This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sarah Jeong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WP:NOTAFORUM. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
One of the things that really jumped out at me about this page is this sentence: "Editors at The Verge defended Jeong, saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context." This is, strictly speaking, true! But then, look at The Verge's actual statement. They make the claim... but never provide the slightest justification or example. How? How were they taken out of context? Similarly -- satire? I've been a writer and editor all my life. Where is the /satire/ in Jeong's tweets? Try this experiment: Suppose a white person wrote: "Dumbass f****** [insert ethnic group] marking up the internet like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" -- and then later claimed it was "satire." Would that be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.107.58 ( talk) 23:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
I actually am new to this discussion and corrected (or have submitted it for correction” a sentence used that left out of context that her tweet to who she perceived to be Bernie Sanders supporters was in her own words meant as a “hyperbolic joke”. The only reason I can see for someone to utilize that source for her statement and then leaving out that context is to give a very jaundiced perception about both her intention with the tweet and it’s connection to unverified and unreasonable (and now wholly unsupportable as independent studies have shown) determination that “Bernie Bros” were a real thing (they weren’t according to several independent study’s of the data) and thus gave the impression she was simply someone innocently commenting who received this Toxic attack by Sanders supporters.
1. Her tweet was meant to elicit a strong reaction (how hyperbolic jokes work)
2. The statement allowed that the people she tweeted her hyperbolic joke at were “Bernie Bros” (aka Bernie Sanders supporters) w/o any “alleged” or “presumed” to signify not only that she could have no idea if these trolls were even Americans let alone Bernie supporters makes the statement on Wikipedia intentionally inflammatory.
Anyways, while looking beyond I noticed that for some reason the description of her incident with her racially insensitive/racist/problematic tweets was allowed to imply that ONLY right wing outlets took issue.
Fact is EVEN NYTimes colleague stated the objective fact that yes the statements are racist (and they are, this isn’t debatable). But beyond that we had sources like BBC, Politico, Washington Post not too mention many pundits no one would call left stating in one way or another of course the tweets are racist but the point is, and I agree, it doesn’t mean either she is racist (context helps with that) or that she or anyone should be canceled for old tweets like that.
They should really remove that statement that implies it’s only a right wing fake outrage thing. Bc as is the article is hardly neutral and objectively it’s 100% counterfactual even to the source provided. JustTheT ( talk) 03:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Sarah was invoiced in a huge controversy by Doxxing a Chinese women on Vice, and according to the victim breaching their written agreement etc
I hope there are reliable sources beyond the victim's own blog Jazi Zilber ( talk) 10:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: In January 2016, Jeong posted a tweet caricaturing Bernie Sanders's supporters as Bernie Bros in response to online attacks against women and Black Lives Matter advocates
To: In January 2016, Jeong posted a hyperbolic joke tweet caricaturing Bernie Sanders's supporters as Bernie Bros in response to what she believed were online attacks against women and Black Lives Matter advocates
(The context is vitally important in understanding both the issue and how Jeong herself described her tweet in the citation used for the provided line. Obviously the implication is dramatically changed when read without crucial context about Jeongs intent and also as important the characterization/blame imparted to Bernie Sanders supporters who were maligned by the event, even more so since we now know that data shows the “Bernie Bro” pejorative was a false claim not backed by the actual facts/data and in many cases directly contradicted by them. We also found out that Russian operations were acting as “Bernie supporters” in attempt to undermine our elections. With these facts and context in mind, along with the full context of Jeongs own quote which was not included, readers are left with several false impressions both about her intention and action and her claims something. It also is important to note that it was her belief that the attacks were being made by Bernie Sanders supporters, something many people along with independent study say were intentional troll networks run by opposition campaigns as well as Russian Troll farms, according to US Intel Agencies who warned about Russia also seeking to undermine election acting as supporters of Sanders candidacy. That the acts ascribed as being from “Sanders Supporters” directly contradict the entire platform of Sanders campaign as well as being incongruent with the tone/tenure/makeup of his movement lead to rational logical valid questions about the possible dirty tricks campaign meant to create the appearance of Bernie Supporter's creating a toxic environment which could then be used to force Bernie Sanders campaign to accept responsibility for the acts of these troll farms. Along with Salon, NYTimes and many others reporting which discusses the independent analysis showing that “Bernie Bro” smears were created as a “myth” and showing his campaign supporters were not creating the toxic environment blamed on them as well as the Russian Operation posing as Bernie Supporters.
