Ahrtoodeetoo (talk | contribs) →Still at The Verge?: new section |
Ahrtoodeetoo (talk | contribs) →Bernie Bros tweet: new section |
||
Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
The article currently says that Jeong ''was'' a senior writer at The Verge, implying that she no longer is. Is this verifiable? It's clear from [https://www.theverge.com/users/Sarah%20Jeong/posts#activity her profile] that she hasn't published anything there since July, but that doesn't mean she's no longer with them, does it? [[User:Ahrtoodeetoo|R2]] <small>([[User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo|bleep]])</small> 23:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC) |
The article currently says that Jeong ''was'' a senior writer at The Verge, implying that she no longer is. Is this verifiable? It's clear from [https://www.theverge.com/users/Sarah%20Jeong/posts#activity her profile] that she hasn't published anything there since July, but that doesn't mean she's no longer with them, does it? [[User:Ahrtoodeetoo|R2]] <small>([[User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo|bleep]])</small> 23:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Bernie Bros tweet == |
|||
{{u|Sangdeboeuf}} I think you're being too kind to Ms. Jeong with your recent reverts and changes describing her tweet about Bernie Bros. I was following the Wired source as closely as possible on this very contentious subject matter; your changes do not. For instance the Wired source doesn't say Jeong criticized Bernie Bros, let alone that she "satirized" them. The tweet was a provocative caricature and was pretty substance free; there was no satire or meaningful criticism. On top of that Jeong stereotyped all Bernie Bros for the actions of a subset of them. I have no dog in this fight and no personal interest in Jeong; I just want to see her page reflect the cited sources. [[User:Ahrtoodeetoo|R2]] <small>([[User talk:Ahrtoodeetoo|bleep]])</small> 05:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:39, 19 December 2018
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jeong's apology
Even though I originally proposed the sentence:
Jeong apologized for the hurtful comments, which she said were meant to satirize online harassment toward her ...
I would suggest rephrasing it as:
Jeong apologized for the comments, which she said were meant to satirize online harassment toward her ...
or even better as:
Jeong released an apology, saying that the tweets were meant to satirize online harassment toward her ...
The word hurtful here is ambiguous; it's not clear whether it's being attributed to Jeong or whether we are making a judgement ourselves about the content of her remarks. I think the second third version is clearer and more concise, without a significant loss of meaning, and without appearing to editorialize, as well as having a more formal tone. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support obviously. No one except you called the comments hurtful. wumbolo ^^^ 05:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, Jeong did on Twitter:
I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context
. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, Jeong did on Twitter:
- The word is what she used as language. What about just quoting it? I disagree with scare quotes around that word only. PackMecEng (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- If she said “I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context”, and we leave out the words “out of context”, then we are quoting her out of context as the meaning of the sentence is that the words are not hurtful in context. O3000 (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Pretty much every source I have seen gives the full sentence when quoting her apology. PackMecEng (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Readers can check the sources if they want the actual text of her statement. Quoting the full apology would be out of proportion for an encyclopedic summary of the incident, which I believe is already given too much ink in Jeong's bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- It is what she is most known for. I also am not sure that a few more words to finish a sentence would be to much in general. PackMecEng (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- It may be what she's "most known for" right now, at least among the denizens of the right-wing blogosphere. But temporary fame is not the same as enduring notability. Ten years from now, will it be what she's "most known for"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Fair point on the 10 years from now, we have no idea if she will do something amazing or noteworthy between now and then. All we know is that the vast majority of RS coverage is about this. Something like 95% of anything that mentions her is about this. So I really do not like to speculate about the future with a subject that has such narrow notability. PackMecEng (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- It may be what she's "most known for" right now, at least among the denizens of the right-wing blogosphere. But temporary fame is not the same as enduring notability. Ten years from now, will it be what she's "most known for"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- It is what she is most known for. I also am not sure that a few more words to finish a sentence would be to much in general. PackMecEng (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Readers can check the sources if they want the actual text of her statement. Quoting the full apology would be out of proportion for an encyclopedic summary of the incident, which I believe is already given too much ink in Jeong's bio. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Pretty much every source I have seen gives the full sentence when quoting her apology. PackMecEng (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Once again, "notability" is not the same as notoriety, or with being temporarily at the center of a media circus. Specifically, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability". Jeong was notable for our purposes before the recent media frenzy; her notability does not rely on it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- The recent AFD disagrees with your assessment. It is hard to argue with the number of sources, impact on her life, and notability she has gained because of it. Also looking at recent sources the vast majority of times she is brought up, it is in reference to the incident. It has become a cautionary tale well documented by RS. PackMecEng (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The recent AFD disagrees with your assessment
