ChristianKl (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
:: https://biohackinfo.com/news-bbc-undercover-to-expose-cyborgs/ , https://arcdigital.media/how-western-progressives-fail-activists-in-the-developing-world-fbfd91307da1 and https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/spat-chinese-hacker-vice-makes-sarah-jeong-look-like-hack/ look to me like good sources (especially together). [[User:ChristianKl|<span style='color: #0000EE;'>'''ChristianKl'''</span>]] ❪[[User talk:ChristianKl|✉]]❫ 12:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
:: https://biohackinfo.com/news-bbc-undercover-to-expose-cyborgs/ , https://arcdigital.media/how-western-progressives-fail-activists-in-the-developing-world-fbfd91307da1 and https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/spat-chinese-hacker-vice-makes-sarah-jeong-look-like-hack/ look to me like good sources (especially together). [[User:ChristianKl|<span style='color: #0000EE;'>'''ChristianKl'''</span>]] ❪[[User talk:ChristianKl|✉]]❫ 12:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
::: These are all obviously terrible sources; the idea that someone would propose using any one of them as a source in a Wikipedia article is somewhere between absurd and terrifying. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 13:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
::: These are all obviously terrible sources; the idea that someone would propose using any one of them as a source in a Wikipedia article is somewhere between absurd and terrifying. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 13:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::: ArcMedia is alternative media which does have editors. Are you saying that all alternative media shouldn't be used as a source for Wikipedia articles? [[User:ChristianKl|<span style='color: #0000EE;'>'''ChristianKl'''</span>]] ❪[[User talk:ChristianKl|✉]]❫ 13:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:19, 22 January 2021
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Actual language from her tweets
Previous discussion on quoting Jeong's tweets failed to reach consensus, which effectively means to exclude the disputed material. Closing thread which has devolved into tit-for-tat. Nothing new here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It seems a lot of this page dances around the offensiveness of her comments and NYT silent support or lack of care about her comments. Her Tweets are public domain for anyone to see - wouldn't it enrich the article and dialogue and better inform the reader to let them know she said: - "Oh man, it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” - "Caucasians were “only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”" - "Dumbass fucking white people" - "#CancelWhitePeople"[1] References
If similar tweets were made by white supremacists/nationalists wouldn't wiki writers use this as proof of their status and be labeled as such in opening of page and categories on bottom? Rsarlls (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
|
Unhelpful discussion not related to the article.Citing (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Conservative media
the article says that Jeong was criticised in "conservative media". the reference for this seems to be the BBC, NYT and the Guardian. These don't seem like conservative media to me.
Can the claim be support by actual reference to conservative media or likewise, since left wing/centrist media also ran the story, just remove the word "conservative"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebefl (talk • contribs) 11:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- No, we use secondary sources here, not primary sources. All three references make very clear the sources of the criticism:
far-right blog
,those on the right
,mainly conservative social media
,Conservative critics
, etc. --JBL (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- Relevant past discussions are available here, here, and here. --JBL (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Out of context?
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) |
Naomi Wu
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 has been discussed several times before [1][2][3] and no one has yet put forward any independent, reliable sources for this incident. Hoping, etc. won't change that, unfortunately. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- https://biohackinfo.com/news-bbc-undercover-to-expose-cyborgs/ , https://arcdigital.media/how-western-progressives-fail-activists-in-the-developing-world-fbfd91307da1 and https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/spat-chinese-hacker-vice-makes-sarah-jeong-look-like-hack/ look to me like good sources (especially together). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- These are all obviously terrible sources; the idea that someone would propose using any one of them as a source in a Wikipedia article is somewhere between absurd and terrifying. --JBL (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- ArcMedia is alternative media which does have editors. Are you saying that all alternative media shouldn't be used as a source for Wikipedia articles? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- These are all obviously terrible sources; the idea that someone would propose using any one of them as a source in a Wikipedia article is somewhere between absurd and terrifying. --JBL (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- https://biohackinfo.com/news-bbc-undercover-to-expose-cyborgs/ , https://arcdigital.media/how-western-progressives-fail-activists-in-the-developing-world-fbfd91307da1 and https://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/spat-chinese-hacker-vice-makes-sarah-jeong-look-like-hack/ look to me like good sources (especially together). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)