Many other sources available but I thought these gave the best overview of the issues. I don’t think it is correct to definitively ascribe the actions/attacks as coming from Bernie Sanders supporters as the evidence not only doesn’t justify that belief, Sanders movement/platform actually discredits the notion that supporters of Bernie Sanders would be likely to have taken the stances the troll accounts in question took. Likewise, Although I believe the discussion deserves critical consideration of the facts especially now that we have a clearer view post election, I am not suggesting we take the opposing viewpoint and categorically dismiss the notion that someone might hold belief that these were in fact Bernie Sanders supporters. Seems the reasonable, correct, accurate description would be; “Alleged Bernie Bros”. But as for Jeongs tweet being meant as a “hyperbolic joke”, this should not be debatable either as it’s importance in giving context or necessary for proper understanding of the event in question.
For her description of her tweet being meant as a “hyperbolic joke”; https://www.wired.com/2016/09/inside-googles-internet-justice-league-ai-powered-war-trolls/
Various sources describing belief and data discounting the narrative that the toxic views and attacks were supporters of Bernie Sanders (or even people at all):
https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/bernie-sanders/selective-feminism-and-the-myth/
https://www.salon.com/2020/03/09/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-bernie-bros-are-a-myth/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-russia.html
https://newmatilda.com/2016/05/09/the-evidence-that-makes-the-bernie-bro-smear-look-all-the-worse/
https://newmatilda.com/2016/05/03/the-bernie-bro-line-cant-make-clinton-a-progressive/ ) JustTheT ( talk) 01:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I just read the “sign your changes” but assume as you can see who wrote these that wasn’t necessary, please tell me if I am mistaken. JustTheT ( talk) 01:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
In January 2016, Jeong posted a tweet caricaturing Bernie Sanders's supporters as Bernie Bros [...] She claimed the tweet was meant to be a hyperbolic joke.? While I do agree with the concerns you brought up about avoiding stating it in wikivoice, JustTheT's concerns about the tweet being taken out of context seem to also be valid. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014.[23][24][25] Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong released an apology,[26][27] saying that the tweets were meant to satirize online harassment toward her as a woman of color.
To; The hiring sparked a strong reaction across social media and news outlets with some journalists and commentators highlighting her previous tweets, which the NYTimes editorial board described her racially insensitive as “unacceptable”, while others including NYTimes journalists as well as BBC and TheHill labeled them as derogatory, and racist toward white people. The Washington Post, and NYTimes wrote a piece stating the tweets in question were “certainly racist” but questioning if racist or bigoted tweets making fun of white people, like Sara’s which included;
“Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”
“Dumbass f—ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”
"white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants"
“White men are bull—”; “#CancelWhitePeople”; and “f— white women lol.”
Should be a firing offense especially as Jeong posted many of her tweets under the hashtag “#CancelWhitePeople” and were mostly made in 2013 and 2014 in response to her perception that minorities were treated differently with respect to the issues being discussed.[23][24][25]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534.amp
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/463503-sarah-jeong-out-at-new-york-times-editorial-board/amp/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/new-work-times-thinks-anti-white-racism-doesnt-count/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/2/ny-times-newest-editorial-board-member-doesnt-seem/ JustTheT ( talk) 02:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
negative reaction in conservative mediais based on several published, reliable sources and none of the many proposals to delete it have found consensus either. Explicit consensus is required for any changes to the hiring-controversy paragraph, which means a proper discussion, not just an edit request. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 04:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@
JayBeeEll reverted my edit which included a quotation from the Guardian. The text I added material to was: "The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong released an apology, saying that the tweets were meant to satirize online harassment toward her as a woman of color. Editors at The Verge defended Jeong, saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context and comparing the episode to the harassment of women during the Gamergate harassment campaign."
