110.174.244.25 (talk) No edit summary |
m Signing comment by 110.174.244.25 - "" |
||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
== Why no controversy section? == |
== Why no controversy section? == |
||
You do it to everyone conservative. They all have their controversy sections. This woman richly deserves one as she is notable for little other than her racism controversy - but she's protected of course. Leftist platform, leftist culture, leftist privilege. |
You do it to everyone conservative. They all have their controversy sections. This woman richly deserves one as she is notable for little other than her racism controversy - but she's protected of course. Leftist platform, leftist culture, leftist privilege. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/110.174.244.25|110.174.244.25]] ([[User talk:110.174.244.25#top|talk]]) 00:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Article should be updated == |
== Article should be updated == |
Revision as of 00:57, 8 January 2020
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why no controversy section?
You do it to everyone conservative. They all have their controversy sections. This woman richly deserves one as she is notable for little other than her racism controversy - but she's protected of course. Leftist platform, leftist culture, leftist privilege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.244.25 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Article should be updated
Jeong has recently left NYT (Reported by CNN and The Hill).--Mayimbú (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
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. |
|
NY Post
FWIW - I read the NYPost source and it is factual and reliable information. It is actually less tabloidy than the other source to The Hill. Reliability is often a matter of particulars on the specific page and the fact being cited. -- GreenC 15:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think either source is necessary to be honest, the CNN story is enough.Citing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Levine, Jon (2019-09-28). "Sarah Jeong leaves the New York Times editorial board". New York Post. Retrieved 2019-09-29.
- See WP:BLPSOURCES:
material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources
. The New York Post is not The New York Times; it's a tabloid. All it does here is recycle the CNN report along with quoting some of the old tweets for the sake of sensationalism. Not usable, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)- No material is being added other than the quote itself. Therefore the cited text from WP:BLPSOURCES does not apply. The citation is due. XavierItzm (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think the subtext there is we shouldn't use garbage sources in BLPs. The Hill already counts as a reliable source; the New York Post article doesn't add anything except sensationalism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- No material is being added other than the quote itself. Therefore the cited text from WP:BLPSOURCES does not apply. The citation is due. XavierItzm (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Please focus on content, not other contributors |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Gee four people in less than 24hrs aligned on such a minor thing, I've seen stranger! -- GreenC 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
|
Per WP:RS/P, the Post is considered a marginal source; that generally means it shouldn't be used for statements about a WP:BLP, where higher sourcing requirements apply. If people don't think the existing sources are good enough, then we should omit the sentence entirely. Also, RS/P indicates that The Hill is more reliable than the Post (there's a clear consensus towards the Hill's reliability, not so much for the Post.) If you think The Post should be considered "less tabloidy" than The Hill, you can take it to WP:RSN, but I don't think you'd get anywhere - that seems like a fairly idiosyncratic opinion to me, since The Hill is, well, not a tabloid? --Aquillion (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- WP:RS/P never says the Post is "marginal." The citation is due. XavierItzm (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you mean, "due to be forgotten, hopefully forever", then I agree. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Alrighty then. --Pelirojopajaro (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you mean, "due to be forgotten, hopefully forever", then I agree. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- WP:RS/P never says the Post is "marginal." The citation is due. XavierItzm (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no functional difference between [1] and [2], they both are gossipy repackaging of social media statements. The Hill is tabloid for pundits, stronger on some things than others; NYP has home advantage in that NYC newspapers have a traditional role in covering each other's woes. Nemo 05:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The Hill is tabloid for pundits
– I don't quite understand this. The article in question is by a regular reporter, not a pundit. And it goes into significantly more detail about Jeong's history with the paper, including the circumstances of her leaving the editorial board. It's a proper piece of journalism. The Post source, by contrast, is shorter, punchier, and gives proportionally more space and prominence to the old tweets which "raised eyebrows", etc. I also don't see what any home-court "advantage" has to do with evaluating WP:RS. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)- The Hill article doesn't provide any additional reporting work. It's only more quote-stuffed with additional tweets, which in my books don't make it any more useful or reliable. The NYP article quotes the same sources and provides the same amount of original reporting (zero), but at least the NYP is closer to the scene and is more likely to know what it's talking about. The Hill article was published a few hours later and even reuses some identical wording to comment on the tweets, it's probably "inspired" by NYP (can't say plagiarised because there's no original content).
