Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Sarah Jeong. 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 |
No apologies
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)
- Special pleading will get you nowhere. And as a practical matter, the Wikipedia is the stone, and the Talk page is what's under said stone. Anyone with any savvy (and a strong stomach) would check both. kencf0618 (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Pleading? Not quite. The only reason I am highlighting the issue of my comment being deleted off the talk page is that in normal circumstances, so long as a comment on the TALK page is not spam or vandalism, editors don't have the right to simply delete and censor. It amazes me how there are at least 2 active editors on this page who feel they can just delete a discussion b/c they disagree with it (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). This is not how Wikipedia operates. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- The subject need make no apologies for comments that the NYT printed are "racist[1]" because the subject was simply counter trolling.[2] So you see, if one is merely counter-trolling, one can never be racist, and one need make no apologies. A proposed text for your idea would be as follows, to be appended towards the end of the currently extant text:
No apology was issued.[3]
- I would support this addition, but I think it might be challenged because there is only one source, unless you can document additional ones. XavierItzm (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Stephens, Bret (9 August 2018). "The Outrage Over Sarah Jeong". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 August 2018.
"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.
- ^ "NY Times stands by new hire Sarah Jeong over Twitter furor". Associated Press. 2 August 2018. Retrieved 18 August 2018.
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."
- ^ Jon Levine (16 August 2018). "Twitter Verifies NY Times Writer Sarah Jeong After Outrage Over Old Tweets". The Wrap. Retrieved 18 August 2018.
There was no official condemnation or apology from either the paper or Jeong.
The discussion above 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.
Comparing this article to the article of Roseanne
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:
- On May 29, 2018, Barr posted a tweet about Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to former President Obama. It read "muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj" [sic] which was widely criticized as being racist about Jarrett ("vj").[71][72] Barr was initially defensive, but later posted an apology "for making a bad joke about [Jarrett's] politics and her looks."[54] She disputed allegations of racism, saying she believed Jarrett was Saudi.
While here:
- 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.[20][21] 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 this tactic.
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)
- Here's the difference: in one case a person was fired because of her tweets. In the other case people are campaigning to get a person fired because of her tweets. One is historical and has a (somewhat dubious) place on Wikipedia. The other is activist work and has no place on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Deleting discussions from talkpage
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)
The discussion above 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.
Closing discussions early as possible intimidation tactic
| 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)
|
Anti-police statements
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
|
No direct source for "regret" quote?
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)
- It's a paraphrase of Jeong's remarks. The quote by her is in the Associated Press source used in the article, second to last paragraph. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, got it (i.e., it is indeed a paraphrase--we don't know exactly what she said). From a WP standpoint, that looks good. Thanks for the pointer. Mkcmkc (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Jeong herself is quoted in the AP article, in the second-to-last paragraph. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, got it (i.e., it is indeed a paraphrase--we don't know exactly what she said). From a WP standpoint, that looks good. Thanks for the pointer. Mkcmkc (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Tweets about men and police
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.
- "[Tweets] 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?”" https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/4/nyts-sarah-jeong-slammed-police-officers-men-twitt/
- "“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." https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/08/03/f-the-police-ny-times-newest-hire-also-tweeted-about-fighting-cops-with-guns-and-killing-all-men-660518
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. petrarchan47คุก 20:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- @petrarchan47 The mysandrist tweets are already discussed at lenght in the section "Talk at Harvard" (the full title of the section used to include the anti-men issue but someone objected to it and back-edited it, now resulting in that you are at the very least the second editor to raise the issue separately because the edited title of the section is entirely misleading, so it is easy to miss). The anti-police tweets, on which the New York Times broke its print embargo today, are covered in the section "Anti-police statements". Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think it would be good to have a fresh discussion on the addition, as that talk page section resulted in nothing but gross amounts of text with no resolution, as far as I can tell. Am I wrong? petrarchan47คุก 21:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- So far, for example in the anti-men thread, the situation seems to be: Nodekeeper brought material that should be included. Sangdebeouf argued the material is inadmissible b/c of copyright, but Nodekeeper beat that with WP:FU. I agree with Nodekeeper that the material should be included and that is is admissible. A text was proposed. Sangdebeouf argued that attribution is needed, an interesting objection insofar as the text had already been attributed to a wikipedia bluelinked personality; Sangdeboeuf further argued that some of the cited commentary was cherry-picking. But this was an entirely irrelevant objection, for the proposed text never argued for or against the mysandrist statements; it merely said people had commented on them. Sangdeboeuf then said that we can't say what the comments are on (i.e., "anti-white-men"). So this got taken out, per his request. Then Sangdeboeuf argued six sources is not sufficient; more are needed. So 12 sources were presented; at this point, Sangdeboeuf clarified he was applying WP:SARC and has presented no additional objections. Having addressed all objections, it seems to me we might be approaching final resolution and inclusion on the subject's bio. In particular, the New York Times printed today the following: «“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”»[1]; since the preference so far has been to include NYT-sourced material, including press releases from its owner,[2] surely there will be no further objections. I am not sure starting from scratch will be easy, but if you do propose an alternate text here or on the other section, I'll be happy to contribute to this new initiative. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think it would be good to have a fresh discussion on the addition, as that talk page section resulted in nothing but gross amounts of text with no resolution, as far as I can tell. Am I wrong? petrarchan47คุก 21:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- @petrarchan47 The mysandrist tweets are already discussed at lenght in the section "Talk at Harvard" (the full title of the section used to include the anti-men issue but someone objected to it and back-edited it, now resulting in that you are at the very least the second editor to raise the issue separately because the edited title of the section is entirely misleading, so it is easy to miss). The anti-police tweets, on which the New York Times broke its print embargo today, are covered in the section "Anti-police statements". Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Stephens, Bret (9 August 2018). "The Outrage Over Sarah Jeong". New York Times. Retrieved 9 August 2018.