; I added simply
"oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy i get out of being cruel to old white men"
which is outright sourced in the Guardian source. How on Earth does it make sense to have a 3-line long description of accusations of racism against her based on her statements, without any inclusion whatsoever of said statements? The source mentioned is here [1], and my quotation is verbatim. Why then is no quotation included, when many of them are sourced? Specifically the above quotation was one that the Guardian specifically pointed out. Zilch-nada ( talk) 00:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
References
long-term significance, and can affect sources of any age. If anything, the absence of later interpretation and analysis from secondary and tertiary sources would suggest reducing the material even further. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
A slight majority of respondents are in opposition to this proposal, without assigning weight to arguments.Zilch-nada ( talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
However there is substantial policy-based opposition to including the content, with little in the way of policy-based refutation that would warrant assigning the supporters greater weight.— Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
You can't just write "Her tweets were taken out of context by bad-faith actors. Anyway, here's one of them: [quote]"; except I am evidently arguing for either a) the inclusion of the tweets upon the current wording, or b) the shortening of the current wording to appear less awkward.
came the week after 12-year-old Tamir Rice was killed by police, and countless numbers of said white people came out of the woodwork to justify the killing by pointing out that the child was holding a toy gun. It's debatable whether a journalist is a public figure (Jeong was yet to publish her book, become a Poynter Fellow, or join the New York Times), but a similar remark about Black people would not be comparable IMO. Straying into WP:FORUM territory here, but Black people are a historically oppressed minority in the US and white people are not. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
the notion that the content of the tweets themselves are relevant context that are important to the reader, and that the Wikipedia article should reflect the fact that the Tweets have been widely quoted by the mediafailed to gain consensus. Continuing to argue the same point here is a waste of time. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
preponderance of sources that quote the original textwas discussed at length six years ago, so there's little point rehashing the same arguments. What do you think of summarizing the academic source I linked above? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 11:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
long-term significanceand is unaffected by the age of the sources themselves; see WP:AGEMATTERS. Consensus can change, but that doesn't mean it has changed here. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 16:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Sources of any age may be prone to recentism. It's not as if WP:UNDUE or WP:NOTNEWS have an expiration date. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.As I already said, the 2024 source
devotes far more space to analyzing others' reaction to the tweetsthen to the tweets themselves. Cherry-picking only the quoted tweets and leaving out the analysis by others would be UNDUE. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 13:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, remember? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 14:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
only one of those paragraphs directly quotes Jeong
Here is all the material relevant to Jeong in Bradley Campbell's book How to Think Better About Social Justice. [1] I've bolded the parts that are direct quotations of Jeong's tweets:
[T]he New York Times [...] hired journalist Sarah Jeong as part of its editorial board in 2018 despite her prior statements denigrating whites and men. These included tweets such as "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," "#CancelWhitePeople," "white men are bullshit," and "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants."
The New York Times expressed regret over the tweets but support for Jeong herself. Jeong likewise expressed some regret, but others defended her and her tweets more forthrightly. According to two writers at Vox, Ezra Klein and Zack Beauchamp, Jeong's tweets weren't racist, sexist, or even uncivil. According to them, the tweets didn't mean what they appeared to mean, but instead were innocuous criticisms of injustice—if only you know how to read them. Klein talked about how it had become popular in some of his circles to tweet the hashtag #KillAllMen. But of course, he said those people didn't really want to kill all men. "Kill all men" was their way of saying "it would be nice if the world sucked less for women." He argued the same was true of Jeong. When she talked about white people, he said, it was a shorthand for talking about the power structure. So, to say "cancel white people" was just a way of "challenging the dominant power structure."
