well as the number of tweets justify their addition. It is interesting to note that these tweets/attitudes/jokes(?) have not been explained away by Jeong or the NYT as yet. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
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"
![]() | 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 6 | → | Archive 9 |
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.
Note: User:Jytdog deleted this discussion from the talk page so I am re-adding it with additional explanations.
Point #1: I think it would be dishonest to avoid explicitly stating that there were no apologies from the Times or Jeong. (As per this source: "There was no official condemnation or apology from either the paper or Jeong." https://www.thewrap.com/twitter-verifies-sarah-jeong-after-outrage-over-old-tweets/amp/). Paraphrase as you will.
Explanation: The ending of the article is extremely terse which is understandable given the fuss over this page (the edit wars, the complete lock down for editing, the absolute abhorrent gatekeeping), but at the very least we ought to include a short line indicating the firm resolve by the Times and Jeong to basically admit to doing no wrong (ie claim of countertrolling).
If this were any other page there would a complete paragraph outlining the objections of the critics and another paragraph outlining the position of Jeong and her defenders.
As per User:Jytdog, reverting a legit discussion on a talkpage by claiming Wp:notforum does not apply here. The conclusion on the Jeong page is with the Times standing by their hiring decision. It would be reasonable to note (from a valid source) that neither the Times nor Jeong apologised for the controversial tweets as per above. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 03:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
No apology was issued. [3]
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." We should call many of these tweets for what they are: racist.
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."
There was no official condemnation or apology from either the paper or Jeong.
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.
There the present text is:
While here:
Only people with agendas don't see the double standard applied to these two articles. 86.125.95.166 ( talk) 10:52, 19 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.
Having raised a discussion on this topic only to have it deleted twice, by two different editors, and subsequently "closed" I am now very curious if other editors on this page have had their comments deleted, an action I think we can all agree is out of line with WP policies. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 00:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Non-admin closures of discussions on this topic (within days or hours of a discussion posted on the talkpage) comes pretty close to intimidation and censorship of editors from expressing their views on how this article should be edited. Closing a topic on a talkpage is rarely done on the millions of WP articles where current activity is taking place, and it seems inappropriate to shut down a discussion 24 hours after it begins. In the spirit of WP:TIND there is no immediate and pressing deadline to shut down discussion on a talkpage. In relation to this article, I propose allowing discussions to stay open for a minimum of 7 days from the first post. Any action taking place sooner than 7 days can be viewed as a possible intimidation tactic. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 00:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
|
I'm closing this. Given that this appears to be a contentious topic, it is best approached through consensus seeking discussions on specific pieces of text for inclusion/exclusion. --
regentspark (
comment)
00:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
|
---|
Evidently over a long period there are also numerous anti-police statements as well;
[1]
[2]
I would not be opposed to deleting the article and merging with the NYT article a single sentence that states that they hired Sarah Jeong, an anti-white and anti-police racist for their editorial board. Anybody want to help me defend the edits? Nodekeeper ( talk) 20:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Police? “Cops f—king suck” and “they’re f—king horrible,” according to this Harvard Law alumna, who hates the men and women whose job it is to enforce the law. She responded to the 2014 race riot in Ferguson, Missouri, by aiming obscenities at the police and declaring “America is f—king racist.” [1]
Where do any of these sources (
The Washington Times is borderline at best, and
New York Post is a non-RS tabloid) mention "anti-police" tweets? —21:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
“f– the police,” and not for the first time, according to a compilation by the Daily Caller. Others included “cops are a—holes” in November 2015. Eight months later, she asked, “If we’re talking big sweeping bans on sh— that kills people, why don’t we ever ever ever ever talk about banning the police?” [2]
References
“Cops are a**holes,” she tweeted in 2015. “Let me know when a cop gets killed by a rock or molotov cocktail or a stray shard of glass from a precious precious window,” a tweet from 2014 read. [1]
References
-- Cheerio, XavierItzm ( talk) 15:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
“f– the police,” and not for the first time, according to a compilation by the Daily Caller. Others included “cops are a—holes” in November 2015. Eight months later, she asked, “If we’re talking big sweeping bans on sh— that kills people, why don’t we ever ever ever ever talk about banning the police?” [1]
“Cops are a**holes,” she tweeted in 2015. “Let me know when a cop gets killed by a rock or molotov cocktail or a stray shard of glass from a precious precious window,” a tweet from 2014 read. [2]
References
Additional sources.
[5]
[6] Cheerio!
XavierItzm (
talk)
18:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
References
She has also bashed the police [1]
References
|
Is there an actual source for this quote? "Jeong said [...] that she regretted adopting this tactic." The source that's there is a statement by NYT, but it's not a quote of what she said. (And frankly, it sounds a bit like a parent apologizing on behalf of a surly child.) This sentence should be backed by a direct source, even if it's only her Twitter post. Mkcmkc ( talk) 00:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the addition of this material to the discussion of Jeong's tweet controversy. So far the only tweets mentioned are those regarded as racist.
Would there be any opposition to mentioning these as well? I see that we are adding material about a "Bernie bro" mob coming after her, and argue that expansion of this article is a good idea, but obviously it must be done with NPOV.
There are many more, as shown by screenshots of the tweets above. This coverage in media as well as the number of tweets justify their addition. It is interesting to note that these tweets/attitudes/jokes(?) have not been explained away by Jeong or the NYT as yet. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
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"