- It's important to know what each source's strengths are, because average reliability is of scarce use in specific disputes. The Oak Park Journal is more likely to be a good source on yesterday's pot holes on Oak Park's main street than the Hillsboro Free Press is, and vice versa. The Hill has more experience handling Washington leaks and political "gossip" while NYP has more experience handling NYC business. But if you use The Hill to establish relevance for some Republican statement, or the NYP to decide whether to include some scandal about some NYC person, you'll be disappointed. Nemo 13:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
closer to the scene
There is no "scene" here -- this is a Very Online Controversy, the location of the NYP's printing press didn't offer them any advantage in covering it. It's a crappy paper, there's no reason to use it when other alternatives are available. --JBL (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Concur with JBL. I think there’s a lot of merit to the argument about source reliability being context specific, but in this case the entire topic is about something that was on Twitter, and there’s no special advantage to an article that was published by a company headquartered in NY when covering this as far as I can tell. Michepman (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The Hill
The Hill (2019) writes:
The Times said in a statement at the time that it stood by its decision to hire Jeong and had reviewed the writer's social media accounts prior to her hiring, while calling the content of the tweets "unacceptable."[1]
I am wondering why the fact the subject's employers found the tweets "unacceptable" is not on the article? I mean, clearly, over a year later, the RS deems this to be factual, relevant information worth bringing up to the attention of the reader. The RS so underscores the importance of the employer's statement that it even links back to the its own article on The New York Times' statement.
Seems relevant enough to include, and I propose it be done. XavierItzm (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Byrnes, Jesse (September 28, 2019). "Sarah Jeong out at New York Times editorial board". The Hill. Retrieved 2019-09-29.
- Because it is still the case that this whole event was not very important, and so not every single thing that was written about it needs to be covered in an encyclopedia article about Jeong. (Why does this idea seem so hard for you to understand?) --JBL (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- It used to be on Wikipedia we went by the sources. Above one "Joel B. Lewis" says The Hill is a pretty good source for this article. Not once, but twice. The Hill, a year later, again raises the fact that Jeong's employer assessed Jeong's tweets as "unacceptable." Seems odd that Wikipedia should censor out the WP:RSs as they come. XavierItzm (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Your inability to exhibit even basic compliance with WP:AGF reflects very poorly on you. Of course, your contributions to this talk page for more than a year have consisted of nothing but an obsessive desire to add negative information to the article, with complete disregard for any WP policies; so I guess your disregard for that particular guideline should not be surprising. (None of this answers the question of why you suffer from this bizarre derangement, unfortunately.) --JBL (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see a big problem with including that information in the article to be honest. It doesn't seem to be an undue weight issue, since arguably the controversy over the tweets and her hiring by the NYT is one of the main reasons why she is famous and why we now have significant coverage about her. until that controversy. That being said, we go by consensus on Wikipedia, not just WP:RS -- the fact that something is in a good source doesn't automatically mean that it should be added. But when it comes to the specific issue of what XavierItzm is suggesting here, then I am on board with including it. Michepman (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- It's typical news writing to give a brief recap of the context for why Jeong's employment is newsworthy at all; this doesn't add any new secondary-source evaluation. Going by the above text, why would we include the "unacceptable" remark but not that the Times "stood by its decision to hire Jeong"? That seems like a biased reading of the source.Overall, I think the whole episode is given more than enough weight in the article, and I stand by my view from the last time we discussed this that the Times' statement doesn't add to a meaningful understanding of the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously this is right, thank you for spelling it out. --JBL (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sangdebeouf - My understanding was that the proposal was to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision. I definitely agree that it would be undue weight to include just the "unacceptable" remark without noting that the Times stood behind Jeong though. Either way, I don't necessarily see a big problem with including that line, though after reviewing the prior discussion I can understand why others may disagree. All that being said, this is not a hill that I am willing to die on (no pun intended); it just doesn't seem like a big deal to me so if there's a general consensus here that this is undue weight or otherwise not necessary then I am totally fine with that decision as well. Michepman (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed 100% with Michepman and with Sangdeboeuf that it is correct to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision. XavierItzm (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see this as being particularly due. "Woman had crabby tweets, film at 11." The Hill isn't exactly a stellar source, and I question what value this inclusion would have to a reader beyond rehashing years-old muckraking on Twitter. Is that really encyclopedic? Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Sangdeboeuf: seems to fairly unambiguously argue against your proposal to add that aside from the Hill to the article:
Overall, I think the whole episode is given more than enough weight in the article, and I stand by my view from the last time we discussed this that the Times' statement doesn't add to a meaningful understanding of the topic.