Similarly, Zack Beauchamp argued that Jeong's tweet that "White men are bullshit" satirically "emphasize[s] how white people continue to benefit (even unknowingly) from their skin color" and points to "the ways in which a power structure that favors white people continues to exist." And he said that the tweet "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" was Jeong's way of "commenting on the ubiquity of (often uninformed) white opinion on ssocial media—a way of pointing out how nonwhite voices often don't appear or get drowned out in social media discourse."
The Vox defense of Sarah Jeong was rooted in ideas of critical social justice, but the right has its own equivalent. [...] If you see the world the way some social justice activists see it, people like Nicholas and Erika Christakis and Samuel Abrams aren't just people with different ideas; they're people who are harming the oppressed by refusing to join in their struggle. They're worthy of contempt. On the other hand, the racial invective coming from someone like Sarah Jeong isn't the same thing at all. It's a way of fighting oppression, or at least an understandable response to oppression.
The author directly quotes Jeong only in the first paragraph. The later quotations are of other writers quoting Jeong and interpreting her words for themselves (and repeating tweets that were already quoted in the first paragraph). In any case, the quotes themselves make up only a small part of the text, with the majority made up of Klein's and Beauchamp's explanation of the context behind the tweets. Klein isn't even quoting Jeong herself, but some of his circles
(and no, "cancel white people" isn't the same as "#CancelWhitePeople"). In any case, quoting the tweets and leaving out the analysis by others would be UNDUE. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 01:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
[T]he New York Times [...] hired journalist Sarah Jeong as part of its editorial board in 2018 despite her prior statements denigrating whites and men. These included tweets such as "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," "#CancelWhitePeople," "white men are bullshit," and "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants."
The New York Times expressed regret over the tweets but support for Jeong herself. Jeong likewise expressed some regret, but others defended her and her tweets more forthrightly. According to two writers at Vox, Ezra Klein and Zack Beauchamp, Jeong's tweets weren't racist, sexist, or even uncivil...similarly, [] Beauchamp argued that Jeong's tweet that "White men are bullshit" satirically "emphasize[s] how white people continue to benefit (even unknowingly) from their skin color" and points to "the ways in which a power structure that favors white people continues to exist." And he said that the tweet "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" was Jeong's way of "commenting on the ubiquity of (often uninformed) white opinion on ssocial media—a way of pointing out how nonwhite voices often don't appear or get drowned out in social media discourse."
The Vox defense of Sarah Jeong was rooted in ideas of critical social justice, but the right has its own equivalent
References
He said Jeong's commentary was way of "commenting on the ubiquity of (often uninformed) white opinion on social media."The last sentence can be taken out entirely. It's reaching too much "up and out" from the subject of the article to 1) philosophical underpinnings of a source (the source itself is not the subject here) and 2) broader social commentary not necessarily directly related to the subject or the incident. WP can only reach "up and out" to a very limited extent. GMG talk 11:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
A quick search of Google Scholar reveals a couple of peer-reviewed, open-access papers analyzing the reaction to Jeong's tweets:
Another recent academic work mentions the controversy without directly quoting the tweets:
When a number of old tweets by New York Times writer Sarah Jeong criticizing and mocking white people resurfaced, it ignited a firestorm amongst conservative pundits who called for Jeong's termination from the Times.Goes on to analyze opposing reactions from Symone Sanders and The Daily Wire editor Frank Camp as an example of debates over the definition of racism itself.
