Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 9) (bot |
Undid revision 996366198 by Epiphyllumlover (talk) rv spam — surely that you had to break up the url was a clue? Tag: Undo |
||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
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? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.237.107.58|24.237.107.58]] ([[User talk:24.237.107.58#top|talk]]) 23:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
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? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.237.107.58|24.237.107.58]] ([[User talk:24.237.107.58#top|talk]]) 23:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
== Article about this article == |
|||
I by no means am endorsing this editorial. Because it is rather detailed it may be helpful to readers of this talk page. "Wikipedia Editors Protect New York Times Bigot Sarah Jeong’s Anti-White Racism" {{nowrap|https://www. breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/07/wikipedia-editors-protect-new-york-times-bigot-sarah-jeongs-anti-white-racism/}} by T. D. Adler--[[User:Epiphyllumlover|Epiphyllumlover]] ([[User talk:Epiphyllumlover|talk]]) 04:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:33, 26 December 2020
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) |