– how?It has become a cautionary tale well documented by RS
– where? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)- There was no "brief burst of news coverage". Newspapers still mention it. wumbolo ^^^ 05:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Which newspapers? If they are to qualify as significant and sustained coverage of the event for notability purposes, they should be more than passing or trivial mentions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- There was no "brief burst of news coverage". Newspapers still mention it. wumbolo ^^^ 05:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- fwiw I don't think its useful to revisit this. The change is small, and the events are too recent. Will just be drama with little benefit in meaning for readers. (somebody already made the change, btw)Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Since the events are so recent, all the more reason to reduce the overall amount of text devoted to the issue, in order to avoid an article overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Plenty of room to expand now that we are getting more perspective and it moves past being news of the day. PackMecEng (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Since the events are so recent, all the more reason to reduce the overall amount of text devoted to the issue, in order to avoid an article overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng: as you know, this notion that the subject is primarily, or only, notable for the Tweets incident was extensively argued in a formal RfC that you participated in, and the community's consensus came down against that interpretation, both numerically and due to the fact that no evidence has ever been produced to substantiate those claims. This is still a contentious article under tight behavioral restrictions, and continuing to argue this point as if it's a given, and misrepresenting the AfD, which overwhelmingly rejected the premise that she was only notable for the one event, is really starting to push the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Bludgeoning and refusing to drop the stick over an unsubstantiated claim that was rejected by the community is disruptive. Also, implying that RECENTISM is no longer an issue after less than three months is ridiculous, not only because the Wikipedia standard is the Ten Year Test, but because even if three months after a news spike was a sufficient sample size to objectively judge an event's historical impact, you're not even making an effort to substantiate your claim that the event is continuing to get significant coverage as of now. Swarm talk 10:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Swarm: as you either know or don't know, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, especially since almost all mentions of Jeong this month (therefore almost three months after) also mention the Twitter controversy. You are the one bludgeoning and misinterpreting the consensus of an AfD and an RfC, which were de facto not about what you think they were. wumbolo ^^^ 11:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Swarm: Do you mean the RFC for it having it's own section here? That has nothing to do with anything anyone here is talking about from what I can tell. It was to do with the event having it's own section. With bludgeoning and drop the stick, I had not commented here in a bit and had planned on letting it go to revisit in time. Also with WP:RECENTISM, when would you say that is no longer in effect? There is no line for that I can find, what I had said above was as it moves past it we can get perspective. Is that incorrect? Yes the majority of coverage was from that time, but a google search limiting the dates to more recently shows every time she is mentioned, even in passing, is related to the event.[1][2][3] PackMecEng (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng: From what I can see, nearly all of your own comments in that discussion had to do with what you saw as the subject's primary notability as demonstrated by what you called "sustained coverage" of the Twitter flap. As regards said "coverage", the phrase "even in passing" is apt, since passing mentions are all that I have seen about the incident in recent sources. Recent events getting a passing mention in stories about something related is a sign that they are recent and related, not a sign of lasting significance. Two of your three links above are also opinion columns, which are not generally reliable in this context, as I've stated to you before. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are only passing mentions of the incident, just like there are only passing mentions of Sarah Jeong whatsoever. wumbolo ^^^ 21:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- No need to reply to every comment, the change has been made and any other purposed changes should be in a new thread. Can we all just move on? PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- The initial proposal included version #3 of the sentence, the fate of which hasn't been decided; see below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's fairly disingenuous to suggest that the RfC has "nothing to do with anything" being discussed here. That RfC was a straightforward attempt to increase the weight given to the topic, on this exact basis, that the sources are overwhelmingly about this event and the weight needs to be increased accordingly. That was literally the stated position of the person who started the RfC, which was repeatedly rearticulated by the supporters. It's not as if the consensus view only answered a question with no implications whatsoever, it rejected a specific underlying argument (the same argument you're continuing to make), and took the opposite position. As for the 'how long is recentism' issue, you're right, it's not objectively defined. But the sentiments behind WP:10 year test and WP:RECENTISM overall are pretty straightforward. Perception of an event changes as it moves from a "recent event" to a "historical event", and the frame of reference provided for this timescale is "ten or twenty years' time", in the context of assessing a U.S. presidential election. RECENTISM is meant to deal with long-term, historical hindsight. Now, to be clear, I don't think a journalist's twitter controversy remotely needs that scale of time to pass to be able to fairly assess the event, and a more practical way of measuring whether adequate time has passed is offered as being after the point that "articles have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum". I don't think we can judge this with basically no editing happening due to the restrictions, but we can look at the page view history instead. Before the controversy, the average daily views on the article were fairly consistent: (November: 10, December: 9, January: 13, February: 27 (outlier due to a large spike over the course of a few days; the median here was 12), March: 14, April: 18, May: 15, June: 7, July: 9). It went up and down, but remained fairly stable. Then the controversy broke: August: 8527 (median: 1791), September: 410, October: 320. What does that data tell you? There was a monumental spike of interest in the article, which has tapered off. But is it done tapering off? Or will it continue to trend downward in November and December? I would think that we would need a frame of reference of at least a few months without a downward trend to be able to confidently determine that the article has stabilized, before we can even begin to lower our guard against recentism. Last month I gave an estimation that a post-recentism reassessment might be feasible in six months to a year, and, depending on how quickly the page views stabilize, I think that's a realistic assessment. Swarm talk 23:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- @PackMecEng: From what I can see, nearly all of your own comments in that discussion had to do with what you saw as the subject's primary notability as demonstrated by what you called "sustained coverage" of the Twitter flap. As regards said "coverage", the phrase "even in passing" is apt, since passing mentions are all that I have seen about the incident in recent sources. Recent events getting a passing mention in stories about something related is a sign that they are recent and related, not a sign of lasting significance. Two of your three links above are also opinion columns, which are not generally reliable in this context, as I've stated to you before. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Side note: Looking at those numbers, it's shocking that the community choose not to characterize the tweets as being primarily (albeit not entirely) responsible for her notability. I wonder if a newer RfC on the question would yield a different response. petrarchan47คุก 01:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Returning to the topic, if there are no specific objections to the third version of the sentence above, then I'll adjust the article text accordingly, after allowing time for users to see this thread and respond. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment second or third versions are OK. "Hurtful" is not necessary and POV. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose removal the word "hurtful" came from Jeong; it simply needs proper attribution. A change could be: "Jeong apologized for what she termed "hurtful" comments...". Or, mimic other RS and directly quote her.
- The New Yorker: "She added that she understood how, out of context, tweeting such remarks was “hurtful,” and that she would not do it again."
- Vox: Jeong: "I can understand how hurtful these posts are out of context"
- In this case, using full or partial direct quotations may be a better approach. petrarchan47คุก 01:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support removal. Not an accurate summary of what she said (as others have pointed out when elaborating on the context, which emphasizes that her comments were taken out of context to create that effect), and either way putting it in the narrator voice leads to non-neutral, emotive language inappropriate for a topic like this. Given that the controversy seems to have been a flash-in-the-pan that has long since died down, expanding the section and quoting her in full would be WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support removing "hurtful" per Aquillion. It sounds judgmental and unencyclopedic when used without context, but the (un)importance of this controversy doesn't justify giving it space in bio needed to add its context.HouseOfChange (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Since there's an apparent rough consensus to remove the word "hurtful" here, and there have been no specific objections to version #3 that I proposed above, I've implemented this version of the sentence accordingly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
"Conservative" or "right-wing" reaction?