Once again, if we want to quote Jeong's tweets it seems like we should also summarize these additional responses. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 06:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Once again, if we want to quote Jeong's tweets it seems like we should also summarize these additional responses.I agree with that. Zilch-nada ( talk) 06:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
certainly is a controversial claim. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)"At the same time, and in stark contrast, Americans have become more ideologically polarized and intolerant, with some studies indicating that partisan discrimination exceeds racial discrimination,"
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sarah Jeong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WP:NOTAFORUM. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
One of the things that really jumped out at me about this page is this sentence: "Editors at The Verge defended Jeong, saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context." This is, strictly speaking, true! But then, look at The Verge's actual statement. They make the claim... but never provide the slightest justification or example. How? How were they taken out of context? Similarly -- satire? I've been a writer and editor all my life. Where is the /satire/ in Jeong's tweets? Try this experiment: Suppose a white person wrote: "Dumbass f****** [insert ethnic group] marking up the internet like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" -- and then later claimed it was "satire." Would that be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.107.58 ( talk) 23:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
I actually am new to this discussion and corrected (or have submitted it for correction” a sentence used that left out of context that her tweet to who she perceived to be Bernie Sanders supporters was in her own words meant as a “hyperbolic joke”. The only reason I can see for someone to utilize that source for her statement and then leaving out that context is to give a very jaundiced perception about both her intention with the tweet and it’s connection to unverified and unreasonable (and now wholly unsupportable as independent studies have shown) determination that “Bernie Bros” were a real thing (they weren’t according to several independent study’s of the data) and thus gave the impression she was simply someone innocently commenting who received this Toxic attack by Sanders supporters.
1. Her tweet was meant to elicit a strong reaction (how hyperbolic jokes work)
2. The statement allowed that the people she tweeted her hyperbolic joke at were “Bernie Bros” (aka Bernie Sanders supporters) w/o any “alleged” or “presumed” to signify not only that she could have no idea if these trolls were even Americans let alone Bernie supporters makes the statement on Wikipedia intentionally inflammatory.
Anyways, while looking beyond I noticed that for some reason the description of her incident with her racially insensitive/racist/problematic tweets was allowed to imply that ONLY right wing outlets took issue.
Fact is EVEN NYTimes colleague stated the objective fact that yes the statements are racist (and they are, this isn’t debatable). But beyond that we had sources like BBC, Politico, Washington Post not too mention many pundits no one would call left stating in one way or another of course the tweets are racist but the point is, and I agree, it doesn’t mean either she is racist (context helps with that) or that she or anyone should be canceled for old tweets like that.
They should really remove that statement that implies it’s only a right wing fake outrage thing. Bc as is the article is hardly neutral and objectively it’s 100% counterfactual even to the source provided. JustTheT ( talk) 03:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Sarah was invoiced in a huge controversy by Doxxing a Chinese women on Vice, and according to the victim breaching their written agreement etc
I hope there are reliable sources beyond the victim's own blog Jazi Zilber ( talk) 10:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: In January 2016, Jeong posted a tweet caricaturing Bernie Sanders's supporters as Bernie Bros in response to online attacks against women and Black Lives Matter advocates
To: In January 2016, Jeong posted a hyperbolic joke tweet caricaturing Bernie Sanders's supporters as Bernie Bros in response to what she believed were online attacks against women and Black Lives Matter advocates
(The context is vitally important in understanding both the issue and how Jeong herself described her tweet in the citation used for the provided line. Obviously the implication is dramatically changed when read without crucial context about Jeongs intent and also as important the characterization/blame imparted to Bernie Sanders supporters who were maligned by the event, even more so since we now know that data shows the “Bernie Bro” pejorative was a false claim not backed by the actual facts/data and in many cases directly contradicted by them. We also found out that Russian operations were acting as “Bernie supporters” in attempt to undermine our elections. With these facts and context in mind, along with the full context of Jeongs own quote which was not included, readers are left with several false impressions both about her intention and action and her claims something. It also is important to note that it was her belief that the attacks were being made by Bernie Sanders supporters, something many people along with independent study say were intentional troll networks run by opposition campaigns as well as Russian Troll farms, according to US Intel Agencies who warned about Russia also seeking to undermine election acting as supporters of Sanders candidacy. That the acts ascribed as being from “Sanders Supporters” directly contradict the entire platform of Sanders campaign as well as being incongruent with the tone/tenure/makeup of his movement lead to rational logical valid questions about the possible dirty tricks campaign meant to create the appearance of Bernie Supporter's creating a toxic environment which could then be used to force Bernie Sanders campaign to accept responsibility for the acts of these troll farms. Along with Salon, NYTimes and many others reporting which discusses the independent analysis showing that “Bernie Bro” smears were created as a “myth” and showing his campaign supporters were not creating the toxic environment blamed on them as well as the Russian Operation posing as Bernie Supporters.