Are you sure you agree with them? Because if you agree with that, I think we can reasonably close this section as having reached a consensus not to expand the paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)- Why the rush to close? So far, we have one either way, one for, three against. The proposal has been up only a bit over 48 hours. XavierItzm (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Because you seem to be agreeing that the addition is WP:UNDUE, which is the point I was making. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- No, my agreement is quite clear: "it is correct to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision", i.e., exactly with Michepman wrote: "My understanding was that the proposal was to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision", and also full agreement with Sangdebeouf who wrote: "why would we include the "unacceptable" remark but not that the Times "stood by its decision to hire Jeong"?", i.e., why not indeed? Both need to be included, as per Sangdebeouf. I don't think there is much room for misunderstanding of the sort: "because you seem to be agreeing that the addition is undue". XavierItzm (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Both need to be included, as per Sangdebeouf.
That's not what I wrote at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)- One "Sangdeboeuf" wrote on 1 November that
why would we include the "unacceptable" remark but not that the Times "stood by its decision to hire Jeong"?
. I wholeheartedly agree with that "Sangdeboeuf" guy who said that, and which triggered Michepman to replySangdebeouf - My understanding was that the proposal was to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision.
I have previously indicated my complete agreement to this clause here and here. Now, for the avoidance of doubt, I clarify that overall that "Sangdeboeuf" guy does not want to modify the paragraph, as he has made amply evident, and that is his right, and that's why already included him on the tally of "against" on 09:25, 2 November 2019:three against
. At the time, the against the proposals were three: Sangdebeouf, JBL, and Simonm223. I find it a bit tiresome to have to document this with so much detail, as I am sure others do, but I do not wish for the misunderstandings to continue. XavierItzm (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)- My question was a genuine question – not, as I assume you thought, a suggestion rhetorically phrased as a question. There's nothing to agree with or disagree with, unless you're agreeing that it's a good question, in which case you could try answering it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- One "Sangdeboeuf" wrote on 1 November that
- No, my agreement is quite clear: "it is correct to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision", i.e., exactly with Michepman wrote: "My understanding was that the proposal was to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision", and also full agreement with Sangdebeouf who wrote: "why would we include the "unacceptable" remark but not that the Times "stood by its decision to hire Jeong"?", i.e., why not indeed? Both need to be included, as per Sangdebeouf. I don't think there is much room for misunderstanding of the sort: "because you seem to be agreeing that the addition is undue". XavierItzm (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Because you seem to be agreeing that the addition is WP:UNDUE, which is the point I was making. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why the rush to close? So far, we have one either way, one for, three against. The proposal has been up only a bit over 48 hours. XavierItzm (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed 100% with Michepman and with Sangdeboeuf that it is correct to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision. XavierItzm (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sangdebeouf - My understanding was that the proposal was to include both the "unacceptable" remark as well as the fact that NYT stood by its decision. I definitely agree that it would be undue weight to include just the "unacceptable" remark without noting that the Times stood behind Jeong though. Either way, I don't necessarily see a big problem with including that line, though after reviewing the prior discussion I can understand why others may disagree. All that being said, this is not a hill that I am willing to die on (no pun intended); it just doesn't seem like a big deal to me so if there's a general consensus here that this is undue weight or otherwise not necessary then I am totally fine with that decision as well. Michepman (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously this is right, thank you for spelling it out. --JBL (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think it makes sense to expand that paragraph at this point; the Hill source only mentions the topic in passing, and it hasn't gotten much other coverage since the initial event. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't believe it adds anything to the article. Frankly I think we've given undue weight to the tweets as is.Citing (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. All indications are that the entire episode has been largely forgotten outside of a small cadre of professionally angry people. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- An interesting wiki editor position, that "the entire episode has been largely forgotten". The 2019 WP:RS may beg to differ. Some, such as The Hill and Willamette Week, and others (see below) even quote the "forgotten" tweets in full, in 2019. Here's a sampler of 2019 articles, one year after the episode, where WP:RS deemed the Jeong tweets significant enough to mention them:
* October 2019: "After the New York Times announced Jeong’s appointment to its editorial board, the alt-right used her old tweets to accuse her of being “racist” against white people. Journalists described this incident as an instance when erasing historical tweets would be justified." - Columbia Journalism Review[1]
* August 2019: "Sarah Jeong, a new New York Times editorial board member, whose past tweets had led some to accuse her of being racist against white people." - The Washington Post[2]
* August 2019: "branded anti-Semitic for his tweets and Sarah Jeong, member of its editorial board, as racist against white people for hers" - The Hill[3]
* March 2019: "Sarah Jeong, who was hired to join the New York Times editorial board last year, tweeted years ago "how much joy she got out of being cruel to old white men" and asked if white people are "genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun." The Times said that, while her "rhetoric is not acceptable," it would hire her anyway, citing her "important voice" in the national conversation." - The Hill[4]
* August 2019: "several derogatory tweets aimed at white people that Jeong sent in 2014 were unearthed when the Gray Lady announced she was joining the paper. “Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men,” Jeong wrote in July 2014 in one of several old messages went viral." - Fox News[5]
* August 2019: "Sarah Jeong was appointed to The New York Times editorial board, it was discovered that she had sent dozens of vicious anti-White racist tweets over the years (Twitter had allowed these)" - Mint (newspaper)[6]
* April 2019: "dredged up a handful of years-old tweets Jeong wrote satirizing racist and sexist comments from people targeting her. "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins," she tweeted in 2014. The Times received calls for Jeong to be fired" - Willamette Week[7]
* August 2019: "New York Times editorial writer Sarah Jeong spent years tweeting vile insults about white people that would have ended her career had she written them about any other group or “race.”" - Tablet (magazine)[8]
Forgotten? The 2019 sources beg to differ. Cheers to all, XavierItzm (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- An interesting wiki editor position, that "the entire episode has been largely forgotten". The 2019 WP:RS may beg to differ. Some, such as The Hill and Willamette Week, and others (see below) even quote the "forgotten" tweets in full, in 2019. Here's a sampler of 2019 articles, one year after the episode, where WP:RS deemed the Jeong tweets significant enough to mention them:
- Yes. All indications are that the entire episode has been largely forgotten outside of a small cadre of professionally angry people. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- The items in The Hill are opinion pieces from the very professionally-angry cadre that I mentioned, and the Willamette Week explicitly calls them "a handful of years-old tweets" that were satirical in the first place and had to be "dredged up". In portions not quoted above, the Willamette Week also says "The newspaper refused to cave" and that the "controversy has quieted down". The screed in The Tablet is a gross misrepresentation that again falls into the professionally angry bucket. The WaPo item is a passing mention in a story about somebody else. The CJR gives it two sentences, does not quote Jeong's tweets, and says nothing about the Times finding Jeong's old tweets "unacceptable". The Mint item is also an opinion piece, not a reliable source. Most of that list is not worth pointing to. Going by our standards for reliable sources, the only remotely acceptable ones are the Willamette Week and CJR pieces, whose treatment of the incident is in fact evidence that we should give it less weight than we currently do. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
- And again, I'll bring up that the existence of a source saying something about a BLP is not necessarily an indicator that the topic is encyclopedically WP:DUE mention. This is something that interests only a small subset of the general reading public - bitter far-right failsons upset that a woman said something mean about white men once - I don't see that as being a broad enough interest group to lend this tempest in a teapot even a single line mention. Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/journalists-deleting-old-tweet.php
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/so-i-think-i-was-fine-trump-defends-promoting-baseless-conspiracy-theory-about-epsteins-death/2019/08/13/75547346-bde2-11e9-9b73-fd3c65ef8f9c_story.html
- ^ https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/459011-in-three-years-of-trumps-presidency-who-has-branded-whom
- ^ https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/433867-selective-outrage-machine-goes-after-tucker-again
- ^ https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-sarah-jeong-off-editorial-board
- ^ https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/opinion-when-social-media-monopolies-prey-on-freedom-of-expression-1567258586216.html
- ^ https://www.wweek.com/news/2019/04/03/sarah-jeong-is-watching-the-web-from-portland-she-sees-a-pile-of-garbage/
- ^ https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/289037/the-lefts-race-war
- The test for WP:DUE is based on the reliability of the source. An individual editor's assessment of what's "interesting" is a much smaller part of the equation, and definitely does not hold much water if the content is published in enough highly reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)