Would it be more accurate to say that Jeong's hiring by the Times sparked a "strongly negative reaction" in conservative media, as the article currently does, or right-wing media, as Joel B. Lewis suggested here? Here's how the sources we're currently using phrase the issue:
- AP: "[M]ainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets, which seem to date to 2013 and 2014 ..."
- BBC: "The newspaper's announcement that it was hiring Sarah Jeong met an outpouring of online criticism ... Conservative critics said the New York Times board's decision to stand by Ms Jeong amounted to an endorsement of discrimination ..."
- Columbia Journalism Review: "Right-wing media outlets dredged up a series of inflammatory tweets ... statements Thursday following the uproar among conservatives ... leaving many on the right interpreting it as tacit approval ..."
- The Independent: "[T]hey quickly spread and were picked up by conservative media including the Daily Caller and Gateway Pundit websites ..."
- The Guardian: "Old tweets in which Jeong ... criticized and made jokes about white people were resurfaced on a rightwing blog ... Gateway Pundit, a far-right blog ... The response has infuriated those on the right ... highlighted the way the 'alt-right' is unearthing problematic social media posts ... the tweets were resurfaced by rightwing political opponents ... When her employer defends her against the charge, figures on the right use that to stoke racial tensions ..."
- The Washington Post: "[C]onservative media seized on the story ... exposed a deeper rift between some conservatives [and] the left ... right-leaning outlets such as Fox News, the Daily Caller, the Gateway Pundit, Breitbart and Infowars ... To some conservatives, her hiring [was] an example of how liberals get away with their own brand of racism ..."
- CNNMoney:"Faced with criticism and indignation from conservatives, the New York Times on Thursday said it is standing by a new hire ... the backlash, mainly coming from the right ... To some conservatives, like Fox News contributor Guy Benson, the tweets were representative ..."
What, if anything, is the difference between "conservative" and "right-wing" here, and what would be the best phrasing to use? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- Clearly right-wing per the sources. Note that the BBC article is not a reliable source, not only because it criticizes Jeong itself, but also because they changed the article multiple times without issuing a correction note. This is still misleading, because "conservative media" is not the "alt-right", and "alt-right" was the only right-wing "medium" which reacted negatively according to The Guardian. (That is, if I remember correctly, and I haven't opened any of these articles in the last two months) wumbolo ^^^ 05:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- In American political dialog the words are close to synonymous. Part of the distinction being made in the sources is between the originators ("right-wing" or "far-right" blogs) and the regurgitators ("conservatives" and "conservative media") of this fake outrage moment, but I don't think we should (in the Wikipedia article) be explaining this event in sufficiently much detail to draw out the distinction ("the people who started the brouhaha are completely crazy, whereas the people who mainstreamed it are merely awful and cynical"). Ultimately I think either phrase is acceptable, but on balance "conservative" is better supported in the sources. (I also disagree with Wumbolo's analysis of the reliability of a particular BBC article, not that I think it determines anything.) --JBL (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- We can't "be explaining this event in sufficiently much detail to draw out the distinction" because reliable sources don't explain it, and instead blame "right-wing outlets" or "some conservatives", ignoring plenty of criticism by left-figures reported by reliable sources. The vast majority of sources don't say either "right-wing" or "conservative", and the rest that do require WP:INTEXT (especially since "right-wing media figures" is a much stronger wording than "media figures judged right-wing by X, Y, and Z"). Moreover, you can repeat that this is a
fake outrage moment
(it's still going on), but zero sources support that (if they did, they would be spreading the outrage, ending in a catch-22). wumbolo ^^^ 12:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
- We can't "be explaining this event in sufficiently much detail to draw out the distinction" because reliable sources don't explain it, and instead blame "right-wing outlets" or "some conservatives", ignoring plenty of criticism by left-figures reported by reliable sources. The vast majority of sources don't say either "right-wing" or "conservative", and the rest that do require WP:INTEXT (especially since "right-wing media figures" is a much stronger wording than "media figures judged right-wing by X, Y, and Z"). Moreover, you can repeat that this is a
- fwiw I don't think its useful to revisit this. The change is small, and the events are too recent. Will just be drama with little benefit in meaning for readers. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before. I believe her tweets need to be posted so the readers can make up their own minds. Instead of dancing around the issue of how to phrase the media’s reaction to the tweets, allow the readers to make their own judgments by presenting all the facts. I baffels me how less information could possibly be considered better in a wiki article. Abwillingham (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Job
I have been looking for sources, from time to time, that she actually started working at the NYT. Anybody found one? Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- I did a very narrow search [4], and only found a blog. wumbolo ^^^ 05:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Here's a Fortune article. wumbolo ^^^ 11:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Article says editors at The Verge defended Jeong — but The Verge isn't cited?