Many other sources available but I thought these gave the best overview of the issues. I don’t think it is correct to definitively ascribe the actions/attacks as coming from Bernie Sanders supporters as the evidence not only doesn’t justify that belief, Sanders movement/platform actually discredits the notion that supporters of Bernie Sanders would be likely to have taken the stances the troll accounts in question took. Likewise, Although I believe the discussion deserves critical consideration of the facts especially now that we have a clearer view post election, I am not suggesting we take the opposing viewpoint and categorically dismiss the notion that someone might hold belief that these were in fact Bernie Sanders supporters. Seems the reasonable, correct, accurate description would be; “Alleged Bernie Bros”. But as for Jeongs tweet being meant as a “hyperbolic joke”, this should not be debatable either as it’s importance in giving context or necessary for proper understanding of the event in question.
For her description of her tweet being meant as a “hyperbolic joke”; https://www.wired.com/2016/09/inside-googles-internet-justice-league-ai-powered-war-trolls/
Various sources describing belief and data discounting the narrative that the toxic views and attacks were supporters of Bernie Sanders (or even people at all):
https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/bernie-sanders/selective-feminism-and-the-myth/
https://www.salon.com/2020/03/09/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-bernie-bros-are-a-myth/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-russia.html
https://newmatilda.com/2016/05/09/the-evidence-that-makes-the-bernie-bro-smear-look-all-the-worse/
https://newmatilda.com/2016/05/03/the-bernie-bro-line-cant-make-clinton-a-progressive/ ) JustTheT ( talk) 01:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I just read the “sign your changes” but assume as you can see who wrote these that wasn’t necessary, please tell me if I am mistaken. JustTheT ( talk) 01:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
In January 2016, Jeong posted a tweet caricaturing Bernie Sanders's supporters as Bernie Bros [...] She claimed the tweet was meant to be a hyperbolic joke.? While I do agree with the concerns you brought up about avoiding stating it in wikivoice, JustTheT's concerns about the tweet being taken out of context seem to also be valid. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014.[23][24][25] Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong released an apology,[26][27] saying that the tweets were meant to satirize online harassment toward her as a woman of color.
To; The hiring sparked a strong reaction across social media and news outlets with some journalists and commentators highlighting her previous tweets, which the NYTimes editorial board described her racially insensitive as “unacceptable”, while others including NYTimes journalists as well as BBC and TheHill labeled them as derogatory, and racist toward white people. The Washington Post, and NYTimes wrote a piece stating the tweets in question were “certainly racist” but questioning if racist or bigoted tweets making fun of white people, like Sara’s which included;
“Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”
“Dumbass f—ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”
"white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants"
“White men are bull—”; “#CancelWhitePeople”; and “f— white women lol.”
Should be a firing offense especially as Jeong posted many of her tweets under the hashtag “#CancelWhitePeople” and were mostly made in 2013 and 2014 in response to her perception that minorities were treated differently with respect to the issues being discussed.[23][24][25]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534.amp
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/463503-sarah-jeong-out-at-new-york-times-editorial-board/amp/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/new-work-times-thinks-anti-white-racism-doesnt-count/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/2/ny-times-newest-editorial-board-member-doesnt-seem/ JustTheT ( talk) 02:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
negative reaction in conservative mediais based on several published, reliable sources and none of the many proposals to delete it have found consensus either. Explicit consensus is required for any changes to the hiring-controversy paragraph, which means a proper discussion, not just an edit request. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 04:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
@
JayBeeEll reverted my edit which included a quotation from the Guardian. The text I added material to was: "The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014. Critics characterized her tweets as being racist; Jeong released an apology, saying that the tweets were meant to satirize online harassment toward her as a woman of color. Editors at The Verge defended Jeong, saying that the tweets had been disingenuously taken out of context and comparing the episode to the harassment of women during the Gamergate harassment campaign."
