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)
- arcdigital.media 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)
- I am saying that if you can't understand why "The internet’s best opinion page" isn't a RS for contentious factual claims in BLPs, you shouldn't be editing biographies on Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- All three of these sources have an obvious axe to grind, and definitely should not be used for any contentious BLP info. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- arcdigital.media 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)
- https://nextshark.com/naomi-wu-vice-controversy/ is another source. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:32, 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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2022
Change: In January 2016, Jeong posted a tweet caricaturing Bernie Sanders's supporters as Bernie Bros in response to online attacks against women and Black Lives Matter advocates
To: In January 2016, Jeong posted a hyperbolic joke tweet caricaturing Bernie Sanders's supporters as Bernie Bros in response to what she believed were online attacks against women and Black Lives Matter advocates
(The context is vitally important in understanding both the issue and how Jeong herself described her tweet in the citation used for the provided line. Obviously the implication is dramatically changed when read without crucial context about Jeongs intent and also as important the characterization/blame imparted to Bernie Sanders supporters who were maligned by the event, even more so since we now know that data shows the “Bernie Bro” pejorative was a false claim not backed by the actual facts/data and in many cases directly contradicted by them. We also found out that Russian operations were acting as “Bernie supporters” in attempt to undermine our elections. With these facts and context in mind, along with the full context of Jeongs own quote which was not included, readers are left with several false impressions both about her intention and action and her claims something. It also is important to note that it was her belief that the attacks were being made by Bernie Sanders supporters, something many people along with independent study say were intentional troll networks run by opposition campaigns as well as Russian Troll farms, according to US Intel Agencies who warned about Russia also seeking to undermine election acting as supporters of Sanders candidacy. That the acts ascribed as being from “Sanders Supporters” directly contradict the entire platform of Sanders campaign as well as being incongruent with the tone/tenure/makeup of his movement lead to rational logical valid questions about the possible dirty tricks campaign meant to create the appearance of Bernie Supporter's creating a toxic environment which could then be used to force Bernie Sanders campaign to accept responsibility for the acts of these troll farms. Along with Salon, NYTimes and many others reporting which discusses the independent analysis showing that “Bernie Bro” smears were created as a “myth” and showing his campaign supporters were not creating the toxic environment blamed on them as well as the Russian Operation posing as Bernie Supporters.
Many other sources available but I thought these gave the best overview of the issues. I don’t think it is correct to definitively ascribe the actions/attacks as coming from Bernie Sanders supporters as the evidence not only doesn’t justify that belief, Sanders movement/platform actually discredits the notion that supporters of Bernie Sanders would be likely to have taken the stances the troll accounts in question took. Likewise, Although I believe the discussion deserves critical consideration of the facts especially now that we have a clearer view post election, I am not suggesting we take the opposing viewpoint and categorically dismiss the notion that someone might hold belief that these were in fact Bernie Sanders supporters. Seems the reasonable, correct, accurate description would be; “Alleged Bernie Bros”. But as for Jeongs tweet being meant as a “hyperbolic joke”, this should not be debatable either as it’s importance in giving context or necessary for proper understanding of the event in question.
For her description of her tweet being meant as a “hyperbolic joke”; https://www.wired.com/2016/09/inside-googles-internet-justice-league-ai-powered-war-trolls/
Various sources describing belief and data discounting the narrative that the toxic views and attacks were supporters of Bernie Sanders (or even people at all):
https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/bernie-sanders/selective-feminism-and-the-myth/
https://www.salon.com/2020/03/09/there-is-hard-data-that-shows-bernie-bros-are-a-myth/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-russia.html
https://newmatilda.com/2016/05/09/the-evidence-that-makes-the-bernie-bro-smear-look-all-the-worse/
https://newmatilda.com/2016/05/03/the-bernie-bro-line-cant-make-clinton-a-progressive/ ) JustTheT (talk) 01:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)