What gives? Am I misunderstanding the article's text? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- The cited sources cite The Verge. It's always preferable to use WP:SECONDARY coverage in order to be neutral. The sentence might be confusing, as The Verge compared Jeong's critics to harassers during Gamergate, not Jeong herself. wumbolo ^^^ 13:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Correction
Date is wrong here "Uberti, David (August 3, 2014). "Sarah Jeong, The New York Times, and the Gamergate School of Journalism". Columbia Journalism Review." should be 2018. People are so crazy about some topics I can't change a 4 to an 8? The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Wording: "A campaign harassing Jeong ensued that lasted for weeks and included threats of sexual violence..."
I would like to find a wording that is less passively voiced. The "campaign" was the work of human beings with agency who chose to abuse another human being. The word "campaign" undermines the sense that people did this in a deliberate fashion; makes it seem like a weather event or something that nobody chose to do. Possibly something a simple as "In response to Jeong's comments, people [or perhaps trolls would be a better choice?] harassed her and made threats of sexual violence against her. The harassment lasted for weeks, leading Jeong to make her Twitter account private and take an unpaid leave from her job at Motherboard..." Thoughts? PaulCHebert (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The implication of the word "campaign" is not to absolve participants but to emphasize that they were recruited rather than random and spontaneous. This was not a situation where random people happened upon some controversial past tweets. Years of Jeong's past writings were mined for her most offensive comments, which were then posted by multiple rightwing media outlets whose goal was a backlash against Jeong and the New York Times. Joy Ann Reid is another example of the same kind of intensive campaign to end the career of an outspoken media figure. We should expect to see many more such in the future. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)I should read more carefully, I had assumed that "campaign" referenced NYT kerfluffle, not the 2016 Berniebro one, which likely included some Russian agitpro. Although apparently the 2016 event too was pushed hard by partisans such as Matt Bruenig. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)- I completely agree. None of the sources cited call it a "campaign", and the sentence is poorly worded. Calling it a campaign downplays the fact that many unprovoked people who didn't like Jeong's tweets have harassed her in disturbingly abusive fashion. The comment above is irrelevant at best and homophobic at worst. wumbolo ^^^ 15:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- No, the statement is referring to harassment directed at Jeong by Bernie Sanders supporters, citing this article from Wired. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree there's a problem with the word "campaign," which isn't verified by the Wired source. Nor is the "threats of sexual violence"; the source only mentions a single threat. However it also refers to nude photos and disturbing videos. My feeling is that we shouldn't give any weight to the single trolling tweet. We should just say she was harassed for weeks. R2 (bleep) 23:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Still at The Verge?
The article currently says that Jeong was a senior writer at The Verge, implying that she no longer is. Is this verifiable? It's clear from her profile that she hasn't published anything there since July, but that doesn't mean she's no longer with them, does it? R2 (bleep) 23:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Bernie Bros tweet
Sangdeboeuf I think you're being too kind to Ms. Jeong with your recent reverts and changes describing her tweet about Bernie Bros. I was following the Wired source as closely as possible on this very contentious subject matter; your changes do not. For instance the Wired source doesn't say Jeong criticized Bernie Bros, let alone that she "satirized" them. The tweet was a provocative caricature and was pretty substance free; there was no satire or meaningful criticism. On top of that Jeong stereotyped all Bernie Bros for the actions of a subset of them. I have no dog in this fight and no personal interest in Jeong; I just want to see her page reflect the cited sources. R2 (bleep) 05:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)