; I added simply
"oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy i get out of being cruel to old white men"
which is outright sourced in the Guardian source. How on Earth does it make sense to have a 3-line long description of accusations of racism against her based on her statements, without any inclusion whatsoever of said statements? The source mentioned is here [1], and my quotation is verbatim. Why then is no quotation included, when many of them are sourced? Specifically the above quotation was one that the Guardian specifically pointed out. Zilch-nada ( talk) 00:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
References
long-term significance, and can affect sources of any age. If anything, the absence of later interpretation and analysis from secondary and tertiary sources would suggest reducing the material even further. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
A slight majority of respondents are in opposition to this proposal, without assigning weight to arguments.Zilch-nada ( talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
However there is substantial policy-based opposition to including the content, with little in the way of policy-based refutation that would warrant assigning the supporters greater weight.— Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
You can't just write "Her tweets were taken out of context by bad-faith actors. Anyway, here's one of them: [quote]"; except I am evidently arguing for either a) the inclusion of the tweets upon the current wording, or b) the shortening of the current wording to appear less awkward.
came the week after 12-year-old Tamir Rice was killed by police, and countless numbers of said white people came out of the woodwork to justify the killing by pointing out that the child was holding a toy gun. It's debatable whether a journalist is a public figure (Jeong was yet to publish her book, become a Poynter Fellow, or join the New York Times), but a similar remark about Black people would not be comparable IMO. Straying into WP:FORUM territory here, but Black people are a historically oppressed minority in the US and white people are not. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
the notion that the content of the tweets themselves are relevant context that are important to the reader, and that the Wikipedia article should reflect the fact that the Tweets have been widely quoted by the mediafailed to gain consensus. Continuing to argue the same point here is a waste of time. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
preponderance of sources that quote the original textwas discussed at length six years ago, so there's little point rehashing the same arguments. What do you think of summarizing the academic source I linked above? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 11:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
long-term significanceand is unaffected by the age of the sources themselves; see WP:AGEMATTERS. Consensus can change, but that doesn't mean it has changed here. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 16:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Sources of any age may be prone to recentism. It's not as if WP:UNDUE or WP:NOTNEWS have an expiration date. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.As I already said, the 2024 source
devotes far more space to analyzing others' reaction to the tweetsthen to the tweets themselves. Cherry-picking only the quoted tweets and leaving out the analysis by others would be UNDUE. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 13:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, remember? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 14:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
only one of those paragraphs directly quotes Jeong
Here is all the material relevant to Jeong in Bradley Campbell's book How to Think Better About Social Justice. [1] I've bolded the parts that are direct quotations of Jeong's tweets:
[T]he New York Times [...] hired journalist Sarah Jeong as part of its editorial board in 2018 despite her prior statements denigrating whites and men. These included tweets such as "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," "#CancelWhitePeople," "white men are bullshit," and "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants."
The New York Times expressed regret over the tweets but support for Jeong herself. Jeong likewise expressed some regret, but others defended her and her tweets more forthrightly. According to two writers at Vox, Ezra Klein and Zack Beauchamp, Jeong's tweets weren't racist, sexist, or even uncivil. According to them, the tweets didn't mean what they appeared to mean, but instead were innocuous criticisms of injustice—if only you know how to read them. Klein talked about how it had become popular in some of his circles to tweet the hashtag #KillAllMen. But of course, he said those people didn't really want to kill all men. "Kill all men" was their way of saying "it would be nice if the world sucked less for women." He argued the same was true of Jeong. When she talked about white people, he said, it was a shorthand for talking about the power structure. So, to say "cancel white people" was just a way of "challenging the dominant power structure."