"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"
- ^ "Sarah Jeong Joins The Times's Editorial Board". New York Times. 1 August 2018. Retrieved 2 August 2018.
- Thank you so much for that summary. My suggestion is to begin an RFC right away with a survey, just as FigureOfNine has done above, simply asking whether mention of these (type of) tweets merits inclusion. Would you happen to have time to do that? IF editors think it deserves mention, we can then worry about drafting text. (Edit: I wouldn't label the tweets in any way that can be considered inflammatory or even judgemental; you can get banned pretty easily for what you say here given the BLP concerns. Be careful.)(Second edit: In fact, just copy what Jytdog has done with the section heading above, "Tweets about men and police".) petrarchan47คุก 23:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, not enough time. However, if you start it, I'll be happy to participate. XavierItzm (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for that summary. My suggestion is to begin an RFC right away with a survey, just as FigureOfNine has done above, simply asking whether mention of these (type of) tweets merits inclusion. Would you happen to have time to do that? IF editors think it deserves mention, we can then worry about drafting text. (Edit: I wouldn't label the tweets in any way that can be considered inflammatory or even judgemental; you can get banned pretty easily for what you say here given the BLP concerns. Be careful.)(Second edit: In fact, just copy what Jytdog has done with the section heading above, "Tweets about men and police".) petrarchan47คุก 23:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment the most interesting thing about this is, as you mentioned, her entire defense about "counter-trolling" doesn't touch upon her comments about police as reported by some RS. Does anyone here really think cops were trolling her or harassing her online? Has there been any evidence of that at all? If not, and if this additional aspect of the controversy is eventually included, it would have to be somehow differentiated from her explanation about countering about trolls online. 2600:1700:B951:3F40:9E40:FEE3:9AD8:9C28 (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- That is the problem with dealing with decontextualized tweets; no we cannot "differentiate" without sources with which to do so. This is not the place for anyone to "speculate"; please refrain from speculating.
- The decontextualization is one (just one) of the reasons that no consensus has developed to quote the the tweets. Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: what kind of context exists for tweets attacking the police? wumbolo ^^^ 16:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- This question highlights (maybe unintentionally) one of the many very good reasons that quoting tweets in encyclopedia articles is an incredibly bad idea. "What is the context?" is a really important question! --JBL (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- That is exactly the question right? Find a reliable source reporting on the police tweets and their context (not an opinion piece giving commentary), and we can possibly generate encyclopedic content about them. The burden is on the people who want to include content about these, to provide RS about them. All these efforts to "quote the tweets" are failing, and will continue to fail, because experienced editors understand well that any quotation without context is simply unencyclopedic. WP is not social media; its an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: what kind of context exists for tweets attacking the police? wumbolo ^^^ 16:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose: Mainstream publications I've seen do not focus on this. If the only independent sources available are The Washington Times and BizPac Review, you've got a big red flag that it's a trivial issue and disproportionate to the mainstream RS coverage. Ditto for any "screenshots" per WP:BLPPRIMARY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC) (edited 02:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC))
- Oppose per Sangdeboeuf. XOR'easter (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Sangdeboeuf unless there are some better sources out there. Is the BizPac Review a reliable source? There's no discussion of it on RSN, and if they're endorsing the view that her all-caps tweet was "calling for dead cops" I think they may need a little more editorial review... GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Sangdeboeuf. Two shitty sources and an opinion column. Gamaliel (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the Bret Stephens op-ed; I missed that one earlier. Still no change to my !vote. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ditto. --JBL (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)