Similarly, Zack Beauchamp argued that Jeong's tweet that "White men are bullshit" satirically "emphasize[s] how white people continue to benefit (even unknowingly) from their skin color" and points to "the ways in which a power structure that favors white people continues to exist." And he said that the tweet "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" was Jeong's way of "commenting on the ubiquity of (often uninformed) white opinion on ssocial media—a way of pointing out how nonwhite voices often don't appear or get drowned out in social media discourse."
The Vox defense of Sarah Jeong was rooted in ideas of critical social justice, but the right has its own equivalent. [...] If you see the world the way some social justice activists see it, people like Nicholas and Erika Christakis and Samuel Abrams aren't just people with different ideas; they're people who are harming the oppressed by refusing to join in their struggle. They're worthy of contempt. On the other hand, the racial invective coming from someone like Sarah Jeong isn't the same thing at all. It's a way of fighting oppression, or at least an understandable response to oppression.
The author directly quotes Jeong only in the first paragraph. The later quotations are of other writers quoting Jeong and interpreting her words for themselves (and repeating tweets that were already quoted in the first paragraph). In any case, the quotes themselves make up only a small part of the text, with the majority made up of Klein's and Beauchamp's explanation of the context behind the tweets. Klein isn't even quoting Jeong herself, but some of his circles
(and no, "cancel white people" isn't the same as "#CancelWhitePeople"). In any case, quoting the tweets and leaving out the analysis by others would be UNDUE. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 01:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
[T]he New York Times [...] hired journalist Sarah Jeong as part of its editorial board in 2018 despite her prior statements denigrating whites and men. These included tweets such as "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," "#CancelWhitePeople," "white men are bullshit," and "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants."
The New York Times expressed regret over the tweets but support for Jeong herself. Jeong likewise expressed some regret, but others defended her and her tweets more forthrightly. According to two writers at Vox, Ezra Klein and Zack Beauchamp, Jeong's tweets weren't racist, sexist, or even uncivil...similarly, [] Beauchamp argued that Jeong's tweet that "White men are bullshit" satirically "emphasize[s] how white people continue to benefit (even unknowingly) from their skin color" and points to "the ways in which a power structure that favors white people continues to exist." And he said that the tweet "Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" was Jeong's way of "commenting on the ubiquity of (often uninformed) white opinion on ssocial media—a way of pointing out how nonwhite voices often don't appear or get drowned out in social media discourse."
The Vox defense of Sarah Jeong was rooted in ideas of critical social justice, but the right has its own equivalent
References
He said Jeong's commentary was way of "commenting on the ubiquity of (often uninformed) white opinion on social media."The last sentence can be taken out entirely. It's reaching too much "up and out" from the subject of the article to 1) philosophical underpinnings of a source (the source itself is not the subject here) and 2) broader social commentary not necessarily directly related to the subject or the incident. WP can only reach "up and out" to a very limited extent. GMG talk 11:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
A quick search of Google Scholar reveals a couple of peer-reviewed, open-access papers analyzing the reaction to Jeong's tweets:
Another recent academic work mentions the controversy without directly quoting the tweets:
When a number of old tweets by New York Times writer Sarah Jeong criticizing and mocking white people resurfaced, it ignited a firestorm amongst conservative pundits who called for Jeong's termination from the Times.Goes on to analyze opposing reactions from Symone Sanders and The Daily Wire editor Frank Camp as an example of debates over the definition of racism itself.
Once again, if we want to quote Jeong's tweets it seems like we should also summarize these additional responses. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 06:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Once again, if we want to quote Jeong's tweets it seems like we should also summarize these additional responses.I agree with that. Zilch-nada ( talk) 06:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
certainly is a controversial claim. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)"At the same time, and in stark contrast, Americans have become more ideologically polarized and intolerant, with some studies indicating that partisan discrimination exceeds racial discrimination,"